Mark Heckenberg and Narelle Sergeant from the ACT EPA led a lively discussion on the current state of play with waste transport & handling, interstate issues and what can be improved in the future.
What were the Discussion Topics:
Illegal Dumping
- Narelle discussed the approach to waste transport between ACT and NSW, starting with the 2012 ACT EPA Waste Resource and Funding Initiative to improve regulatory action, services and education on the issue.
- She noted the formation of the cross border illegal dumping team and subsequent ‘white squid’ operation as an initiative to crack down on the instances of illegal dumping in conjunction with NSW and ACT EPA, NSW Police and Yass Valley Council officers near the ACT/NSW border. Additional interjurisdictional funding has since been secured to tackle the issue.
- The Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act 2016 was established by the Waste Act, intending to facility better practice in the collection, transportation, recovery and re-use of waste, with a focus on appropriate licences required for waste facilities and requirements from the waste transporter to obtain and present the correct permits, which are now a requirement instead of a preferred action.
- Narelle pointed out that this was particularly a problem on rural land.
- Note: The ACT EPA can still only administer within ACT borders, even though it is part of the cross border team.
- Question was raised around loopholes in the council framework and also around situations where, for example, PFAS contaminated soil has been transported from the ACT to NSW, with paperwork that was compliant in the ACT, but deemed non-compliant in NSW and thus triggered a NSW EPA investigation into illegal dumping. ACT EPA to take on board and investigate.
Use of NEPM and HIL A or EIL Criteria
- Discussion on the inappropriate use of trigger levels in the NEMP, including HIL A and EIL values for soil quality and re-use assessments.
- Noted the review of Information Sheet 4 was to mitigate risk of the transfer of material with known contamination to a site of unknown contamination.
- It was commented that the information sheet potentially contradictions the hierarchy of management of waste material, however the EPA iterated the requirement for the assessment to consider site re-use options as a best management option in the first instance. Note: Significant emphasis was put on the encouragement of beneficial re-use on site, before considering other options.
- There was a discussion on the maximum total concentration within the Information Sheet potential below the background geology, particularly within the ACT (and given the absence of background data for metals within literature for the ACT). EPA noted that if a contaminant of potential concern exceedance can be demonstrated to be consistent and potentially naturally occurring and not leachable, then a case can be put to the EPA for consideration of appropriate management actions. The ACT EPA consider that the site investigation should really look at the requirements and define appropriate plans to test and/or manage this type of situation.
- Various consultants raised the issues with the metals guidelines as articulated above, being less than the HIL’s or EIL’s in info sheet 4, so cannot re-use the material onsite as they are encouraged to do. The EPA described the management protocols above, but also pointed out that they are seeing a lot of metals results they don’t need – so if they are metals that are not asked for/a concern, then don’t waste your time and money looking for things that initially aren’t regarded as a problem.
VENM – Information Sheet 10
- The definition of VENM is conservative within the information sheet.
- Some facilities in the ACT are licensed to take VENM, however to do so, full and accurate records must be kept.
- ACT EPA note that as soon as material is stockpiled, it is a waste and no longer potentially VENM. The planning stage should determine appropriate management options for the material so that it can be managed during the excavation stage and not after.
- This decision was to mitigate the transfer of risk from the development site to an off-site area of re-use (i.e. Mums and Dads Backyards), as there are no requirements for the tracking of this material. However, stronger regulation is being considered in line with NSW EPA regarding issuing of PINs in the instances that false and misleading information has been presented in regarding the classification of VENM for re-use material.
- On that note – Asbestos contaminated material is not considered as suitable for re-use, with the only exception being on an old industrial site with certain circumstances attached.
- If your “VENM” is left onsite and not utilised immediately, it’s no longer VENM. If this happens it is because of poor planning in the eyes of the EPA. Also see info sheet 2 for a further VENM definition.
- ACT EPA View: Client will always look for the cheapest disposal option, so because of that, the EPA are putting the onus back onto the receiving facility, to ensure they understand and appropriately manage the risk. Developers raised their hands and shared concerns about “ENM” Quality they are receiving. Again the EPA re-iterated that they should approach each case with a fine tooth comb and by starting with the question – “Would you accept this material into your own backyard?”
Remediation Requirements
- Noted that where remediation costs exceed $5,000, this is considered material environmental harm and notification is required to the EPA. However it is a notification nder s23a, no a statutory action will be undertaken.
- It is the obligation of the consultant to inform their client of this requirement. Liability for such a task lies with the consultant.
- Once notified, this site will be listed on the ACT EPA contaminated sites management database, which contains not only the site details, but also the entire correspondence dialogue every time you speak to the EPA.
- It is deemed prudent to require a contaminated land search as a lot of consultants’ reports speak about a site in general terms – essentially, hotspots ARE NOT covered.
- The ACT EPA do also require hard copy reports, that meet NEPM schedule B9 standards.
Re-Use Options for Waste Material
- Leachability should be considered in the context of the receiving environment for re-use and not appropriate to compare to concentrations outlined in other policy documents such as waste disposal criteria. Furthermore, the receiving site should be the driver for management options in terms of options for re-use material rather than the application of specific guideline values that may not be applicable.
- The ACT EPA also noted that there is not a requirement to test for every contaminant as outlined in Table 1 of the information sheet. An environmental assessment should be appropriately conducted to determine the site specific CoPC.
- Note: “Contaminated re-use material”, is not a term the ACT EPA accept or use. Period!
Sampling Requirements
- Sampling requirements within Information Sheet 4.
- The driver for sampling schedule should be through the homogeneity of contamination in the material from a re-use perspective.
- The density of sampling for re-use is the onus of the consultant to appropriate assess given the current state of knowledge at the site. If there is no previous information available – sample at a greater density, or if the contamination is known and considered homogenous throughout the stockpile then can use a 95% UCL. Note: The MINIMUM number of samples required is 1 in 25! This is exactly what it says – a MINIMUM! Please bear this in mind
- Alternatively, consideration may be given to the segregation of material as identified within a hotspot and sampled at a greater density than the remaining material.
- Therefore, it is possible to relax the sampling density where chemical signature is homogeneous in nature and from the same source. This approach has been adopted by the ACT EPA to reflect that of the VIC EPA. This is allowed in Information Sheet 4, however ACT EPA note that sufficient justification would need to be provided to the EPA to seek approval if a reduced sampling program is recommended.
National Remediation Framework
- Question regarding ACT EPA position on the National Remediation Framework.
- EPA will seek advice from ACT policy area regarding adopting or endorsing the framework. Likely to be used a s a reference document but will not be mandated. However it will probably lead to another layer of documentation.
- The NEPM is currently the only prescribed document in the ACT.
- Many consultants found that or feel that the changes to these info sheets have happened very quickly, with no consultation made. The ACT EPA countered by saying that a 1year period for consultation was allowed for this framework and that they feel that one year is a long enough consultation period.
What was the Lightbulb / most radical or Innovative Point:
- There was no one Lightbulb / most radical or innovative point. See above for some of the points raised. Overall some good points were made and at the same time, some good answers received from the EPA.
Was there anything Controversial or Contentious & what were the different perspectives:
- Generally, the questions raised weren’t overly controversial or contentious, more an attempt by those posing the questions, to understand the thought processes of the EPA and the “Why” behind the guideline changes. Most prevalent perspective probably came from the EPA – they expect a lot of the questions that were being asked of them, to be answered by a proper site investigation prior to commencing development and that for offsite disposal, the onus was on the entity receiving the waste, to ensure it was suitable for their facility to accept.
What was Unresolved:
- Only question that was unresolved was the issue of material with compliant paperwork leaving the ACT for disposal and then that same paperwork being deemed not compliant by the NSW EPA, triggering an illegal dumping investigation. The EPA answered fairly, that they would need to investigate the actual case this occurred in.
How can things be done better as a result of this discussion:
- Better up front investigation work and planning overall, will allow for the most beneficial re-use of material on site, or the classification of a stockpile as VENM as opposed to ENM or a classified waste material. Lack of planning will end up with you costing your client more for disposal to an appropriately licensed facility – so focus on that aspect.
27 March 2019 event report by Scott Carroll - Tellus Holdings & Lauren Spring - RPS.
Didn't get to attend the event, but would love to review the presentations? Go to the ALGA online library*
* note the access to all the papers in our online library is a member only benefit, for more information or to join click here