Douglas Partners Pty Ltd ABN 75 053 980 117 www.douglaspartners.com.au 36 O'Malley Street Osborne Park WA 6017 Phone (08) 9204 3511 Fax (08) 9204 3522
Brisbane • Cairns • Canberra • Darwin • Geelong • Gladstone • Gold Coast • Macarthur • Melbourne • Newcastle • Perth • Sunshine Coast • Sydney • Townsville • Wollongong • Wyong
Department of Environment Regulation 17 December 2014
Locked Bag 33
CLOISTERS SQUARE WA 6850
NSA
Attention: To Whom It May Concern
Dear Sirs
Provision of Comment on Draft Material Guideline for Clean Fill
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) is pleased to provide the following comments in relation to the Department of Environment Regulations Draft Materials Guideline for Clean Fill (November 2014).
Question 1
Are there any parts of the guideline where the requirements are not clear?
The draft guideline cites the DEC (2010) guidelines for ecological investigation levels and contamination issues. In this regard, it is noted that the DEC (2010) guidelines have been superseded by the National Environment Protection Measure 2013 (NEPM 2013).
Furthermore, if a site is subject to an Audit by a DER accredited auditor, then all contaminant concentrations would be required to meet the NEPM 2013 criteria which are different from the DEC 2010;
Section 4.2 states that clean fill should be spread in sufficiently large areas and inspected to verify the material is free of signs of contamination. In this regard, visual inspections are not adequate to ascertain chemical contaminant concentrations such as metals, pesticides, etc. As such, the guideline does not mention any requirement that inspections and/or sampling should be carried out by appropriately qualified personnel. For example inspections by contractors and/or other personnel who do not know what to look for, may miss certain issues that would lead to contaminated material being deemed as “clean fill” and could result in transference of these contaminants to other sites;
Section 2, Table 1 – identifies the potential contaminants of concern associated with various clean fill sources. On this basis and based on the DER guidelines titled Potentially Contaminating Activities, Industries and Landuses, Perth Western Australia (2004), potentially contaminated materials would require sampling and analysis to prove that the material meets the definition of “clean fill”. As such based on the sources identified pretty much all sources of clean fill would require sampling to verify its suitability. This in a way is contradictory to the bullet point above and the visual inspection requirements stated in Section 4.2;
Page 2 of 3
End of Waste Review December 2014
Draft Material Guideline for Clean Fill
Section 4.3 “Product Sampling and Testing” – the use of the term “product” suggests that the material has been subjected to some sort of a process. As such this contradicts the definition of the term “clean fill” as the definition suggests that clean fill is sourced from undisturbed materials. In this regard, the definition of the term “clean fill” is also very broad and could result in various contaminated materials being deemed as clean fill. This to date is an issue that is being seen in NSW wherein asbestos and other contaminated materials are being introduced into a number of uncontaminated developments due to inadequate clarity in the guidelines and unscrupulous suppliers who do not adequately sample and test the materials.
Question 2
To provide consistency for producers of clean fill, the sampling approach proposed in the draft Material Guideline is aligned with that in the Guidelines for managing asbestos at construction and demolition waste recycling facilities, DEC, 2012. Comments are sought on the appropriateness of this approach.
Section 4.3.1 Sampling – appears to have been developed for stockpile sampling (which in a way is contradictory to the definition of “clean fill” which needs to be undisturbed). What if the material is in situ? The specification does not provide any guidance on this. It is not uncommon for developers to identify excess material well in advance during the development and therefore testing may actually be carried out when the material is in the ground and/or during initial investigations.
Question 3
Do you consider that the draft Material Guideline will be practical and achievable for industry to implement?
Section 4.2 Acceptance and Excavation Procedures, the guideline requires waste be spread over a sufficiently large area (to a depth of 0.3 m) to enable comprehensive visual and odour check. From a contractors point of view, particularly for larger volumes of material this approach may not be practical for the following reasons:
The procedure may result in double handling of material.
There may be insufficient room (for 5,000 m3 spread to a thickness of 0.3 m, an area of approximately 130 m x 130 m would be required).
It would be preferred that material is assessed at the source with confirmation as to whether the material is “clean fill” being given prior to transport to a receiving site.
The draft guideline cites the DEC (2010) guidelines for ecological investigation levels and contamination issues. In this regard, it is noted that the DEC (2010) guidelines have been superseded by the National Environment Protection Measure 2013 (NEPM 2013).
Furthermore, if a site is subject to an audit by a DER accredited auditor, then all contaminant
Page 3 of 3
End of Waste Review December 2014
Draft Material Guideline for Clean Fill
concentrations would be required to meet the NEPM 2013 criteria which are different from the DEC 2010;
Yours faithfully
Douglas Partners Pty Ltd
Rob Shapland
Environmental Associate
