National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (Cth)
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999
as amended
made under section 14(1) of the
National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cwlth), the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995 (NSW), the National Environment Protection Council (Victoria) Act 1995 (Vic), the National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994 (Qld), the National Environment Protection Council (Western Australia) Act 1996 (WA), the National Environment Protection Council (South Australia) Act 1995 (SA), the National Environment Protection Council (Tasmania) Act 1995 (Tas), the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (ACT) and the National Environment Protection Council (Northern Territory) Act 1994 (NT)
Compilation start date: 16 May 2013
Includes amendments up to: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1)
This compilation has been split into 22 volumes
Volume 1: sections 1–6, Schedules A and B
Volume 2: Schedule B1
Volume 3: Schedule B2
Volume 4: Schedule B3
Volume 5: Schedule B4
Volume 6: Schedule B5a
Volume 7: Schedule B5b
Volume 8: Schedule B5c
Volume 9: Schedule B6
Volume 10: Schedule B7 - Appendix 1
Volume 11: Schedule B7 - Appendix 2
Volume 12: Schedule B7 - Appendix 3
Volume 13: Schedule B7 - Appendix 4
Volume 14: Schedule B7 - Appendix 5
Volume 15: Schedule B7 - Appendix 6
Volume 16: Schedule B7 - Appendix B
Volume 17: Schedule B7 - Appendix C
Volume 18: Schedule B7 - Appendix D
Volume 19: Schedule B7
Volume 20: Schedule B8
Volume 21: Schedule B9
Volume 22: Endnotes
Each volume has its own contents
About this compilation
The compiled instrument
This is a compilation of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 as amended and in force on 16 May 2013. It includes any amendment affecting the compiled instrument to that date.
This compilation was prepared on 22 May 2013.
The notes at the end of this compilation (the endnotes) include information about amending Acts and instruments and the amendment history of each amended provision.
Uncommenced provisions and amendments
If a provision of the compiled instrument is affected by an uncommenced amendment, the text of the uncommenced amendment is set out in the endnotes.
Application, saving and transitional provisions for amendments
If the operation of an amendment is affected by an application, saving or transitional provision, the provision is identified in the endnotes.
Modifications
If a provision of the compiled instrument is affected by a textual modification that is in force, the text of the modifying provision is set out in the endnotes.
Provisions ceasing to have effect
If a provision of the compiled instrument has expired or otherwise ceased to have effect in accordance with a provision of the instrument, details of the provision are set out in the endnotes.
Page
Contents
Preliminary 1
1............ Citation.......................................................................................................................... 1
2............ Commencement............................................................................................................. 1
3............ Definitions..................................................................................................................... 1
Head of power for making this Measure 4
4............ Head of power............................................................................................................... 4
Purpose and desired environmental outcome of the Measure 5
5............ Purpose and desired environmental outcome................................................................. 5
Assessment of Site Contamination Policy Framework 6
6............ Assessment of site contamination principles................................................................. 6
(1)......... Individual responsibility................................................................................................ 6
(2)......... Implementation of jurisdictional responsibility.............................................................. 6
(3)......... Prevention..................................................................................................................... 6
(4)......... Regulatory control of site contamination....................................................................... 6
(5)......... Planning and development............................................................................................. 6
(5A)...... Decommissioning of industrial activities....................................................................... 6
(6)......... Availability of site contamination information............................................................... 7
(7)......... Community engagement................................................................................................ 7
(8)......... Cultural and spiritual significance.................................................................................. 7
(9)......... Education....................................................................................................................... 7
(10)....... Site assessment process................................................................................................. 7
(11)....... Human health................................................................................................................ 7
(11A).... Work health and safety.................................................................................................. 7
(12)....... Environmental impact.................................................................................................... 7
(13)....... Data collection and chemical analyses........................................................................... 8
(14)....... Risk assessment............................................................................................................ 8
(15)....... Objectives of assessment............................................................................................... 8
(16)....... Attainment of environmental outcome........................................................................... 8
(17)....... Specialist areas.............................................................................................................. 9
(18)....... Heritage sites................................................................................................................. 9
(19)....... Best practice................................................................................................................ 10
Schedules to the Measure 11
7............ Schedules.................................................................................................................... 11
8............ Stages of investigation................................................................................................. 11
Reporting12
9............ Reporting requirements............................................................................................... 12
Review of the Measure 13
10.......... Review period............................................................................................................. 13
Schedule A—Recommended general process for assessment of site contamination 14
Schedule B—General guidelines for the assessment of site contamination 15
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999
Introductory note
Section 14 of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 and the equivalent provision of the corresponding Act of each participating State and Territory provides for the making of Measures by the National Environment Protection Council and the matters to which they may relate. This Measure relates to the matters set out in paragraph 14(1)(d).
The Measure is to be implemented by the laws and other arrangements participating jurisdictions consider necessary: see Section 7 of the Commonwealth Act and the equivalent provision of the corresponding Act of each participating State and Territory.
Preliminary
1 Citation
This Measure may be cited as the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.
2 Commencement
This Measure commences on the date of gazettal of this Measure.
3 Definitions
This clause defines particular words and expressions used in this Measure. Definitions of other terms that are used in particular guidelines in Schedule B are set out in the relevant guidelines.
In the context of this Measure the use of the word “should” does not imply obligation, but rather provides for general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination.
In this Measure, unless the contrary intention appears:
Agency means a body or bodies of a participating State or a participating Territory which that State or Territory has nominated for the purposes of this Measure.
Assessment of site contamination means a set of formal methods for determining the nature, extent and levels of existing contamination and the actual or potential risk to human health or the environment on or off-site resulting from that contamination.
Background concentrations means the naturally occurring, ambient concentrations of substances in the local area of a site.
Chemical substance means any organic or inorganic substance, whether liquid, solid or gaseous.
Commonwealth Act means the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 of the Commonwealth.
Contamination means the condition of land or water where any chemical substance or waste has been added as a direct or indirect result of human activity at above background level and represents, or potentially represents, an adverse health or environmental impact.
Ecological Risk Assessment is a set of formal, scientific methods for defining and estimating the probabilities and magnitudes of adverse impacts on plants, animals and/or the ecology of a specified area posed by a particular stressor(s) and frequency of exposure to the stressor(s). (Stressors include release of chemicals, other human actions and natural catastrophes).
Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of disease in human populations.
Health Risk Assessment is the process of estimating the potential impact of a chemical, biological or physical agent on a specified human population system under a specific set of conditions.
Health Risk Management is the process of evaluating and implementing appropriate options to address risks identified from health risk assessments. The decision making will incorporate scientific, social, economic and political information. The process requires value judgements eg. on the tolerability and reasonableness of costs.
Investigation or Screening Level means the concentration of a contaminant above which further appropriate investigation and evaluation will be required.
Risk means the probability in a certain timeframe that an adverse outcome will occur in a person, a group of people, plants, animals and/or the ecology of a specified area that is exposed to a particular dose or concentration of a chemical substance, ie it depends on both the level of toxicity of the chemical substance and the level of exposure.
Site means the parcel of land being assessed for contamination.
Unless otherwise stated, a term used in this Measure and in the Commonwealth Act has the same meaning in this Measure as it has in the Commonwealth Act. The following terms are defined in subsection 6(1) of the Commonwealth Act:
Agreement means the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment made on 1 May 1992 between the Commonwealth, the States, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and the Australian Local Government Association, a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Act.
Council means the National Environment Protection Council established by Section 8 of the Commonwealth Act and the equivalent provisions of the corresponding Acts of participating States and Territories.
National environment protection guideline means a guideline that gives guidance on possible means for achieving desired environmental outcomes.
National Environment Protection Measure (Measure) means a Measure made under section 14(1) of the Commonwealth Act and the equivalent provisions of the corresponding Acts of participating States and Territories.
Participating jurisdiction means the Commonwealth, a participating State or a participating Territory.
Participating State means a State:
(a) that is a party to the Agreement; and
(b) in which an Act that corresponds to the Commonwealth Act is in force in accordance with the Agreement.
Participating Territory means a Territory:
(a) that is a party to the Agreement; and
(b) in which an Act that corresponds to the Commonwealth Act is in force in accordance with the Agreement.
Head of power for making this Measure
4 Head of power
This Measure is made pursuant to section 14(1) of the Commonwealth National Environment Protection Council Act, and in particular, paragraph (d) of that section, and the equivalent provisions of corresponding Acts in participating States and Territories.
Purpose and desired environmental outcome of the Measure
5 Purpose and desired environmental outcome
(1) The purpose of the Measure is to establish a nationally consistent approach to the assessment of site contamination to ensure sound environmental management practices by the community which includes regulators, site assessors, environmental auditors, land owners, developers and industry.
(2) The desired environmental outcome for this Measure is to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment, where site contamination has occurred, through the development of an efficient and effective national approach to the assessment of site contamination.
Assessment of Site Contamination Policy Framework
6 Assessment of site contamination principles
The following principles should be observed in relation to the Assessment of Site Contamination:
(1) Individual responsibility
The primary responsibility for ensuring the assessment of site contamination rests with the States and Territories, excluding sites owned by the Commonwealth which are the responsibility of the Commonwealth.
(2) Implementation of jurisdictional responsibility
There should be a consistent approach to the assessment of site contamination across Australia but each participating jurisdiction may implement the necessary controls in its own manner.
(3) Prevention
Contamination, or further contamination, of a site should be prevented. Investigation or Screening Levels provided as part of this policy framework process should not be construed as desirable soil/water quality criteria or levels up to which contamination may be allowed to occur.
There should be no noticeable or measurable change in the characteristics of soil, or associated ground or surface waters. It is recognised that certain activities will lead to the addition of substances to the soil which raise the background levels of soils. These are valid and legitimate activities where they are undertaken in accordance with relevant laws and best practice guidelines.
(4) Regulatory control of site contamination
Contaminated soil and associated ground and surface waters should be categorised by the nature and concentration of contaminants and subject to appropriate controls over their use, storage, transport and ultimate disposal.
(5) Planning and development
Authorities of participating jurisdictions (at local and State government level) that consent to developments, or changes in land use, should ensure a site that is being considered for development or a change in land use, and that the authorities ought reasonably know if it has a history of use that is indicative of potential contamination, is suitable for its intended use.
(5A) Decommissioning of industrial activities
Industries, including mining and mineral processing industries, are responsible for ensuring that, when equipment on a site is dismantled or a site is otherwise decommissioned, appropriate measures are taken to leave the site in a safe and stable condition in order to prevent or, as far as practical, minimise adverse long‑term environmental (physical, social and economic) impacts.
(6) Availability of site contamination information
Without detracting from any obligation of disclosure, which may exist at law, all relevant information on site contamination should be accessible to the community and particularly to those who need to make informed decisions, for example, potential land purchasers.
Without detracting from any obligation of disclosure, which may exist at law, the owner of a contaminated site should inform any person who proposes to purchase or lease the site, of information from the assessment of site contamination.
Prospective purchasers of land should also make appropriate enquiries to satisfy themselves regarding the condition of a site and any financial liabilities that may apply for the current use or the proposed future use of the land.
(7) Community engagement
If a community could reasonably have an interest in the potential site contamination, community engagement should start at an early stage of, and continue throughout, the process of assessment of site contamination.
(8) Cultural and spiritual significance
Due regard should be given to sites of cultural or spiritual significance, in particular, the significance that indigenous people attach to land.
(9) Education
Education programs should be implemented in the community, industry and all levels of government to raise awareness and understanding of site contamination issues, including the prevention of soil, air and water contamination.
(10) Site assessment process
The recommended general process for the assessment of site contamination is shown in Schedule A. The assessment should be conducted by professionals who have the relevant qualifications, competencies and experience.
(11) Human health
Human health should be a primary concern when assessing land use and exposure scenarios.
There should be appropriate occupational health and safety measures (including training) for personnel involved in assessment of site contamination.
Community health assessment and monitoring for specific health effects may be warranted where appraisal has indicated a significant risk of exposure to contamination.
(11A) Work health and safety
There should be appropriate work health and safety measures (including training) in place for any personnel involved in the assessment of site contamination, in accordance with the applicable work health and safety legislation.
(12) Environmental impact
The assessment of site contamination should include a consideration of risks to water resources and other ecological risks.
During the assessment, the on‑site and off‑site impacts of contaminants should be appropriately managed to prevent adverse impacts, particularly impacts relating to air emissions, surface water and groundwater.
(13) Data collection and chemical analyses
Site Assessors should develop data quality objectives and implement data quality assurance and quality control procedures that address sampling, contaminant identification and chemical analyses. These procedures should enable the evaluation of the precision and accuracy of results as part of the assessment of site risk. All other aspects of the risk assessment process should also be subject to quality assurance.
Chemical analyses should be performed using approved standard methods and should be performed by laboratories accredited for those analyses in the particular environmental medium. Field analytical methods should be performed by appropriately skilled personnel using approved standard methods.
Laboratories should be accredited for relevant analytical procedures by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA), or by an organisation recognised under NATA’s Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) Network, or according to an appropriate standard dealing with laboratory quality assurance.
(14) Risk assessment
The initial assessment of human health risks and ecological risks may be undertaken by comparing levels of contaminants on the site with appropriate investigation or screening levels or, if necessary, by undertaking a site‑specific risk assessment. The initial assessment may be followed by a more detailed assessment of human health risks and ecological risks.
An assessment of human health risks and ecological risks should, if practicable, take into account any additive, synergistic and antagonistic effects of mixing chemical substances.
(15) Objectives of assessment
The purpose of site assessment is to determine whether site contamination poses an actual or potential risk to human health and the environment, either on or off the site, of sufficient magnitude to warrant remediation appropriate to the current or proposed land use. In assessing that risk a balance is to be achieved between:
• optimising the current or intended use of the site; and
• adequately protecting human health and the environment.
The broader objective of assessment is to ensure:
• that the people of Australia enjoy the benefit of equivalent protection from air, water and soil pollution wherever they live;
• that the environmental values of water are maintained for future generations;
•that the capacity of the soil is maintained for future generations; and
• that there is consistency of approach between jurisdictions to aid government and business decision making.
(16) Attainment of environmental outcome
In general, to achieve the desired environmental outcome, the process of the assessment of site contamination should be placed within the context of the broader site assessment and management process. In particular, in assessing the contamination, the site assessor and others should take into account the preferred hierarchy of options for site clean-up and/or management which is outlined as follows:
• on-site treatment of the contamination so that it is destroyed or the associated risk is reduced to an acceptable level; and
• off-site treatment of excavated soil, so that the contamination is destroyed or the associated risk is reduced to an acceptable level, after which soil is returned to the site; or,
if the above are not practicable,
• consolidation and isolation of the soil on site by containment with a properly designed barrier; and
• removal of contaminated material to an approved site or facility, followed, where necessary, by replacement with appropriate material;
or,
•where the assessment indicates remediation would have no net environmental benefit or would have a net adverse environmental effect, implementation of an appropriate management strategy.
When deciding which option to choose, the sustainability (environmental, economic and social) of each option should be considered, in terms of achieving an appropriate balance between the benefits and effects of undertaking the option.
In cases where no readily available or economically feasible method is available for remediation, it may be possible to adopt appropriate regulatory controls or develop other forms of remediation.
It should be emphasised that the appropriateness of any particular option will vary depending on a range of local factors. Acceptance of any specific option or mix of options in any particular set of circumstances is therefore a matter for the responsible participating jurisdiction.
(17) Specialist areas
In the assessment of site contamination the following sources are recognised as requiring specialised forms of assessment and initially, information should be sought from the relevant environmental protection agency for advice on assessing sites with:
(a) unexploded ordnance;
(b) radioactive substances;
(c) pathogenic materials and waste;
(d) contaminated sediments;
(e) explosive gas mixtures.
Consideration should be given to the physical, and/or chemical properties of the soil and associated ground and surface waters, including naturally elevated contaminant levels or acid sulfate characteristics, where they have the potential to adversely impact on the current or proposed land-use. In particular, the impact of such physical and/or chemical properties of the soil and associated ground and surface waters on the risk posed by such sites should include appropriate environmental impact assessment within relevant jurisdictional legislative requirements.
(18) Heritage sites
Heritage values should, wherever possible, be assessed prior to any physical assessment of contamination of a site. Where appropriate, advice should be sought from the local representatives of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, the Australian Heritage Council, jurisdictional heritage bodies and local councils.
(19) Best practice
In observing the principles and guidelines in this Measure, each participating jurisdiction should give consideration to the most current advice and best practice.
Schedules to the Measure
7 Schedules
This Measure contains the following Schedules:
(1) Schedule A
Schedule A in this Measure identifies the general process for the Assessment of Site Contamination.
(2) Schedule B
Schedule B in this Measure identifies general guidelines for the Assessment of Site Contamination.
8 Stages of investigation
Schedule A shows the staged site assessment process indicating which general guidelines are applied to preliminary and detailed site investigations.
The preliminary investigation usually involves:
(a) establishing a site history to identify the characteristics of the site (such as the location and layout of the site, the building construction on the site, the geological setting, current and past activities at the site, current and past uses of the site, and heritage considerations); and
(b) inspecting the site; and
(c) interviewing representatives for the site.
Investigations are usually confined to areas where potentially contaminating activities have occurred and involve a site history-based sampling plan. The preliminary investigation and initial assessment of site contamination should consider the possibility of all forms of potential contamination based on past land use. The preliminary investigation should be sufficient to identify whether contamination exists on the site. Contamination may not be completely delineated at this stage.
A detailed investigation is required when the results of preliminary investigation are insufficient to enable site management strategies to be devised. Potential or actual contamination will need further evaluation. Potential contamination may have been indicated by the presence of unexpected underground structures (eg. underground fuel or chemical storage tanks) or by the presence of imported fill (eg. ash, odorous material or various types of refuse) or staining of soil. Actual contamination may have been detected in the form of contaminants which are not naturally occurring or as elements or compounds which are above background levels or exceed the applicable investigation or screening levels.
Depending on the proposed use and the results of initial site history investigations, the assessment of a site may involve both preliminary and detailed investigations.
Many site investigations proceed in multiple stages due to the complexity of the site and the discovery of unexpected contamination, or as investigation funds become available. Site investigators should obtain and consider all site information available to minimise the number of site visits and costs associated with the mobilisation of field investigation teams.
Reporting
9 Reporting requirements
(1) It is intended that each participating jurisdiction submit a report on the assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of the Measure, including compliance with the Measure, under Section 23 of the Commonwealth Act and similar provisions in the corresponding Acts of each participating State and Territory.
(2) It is intended that a report under subsection (1) be submitted to the Council by 30 September immediately after each reporting year.
(3) In this clause ‘reporting year’ means a year ending 30 June.
Review of the Measure
10 Review period
This Measure will be subject to a review every 10 years after the measure was last amended, or within any lesser period determined by the Council, which will consider:
(1) the effectiveness of the Measure in achieving the desired environmental outcome set out within it;
(2) the resources available for implementing the Measure; and
(3) the need, if any, for amending the Measure (in accordance with the Act), including:
• whether any changes should be made to the Schedules; and
·whether any changes should be made to improve the effectiveness of the Measure in achieving the desired environmental outcome set within it.
Schedule A—Recommended general process for assessment of site contamination
Schedule B—General guidelines for the assessment of site contamination
The following general guidelines provide guidance on the possible ways of achieving the desired environmental outcome (PART 3 of the Measure) for the assessment of site contamination and should only be considered in relation to the assessment of site contamination.
Index of guidelines Schedule B1—Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater Schedule B2—Guideline on Site Characterisation
Appendix A Possible analytes for soil contamination
Appendix B Data quality objective (DQO) process
Appendix C Assessment of data quality
Appendix D Example data presentation on scale drawings and borehole logs
Appendix E Dioxins and dioxin‑like compounds
Schedule B3—Guideline on Laboratory Analysis of Potentially Contaminated Soils
Appendix A Determination of total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH) in soil
Schedule B4—Guideline on Site‑Specific Health Risk Assessment Methodology
Appendix A Structure of a risk assessment report
Schedule B5a—Guideline on Ecological Risk Assessment
Appendix A Summary of the EILs for fresh and aged contaminants in soil with various land uses
Appendix B Mixtures of chemicals
Schedule B5b—Guideline on Methodology to Derive Ecological Investigation Levels in Contaminated Soils
Appendix A Review and comparison of frameworks for deriving soil quality guidelines in other countries
Appendix B Method for deriving EILs that protect aquatic ecosystems
Schedule B5c—Guideline on Ecological Investigation Levels for Arsenic, Chromium (III), Copper, DDT, Lead, Naphthalene, Nickel and Zinc
Appendix A Raw toxicity for arsenic
Appendix B Raw toxicity for chromium (III)
Appendix C Raw toxicity for copper
Appendix D Explanation of the selection of the soil properties that control the added contaminant limits for copper
Appendix E Raw toxicity for DDT
Appendix F Raw toxicity for lead
Appendix G Raw toxicity for naphthalene
Appendix H Raw toxicity for nickel
Appendix I Raw toxicity for zinc
Schedule B6—Guideline on the Framework for Risk‑Based Assessment of Groundwater Contamination Schedule B7—Guideline on derivation of health‑based investigation levels
Appendix A1 Derivation of HILs for Metals and Inorganics
Appendix A2 Derivation of HILs for PAHs and Phenols
Appendix A3 Derivation of HILs for Organochlorine Pesticides
Appendix A4 Derivation of HILs for Herbicides and Other Pesticides
Appendix A5 Derivation of HILs for PCBs and PBDEs
Appendix A6 Derivation of HILs for Volatile Organic Carbon Compounds
Appendix B Equations for derivation of HILs and Interim HILs
Appendix C Derivation of HILs for Generic Land Uses
Appendix D Blood lead model assumptions
Schedule B8—Guideline on Community Engagement and Risk Communication Schedule B9—Guideline on Competencies and Acceptance of Environmental Auditors and Related Professionals
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999
as amended
made under section 14(1) of the
National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cwlth), the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995 (NSW), the National Environment Protection Council (Victoria) Act 1995 (Vic), the National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994 (Qld), the National Environment Protection Council (Western Australia) Act 1996 (WA), the National Environment Protection Council (South Australia) Act 1995 (SA), the National Environment Protection Council (Tasmania) Act 1995 (Tas), the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (ACT) and the National Environment Protection Council (Northern Territory) Act 1994 (NT)
Compilation start date: 16 May 2013
Includes amendments up to: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1)
This compilation has been split into 22 volumes
Volume 1: sections 1–6, Schedules A and B
Volume 2: Schedule B1
Volume 3: Schedule B2
Volume 4: Schedule B3
Volume 5: Schedule B4
Volume 6: Schedule B5a
Volume 6: Schedule B5a
Volume 7: Schedule B5b
Volume 8: Schedule B5c
Volume 9: Schedule B6
Volume 10: Schedule B7 - Appendix 1
Volume 11: Schedule B7 - Appendix 2
Volume 12: Schedule B7 - Appendix 3
Volume 13: Schedule B7 - Appendix 4
Volume 14: Schedule B7 - Appendix 5
Volume 15: Schedule B7 - Appendix 6
Volume 16: Schedule B7 - Appendix B
Volume 17: Schedule B7 - Appendix C
Volume 18: Schedule B7 - Appendix D
Volume 19: Schedule B7
Volume 20: Schedule B8
Volume 21: Schedule B9
Volume 22: Endnotes
Each volume has its own contents
About this compilation
The compiled instrument
This is a compilation of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 as amended and in force on 16 May 2013. It includes any amendment affecting the compiled instrument to that date.
This compilation was prepared on 22 May 2013.
The notes at the end of this compilation (the endnotes) include information about amending Acts and instruments and the amendment history of each amended provision.
Uncommenced provisions and amendments
If a provision of the compiled instrument is affected by an uncommenced amendment, the text of the uncommenced amendment is set out in the endnotes.
Application, saving and transitional provisions for amendments
If the operation of an amendment is affected by an application, saving or transitional provision, the provision is identified in the endnotes.
Modifications
If a provision of the compiled instrument is affected by a textual modification that is in force, the text of the modifying provision is set out in the endnotes.
Provisions ceasing to have effect
If a provision of the compiled instrument has expired or otherwise ceased to have effect in accordance with a provision of the instrument, details of the provision are set out in the endnotes.
Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1Overview 1
1.2Prevention of site contamination 1
1.3Specialised assessments 1
1.4Acute hazards 1
1.5Mineralised areas 2
2 Derivation of investigation and screening
levels 3
2.1Introduction 3
2.1.1Definitions 3
2.1.2Inappropriate use of investigation levels and screening
levels 4
2.2Health investigation levels 4
2.3Interim HILs for volatile organic chlorinated compounds 5
2.4Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds 6
2.4.1Introduction 6
2.4.2HSL methodology 6
2.4.3Sub-slab to indoor air attenuation factor 7
2.4.4Petroleum fuel composition 8
2.4.5The Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons analytical
method 8
2.4.6Petroleum hydrocarbon compounds and fractions 9
2.4.7Soil texture 9
2.4.8Land use 10
2.4.9Adjusting HSLs to site-specific circumstances 10
2.4.10Biodegradation 10
2.4.11Direct contact HSLs 11
2.4.12HSLs and multiple-lines-of-evidence approach 11
2.4.13Limitations of the HSLs 12
2.5Ecological investigation levels 13
2.5.1Introduction 13
2.5.2EIL methodology 13
2.5.3Land use 13
2.5.4Levels of protection 13
2.5.5Ecotoxicity data 13
2.5.6Depth of application 14
2.5.7Ambient background concentration 14
2.5.8Added contaminant limits 14
2.5.9Ageing of contamination and soil properties 15
2.5.10Determining site-specific EILs 15
2.6Ecological screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds 16
2.6.1Introduction 16
2.6.2ESL Methodology 16
2.6.3Depth of application 17
2.6.4Soil texture 17
2.6.5Fresh and aged contamination 17
2.7Sediment quality guidelines 17
2.8Groundwater investigation levels 17
2.9‘Management limits’ for petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds 18
3 Application of investigation and screening
levels 19
3.1Recommended process for assessment of site
contamination 19
3.2Tier 1 assessment 19
3.2.1Comparison with investigation and screening levels 19
3.2.2Exceedence of Tier 1 investigation and screening
levels 20
3.2.3Procedure if no generic investigation or screening
levels are available 20
3.3Specific considerations for petroleum hydrocarbons 21
3.4Considerations for ecological assessment 22
3.4.1General 22
3.4.2Scope of ecological assessment 23
3.4.3Mobility of contaminants 23
3.5Considerations for groundwater assessment 24
3.6Aesthetic considerations 24
3.6.1Introduction 24
3.6.2Circumstances which would trigger an assessment
of aesthetics 24
3.6.3Assessment process for aesthetic issues 25
4 Asbestos materials in soil 26
4.1Scope of the guidance 26
4.2Historical use of asbestos in Australia 26
4.3Work Health and Safety 26
4.4Terminology for asbestos contamination in soil 27
4.5Occurrence of asbestos contamination in soil 28
4.6Asbestos soil contamination and health risk 29
4.7Basis for health screening levels for asbestos in soil 29
4.8Health screening levels for asbestos in soil 29
4.9Process for assessment of asbestos contamination 30
4.10Determining asbestos in soil concentrations 30
4.11Assessment against asbestos screening levels and
procedure for exceedences 33
5 Case Studies 35
6 Tabulated investigation and screening
levels 47
7 Bibliography 75
8 Glossary 78
9 Shortened forms 81
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
The purpose of site assessment is to determine the human health and ecological risks associated with the presence of site contamination and to inform any remediation or management plan to make the site fit for the current or proposed land use. The appropriate use of investigation levels is an integral component of the assessment process.
This Schedule provides a framework for the use of investigation and screening levels. The framework is based on a matrix of human health and ecological soil and groundwater investigation and screening levels and guidance for specific contaminants. The derivation of health-based investigation levels is outlined in Schedule B7, and the risk assessment methodologies are detailed in Schedule B4. Schedule B5a outlines a risk-based framework for site-specific ecological risk assessment. The derivation of ecological investigation levels is outlined in Schedule B5c and the methodology is detailed in Schedule B5b. Reference is also made to the derivation and use of health and ecological screening levels in site assessment.
The selection of the most appropriate investigation levels for use in a range of environmental settings and land use scenarios should consider factors including the protection of human health, ecosystems, groundwater resources and aesthetics. The development of a conceptual site model is an essential element of site assessment and should inform the selection of appropriate investigation and screening criteria. A balance between the use of generic soil, soil vapour and groundwater criteria and site-specific considerations is essential practice in site assessment.
1.2 Prevention of site contamination
The National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM) does not provide guidance on prevention of site contamination. Owners and occupiers of sites on which potentially contaminating activities are occurring are subject to the environmental protection legislation applying in each jurisdiction. Legislation provides for appropriate controls on potentially contaminating sources, including licensing of industrial activities, to minimise emissions and its application is the principal strategy for prevention of soil and groundwater contamination.
1.3 Specialised assessments
Specialised forms of assessment are required for sites affected by the following types of contaminants:
· radioactive substances
· unexploded ordnance
· pathogenic materials and waste
· explosive gas mixtures.
In situations where these materials occur on a site under assessment, guidance should be sought from the relevant jurisdictional environmental or health authority for assessment requirements. While the general principles of site assessment are applicable to these contamination types, compliance with specialised safety protocols and assessment guidance is essential to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
1.4 Acute hazards
Risk of explosion or other acute exposure hazards should be addressed immediately and are not within the scope of this guidance document.
Health effects can be broadly separated into acute and chronic effects. The distinction between acute and chronic exposure relates to the duration of exposure and the timing of onset of any health effects. Acute health effects occur within minutes, hours or days of a relatively short period of exposure, while chronic health effects occur as a result of prolonged or repeated exposures over many days, months or years and symptoms may not be readily apparent.
Most contaminated land assessments will be focussed on chronic health effects; however, some sites may pose acute risks. Assessment of sites with petroleum hydrocarbon contamination will need to consider the potential for acute health risks and the risk of fire and explosion from the presence of light non aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs).
Work health and safety issues should be considered for all sites and managed according to national and jurisdictional legislative requirements.
1.5 Mineralised areas
High levels of metals, metalloids and asbestos can be associated with ore bodies. Soils in mining areas may contain elevated levels of these materials due to natural mineralisation. Some urban areas may be affected by asbestos and various elements including lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and arsenic from the ore bodies, as well as activities associated with mining, smelting and metallurgical industries.
Due to the health concerns associated with asbestos, affected areas should be effectively managed in the short and long term. Naturally occuring asbestos is most likely encountered during exploration and mining operations. Management measures similar to those for free fibre usually apply.
These environments may require specific prevention measures and community awareness programs when human settlement has occurred, to enable appropriate precautions to be taken (for example, preventing the use of potentially contaminated soil or fill from a mining site for growing vegetables in the home garden, constructing driveways or filling private land and publicly accessible areas). Public information about preventing exposure to mineralised or contaminated soil is an essential component of public health programs to minimise community exposure to these contaminants.
Depending on the nature of the contaminants associated with the mining (or quarrying) activity, contaminated soil may be only one of a number of exposure pathways. Local health issues may be more effectively targeted by monitoring key community health parameters such as blood lead or by environmental monitoring of ambient air quality and dust.
2 Derivation of investigation and screening levels
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this Schedule is to describe soil, soil vapour and groundwater criteria that can be used to evaluate potential risks to human health and ecosystems from site contamination. Investigation and screening levels are provided for commonly encountered contaminants which are applicable to generic land use scenarios and include consideration of, where possible, the soil type and the depth of contamination.
Investigation levels and screening levels are applicable to the first stage of site assessment. The selection and use of investigation and screening levels should be considered in the context of the iterative development of a conceptual site model (CSM) (refer Schedule B2 Section 4) to ensure appropriate evaluation of human health and ecosystem risks.
Site assessment should include consideration of all relevant human exposure pathways, ecological risks and risk to groundwater resources.
2.1.1 Definitions
Investigation levels and screening levels are the concentrations of a contaminant above which further appropriate investigation and evaluation will be required.
Investigation and screening levels provide the basis of Tier 1 risk assessment. A Tier 1 assessment is a risk-based analysis comparing site data with generic investigation and screening levels for various land uses to determine the need for further assessment or development of an appropriate management strategy. The application of investigation and screening levels is subject to a range of limitations.
Ecological investigation levels (EILs) have been developed for selected metals and organic substances and are applicable for assessing risk to terrestrial ecosystems. EILs depend on specific soil physicochemical properties and land use scenarios and generally apply to the top 2 m of soil. Further detail is provided in Section 2.5 and Schedule B5.
Ecological screening levels (ESLs) have been developed for selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) fractions and are applicable for assessing risk to terrestrial ecosystems. ESLs broadly apply to coarse- and fine-grained soils and various land uses. They are generally applicable to the top 2 m of soil. Further detail on their use is provided in Section 2.6 and Warne (2010a, 2010b), available from the ASC NEPM Toolbox.
Groundwater investigation levels (GILs) are the concentrations of a contaminant in groundwater above which further investigation (point of extraction) or a response (point of use) is required. GILs are based on Australian water quality guidelines and drinking water guidelines and are applicable for assessing human health risk and ecological risk from direct contact (including consumption) with groundwater. Further information is provided in Section 2.8 and Schedule B6.
Health investigation levels (HILs) have been developed for a broad range of metals and organic substances. The HILs are applicable for assessing human health risk via all relevant pathways of exposure. The HILs are generic to all soil types and apply generally to a depth of 3 m below the surface for residential use. Site-specific conditions should determine the depth to which HILs apply for other land uses. Further detail is provided in Section 2.2 and Schedules B4 and B7.
Interim soil vapour health investigation levels (interim HILs) have been developed for selected volatile organic chlorinated compounds (VOCCs) and are applicable to assessing human health risk by the inhalational pathway. They have interim status pending further scientific work on volatile gas modelling from the sub-surface to building interiors for chlorinated compounds. Further detail on their use is provided in Section 2.3 and Schedule B4.
Health screening levels (HSLs) have been developed for selected petroleum compounds and fractions and are applicable to assessing human health risk via the inhalation and direct contact pathways. The HSLs depend on specific soil physicochemical properties, land use scenarios, and the characteristics of building structures. They apply to different soil types, and depths below surface to >4 m. Further detail on their use is provided in Section 2.4 and Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a, 2011b & 2011c).
‘Petroleum hydrocarbon management limits’ (‘management limits’) are applicable to petroleum hydrocarbon compounds only. They are applicable as screening levels following evaluation of human health and ecological risks and risks to groundwater resources. They are relevant for operating sites where significant sub-surface leakage of petroleum compounds has occurred and when decommissioning industrial and commercial sites. Further detail on their use is provided in Section 2.9, including factors to be considered in determining the depth to which they apply.
2.1.2 Inappropriate use of investigation levels and screening levels
Investigation and screening levels are not clean-up or response levels nor are they desirable soil quality criteria. Investigation and screening levels are intended for assessing existing contamination and to trigger consideration of an appropriate site-specific risk-based approach or appropriate risk management options when they are exceeded. The use of these levels in regulating emissions and application of wastes to soil is inappropriate.
The use of investigation and screening levels as default remediation criteria may result in unnecessary remediation and increased development costs, unnecessary disturbance to the site and local environment, and potential waste of valuable landfill space. Similarly, the inclusion of an investigation and screening level in this guidance should not be interpreted as condoning discharges of waste up to these levels.
2.2 Health investigation levels
The health risk assessment methodology that forms the basis for calculation of HILs is provided in Schedule B4. The derivation of the HILs is presented in Schedule B7 (and appendices) and uses the Australian exposure factor guidance (enHealth 2012). The derivation of the HILs is illustrated by two worked examples for cadmium and benzo(a)pyrene (refer Schedule B7 Appendix B). The spreadsheet for calculating HILs is included in the ASC NEPM Toolbox ( HILs are listed in Table 1A(1), found at the end of this Schedule.
HILs are scientifically based, generic assessment criteria designed to be used in the first stage (Tier 1 or ‘screening’) of an assessment of potential risks to human health from chronic exposure to contaminants. They are intentionally conservative and are based on a reasonable worst-case scenario for four generic land use settings:
· HIL A - residential with garden/accessible soil (home grown produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake, (no poultry), also includes children’s day care centres, preschools and primary schools
· HIL B - residential with minimal opportunities for soil access includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high-rise buildings and flats
· HIL C - public open space such as parks, playgrounds, playing fields (e.g. ovals), secondary schools and footpaths. It does not include undeveloped public open space (such as urban bushland and reserves) which should be subject to a site-specific assessment where appropriate
· HIL D - commercial/industrial such as shops, offices, factories and industrial sites.
The land use scenarios are described in detail in Section 3 of Schedule B7. To make generic estimates of potential human exposure to soil contaminants, scientifically based assumptions are made about the environment, human behaviour, the physicochemical characteristics of contaminants, and the fate and transport of contaminants in soil within each of these land use categories. The HILs are derived by integrating these exposure estimates with toxicity reference values, that is, tolerable daily intakes (TDI), acceptable daily intakes (ADI), and reference doses (RfD), to estimate the soil concentration of a substance that will prevent exceedence of the toxicity reference value under the defined scenario. The toxicity reference values are generally based on the known most sensitive significant toxicological effect. Where toxicity reference values come from multiple sources, their underlying assumptions, defaults and science policy should be compatible and generally similar.
HILs establish the concentration of a contaminant above which further appropriate health investigation and evaluation will be required. Levels slightly in excess of the HILs do not imply unacceptability or that a significant health risk is likely to be present. Exceeding a HIL means further investigation is required and not ‘risk is present, clean-up required’.
The HILs are referred to by regulators, auditors and consultants in the process of assessing soil contamination. HILs apply generally to the top 3 m of soil for residential use. Site-specific conditions should determine the depth to which HILs apply for other land uses.
HILs are not intended to be clean-up levels. The decision on whether clean-up is required, and to what extent, should be based on site-specific assessment triggered by an exceedence of the HIL. Health risk assessment is the primary driver for making site decisions. Other considerations such as practicality, timescale, effectiveness, cost, sustainability and associated ecological risk assessment are also relevant.
2.3 Interim HILs for volatile organic chlorinated compounds
Interim HIL soil vapour levels for specific volatile organic chlorinated compounds (VOCCs) have been developed (see Table 1A(2) at the end of this Schedule) to assess the vapour inhalation pathway (also known as the ‘vapour intrusion’ pathway when referring to indoor exposure). The derivation of the interim HILs is presented in Schedule B7 and Appendix A6. The methodology employs a simple though conservative approach using an attenuation factor that relates the concentration of a volatile contaminant in indoor air to the concentration in soil gas immediately below a building foundation slab.
The interim HIL values derived for volatile compounds are driven by the vapour intrusion pathway (that contributes >99% of the total risk when all pathways are considered). However, it is noted that there are limitations and uncertainties associated with the assessment of volatile contaminants on the basis of soil concentrations. As these limitations are significant for volatile organic chlorinated compounds, interim HILs for soil have not been derived. Rather it is recognised that where indoor/ambient air data cannot be collected (or the data is adversely affected by background sources), the most relevant approach to the assessment of this pathway is through the collection of soil vapour data. On this basis, interim HILs have been developed for soil vapour.
The interim HILs provide Tier 1 guidance for health risks from soil contamination sources and groundwater plumes associated with this group of compounds. The values may be applied for general site assessment and sub-slab environments for evaluation of potential health risks for the 0-1 m sub-slab profile. The interim HILs broadly apply to the same generic land use categories as do the HILs, though the values for residential A and B are combined as they are based on the same exposure conditions (i.e. the same amount of time spent indoors) for the vapour inhalation pathway. In addition, secondary school buildings should be treated as residential for the purposes of evaluating risks from vapour intrusion.
Biodegradation of VOCCs has not been included in the development of the interim HILs. The biodegradation approach developed for petroleum hydrocarbons (refer Section 2.4.10) is not applicable to the degradation of VOCCs as the mechanism by which degradation occurs is different for most chlorinated hydrocarbons compared with petroleum hydrocarbons.
2.4 Health screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbon compounds
2.4.1 Introduction
Site contamination by petroleum hydrocarbon compounds is frequently encountered. The complex mixtures of aliphatic and aromatic compounds that comprise petroleum hydrocarbon products present human health concerns predominantly through inhalation of vapours from contaminant sources and by direct contact with affected soils and groundwater. Assessment of petroleum impacts should include evaluation of risks via the groundwater pathway (e.g. consumption of contaminated groundwater that is not considered in the HSLs), the risk to groundwater resources and appropriate consideration of aesthetics. The application of relevant ecological and ‘management’ criteria for petroleum compounds is discussed in Sections 2.6 and 2.9.
Health Screening Levels (HSLs) for various petroleum hydrocarbon compounds were developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE). The principal reference for the HSL methodology is Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a). In addition to the documentation of the methodology, a detailed application report (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011b) and a sensitivity analysis of the main parameter inputs ((Friebel & Nadebaum 2011c) are available.
Predictive modelling of sub-surface vapour movement in soil and penetration of building structures is a field of intensive data collection and research. The most recent research and derivation approaches adopted in developed international jurisdictions have been considered and adapted, as far as is practicable, for Australian conditions, to derive Tier 1 screening criteria for evaluating human health risk from petroleum hydrocarbons.
The HSLs’ development was guided by a project advisory group with health, environmental, assessment and remediation, petroleum industry and regulatory expertise. A specialised technical working group provided technical support and review throughout the development process. The HSL methodology was subject to international peer review during its development.
Copies of the technical reports can be found in the ASC NEPM Toolbox. Additional information on the development phases of the project, including responses to peer review comments, can be found on the CRC CARE website:
align="center">Assessment of vapour risks is a specialist area. It is the responsibility of contaminated land professionals to become familiar with the limitations of the HSLs and their correct application in site assessment (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011a, 2011b, 2011c).
2.4.2 HSL methodology
The HSLs were developed to be protective of human health by determining the reasonable maximum exposure from site sources for a range of situations commonly encountered on contaminated sites. As there are many parameter inputs to the methodology, very conservative assumptions have not been made for every parameter as this would result in an unrealistic result arising from the compounding of conservatism. Typically the parameter values selected correspond to the mean or median of the available information, with some parameters corresponding to the 95th percentile. For further information on the rationale for each parameter selected, refer to Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a).
The HSLs apply to the same land use settings as for the interim HILs for VOCCs and include additional consideration of soil texture and depth to source to determine the appropriate soil, groundwater and soil vapour criteria for the exposure scenario. As with all modelling approaches, the assumptions made regarding the exposure scenario limit the extent of their reasonable application. The main limitations for the HSLs are summarised in Section 2.4.13.
HSLs for soil (Table 1A(3)), groundwater (Table 1A(4)) and soil vapour (Table 1A(5)) apply to exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons through the dominant vapour inhalation exposure pathway only. Direct contact HSLs have been developed for the incidental soil ingestion, dermal and inhalation exposure pathways. The direct contact HSLs are generally not the risk drivers for further site assessment for the same contamination source as the HSLs for vapour intrusion. Direct contact exposure should be considered where relevant to the site-specific scenario e.g. an external source in near-surface soils in a residential or recreational setting. Further details can be found in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a, 2011b, and 2011c).
There are many site-specific, soil-specific and building-specific variables that affect the level of the HSLs and these factors should be considered in the site assessment. Detailed information on the model inputs and assumptions (for example, soil properties, sub-slab attenuation factor, organic carbon content, chemical properties, building parameters) and overall limitations are provided in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a). A sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the effect that these parameters have on the derived HSLs (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011c).
A review of vapour models was undertaken by CSIRO as a precursor project to the development of the HSLs (Davis et al. 2009c). As a result of this review, a modified Johnson and Ettinger vapour exposure model (US EPA 2004) was selected to derive HSLs for the vapour inhalation pathway. The model has been used assuming a finite source for soils equivalent to a source thickness of 2 m which avoids the extreme conservatism associated with assuming an infinite source and reflects empirical field observations. For groundwater and soil vapour, an infinite source (i.e. steady state model) has been assumed as replenishment of vapours may occur by contaminated groundwater flowing beneath the site.
It is noted that the Johnson and Ettinger model and other similar vapour intrusion models do not adequately address vapour risk issues where there are preferential vapour migration pathways, where the building structure extends into a saturated contaminated zone (i.e. into the groundwater table) or where biodegradation is of significance (see section 2.4.10 for further information).
The soil and groundwater HSLs are based on three-phase equilibrium theory and soil vapour is limited by the maximum solubility limit of the chemical in the soil pore water phase or the groundwater. The soil saturation concentration of a particular contaminant is the condition where pore water is at its solubility limit and soil vapour is at the maximum vapour concentration. When a calculated HSL in soil or groundwater exceeds this limit, the vapour in the soil or above groundwater cannot result in an unacceptable vapour risk and is denoted as NL (not limiting) in the HSL tables (Tables 1 A(3) - 1A(5)). Soil vapour HSLs are based on the vapour pressures of individual chemicals. Calculated soil vapour HSLs that exceed the possible maximums are similarly denoted as NL.
The HSLs have been derived using accepted approaches to assessment for non threshold (cancer) risk and threshold (non-cancer) risk. Exposure factors for the individual carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds of concern were derived from a near-final draft of enHealth (2012).
2.4.3 Sub-slab to indoor air attenuation factor
Unlike the derivation of the soil vapour interim HILs, the attenuation factor adopted for petroleum hydrocarbon compounds is not used directly to calculate indoor air concentrations from soil gas concentrations (or vice versa); rather it is used to calculate one of the many input parameters (advective air flow) in the Johnson & Ettinger model. For further information refer to section 7.3.2 of Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a).
As for other input parameters, the selected value for the attenuation factor is based on a reasonable assumption rather than the maximum possible exposure and is equivalent to the median of the US EPA 2008 attenuation factor database (US EPA 2008) and lies within the 75th to 95th percentiles of the updated database published in 2012 (US EPA 2012). The selected value of 0.005 was considered to represent the upper value not affected by indoor air sources, background air or other confounding factors.
2.4.4 Petroleum fuel composition
The soil saturation and water solubility limits used in the derivation of the HSLs assume a fixed fuel composition based on fresh petrol and diesel fuels typical of those available in Australia. The HSLs may be applied to other fuel types (e.g. kerosene, aviation fuel and fuel oil) providing that the aliphatic/aromatic speciation is similar to that assumed in the derivation of the HSLs (80:20). Further information on these fuel types can be found in TPHCWG (1998). There are a number of fuel additives, such as MTBE and ethanol, for which HSLs have not been derived. Where these are identified as potential contaminants of concern, then a site-specific risk assessment for these chemicals should be considered.
The HSLs apply to petroleum contamination sources and are not applicable to pure compound solvents, as solubility limits incorporated into the HSLs were derived based on typical petrol and diesel fuel mixtures. Equivalent values to the HSLs applicable to pure compounds (rather than fuel mixtures) are available in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a Appendix C).
2.4.5 The Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons analytical method
The Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH) method is recommended for the analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds in soil. Detailed information is provided in Schedule B3.
The term TRH is equivalent to the previously used total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and represents extracted biogenic (biological) and petrogenic (petroleum) hydrocarbons by selected solvents. The TRH analysis is non-specific and will extract organic compounds such as ethanol, biodiesel compounds (esterised long chain fatty acids), organic acids, sterols and n-alkanes from plant waxes, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons. The sample extraction process may also extract other industrial organic chemicals. When used in the context of a screening assessment for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, TRH analyses are likely to be conservative when non-petroleum compounds are present.
The potential for inclusion of non-petroleum compounds in the results may be relevant for site-specific assessment of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. For example, the TRH analytical results may be overly conservative if soil organic matter is unusually high, for example from heavy applications of mulch, manure, compost or other natural organic material, or the presence of other synthetic organic compounds which are extractable in the analytical process. To assess potential false positive results, it is recommended that equivalent soil from the site, unaffected by petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, is analysed for comparison.
Where there is reasonable doubt as to the nature of the contamination, the sample may be subjected to a silica gel clean-up and analysed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (or other appropriate analytical method) to assist with the identification of contamination of petroleum origin. In these cases, an analyst report should be obtained with an interpretation of the chromatogram and the nature and extent of contamination present in the sample.
2.4.6 Petroleum hydrocarbon compounds and fractions
HSLs have been developed for BTEX and naphthalene plus four carbon chain fractions based on the fractions adopted in the Canada-wide standard for petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) in soil (CCME 2008). The fractions are listed in Table 1 below:
Table 1. HSL fractions and corresponding equivalent carbon range
Fraction number Equivalent carbon number range F1 C6 – C10 F2 >C10 – C16 F3 >C16 – C34 F4 >C34 - C40 The HSLs are provided in Tables 1A(3) – 1A(5)).
BTEX results should be subtracted from the TRH C6 – C10 analytical results for comparison with the HSL for F1. Likewise, naphthalene should be subtracted from >C10 – C16 for comparison with the HSL for F2.
Chemicals in the >C16-C34 and >C34-C40 fractions are non-volatile and therefore not of concern for vapour intrusion, however, exposure can be via direct contact pathways (dermal contact and incidental ingestion and inhalation of soil particles). Direct contact HSLs for these fractions can be found in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a).
2.4.7 Soil texture
HSLs for soil, groundwater and soil vapour have been developed for sand, silt and clay soils based on the US soil texture classification system (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011a). The HSLs assume a uniform soil profile and the soil texture making up the greatest proportion of the soil profile should be used in selecting the appropriate HSLs (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011a and 2011b).
For Tier 1 soil assessment, the HSL classifications of sand, silt and clay may be broadly applied to the soil texture classification in Table A1 of Standard AS 1726.
Table 2. HSL soil classification and equivalent soil classification in AS 1726
HSL soil classification AS 1726 Equivalent Sand Coarse-grained soil Silt Fine-grained soil - silts and clays (liquid limit <50%) Clay Fine-grained soil - silts and clays (liquid limit >50%) Where there is reasonable doubt as to the appropriate soil texture to select, either a conservative selection should be made (i.e. select coarsest applicable grain size such as sand) or laboratory analysis carried out to determine particle size and hence soil texture sub-class (refer Section 7.3.1 in Friebel and Nadebaum 2011b). If particle size analysis is undertaken then laboratory measurement of additional parameters used in site-specific risk assessment (such as soil moisture content, organic carbon content and saturation porosity - refer Friebel & Nadebaum 2011b for further information) could also be considered if further assessment is possible. If laboratory measurement is undertaken, sufficient samples should be obtained and analysed to determine a representative value for each soil unit of interest for the assessment.
2.4.8 Land use
The HSLs are derived for various depths to source and for the same generic land uses as for the HILs (described in detail in Schedule B7). The values for residential A and B are combined in the HSL tables as they are based on the same exposure conditions for the vapour inhalation pathway (i.e. the same amount of time spent indoors).
The HSLs are applicable to ground floor land use. If the vapour exposure is acceptable at ground level, it can be assumed that it is also acceptable for floors above ground level. For multistorey buildings where non-residential uses (e.g. car parking or commercial use) exist in a basement or at ground level, then land use category D (commercial/industrial) should be applied.
Any sensitive land uses e.g. childcare or day care centre will require application of HSL A irrespective of their planning zoning. Secondary school buildings (as opposed to secondary school grounds) should also be assessed using HSL A.
2.4.9 Adjusting HSLs to site-specific circumstances
The HSL methodology enables parameter inputs to be changed to more accurately reflect local soil, site or building conditions. Input parameters should be selected to be representative of long-term stable conditions and appropriate to the soil unit/aquifer of concern e.g. moisture content may vary seasonally and may also be different beneath buildings. Where insufficient data is available to establish a representative value, a conservative approach should be taken, for example, by assuming dry soil moisture conditions in sand. The HSL application and sensitivity documents (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011b, 2011c) provide further details. Jurisdictions may also adopt policies to vary the HSLs to account for local conditions.
For example, air exchange rates have been set at 0.6 building volumes/hr which may not be appropriate for buildings designed for tropical and cold climates. Similarly, soil moisture has a significant effect on penetration of volatiles into buildings.
The HSL derivation has assumed a slab-on-ground construction. Elevated buildings on concrete supports or timber poles with no direct floor contact with the soil and clear underfloor ventilation are at lower risk of penetration of volatiles and the risk decreases with the elevation of the floor above ground. The state of the slab will require consideration if it has deteriorated, as cracks can act as preferential pathways.
2.4.10 Biodegradation
Recent research on underslab biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination is reported in Davis et al. (2009a and 2009b). This research identified that the following site conditions are conducive to biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds in the sub-surface:
· the presence of oxygen at concentrations greater than 5% in soil vapour at a depth 1 m below the surface immediately adjacent to the concrete slab
and
· a maximum slab width of less than 15 m, with oxygen access on both sides of the slab for Tier 1 screening purposes. A distance of 7-8 m from the exposed soil at the slab boundary is considered the maximum lateral underslab penetration of oxygen.
It is noted that the measurement of oxygen in the soil profile can be difficult and care should be taken when using this data to support biodegradation.
If these conditions are fulfilled, biodegradation factors can be applied to the vapour intrusion HSLs as follows:
· factor of x10 for depths to source of 2 to <4 m and
· factor of x100 for depths to source of 4 m and greater where the vapour source strength is 100 mg/L (100,000 mg/m3) or less.
The biodegradation factors above are not applicable for depths of less than 2 m. For the purpose of this NEPM, assessment including biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is considered a Tier 1 activity.
Application of the biodegradation factors described above may result in levels of TPH, BTEX and naphthalene that are acceptable for human health risk from the vapour exposure pathway for the specific land use but which may not be acceptable for protection of the environment or water resources or from an aesthetics perspective. Site results should be considered with reference to relevant ecological and ’management levels‘(refer Sections 2.5 and 2.9) which may become the predominant risk driver. Management levels should be applied after human health, ecological risks and risks to groundwater resources have been assessed.
2.4.11 Direct contact HSLs
Direct contact HSLs have been developed for exposure through dermal contact, incidental oral ingestion and dust inhalation and then combined as a single HSL for direct contact with soil (Friebel & Nadebaum, 2011a). For most site assessments, the direct contact HSLs are unlikely to become drivers for further investigation or site management as the values are significantly higher than most other soil screening levels and consequently have not been included here. There are situations where the combined vapour and direct contact pathways can make a difference to the outcome of the assessment. For further information on considering combined vapour and direct contact exposure, refer to Section 3.3 of Friebel and Nadebaum (2011b). The combined HSLs for direct contact can be found in Appendix A of Friebel & Nadebaum (2011a).
Contamination at the levels of the direct contact HSLs are likely to present unacceptable aesthetic considerations which should be addressed in accordance with the discussion in Section 3.6. Exposure to a contaminated surface (other than of short and temporary duration) at the levels of the direct contact HSLs may also cause an unacceptable short-term vapour exposure risk.
2.4.12 HSLs and multiple-lines-of-evidence approach
For an assessor to conclude that the vapour intrusion/emission pathways are unlikely to be active or to present a significant risk, the assessor should undertake a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach. This requires the assessor to present several reasoned lines of evidence as to why the pathway is considered inactive or is unlikely to present a significant risk.
The soil and groundwater HSLs provide the principal assessment criteria for open excavations (such as tank removal operations) while greater emphasis is placed on soil vapour HSLs in assessing potential vapour intrusion risks from hydrocarbon sources and groundwater plumes adjacent to or under buildings. In general, evaluating all contaminant phases will provide greater confidence in the outcomes of the site assessment.
Soil vapour measurements can provide a more accurate representation of vapour risks (compared with the soil and groundwater HSLs), depending on site-specific conditions e.g. where soil vapour can be measured directly under conditions that are relevant to the future or continuing use of the site. In high moisture conditions, however, such as occur within the capillary fringe or as a result of seasonal watertable fluctuations, it is not possible to obtain reliable soil vapour readings. In these conditions, consideration may be given to obtaining vapour headspace readings from appropriately constructed groundwater monitoring wells fitted with a soil vapour monitoring cap that seals the groundwater well from the atmosphere.
Soil vapour measurements are also preferred where contaminated groundwater is present at less than 2 m below the ground or basement foundation, though in fine-grained soils the ability to obtain soil vapour measurements may be constrained by moisture conditions, as the thickness of the capillary fringe increases as the soil texture decreases.
Where the watertable rises seasonally to intersect basements or building foundations, indoor air measurements will be required to assess vapour risk. The assessment approach may also include soil vapour measurements taken in the dry season as part of a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach.
Additional information on vapour assessment and the multiple-lines-of-evidence approach is provided in Section 9.2 of Schedule B2 and Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a, 2011b).
2.4.13 Limitations of the HSLs
As with all generic screening levels, actual site-specific conditions may mean that the assumptions underpinning the derivation of the screening levels are not valid for the site and consequently a site-specific assessment will be required. The principal limitations applicable to the HSLs are listed in Table 3 below, together with suggested alternative assessment approaches.
Immediate action should be taken where potentially explosive or acutely toxic gas concentrations are present in buildings or in-ground services (e.g. utility trenches, sumps or drains) connecting a vapour source to a building. Emergency management actions, such as relocation of building occupants, should be implemented as necessary.
Table 3. Site scenarios where the application of the HSLs is limited and possible alternative assessment approaches
Site scenario Alternative assessment approach The identified contamination has an atypical petroleum composition
Site-specific risk assessment including assessment of cumulative effects of chemical constituents Contaminated groundwater or LNAPL is entering or is in contact with a basement or building foundation Consider indoor air sampling Depth to groundwater impact is less than 2 m Consider soil vapour measurements for vapour intrusion The impacted soil source thickness is significantly greater than 2 m
HSLs may be conservative for thinner soil sources. For thicker soil sources, refer to Section 2.4.7 of the HSLs application document (Friebel & Nadebaum 2011b) A preferential migration pathway is present that could connect a vapour source to a building interior Site-specific assessment
Hydrocarbon odour present in buildings or in-ground services (not attributable to an indoor or ambient source) which indicates an active preferential migration pathway and potentially an immediate human health risk Consider indoor air sampling or immediate action in the case of strong hydrocarbon odours
Professional assessments of site contamination deal with health and environmental issues of concern to landowners, occupiers, regulators, local government, planning authorities and the public. These assessments are required by regulatory and planning authorities for the management of contaminated land and in development approval processes.
This Schedule should assist the development of arrangements to provide consistency in the recognition of competent professionals for contaminated site assessment across Australia.
2 Purpose
The purpose of this Schedule is to:
· describe the competencies and experience that are essential for professionals involved in contaminated site assessment including auditors, third-party reviewers and professionals who are certifying assessments of complex contaminated sites
· provide a general framework for the appointment or acceptance by regulatory authorities of contaminated land professionals who are required under statute to certify site assessments.
3 Use of these guidelines
This Schedule is primarily intended for use by regulatory authorities within the scope of their environmental and planning legislation. Its application in individual states and territories will assist in establishing a consistent minimum level of knowledge, experience and technical competencies for environmental professionals carrying out contaminated site assessment within Australia, and the mutual recognition of these professionals.
Individual states and territories may have specific legislative requirements relating to the appointment or acceptance of:
· auditors appointed or accredited for the independent third-party auditing of site contamination
· third-party reviewers accepted to conduct independent third-party reviews for the certification of assessment and remediation
· specialised professionals who are required under statute to demonstrate relevant qualifications and experience when presenting contamination assessment reports to regulatory authorities and to certify assessment work under statutory declarations.
To be recognised in these roles individuals must be professionals with significant technical expertise and experience in the assessment of site contamination. The application of a high level of technical competency assessment is to be applied to the appointment of accredited auditors and to third-party reviewers and the acceptance of professionals who are certifying assessments of contaminated sites.
While regulatory authorities in individual states and territories may require specific knowledge and understanding of legislation and guidelines relevant to their jurisdiction, it is intended the broad assessment process and minimum criteria described in this Schedule be used to establish the professional competencies required and to then determine the technical skills, experience and proficiency of these individuals.
Relevant aspects of this Schedule provide advice on appropriate qualifications, experience and competencies of environmental consultants involved in the assessment and/or remediation of contaminated sites. These considerations may also be applied to assess the abilities of environmental professionals and their companies not otherwise subject to specific legislative requirements for appointment or accreditation, in order to assess their capability to carry out specific assessments of site contamination.
To improve the quality of site contamination assessment work and encourage professional specialisation in this area, regulatory authorities may use this Schedule as the basis of advice for stakeholders, including professional associations, on the competence of practitioners.
This Schedule may also assist members of the community in decision-making regarding the employment of environmental professionals for contaminated site assessment work, by informing them of the broad range of competencies, knowledge and experience that should be held by environmental professionals in designing and carrying out contaminated site assessments.
4 Professional roles in the assessment of site contamination
Professionals involved in the assessment of site contamination need to demonstrate appropriate competence, knowledge and experience relative to their role and the complexity of site contamination.
4.1 Auditors and third-party reviewers
Auditors and third-party reviewers appointed under legislative requirements typically only act in the capacity of that role when they are carrying out an audit or a third-party review in accordance with those legislative requirements. In other situations, for example, when that person is involved in any other site assessment and/or remediation, that individual is acting as an environmental consultant.
The role of an auditor or third-party reviewer acting under statute is to carry out reviews of the assessment and/or remediation work carried out by environmental consultants and to provide independent expert opinion regarding any potential impacts to human health and/or the environment relating to site contamination, and the suitability of land for its intended use.
Auditors and third-party reviewers must be able to demonstrate that:
· they have exercised their own professional judgment
· they have taken appropriate specialised advice when the contamination issue is outside their expertise
· their opinions have been reached independently
· in forming those opinions, they have not been unduly influenced by the views or actions of others who may have an interest in the outcome of the review.
Legislative requirements may include provisions in relation to conflicts of interest and ethical codes of conduct and integrity. Individuals may be subject to penalties for any breaches of those requirements.
There is a clear distinction between the roles of an auditor or third-party reviewer acting under statute, and an environmental consultant. Jurisdictions typically have legislation regarding the provision of false and misleading information relating to statutory decisions.
Individuals applying to regulatory authorities for the purpose of appointment or acceptance of certification in these roles need to demonstrate significant knowledge and extensive experience in site contamination assessments. This should include the ability to meet all of the assessment criteria described in Section 6 of this Schedule.
The multidisciplinary nature of site contamination assessment requires that auditors and third-party reviewers are able to identify when there is an issue that is not within their own expertise and to obtain the additional professional advice required. In considering applications, it should be recognised by regulatory authorities that it is unlikely an individual could demonstrate all technical competencies relevant to site contamination.
4.2 Environmental consultants
An environmental consultant is usually a company that employs a range of professional and technical staff, or it can be an individual person. An environmental consultant can be engaged to carry out site contamination assessments for a variety of reasons. Engagement of a consultant is undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of that company or, in some cases, to complete an agreed scope of works. Their role is to design, prepare and carry out the assessment and/or remediation work in accordance with the scope of works.
Although not necessarily subject to specific legislative requirements, environmental consultants responsible for the assessment of contaminated sites and the preparation of assessment reports should demonstrate relevant qualifications and experience to a level appropriate to the contamination issues relevant to the site under investigation.
While not having to demonstrate meeting all assessment criteria identified in Section 6.1 of this Schedule for auditors and third-party reviewers under statute, environmental consultants should be able to demonstrate:
· qualifications consistent with this Schedule
· competencies relevant to the work to be undertaken
· demonstrated relevant experience in site assessment
· comprehensive knowledge of relevant legislation and guidelines
· knowledge of relevant scientific literature for assessment of the impacts of site contamination on human health and the environment
· a demonstrated commitment to training and professional development
· relevant memberships and/or accreditation with professional societies.
Further information about qualifications and experience is provided in Section 6 of this Schedule.
Consultants should provide evidence that addresses these factors when it is requested. Individual jurisdictions may accredit consultants for certain activities or provide guidance on selection criteria and should be contacted for further advice as appropriate.
5 Application for acceptance
The application requirements described in this section relate to individuals applying to regulatory authorities for the appointment or acceptance of certification in the role of an environmental auditor or third-party reviewer under statute.
Subject to the specific legislative, policy and guideline frameworks applying in each state and territory, regulatory authorities reviewing applications from professionals for acceptance of their qualifications and experience should require the following information to be supplied for assessment.
1. A detailed current curriculum vitae that identifies relevant qualifications and the number of years’ relevant experience held by the applicant in the assessment of contaminated sites.
2. A detailed statement of the applicant’s knowledge, experience and expertise in relation to the assessment of contaminated sites and environmental issues, addressing the required technical competencies.
3. A statement demonstrating the applicant’s understanding of the relevant provisions of environmental legislation in the particular state or territory and knowledge of policy, regulations and procedures.
4. A statement demonstrating the applicant’s knowledge and understanding of the relevant provisions of guidelines issued or approved in the particular state or territory.
5. Nomination of people or companies who will provide support to the applicant in the competencies in which the applicant is not an expert.
6. Information that demonstrates the applicant’s experience in forming and managing appropriate multidisciplinary teams for complex assessments.
7. A commitment that a professional liability insurance policy is, or will be, held by the applicant or on the applicant’s behalf by the company employing the applicant, that demonstrates an appropriate level of coverage. Policies should cover the person for the activities to be undertaken and should not contain any exclusion that may have the effect of limiting cover for work carried out.
8. Examples of two or more relevant reports or studies on site contamination, which were authored or substantially prepared by the applicant and prepared no more than two years prior to the date of application. The reports should demonstrate the applicant’s expertise in the assessment of contamination and their written communication skills. The report should clearly support the statements made by the applicant under items 2, 3 and 4 above. The role of the applicant in conducting the study (consultancy) and in preparing the report must be clearly indicated. Individual regulatory authorities may have specific requirements relating to requiring consent to be obtained from the client(s) for the reports to be submitted with the application, and may decide to return the reports to the applicant.
9. Summary information about additional reports and studies in which the applicant has made a major contribution may be presented, indicating the title of the project, the date of the report, the role of the applicant and the purpose of the project.
10. Nomination of referees. Referees should include people not directly associated with the applicant or the company employing the applicant, who have direct and recent knowledge of the applicant and can confirm the applicant’s experience and expertise as stated under items 2, 3 and 4.
6 Assessment Criteria
This section details appropriate minimum criteria that should be considered by regulatory authorities in the assessment of individual applicants seeking acceptance for certification of contaminated site assessment work. Individual regulatory authorities may have further specific requirements for the criteria.
The ability of environmental consultants not otherwise subject to legislative requirements to demonstrate these criteria may also be used to assist in the decision-making process regarding the use of environmental consultants to carry out the assessment of site contamination.
6.1 Technical basis of application
The applicant should be able to demonstrate extensive experience and a high level of expertise in the core competencies required in each state and territory. In general, this will comprise such experience and expertise in all or a majority of the following:
· assessment of contaminant exposure pathways
· contaminated site assessment and management
· evaluation and interpretation of chemical and analytical data
· soil sampling design and methodology
· soil gas sampling design and methodology
· groundwater sampling design and methodology
· identification of potential human health and environmental risks
· quality control/quality assurance procedures
· risk communication.
The applicant should have basic proficiency in and be able to demonstrate experience and expertise relating to site contamination in the following areas, or otherwise have access to such expertise, to the level required by individual regulatory authorities:
· air quality (volatile emissions and dust) assessment relating to contamination
· assessment of impacts on groundwater from contaminated sites
· contaminant fate and transport
· environmental chemistry
· environmental sampling
· environmental toxicology
· geology
· human health and ecological risk assessment relating to contamination
· human toxicology
· hydrogeology
· identification of contaminants of concern from past industrial land uses
· work health and safety relating to contamination
· remediation technologies and geo-technology
· soil science
· statutory and environmental planning.
6.2 Legislative and guideline knowledge and understanding
The applicant should be able to demonstrate knowledge and an understanding of relevant legislation, regulations and policies relating to site contamination in each state or territory for which acceptance is sought.
The applicant should be able to demonstrate knowledge and an understanding of relevant guidelines issued or approved in each individual state and territory for which acceptance is sought.
The applicant should also be able to demonstrate consistency with relevant legislation and guidelines, in their carrying out and reporting of contaminated site assessments.
6.3 National framework
The applicant should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 and other national guidance documents relevant to contamination.
The applicant should also be able to demonstrate consistency with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, in their carrying out and reporting of contaminated site assessments.
6.4 Experience and expertise
The applicant should demonstrate his/her expertise in the competencies identified in Section 6.1, to the level required by individual states and territories.
Where a competency, other than a core competency, is not able to be demonstrated by the applicant to the level required, the applicant should demonstrate access to relevant expertise in that competency.
All applicants should be required to nominate an expert support team of specialised professionals on whom they would rely for site issues beyond their areas of expertise.
Regulatory authorities in individual states and territories may have specific requirements relating to the qualifications, experience and expertise of expert support team members, and their use by applicants. However, an individual nominated as an expert in an auditor’s support team should:
· be able to demonstrate a high level expertise or knowledge in the competencies where the applicant does not personally possess such expertise or knowledge to the level required
· hold qualifications relevant to and supporting the nominated competencies
· have at least eight years’ relevant experience
· be actively working in the field of the nominated competencies
· be a current member of professional organisations/associations relevant to the field of the nominated competencies
· be able to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to professional training and development.
The applicant should demonstrate a sound ability and experience in forming and managing a multidisciplinary team for complex site assessment which contains the appropriate balance of expertise.
6.5 Qualifications
The applicant should hold qualifications as required by the regulatory authorities in individual states and territories (for example, a relevant bachelor’s degree from a recognised institution).
6.6 Professional societies
The applicant should be required to demonstrate individual membership of and/or accreditation from one or more relevant professional societies, for example, Engineers Australia, the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand. In addition, applicants should also be able to demonstrate membership and/or accreditation of professional associations where relevant to nominated technical competencies (identified in section 6.1).
When considering professional societies that may be acceptable, regulatory authorities should consider the following criteria:
· discipline or area of expertise or interest relates directly to the assessment and management of contaminated sites
· membership is qualification-based
· membership requires adherence to an appropriate code of ethics.
Regulatory authorities should also take into consideration whether the maintenance of the membership and/or accreditation by the applicant is active and current. Maintenance of memberships should be in accordance to any code of ethics relevant to the particular society, and adherence to professional standards.
6.7 Professional experience
Regulatory authorities in individual states and territories may have specific requirements for the number of years of experience that applicants would be expected to have. Applicants should be expected to have had at least eight years’ continuous relevant experience in the assessment and management of contaminated sites for appointment as accredited auditors or for acceptance as professionals involved in preparation and certification of assessments of complex contaminated sites. Individual regulatory authorities may also consider applicants with less than the required years’ contaminated land experience but with significant years of relevant and related environmental experience, including assessment and management of major environmental issues involving complex sampling design and chemical or hydrogeological data collection and interpretation, where this experience is relevant.
It is generally desirable that an applicant’s experience include at least two years of relevant work in Australia and two years in the role of project manager involving a multidisciplinary team approach to contaminated land or related environmental assessment and management.
It is preferable that the experience in contaminated sites work is broadly based in terms of the scale of work undertaken, the range of contaminants encountered and the scope of work performed, and includes contaminated site or environmental auditing experience, for example, as a member of an accredited auditor’s expert support team or as an auditor’s assistant.
6.8 Principles of audits
The applicant should be able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the principles of, and methods for, conducting contaminated site assessments and environmental audits as required by the relevant state and territory, and be able to act independently using balanced professional judgement based on site-specific data and the advice of specialised support professionals.
6.9 Literature
The applicant should be able to demonstrate up-to-date knowledge of relevant scientific, technical developments and regulatory literature relating to new legislation and court proceedings and decisions relating to contaminated sites.
6.10 Professional development
The applicant should be able to demonstrate an active commitment to ongoing training and professional development relevant to the technical competencies (identified in Section 6.1) and the assessment and/or remediation of contaminated sites. Applicants should be able to provide evidence of continuous professional development and learning outcomes.
7 Acceptance processes and general conditions
This section provides general guidance on processes for the acceptance and ongoing review of applicants seeking certification of contaminated site assessment work.
7.1 General acceptance processes
Regulatory authorities may apply the following processes for the assessment, selection and review of auditors or third-party reviewers in accordance with legislative requirements and operational policies applying in each jurisdiction.
The regulatory authority may consider the establishment of a panel to assess applications. Typical panels would have not less than three professionals including a suitably qualified chairperson. Panels need to be able to adequately assess all of the competencies relevant to contaminated land assessment and management. The panel must consider the applicant’s ability to meet all of the assessment criteria identified in Section 6, including the composition and relevance of their expert support team, their demonstrated ability to act independently on the basis of factual evidence, and their adherence to ethical and professional standards of conduct.
7.2 Ongoing practice
Once appointed or accepted for certification, regulatory authorities should ensure that professionals continue to update their training and experience in relation to the assessment of contamination, and comply with the relevant legislative requirements of the individual states and territories. This may be carried out through the implementation of a quality assurance program by the regulatory authority and review of a person’s appointment, particularly at times of renewal. Applicants for renewal should also be able to demonstrate they are actively auditing.
The regulatory authority in individual states and territories may conduct independent audits and peer reviews of assessment work and adopt a system that involves the periodic review of the status of appointed professionals. Reviewers within the regulatory authorities should have appropriate qualifications and experience.
In the event of proven malpractice, such as a breach of legislative requirements by accepted persons, the regulatory authority may suspend or revoke the acceptance and may apply appropriate additional penalties in accordance with their legislative requirements.
National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999
as amended
made under section 14(1) of the
National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cwlth), the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995 (NSW), the National Environment Protection Council (Victoria) Act 1995 (Vic), the National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994 (Qld), the National Environment Protection Council (Western Australia) Act 1996 (WA), the National Environment Protection Council (South Australia) Act 1995 (SA), the National Environment Protection Council (Tasmania) Act 1995 (Tas), the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (ACT) and the National Environment Protection Council (Northern Territory) Act 1994 (NT)
Compilation start date: 16 May 2013
Includes amendments up to: National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1)
This compilation has been split into 22 volumes
Volume 1: sections 1–6, Schedules A and B
Volume 2: Schedule B1
Volume 3: Schedule B2
Volume 4: Schedule B3
Volume 5: Schedule B4
Volume 6: Schedule B5a
Volume 7: Schedule B5b
Volume 8: Schedule B5c
Volume 9: Schedule B6
Volume 10: Schedule B7 - Appendix 1
Volume 11: Schedule B7 - Appendix 2
Volume 12: Schedule B7 - Appendix 3
Volume 13: Schedule B7 - Appendix 4
Volume 14: Schedule B7 - Appendix 5
Volume 15: Schedule B7 - Appendix 6
Volume 16: Schedule B7 - Appendix B
Volume 17: Schedule B7 - Appendix C
Volume 18: Schedule B7 - Appendix D
Volume 19: Schedule B7
Volume 20: Schedule B8
Volume 21: Schedule B9
Volume 22: Endnotes
Each volume has its own contents
About this compilation
The compiled instrument
This is a compilation of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 as amended and in force on 16 May 2013. It includes any amendment affecting the compiled instrument to that date.
This compilation was prepared on 22 May 2013.
The notes at the end of this compilation (the endnotes) include information about amending Acts and instruments and the amendment history of each amended provision.
Uncommenced provisions and amendments
If a provision of the compiled instrument is affected by an uncommenced amendment, the text of the uncommenced amendment is set out in the endnotes.
Application, saving and transitional provisions for amendments
If the operation of an amendment is affected by an application, saving or transitional provision, the provision is identified in the endnotes.
Modifications
If a provision of the compiled instrument is affected by a textual modification that is in force, the text of the modifying provision is set out in the endnotes.
Provisions ceasing to have effect
If a provision of the compiled instrument has expired or otherwise ceased to have effect in accordance with a provision of the instrument, details of the provision are set out in the endnotes.
Contents
Endnotes2
Endnote 1—Legislation history 2
Endnote 2—Amendment history 3
Endnote 3—Uncommenced amendments [none] 4
Endnote 4—Misdescribed amendments [none] 5
Endnotes
Endnote 1—Legislation history
This endnote sets out details of the legislation history of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.
Title Gazettal or FRLI registration date Commencement
dateApplication, saving and transitional provisions National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (F2008B00713) 22 Dec 1999 (see Gazette 1999, No. GN51) 22 Dec 1999 National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1) 15 May 2013 (see F2013L00768) 16 May 2013 — Endnote 2—Amendment history
This endnote sets out the amendment history of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 .
ad. = added or inserted am. = amended rep. = repealed rs. = repealed and substituted exp. = expired or ceased to have effect Provision affected How affected Introductory note................ am. 2013 No. 1 s. 3...................................... am. 2013 No. 1 s. 6...................................... am. 2013 No. 1 s. 7...................................... am. 2013 No. 1 s. 8...................................... am. 2013 No. 1 s. 9...................................... am. 2013 No. 1 s. 10.................................... am. 2013 No. 1 Schedule A Schedule A.......................... rs. 2013 No. 1 Schedule B Schedule B.......................... rs. 2013 No. 1 Endnote 3—Uncommenced amendments [none]
There are no uncommenced amendments.
Endnote 4—Misdescribed amendments [none]
There are no misdescribed amendments.
0
0
0