The National Remediation Framework: Implications

Peter Nadebaum | GHD Pty Ltd

The National Remediation Framework

• A personal view on the implications of the NRF

• Draws on comment on the draft provided by the Australasian Land and Groundwater Association

• I have had involvement on the NRF Steering Group and in preparing some of the modules

A broad view of the NRF Prepared by a working group involving EPAs and industry Represents a combined view of the process for identifying and selecting a preferred remedial approach to a contaminated site Intended to reflect current practice – and achieve consistency in approach across Australia – not revolutionary Recognise: regulatory policy is continuously being refined and adjusted (eg Victoria) – varies with jurisdiction hence guidance relates to the process rather than dictating a prescriptive quantitative outcome

What hasn’t been considered

• Regulatory Impact Statement • No evaluation of risk cost eg implications in terms of $ per life saved Simply reflects current policy and practice

Status of the NRF • Wait and see: “endorsed”, “noted”, “should be referred to”?

• Notwithstanding this – accepted by some agencies, and hence a

good indicator of the approach to be taken – especially in the spirit of achieving a consistent approach across Australia

• An approach that can be • Audited against • Considered by EPAs when preparing policy and local guidance

– work towards consistency Good

Think auditing Great resource for auditors to:

- identify key issues - check against

Scope of the NRF Does not include: • Unexploded ordnance • Radioactive substances • Biologically pathogenic materials and waste • Contaminated sediments • Abandoned mining sites • Specific contaminants (eg PFAS, NAPL): refer to “tool box” • Where liability lies

However – principles and approach will be useful in addressing these issues

Overall structure and modules of the NRF

Introduction to the National Remediation Framework A. Development of remediation action plan A1 Guideline on regulatory considerations A2 Guideline on establishing remediation objectives A3 Guideline on performing remediation options assessment A4 Technology guides (soil) Containment Chemical immobilisation and solidification Bioremediation Soil Washing Thermal desorption Excavation Soil vapour remediation A4 Technology guides (groundwater) In-situ air sparging In-situ chemical oxidation Monitored natural attenuation Barrier systems Pump and treat Skimming

A5.1 Guideline on performing cost-benefit and sustainability analysis of remediation options A5.2 Cost-Benefit and Sustainability Analysis Tool B. Implementation of remediation action plan B1 Guideline on health and safety B2 Guideline on stakeholder engagement B3 Guideline on documentation record keeping and reporting C. Post-remediation considerations C1 Guideline for validation and closure C2 Guideline on implementing long-term monitoring C3 Guideline for Role of Auditing C4 Guideline for Institutional Controls

Introduction Important module

Principles: important implications Risk management: • Refers to ISO 31000 – based on risk = likelihood x consequence • Not the conventional approach to risk assessment in contaminated sites: Unacceptable risk if exposure > threshold (no proportionality) • Victoria: introduces “Principle of Proportionality”

– same thinking – response proportional to the risk

• Sustainability and intergenerational equity: – same thinking – takes into account the magnitude of effect and balancing various effects

• Precautionary Principle: - Avoid where practicable, serious or irreversible damage - Consider risk-weighted consequences of various options

• Prevention: - “should prevent” – cf Victoria: prevent as far as reasonably practicable Fundamental shift? Rather than simply unacceptable if > threshold:

base response on magnitude or seriousness of the risk

Where might this take us?

• Look to developing a body of practice that reflects these principles – not yet in place

• Key measures: - Response proportional to risk - Practicability - Sustainability – balancing different effects - Precautionary – how precautionary?

Maybe this will be developed in our Tier 2 risk assessments? - in the risk characterisation step? Watch developments in Victoria?

Guideline on Regulatory Considerations

• Good overview and primer on regulatory requirements in each State and Territory – helps understanding differences

• But: refer to specific jurisdictional Acts, Regulations, Guidance for detail and current requirements

Guideline on Setting Remediation Objectives Important module

• Outline of the decision process on what response (ie clean up/management) is required

• Objectives stated in qualitative terms (“suitable for use”) • May be aspirational • Conceptual Site Model - understand risks to environmental

values

Guideline on Setting Remediation Objectives continued

• Complex, important to get right • Objectives can be site-specific and jurisdiction-specific - setting objectives leads to specific and measurable targets • Provides diagram of the decision process to determine what response

(ie clean up/management) is required Normal process, but includes considering: • Various remediation technologies • Cost-benefit sustainability analysis • Stakeholder engagement • Health and safety

Normal process may overlook some of these

Guideline on Setting Remediation Objectives comment • “Unacceptable off-site risks need to be addressed”

• If site is impacting off site - yes • If historical contamination, and site owner is not polluter – maybe?

• Site-specific risk-based remediation criteria - considers: • Concentration based criteria • Monitoring residual • Performance-based metrics/monitoring • Background concentrations • Practicability/pragmatic outcomes • Time

Useful discussion – prompts consideration of broader range of options

Guideline on Performing Remediation Options Assessment • Provides more information on the decision process for

selecting a remediation/management option • Provides a high level overview of technologies and potential

applicability – “Technology Overview” • Discusses the decision sequence • Introduces cost-benefit and sustainability (subject of another

module)

Guideline on Performing Remediation Options Assessment - comment Discusses:

Preferred hierarchy of options Stakeholder engagement

Options assessment process • Identify common technologies/options, including combinations of options Linear sequential decision making strategy • Identify essential vs “nice to have” requirements • Determine which technologies/options will satisfy essential requirements,

discard others, revisit • Once essential requirements are met, consider cost-benefit/sustainability, MCA

Good, better than just MCA

Good

Guideline on Performing Remediation Options Assessment – cont’d Encourages cost-benefit and sustainability analysis Good Includes technology options application matrix – leads to Technology Application Guides Some technologies not included (eg NSZD, ISCR) Specific contaminants not considered (eg PFAS, B(a)P) Proposed: include these in a “Toolbox” – technical guidance papers (eg prepared by HEPA (PFAS), CRC CARE ) Overall approach: Good

•Refers to the US Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable website

•High level introduction - more information provided on particular technologies in the individual “Technology Application Guides”

Technology options applications matrix

• Provides guidance on taking a broader range of considerations into account: eg cost, environmental and social factors

• Does not override regulatory requirements

• Pre dated ISO 18504 (Sustainable Remediation) but now refers to the ISO

Guideline on Cost Benefit and Sustainability Assessment

Guideline on Cost Benefit and Sustainability Assessment

Comment: • ALGA and SuRF ANZ concerned that it might be too complex,

may not encourage application • ISO 18504 is simpler and may be preferred?

• Wait and see what the industry uses – evolve a body of practice • What will the auditors want?

Technology guides 7 soil and 6 groundwater technologies

• Technology Description and Application • Feasibility Assessment

• Data Requirements • Treatable Contaminants

• Treatability Studies (some) • Operational System (some) • Design Parameters (some) • Documentation (some) • Validation • Health and Safety • Appendices including case studies

Good – high level Important in identifying key issues that are likely to limit the application and need to be considered Not a design manual

Technology guides

Expect to: • Identify improvements as these are applied • Identify other guides and information for reference • Provide good case studies Encourage practitioners to advise CRC CARE on improvements

Source: USEPA clu-in

Source: USEPA clu-in

Source: USEPA clu-in

Source: USEPA clu-in

Implementation of the RAP

Following implementation of the RAP

Guideline on Validation and Closure Provides guidance on validating the outcome of the remediation process and achieving and reporting on site closure

Guideline on Implementing Long Term monitoring Provides guidance on implementing long-term monitoring after remediation – where this is required (eg for MNA)

• Provides a high level overview of the auditing process

• Has been revised in response to comments on earlier draft – less detail to avoid problems with jurisdictional differences

Guideline on the Role of Auditing

•Provides a high level overview of institutional controls in the different jurisdictions

•Important and difficult area – deals with managing residual contamination

•Encourages consistency Good

Guideline on Implementing Institutional Controls

Further evolution

• Revision will be required – it will never be “final” • Especially as it is referred to and applied

• Important to establish a process for its revision

• Who is the custodian of the NRF?

Concluding remarks Valuable addition to the contaminated sites industry – strongly supported by ALGA – it will evolve as it is applied It will provide for: • Greater consistency between States • Important prompts to practitioners and auditors • Useful information and a more logical and efficient decision

making process • More sustainable solutions

Has not considered cost implications but may encourage proportionate risk-based thinking and solutions!

www.ghd.com

© Copyright GHD Group Pty Ltd 2019. All right reserved.