environmental effects report for the proposed soil … waste solutions... · 2013-11-29 ·...

Christine Bell Chief Executive Officer Southern Waste Solutions m 0408 253 770 f 03 8669 4278 e [email protected] PO Box 216 NEW TOWN TAS 7008

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED

SOIL WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY AT THE COPPING

LANDFILL – NOVEMBER 2013

2

Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary........................................................................................................... 3 2 The Proposed Soil Processing Facility (SPF) ...................................................................... 3 3 The Approvals Process ...................................................................................................... 4 4 Need for the Proposal ....................................................................................................... 4 5 Compatibility with Government Policies........................................................................... 5

5.1 Management of Australia’s Waste Streams............................................................................... 5 5.2 Landfill Sustainability Guide..................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Current and Future Controlled Waste Practices in Tasmania.................................................... 5 5.4 The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy..................................................... 6 5.5 Regional Waste Disposal Strategy............................................................................................. 6 5.6 Municipal Waste Strategies ....................................................................................................... 6 5.7 Planning Scheme ....................................................................................................................... 6

6 Site Selection..................................................................................................................... 7 7 Potential Environmental Impacts and Their Management ............................................... 8

7.1 Surface water system ................................................................................................................. 8 7.2 Ground water ............................................................................................................................. 8 7.3 Air .............................................................................................................................................. 8 7.4 Litter (including during transport) ............................................................................................. 8

8 PART C – Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................ 8 8.1 Flora and Fauna ......................................................................................................................... 8 8.2 Rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries....................................................................................... 9 8.3 Weeds and Vermin .................................................................................................................... 9 8.4 Significant areas......................................................................................................................... 9 8.5 Coastal zone............................................................................................................................... 9 8.6 Marine areas............................................................................................................................... 9 8.7 Air emissions ........................................................................................................................... 10 8.8 Liquid effluent ......................................................................................................................... 11 8.9 Solid wastes ............................................................................................................................. 12 8.10 Noise emissions ..................................................................................................................... 12 8.11 Transport impacts .................................................................................................................. 12

9 Other Off-‐site Impacts..................................................................................................... 13 9.1 Dangerous substances and chemicals ...................................................................................... 13 9.2 Site contamination ................................................................................................................... 13 9.3 Sustainability and climate change ........................................................................................... 14

10 Cultural Heritage ........................................................................................................... 14 11 Sites of High Public Interest .......................................................................................... 14 12 Rehabilitation................................................................................................................ 14 13 Part D – Management Commitment Summary ............................................................ 14 14 Part E – Public Consultation .......................................................................................... 15 15 Potential Social and Economic Impacts......................................................................... 16

15.1 Buffer Distances from Adjacent Land Uses .......................................................................... 16 16 Protection of the Environment ..................................................................................... 17 17 Maximum Use of the Copping Facility .......................................................................... 17

17.1 Cost Effective Use of Public Funds....................................................................................... 18 17.2 Future Flexibility ................................................................................................................... 18

18 References .................................................................................................................... 18 Attachments: ......................................................................................................................... 19

3

1 Executive Summary Clarence City, Sorell and Tasman Councils jointly own the land on which a sub-‐regional refuse disposal facility (landfill) has been established approximately 3.5 kilometres south west of Copping in south-‐eastern Tasmania (see Attachment 1.). A Joint Authority (whose current members are the Clarence City, Kingborough, Sorell and Tasman Councils) operates the site, which opened in 2001. The landfill is not open to the public. It is proposed to construct a soil waste treatment facility on land adjacent to the existing landfill cells (See attachment 3.). A Soil Processing Facility (SPF) is able to accept controlled waste and then treat it to a safer, lower classification level (based on classification in EPA Tasmania Information Bulletin No. 105). The wastes targeted in particular are those that currently necessitate movement interstate, classification 3 and above. The principal aim is to process the material to a much lower risk level, to meet level 2 criteria, thus reducing the amount of waste that may need disposal in the proposed Cat C cell or shipment interstate for treatment or disposal. The SPF will not be open to the general public, and materials1 proposed for treatment will be subject to diligent scientific investigation and analysis, and then approval from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) prior to delivery. The SPF is planned to have a storage capacity of approximately 1,000 tonnes at any one time, with a potential annual throughput of up to 12,000 tonnes, depending on the type of treatment necessary and the waste availability. Woodward-‐Clyde prepared the original Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) that informed the planning process prior to the establishment of the Copping landfill. The Woodward-‐Clyde report has been relied on for a number of sections of the current Environmental Effects Report (EER).

2 The Proposed Soil Processing Facility (SPF) A Soil Processing Facility (SPF) is able to accept most Level 3 and 4 controlled waste and then treat it to a safer, lower classification level (based on classification in EPA Tasmania Information Bulletin No. 105). The wastes targeted are those that currently necessitate movement interstate, classification 3 and above, that have no disposal options in Tasmania. The principal aim is to process the material for reuse, or to a much lower risk level to meet level 2 criteria, thus reducing the amount of waste that may need disposal in the proposed Cat C cell. The proposed SPF will not be open to the general public, and materials proposed for treatment will be subject to diligent scientific investigation and analysis, and then approval from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) prior to delivery. The proposed SPF is planned to have a storage capacity of approximately 1,000 tonnes at any one time, with a potential annual throughput of up to 12,000 tonnes, depending on the type of treatment necessary and the waste availability.

1 The materials will generally be soils, filter cakes or other contaminated industrial wastes. Sources are typically industrial sites, old service stations with leaking tanks, other industry tank installations, industrial residues, old equipment, electrical transmission infrastructure and surrounds. All in accord with EPA Tasmania Bulletin No. 105, (see Attachment 7).

4

Commitment 1: The proposed SPF will only accept controlled waste by prior agreement with waste generators and transported to the site by a controlled waste transporter registered by the EPA Tasmania in accordance with relevant controlled waste regulations.

3 The Approvals Process The aim of this Environmental Effects Report (EER) required by the EPA is to:

• Provide a source of information from which interested individuals and groups may gain an understanding of the proposal, the need for the proposal, the environment which it will affect, the impacts which may occur and the measures taken to avoid or minimise potential impacts;

• Provide a forum for public consultation and informed comment on the proposal; and

• Provide a framework in which decision making agencies may consider the environmental aspects of the proposal.

Application for a discretionary permit for the proposed SPF must be lodged with the Sorell Council (Sorell), which is the local planning authority. The Board and the planning authority will make a decision about the proposal after a public comment period and an integrated environmental and planning assessment has taken place. This decision is subject to appeal by the applicant or the public under the provisions of the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act, 1993.

4 Need for the Proposal Tasmania does not have a dedicated treatment capability for level 3 and 4 wastes, thus necessitating transport interstate for treatment or on-‐site treatment prior to landfilling. Controlled waste is currently stored on-‐site at numerous locations around Tasmania, or shipped interstate for treatment and eventual disposal. This is not an ideal state of affairs from either an environmental or an economic perspective. The Sustainable Infrastructure Australia report, Current and Future Controlled Waste Practices in Tasmania – SIA (attached refer Section 1.1) refers to the existence of controlled waste expected to be processed through the proposed SPF and that much of this waste is currently located on the shoreline of various bodies of water, and/or in or near built up areas. There is some if not a high degree of risk, under certain circumstances, of this waste polluting the water near to where it is located, and thereby having a potential impact on the environment and humans. If Tasmania’s controlled waste can be appropriately treated and disposed of locally, there would be a significant reduction in environmental risk and financial burden on the business disposing and/or currently storing the waste. A local treatment capability will further reduce the need to store these wastes for extended periods enabling relatively quick processing for

5

disposal at Level 2 classification, again reducing the amount requiring proposed C cell disposal.

5 Compatibility with Government Policies The proposed SPF is compatible with relevant Government policies as outlined below.

5.1 Management of Australia’s Waste Streams A Senate report entitled Management of Australia’s Waste Streams was tabled in 2010 and provides a focus on waste reduction, recovery and reuse. The proposed SPF will provide every opportunity to recover, reuse or recycle.

5.2 Landfill Sustainability Guide The Landfill Sustainability Guide (2004) produced by the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment aims to provide a consistent and effective framework for minimizing environmental impacts arising from the siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills in Tasmania. It provides details of the type of controls to be implemented to manage waste going to landfills to achieve an acceptable standard, categorizes landfills, and specifies the operating standards which must be achieved for each category of landfill. The proposed SPF is to be developed consistent with the aims of the Guide. Commitment 2: An internal safety fence will be constructed around the SPF facility. The fence will be designed to prevent uncontrolled vehicular and foot access to the area.

5.3 Current and Future Controlled Waste Practices in Tasmania The Sustainable Infrastructure Australia in 2008 tabled a Draft Report entitled Current and Future Controlled Waste Practices in Tasmania -‐ SIA for the Tasmanian State Government. It states that Tasmania does not currently have landfills or processing facilities that are fully compliant with modern best practice for ‘secure’ landfills. It states that lack of adequate facilities may result in significant costs to Tasmanian businesses and may impede economic expansion for the State. It goes on to state that in addition to considerable economic impacts, inadequate controlled waste management facilities and practices have the potential to result in significant harm to the environment and may also have adverse effects on human health. It concludes that it is therefore essential to develop a strategy that meets the needs of Tasmania’s industry and a growing economy, whilst ensuring controlled waste generated in Tasmania is sustainably managed and the potential risks involved in its transport, storage, treatment and disposal are minimized. The SPF that is proposed by this Plan is clearly in line with the needs expressed in this report.

6

5.4 The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy The Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts published a waste and resource management strategy in 2009. This report states that 10,600 tonnes of controlled waste was exported to other jurisdictions during a 12 month period in 2007-‐08. It also states that there are opportunities for Tasmania to adopt a more sustainable approach to waste and resource management, and to match current standards and initiatives implemented nationally. The strategy recognizes our responsibility to appropriately and effectively manage the wastes we produce to reduce any adverse environmental impacts and to protect the environment now and for future generations. The proposed SPF will reduce adverse environmental impact by moving controlled waste from current, often unprotected, locations to an appropriately engineered facility where it will be treated to a safe level for disposal. One of the strategy’s performance measures is the establishment of improved infrastructure for the management of controlled waste. The proposed SPF provides infrastructure that will improve the management and treatment of controlled waste.

5.5 Regional Waste Disposal Strategy Taswaste, a consortium of local government regional waste bodies, aims to implement the responsible management of Tasmania’s waste. The proposed SPF will facilitate achieving this aim.

5.6 Municipal Waste Strategies The Authority member Councils have strategies requiring, among other things, implementation of appropriate waste management strategies. This proposal will assist in achieving these strategies.

5.7 Planning Scheme The Copping landfill is governed by the Sorell Planning Scheme 1993. The Planning Scheme contains overall objectives for land use and development as well as specific objectives for particular areas. The proposed development is in conformity with all relevant objectives. Under the Planning Scheme, the subject site is partly included in a Rural Zone and partly within a Forestry Zone. Within both these zones the land use defined as "Utility Services (Major)", which specifically includes a 'refuse disposal site', is a discretionary use. This means that a refuse disposal site on the subject site required planning approval.

7

The proposed activity is classified as a Level 2 activity under Section 25 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). As such Sorell Council must refer the Development Application to the Environment Protection Authority for assessment. The EPA Division, on behalf of the EPA will assess the environmental aspects of the proposal which includes any representations received during the public consultation phase. The EPA Division will prepare an assessment report and a draft permit for the EPA Board’s consideration. If the EPA Board approves the project, they will notify the Council and direct the Council to include a set of permit conditions to the Council permit, in the event that Council approves the project. Council is not required to assess any matter already addressed in the Board’s assessment. After the Council decision, the proponent and any persons who made representations are notified of the decision. Any of those parties has the right to appeal to the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal within 14 days if they are aggrieved by Council’s decision.

6 Site Selection The current Copping landfill site has significant remaining capacity, and is proposed to be in operation for many years to come. Co-‐location of the proposed SPF with the existing landfill provides many benefits including economic, operational and security. Office, weighbridge, environmental monitoring and other infrastructure is already in place. The landfill siting underwent significant environmental and amenity studies prior to receiving planning and EPA approvals. As a complementary activity the siting of an SPF at this location is environmentally and financially logical, and there are numerous examples of landfills and SPF’s operating on the same site on the mainland, in similar proximity to the nearest residential and/or rural activities. Truck movements are also minimized as the treated wastes will only need to be moved a few hundred metres to a disposal cell. The co-‐location of waste related activities provides an opportunity for waste management research activities leading to better understanding and management of wastes with end of life possibilities other than disposal in engineered landfill cells. Commitment 3: The proposed SPF will be constructed inside the existing landfill boundary, next to the currently permitted Stage 1 area, and will be constructed on a compacted clay base, overtopped with a concrete slab (Attachment 3.).

8

7 Potential Environmental Impacts and Their Management

7.1 Surface water system Surface water will be diverted around the proposed SPF by perimeter drains. Rainwater falling on the roofed section will be captured for recycling either in the treatment process or for firefighting (Attachment 4.). Commitment 4: Surface water will be diverted away from the proposed SPF by cut-‐off drains designed to handle a 1:50 year rainfall event of 24 hours duration.

7.2 Ground water The design of the facility will isolate operations from groundwater effects through engineered sub grades and concrete paved areas. Roofing, bunding and designed draining systems will protect the underlying ground from contamination. No liquid waste will be accepted at the proposed SPF and any collected waters that cannot be reused within the SPF will be tested and disposed of accordingly.

7.3 Air There will be no uncontrolled contaminated gas emissions from the treatment processes. The chemistry or physics of treatment methodologies is carefully analyzed before any process is applied, and usually preceded by treatment trials of smaller representative samples in a controlled laboratory environment. Vapour extraction through filters and trapping equipment will be used where applicable. Dust will be managed by water sprays carefully applied to minimize excess runoffs.

7.4 Litter (including during transport) The types of material to be processed at the proposed SPF will be mainly soil, some industrial by products etc. but no paper or other litter creating materials. Trucks will have covers to prevent dust or losses in transit.

8 PART C – Potential Environmental Effects

8.1 Flora and Fauna The location of the proposed SPF is next to the boundary of the current landfill footprint adjacent to the main haul road. The proposed SPF will have a footprint of approximately 1,000 m2 with a surrounding buffer of approx. 4,000 m2.

9

A specialist survey of the flora of the current landfill footprint and its surrounds (Mendel L, A Flora Survey of the Proposed Sorell Council Landfill, AGC Woodward Clyde Pty Ltd (1996)) revealed that the landfill is within an area that has suffered high levels of disturbance and significant alteration to native vegetation communities. No species or vegetation communities of conservation significance were recorded at the site. It was then concluded that the landfill would have no deleterious effects on botanical values and a similar conclusion can be drawn on the establishment of the proposed SPF (Attachment 2.). The North Barker Botanical and Fauna Habitat Assessment (March 2007) (North Barker Ecosystem Services Copping Landfill Site Management Plan, Botanical and Fauna Habitat Assessment March 2007) shows the site of the proposed SPF as having been selectively logged, with no threatened flora or fauna in the vicinity.

8.2 Rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries No storm water or contaminated water will be discharged off site. Commitment 4: Surface water will be diverted away from the proposed SPF by cut-‐off drains designed to handle a 1:50 year rainfall event of 24 hours duration. Commitment 5: The proposed SPF will not generate any excess contaminated liquids.

8.3 Weeds and Vermin The nature of the waste expected to be treated in the proposed SPF will not be attractive to vermin. In any event site procedures including temporary covers where applicable will minimize any risks in this regard.

8.4 Significant areas Not applicable to proposed SPF location.

8.5 Coastal zone Not applicable to proposed SPF location.

8.6 Marine areas Not applicable to proposed SPF location.

10

8.7 Air emissions The treatment types proposed may produce air emissions, predominantly dust, carbon dioxide and in some cases water vapour. To minimise the possibility of air emission the following practices shall be employed:

1. Water spraying when required; 2. Dust screens will be used at the perimeter of the site such as shade cloth

erected on the perimeter fences; 3. Heavy vehicles entering and leaving the site will be covered at all times; 4. Works involving potential dust or odour generating activities will be

scheduled to avoid strong wind forces (above 63km/hr) when possible; 5. Vehicle and machinery movements during the construction works will be

restricted to designated areas; 6. Vehicle speed limits of 10km/hr will be imposed on all vehicles on site; 7. Equipment will be operated in a proper, efficient and correct manner which

includes proper maintenance in order to minimise exhaust emissions; 8. Should visible dust emissions occur at any time, works generating the dust

emissions will cease, so that emissions of visible dust cease; 9. Odour emissions from the site which could adversely affect air quality or the

amenity of the local area are to be monitored. The following techniques will be used to minimise potential odours associated with SPF operations:

9.1 An odour misting system will be available where required, for application of odour suppressants along the perimeter of the remediation works zone; 9.2 If necessary the trailer mounted Finn hydro seeder combined with cover spray (Enviro-‐Cover) will be utilised to encapsulate odorous stockpile surfaces as required; and 9.3 Weather forecasts will be checked daily to program works for the following day.

Solidification, immobilization or fixation are mechanical treatment methods where different reagents2 are added in predetermined proportions via specialized equipment to immobilize or render the contaminant stable and non-‐leaching. These treatments cover mostly inorganic contaminants e.g. metals. 2 Typical reagents used in treatments are: Magnesium oxide – a fine white powder that is fit for human consumption, it is also used in some pharmaceuticals as an antacid to treat upset stomachs. Milk of magnesia is a hydrated form of magnesium oxide; Portland Cement – a common concrete additive; Lime – Mainly used for agricultural applications, water treatment, sugar refining; FlyAsh – fine black ash powder which is a benign byproduct of paper mills, which is also used as a concrete additive; Sodium sulphide – used in paper manufacturing, water treatment, detergents and also used as a food preservative; Ferric Chloride – used in sewage treatment and drinking water production; Activated carbon – water purification (in most common household water filters), also used by the medical profession -‐ given orally as a method to prevent the absorption of poison by the stomach; Superphosphate – agriculture application as fertiliser; Compost – a common additive used in bioremediation, the same as the compost you may use in your garden.

11

Bioremediation treatments (composting) for organic contaminants involve accelerating natural biological processes by adding nutrients for naturally occurring bacteria or adding bacteria that specifically convert certain organics. The bacteria used are the same bacteria that you would find in a backyard compost bin. These accelerated composting type processes are naturally occurring and thus do not present an emissions issue, even under accelerated circumstances. In some cases we may forcibly extract volatile organics, like petrol, diesel or oils, through aeration at which time we would direct them through absorbent filters to capture the volatile organics. In summary, metal contaminants can be chemically altered to a non-‐leaching/safe state, or alternatively bound up in a secure matrix to prevent release. Organic contamination such as oils or fuel, can be similarly secured in a binding matrix or the organics can be consumed by enhanced biological actions i.e. bioremediation.

8.8 Liquid effluent The proposed SPF will be constructed to contain any effluent or leachate that may be generated from processing or treatment. There will not be any discharges of liquid wastes off the site, and the usual case is that water has to be added to soil or waste as part of a treatment process. To minimise the possibility of contaminated run off, a shelter will be constructed to shield the soil from rain events and will also enable rainwater capture (Attachments 5. and 6.). In the unlikely event that there is excess clean storm water collected, it will be transferred or discharged for use on site. Any collection of contaminated waters will be stored for reuse in the processing of contaminated materials or directed to the landfill leachate management system. In the latter case, the liquid would be analyzed to ensure that it meets the landfill leachate compatibility criteria. The constructed works will also take account of excess surface water events or floods, and the main storage area floor will be slightly raised with strategic bunds. It is not expected that there will be more than a few hundred tonnes on site at any one time minimizing the possibility of contamination through a flood event. The acceptance protocols will be underpinned by the assessment of suitability for treatment and the timeframe for treatment, and if extremes of weather are predicted the wastes can be deferred from acceptance at Copping until the weather improves. Commitment 1: The proposed SPF will only accept controlled waste by prior agreement with waste generators and transported to the site by a controlled waste transporter registered by the EPA Tasmania in accordance with relevant controlled waste regulations. Commitment 4: Surface water will be diverted away from the proposed SPF by cut-‐off drains designed to handle a 1:50 year rainfall event of 24 hours duration.

12

Commitment 5: The proposed SPF will not generate any excess contaminated liquids. Commitment 6: The waste or soil will be stored undercover with strategic side walls, protected from wind and rain, until the treatment process is implemented.

8.9 Solid wastes In most cases solid wastes of a lower classification will be produced following the treatment of previously more hazardous solid wastes. The treated material will then be analyzed to ensure that the contaminants have been removed or modified and that the wastes comply with the disposal guidelines for acceptability. Solid wastes produced from the treatment processes will be landfilled at Copping as per other contaminated soils, or if clean can be used as rehabilitation material or daily cover.

8.10 Noise emissions The potential noise impacts associated with the proposal are considered insignificant due to:

• The isolation of the site and the fact the landfiIl and the proposed SPF are in a valley.

• The equipment proposed has demonstrated noise levels at 10 metres of 80 db The existing landfill operation began in 2001. There have been no complaints about noise in the 12 years that the landfill has been operational. The proposed SPF will not add to existing noise levels.

8.11 Transport impacts The landfill is currently serviced by main roads used extensively by large vehicles. The vehicles delivering the soil to the proposed SPF will be trucks or truck and trailers licensed by EPA Tasmania for the Transport of Wastes as well as complying with Dangerous Goods Regulations when required. The vehicles are typical of some vehicles already using the landfill facility, but not as large as the waste transfer semi-‐trailers operated by Southern Waste. The proposed SPF could accept up to 12,000 tonnes per annum, although the expected throughput will be of the order 3,000 tonnes per annum, with the transport equivalent being 2 to 3 truck and trailers per week. Scenario Tonnes / year Tonnes / week Truck/trailers per week Maximum 12,000 231 9 Expected 3,000 58 3

13

This will not add significantly to the traffic currently on the Arthur Highway (currently 3,300 heavy vehicles per day) or to the total traffic levels bringing waste to Copping currently. In fact it is expected that some of the loads delivered to the proposed treatment facility would otherwise be delivered to the proposed C cell, so that truck movements in addition to the currently approved operations will be negligible.

9 Other Off-site Impacts The zoning or use of the surrounding land is consistent with the proposed development. The predominant zoning of land adjacent to the site under the Sorell Planning Scheme comprises Rural and Forestry Zoning. These zones will retain broad-‐acre land uses compatible with the proposed SPF. Sensitive land users closest to the proposed SPF are the Blue Hills Sporting Shooters Club. The club sub-‐leases the land from the Authority. The proposed SPF will not affect their activities. The closest house to the proposed SPF is approximately 2.4km to the north. The closest residential area to the proposed SPF is the settlement of Copping, approximately 3.5km to the northeast. There are no primary industry activities in the locality that would be particularly sensitive to the development. The only notable primary industry activity in the region comprises oyster farms in Pittwater, approximately 15km distant, with no possibility that any contaminants could be released and affect their Industry. The other main land use in the area is forestry. This will not be affected by the proposal.

9.1 Dangerous substances and chemicals Some of the treatment additives or reagents used for soil and waste processing are covered by Dangerous Goods legislation, however the treatment approach is based on treatment trials as a precursor, and only the amount of reagent required is delivered on a “just in time” program. It is not usual for soil processing facilities to store dangerous substances, another factor being that treatment methodologies vary considerably. Full MSDS’s (Material Safety Data Sheets) will be available as well as SWMS (Safe Work Method Statements) for each process and product.

9.2 Site contamination There will be no residual site contamination.

14

Commitment 7: On the proposed SPF closure, all infrastructure will be removed unless required for other purposes. The underlying soil/clay will be tested for contamination and treated or disposed of accordingly.

9.3 Sustainability and climate change Possible climate change impacts can be accommodated at the proposed SPF over its expected life span. Materials are received for processing by prior application and in the event that extreme weather conditions are forecast, materials receival can be deferred. The SPF is somewhat isolated from the surrounding landform with good drainage, and the soil or waste is undercover surrounded by walls. Additional temporary walls, silt bunding or even containerization will ensure that no fugitive escape of product occurs. Sustainability principles are enhanced by the operation of such a facility.

10 Cultural Heritage An assessment of Aboriginal Heritage was carried out by D. Robertson in December 1996. This assessment did not identify any relevant site or artifacts in or around the area proposed for the SPF. Again we stress the small footprint of the proposed SPF.

11 Sites of High Public Interest There are no sites of high public interest close to the proposed SPF.

12 Rehabilitation The footprint of the proposed SPF operational area has been purposely kept to a minimum (1,000 m2, see Attachment 5.) and thus infrastructure can be removed or relocated easily at the end of its useful life, either at a point in time when no further wastes require treatment or when the proposed SPF area is incorporated into the operating landfill footprint.

Commitment 7: On the proposed SPF closure, all infrastructure will be removed unless required for other purposes. The underlying soil/clay will be tested for contamination and treated or disposed of accordingly.

13 Part D – Management Commitment Summary Commitment 1 – Waste Acceptance: The proposed SPF will only accept controlled waste by prior agreement with waste generators and transported to the site by a controlled

15

waste transporter registered by the EPA Tasmania in accordance with relevant controlled waste regulations. Commitment 2 - Security: An internal safety fence will be constructed around the SPF facility. The fence will be designed to prevent uncontrolled vehicular and foot access to the area. Commitment 3 - Location: The proposed SPF will be constructed inside the existing landfill boundary, next to the currently permitted Stage 1 area, and will be constructed on a compacted clay base, overtopped with a concrete slab (Attachment 3.). Commitment 4 – Surface Water management: Surface water will be diverted away from the proposed SPF by cut-‐off drains designed to handle a 1:50 year rainfall event of 24 hours duration. Commitment 5 – Liquid Waste Management: The proposed SPF will not generate any excess contaminated liquids. Commitment 6 - Storage: The waste or soil will be stored undercover with strategic side walls, protected from wind and rain, until the treatment process is implemented (Attachments 5. And 6.). Commitment 7 – Site Contamination/Closure: On the proposed SPF closure, all infrastructure will be removed unless required for other purposes. The underlying soil/clay will be tested for contamination and treated or disposed of accordingly.

Commitment 8 – Operations Personnel: Appropriately qualified and experienced personnel will supervise the treatment processes. Commitment 9 – Waste Types and Storage: Reactive wastes or soils received for treatment will be separated by the placement of intervening non-‐reactive wastes or soils or barriers, if the material cannot be accepted when there is no other material present.

14 Part E – Public Consultation The proposed SPF footprint and impact are minimal when compared to the scale of the landfill operation. The proposed SPF shall be advertised as required for planning approval, however no direct consultation is proposed. A local interested group involved in the proposed C cell development has been advised by email of the proposed SPF, and it has been included in the news items on the Southern Waste Solutions website on 5 November 2012 (http://swstas.com.au/news/) and in a recent press release.

16

15 Potential Social and Economic Impacts

15.1 Buffer Distances from Adjacent Land Uses The zoning of surrounding land is compatible with the proposed development. The predominant zoning of land adjacent to the site under the Sorell Planning Scheme comprises Rural and Forestry Zoning. These zones will retain broad-‐acre land uses compatible with the proposed SPF. The land users closest to the proposed SPF are the Blue Hills Sporting Shooters Club. The club sub leases the land from the Authority. The proposed SPF will not affect their activities. The house closest to the proposed SPF is approximately 2.4km to the north. The closest residential area to the proposed SPF is the settlement of Copping, approximately 3.5km to the northeast. There are no primary industry activities in the locality that would be particularly sensitive to the development. The only notable primary industry export activity in the region comprises oyster farms in Pittwater, approximately 15km distant. The other main land use in the area is forestry. This will not be affected by the proposal.

As stated above, waste delivered to the proposed SPF will be subject to analytical testing and comply with EPA regulatory requirements prior to delivery. Only certain specific wastes will be accepted at the proposed SPF. Liquid or semi liquid waste will be excluded with the wastes to be treated expected to be contaminated soil or industrial residues. The proposed SPF shall accept waste that it is currently not contained or stored in ideal locations, and may be currently stored in the general community or near waterways. Potential sources of waste that could be processed through the proposed SPF are from industrial operations or waste repatriated from the Antarctic. The overall site at Copping is 704 hectares in area. The site includes a minimum buffer distance of approximately 200 metres to land in separate ownership in all directions except the south west. The distance to separate ownership to the south west is approximately 75 metres, where land comprises native forest. The subject site has been noted to have the following attributes with respect to development: • High accessibility, and a limited requirement for traversing residential areas; • Proximity to identified major sources of waste (Nyrstar, Antarctic shipping); • Strategic location in relation to the Arthur Highway;

17

• Capability for provision of sufficient void space; • Significant distance from potentially conflicting existing and proposed land uses; • Ability to provide adequate buffers to support a long term operation; • Suitable hydro geological conditions; • Significant clay and gravel resources, which could be used in the construction and

operation of the proposed SPF; • Sited within existing landfill zoned boundaries , ensuring that it would not have any

effects on botanical values; • No zoological species requiring special consideration in regards to conservation have

been identified; and • No fatal flaws that would prevent development of a proposed SPF on the site have been

identified.

16 Protection of the Environment Environmental issues are high on the community agenda and protection of the environment is of necessity a key aim of the Government, Southern Waste Solutions and Enviropacific Services Pty Ltd. The latter has completed well over 1,000 remediation projects in all States of Australia and possesses a vast amount of knowledge on contamination and the remediation processes. The possible impacts on community health and amenity have been well researched as there are many similar operations in Australia and worldwide. The treatment processes have all been carried out many times before and the risks/hazards are well known and controlled ensuring negligible possibility of contaminant release. The proposed SPF features an appropriately designed site access, natural screening, location of the proposed SPF within an existing landfill environment and the relative isolation of the site with respect to residential areas.

17 Maximum Use of the Copping Facility The Copping landfill is the best location within Tasmania for a proposed SPF with consideration of the existing landfill location and controls. It is appropriate that maximum use is made of this scarce resource. The location of the proposed SPF is enhanced by close proximity to landfill operations minimizing transport of waste and providing a focus for environmental initiative with respect to waste minimization. The proposed SPF also promotes the cross utilization of materials enabling reuse in some cases where a particular waste stream is used to treat another waste stream.

18

17.1 Cost Effective Use of Public Funds

The Authority is a Local Government owned entity, and has a responsibility to manage its finances cost effectively. The proposed SPF will be self-‐funding over its expected use, with waste providers paying a fee per tonne that will ensure full cost recovery.

17.2 Future Flexibility

Flexibility of the proposed SPF design and management is essential because the quantity, source and nature of waste needing to be disposed of are likely to change over time. The proposed SPF is expected to have a life of approximately 20 years.

18 References

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (2004) Landfill Sustainability Guide. Available: http://swstas.com.au/site-‐media/swstas/media/landfill-‐sustainability-‐guide.pdf

Environment Protection and Heritage Council and the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010) National Waste Report. Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/wastepolicy/publications/national-‐waste-‐report.html

EPA Tasmania (2012) Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal; Information Bulletin No. 105. Available: http://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/IB105_Classification_and_Management_of_Contaminated _Soil_Nov_2010.pdf

Sorell Council (1993) Sorell Planning Scheme. Available: http://www.sorell.tas.gov.au/component/docman/doc_view/305-‐sorell-‐planning-‐scheme-‐1993-‐incl-‐modified-‐planning-‐directive-‐no-‐4

Sustainable Infrastructure Australia (2008 )Draft Report: Current and Future Controlled Waste Practices in Tasmania. Available:

http://swstas.com.au/site-‐media/sws/media/sia-‐controlled-‐waste-‐practices-‐200801.pdf

19

Attachments: 1. General location map2. Weeds, threatened flora etc.3. Location with respect to site features4. Conceptual Design5. Site and Floor Plan Layout6. Site Elevations7. Information Bulletin No. 105 Environmental Management and Pollution

Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2010 Classification andManagement of Contaminated Soil For Disposal (November 2012)

PROPOSED SOIL PROCESSING FACILITYPROPOSED SOIL PROCESSING FACILITY

Attachment 1

Environmental & Fire Management Plan 35

Figure 4: Weeds, threatened flora and other significant features mapped at the Copping RefuseDisposal Site. Map prepared by North Barker Ecosystem Services 2007

PROPOSED SOILPROCESSING FACILITYPROPOSED SOILPROCESSING FACILITY

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 4

Attachment 5

Attachment 6

Information Bulletin No.105 Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal

Revised November 2012 1

Level 6, 134 Macquarie Street, Hobart TAS GPO Box 1550, Hobart, TAS 7001 Australia

INFORMATION BULLETIN No. 105

Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2010

CLASSIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED SOIL FOR DISPOSAL

November 2012

1. IntroductionThis bulletin defines the criteria used by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for the classification of contaminated soil that requires treatment and/or off-site disposal, and outlines the management of each classification in accordance with the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2010 (the ‘Regulations’). Although criteria set out in this bulletin have been determined for soil, they may be applicable to the classification of other solid waste material on an ‘as needs basis’ (see section 2.2.3). Please note, for the purposes of this Bulletin soil also includes dredge spoil (refer Section 2.2.5).

This bulletin is designed to be used by waste producers, consultants, local government, waste transporters and landfill operators that are responsible for determining whether potentially contaminated soil is suitable to be disposed of at a landfill, in assessing alternative options for contaminated soil management and how to make an application for disposal approval to the EPA.

The EPA 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. For further details on these waste management principles, see Section 1.2 of the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004 (DPIWE, 2004).

Treatment, re-use options and disposal of soil will be assessed and approved on a case by case basis by the Director, EPA (‘the Director’) or the Director’s delegate.

2. ClassificationThe EPA 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, Table 1 below summarises each classification.

Criteria in Table 2 below shows the maximum total concentration, and the maximum leachable concentration values for specific pollutants that are used to classify soil for off-site disposal. For soils classified as potentially acid sulfate soils (PASS), the criteria in Table 2 do not apply. Determination of risk associated with these soils should be conducted in line with the Tasmanian Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines published by Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (refer Section 2.2.5).

Potentially contaminated soils are classified by analysis of representative samples of the soil and comparison of the results to the chemical concentrations given in Table 2.

Attachment 7



It is not necessary to sample for all contaminants listed in Table 2 for soil classification. However, all contaminants that are reasonably likely to be present in the soil above background levels should be included in the sample analysis. Generally, where a leachable concentration is prescribed in Table 2 that value takes precedence over the total concentration and is used as the sole determinant of final classification for disposal (see section 2.2.4 for further information). Please note that these values in Table 2 are not to be interpreted as clean up target levels for certain land uses. Table 1. Summary of the classification process

Classification (with reference to Table 2)

Controlled Waste1

Comments

Fill Material2

(Level 1)

Soil that exhibits levels of contaminants below the limits defined under Fill Material in Table 2.

Unlikely Soil classified as Fill Material can still be a ‘pollutant’ under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 and needs to be responsibly managed.

Low Level Contaminated Soil

(Level 2)

Soil that exhibits levels of contaminants above the limits defined under Fill Material but below the limits defined under Low Level Contaminated Soil in Table 2.

Likely Where leachable concentrations have not been prescribed, maximum total concentrations will be used to classify the soil.

Contaminated Soil

(Level 3)

Soil that exhibits levels of contaminants above the limits defined under Low Level Contaminated Soil but below the limits defined under Contaminated Soil in Table 2.

Yes Where leachable concentrations have not been prescribed, maximum total concentrations will be used to classify the soil.

Contaminated Soil for Remediation

(Level 4)

Soil that exhibits levels of contaminants above the limits defined under Contaminated Soil in Table 2 (regardless of the maximum total concentrations) is generally not considered acceptable for off-site disposal without prior treatment.

Yes Soil that contains contaminants that do not have criteria for leachable concentrations (e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons), and the levels of contaminants exceed the maximum total concentrations listed in Contaminated Soil, are generally classified as Contaminated Soil for Remediation.

1 Controlled Waste is defined in the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. 2 Criteria for Fill Material are the limits set by the Director for the purposes of R.9(2)(a)(ii) in the Regulations.



Table 2. Maximum total concentration and leachable concentration values permitted for waste classification

(Note, does not apply for material classified as PASS, refer section 2.2.5)

FILL MATERIAL

Level 1

LOW LEVEL CONTAMINATED SOIL

Level 2

CONTAMINATED SOIL Level 3

CONTAMINANT Maximum total concentration

mg/kg dry weight

Maximum total concentration

mg/kg dry weight

Maximum (TCLP) leachable

concentration (pH 5.0 extract) mg/L

Maximum total concentration

mg/kg dry weight

Maximum (TCLP) leachable

concentration (pH 5.0 extract) mg/L

Arsenic 20 200 0.5 750 5

Barium 300 3,000 35 30,000 350

Beryllium 2 40 1 400 4

Cadmium 3 40 0.1 400 0.5

Chromium (total) 50 500 0.5 5,000 5

Chromium (VI) 1 200 NA* 2,000 NA

Copper 100 2,000 10 7,500 100

Cobalt 100 200 NA 1,000 NA

Lead 300 1,200 0.5 3,000 5

Manganese 500 5,000 25 25,000 250

Mercury (total) 1 30 0.01 110 0.1

Molybdenum 10 1,000 2.5 4,000 20

Nickel 60 600 1 3,000 8

Selenium 10 50 0.1 200 1

Silver 10 180 0.5 720 5

Tin (total) 50 500 NA 900 NA

Zinc 200 14,000 25 50,000 250

Tributyltin (reported as

Sn)

0.005 0.07 0.05 0.7 0.5

Aldrin + Dieldrin 2 20 0.003 50 0.03

DDT + DDD + DDE 2 200 0.2 1,000 2

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.08 2 0.0005 20 0.005

Phenols 25 500 14 2,000 50

C6-C9 petroleum hydrocarbons

65 650 NA 1,000 NA

C10-C36 petroleum hydrocarbons

1,000 5,000 NA 10,000 NA

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (total)

20 40 0.0005 TEQ**

200 NA

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

2 20 0.001 50 0.002

Benzene 1 5 0.05 50 0.5

Toluene 1 100 1.4 1,000 14

Ethylbenzene 3 100 3 1,080 30

Xylene (total) 14 180 5 1,800 50

Cyanide (total) 32 1,000 1 2,500 10

Fluoride 300 3,000 15 10,000 150

*NA – a leachable concentration has not been prescribed (refer Table 1 above) ** For guidance refer to http://epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/document?docid=1083



2.1 Controlled waste Contaminated soil may or may not be a controlled waste as defined in the National Environment Protection Measure for the Movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories (NEPC, 1998) and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) and as further prescribed in the Regulations. Soil and other material reasonably suspected to be a controlled waste must be sampled and analysed to determine whether it is a controlled waste before that waste can be removed from the site (R.6(3) of the Regulations). This generally includes, but is not limited to soil that is from a site that is used, or has been used, for an activity listed in Table 3 and is likely to be contaminated. Special provisions apply to the management of controlled waste, as detailed in section 3 of this bulletin. As a general rule all Low Level Contaminated Soil, Contaminated Soil and Contaminated Soil for Remediation that is intended for treatment, re-use or disposal should be managed as controlled waste unless sampling proves otherwise.

2.2 Sampling and analysis

The waste producer is responsible for organising the sampling and analysis of potentially contaminated soil. It is recommended that a suitably qualified person perform all sampling. Additionally, all soil sampling should be conducted in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards, which include:

AS 4482.1-2005 Guide to the investigation and sampling of potentially contaminated soil. Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds (and any subsequent editions)

AS 4482.2-1999 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. Part 2: Volatile substances (and any subsequent editions)

In the case of potentially Acid Sulfate Soils, the Tasmanian Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines published by Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment should be consulted.

In-situ sampling is generally not recommended for classification of soils that are to be excavated later for disposal. However, if this method of classification is unavoidable, then the Australian Standards listed above should be adhered to in order to obtain a representative number of samples. All sample analyses must be conducted by a laboratory registered with the National Association of Testing Authorities, accredited for the testing procedures undertaken (‘NATA accredited’), or by a laboratory approved by the Director for the test.

2.2.1 Sampling density

The number of samples required for adequate classification of soil is dependent on the volume of material, the estimated standard deviation of contamination concentrations, and the estimated average concentration. However, as a general rule for homogeneous stockpiled soil one sample should be taken every 25 m3.

2.2.2 Composite sampling

Generally, composite samples are not recommended for classification of soil for disposal. However, composite sampling may assist an environmental program by reducing sampling costs that could be spent elsewhere in the program. Composite sampling is only acceptable for stockpiled soil containing non-volatile contaminants



and is not an acceptable method for sampling of volatiles such as some hydrocarbon-contaminated soil.

All composite sampling should be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and in accordance with the Australian Standards AS 4482.1-2005 and the National Environmental Health Forum Monograph, Soil Series No. 3 – Composite Sampling, 1996.

2.2.3 Sampling materials other than soil For materials such as contaminated construction materials there are no guidelines available for determining the representative number of samples for testing. Surface scrapings or bored samples may be required to classify the material. The person undertaking the sampling, preferably an environmental consultant should develop a sampling strategy and density that adequately classifies the material.

2.2.4 Leachable fraction In order to classify soil for disposal, the leachable concentrations of metals and some organics should be undertaken. Where a leachable concentration is prescribed in Table 2, generally that value will take precedence over the total concentration value and will be used as the sole determinant of final classification for disposal.

The most appropriate procedure for determining the leachable fraction should be determined in consultation with an environmental consultant, the EPA and the analytical laboratory performing the procedures and with consideration of the waste management goals that are to be achieved. Accepted methods for determining leachable fractions are detailed below: The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), in accordance with USEPA Method 1311 – SW 846, is used to simulate the leaching of contaminants into groundwater under conditions found in solid waste landfills. The Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP), in accordance with USEPA MEP Method 1320 – SW 846, is used to simulate leaching from repetitive acid washings and is a more rigorous test of the buffering capacity of the soil than the TCLP. In some circumstances (e.g. for remediation technologies that involve solidification with lime based agents), the MEP would be a more suitable test to determine the long-term stability of soil. There is also an Australian Standard for the preparation of leachates: AS 4439-1997 (parts 1 to 3), Wastes, Sediments and Contaminated Soils: Preparation of Leachates.

2.2.5 Acid sulfate soils Potentially Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) underlie parts of Tasmania’s coastline and may also underlie inland areas such as peat bogs, salt lakes and wetlands. They are natural soils that contain sulfides (mostly iron sulfides). In an undisturbed and waterlogged state these soils are harmless, but when disturbed (such as dredging estuaries etc), a process of oxidation can produce sulfuric acid in large quantities. As the acid moves through the soil profile it may 'mobilise' or cause the release of metals and other toxins from the soil, which eventually flow into surrounding waterways. Acid Sulfate Soil (ASS) runoff therefore has significant environmental, economic and social impacts. The Tasmanian Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines provide guidance on the level of management required to minimise the risk associated with ASS. The Guidelines also provide criteria to characterise acid sulfate soils. The criteria in Table 2 of this Bulletin do not apply to any soils classified as PASS. Such soils should be managed as potentially acid sulfate soils. Acid Sulfate Soil predictive mapping is available for Tasmania at www.thelist.tas.gov.au. For further information regarding ASS, instructions on how to utilise the predictive mapping, or obtain a copy of the Guidelines, refer to: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter/nsf/WebPages/SWEN-83NVBG?open



3. Re-use or disposal - waste management plan A Waste Management Plan should be developed following the classification of soil to determine whether the soil can be remediated or re-used instead of, or prior to, disposal (see Figure 1, which summaries this process, and section 5 which details the information required). It should be noted that a controlled waste will not be suitable for re-use in sensitive environments such as wetlands, agricultural areas or residential sites. 4. Disposal of contaminated material Classification of soil (as defined in Table 2) will determine the category of landfill to which the soil can be disposed of in accordance with the landfill operator’s permit conditions. 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. Waste Type Category A landfill -

Solid Inert Landfill Category B landfill - Putrescible Landfill

Category C landfill - Secure landfill

Level 1 – Fill Material b b b Level 2 – Low Level Contaminated Soil

r b (refer to Section

4.2.2)

b

Level 3 - Contaminated Soil

r r b

Level 4 - Contaminated Soil for Remediation

r r r

See the Landfill Sustainability Guide 2004 (DPIWE, 2004) for further details. 4.1 Disposal of fill material (Level 1) 4.1.1 The off-site disposal of Fill Material is not restricted and may be used as cover in

landfills. 4.1.2 The definition of Fill Material includes inert construction material, soils and rocks,

which have not been contaminated with any substance, and stable asphalt or bituminous pavement material, all of which are generally considered inert for use as ‘fill’. However, soil and other material classified as Fill Material can still be a ‘pollutant’ under EMPCA and must be responsibly managed.

Re-use of fill material

4.1.3 The re-use of Fill Material must not result in environmental harm. Fill Material might contain contaminants above background levels and therefore may not be suitable for all uses, e.g. for sensitive uses such as child play areas, residential uses, or in protected nature reserves

4.1.4 In some cases, unwanted ‘waste’ soils or rock imported from another site to be used

as fill may naturally contain contaminants at levels that are higher than Fill Material criteria due to regional geological characteristics. This material would be regarded



as unsuitable for re-use if it posed a risk to human health or the environment in its new location. The risk posed by importation of materials with naturally elevated levels of certain contaminants should be assessed by an environmental consultant and the evaluation and supporting information submitted to the Director for approval.

4.2 Disposal of low level contaminated soil (Level 2)Low Level Contaminated Soil may, in some cases, be suitable for disposal as intermediate landfill cover at nominated municipal landfills. Please note that the landfill operator should refuse soil that has not been classified and approved if there is likelihood that acceptance of the material may result in a breach of the landfill operator’s permit conditions.

4.2.2 Approval for the disposal of Low Level Contaminated Soil must be sought from the

landfill operator and the EPA. The information detailed in section 5 of this bulletin must be supplied to the EPA when making an application for approval to dispose of a waste. Landfills at which Low Level Contaminated Soil (Level 2) may be accepted:

Council / Authority Landfill Circular Head Council Port Latta Waste Depot Dulverton Regional Waste Management Authority (DRWMA)

Dulverton Regional Waste Depot

Launceston City Council Remount Rd Waste Depot Copping Refuse Disposal Site Joint Authority Copping Waste Depot

Re-use of low level contaminated soil 4.2.3 Low Level Contaminated Soil might be suitable for re-use as fill or levelling material

on an industrial or commercial site, but will be judged on a case by case basis. In determining whether Low Level Contaminated Soil may be used as fill, an assessment of the environmental and human health hazards associated with the disposal option must be conducted by a suitably qualified environmental consultant. If the soil is classified as a controlled waste, approval must be sought from the Director as detailed in section 5.

4.3 Disposal of contaminated soil (Level 3)Contaminated Soil can only be disposed of at

landfills that have the appropriate permit conditions and within a separate lined and contained cell.

4.3.2 Approval for the disposal of Contaminated Soil must be sought from the landfill operator and the EPA. The information detailed in section 5 of this bulletin must be supplied to the EPA in making an application for approval.

4.3.3 Only permitted landfills are allowed to accept Level 3 waste. Furthermore, it is at the

landfill operator’s discretion as to whether or not they will accept the waste. At the date of publication, no Tasmanian landfill is receiving level 3 waste for disposal.

4.4 Contaminated soil for remediation (Level 4) 4.4.1 Contaminated Soil for Remediation requires remediation or treatment prior to

disposal to reduce total concentrations and/or leachable concentrations to levels acceptable for landfill disposal or re-use.

4.4.2 The producer (defined in the Regulations) of the Contaminated Soil for Remediation

is responsible for identification of the treatment options, which will depend on the



waste and pollutant type, waste volumes and the availability of suitable facilities in which to manage the remediation. Typical forms of treatment currently being used for remediation of contaminated soil include bioremediation, thermal treatment/desorption, soil washing, soil vapour extraction, red mud, chemical treatments and stabilisation. Specific treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated soil by bioremediation is encouraged under appropriate circumstances, as detailed in the EPA’s Information Bulletin 108: Landfarming of Petroleum Contaminated Soils.

4.4.3 The suitable technologies for waste treatment may not be available in Tasmania and thus treatment may require transport to an interstate facility. Advice on interstate treatment options should be sought from the Controlled Waste Management Officer.

4.4.4 If the soil is to be disposed of after treatment, the EPA encourages treatment methods that minimise soil volumes prior to disposal to conserve landfill space.

4.4.5 If the remediation method has the potential to cause environmental harm, as defined in EMPCA, advice from the Director should be sought.

4.4.6 Regulation 6 - General Responsibilities of the Regulations requires that a person must not remove, receive, store, reuse, recycle, reprocess, salvage, incinerate, treat or use for energy recovery a controlled waste as defined within the Regulations unless approved to do so.

5. Approvals 5.1 Approval process

The waste producer, or consultant/contractor acting on behalf of the waste producer, is responsible for applying for approval for soil disposal, re-use options or remediation.

Applications are to be sent to the Director, EPA. Please allow up to ten working days for the Director to respond to an application. Please note that where it is intended to dispose of material to a landfill, an ‘in principle’ agreement from the landfill should be gained by the applicant prior to disposal.

Upon approval of the application, the Director, or a person authorised by the Director will provide written notification to the applicant of the approved classification of the waste where appropriate. The landfill authority will also be forwarded a copy of the approval, along with a copy of the analytical results and any other relevant information so that they can monitor waste entering the landfill.

5.2 Information required An application for approval to dispose of, re-use, treat, remediate, etc, soil must contain the following information:

Introduction: Details of the site(s) from which the soil is to be removed, including a brief site history

and why the soil is thought to be contaminated, or likely to cause environmental harm;

Description of the soil;

Estimate of the volume of soil to be managed.

Sampling details: Sampling density and analytical suite to classify the soil; Sampling protocols followed;



Scaled sampling plan showing, for example, soil stockpiles and sample locations and contamination sources;

NATA endorsed laboratory reports. Waste management plan: Proposal for the management of the soil that is in accordance with relevant guidelines

and standards; If the soil is to be disposed of, provide justification for why re-use, on-site treatment, etc

is not proposed; Details of the proposed management method, for example the name of the landfill facility

that you wish to dispose of the soil at, or details of the treatment or re-use etc; The name of the waste transporter that you will be utilising (see Section 6 for further

details); and If the soil is to be re-used, recycled, treated, etc, and is a controlled waste, the waste

producer must apply for an environmental approval from the Director (R.12 of the Regulations). Relevant information required by the EPA to consider an application for an environmental approval is detailed in R.12(3) of the Regulations. A R12 application form can be accessed at:

http://epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/required-approvals-and-authorisations In situations where a site investigation report has already been lodged with the EPA, duplication of information provided in that report is not required. However, in all cases, the application will need to make reference to the specific sample numbers used for soil classification. 6. Transport of contaminated material If a controlled waste is to be transported, a waste transport business holding a current relevant approval for that particular waste type and issued under EMPCA is required. For information regarding currently approved Waste Transporters, either contact the Controlled Waste Transport Officer (see below) or a list can be accessed at: http://epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/document?docid=1063 Caution should be taken when transporting any material to ensure its safe transportation and prevention of secondary impacts (e.g. dust). 7. Further information

For further information relating to this bulletin or to make a contaminated soil or controlled waste disposal application contact: Waste Management Section GPO Box 1550 HOBART TASMANIA 7001 Controlled Waste Management Officer……………….… Contaminated Sites Officer…………………………….…. Controlled Waste Transport Officer ….…………………. Landfill Officer…….………………………………………… Legislation may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au. General information can be viewed either on the EPA’s website at http://www.epa.tas.gov.au



8. Currency of this bulletin This bulletin may be subject to amendment and persons relying on this bulletin should check with an officer of the Waste Management Section or on the above EPA Division and EPA websites to ensure that it is current at any given time.

Disclaimer The Crown gives no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this Bulletin. The contents are based on the best information available to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) at the time of publication and are subject to revision based upon further advice received by the EPA.

Please note that other national or state agencies may have additional requirements relating to the import/export and/or disposal of controlled wastes. Table 3. Potentially Contaminating Activities

Potentially Contaminating Activities

Acid / alkali plant and formulation Landfill sites, including on-site waste disposal and refuse pits

Ammunition manufacture and usage (e.g. shooting ranges)

Lime burner

Asbestos production, handling or disposal Metal treatments (e.g. electroplating) and abrasive blasting

Asphalt/bitumen manufacturing Metal smelting, refining or finishing Battery manufacturing or recycling Mining and extractive industries Boat/ship building, marinas, slip ways and associated boat yards

Oil or gas production or refining

Boiler or kiln usage Paint formulation and manufacture Chemical manufacture and formulation (e.g. fertilisers, paints, pesticides, photography, plastics, solvents)

Pesticide manufacture and formulation sites

Dewatering of sediments Petroleum product or oil storage Disturbance of potential acid sulfate soils Pharmaceutical manufacture and formulation Drum conditioning works Power stations Dry cleaning establishments Printing Electrical transformers Radio-active material usage (e.g. hospitals) Ethanol production plant Railway yards Engine works Scrap yards and recycling facilities Explosives industries and usage sites Sewage treatment plant Fertiliser manufacturing plants Sheep and cattle dips Fill material imported onto a site from a potentially contaminated source (includes dredge spoil)

Sites of fires involving hazardous materials, including fire fighting foam use

Foundry Operations Spray mixing sites (e.g. for orchards) Gas works Spray painting industries Herbicide manufacture Tanning and associated trades Hospitals Textile operations Sites of incidents involving release of hazardous materials

Tyre manufacturing and retreading works

Industrial activities involving chemicals that may have spilt

Wood preservation and storage or cutting of treated timber

Iron and steel works Wool scouring Laboratories



Figure 1 Summary of Waste Management for Contaminated Soil.

Analysis

Contaminant level <max total concentration for FM and not Acid Sulfate Soil

Contaminant level >max total concentration for FM but <max total or leachable concentration for LLCS

Contaminant level >max total or leachable concentration for CS

Disposal at nominated category 3 landfills.

Initial Trigger Soil sourced from an area hosting an environmentally relevant activity as defined in the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Conducted by an appropriately qualified environmental consultant and analysed in a NATA accredited laboratory. Send results to Director.

Classification

Refer to Table 2

FM = Fill Material LLCS = Low Level Contaminated Soil CS = Contaminated Soil CSR = Contaminated Soil for

Remediation

For LLCS, CS and CSR the Director must approve the classification.

Waste Management

Plan

Approval Process

If the waste management options have the potential to cause environmental harm, approval from the Director is required (see the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000)

Transport

Disposal

Contaminant level >max total concentration for LLCS but <max total or leachable concentration for CS

Disposal at nominated category 2 or 3 landfills.

Potentially Contaminated Soil

Remediation required before disposal Off-site disposal of

soil classified as Fill Material must not pose a risk of environmental harm.

Low Level Contaminated

Soil Controlled Waste?

Contaminated Soil

Controlled Waste

Contaminated Soil for

Remediation

Controlled Waste

No formal notification or approval required for Fill Material unless likely to cause environmental harm

After remediation, disposal or re-use of the resulting material as approved by the Director.

Waste Transporter with relevant approvalsrequired.

If the soil or material is a Controlled Waste, approval from the Director, EPA and the landfill, treatment facility or site operator is required before the soil is disposed of, treated or re-used.

Consider appropriate remediation, treatment or re-use options that are beneficial to the environment.

Information detailed in section 5 of this Bulletin must be supplied to the EPA.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Fill Material

If material is to be disposed of, prior acceptance from landfill management/permit holder required in all cases