Note 1: On 7 February 2012, the EPA granted an amendment (Notice 20124403) to the milestones set out in the Management Order. Other than the amendments set out in Notice 20124403, the remaining terms of the Management Order remain in force.
Note 2: The EPA amended the Figure relating to this Management Order in notice number 20124418 on 19July 2012.
Environment Protection Authority
Management order
(Section 14 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997)
Order Number 20111406; Declaration Number 21074; Area Number 3203
Service: By Registered post
Orica Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 117 828)
Attention:
The Proper Officer
A. Orica Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 117 828) (Orica), formerly ICI Australia Operations Proprietary Limited, has operated a chemicals manufacturing facility at the Botany Industrial Park (BIP) in Matraville, Sydney since 1942.
B.
On 9 February 2005 the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)
declared the BIP site and surrounding land as significantly contaminated land
(Notice No. 21074) under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (Act).
The parcels of land to which the declaration applies are listed in the table
attached to that notice, and include part
C. Orica used elemental mercury at the former CAP in an electrolytic process which operated from 1944 until 2002, when it was replaced with a membrane cell electrolytic plant. Investigations at the former CAP have identified significant concentrations of mercury in the soil and groundwater, and mercury has migrated off site via groundwater and concentrations that exceed relevant human health and environmental guideline values.
D.
Orica commissioned a report titled Human Health and Environmental Risk
Assessment, former ChlorAlkali Plant,
E. Orica commissioned a report titled Remediation Action Plan, former Chlor Alkali Plant, Orica Botany NSW (URS, 18 January 2011) (RAP) for the proposed remediation of mercury contaminated soil at discrete locations within the foot print of the former CAP facilities, located within the BIP. The RAP also incorporates the proposed relocation of the salt (sodium chloride) stockpile, used by the current CAP facility, to address its current potential impact to groundwater quality whilst minimising impacts to the current CAP operations.
F. On 1 June 2011, the EPA approved a Voluntary Management Proposal (Notice No 20111711) (VMP) under the Act for the management of the mercury contamination at the former CAP. Remediation works commenced in May 2011 and involved the excavation of the mercury contaminated soils followed by soil washing to remove the mercury. This remediation process took place within a purpose-built building with two emission control systems to remove mercury from the air within the building prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
G. Although the soil washing process successfully removed some mercury contamination from the soil, the treatment process did not sufficiently address the remediation objectives in the VMP. Additional specialist resources and equipment by Orica was not able to sufficiently improve the process capability to meet the project requirements. On the 18 August 2011, Orica wrote to the EPA about its intention to suspend the mercury remediation works and stated that it would be evaluating other options to meet the remediation objectives set out in the RAP.
H. The objective of this order is to set out an appropriate remediation framework to achieve the required environmental and human health outcomes and timeframes for the remediation of mercury contamination from the former CAP. These matters have not been adequately addressed by the VMP. Prior to the making of this order, the EPA considered all submissions made as to whether an order should be issued.
I. To meet the objective of this order a revised remediation technology assessment of available remedial options to remediate mercury contaminated soils, either insitu or exsitu must be completed by Orica and submitted to the EPA. This assessment is also to be submitted to an independent expert, approved by the EPA, that has appropriate expertise in the remediation of mercury contaminated soils, and any advice provided by this expert is to be taken into account in determining suitable remedial options for the CAP.
J. Under the Act, the EPA may issue a management order to one or more appropriate persons. The EPA may choose a person who is responsible for the significant contamination of the land as an appropriate person. Orica is responsible for the significant contamination of the Land because it carried on activities on the Land that utilised mercury and substances that may be converted, by reacting with each other or by the action of natural processes on the land, into substances that are the same as those that caused the contamination and it caused the contamination by its operation of the former CAP facility which leaked mercury into the soil. I determine Orica is the appropriate person to be the subject of this order.
K. The EPA is concurrently withdrawing its approval of the VMP.
Land to which this order applies
This order applies to part of the significantly contaminated land in declaration number 21074 made on 9 February 2005 as shown on the attached map and listed in the following table (the Land):
|
Description |
Address |
|
Part |
|
The substance(s) that are the subject of the Declaration of Significantly Contaminated Land No 21074 (the significant contaminant(s)) are organic contaminants, including but not limited to volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons and semi-volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons.
The EPA declared the contamination of the Land and surrounding areas with a number of substances (including mercury) to be significant enough to warrant regulation. It found that:
· the contaminants are toxic and some are also persistent and have the potential to bioaccumulate
· the dense non-aqueous phase liquids were a continuing source of groundwater ecosystem
· the marine aquatic ecosystem of Penrhyn Estuary and
· Penrhyn Estuary has already been impacted by the contamination and the contamination poses an ongoing and significant risk to that ecosystem
· there was the potential for harm to be caused to humans form the domestic or commercial use or consumption of and recreating in the groundwater.
The EPA continues to believe that the Land is contaminated and that the contamination is significant enough to warrant regulation. In particular:
· Mercury has migrated off site via groundwater at concentrations that exceed relevant human health and environmental guideline values to areas where groundwater could be extracted for beneficial use;
· The elemental mercury contamination in the soil presents a potential vapour risk to workers at the site; and
· The mercury in the soil represents a contaminant source that is likely to continue to impact groundwater.
The NSW Government has established a Groundwater Extraction Exclusion Area that includes the area known to be impacted by Orica’s contamination. The use of groundwater for residential purposes within that area is banned, and industrial users must test the groundwater at least annually to ensure it is fit for use.
Under section 14(1) of the Act, I, Niall Johnston, direct Orica Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 117 828) to do each of the following in relation to the Land:
Remedial options appraisal report
1. By 31st January 2012 prepare a detailed written remedial options appraisal report. The report must:
(a) specify and describe options to remove to the maximum extent practicable the risk to human health and environment from mercury at the Land and prevent ongoing contamination of the groundwater by the end of 2014.
(b) assess each of the following remedial options, including any possible combinations of those options:
(i) insitu thermal technologies
(ii) exsitu thermal technologies
(iii) on site containment
(iv) off site disposal, including consideration of the requirements for stabilisation of the contamination prior to transportation off site.
(c) compare the technologies available for management of the contamination in terms of:
(i) the effectiveness in cleaning up the contamination,
(ii) long term sustainability
(iii) protection of the environment
(iv) the cost of the technology in the short and long term, including sufficient details to enable a review and independent verification of any such cost comparison.
2. By 31 January 2012, engage an independent expert, approved by the EPA, experienced in the remediation of mercury contaminated soils and submit a copy of the remedial options appraisal report to that person for peer review.
3. By 1 March 2012, submit a final copy of the report to the EPA, together with a copy of the comments from the peer reviewer, by:
(a) post to: Manager Contaminated Sites
PO Box A290
Sydney South
NSW1232, or
(b) email to: niall.johnston@environment.nsw.gov.au;
Identification of preferred remedial approach
4. By 30 March 2012, identify a preferred remedial approach and a clear and comprehensive justification for that preferred approach by notice in writing to the EPA for discussion with the EPA and Community Liaison Committee. The notice must be:
(a) posted to: Manager Contaminated Sites
PO Box A290
Sydney South
NSW1232, or
(b) emailed to: niall.johnston@environment.nsw.gov.au;
Remediation action plan
5. By 30 April 2012, engage an appropriately qualified and experienced contaminated land consultant to prepare a remediation action plan and submit that plan to the EPA for its approval. The plan must:
(a) set out the measures and actions to be taken to:
(i) remove to the maximum extent practicable the risk to human health and the environment from mercury at the Land by the end of 2014
(ii) prevent to the extent practicable any ongoing contamination of the groundwater with mercury from the Land by the end of 2014;
(b) specify the reports which will be developed and propose dates for the submission of those reports to the EPA
(c) specify a timeline, interim triggers and thresholds by which progress towards achieving the compliance with the targets and goals set out in direction 5(a) will be measured and reported in writing on a regular basis to the EPA until the goals and targets are reached
(d) be accompanied by a site audit statement prepared by an EPA accredited site auditor stating whether or not in the site auditor’s opinion the implementation of the works detailed in the remediation action plan will:
(i) remove to the maximum extent practicable the risk to human health and the environment from mercury at the Land
(ii) prevent to the extent practicable ongoing contamination of the groundwater with mercury from the Land;
Groundwater monitoring plan
6. By 30 April 2012 prepare and submit a written groundwater monitoring plan to the EPA for approval. The plan must:
(a) outline ongoing groundwater monitoring that Orica will undertake to assess the potential and any actual continued spreading of the groundwater mercury plume
(b) take into account possible changes in the movement of the groundwater mercury plume (including the speed with which the plume is moving)
(c) identify contingencies to be put in place to control and manage the mercury groundwater plume to ensure there continues to be no unacceptable impacts (using the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, published by ANZECC and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Paper No 4 (October 2000) as a basis) from the plume on human health and the environment
(d) identify how Orica will secure funding to implement the contingencies identified in accordance with direction 6(c) of this order.
(e) identify how Orica will monitor and test the effectiveness of remediation measures carried out under the remediation action plan
(f) be submitted to the EPA by:
(i) post to: Manager Contaminated Sites
PO Box A290
Sydney South
NSW 1232, or
(ii) email to: niall.johnston@environment.nsw.gov.au;
Carry out directions consistent with EPA Guidelines
7. Carry out the directions in this order consistent with any relevant guidelines made or approved by the EPA under s 105 of the Act;
Consultation
8. By 13 February 2012, prepare a community consultation plan. The plan must include plans to consult with the members of the Community Liaison Committee about:
(a) the proposed remedial options
(b) the preferred remedial approach
(c) the groundwater monitoring plan, and
(d) the reasons for any proposed measures to manage the contamination
and take their submissions (or any submissions made by an independent expert on their behalf) into account prior to submitting the relevant reports and plans on these matters to the EPA.
9. Implement the community consultation plan required to be prepared under direction 8.
Public access to information
10. Make available for inspection by any person, free of charge, any report on the action taken under the management order, and provide a copy of such a report to any person for a reasonable fee.
[Signed]
NIALL JOHNSTON
Manager Contaminated Sites
(by delegation)
Date: 9 January 2012
NOTE:
Cost Recovery
Section 34 of the CLM Act allows the EPA to recover its costs in connection with the issue of, monitoring actions of and seeking compliance with a remediation order.
Information recorded by the EPA
Section 58 of the CLM Act 1997 requires the EPA to maintain a public record. A copy of this management order will be included in the public record.
Information recorded by councils
Section 59 of the Act requires the EPA to give a copy of this order to the relevant local council. The council is then required to note on its planning certificate issued pursuant to s 149(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the land is currently subject to a management order. The EPA is required to notify council as soon as practicable when the order is no longer in force and the notation on the s 149(2) certificate can be removed.
Relationship to other regulatory instrument
This order does not affect the provisions of any relevant environmental planning instruments which may control the land on which the land is located or provisions of any other environmental protection legislation administered by the EPA.
Guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the CLM Act.
All the directions in this order must be carried out consistent with guidelines made or approved under section 105 of the CLM Act. See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/clm/guidelines.htm.
Appeals against this decision
You can appeal to the Land and Environment Court against this order. The deadline for lodging the appeal is 21 days after you were given notice of this order.
Note: All references in the EPA's contaminated sites guidelines to the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (ANZECC, November 1992) are replaced as of 6 September 2001 by references to the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, October 2000), subject to the same terms.
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999
(I) Schedule A
(II) Schedule B -Guidelines
(1) Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater
(2) Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design and Reporting
(3) Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially Contaminated Soils
(4) Guideline on Health Risk Assessment Methodology
(5) Guideline on Ecological Risk Assessment
(6) Guideline on Risk Based Assessment of Groundwater Contamination
(7a) Guideline on Health-Based Investigation Levels
(7b) Guideline on Exposure Scenarios and Exposure Settings
(8) Guideline on Community Consultation and Risk Communication
(9) Guideline on Protection of Health and the Environment During the Assessment of Site Contamination
(10) Guideline on Competencies & Acceptance of Environmental Auditors and Related Professionals
