July 2009 - Department of Defence · Petroleum Hydrocarbons Data Quality Objective Defence Department of Defence – chemicals that are What is Petroleum made up of a series of carbon

July 2009

© Commonwealth of Australia 2010.

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth.

Defence Publishing Service, Corporate Graphics – DEC009/09

Contents

Terminology & AbbreviATions ii

PrefAce & inTroducTion To The mAnuAl iii Objectives of the Manual III

What is Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination? III

Who Should Use the Manual? IV

What Information is in this Manual? IV

How to Use the Manual IV

Other Defence Guideline Documents IV

1. bAckground informATion & drivers 1 1.1 Defence Waste Management Hierarchy 1

1.2 Situations Where Soil Remediation or Management May Be Required 2

1.3 Status of Current Approaches to Remediation and Management 2

1.4 Regulatory Framework and Legislation 2

1.5 External Technical Support 2

1.6 Drivers for Remediation and Management Projects (Checklist 1) 3

2. consTrAinTs, endPoinT selecTion & soil/sedimenT chArAcTerisATion 4

2.1 Constraints 4

2.2 Endpoint Selection 6

2.3 Soil & Sediment Characterisation/Waste Classification 6

2.4 Soil / Sediment Remediation (Treatment) Requirements 9

3. AssessmenT & selecTion of remediATion or mAnAgemenT oPTions 10

3.1 Overview of Available Remedial Technologies 10

3.2 Remedial Options Screening Matrix 11

3.3 General Guidelines for Remediation and Management Options 13

3.4 Field Trials 14

4. vAlidATion And endPoinT 15 4.1 How do I validate and document that an endpoint has been reached? 15

4.2 What if the option selected does not achieve the desired end-point? 16

5. oTher informATion & key conTAcTs 17 Evaluation/Selection of Technologies 17

Other Relevant Information 17

figure index figure 1 summary of the remediation and management options decision Process iv

figure 2 remediation & management options decision Process v

figure 3 distribution of Acid sulfate soils Across Australia 8

figure 4 ex-site and in-situ remediation / management Approach 10

figure 5 health and environment risk Assessment model 14

APPendices A summary of state & Territory requirements 18

b remediation options facts sheets 21

c further references 29

d case studies & examples 31

Content • Exit • Print

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and SedimentsII

Section Title to go here

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments III

Terminology & Abbreviations

Terminology

Contamination – alteration of a natural matrices

(soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater or air)

so that the quality of the matrix, for human and

environmental ecologies, is decreased.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons – chemicals that

are made up of a series of carbon atoms and

can occur naturally or can be man-made.

Remediation – the treatment of a

contaminated material via physical, biological

or chemical processes.

AbbreviATions

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene and Xylene

CSR Contaminated Sites Register

DQO Data Quality Objective Defence Department of Defence

EO Exploded Ordinance

EPA Environment Protection Authority.

EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

LOR Limit of Reporting

NATA National Association of Testing Authority

NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

NEPM National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, 1999

NEPC National Environment Protection Council

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PSH Phase Separated Hydrocarbon

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

TPHs Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

UST Underground Storage Tank

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

Preface & Introduction to the Manual

The Australian Department of Defence (Defence) National Contamination Team has developed this Manual for the Management and Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediment at Defence Sites. This Manual has been generated to provide Defence regional personnel and Defence maintenance contractors with practical information about the management and remediation (treatment) of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil and sediment at Defence facilities.

The Manual has been developed to provide

general information and an overview of the

process used to select a management and/

or remediation option for contaminated soil/

sediment. For example you need to consider

the possible presence of other types of

contamination such as weeds, heavy

metals, other chemicals etc.

This manual is designed to assist in

determining the most appropriate management

of hydrocarbon contaminated soil and sediments

in line with industry practice and legislation. It is

a tool to support existing Regional and facility

based Defence Environmental Management

System processes.

It is designed to assist in determining the

most appropriate management of hydrocarbon

contaminated soil and sediments in line with

industry practice and legislation. It is a tool

to support existing Defence Environmental

Management System processes.

Before starting the process of assessing,

selecting and implementing a remedial/

management option for hydrocarbon

contaminated soil, users of the Manual must

consider the contaminated sediment or soil

in the wider environmental impact and safety

context. For example, petroleum, hydrocarbon

contaminated soil may also contain noxious

weeds, high levels of heavy metals or other

chemicals. Contact the Regional Environment

Officer to assist in undertaking a risk assessment

to determine the full range of Aspects and

Impacts under the applicable Regional or

Base Environmental Management Program.

The findings from this risk assessment will

provide a broader perspective on whether

the petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil/

sediment can remain on-site or be managed/

disposed of off-site.

objectives of the manual

The Manual aims to provide practical information

to manage petroleum hydrocarbon impacted

soil and sediment at Defence Base/Facilities so

that Defence capability can be maintained and

associated impacts to the environment mitigated.

What is Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination?

Petroleum hydrocarbons are chemicals made

up of a series of carbon atoms that can occur

naturally (e.g. coal and oil reserves) or can be

man-made (e.g. unleaded petrol or diesel).

When man-made petroleum hydrocarbons enter

the environment (e.g. from a tank leak or spill)

they can cause contamination that can pose a

risk to human health and the environment.

Although soil/sediment can be impacted by

a number of potential sources of petroleum

hydrocarbons, the petroleum hydrocarbons

addressed in this Manual are likely to be

associated with:

Fuel for ground-based vehicles, boats or •

aircraft (e.g. diesel, leaded and unleaded

petrol and aviation fuel); and

Oils, such as lubricants and degreasers, •

used in workshops or stored at facilities.


Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and SedimentsIV Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments V

Who should use the manual?

The Manual was generated for use by Defence

relevant personnel and maintenance contractors

who require a practical reference point to assess,

select and implement a management and/or

remediation strategy for petroleum hydrocarbon

contaminated soil and/or sediment.

What information is in this manual?

The information provided in this manual includes:

The potential drivers and key considerations •

associated with the remediation (treatment)

and management options;

A process for assessing and selecting a •

remediation and/or management option;

General guidance for the construction •

and operation of four (4) remediation/

management options. General construction

and operational information is provided so

that specifications for the construction and

operation requirements for the remediation

and/or management option can be developed

once an option is selected; and

General guidance for the validation of the •

soil/sediment at the endpoint following

implementation of the remedial or

management strategies presented.

Soil Remediation & Management Drivers

Constraints (Logistics, Financial, Time)

Endpoint Selection

Soil Characterisation/Classification

Remedial/Management

Options Screening Matrix

EX-SITU REMEDIATION

1) DISPOSAL OFF-SITE

2) MANAGEMENT EX-SITU

4) MANAGEMENT IN-SITU

3) REUSE ONSITE

IN-SITU REMEDIATION

Section 1 – Background Information & Drivers

Section 4 – Validation & Endpoint

Section 2 – Constraints Endpoint Selection & Soil/Sediment

Characterisation

Section 3 – Assessment & Selection of Remediation &

Management Option Assessment

Figure 1 – Summary of the Remediation and Management Options Decision Process

how to use the manual

Figure 1 presents a summary of the processes to

follow in selecting a remediation or management

option and provides cross-references to the

appropriate sections in this Manual.

You are also referred to Figure 2, which

presents the full process required for selecting

a remediation and/or management option for

the site. Figure 2 presents the four stages of the

Remediation and Management Options Decision

Process, namely:

• Stage 1 – Background Information

& Project Drivers.

Stage 2• – Constraints, Endpoint Selection

and Soil/Sediment Characterisation.

• Stage 3 – Assessment & Selection of

Remediation & Management Options.

Stage 4• – Validation and Endpoint.

As represented in Figure 2, each section of

the Manual is aligned with one of these four

stages so that you have a reference point for

where you can locate the information required

to assess, select and implement a remediation

and/or management option.

other defence guideline documents

Defence has a number of other guideline

documents that may be of relevance to you which

are available form the EM webpage, including:

Defence (2004) • Underground Petroleum

Storage Systems, Management Guidelines for

Regional Environmental Officers;

Defence (2004) • Thin Guide:

Re-use of Contaminated Materials

for Environmental Officers;

Defence (2007) • Contamination Management

Strategy. Advancing Defence’s Contamination

Management Capability;

Defence (2007) • Pollution Prevention Strategy.

Advancing Defence’s Pollution Prevention

Capability; and

Defence (2007) • Contamination Risk

Assessment Tool

• Defence (2009) Management of Biosecurity

and Overabundant Native Species Risks on

the Defence Estate – National guidelines

• Defence (2009) Wash Down Facility

Design Features – Pamphlet

Defence (2009) Managing Weeds – Pamphlet•

Figure 2 - Remediation & Management Options Decision Process

sTA

ge

1 –

b

Ac

kg

ro

un

d &

d

riv

er

s

sTA

ge

2 –

c

on

sTr

Ain

Ts, e

nd

Po

inT

se

lec

Tio

n

& s

oil

se

dim

en

T c

hA

rA

cTe

ris

ATio

n

sTA

ge

3 –

A

ss

es

sm

en

T &

s

ele

cTi

on

of

re

me

diA

Tio

n &

m

An

Ag

em

en

T o

TPio

n

sTA

ge

4 –

vA

lid

ATio

n &

en

dP

oin

T

Drivers for Soil/Sediment Management & RemediationWhat are the Drivers for Soil/Sediment Manageent/Remediation?

Refer to Checklist 1

Has the contaminated soil/sediment been adequately characterised to progress to Stage 3 or Stage 4?


Is soil/sediment treatment (remediation) required?


Soil Characterisation/Classification– Chemical Composition– Physical Composition– Volume Estimation

Refer to Section 2.3

Validation– Waste Classification– Human Health & Ecological Assesment

Risk AssessmentHuman Health & Ecological Risk Assesment

Remediation Options Screening Matrix (ROSM)

4) MANAGEMENT IN-SITU

1) DISPOSAL OFF-SITE

2) MANAGEMENT EX-SITU

3) RE-USE ONSITE

Consider Project & Site Constraints– Logistics– Financial– Time– Sustainability


Select Desired Endpoint– Disposal Off-site– Management Ex-situ– Re-use On-site– Management In-situ

Refer to Section 2.2

EX-SITU REMEDIATION IN-SITU REMEDIATION

Hold point 2

a) Landing Farming* b) Biopiling c) Containment d) In-situ Treatment e) No Action

Hold point 3

Table Notes * Depending on the type of contamination land farming may not be an option in some states.

Hold point 1

Hold point 1 + Hold point 2 Does the soil meet the appropriate waste classification (wast disposal) and/or HIL & EIL for reuse?

Hold point 3 Are the risks to human health and the environment acceptable for management in-situ?


http://intranet.defence.gov.au/environment/landscape_management/bons.htm

http://intranet.defence.gov.au/environment/landscape_management/docs/pamphlets/17.%20Washdown%20Facility%20Design%20Features%20pamphlet%20FINAL%2030Jun09.pdf

http://intranet.defence.gov.au/environment/landscape_management/docs/pamphlets/5.%20Managing%20Weeds%20pamphlet%20FINAL%2030Jun09.pdf

http://intranet.defence.gov.au/environment/

2.

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments


1 Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments 2

Background Information & DriversSection Title to go here

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments1

1.

Background Information & Drivers

1.1 defence WAsTe mAnAgemenT hierArchy

With regard to waste management

Defence adopts the following strategy

to the management of waste:

Avoid; •

Reduce; •

Reuse; •

Recycle; and •

Dispose. •

Aligned with this waste management strategy,

Defence has a preference for the management

of impacted soil/sediment present at its facilities

in accordance with the following hierarchy:

Reuse On-site; •

Remediation On-site; and •

Disposal Off-site. •

With this strategy in mind, before starting the

process of assessing, selecting and implementing

a remediation/management option, users of the

Manual should consider:

• What activity or incident generated the

contaminated soil/sediment containing

petroleum hydrocarbons in the first instance?

Is there a measure that can be undertaken •

to avoid or minimise, the generation of the

contaminated soil/sediment?

This section is to present background information and outlines drivers for initiating a soil/sediment remediation/management project. This section is linked to Stage 1 (Background & Drivers) of Figure 2.

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments 2

1.2 siTuATions Where soil remediATion or mAnAgemenT mAy be required

There are numerous sources and activities on

Defence facilities in which petroleum hydrocarbon

contaminated soil/sediment may have been

generated. Typically, petroleum hydrocarbon

contamination at Defence sites is associated

with man-made products such as:

Fuel for ground-based vehicles, boats or •

aircraft (e.g. diesel, leaded and unleaded

petrol and aviation fuel); and

Oils, such as lubricants and degreasers, •

used in workshops or stored at facilities.

Examples of activities and sources of

contaminated soil/sediment include:

Leaks and spills of fuels, or other products, •

from Underground and Above Ground

Storage Tanks (USTs and ASTs);

Leaks and spills during bulk transfer of •

fuels or other products;

General use and engine maintenance •

of vehicles, boats or aircraft;

Fire Training Activities or burning exercises; •

Disposal of waste fuels or fuel oils •

to landfills or other;

Sediment from wash down bay facilities; •

Sediment from clean out of stormwater drains;•

Soil excavated from removal of a leaking •

UST; and

Soil stockpiles from redevelopment •

of former industrial or road areas.

1.3 sTATus of currenT APProAches To remediATion And mAnAgemenT

The current approach to remediation and

management of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted

soil/sediment varies greatly across the Defence

regions and facilities. Limitations such as locality,

type and level of base activity and availability of

space and resources (or information) appear to be

the primary causes for the variations in approach.

Some of the current approaches include:

Excavation of soil/sediment and storage •

on site;

Excavation, characterisation/waste •

classification and disposal to landfill; and

Contaminated soil/sediment remains in-situ. •

A number of facilities have undertaken some

innovative and successful remediation and

management approaches. Contact the National

Contamination Remediation Program team for

a list of regional environment staff who have

undertaken these types of remediation projects.

1.4 regulATory frAmeWork And legislATion

The National Environment Protection Council

(NEPC) formulated the National Environment

Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination)

Measure (NEPM) in December 1999. The NEPM

provides a national risk-based framework with

human health and ecological investigation levels

for a set of defined land uses. The NEPM is the

primary document referred to by Defence.

There are no overarching federal guidelines for the

remediation of contaminated land. The States and

Territories of Australia have different requirements

and guidelines for the management and disposal

of contaminated soil/sediment.

Defence seeks to meet the “spirit and intent”

of the regulations and legislation of each State

and Territory in which it operates. Some States/

Territories have extensive regulatory requirements

(i.e. NSW and VIC), while other States/Territories

have relatively limited requirements and default

to other State regulations for guidance

(i.e. NT and QLD).

Although Defence is governed by

Commonwealth legislation and regulations,

the state regulatory framework becomes

particularly important with regards to:

Off-site Disposal – waste generated by

Defence is transported, treated, managed

or disposed of off-site. Any off-site activities

(including those of contractors engaged by

Defence to transport waste off its sites) must

comply with State legislative and regulatory

requirements. It is noted that these requirements

may vary between states; and

Off-site Migration – pending the regulatory •

framework of the state or territory, off-site

migration of contamination may trigger an

assessment of contamination, including a

health risk assessment.

A summary of the contaminated soil

management requirements of each State and

Territory is provided in Appendix A. Defence also

maintains a Legal Obligations Register (LOR)

which contains reference to relevant legislation

and regulations relevant to Defence. The reader is

encouraged to access the LOR to keep updated

with regard to the state regulatory framework for

remediation/waste disposal.

1.5 exTernAl TechnicAl suPPorT

As you work though the remediation and

management options decision process, presented

in this Manual and in Figure 2, there may be points

at which you require external technical support. To

assist you with the technical aspects of assessing,

selecting and implementing a remediation or

management option you may wish to contact:

The Defence National Contamination Team •

located in Canberra; and/or

A Defence regional personnel with experience •

in undertaking a remediation or management

project; and/or

A contaminated land consultant. •


http://intranet.defence.gov.au/environment/legal_registers/main.htm

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments3 Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments 4

Background Information & Drivers

Checklist 1 – Potential drivers for remediation and management Projects

drivers for remediation / management Projects Yes No Don’t Know

unacceptable risk to human health or the environment

1. Is the soil / sediment currently managed in a way that may pose an unacceptable risk to the health of human receptors a or a sensitive environmental receptor? b

For example if the soil / sediment is odorous, or corrosive, and is located within proximity to human and environmental receptors?□ □ □

2. Are there any cases of illness or health impairment among people who have had exposure to the contaminated soil / sediment? □ □ □

3. Is there the potential for contaminated soil / sediment to be acting as a source of contamination to the surrounding environment on-site? □ □ □

4. Is there the potential for, or any evidence of, migration of contaminants off-site to human receptors or the nearby environment? c □ □ □

5. Did an external consultant’s report identify the requirement to remediate or manage the contaminated soil/sediment? □ □ □

operational drivers

6. Has a FACOPS Risk Assessment been undertaken? (If yes go to Question 7). □ □ □

7. Did the FACOPS risk rating identify the contaminated soil / sediment as being a HIGH risk or above? □ □ □

8. Do you want to dispose of the contaminated soil/sediment off-site as part of base maintenance activities? d, e □ □ □

9. Do you want to reuse the contaminated soil/sediment on-site or elsewhere? f □ □ □

current management Approach to the storage of contaminated material

10. If the soil / sediment is ex-situ, is it currently stored (e.g. stockpiled) on an impermeable surface and with appropriate environmental controls? g □ □ □

11. If the soil / sediment is ex-situ, is it currently stored (e.g. stockpiled) in an area that is protected from large rainfall events or wind? □ □ □

Following the completion of Checklist 1 the drivers and key objective for commencing a management/remediation project should have been identified.

1.6 drivers for remediATion And mAnAgemenT ProjecTs (checklisT 1)

It is important to understand the drivers behind

why a soil/sediment management or remediation

project needs to be implemented. There are

many possible reasons for wanting to undertake

a soil/sediment management or remediation

projects including potential risk to human or

environmental receptors or operational reasons

(base housekeeping or environmental policy).

Checklist 1 is provided as a framework

to allow you to:

Identify the drivers for initiating the •

remediation and/or management project

in order to communicate them to your

stakeholders (for example in a business

case); and

Scope the objective of the project in •

order to communicate them to your

stakeholders (for example inclusion in a

remediation contractors scope of work).

There may be questions in the checklist

that require further information to answer.

You may wish to seek external technical

support (refer to Section 1.5).

Note Checklist 1 is not comprehensive and should be used as a guide only.

Table Notes a. Human receptors include Defence Personnel, contractors or visitors that may be located in buildings (residential, administration, workshops) or working out doors in areas adjacent

to the contaminated soil/sediment. b. Sensitive environmental receptors include creeks, rivers, ocean, wetlands or groundwater. c. Migration may occur via surface water run-off, groundwater or vapour.

d. Please note that waste classification will be required prior to disposal off-site. e. Please note that waste treatment may be required prior to disposal off-site. f. Please note that treatment may be required

prior to re-use. g. Environmental controls include, bunding and overhead protection if in a large rainfall region.

2.

Constraints, Endpoint Selection & Soil/Sediment Characterisation

The first part of Section 2 outlines the key initial considerations in selecting the remediation/management option, including the:

Potential project constraints; and •

Desired endpoint. •

Prior to the selection of a management or

remediation option it is important to consider

the desired end-points for the soil/sediment.

For example Do you wish to dispose of the soil/

sediment off-site or do you wish to manage the

material in-situ? These endpoint considerations

will set the context for the option you select.

The second part of Section 2 presents the

possible scenarios where soil sampling may be

required and an overview of the soil/sediment

characterisation and waste classification process.

This section is linked to Stage 2 (Constraints,

Endpoint Selection and Soil/Sediment

Characterisation) of Figure 2.

2.1 consTrAinTs

When selecting the most suitable remediation

or management option the following factors may

be considered:

Time• – the potential duration of time

associated with the implementation of

each option;

• Financial (Costs) – the potential costs

associated with the implementation of

each option;

• Logistical – the potential site specific

logistical constraints associated with the

implementation of each option;

• Regulatory – the relevant State and

Commonwealth requirements for the

possible management and remediation

options being considered;

Reputation• – the public perception/scrutiny

and media implications; and

• Sustainability Elements – the core elements

of sustainability.

Checklist 2 is provided to assist you in the

consideration of the potential constraints

associated with remediation / management

projects. You need to consider the likelihood

of factors such as time, financial (cost),

logistical and sustainability elements acting

as a project constraint. Potential constraint

factors should be revisited later in the options

assessment and selection process.

Note Checklist 2 is not comprehensive and is provided as a guide only.




Checklist 2 – Potential constraining factors for management / remediation Projects

factorlikelihood of constraint comment/mitigation measure

unlikely Possible likely

Time

Site permitting, regulatory requirements, stakeholder consultation □ □ □ Time Estimation

Preparation of tender documents (if subcontracted) □ □ □

Implementation of physical works □ □ □

Requirement for a small field scale trial a □ □ □

On-going management / monitoring and liability following implementation of physical □ □ □

Supervision of contractors and contract administration □ □ □

financial (cost)

Funding cycle

Purchase of capital infrastructure for remedial works □ □ □ Cost Estimation

Implementation of the option; consider the volume of soil requiring excavation, treatment, off-site disposal □ □ □

On-going operation b and monitoring c requirements □ □ □

logistical

Potential impact of physical works to Defence capability □ □ □ Time & Cost Implications

Accessibility of the site for plant and equipment □ □ □

Availability of resources to implement physical works □ □ □

Site suitability considerations (weather / seasonal conditions) □ □ □

Site suitability considerations (other)

For Example: a) Suitable geological conditions (soil –permeability and groundwater depth), b) Distance from sensitive receptors (air emissions, dust, noise and water discharge) c) Space to construct appropriate environmental controls d) Bio-security considerations e) Site Master Planning.

□

□

□

□

□

□

Distance of the site for to an appropriately licensed landfill □ □ □

Volume of soil/sediment (selection of an option commensurate with the volume of material) □ □ □

State or Commonwealth regulatory requirements (refer to Appendix A) □ □ □

reputation

Public perception / scrutiny □ □ □

Media implications □ □ □

sustainability elements d

Energy requirements □ □ □ High, Medium, Low

Air emissions (remedial equipment and treatment process) □ □ □

Water requirements and potential for impact on water resources □ □ □

Land and ecosystem impacts (e.g. soil and habitat disturbance) □ □ □

Material consumption and waste generation □ □ □

Long-term stewardship (e.g. intra and inter-generational equity) □ □ □

Following the completion of Checklist 2 you should have identified the possible factors that may constrain your proposed remediation/management

project and the mitigation measures for overcoming these constraints.

Table Notes a. Field Scale Trial – large volumes of waste soil/sediment or high degree of technical difficulty. b. On-going operational costs include the costs associated with operating soil treatment equipment, labour hours, and the cost of treatment reagents. c. On-going monitoring requirements are likely to be required if management in-situ is pursued as an end-point. Monitoring requirements may include groundwater, surface water, soil and vapour monitoring. d. The core sustainability elements are derived from the US EPA (2008) document titled Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Practices

into Remediation of Contaminated Sites document released by the US EPA.


2.2 endPoinT selecTion

Once you have worked through Checklist 1

and 2 the desired project endpoint should be

considered. Examples of possible project end-

points are presented below:

1. Disposal Off-Site – disposal of the

contaminated soil/sediment off-site to an

appropriately licensed waste disposal facility.

Depending on the waste characterisation of

the soil/sediment, waste may be disposed

of off-site pre or post treatment. If treatment

of waste soil/sediment is required,

treatment may occur on-site or off-site at an

appropriately licensed premises, pending

approvals or other requirements by State

authorities. An example of an off-site disposal

project is presented in Appendix D;

2. Management Ex-situ (Storage) – the

storage of contaminated soil, once

excavated, in a dedicated long-term or

short-term storage area on or off-site in

a manner consistent with local regulatory

requirements. Storage may be a short-term

option or an option to be considered if a) the

soil/sediment treatment technology selected

is unsuccessful or b) immediate funding to

treat the soil/sediment is not initially available.

Having the available space and resources

to ensure waste segregation is achieved is

an important consideration when evaluating

this endpoint;

3. Reuse of Soil/Sediment On-site – re-use of

soil/sediment either at the site or elsewhere,

pending approval by the regulatory authority

(if required) and the suitability of materials

based on an assessment against human

health and ecological criteria (e.g. NEPM). If

treatment of contaminated soil is required it

may occur on or off-site at an appropriately

licensed premise. This end-point assumes

that the soil/sediment can be treated to a

quality (i.e. chemical and physical) suitable

for reuse in accordance with Defence and

State and Territory regulatory requirements.

An example of a soil/sediment re-use project

is presented in Appendix D; and

4. Management In-situ – the management

of impacted soil/sediment in-situ without

extensive excavation to remove the source.

This endpoint may be achieved via the

a) installation of a containment wall, b)

use of in-situ remedial techniques such

as bio-venting or c) if a risk assessment

finds the environmental and human health

risks acceptable. Management of residual

impacted soil in-situ may need to be

approved by the appropriate regulatory

authority and would require a site-specific

management plan.

The endpoint selected determines the scale

and duration of the project as the time, cost

and logistical implications, and regulatory

constraints, associated with each of these

endpoints varies greatly.

2.3 soil & sedimenT chArAcTerisATion/WAsTe clAssificATion

Once you have considered the possible end

points you should assess whether you have

adequate information and data to progress to

the next stage of the management or remediation

process (as presented in Figure 2).

Often further sampling is required. Further

sampling to characterise, or provide a waste

classification, for the soil/sediment should include

sampling and analysis for chemical and physical

parameters and an estimate of the volume of

material for management or remediation.

Due to the inherent uncertainty associated

with the subsurface (i.e. level and extent of

contamination) many remediation projects

run over budget and are delivered out of the

scheduled time frame. An inadequate intrusive

investigation is a common cause of budget and

schedule over-run in remediation projects. In order

to reduce uncertainty and control project costs

in remediation projects, a robust Stage 1 and

2 Investigation, where adequate contamination

characterisation and delineation has been

implemented is essential (refer to Appendix D

for a relevant case study).

Following the soil/sediment characterisation,

and/or waste classification, you should be in

a position to assess whether soil/sediment

remediation (treatment) is required.

2.3.1 do you have Adequate data?

Once you have considered the possible

end points you should assess whether you

have adequate data to progress to the next

stage of the management or remediation project

(as presented in Figure 2). Checklist 3 provides

prompts for assessing whether adequate soil/

sediment sampling and analysis has previously

undertaken to facilitate:

Selection of a treatment technology •

(refer to Stage 3 of Figure 2); or

Progression to an end-point, for example •

off-site disposal (refer to Stage 4 of Figure 2).




Checklist 3 is not comprehensive and is provided as a guide only.

checklist 3 – soil / sediment classification & characterisation indicators for soil / sediment classification & characterisation yes no

1. Visual Evidence of Contamination – are there any visual indications of chemical contamination on or in the soil/sediment and has adequate sampling/analysis been undertaken

to determine the cause of the visual impact? a □ □

2. Odours – are there any odours emanating from the soil/sediment and has adequate sampling/analysis been undertaken to determine the cause of the olfactory impact? b □ □

3. Potentially Contaminating Activities – what type of activity has caused the generation of the soil/sediment, and does the activity have the potential to have contaminated

the soil/sediment?

For example if the soil/sediment has been:

Generated from the removal of a UST, a vehicle wash down bay or a drain near a mechanical workshop, then there is a high likelihood that the soil/sediment •is contaminated; whereas

Excavated on a Greenfield site, or a site where little historic activity has occurred, then there may be a low probability that the soil/sediment is contaminated. •

□ □

4. Waste Soil from an Unknown Source – is the source of the soil / sediment known?

If the source of the soil / sediment is unknown then sampling and analysis of the material is advisable in order to assess the most appropriate option for the material. □ □

5. Waste Classification – has adequate sampling and laboratory analysis been undertaken of the soil/sediment to assess the chemical composition, and determine a

waste classification of the material?

The sampling and analysis requirements, in addition to the categories of waste, vary between the States/Territories. The State/Territory requirements are summarised in

Appendix A.

□ □

6. Reuse of Material – has adequate sampling and laboratory analysis been undertaken of the soil/sediment to assess the chemical composition to determine whether

the material is suitable for reuse on or off-site? (Refer to Section 4.1)

The land-use criteria (for human health and ecological protection) are provided in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Contamination) Measure 1999.

□ □

7. If ex-situ remediation (i.e. excavation) is proposed, is there the potential for the soil/sediment to be Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS)?

Has any sampling been undertaken to confirm the absence or presence of ASS? (Refer to Section 2.3.3). □ □

8. Remediation/Management Parameters – has adequate sampling and laboratory analysis been undertaken to characterise the key chemical and physical parameters

of the soil/sediment to:

Assess whether specific soil/sediment remediation methods are appropriate; and •

Assess the suitability of the available management options (Monitored Natural Attenuation).•

□ □

A “No” response to the questions in Checklist 3

may indicate that further soil/sediment sampling

is required to characterise, or provide a waste

classification, for the material. Section 2.3.2

provides background information on what the

soil/sediment characterisation/classification step

generally involves.

2.3.2 chemical & Physical Parameters & volume estimation

It is important to assess the chemical and

physical characteristics of the soil/sediment,

and estimate its volume, to determine the

remediation or management option(s) available.

Soil/sediment characterisation and classification

typically involves:

Collecting a representative sample(s) •

of the soil/sediment;

Submitting the samples to an analytical •

laboratory for a suite of selected

chemicals; and

Comparison of the analytical results to •

the appropriate State or Federal waste

disposal regulations (refer to Appendix A)

and environmental/human health criteria

to determine whether treatment of the

soil/sediment is required to achieve the

endpoint selected.

The following national guideline documents

provide further information on the technical

requirements for soil/sediment sampling

and analysis:

National Environmental Protection •

(Contaminated Land) Measure (1999),

Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design

and Reporting of Data;

National Environmental Protection •

(Contaminated Land) Measure (1999),

Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially

Contaminated Soils; and Standard (AS)

4482.1 (2005), Guide to the Investigation

and Sampling of Sites with Potentially

Contaminated Soil.

Chemical Composition

Sampling for chemical characterisation may

be undertaken to achieve three objectives,

namely to assess:

• Waste Classification – a waste classification

of the soil to facilitate off-site disposal;

Treatment Suitability• – information to assist

with an assessment of the potential for the soil

to be successfully remediate to achieve the

desired end-point; and

Table Notes a. Visual indications may include surface staining, vegetation dieback, sheen or product floating on surface or groundwater. b. Typical hydrocarbon odours include the smell of fuel,

oil and grease. Volatile chemicals can be dangerous to humans health and the environment and may require measurement and assessment by a qualified occupational health professional.


• Suitability for Re-use – assessment of the

soil/ sediment for reuse following excavation

and treatment. Further information on the

sampling and analysis requirements are

provided in Section 4.1.1.

Typically sampling and analysis for chemical

composition involves:

Collection of representative samples for •

the waste soil/sediment; and

Analysis for total concentrations (reported •

in mg/kg) and Australian Standard Leaching

Procedure (acetate buffer) (ASLP) analysis to

allow a waste classification to be generated.

Where petroleum hydrocarbons are the

contaminant of concern the following chemicals

are typically selected for laboratory analysis:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs)• 1

fractions C6 – C9, C10 – C36;

Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene, •

Xylene (BTEX);

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); •

Phenols; and •

Lead. •

A broader of sampling suite of potential

contaminants may be required to characterise

the soil/sediment if:

Little is known about the origin of the •

contaminated material;

The material appears to be mixed with •

other waste; or

The material appears to be comprised •

of multiple soil/sediment types.

The presence of other contaminants is an

important consideration as other contaminants

such as heavy metals, impact the effectiveness

some remediation options. A matrix of common

contaminating activities at Defence sites, and a

corresponding list of the typical contaminants

of concern (CoC), are included the report in the

Defence report titled Review of Environmental

Investigations2.

Physical Composition

Physical characterisation of the material is

particularly important for the evaluation of

remediation options. Generally sampling and

analysis for physical parameters includes:

Bulk density; •

Plasticity; •

Spadeablility (to identify material •

handling requirements if soil/sediment

is to be excavated); and

Composition (silt, clay, sand and gravel •

components) and consistency of the soil/fill.

Other parameters may be required for specific

remediation (e.g. bioremediation).

Volume Estimation

The quantity of contaminated soil/sediment

requiring remediation or management can have

significant cost and time implications. As part of

the soil/sediment characterisation process an

estimate of the soil volume should be undertaken.

For an accurate estimation of soil volumes you

may consider engaging a licensed surveyor.

The user of this manual may wish to seek

external support in order to undertake the soil/

sediment characterisation/classification works

(refer to Section 1.5).

2.3.3 Acid sulfate soils

Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are soils, sediments or

rocks that contain elevated levels of metal sulfides.

In an undisturbed and waterlogged state, these

soils are relatively harmless, but when disturbed

and exposed to oxygen (through excavation

or drainage), these soils can generate sulfuric

acid in large quantities. Runoff and leachate

from acid sulfate soils can adversely impact

aquatic communities, agricultural practices

and engineering works.

Acid sulfate soils are found along the

coastline throughout much of Australia.

It is estimated that there is approximately

40,000 km2 of coastal ASS.

Acid sulfate soils can be separated

into two categories:

Actual acid sulfate soils (AASS): Soil/sediment •

that has been oxidised and is generating

acid; and

Potential acid sulfate soils (PASS): Soil/•

sediment that contains metal sulfides, but

has not been exposed to oxygen (oxidised).

If acid sulfate soils are found to be present

(see table below), they should be managed

in accordance with Vic EPA publication 655,

Acid Sulfate Soil and Rock (1999), and Vic EPA

publication 680, Managing Waste Acid Sulfate

Soils (2000). Other references are provided

in Appendix D.

Further detail with regard to sampling, analysis

and classification of actual and potential acid

sulfate soils is provided in the references

presented in Appendix C.

1 If impacted soils are to be considered for re-use on or off the site, TPH speciation will be required in order to undertake an assessment for suitability for human health. Information with regard to TPH speciation is provided in Section 4.1.1.

2 A copy of the report Review of Environmental Investigations (Defence / SMEC 2007) is available at by contacting the National Defence Contamination Team-based in Canberra.3 Source National Strategy for the Management of Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils, January 2000.

Figure 3 – Distribution of ASS Across Australia 3

AUSTRALIA

Darwin

Perth

Adelaide

Proposed pyotic sediments

Melbourne

Hobart

Canberra

Sydney

Brisbane




2.4 soil/sedimenT remediATion (TreATmenT) requiremenTs

Treatment (remediation) of the soil/sediment

may be required based on the results of

the chemical and physical characterisation/

classification undertaken.

checklist 4 – Assessment of the requirement for soil / sediment Treatment soil / sediment Treatment requirements yes no 1. Waste Classification – if off-site disposal is your desired endpoint, does the material meet the appropriate waste classification to facilitate off-site disposal to an appropriately

licensed waste disposal facility? Note that disposal fee will vary with waste classification.

Refer to Appendix A – Summary of State & Territory Regulatory Requirements.

□ □

2. Reuse of Material – if re-use of material is the desired end-point, does the material meet the human health and ecological criteria.

Refer to Appendix A – Summary of State & Territory Regulatory Requirements. □ □

3. Management ex-situ – if management ex-situ (long-term storage / containment) is the desired end-point, does the physical and chemical composition of the soil / sediment make the material suitable for ex-situ containment options. □ □

4. Management in-situ – if management in-situ is the desired end-point, does the material meet the human health and ecological criteria for that land-due and are the risks associated with management in-situ considered acceptable.

Refer to Appendix A – Summary of State & Territory Regulatory Requirements.

□ □

A “No” response to the questions in Checklist 4 may indicate that soil/sediment treatment is required to achieve

the desired endpoint. If, based on the soil/sediment characterisation/classification, the material does not meet

the initially desired endpoint you should consider:

What remediation options are available to assist you in achieving your endpoint (refer to Section 3); and •

Other endpoints (refer to Section 2.2) that may be more suitable given the type and concentration •

of the contamination.

Checklist 4 is provided to facilitate

an assessment of whether treatment

(remediation) of soil/sediment may be

required to reach the desired end-point.

Please note that Checklist 4 is not

comprehensive and is provided as a

guide only. 3.

Assessment & Selection of Remediation or Management Options

The objective of Section 3 is to provide you with general guidance about the available remediation an/or management options and assist in the selection of the possible options using a screening matrix. Section 3 also provides general guidelines and indicative diagrams for the option selected.

This section is linked to Stage 3 (Assessment and

Selection of Remediation & Management Option)

of Figure 2.

3.1 overvieW of AvAilAble remediAl Technologies

Although there are many remediation

options/techniques available for the treatment

of hydrocarbon contaminated soils, for the

purposes of the Manual, five (5) remediation

options have been selected. The five options

include (but not limited to):

1. Land farming4;

2. Bio-piling;

3. Containment;

4. In-situ Treatment; and

5. No Action.

These five (5) options have been identified as most

appropriate for inclusion in this Manual based on

the following factors:

The type of chemicals expected to be •

associated with soil/sediment contaminated

with petroleum hydrocarbons at Defence sites;

Ease of implementation, proven effectiveness •

and track record of success on Defence sites;

System reliability and degree of operation •

and maintainability; and

Cost, time, logistical, regulatory, sustainability •

and community acceptance.

General information about the construction,

operation and maintenance of the five (5) options

for the remediation/management of petroleum

hydrocarbon contaminated soil/sediment is

provided in Section 3.3.

The five (5) options identified can be

broadly divided into options that require

excavation (ex-situ) and options that do not

require excavation (in-situ).

As illustrated in Figure 2, the three in-situ

approaches may need to be complemented with

a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment.

IN-SITU REMEDIATIONEX-SITU REMEDIATION

1) Landing Farming 3) Containment 4) In-situ Treatment2) Biopiling 5) No Action (Risk Assessment)

Figure 4 – Ex-situ and In-situ Remediation/Management Approach

4 Depending on the type of contamination land farming may not be an option in some states.




3.2

re

me

diA

l o

PTi

on

s s

cr

ee

nin

g m

ATr

ix

The

Rem

edia

l Opt

ions

Scr

eeni

ng M

atrix

(RO

SM

) is

prov

ided

as

a to

ol to

ass

ist y

ou in

con

side

ring

the

stre

ngth

s an

d

wea

knes

ses

of th

e fiv

e op

tions

in th

e co

ntex

t of t

heir

site

-spe

cific

sce

nario

. The

RO

SM

has

the

follo

win

g fe

atur

es to

assi

st y

ou in

iden

tifyi

ng th

e m

ost s

uita

ble

optio

n:

Key

adv

anta

ges

and

disa

dvan

tage

s as

soci

ated

with

eac

h re

med

iatio

n/m

anag

emen

t opt

ion

for

you

to c

onsi

der;

•

Eig

ht c

riter

ia fo

r as

sess

ing

each

rem

edia

tion/

man

agem

ent o

ptio

n; a

nd

•

A r

atin

g fo

r ea

ch re

med

iatio

n/m

anag

emen

t opt

ion

agai

nst t

he c

riter

ia.

•

It is

not

ed th

at th

e cr

iteria

are

bas

ed a

roun

d th

e co

nstr

aini

ng fa

ctor

s se

t out

in C

heck

list 2

pre

sent

ed in

Sec

tion

2.1.

rem

edia

tion

op

tions

scr

eeni

ng m

atrix

(Ada

pted

from

the

US

EPA

(200

6) T

echn

olog

y S

cree

ning

Mat

rix)

re

me

diA

Tio

n /

m

An

Ag

em

en

T o

PTi

on

ke

y A

dvA

nTA

ge

sk

ey

d

isA

dvA

nTA

ge

s

Proven remediation / management method

degree of Technical difficulty

Time (relative)

cost (relative)

capital / infrastructure intensive

operation & maintenance

long-Term management requirements & liabilities

sus

tain

abili

ty

ele

men

ts

ex-siTu APProAch

1) L

and

Farm

ing1

E

ase

of im

plem

enta

tion

•

Rel

iabl

e an

d pr

oven

rem

edia

tion

optio

n •

Low

cos

t (re

lativ

e) to

und

erta

ke

•re

med

ial w

orks

Red

uctio

n in

on-

goin

g lia

bilit

y an

d •

futu

re m

anag

emen

t req

uire

men

ts re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns

Mai

nten

ance

of D

efen

ce c

apab

ility

•

in th

e lo

ng-t

erm

Gen

erat

ion

of w

aste

soi

l •

Def

ence

cap

abilit

y m

ay b

e im

pact

ed in

the

•sh

ort-

term

due

to la

rge

scal

e in

trus

ive

wor

ks

and

requ

irem

ent f

or la

rge

rem

edia

tion

area

for

cons

truc

tion

of li

ned

beds

/row

s

Em

issi

on o

f vap

our/

vola

tile

off-

gase

s•

Ene

rgy

Air

Em

issi

ons

Land

& E

cosy

stem

Mat

eria

l Con

sum

ptio

n

Was

te G

ener

atio

n

Long

-ter

m S

tew

ards

hip

2) B

io-p

iling

Rel

iabl

e an

d pr

oven

rem

edia

tion

optio

n •

Con

trol

of v

apou

r/vo

latil

e of

f-ga

ses

•

Rem

edia

tion

para

met

ers

(e.g

. moi

stur

e,

•nu

trie

nts,

and

tem

pera

ture

) can

be

cont

rolle

d

Red

uctio

n in

on-

goin

g lia

bilit

y an

d fu

ture

•

man

agem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

rela

tive

to

othe

r op

tions

Mai

nten

ance

of D

efen

ce c

apab

ility

•

in th

e lo

ng-t

erm

Mor

e in

frast

ruct

ure

and

cons

truc

tion

•re

quire

men

ts th

an la

nd fa

rmin

g

Mor

e ex

pens

ive

com

pare

d to

land

farm

ing

•

Gen

erat

ion

of w

aste

incl

udin

g so

il/se

dim

ent

•an

d va

pour

Pot

entia

l to

impa

ct o

n D

efen

ce c

apab

ility

•in

the

shor

t-te

rm d

ue to

larg

e sc

ale

intr

usiv

e w

orks

Ene

rgy

Air

Em

issi

ons

Land

& E

cosy

stem

Mat

eria

l Con

sum

ptio

n

Was

te G

ener

atio

n

Long

-ter

m S

tew

ards

hip


in-siTu APProAch

3) C

onta

inm

ent

Lim

ited

gene

ratio

n of

was

te a

nd a

void

s w

aste

•

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

for

off-

site

dis

posa

l

Rel

ativ

ely

shor

t dur

atio

n of

tim

e to

und

erta

ke

•ph

ysic

al w

orks

Red

uces

acc

essi

bilit

y to

con

tam

inat

ion

by

•hu

man

rece

ptor

s

On-

goin

g lia

bilit

y, m

onito

ring

and

•m

anag

emen

t req

uire

men

ts. R

isks

ass

ocia

ted

with

mai

ntai

ning

the

inte

grity

of t

he p

hysi

cal

cont

ainm

ent s

yste

m

Hig

h co

st o

f im

plem

enta

tion

rela

tive

•

to o

ther

opt

ions

May

requ

ire a

Hum

an H

ealth

and

•

Eco

logi

cal R

isk

Ass

essm

ent

May

impa

ct o

n D

efen

ce c

apab

ility

•

in th

e lo

ng-t

erm

Ene

rgy

Air

Em

issi

ons

Land

& E

cosy

stem

Mat

eria

l Con

sum

ptio

n

Was

te G

ener

atio

n

Long

-ter

m S

tew

ards

hip

4) In

-situ

Tre

atm

ent

Lim

ited

gene

ratio

n of

was

te a

nd a

void

s w

aste

•

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

for

off-

site

dis

posa

l

Lim

ited

impa

ct to

Def

ence

cap

abilit

y

•in

the

shor

t-te

rm

Sys

tem

can

be

cont

rolle

d to

sui

t cha

ngin

g •

cond

ition

s an

d st

ages

of r

emed

iatio

n

On-

goin

g lia

bilit

y, m

onito

ring

and

•

man

agem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

Mos

t tec

hnic

ally

diffi

cult

optio

n to

•

impl

emen

t/in

stal

l

May

requ

ire a

Hum

an H

ealth

and

•

Eco

logi

cal R

isk

Ass

essm

ent

Ene

rgy

Air

Em

issi

ons

Land

& E

cosy

stem

Mat

eria

l Con

sum

ptio

n

Was

te G

ener

atio

n

Long

-ter

m S

tew

ards

hip

5) N

o A

ctio

n

(Ris

k A

sses

smen

t) N

o ge

nera

tion

of w

aste

and

avo

ids

was

te

•re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

k fo

r of

f-si

te d

ispo

sal

Lim

ited

impa

ct to

Def

ence

cap

abilit

y in

•

the

shor

t-te

rm a

s no

requ

irem

ent f

or

phys

ical

wor

ks

No

sign

ifica

nt p

hysi

cal w

orks

requ

ired

•

(i.e.

low

cos

ts)

Opt

ion

will

requ

ire a

det

aile

d H

uman

•

Hea

lth R

isk

Ass

essm

ent

On-

goin

g lia

bilit

y, m

onito

ring

and

•

man

agem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

May

impa

ct o

n D

efen

ce c

apab

ility

in th

e

•lo

ng-t

erm

term

as

cont

amin

ated

soi

l rem

ains

Ene

rgy

Air

Em

issi

ons

Land

& E

cosy

stem

Mat

eria

l Con

sum

ptio

n

Was

te G

ener

atio

n

Long

-ter

m S

tew

ards

hip

defi

nitio

n of

sym

bol

s an

d c

riter

ia in

the

rem

edia

tion/

man

agem

ent

op

tions

mat

rix

fAc

Tor

Ab

ove

Ave

rage

Ave

rage

bel

ow A

vera

ge

Pro

ven

Tech

nolo

gy /

Met

hod

Rem

edia

tion

optio

n is

est

ablis

hed

and

wid

ely

used

for

the

rem

edia

tion

of s

oil/s

edim

ent i

mpa

cted

with

pet

role

um h

ydro

carb

ons.

Rem

edia

tion

optio

n ha

s be

en im

plem

ente

d at

the

field

sca

le b

ut

has

varia

ble

succ

ess

in re

med

iatio

n so

il/se

dim

ent i

mpa

cted

with

pe

trol

eum

hyd

roca

rbon

s.

Rem

edia

tion

optio

n is

hig

hly

varia

ble

in th

e re

med

iatio

n of

soi

l /

sedi

men

t im

pact

ed w

ith p

etro

leum

hyd

roca

rbon

s.

Deg

ree

of T

echn

ical

Diffi

culty

Low

leve

l of t

echn

ical

diffi

culty

, with

rega

rd to

impl

emen

tatio

n, re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Ave

rage

leve

l of t

echn

ical

diffi

culty

, with

rega

rd to

impl

emen

tatio

n,

rela

tive

to o

ther

pre

sent

ed.

Hig

h le

vel o

f tec

hnic

al d

ifficu

lty, w

ith re

gard

to im

plem

enta

tion,

rela

tive

to o

ther

pre

sent

ed.

Cos

tLo

w d

egre

e of

gen

eral

cos

ts re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Ave

rage

deg

ree

of g

ener

al c

osts

rela

tive

to o

ther

opt

ions

.H

igh

degr

ee o

f gen

eral

cos

ts re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Tim

e0.

5 –

2 ye

ars.

Tim

e to

impl

emen

t the

met

hodo

logy

and

rem

edia

te th

e so

il/se

dim

ent.

2 –

5 ye

ars.

Tim

e to

impl

emen

t the

met

hodo

logy

and

rem

edia

te th

e so

il/se

dim

ent.

Mor

e th

an 5

yea

rs. T

ime

to im

plem

ent t

he m

etho

dolo

gy a

nd

rem

edia

te th

e so

il /

sedi

men

t.

Cap

ital /

Infra

stru

ctur

e In

tens

ive

Low

deg

ree

of c

apita

l inv

estm

ent r

elat

ive

to o

ther

opt

ions

.A

vera

ge d

egre

e of

cap

ital i

nves

tmen

t rel

ativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Hig

h de

gree

of c

apita

l inv

estm

ent r

elat

ive

to o

ther

opt

ions

.

Ope

ratio

n &

Mai

nten

ance

Inte

nsiv

eLo

w d

egre

e of

ope

ratio

nal a

nd m

aint

enan

ce re

quire

men

ts re

lativ

e to

ot

her

optio

ns.

Ave

rage

deg

ree

of o

pera

tiona

l and

mai

nten

ance

requ

irem

ents

rela

tive

to o

ther

opt

ions

.H

igh

degr

ee o

f ope

ratio

nal a

nd m

aint

enan

ce re

quire

men

ts re

lativ

e to

ot

her

optio

ns.

Long

-Ter

m M

anag

emen

t R

equi

rem

ents

and

Lia

bilit

ies

Low

leve

l of o

ngoi

ng m

anag

emen

t req

uire

men

ts a

nd o

n-go

ing

liabi

lity

rela

tive

to o

ther

opt

ions

.M

ediu

m le

vel o

f ong

oing

man

agem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

and

on-

goin

g lia

bilit

y re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Hig

h le

vel o

f ong

oing

man

agem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

and

on-

goin

g lia

bilit

y re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Sus

tain

abilit

y E

lem

ents

Low

leve

l of 1

) ene

rgy

use,

2) a

ir em

issi

ons,

3) i

mpa

ct to

land

and

ec

osys

tem

s, 4

) mat

eria

l con

sum

ptio

n, 5

) was

te g

ener

atio

n or

6)

long

-ter

m s

tew

ards

hip

(i.e.

inte

r/in

tra-

gene

ratio

nal e

quity

) is

sues

rela

tive

to o

ther

opt

ions

.

Ave

rage

leve

l of 1

) ene

rgy

use,

2) a

ir em

issi

ons,

3)

impa

ct to

land

and

eco

syst

ems,

4) m

ater

ial c

onsu

mpt

ion,

5)

was

te g

ener

atio

n or

6) l

ong-

term

ste

war

dshi

p (i.

e. in

ter/

intr

a-ge

nera

tiona

l equ

ity) i

ssue

s re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

ptio

ns.

Hig

h le

vel o

f 1) e

nerg

y us

e, 2

) air

emis

sion

s, 3

) im

pact

to la

nd a

nd

ecos

yste

ms,

4) m

ater

ial c

onsu

mpt

ion,

5) w

aste

gen

erat

ion

or 6

) lon

g-te

rm s

tew

ards

hip

(i.e.

inte

r/in

tra-

gene

ratio

nal e

quity

) iss

ues

rela

tive

to

othe

r op

tions

.

Mat

rix

Sym

bols

A

bove

Ave

rage

A

vera

ge

Bel

ow A

vera

ge

N

ot a

pplic

able

.

Con

ten

t •

Ex

it •

Pri

nt



3.3 generAl guidelines for remediATion And mAnAgemenT oPTions

This section provides general information

once you have considered your site in the

context of the information presented in the

ROSM and identified which option(s) may be

applicable. For each remediation/management

option where physical works are required,

general information is provided:

General construction considerations; •

Operational considerations including; •

General maintenance and performance –monitoring considerations;

Environmental management and –occupational health and safety considerations; and

End point parameters. For the No Action (Risk

Assessment) option, general information with

regard to the risk assessment process is provided.

The information presented in this section

is aims to:

Give the users of this manual general •

information with regard to the construction

and operation requirements of the options

available; and

Act as a generalised template to be used •

as a basis for Defence regional personnel

in developing site-specific requirements for

Defence CMC contracts for implementation

of the option.

3.3.1 land farming

Land farming involves the application of

excavated contaminated soil or sediment in a

thin layer across the ground. Minerals, nutrients,

moisture and air are then added to the thin

layer of contaminated soil (usually via tilling or

ploughing) to stimulate microorganisms, which

use hydrocarbons as a food source and convert

them to carbon dioxide and water. For further

information on land farming as a remedial

technique, refer to the Land Farming Remediation

Factsheet in Appendix B. It is important to note

that land farming may not be applicable in certain

case (e.g. close to residential area) and that it is

not acceptable by some EPAs in Australia

(e.g. NSW, Vic).

3.3.2 biopiling

Biopiling involves the placement of contaminated

soil or sediment into a stockpile, which has

parameters such as moisture, nutrients and

oxygen controlled to stimulate microorganisms,

which use hydrocarbons as a food source and

convert them to carbon dioxide and water.

For further information on biopiling as a remedial

technique, refer to the Biopiling Remediation

Factsheet in Appendix B.

3.3.3 containment

Containment involves the construction of a

physical barrier in the ground to prevent the

migration of contaminated soil, sediment and

groundwater away from the source zone.

Containment is generally used as a short

term measure while remedial techniques are

being considered or as a long term measure in

combination with other remedial techniques. For

further information on containment as a remedial

technique, refer to the Containment Remediation

Factsheet in Appendix B.

3.3.4 in-situ Treatment – bioventing

Bioventing is a mechanical means of remediation

in which oxygen is delivered to contaminated,

unsaturated soils by forced air movement (through

injection of air) to increase oxygen concentrations

and stimulate biodegradation of contaminants

in the subsurface. For further information on

bioventing as an in-situ remedial technique,

refer to the Bioventing Remediation Factsheet

in Appendix B.

3.3.5 no Action (risk Assessment)

The no action (or risk assessment) option

may be an appropriate in-situ management

method no unacceptable risk to human heath

and the environment is determined following

a risk assessment.

What is Risk Assessment?

A risk assessment is an appraisal of

the nature and magnitude of the human

health and/or ecological risks associated

with chemical contamination at a site.

A risk assessment considers:

Site-specific factors such as the existing/•

proposed land use and on-site/off-site

occupants;

Physico-chemical and bioavailability •

characteristics of particular contaminants;

Depth and distribution of the chemical •

contamination; and

Potential exposure setting for the possible •

human and ecological receptors.

What Does a Risk Assessment Involve?

Typically, a risk assessment is undertaken by an

external technical consultant who is a specialist

in the field of risk assessment. Risk assessments

are often a multi-disciplinary task and require input

from a range of professions so the risk assessor

must have access to, and be able to coordinate

inputs from multiple disciplines (NEPM 1999).

There are four main components of a risk

assessment:

1. Hazard Identification and Data Collection –

acquisition and analysis of data from the

site that may affect human health or the

environment. This may involve a review

of the site history, local geological and

hydrogeological regime, potential on-site and

offsite receptors, nature and extent of the

site contamination and evaluation/collection


of data from the installation of soil bores,

groundwater monitoring wells and vapour

sampling bores;

2. Toxicity Assessment – examines the

possible effects of the chemicals of

potential concern on human health and

the environment, and is used to assess the

levels of exposure that could give rise to

adverse effects. The toxicity assessment

considers the:

Nature of adverse effects related; –

Dose-response relationship for various –effects;

Weight of evidence for effects such –as carcinogenicity; and

Relevance of animal data to humans –(NEPM 1999).

3. Exposure Assessment – documents

the selection of potentially exposed

populations and exposure pathways

used in estimating the potential health risks

arising from exposure to the chemicals of

potential concern. The exposure assessment

examines the frequency, extent and duration

of exposures in the past, currently and in

the future.

4. Risk Characterisation – the purpose

of the risk characterisation is to combine

the results of the toxicity assessment (i.e.

the potential for health effects) with the

predicted exposures to determine whether

the chemicals of potential concern pose

an unacceptable health risk and therefore

what measures need to be taken to reduce

the risk. The risk assessment process is

depicted in Figure 5.

When a Risk Assessment Can Be Used

A risk assessment may be used:

To determine whether contamination poses •

an unacceptable risk for a given scenario,

existing or proposed (eg. A site development);

To develop site-specific remediation •

targets; and

To assess the adequacy of control •

measures for in-situ management of

contamination (eg. containment).

3.4 field TriAls

Once a remediation or management option has

been identified you may consider undertaking

a field trial of the option, or options, selected.

Field trials are typically undertaken to assess the

performance of the proposed remediation method

prior to committing time and resources to a full

scale remediation project.

Some key considerations when planning a remediation field trial include:

• Size and Scope of Trial – the size and

scope of the trial should be commensurate

with the volume of soil/sediment proposed

for treatment. Where a large soil/sediment

remediation project is proposed, undertaking

an initial field trial can result in significant cost

and time savings in the future;

• Trialling Multiple Remediation Options –

depending on the volume and composition

of the soil/sediment, a number of remediation

options may be considered suitable for

achieving the desired end-point. In this

scenario undertaking a field trial to assess

the performance of a number of remediation

options can result in significant cost and time

savings in the future; and

Figure 5 – Health and Environment Risk Assessment Model

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

site characterisation• nature and extent •of contaminationpotential to cause harm•data evaluation•

RISK CHARACTERISATION

likelihood of effects occurring•

uncertainty•

summarise and communicate•

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

receptor groups (land use)•contamination releases•exposure pathways•exposure concentrations• estimates of contaminant •intake

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

possible effects•

acceptable intakes•

carcinogens vs non-carcinogens•

ecological criteria•

• Design of Field Trial – when designing a field

trial you will need to consider similar elements

to a full scale trial. It is important to prepare a

Field Trial Plan which sets out:

Environmental risks (e.g. discharge to –environment) and controls (e.g. bunding);

Human heath risks (e.g. vapour emissions) –and controls (e.g. location of field trial and vapour capture and control);

Sampling requirements and –frequency monitoring of the soil/sediment during the implementation of the remediation trial; and

Proposed duration, and desired endpoint, –of the trial.

For large remediation projects, where

field trials are applicable, it is common for

Defence personnel to seek external technical

support (refer to Section 1.5) for assistance

in the selection of remedial options and the

implementation of field trials.



4.

Validation & Endpoint

As discussed in Section 2.2, following the implementation of remediation/management of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil/sediment, four potential endpoints are possible, these include:

Off-site disposal; •

Management ex-situ; •

Reuse of treated soil/sediment on-site; and •

Management in-situ. •

The validation requirements for each of these end

points vary based on whether an in-situ or ex-situ

remediation/management approach is selected.

This section is linked to Stage 4 (Validation &

Endpoint) of Figure 2.

4.1 hoW do i vAlidATe And documenT ThAT An endPoinT hAs been reAched?

4.1.1 ex-situ remediation/management Approach endpoints

When an ex-situ remediation/management

approach has been adopted validation of

the approach needs to be undertaken to

assess whether soil/sediment disposal off-site

or re-use can occur. To validate the success

of the treatment, representative soil samples

need to be collected and analysed for the key

chemicals of concern.

Soil/Sediment for Reuse

If treated soil/sediment are proposed for re-use

on-site, representative sample(s) of the material

should be collected and submitted to an analytical

laboratory for analysis of:

Total concentrations of the key contaminants •

of concern; and

(If necessary) a suite of chemicals set out •

in the National Environmental Protection

(Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure

Schedule B (1) Guideline on the Investigation

Levels for Soil and Groundwater (referred to

as the NEPM suite).

Depending on state or territory (refer to

Appendix A) you may also consider selecting

samples for ASTM neutral leach analysis to assess

the potential for treated soil/sediment to leach

contaminants when exposed to precipitation.

Validation & Endpoint

TPHs Speciation for Assessing Suitability for Reuse

In order to assess soil/sediment for reuse,

TPHs specification for aromatic and aliphatic

composition is recommended. Unless specifically

requested, analysis for TPHs is likely to be

reported as undifferentiated TPH fractions, namely

TPH C6 – C9, C10 – C14, C15 – C28, C29 – C36.

These fractions exhibit very different health and

ecological risk properties making it extremely

difficult to produce health and ecological risk

profiles that accurately model the effect of the

hydrocarbon contamination on human health and

the environment. The speciation of TPHs into the

aliphatic and aromatic fractions however, allows

use of criteria established in the NEPM of these

compounds, If a sample contains high levels

of TPHs but no identifier compounds (such as

volatile organic compounds) then speciation of

the TPHs should be undertaken to determine the

aromatic and aliphatic composition. The current

NEPM Health Investigation Levels (HILs)5 use the

aromatic and aliphatic composition to determine

human health risk. Based on the nominated land

use, the appropriate NEPM Health Investigation

Level should be adopted. Concentration of the

aromatic and aliphatic compounds below the

adopted HILs is suitable for reuse on site.

Soil/Sediment for Off-site Disposal

If treated soil/sediment is proposed for off-site

disposal (a) representative sample(s) of the

material should be collected and submitted to

an analytical laboratory and selected for total

concentration and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP) or Australian Standard Leaching

Procedure (ASLP) of the contaminants as required

by the State or Territory waste regulations

(refer to Appendix A).

4.1.2 in-situ remediation/ management Approach endpoints

Where in-situ remediation/management

is undertaken, in order to achieve a management

in-situ end-point, a Risk Assessment may be

required to assess whether following remediation,

an unacceptable risk to human health or

environment exists. Information with regard

to the Risk Assessment process is provided

in Section 3.3.5.

If an in-situ remediation/management approach

is undertaken it is likely that future monitoring

and management of the contaminated soil/

sediment may be required. On-going monitoring/

management may include regular:

Visual inspections of the integrity of the wall •

or capping (if containment is pursued);

Groundwater monitoring to assess the •

potential for the condition of the groundwater

at the source site to have changed; and

Vapour monitoring to assess the potential •

for vapour to be emanating from the site.

The presence of an in-situ contamination impact

should also be included in site management plans

(e.g. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) or

Contamination Management Plan). By updating

site management plans with this information:

The location of the contamination can

be communicated to Defence personnel

or contractors working at the site; and

Requirements for regular monitoring

can be documented and serve as a trigger

for undertaking monitoring.

4.2 WhAT if The oPTion selecTed does noT Achieve The desired end-PoinT?

If the selected remediation/management

approach is not successful in achieving the

desired endpoint you may consider:

Adjusting the selected remediation option •

to optimise the treatment approach/method;

Returning to the Remediation Options •

Screening Matrix (Section 3.2) to reconsider

the available options; and

Reconsidering the key constraints (Section •

2.1) and desired endpoint (Section 2.2).

5 It is noted that the current NEPM HILs are under revision may change in 2010.


2.

Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments


17 Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments 18

5.

Other Information & Key Contacts

If you have any questions or require further information with regard to the contents of this manual please contact a representative from the Defence Contamination Team, located at Brindabella Park, Canberra Airport, ACT, on (02) 6266 8058.

A list of Defence Regional personnel who

have experience in remediation of petroleum

impacted soil / sediment can be made available

by contacting the Defence Contamination Team.

Appendix A

Appendix ASummar y of State & Territor y Requiremnts

summAry of sTATe & TerriTory requiremenTs

This section provides an overview of the remediation / waste disposal regulatory framework for each state. It is noted that environmental and waste

regulations/legislation are dynamic and this section should be reviewed annually to ensure its’ contents is still relevant.

Defence maintains a Legal Obligations Register (LOR) to provide a system for identifying potential legal and other requirements that might be applicable to

Defence activities and to ensure accessibility to the detail of the requirement. The register provides detail on the extent of compliance, a gap analysis, action

to address gap and acceptance of the current position. The reader is encouraged to access the LOR to keep updated with regard to the state regulatory

framework for remediation / waste disposal.

new south Wales

Soil Remediation

The ‘Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd Edition) Section

4.3.2, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation’ ( specify that

soil remediation and management in NSW is to be implemented in the

following preferred order:

1. On-site treatment of the soil so that the contaminant is either destroyed

or the associated hazard is reduced to an acceptable level;

2. Off-site treatment of excavated soil so that the contaminant is either

destroyed or the associated hazard is reduced to an acceptable level,

after which the soil is returned to the site;

3. Removal of contaminated soil to an approved site or facility, followed

where necessary by replacement with clean fill; and

4. Consolidation and isolation of the soil on-site by contaminant within a

properly designed barrier.

While the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC)

does not endorse any particular remediation technology it has stated

(Auditor’s meeting 2008) that “land farming as a matter of principle is not

acceptable to the DECC” unless it can be showed that land framing is a

bioremediation technique.

Waste Classification and Disposal

The following excerpts are taken from the ‘Waste Classification Guidelines,

NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2008’.

Waste classification in NSW is undertaken using either the Specific

Contaminant Concentration (SCC) test or a combination of the SCC and

Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP). There are also a number

of wasters that are pre-classified.

The SCC test acts as an initial screening test for the classification of a waste.

Based on SCC alone, the test value for each contaminant must be less than

or equal to the Contaminant Threshold (CT) specified in the guidelines for

that contaminant.

To establish the waste classification using both SCC and TCLP, the test

values for each chemical contaminant must also be compared to the

CT values as specified in the guidelines. Depending on the contaminant

concentrations, waste can be classified into the following groups:

General solid waste ≤ SCC1 ≤ TCLP1. •

Restricted solid waste ≤ SCC2 ≤ TCLP2. •

Hazardous waste > SCC2 > TCLP2. •

If any of the specified SCC or TCLP threshold values are exceeded for

general solid waste, the waste must be classified as restricted solid

waste. If any of the SCC or TCLP threshold values are exceeded for

Restricted Solid Waste, the waste must be classified as Hazardous

Waste.

northern Territory

Soil Remediation

The Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Infrastructure,

Planning and Environment is responsible for the implementation of

the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) in the Northern

Territory. Contamination resulting from activities impacting land and water

are dealt with under provisions of the Waste Management and Pollution

Control Act 1998. Auditing of contaminated sites in the Northern

Territory is also currently administered under the Waste Management

and Pollution Control Act 2007.


The Northern Territory Government currently has no official position

with regard to which state waste regulatory guidelines they default to.

However it is noted that key waste management facilities in the Northern

Territory operate in accordance with NSW Assessment, Classification

& Management of Liquid and Non-liquid Waste, Department of

Environment and Conservation, 1999. Note that NSW currently has an

updated (2008) version of this guideline, which the Northern Territory

does not currently refer to.


http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/clm/auditorglines06121.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/clm/auditorglines06121.pdf

http://intranet.defence.gov.au/environment/legal_registers/main.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/08202classifyingwaste.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/08202classifyingwaste.pdf

http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/legislat.nsf/d989974724db65b1482561cf0017cbd2/344a677ab45401df692572a0001de26d?OpenDocument




http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/envguidlns/waste_guide.pdf




Appendix A

queensland

Soil Remediation

The Draft Guidelines for the Assessment & Management of Contaminated

Land in Queensland, Department of Environment (DoE, 1998) specifies

that the DoE (now Department of Environment and Resource Management

DERM) is committed to minimising the quantities disposed in licensed

landfills in keeping with national waste reduction targets and encourages

remediation of soils containing readily degradable contaminants.

The preferred order or options for site clean-up and management are:

on-site treatment of the soil so that the contaminant is destroyed or the •

associated hazard is reduced to an acceptable level, and

off-site treatment of excavated soil so that the contaminant is destroyed •

or the associated hazard is reduced to an acceptable level, after which

the soil is returned to the site.

The following inserts have been taken from the Queensland Government,

DERM Website (http://www.derm.qld.gov.au).

Removing Contaminated Soil

If disposal is the only viable option, all possible efforts should be made to

reduce the volume of soil requiring disposal. Very highly contaminated or

leachable soils should be separated from less contaminated soils. Separation

will reduce volumes requiring specific treatment and will significantly reduce

the disposal and treatment costs associated with highly contaminated soil.

An in-situ Stage 2 investigation (see the DERM’s Draft Guidelines for

the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Land in Queensland),

based on laboratory sampling, will normally be required to delineate

the extent of contamination and determine the volume and level of

contamination before commencement of any excavation. This will ensure

that mixing of contaminated soils with uncontaminated soils does not occur.

Reducing contaminant concentrations by dilution is not an acceptable

remediation strategy.


Queensland have no specific guiding document with relation to

waste classification and disposal. Guidelines are, however set by the

individual landfills that are run by the local councils. Brisbane has the

majority of suitable landfill sites in Queensland that are set up to accept

contaminated waste.

victoria

Soil Remediation

Victoria EPA has recently re-developed the framework under which they

administer and provide guidance on industrial waste re-use and disposal.

They have provided a one stop shop web page for all elements of industrial

waste legislation, policy, classication; sampling and registration. This web

page can be found at:

Victorian EPA Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines

All guidelines on waste classification and soil sampling can be found

on the above web page.

The Victorian EPA expects that any soil will be managed in

accordance with the waste hierarchy of avoidance, reuse, recycling,

recovery of energy, treatment, containment and disposal as set out

in the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Further to this, where it is proposed to manage contaminated soil

on-site (e.g. by treatment and re-use) EPA will require that the environmental

outcome is equivalent to that which would be achieved through off-site

treatment at a licensed soil remediation facility.

The EPA Victoria recommends that for soils contaminated with Total

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) suitable treatment technologies include

bioremediation and thermal treatment.

Soil Sampling

Vic EPA provides guidance on how to sample contamination to determine

its hazard category and reuse classification

Soil Sampling Guidance

Sampling and Analysis of waters, wastewaters, soils, waste


Following this sampling, the soil can be categorised into a Hazard Waste

Category using the following guidance:

Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management

Guidance is also specifically supplied for classifying hydrocarbon

contaminated soil where reuse is viable option. These guidelines are at

Contaminated Soil – Organic Compounds

Tasmania

Soil Remediation

The Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste

Management) Regulations, Department of Tourism, Arts and Environment

2000 (the ‘Regulation) encourages effective waste management by

promoting on-site remediation, treatment and/or re-use, where appropriate,

as the preferred options for dealing with contaminated soil. In accordance

with the hierarchy of waste management options, direct disposal of soil to

landfills should be used only when no other approved method of dealing with

the contaminated soil is available. If disposal is the only viable management

option, all possible efforts should be made to reduce the volume of material

requiring disposal by minimising excavated volumes and segregating and

sorting of wastes prior to disposal.’

Further to this, Information Bulletin No. 108, Landfarming Petroleum

Contaminated Soil, Department of Tourism, Arts and Environment 2000

outlines that:

‘Under suitable conditions, landfarming is an effective bioremediation

technology for reducing concentrations of nearly all of the constituents

of petroleum products typically found at petroleum storage sites. In the

hierarchy of remedial options, this Division favours appropriately managed

landfarming over the option of off-site soil disposal.’

Appendix A


The Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste

Management) Regulations, Department of Tourism, Arts and Environment

2000 define criteria used for the classification of contaminated soil that

requires treatment and/or off-site disposal, and outlines the management

of each classification.

Criteria as listed in the Regulation are maximum total concentrations

and leachable concentrations for specific contaminants that are used

as a guide to classify soil for off-site disposal. The Environment Division

uses 4 categories to classify contaminated soil: (Level 1) Fill Material;

(Level 2) Low Level Contaminated Soil; (Level 3) Contaminated Soil; and

(Level 4) Contaminated Soil for Remediation. Generally, where a leachable

concentration is prescribed, that value takes precedence over the total

concentration and is used as the sole determinant of final classification

for disposal. Also, in-situ sampling is generally not recommended for

classification of soils that are to be excavated later for disposal.

south Australia

Soil Remediation

The primary regulatory requirements in relation to remediation and the

environment in South Australia are the:

• Environment Protection Act 1993 (the Act), Regulations and

Environment Protection Policies (EPPs); and

• National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination)

Measure (NEPM), 1999.

The document Soil Bioremediation, EPA Guidelines, 2005 states that the

EPA supports and encourages the controlled use of bioremediation to assist

in the remediation of site contamination in South Australia, particularly when

the treated soil is suitable for reuse (e.g. on-site backfill), thereby reducing

disposal of waste soil to landfill.

Further to this the document Soil Bioremediation (EPA 2005) states

that the EPA considers that landfarming may be an acceptable form of

bioremediation only “on large isolated sites that are remote from potentially

susceptible receptors or within approved EPA-licensed facilities where

conditions are included in the EPA authorisation”

Consideration should be given to the NEPM hierarchy for site remediation or

management, outlined below from the most preferred to the least preferred:

1) On-site treatment of the chemical substances to reduce risk to an acceptable level;

2) Off-site treatment of excavated soil to reduce risk to an acceptable level, after which the treated soil is returned to the site;

3) Containment of soil on site with a properly designed barrier; and

4) Disposal of affected soil to an approved landfill.


There are no specific documents or guidelines relating to waste

classification and disposal for South Australia. Information suggests

that each landfill in South Australia holds its own classification criteria

and waste must be classified and disposed of in a case-by-case basis.

When a waste is to be disposed, the landfill must be contacted and

the relevant paperwork can be acquired.

Upon speaking with one of the major landfill facilities in South Australia,

their three classifications for soil are:

1) Waste fill;

2) Intermediate landfill cover; and

3) Low-level contaminated soil.

Western Australia

Soil Remediation

To meet the EPA’s objectives and achieve the desired outcomes, the

following principles should be considered and addressed when determining

remediation methods or options for the remediation of contaminated land:

Principle 1: Contaminated material shall preferably be either treated

on-site and the contaminants reduced to acceptable levels, or be treated

off-site and returned for reuse after the contaminants have been reduced

to acceptable levels.

Principle 2: Disposal of contaminated material to an approved waste

disposal facility or landfill. ‘Cap and contain’ management options will only

be considered if:

a) treatment of the contaminated material is shown or demonstrated not to be practicable;

b) the options to dispose to landfill or ‘cap and contain’ are undertaken in an environmentally acceptable manner; and

c) the risk of disturbance of the contaminant exceeds the risk of leaving it undisturbed and contained on site.

The Bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils in Western

Australia, Department of Environment (DoE), Draft 2004 was developed

to encourage a consistent approach to contaminated site assessment and

management. The following statements have been taken from the report and

outline the DOE’s (now DEC – Department of Environment and Conservation)

position on remediation methods:

‘The DoE supports the use of bioremediation for hydrocarbon contaminated

soils where the contaminated soil can be treated to enable it to be used as a

resource (e.g. backfill), to reduce disposal of soil to landfill and where works

are managed so as not to pose a risk to the environment or human health.’

‘The DoE does not consider the stockpiling and tilling of hydrocarbon

impacted soils as an acceptable remediation method. This process merely

changes the form of contamination to the vapour phase rather than

reducing the total load into the environment. The DoE does not endorse

bioremediation of hydrocarbon-impacted soils in residential areas due to

public concerns with issues such as odour, dust and noise emissions.’


http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p00090aa.pdf

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p00090aa.pdf

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/waste/industrial-waste-guidelines.asp

http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce90001cbb5/744c1556fb57f75dca2575e4002d81c4/$FILE/IWRG702.pdf

http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce90001cbb5/d90f1ae51cb8f7a2ca2575df002086bd/$FILE/IWRG701.pdf

http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce90001cbb5/04bcd9704aec213cca2575e500213e3a/$FILE/IWRG621.pdf

http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce90001cbb5/5aa23d91fb59116bca2575e5001d1018/$FILE/IWRG424.pdf

http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=%2B218%2B2000%2BAT%40EN%2B20081113000000;histon=;prompt=;rec=-1;term=



http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=1789

http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=1789




http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/documents.php?q=guide+soil

http://portal.environment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/DOE_ADMIN/GUIDELINE_REPOSITORY/FINAL%20-%20VERSION%20BIOREMEDIATION%20GUIDELINES.PDF

http://portal.environment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/DOE_ADMIN/GUIDELINE_REPOSITORY/FINAL%20-%20VERSION%20BIOREMEDIATION%20GUIDELINES.PDF


Appendix B


The document Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996, As Amended, Department of Environment is the following categories of waste:

Class 1 (inert Landfill), Class II (Putrescible Landfill), Class III (Putrescible Landfill), Class IV (Secure Landfill) and Class V (Intractable Landfill). The following six

steps outline the waste classification process:

Step 1 Ensure that an assessment needs to be done The broad classifications used in Western Australia when assessing wastes for landfill disposal are described in the guidelines along with detailed examples of the specific waste types involved. If a waste can be classified according to the table, there is no requirement for more detailed assessment.

Step 2 Assess the waste If the waste cannot be classified in Step 1, based on an assessment of the waste source and characteristics, determine the concentration of relevant contaminants in the waste.

Step 3 Compare total concentration values with CT criteria as outlined in guidelines

Compare the contaminant concentrations with the maximum Contaminant Threshold (CT) values in the guidelines and assign a classification for each contaminant. Provisionally classify the waste according to the highest category assigned to any contaminant. If this classification is satisfactory, dispose of the waste accordingly.

Step 4 Determine contaminant ASLP leachate concentrations If the classification in Step 2 is not acceptable, or any contaminant concentration exceeds the relevant CT value, determine the Australian Standard Leaching Procedure (ASLP) leachate concentrations for all relevant contaminants.

Step 5 Compare total and leachate concentrations with CL and ASLP criteria as outlined in guidelines

Compare the contaminant ASLP concentrations and total concentrations with the ASLP and Concentration Limit (CL) values. Provisionally classify the waste in the highest category assigned to any contaminant. If this classification is satisfactory, dispose of the waste accordingly.

Step 6 Test the immobilized waste against the ASLP criteria as outlined in guidelines

If the classification in Step 4 is unacceptable, apply some form of immobilisation to the waste, then, after further leachate testing, apply the ASLP criteria only, to determine the appropriate waste classification as set out in Step 5. Encapsulated waste need not be further tested, but approval of the encapsulation method must be obtained from the Department of Environment (DoE). Note that separate DoE approval is not required for disposal of immobilized waste, but it must be disposed of as follows:

Immobilised or encapsulated Class V waste - to Class IV landfill. •

Immobilised or encapsulated Class IV waste - to Class III landfill. •

Immobilised Class III waste - to Class II landfill.•

Table Notes 1 USEPA How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, EPA 510-R-04-002, May 2004

Appendix BRemediation Options Facts Sheets

biopile remediation

What is Biopile Remediation?

Under optimal soil conditions (non-compacted, sandy loam is ideal), indigenous

microorganisms can use hydrocarbons present in the soil substrate as a food source

and convert them to carbon dioxide and water.

Biopiling is a technology that uses the bioremediation process to economically

cleanup hydrocarbon-contaminated soils containing petrol, diesel, and jet fuels. These

systems typically consist of an aeration system to provide oxygen to the microbes, an

irrigation/nutrient injection system to provide nutrients and moisture after pile construction,

and a leachate collection system for controlling excess moisture in the pile. A liner, berm,

and cover protect the soil piles from storm events and prevent the spread of contaminants.

Remediation times vary depending on hydrocarbon concentrations, soil, nutrients,

temperature, and microbial conditions.

Essential Biopile Components

Table 1 summarises the applicability and constraints of biopiles with respect to contaminants, climatic conditions and soil types.

Table 1 Biopile Overview

item comments/Possible solutionsApproximate Cost$40-100/tonne of soil treated1

Chemicals of Concern Petrol, diesel or jet fuel Chemical parameters: •TotalTPH<50,000mg/kg

If heavy metals are greater than 2,500 mg/kg, bacterial growth may be inhibited. If chemical parameters are outside these specified ranges, other remedial systems may need to be considered.

Appendix B

Ideal Climatic Conditions Less than 750 mm of annual precipitation Ambient temperature of 10-45°C (at least 4 months/yr) Light or infrequent winds

If rainfall is greater enclosing biopile under roof or impervious cover may be necessary Biopiles should be suitable for most Australian locations If high winds are frequent, windrows, covering the biopiles or spraying to reduce dust or other protective measures may be necessary

Soil Characteristics Non clay soil (clay prevents effective aeration) pH between 6.0 to 8.0 Carbon : Nitrogen : Phosphorus (C:N:P) ratio of between 100:10:1 and 100:1.0:0.5 Moisture Content between 40-60%

If clay is present, mechanical shredding of soil, and/or soil amendments (gypsum, sawdust or straw) may be necessary If pH it outside of specified range, site specific testing may need to be conducted to assess biopiles design. Nutrient addition may be necessary(example:manure)If<40%moistureadditionisnecessary.If>60%waterdrainageand/orimperviouscovershouldbeconsidered.

Bacteria–HeterotrophicPlateCount>103CFU/gram If<103CFU/gramtoxicconditionsmaybepresent,furtherevaluationisnecessary(soilsamplingandanalyticalanalysis).Notethatsamples taken for HPC analysis must arrive at the laboratory within 48 hrs and therefore this analysis may not be achievable at remote sites.

System Construction

Bioplie systems can be set up in two ways – temporary and permanent. In the temporary system, the biopile is built on top of a clean soil layer over

a liner1 and base. In the permanent system, a concrete pad replaces the clean soil layer. Temporary facility construction costs are less than permanent

concrete facilities. The major construction steps for a biopile remediation facility are:

Choose site (level area not located in a flood plain)•

Prepare site for padbase construction•

Construct pile base•

Install liner and protection over liner to prevent puncture during placement of soil to be biopiled•

Construct clean soil layer •

Install piping for vapour extraction/air injection unit•

Install irrigation/nutrient injection system •

Install leachate collection system•

Load soil into facility and begin remediation•

A typical biopile system configuration is presented in Figure 1 below, adapted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),

2006 Technology Screening Matrix.

Typical Biolpiling Operation

Air Injection(CR Extraction)

Contaminated Soil Berm

Soil VapourMonitoring Probes Air Inlet/Exhaust

Leachate Collection and Treatment (Optional)

Nutrient and Moisture Addition

1 Generally compacted clay or impermeable rolls of high density polyethylene (HDPE) are used for liners

Figure 1 – Typical biopile construction


http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=4051&Itemid=99999999


Appendix B

System Monitoring

In order to ensure the biopile is operating effectively and to assess possible contaminant migration to soil, surface water and groundwater, regular

monitoring is necessary. Endpoint monitoring is also necessary to assess which of the three endpoints will be applicable: off-site disposal, ex-situ

management or re-use on-site (refer to Section 3.0). Table 2 summarises information on biopile monitoring and sampling.

Table 2 Biopile Monitoring Overview

function medium sampling location Analytes to be monitored

suggested frequency

Monitor Biodegradation Soil Biopile HPC1, CoC concentrations, pH, ammonia, phosphorus, moisture

Monthly to quarterly

Air Biopile CO2, O2, CH4, H2S, CoCs Weekly for 3 months, reduced to monthly or quarterly thereafter

Contaminant Migration Air Ambient CoCs, particulates Quarterly

Surface Water Runoff from biopile As required / if required by statutory stormwater discharge permit

Groundwater Groundwater downgradient of biopile CoCs To be assessed on a case by case basis

Endpoint Monitoring Soil Soil beneath biopile (if unlined) CoCs Before and after biopiling

Soil Biopile To be undertaken In accordance to relevant State Guidelines (refer to Appendix A)

Table Notes Biopile Remediation 1 Note that samples taken for HPC analysis must arrive at the laboratory within 48 hrs and therefore this analysis may not be achievable

at remote sites. COC: Contaminants of concern Source USEPA How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan

Reviewers, EPA 510-R-04-002, May 2004

Bioventing Remediation 1 USEPA How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan Reviewers,

EPA 510-R-04-002, May 2004

bioventing remediation

What is Bioventing?

Bioventing is a mechanical means of remediation in which oxygen is

delivered to contaminated, unsaturated soils by forced air movement

(through injection of air) to increase oxygen concentrations and stimulate

biodegradation of contaminants in the subsurface.

Bioventing is an in situ remediation technology that stimulates the natural

in situ biodegradation of any aerobically degradable compounds in soil, by

providing additional oxygen to existing soil microorganisms. Bioventing is

based on injection of air at low flow rates to provide only enough oxygen

to sustain microbial activity. Oxygen is most commonly supplied through

direct air injection into the contaminated soil. In addition to degradation of

adsorbed and residual-phase petroleum hydrocarbons can be biodegraded

as hydrocarbon vapours move slowly through biologically active soil.

Essential Bioventing Components

Table 1 summarises the applicability and constraints of bioventing with respect to contaminants, climatic conditions and soil types.

Table 1 Bioventing Overview


Typical SizeIn-situ technique, size based on area of contamination • The radius of influence for one vapour extraction well can range from between •0.15 m and 30 m

Radius of influence is dependent on soil type (i.e. permeability). There may be significant limitations with applying this technique in fine grained (i.e. clayey or silty soils).

Appendix B

Chemicals of Concern Petrol, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel or fuel oils Physiochemical and thermodynamic parameters:

TotalTPH<25,000mg/kg•Vapourpressure<0.5mmHg•Boiling<250-300°C•HenryLawconstant>100atm•

Most effective for more volatile fuels (petrol or kerosene) If heavy metals are greater than 2,500 mg/kg, bacterial growth may be inhibited. If chemical parameters are outside these specified ranges, other remedial systems may need to be considered.

Ideal climatic conditions Ambient temperature of 10-45°C (at least 4 months/yr) Bioventing should be suitable for most Australian locations

Soil Characteristics Non clay soil (clay prevents effective aeration) Intrinsicpermeability(k)of>10-10 cm-1 Depthtogroundwater>1.0mbglpHbetween6.0-8.0

Carbon : Nitrogen : Phosphorus (C:N:P) ratio of between 100:10:1 and 100:1.0:0.5

Moisture Content between 40-85% Bacteria–HeterotrophicPlateCount>103 CFU/gram

If clay is present, bioventing is not considered a suitable remediation technique. Consider biopiles or landfarming as alternatives. Siltysand,sand,gravelandsomesiltsgenerallymeetthisrequirement.Ifk<10-10 cm-1, bioventing may not be a suitable remediation technique. If the depth to groundwater is between 1.0 mbgl and 3.0 mbgl dewatering may be needed. Ifdepthtogroundwateris<1.0mbglbioventingisnoteffective.If pH is outside this range, pH adjustment may be warranted. Nutrient solution addition may be necessary via nutrient delivery system. If the moisture content is less than 40% addition of water is necessary. If the moisture content is greater than 85 % groundwater pumping or impervious cover (if rainfall is high) should be considered. If<103 CFU/gram toxic conditions may be present, further evaluation is necessary (soil sampling and analytical analysis)

System Construction

Once a bioventing system has been designed (and a pilot trial successfully completed) the main elements of constructing a bioventing system are as follows:

Installation of extraction (or injection) wells•

Installation of pipe infrastructure•

Vapour treatment (and pre-treatment if necessary) system•

Installation of nutrient addition system (such as injection wells or trenches) (if necessary)•

Installation of blowers•

Installation of instrumentation and controls•

Installation of sampling/monitoring points•

A typical bioventing system configuration is presented in Figure 1 below, adapted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),

2006 Technology Screening Matrix.

Typical Bioventing System

Figure 1 – Typical bioventing system construction

Air Injection(CR Extraction)

UST

Blower

Vapour Treatment (If Needed)

Atmospheric Discharge

Vapour Phase

Adsorbed Phase

Dissolved Phase

Optional Depending on the site Condtions

Nutrients

Groundwater Gradient

Air Flow

Air Flow



Appendix B

System Monitoring

In order to ensure the bioventing system is operating effectively, regular monitoring of environmental and mechanical parameters is necessary.

Table 2 summarises the key monitoring and sampling requirements during operation of the bioventing system.

Table 2 Bioventing System Monitoring Overview


suggested frequency

Monitor Biodegradation Air Extraction vents, manifold and effluent stack CoCs, CO2, O2 Weekly to fortnightly (daily during system start up)

Mechanical Extraction vents, manifold and effluent stack Vacuum and flow Weekly to fortnightly (daily during system start up)

Contaminant Migration Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater downgradient of bioventing area

CoCs Annually

Endpoint Monitoring Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater downgradient of bioventing area CoCs, to be undertaken In accordance to relevant State Guidelines (refer to Appendix A)

Soil Bioventing area

Once CoCs and carbon dioxide concentrations from the soil vapour (gas collected from the extraction vents) system modification or system termination

may be appropriate.

containment Walls

What is a Containment Wall?

A cut-off or containment wall is a physical subsurface barrier designed to contain, capture or divert a dissolved or non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)

contaminated groundwater plume present at a site. The main purpose of constructing a containment wall is to prevent the migration of contamination,

usually offsite. Containment walls may be used as a temporary short term measure while a remedial strategy is being developed or as a long-term measure

in combination with other remedial techniques.

Essential Containment Wall Components

Table 1 summarises the applicability and constraints of containment walls with respect to contaminants, climatic conditions and soil types.

Table 2 Containment Wall Overview

item comments/Possible solutionsApproximate CostCost will be dependant on site-specific conditions, including size of contamination source zone and depth to the aquitard and/or bedrock.

Typical SizeIn-situ technique, size based on area of contamination and depth to aquitard.

Chemicals of Concern Petrol, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel or fuel oils

Containment walls may also be used for non-hydrocarbon contaminants

Ideal climatic conditions Technique can be applied in all climates.

Soil Characteristics Technique can be applied to most soil types.

Depthtogroundwater<15.0mbgl

pH is less than 4.5, Chloride greater than 12,000 mg/LSulphate greater than 2,500 mg/L

Depending on the permeability of the soils, certain design features may need to be considered including, but not limited to, groundwater dewatering bores, funnel and gate construction or a partially permeable wall to allow groundwater to pass through the wall. If the depth to groundwater is greater than 15.0 mbgl, construction costs may make the construction of a containment wall unviable. If pH, chloride or sulphate are outside these ranges, construction materials will need to consider these parameters.

Table Notes Bioventing Remediation COC: Contaminants of concern Source USEPA How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide

For Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, EPA 510-R-04-002, May 2004

Appendix B

System Design and Construction

Containment walls are typically designed to anchor into the bedrock

or aquitard unit. These structures may be constructed as a slurry wall

(bentonite), grout curtain or sheet pile wall. Background information on

each technique, and the specific considerations of each technique is

presented below. A typical containment wall layout is presented in Figure 1.

Slurry Walls and Grout Curtains

Slurry walls are installed by excavating a trench which is then filled with

a slurry which, when cured, forms a low permeability barrier. The slurry

typically comprises bentonite and water. The slurry mix can be modified in

response to site-specific conditions, such as the presence of the water table

or the permeability of the strata into which the wall is installed. Modifications

to the slurry mix can include adding soil and more bentonite to enhance

solidification and in other cases the slurry contains cementing agents so

that it cures and hardens over time.

Grout curtains are similar to slurry walls except that the slurry (the grout)

is injected into the soil through drilled boreholes instead of filling a trench.

Injection is achieved using high pressure to force the grout slurry into the

pore spaces of the soil. Typically a drill rig is used to drill the holes where

the grout is injected. Injection is performed at numerous locations along

the wall alignment so that an impermeable barrier or “curtain” is formed.

Many different types of grout are available including bentonite, cement,

silicates, ligneous materials and organic chemicals. Grout can be injected

selectively to only a certain depth if required.

Slurry walls and grout curtains are long-term structures that are often

installed in combination with an impermeable capping material to prevent

infiltration of rainwater.

Sheet Pile Walls

An impermeable wall can be created by driving (preferably self-sealing) sheet

piles into the ground along the alignment of the containment wall. Sheet piles

are sections of steel plate, usually corrugated for strength, which can be

driven into the ground using a pile driver. The steel plate sheets interlock at

the edges so a continuous subsurface wall can be guaranteed. Small gaps

do exist at the interlocking points so a water-tight seal may be difficult to

achieve, however the gaps can be filled with grout, may seal itself with fine

particles over time or be joined by use of self sealing sheet piles.

An alternate sheet piling material is the PlastipileTM; sheet piling

manufactured from recycled plastic. This type of sheet piling can form

a water-tight retaining wall of varying heights and can be built in locations

where access for large equipment is limited.

Sheet pile walls are considered a short-term structure that may be employed

as an interim measure while a detailed remedial strategy is being developed.

Geosynthetic Clay Liners

In additional to the more traditional techniques mentioned above,

an alternate method using a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) can also be

used as a containment wall. GCLs are a liner technology that combines

geosynthetics and clay materials. The GCL is made from polypropylene

geotextiles and premium grade sodium bentonite powder and is fibre-

reinforced by needle-punching the composite across the entire surface area

of the product. Unique to this product, is the high tenacity fibres that are

thermally-locked to ensure high long-term shear strength.

Due to its low permeability and high internal shear strength GCLs have

a good liquid containment capability and have been used in reservoirs,

wetlands and irrigation canals, as well as effluent, industrial and landscaped

ponds and lagoons.

Using the GCL technique, a 0.6 m trench is excavated and material

stockpiled, the geosynthetic liner is then installed and the stockpiled

material can then be used as backfill to reinstate the trench.

Figure 1 – Typical containment wall construction (slurry wall pictured) (Source: United States Naval Facilities Engineering Command)

Fill

Bentonite Slurry

Aquitard

Contaminant Plume

Water Table



Appendix B

System Monitoring

As a containment wall is a physical barrier the integrity of the barrier

should be monitored regularly. The requirement for monitoring should

be included in site management plans, for example an Environmental

Management Plan (EMP), so that:

The location of the containment wall can be communicated •

to Defence personnel or contractors working at the site; and

Requirements for regular monitoring can be documented and •

serve as a trigger for undertaking the monitoring.

landfarm remediation

What is Landfarming?

Landfarming involves the application of excavated contaminated soil in a thin

layer across the ground. Minerals, nutrients, moisture and air (via aeration

of the soil) are then added to the thin layer of contaminated soil to stimulate

the indigenous microorganisms (usually present in most soils), which use

hydrocarbons as a food source and convert them to carbon dioxide and water.

Table Notes Landfarm Remediation 1 USEPA How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan Reviewers,

EPA 510-R-04-002, May 2004

Monitoring of the integrity of the containment system may include:

Visual inspections of the barrier wall and capping; and•

Groundwater monitoring to assess the potential for the integrity of the

barrier system to have been breached and the potential for groundwater

impacts to be migrating from the source zone.

Landfarms are facilities that use the bioremediation process to economically cleanup hydrocarbon-contaminated soils containing petrol, diesel, and jet

fuels. These systems typically involve the application of hydrocarbon contaminated soils to a vacant land area (or paddock), which are then aerated via

tilling or ploughing. If necessary nutrients, minerals and moisture can be added when the landfarm is tilled or ploughed. Landfarms may also be constructed

using an impermeable liner underneath the area (to control contaminant migration) and a leachate collection system for controlling excess moisture in the

landfarm. Remediation times vary depending on hydrocarbon concentrations (and type), soil, nutrients, temperature, and microbial conditions. As landfarms

may not be permitted in all States and Territories, the relevant State or Federal legislation must be checked before undertaking landfarming for hydrocarbon

remediation.

Essential Landfarm Components

Table 1 summarises the applicability and constraints of landfarms with respect to contaminants, climatic conditions and soil types.

Table 1 Landfarm Overview


Typical SizeOverall size will vary depending on the land available•Typical depth varies from 300 mm to 600 mm•

Depth of land farm depends on the equipment used to till or plough.

Chemicals of Concern Petrol, diesel, jet fuel or lubricating oil.

Chemical parameters:TotalTPH<50,000mg/kg•

Volatile components (BTEX) should be pre-treated (or potential emissions controlled) to avoid volatilisation during application of this process.If heavy metals are greater than 2,500 mg/kg, bacterial growth may be inhibited. If chemical parameters are outside these specified ranges, other remedial systems may need to be considered.

Climatic ConditionsLess than 750 mm of annual precipitationAmbient temperature of 10-45°C (at least 4 months/yr)Light or infrequent winds

If rainfall is greater, enclosing the landfarming area under roof or impervious cover may be necessaryLand farms should be suitable for most Australian locationsIf high winds are frequent, windrows, covering the land farm or spraying to reduce dust or other protective measures may be necessary

Appendix B

1 Generally compacted clay or impermeable rolls of high density polyethylene (HDPE) are used for liners

Soil Characteristics Non clay soil (clay prevents effective aeration)

pH between 6.0-8.0

Carbon : Nitrogen : Phosphorus (C:N:P) ratio of between 100:10:1 and 100:1.0:0.5Moisture Content between 40-60%

Bacteria–HeterotrophicPlateCount>103 CFU/gram

If clay is present mechanical shredding of soil, and/or soil amendments (gypsum, sawdust or straw) may be necessaryIf pH it outside this specified range, site specific testing may need to be conducted to assess the land farm design.Nutrient addition may be necessary (example: manure) If the moisture content is less than 40%, water addition is necessary. If the moisture content is greater than 60 % water drainage and/or impervious cover should be considered. If<103 CFU/gram toxic conditions may be present, furtherevaluation is necessary (soil sampling and analytical analysis). Note that samples taken for HPC analysis must arrive at the laboratory within 48 hrs and therefore this analysis may not be achievable at remote sites.

System Construction

The major construction steps for a landfarm remediation facility are:

Choose site (large level area not located in a flood plain)•

Construct berms around perimeter of area into which landfarming is to take place•

Install liner• 1 (if necessary) and install protection over liner to prevent puncture during construction

Install leachate collection system (if necessary)•

Load soil into landfarming area and begin remediation•

Other important considerations for the construction of landfarms are soil erosion control. The soils to be treated may be placed in windrows to lessen the

effect of high winds. The landfarm may also require frequent spraying to control dust and monitoring of odours and volatile contaminants.

A typical landfarm configuration is presented in Figure 1 below, adapted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2006 Technology

Screening Matrix.

Typical landfarm process

Tilling for Soil Aeration

Porous Cup Lysameters

Leachate Collection and Treatment (Optional)

Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Contaminated Soil

Berm

Figure 1 – Typical landform process



Appendix C

Appendix CFurther Referencesremedial Technologies

evaluations/selection of Technologies

other relevant information

remedial Technologies

General Remedial Technologies

CLU-IN Technology Focus – US EPA

The CLU-IN Technology Focus area bundles information for particular

technologies that may be used in a variety of applications. This information

is presented in categories such as Overview, Guidance, Application, Training

and Additional Resources. Technology Focus will be continuously updated

with information from federal cleanup programs, state sources, universities,

non-profit organizations, peer-reviewed publications, and public-private

partnerships. A wide range of remedial technologies are included.

In-situ and Ex-situ Biodegradation Technologies – US EPA

This EPA document summarises the latest available information on

selected treatment and site re-mediation technologies and related issues.

The document is designed to help remedial project managers (RPMs),

on-scene coordinators (OSCs), contractors, and other site managers

understand the type of data and site characteristics needed to evaluate

a technology for potential applicability to their specific sites.

System Monitoring

In order to ensure the landfarm is operating effectively and to assess possible contaminant migration to soil, surface water and groundwater,

regular monitoring is necessary. Endpoint monitoring is also necessary to assess which of the three endpoints will be applicable: off-site disposal,

ex-situ management or re-use on-site (refer to Section 3.0). Table 2 summarises the key monitoring and sampling requirements of land farming.

Table 2 Landfarming Monitoring Overview


suggested frequency

Monitor Biodegradation Soil Landfarm HPC1, CoC concentrations, pH, ammonia, phosphorus, moisture

Monthly (or quarterly if land farming operation is long term)

Contaminant Migration Air Ambient CoCs, particulates Quarterly (if landfarming operation is long-term)

Surface Water Runoff from landfarm As required/If required by statutory stormwater discharge permit

Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater downgradient of landfarm

CoCs To be assessed on a case by case basis

Endpoint Monitoring Soil Soil beneath landfarm (if unlined) CoCs Before and after land farming

Soil Bioventing area To be undertaken In accordance to relevant State Guidelines (refer to Appendix A)

Table Notes Landfarm Remediation 1 Note that samples taken for HPC analysis must arrive at the laboratory within 48 hrs and therefore this analysis may not be achievable

at remote sites. COC: Contaminants of concern Source USEPA How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan

Reviewers, EPA 510-R-04-002, May 2004

Bioremediation General

EPA Guidelines: Soil Remediation – S.A. EPA, 2005

This document aims to assist those undertaking bioremediation in

South Australia to comply with their general environmental duty (s25 of

the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the Act)). It does not provide direction

on the methods of bioremediation, rather it outlines appropriate management

measures that can minimise environmental impacts arising from the process.

Biopiles Biopile

Design and Construction – US EPA.

This EPA document summarises the latest available information on

selected treatment and site re-mediation technologies including biopiles.

The document provides some technical guidance on the design, operation,

and maintenance of biopiles to remediate soils contaminated with petroleum-

based organic contaminants.

Bioventing & Soil Vapour Extraction

Bioventing – AF Center for Engineering and the Environment

This website provides general information regarding bioventing and its

use for petroleum-contaminated sites. Topics covered include development

history, cost estimates, site screening, when to use, when to avoid and

examples of bioventing sites. This site also provides links to references in

regards to procedures, principles and practices of bioventing.

Appendix C

other relevant information

Acid Sulfate Soils

Draft Strategy for Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils – Victoria EPA 2009.

A draft strategy for coastal acid sulfate soils (CASS) in Victoria,

developed by the Victorian Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils steering committee,

has been released for public comment. The draft strategy builds on existing

policies for CASS in Victoria with a particular focus on strengthening the

identification of CASS and its potential effects at the planning stage. It aims

to ensure that risks are identified and management strategies to avoid

disturbing CASS are put in place.

Site Contamination – Acid Sulfate Soil Materials – S.A. EPA, 2007.

This guideline has been prepared to provide information to those

involved in activities that may disturb acid sulfate soil materials (including

soil, sediment and rock), the identification of these materials and measures

for environmental management.

Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs)

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Managing Risk at

LNAPL Sites – API, 2003.

This document intends to provide a concise overview of current knowledge

through the format of “Frequently Asked Questions.” Each question is first

addressed with a short answer. This is followed by a more detailed answer

in a shaded box area for those who wish to know more

Asbestos

Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management

of Asbestos Contaminated Sites – Western Australian Department

of Health (2009). This document provides a background to sites

contaminated with asbestos and a framework for the assessment,

remediation and management of asbestos contaminated sites.

Soil Vapour Extraction – AF Center for Engineering and the Environment

This website provides general information into soil vapour extraction (SVE)

and principle elements of an SVE system.

Soil Vapour Extraction and Bioventing, Engineer Manual – US Army Corps

of Engineers, 2002.

This manual provides practical guidance for the design and operation of soil

vapor extraction (SVE) and bioventing (BV) systems. It is intended for use by

engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, and soil scientists, chemists, project

managers, and others who possess a technical education and some design

experience but only the broadest familiarity with SVE or BV systems.

evaluation/selection of Technologies

How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground

Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviews – US EPA.

The purpose of this manual is to provide guidance in evaluating remediation

technologies. This manual focuses on appropriate technology use, taking

into consideration site specific conditions and the nature and extent of the

contamination. While it focuses on the remediation of leaking underground

storage tank sites, some the basic concepts in the manual can be applied at

hazardous substance and hazardous waste sites also.

Technical Guidelines for Hazardous and Toxic Waste Treatment and

Cleanup Activities, Engineer Manual – US Army Corps of Engineers, 1994.

This manual provides design guidelines that may aid in the selection of

remedial actions at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Topics covered

include: identification and selection of remedial action/corrective measure

alternatives; control and containment technologies; treatment technologies

and off-site and on-site disposal technologies.

Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA: Biodegradation

Remedy Selection, Interim Guidance – US EPA, 1993.

The primary purpose of this guide is to provide standard guidance for

designing and implementing a biodegradation treatability study in support

of remedy selection testing. Additionally, it describes a three-tiered approach

that consists of

1. Remedy screening testing;

2. Remedy selection testing; and

3. Remedial design/remedial action testing.

It also presents a guide for conducting treatability studies in a systematic

and stepwise fashion for determination of the effectiveness of biodegradation

in remediating a site.


Department of Defence Manual for the Management & Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Sediments31

Appendix D

Appendix D Case Studies & Examples

Case studies for petroleum hydrocarbon management and remediation projects

Table E1 – case studies for Petroleum hydrocarbon management and remediation Projects

Title / Theme manual section

case study details

1. Re-use of Contaminated Soil Section 2.2 Issue: A large amount of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil was excavated from a former refuelling site at a military base in Northern Australia. Disposal of the excavated material off-site was not viable due to the large distance between the site and the licensed waste disposal facility. Analysis: The impacted soil was characterised by the heavier-end Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) C15-C36 concentrations which were observed to be of low volatility and solubility. Groundwater at the site was at a depth of greater than 20m and the local geology was characterised by loamy topsoils underlain by low permeability clays. The facility was undergoing redevelopment works including the construction of new site roads. Solution: Impacted soil material was re-used as road-base underneath the new site roads constructed following sampling and chemical/physical analysis to assess its suitability for the purpose. The presence of the material was documented and recorded on the site management plan.

2. Remediation & Removal of On-going Liability Section 2.2 Issue: The site was located adjacent to a residential area and river. The soil at the site had been contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons following a one off fuel spill. The shallow groundwater at the site and the proximity of human and environmental receptors presented a risk. Analysis: A small amount (i.e. 5 m3) of heavily impacted material existed at the site; the extent of which was confirmed though a Stage 2 investigation involving installation of soil bores and soil sampling. Solution: An in-situ waste classification was undertaken, the impacted soil was excavated, the excavation validated and the waste material disposed of at a licensed waste disposal facility. By removing the impacted soil (contamination source) the on-going liability, and requirement to continue to monitor the potential surface water and groundwater impacts, was removed.

3. More Data Leads to Less Uncertainty and Reduced Remediation Risks

Section 2.3 Issue: The site was located adjacent to a residential area and river. The soil at the site had been contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons following a one off fuel spill. The shallow groundwater at the site and the proximity of human and environmental receptors presented a risk. Analysis: A small amount (i.e. 5 m3) of heavily impacted material existed at the site; the extent of which was confirmed though a Stage 2 investigation involving installation of soil bores and soil sampling. Solution: An in-situ waste classification was undertaken, the impacted soil was excavated, the excavation validated and the waste material disposed of at a licensed waste disposal facility. By removing the impacted soil (contamination source) the on-going liability, and requirement to continue to monitor the potential surface water and groundwater impacts, was removed.

4. Management v Remediation - Sustainability Considerations

Section 3.3.3 Issue: Remediation of foreshore land in Sydney – combination of off site removal and capping and containing with management plan. Analysis: The site (forming part of the foreshore of Sydney harbour) was earmarked for redevelopment as a park. Site investigations had identified substantial amounts of fill containing chemicals (including petroleum hydrocarbons) at concentrations in excess of the proposed land use investigation levels. The traditional approach of removing the material to landfill could have resulted in the removal of more than 20 000 cubic metres of material followed by import of a similar volume of validated soil to backfill the excavation. Energy use, CO2 generation and resource consumption were considered in developing a suitable remedial solution. Solution: The remedial design was incorporated into the design for the park. The solution included assessment of ongoing impacts to the environment and human health if the material was left in situ (groundwater testing, leachate analysis and consideration for volatile generation), selected removal of small volumes of amounts of material that could have an ongoing legacy and incorporation of the capping of the remaining material as part of the playing area.

5. Risk-Based Approach Section 3.3.5f Issue: Industrial site with demonstrated discharge (via groundwater flux) of ammonia in tidal creek – this approach could be implemented with sites where groundwater is impacted by hydrocarbons Analysis: Investigations at the site identified the presence of ammonia at concentrations greater than the ANZECC water quality guidelines. As a consequence, the NSW EPA declared that the site posed a significant risk of harm. Remedial options that were initially considered included the installation of a cut off wall and interception trench – an exercise likely to cost in the order of millions. Solution: An ecological risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the direct exposure impacts to five species (including fish, algae and sea urchins) to the ammonia concentrations in the groundwater. An estimate was made of the daily volume of water in the creek along with an estimate of the overall flux of ammonia into the creek. This information was used to calculate the average concentration of ammonia that species in the creek could be exposed to. Given that the average calculated concentration was significantly less than the concentrations at which effects were observed in the test species, it was concluded that the ammonia concentrations in groundwater did not present a significant risk of harm and the EPA removed its declaration.


dPs dec009/09
