Peer review: Management of contaminated soils in South Australia (2013)

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE REPORT: The SKM report has addressed the terms of reference, and the authors have clearly invested much effort in sourcing information and developing the report. The readability of the report could be enhanced through improved sequencing of topics, and by the provision of more context for the information provided, particularly the information in the tables. The drivers and impediments for policy development have been canvassed, although the policy analysis could be considerably enhanced by bringing these elements together via a restructuring of the document. There is considerable information in the tables and diagrams in the report, and the policy analysis would have also been assisted by further development of conclusions from that information. The concepts of transit oriented developments and soil treatment hubs bear further investigation. The potential for the utilisation of waste derived fill sourced from (treated) contaminated soil, which meets the requirements of the SA EPA for waste derived fill, also bears further investigation, as this provides an environmentally sound route for the diversion of material from landfill. With regard to the assessment of costs and benefits, while costs have been quantified in relation to carbon pricing, no (semi-) quantitative analysis of benefits was done - this may well be due to the difficulty of doing so. There is some difficulty in following the analysis of landfill levies. An extensive survey of research capabilities and remediation technologies has been undertaken, and some technologies are fully described (eg in-situ biological treatment). The recommendations could usefully be expanded to include the identification of key players in their implementation.