ministerial statement 742 annual compliance report …€¦ · ministerial statement 742 annual...

149-151 Kensington Street, East Perth, WA 6004 T (08) 9261 4900

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 742 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

(JUNE 2011 TO MAY 2012), HELENA EAST, MIDLAND

Prepared For: Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority

12 Lindsay Street Perth, WA 6000

Report Number: AP2012/113

Report Version: V1

Report Date: 31 January 2013

Ministerial Statement 742 Annual Compliance Report Helena East, Midland

Aurora Environmental MRA-2012-003-ACR_009_sb_v1 31 January 2013

DISCLAIMER

This document has been produced in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Aurora Environmental (“Aurora”) and the client for whom it has been prepared (“Client”). It is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the Client in its engagement of Aurora and prepared using the standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by Environmental / Occupational Health and Safety consultants in the preparation of such documents.

Any person or organisation that relies on or uses the document for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by Aurora and the Client without first obtaining the prior written consent of Aurora, does so entirely at their own risk and should not alter their position or refrain from doing so in reliance of this document. Aurora denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be suffered as a consequence of relying on this document for any purpose other than that agreed by Aurora.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Aurora Environmental has implemented a comprehensive range of quality control measures on all aspects of the company’s operation.

An internal quality review process has been applied to each project task undertaken by us. Each document is carefully reviewed and signed off by senior members of the consultancy team prior to issue to the client.

Document No: MRA-2012-003-ACR_009_sb_v1

Report No: AP2012/113

Author: Dr Susie Brown

Associate Environmental Scientist 31 January 2013

Signature Date

Reviewed by: Dr Greg Milner Manager – Contaminated Land & Industrial and Waste

31 January 2013

Signature Date



DISTRIBUTION

Report File Name Report

Status Date Distributed to (method)

MRA-2012-003-ACR_009_sb_v1_draft V1 Draft 17 January 2013 Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (PDF)

MRA-2012-003-ACR_009_sb_v1 V1 31 January 2013

Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (PDF)

Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (PDF and hard copy)



TABLE OF CONTENTS

ATTACHMENTS I

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.2 REPORTING PERIOD 1

2 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 3

2.1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3

2.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE: REMEDIATION 3

2.3 DECOMMISSIONING 5

3 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT AND DETAILS 6

3.1 COMPLETED 6

3.2 COMPLIANT 7

3.3 NON-COMPLIANT 8

3.4 NOT REQUIRED 8

3.5 IN PROCESS 9

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 10

5 REFERENCES 11


Aurora Environmental i MRA-2012-003-ACR_009_sb_v1 31 January 2013

ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Regional Location

Figure 2: Helena East Site Plan

Figure 3: Helena East Remedial Areas

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Ministerial Statement 742

Appendix 2: Ministerial Statement 742 Audit Table

Appendix 3: MRA Endorsement Letter


Aurora Environmental 1 MRA-2012-003-ACR_009_sb_v1 31 January 2013

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Helena East Precinct (the site) forms part of the former Midland Railway Workshops, which was operated by West Australian Government Railways from 1904 through 1994. The Workshops are located in Midland (Figure 1), approximately 16km northeast of the Perth central business district. During operations, locomotive and rolling stock were built and maintained at the site by workmen and apprentices.

Following closure of the Workshops, the Midland Redevelopment Authority was formed to coordinate the redevelopment of the area. Due to differing land uses across the redevelopment area, it has been managed as a number of precincts. Of these, the Helena East Precinct (Figure 2), which comprises approximately 17ha, was the final area to be subject to major remedial works. Soil and groundwater impacts with the potential to affect environmental receptors and human health were identified at the site as part of previous investigations, and these impacts required active remediation for the site to be suitable for its intended uses, as set out under the Midland Redevelopment Scheme and the Midlandmetro Concept Plan 2010 (Midland Redevelopment Authority, 2004).

The proposed remediation and redevelopment of Helena East was formally assessed by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Helena East Precinct Remediation and Redevelopment: Public Environmental Review (PER) prepared by ATA Environmental (2006) described the environmental status of the site, and set out commitments by the Midland Redevelopment Authority to undertake remediation of the site so that it would be compatible with the proposed future land uses. EPA Bulletin 1234 (EPA, 2006) set out the recommendations of the EPA to the Minister in October 2006. The PER was then approved by the Minister for the Environment in Ministerial Statement (MS) 742 which was released in June 2007. A copy of MS 742 is included as Appendix 1.

This annual compliance report (CR) has been prepared to comply with Condition 4.1 of MS 742 in consultation with the document Post Assessment Guideline for Preparing a Compliance Assessment Report (OEPA, 2012a). The report provides the status of compliance against audit elements set out in the audit table for the project for the period June 2011 to May 2012. The audit table summarising the project status for the reporting period is provided as Appendix 2. The layout of the audit table has been modified in consultation with the Post Assessment Guideline for Preparing an Audit Table (OEPA, 2012b), but is consistent with the previously approved audit table for the site.

1.2 REPORTING PERIOD

This CR is for the period from June 2011 through May 2012. Previous compliance reports have been submitted as follows:

• Annual Compliance Report (6 June 2007 to 5 June 2009), Helena East, Midland, Ministerial Statement 742 (Coffey Environments, 2009a); and



• Annual Compliance Report (6 June 2009 to 5 June 2010), Helena East, Midland, Ministerial Statement 742 (Coffey Environments, 2010a).

• Annual Compliance Report (6 June 2010 to 5 June 2011), Helena East, Midland, Ministerial Statement 742 (Coffey Environments, 2011a).



2 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

During the period of the CR, from June 2011 to May 2012, no active remedial works were in progress at the site, although in situ characterisation of material in the area identified as Lots 15299 and 15300 (see Figure 3) was being undertaken during June 2011. Accordingly, it is considered that for the period of this CR, the site was in the decommissioning phase, where remedial works have been completed but elements of site development remain to be completed before titles are issued. A summary of works undertaken as part of pre-construction, operational, and decommissioning phases are presented below, together with a discussion of current site activities. Figure 3 identifies areas within Helena East which are described in the text below.

2.1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Prior to site works, various environmental management plans were developed in order to manage potential issues which might affect human health, aesthetics, or the environment during and after remedial works at the site. Collectively, these plans form the Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP). The following plans were approved as part of the issuing of MS 742 in June 2007: the Noise and Vibration Management Plan, the Surface and Groundwater Management Plan, the Waste Management Plan, the Asbestos Waste Management Plan, the Subsurface Management Plan, and the Community Consultation Plan.

The Dust and Air Quality Management Plan was approved by DEC in June 2007, and an addendum to the plan was endorsed in January 2009. A Groundwater Effluent Management Plan was endorsed in September 2007.

The 2006 version of the Southern Embankment Management Plan was revised to address the risk of erosion along the Southern Embankment, rehabilitation planting, and surface condition monitoring. The revised plan, the Southern Embankment Erosion and Rehabilitation Management Plan, was approved in 2007.

The Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Management Plan was endorsed by the Auditor in 2008. It was determined following remedial works that the Subsurface Management Plan and Subsurface Constraint Register adequately manage residual risks, and no additional post-remediation DNAPL management plan is required.

The various plans have been documented in previous CRs, and management plans were made available for download from the Proponent’s website (http://www.mra.wa.gov.au/ Projects/Midland/Publications/).

2.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE: REMEDIATION

Remedial works were undertaken in stages at Helena East, as the Precinct comprises areas with varying requirements for remediation as well as numerous heritage features.

The first stage of remedial works was carried out over approximately 4.99ha of open areas in the northern and western portions of Helena East, and took place between September 2007 and August 2008. The areas covered by the first stage of remedial works comprise Sectors 10A and 10B [including Lot 933 (then known as Lot 735) located in the Helena West Precinct, and Lot 932 (then known as Lot



753) partially within Helena West], and Sector 13, as identified on Figure 3. Within the bounds of heritage constraints and excluding Lot 669, all these areas were remediated down to natural ground. Excavated waste fill material was stockpiled and characterised to assess management options. Documentation of the remedial works and validation undertaken as part of this stage is presented in Remediation and Validation Report, Part of Helena East Precinct (Part 1), Former Railway Workshops, Midland (Coffey Environments, 2009b); this report is referred to as RVR1. The Contaminated Sites Auditor, Jeremy Hogben of ERM, reviewed the RVR1 document (including addenda) endorsing the document. The document formed the basis for the recommended Contaminated Sites reclassification of the RVR1 area in the Mandatory Auditor’s Report (MAR) for the area, referred to as MAR1. The completion of this process has allowed titles to be issued for lots within the RVR1 area, with memorials relating to restrictions on access to soil and groundwater as required. A Helena East Subsurface Constraints Register and Subsurface Management Plan were also prepared for the RVR1 area by Coffey Environments.

The second stage of remedial works was carried out over 3.1 ha comprising Block 1 and nearby open areas between February 2008 and April 2010. Areas subject to the second stage of remedial works comprise the northern portion of Sector 10D (Block 1), and small areas of Sector 10A (north, east, and south of the Foundry), as identified on Figure 3. Within the bounds of heritage constraints all areas were remediated down to natural ground, and excavated waste fill material was stockpiled and characterised to assess management options. Additional areas of contamination were also identified during works, and these areas were investigated, remediated, and validated in consultation with the Auditor. Documentation of the remedial works and validation undertaken as part of this stage is presented in Remediation and Validation Report, Part of Helena East Precinct (Part 2), Former Railway Workshops, Midland (Coffey Environments, 2010b); this report is referred to as RVR2. A health risk assessment of residual contaminated material was also undertaken. The Auditor has reviewed the RVR2 document and endorsed it, and an associated MAR, referred to as MAR2 was produced. Titles have subsequently been issued for lots within the RVR2 area, with memorials relating to restrictions on access to soil and groundwater as required. The Helena East Subsurface Constraints Register and Subsurface Management Plan were updated to include constraints within the RVR2 area and new versions issued by Coffey Environments in 2011.

A third stage of remedial works was carried out over the remaining 10.2 ha area, including areas of Sectors 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, and Sector 13 (including Block 2, Block 3, the Foundry, the Pattern Shop and part of the Pattern Store, the Boiler House/Copper Shop and Power House, the Element Shop, Hot & Cold Wells, Weighbridge, Tarpaulin Shop, Main Store, and Water Tank). Including additional investigations undertaken, elements of remedial works for this area occurred between September 2007 and June 2011. However, practical completion of actual remedial works in the Helena East area occurred in January 2011; works between then and June 2011 only comprised investigations into soil vapour, groundwater, and in situ soil characterisation, and no additional active remedial works were required. As part of decommissioning works (discussed below), the final surface in limited areas will be put into place, but no further remedial works as such are required.

As with previous remedial works, all areas were remediated down to natural ground within the bounds of heritage constraints, and excavated waste fill material was stockpiled and characterised to assess management options. Additional contamination hotspots were also identified during works,



some of which had been anticipated and some of which were new. These areas were investigated, remediated to the extent possible, and validated in consultation with the Auditor. A qualitative risk assessment indicates that potential human health risks and risks to on-site ecological receptors exist associated with contaminated soil and groundwater which remain at the site, but that the risks can be managed via implementation of controls. Some of the controls were to be implemented following the completion of active remedial works. This included updating the Helena East Subsurface Constraints Register and Subsurface Management Plan to include constraints within the RVR3 area, which has occurred.

Documentation of the remedial works and validation undertaken as part of this stage is presented in Remediation and Validation Report, Part of Helena East Precinct (Part 3), Former Railway Workshops, Midland (Coffey Environments, 2011b); this report is referred to as RVR3. The RVR3 document was reviewed and endorsed by the Auditor during the reporting period, and an associated MAR, known as MAR3 was produced and submitted to DEC. Some minor queries have been raised by the Department of Health, who are providing advice to DEC; Aurora and the Auditor are in the process of reviewing and responding to the queries at present, so accordingly MAR3 endorsement is pending.

2.3 DECOMMISSIONING

Active remedial works were completed as of January 2011, although the final surface has yet to be established in limited areas identified in RVR3 (namely, adjacent to Block 2 and Block 3 and the Main Store). The final surface will be completed as funding for associated buried infrastructure allows, as part of the site development process. As indicated above, the validation reports for the RVR1, RVR2, and RVR3 areas have been completed and endorsed by the Auditor through the production of MAR1, MAR2, and MAR3. The DEC has accepted MAR1 and MAR2, and final DEC acceptance of MAR3 is currently pending, subject to additional clarification of minor issues.

Management elements related to decommissioning (post-remediation) are underway. These elements are as follows:

• Preparation of a Post Remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan. The plan has been endorsed by the Auditor as part of the MAR3 package.

• Post-remediation monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment. The first round has recently been undertaken, although the event and associated reporting occurred outside of this reporting period.

• A qualitative assessment of post-remediation risks associated with Waste Fill in the Southern Embankment was undertaken as part of RVR3/MAR3 package.

The Subsurface Constraints Register and Subsurface Management Plan were updated by Coffey Environments in 2012 to incorporate the RVR3 area. These documents were endorsed by the Auditor as part of the RVR3/MAR3 package.



3 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT AND DETAILS

The audit table presented in Appendix 2 identifies the compliance status of each Ministerial Condition over the audit period, June 2011 to May 2012. The audit table has been modified to meet the current EPA guidelines on audit table structure and nomenclature (OEPA, 2012b), but otherwise remains consistent with the previously approved audit table.

3.1 COMPLETED

Correspondence with the Office of the EPA indicates the following conditions have been previously completed for the site:

• 742:M3.1 and 742:M3.2, regarding the 5-year time limit for commencement of the proposal.

• 742:M4.2, regarding preparation of an approved audit program for use in compliance reporting.

• 742:M6.1 and 742:M6.2, regarding development of a site excavation plan and validation sampling program.

• For portions of the site, 742:M6.3 and 742:M6.4, relating to reporting of site validation and approval of the report (for areas on Deposited Plans 48323, 55478, 66304, 66309, 66314, 67819 and 67820).

• 742:M7.1, regarding management of remediation work on the Southern Embankment.

• 742:M10.1, 742:M10.2, and 742:M10.3 regarding dust and air quality management.

As the above list of completed items is based on a desktop audit by the Office of the EPA conducted in 2010, the above conditions are identified as completed in 2010. The Coffey Environments CR for the period 2010 to 2011 also identifies that condition 742:M7.2 (regarding distribution of documentation for remediation of the Southern Embankment) has been completed, which is consistent with the completion of 742:M7.1 and the availability of the associated management plan on the Proponent’s website. It is accordingly identified as completed in 2011.

The previous CR (Coffey Environments, 2011a) identifies that for some areas within the site, additional conditions relating to the operational phase of works have been completed. For areas which were the subject of RVR1 the following conditions are identified as completed in 2011:

• 742:M5.1, regarding soil remediation based on appropriate criteria.

• 742:M8.1, 742:M8.2, 742:8.3, 742:M8.4, 742:M8.5, regarding onsite containment of residual contamination.

• 742:M9.1, 742:M9.2, regarding delineation of DNAPL and preparation of a DNAPL Management Plan prior to issuing land titles within areas potentially affected by DNAPL in groundwater.

• 742:M9.4 regarding making the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Management Plan (CHMP) publically available. The CHMP was previously made publically available as required, and is present on the Proponent’s website.



For areas which formed the subject of RVR2 the following conditions are identified as completed:

• 742:M5.1, regarding soil remediation based on appropriate criteria.

• 742:M6.5, regarding making the validation report publically available.

• 742:M8.1, 742:M8.2, 742:M8.3, 742:M8.4, 742:M8.5, regarding onsite containment of residual contamination.

• 742:M9.1, 742:M9.2, regarding land titles within areas potentially affected by DNAPL in groundwater.

• 742:M13.1, regarding preparation and submission of a Subsurface Management Plan.

For the purposes of this report, these conditions are identified as completed in 2011.

For areas which were the subject of RVR3, no additional conditions are identified as completed during the reporting period. While RVR3 was completed and endorsed during the reporting period, MAR3 has been endorsed by the Auditor but has not yet been accepted by DEC, due to queries raised by Department of Health.

3.2 COMPLIANT

The proposal has been undertaken in compliance with the following conditions, which relate to the Overall or Decommissioning phase of works:

• 742:M1.1, regarding implementation of the proposal.

• 742:M2.1, regarding the nominated Proponent. The Proponent, the Midland Redevelopment Authority, was incorporated into the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, which was established by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 in October 2011. This has resulted in a change of details of the proponent (which is subject of 640:M3.3), but is not considered to have been a change in the Proponent as such.

• 742:M4.1 and 742:M4.3 regarding completion and submission of annual compliance reporting, as per this report and attached Audit Table. An endorsement letter is provided as Appendix 3.

• 742:M5.1, regarding soil remediation criteria. This condition is already completed for the RVR1 and RVR2 areas. Documentation of remediation to the criteria (as appropriate) has been prepared as part of RVR3, which has been endorsed by the Auditor. Additional information relating to the RVR3/MAR3 package has been requested before DEC signoff will be provided.

• 742:M6.3 and 742:M6.4, regarding validation sampling and reporting. This condition is already completed for the RVR1 and RVR2 areas; compliance for the RVR3 area is indicated through the endorsement of RVR3 by the Auditor as per MAR3.

• 742:M8.1, 742:M8.2, 742:M8.3, 742:M8.4, and 742:M8.5, regarding on-site containment of residual contamination. These conditions are completed for the RVR1 and RVR2 areas. Compliance for the RVR3 area is described in the RVR3 document. It is noted that areas adjacent Block 2, Block 3, and the Main Store have been remediated but final surfaces have not yet been put in place, although the areas are barricaded to prevent soil access. Once



underground services have been installed and the final levels achieved, the conditions will be considered complete for the full RVR3 area.

• 742:M9.3 regarding implementation of the DNAPL Management Plan. This was developed as a Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Management Plan (CHMP), which has been implemented and endorsed by the Auditor. The Post-DNAPL Source Zone Remediation Management Plan nominated within the CHMP to be prepared to document subsurface management required following DNAPL remedial works is not required, as the information is incorporated within the Subsurface Management Plan and the Subsurface Constraint Register for the site. Endorsement of RVR3 provides confirmation of Auditor acceptance of compliance with this condition, as the RVR3 area incorporates DNAPL remediation areas.

3.3 NON-COMPLIANT

During the reporting period, non-compliance with the following conditions is identified:

• 742:M2.2, regarding advising of changes to contact details of the nominated the proponent. The Post Assessment Form 1 was submitted to EPA on 19 October 2012, outside of 60 days of the Midland Redevelopment Authority becoming part of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, located at 12 Lindsay Street, Perth.

• 742:M6.5, regarding making site validation reports publically available. The RVR3 document was not made publically available during the reporting period. As the Auditor has endorsed the document and prepared the associated MAR3, it is now considered appropriate to release RVR3. Accordingly, Aurora will liaise with the proponent to distribute the report as required by the condition.

• 742:M12.6, regarding making the Post-remediation Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring and Management Plan publically available. As this report is complete and has been endorsed by the Auditor, Aurora will liaise with the proponent to distribute the report as required.

3.4 NOT REQUIRED

The following conditions were not required to be complied with during the reporting period:

• 742:M11.1 to 742:M11.7, regarding creation and use of a containment cell in the Meat Industry Association area. As the land was not available in time for the remedial works, the cell was not constructed.

• 742:M12.7, regarding making the monitoring reports required by the Post-remediation Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring and Management Plan publically available. The first round of post-remediation monitoring had not been completed during the reporting period, so the report was not required to be made available.

• 742:M13.3 and 742:M13.4, in relation to post-remediation subsurface activities (below clean fill). These conditions have not been required as part of decommissioning phase works.



3.5 IN PROCESS

The following items are identified as being in process. In process is applied to items have been submitted to an approving agency, and for which no advice has been received or additional information requested.

• 742:M4.4, regarding making the Compliance Report publically available. Once this CR has been submitted to EPA, it will be made publically available and a copy of the advertisement of the CR will be provided to DEC.



4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This annual Compliance Report has been prepared to audit environmental compliance of works undertaken at Helena East, Midland against requirements of MS 742 for the period between June 2011 and May 2012. Remedial works have been completed at the site and it is in the decommissioning phase. Accordingly, conditions relating to operational phase requirements are compliant (for RVR3 area) or completed (for RVR1 and RVR2 areas). Additional conditions will be identified as completed once RVR3 has been formally accepted by DEC.

The following item is being addressed, in order to fully comply with conditions identified as non-compliant during the reporting period:

• The RVR3 document and Post-remediation Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring and Management Plan are being made publically available, now that they have been endorsed by the Auditor.

No containment cell was constructed in the Meat Industry Association area as part of remedial works, so compliance with the associated conditions was not required as part of implementation of the proposal.



5 REFERENCES

ATA Environmental (2006) Helena East Precinct Remediation and Redevelopment: Public Environmental Review. Report No. 2005/142, Version 3, March 2006.

Coffey Environments (2009a) Annual Compliance Report (6 June 2007 to 5 June 2009), Helena East, Midland Ministerial Statement 742. Report No. EP2009/169, V1, November 2009.

Coffey Environments (2009b) Remediation and Validation Report, Part of Helena East Precinct (Part 1), Former Railway Workshops, Midland. Report No. EP2008/172, V1, July 2009.

Coffey Environments (2010a) Annual Compliance Report (6 June 2009 to 5 June 2010), Helena East, Midland Ministerial Statement 742. Report No. EP2010/135, V1, November 2010.

Coffey Environments (2010b) Remediation and Validation Report, Part of Helena East Precinct (Part 2), Former Railway Workshops, Midland. Report No. EP2010/065, V1, August 2010.

Coffey Environments (2011a) Annual Compliance Report (6 June 2010 to 5 June 2011), Helena East, Midland Ministerial Statement 742. Report No. EP2011/052, V1, April 2011.

Coffey Environments (2011b) Remediation and Validation Report, Part of Helena East Precinct (Part 3), Former Railway Workshops, Midland. Report No. EP2011/166, V1, October 2011.

EPA (2006) Helena East Precinct Remediation and Redevelopment, Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Bulletin 1234, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Perth, WA.

Midland Redevelopment Authority (2004) Midlandmetro Concept Plan 2010. Midland Redevelopment Authority, Midland, WA.

OEPA (2012a) Post Assessment Guideline for Preparing a Compliance Assessment Report. Post Assessment Guidelines. Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA), Perth, WA.

OEPA (2012b) Post Assessment Guideline for Preparing an Audit Table. Post Assessment Guidelines. Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA), Perth, WA.

FIGURES

MR

A201

2-00

3-AC

R-0

01_s

b-f0

1.dg

nP

INP

OIN

T C

AR

TOG

RA

PH

ICS

(08

) 956

2 71

36

Figure 1

0 250 500 750 1000m

SCALE 1 : 25 000 at A4 (MGA)

N

Drawn: S. BrownREGIONAL LOCATION

Date: 17 Jan 2012 Job: MRA2012-003

Metropolitan Redevelopment AuthorityMINISTERIAL STATEMENT 742 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT(JUNE 2011 TO MAY 2012), HELENA EAST, MIDLAND

SITELOCATION

66

134134

703

704

705

737737

738738

739739

740740

744744

745745

755755

762762

787787

806806

807807905

906907

90890909

910910911911

912912913913

914914915915

916916917917

918918919919

921921

925925

926926

927927

928928

929

930930

931931

932932

933933

10011001

10021002

80098009

80258025

1520215202

920920922922923923924924

80158015

801616

80338033

85008500

123123

4

101101

112

25

2828

3030

2222

702

R 46210R 46210

90149014

802802

90299029

90299029

115

1111

503503

700

3131

1919

500500

502502

500500

500500

502502

44

1529915299

5050

1530015300

804804

2929

2020

801801

114

669669

373373

17

173173

499499

4444

5050

746746

90309030

1818

2626

2323

90229022

24

37373939 3838

216666

5

5050

709709

803803

V CROWN LANDV CROWN LAN

710

R 50152R 50152

501501

2525

707707 1520215202

699

90169016

90169016

2

R 47684R 47684

R 47684R 47684

100

2424

1414

333333

708708

1212

23

698

90269026

500

200200

701

V CROWN LANDV CROWN LAND

20

32323232

1

1

2121

741741

808808

1

26

11

19

SECTOR 10ASECTOR 10A

SECTOR 10BSECTOR 10B

SECTOR 10CSECTOR 10C

SECTOR 10DSECTOR 10D

SECTOR 10ESECTOR 10E

SECTOR 11CR 11C

SECTOR 13SECTOR 13

MRA2012-003-ACR-001_sb-f02.dgnPINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136

Figure 2

Drawn: S. BrownHELENA EAST SITE PLAN

Job: MRA2012-003Date: 17 Jan 2013

Legend

Helena East Boundary

Existing Cadastral Boundary

Existing Easement Boundary

Proposed Cadastral Boundary

Proposed Easement Boundary

Sector Boundary

0 20 40 60 80 100m

SCALE 1 : 2 000 at A3 (MGA)

N

CADASTRAL SOURCE: Landgate, December 2012.SUBDIVISION SOURCE: McMullen Nolan Group, December 2012.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SOURCE: NearMap, flown November 2012.

6 470 400mN6 470 400mN

6 470 600mN6 470 600mN

6 470 800mN6 470 800mN

6 471 000mN6 471 000mN

405

600m

E40

5 60

0mE

405

800m

E40

5 80

0mE


YELVERTON

YELVERTON

DRIVEDRIVE

HE

LEN

A

S

TR

EE

T

HE

LEN

A

S

TR

EE

T

FOUNDRYFOUNDRY

ROADROAD

FURNACE

FURNACE

ROADROAD

LANELANE

CRUCIBLE

CRUCIBLE

PLATINGSHOP

PLATINGSHOP

TERRACE

TERRACE

RAILWAYRAILWAY

PARADEPARADE

PLA

CE

PLA

CE

CE

NT

EN

NIA

L

CE

NT

EN

NIA

L

66

134134

703703

7044

705

737737

738738

739739

740740

744744

745745

755755

762762

787787

806806

807807

902903

904905

9066907907

908908909909

910910911911

912912913913

914914915915

916916917917

918918919919

921921

925925

926926

927927

928928

92929

930930

931931

932932

933933

10011001

10021002

80098009

80258025

1520215202

920920922922923923924924

80158015

80168016

80338033

85008500

123123

4

101101

112

25

2828

3030

2222

702702

R 46210R 46210

90149014

802802

90299029

90299029

115

1111

503503

70000

3131

1919

8007

500500

502502

500500

500500

502502

44

1529915299

5050

1530015300

804804

696

2929

2020

801801

114

669669

373373

17

173173

499499

4444

5050

746746

90309030

1818

13

R 48866

2626

2323

90229022

24

3737

694

3939 3838

216666

5

5050

709709

803803

V CROWN LANDV CROW

710710

R 50152R 50152

501501

2525

707707 1520215202

6999

90169016

90169016

2

R 47684R 47684

R 47684R 47684

2424

1414

333333

708708

1212

23

698

90269026

500

2002

701701

693

V CROWN LANDV CROWN LAND

20

32323232

1

1

2121

741741

808808

1

26

11

19

695

SECTOR 10ASECTOR 10A

SECTOR 10BSECTOR 10B

SECTOR 10CSECTOR 10C

SECTOR 10DSECTOR 10D

SECTOR 10ESECTOR 10E

SECTOR 11CECTOR 11C

SECTOR 13SECTOR 13

MRA2012-003-ACR-001_sb-f03.dgnPINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136

Figure 3

Drawn: S. Brown Job: MRA2012-003Date: 17 Jan 2013

Legend

0 20 40 60 80 100m

SCALE 1 : 2 000 at A3 (MGA)

N

6 470 400mN6 470 400mN

6 470 600mN6 470 600mN

6 470 800mN6 470 800mN

6 471 000mN6 471 000mN

405

600m

E40

5 60

0mE

405

800m

E40

5 80

0mE


YELVERTON

YELVERTON

DRIVEDRIVE

HE

LEN

A

S

TR

EE

T

HE

LEN

A

S

TR

EE

T

FOUNDRYFOUNDRY

ROADROAD

FURNACE

FURNACE

ROADROAD

LANELANE

CRUCIBLE

CRUCIBLE

PLATINGSHOP

PLATINGSHOP

TERRACE

TERRACE

RAILWAYRAILWAY

PARADEPARADE

PLA

CE

PLA

CE

CE

NT

EN

NIA

L

CE

NT

EN

NIA

L

CADASTRAL SOURCE: Landgate, December 2012.SUBDIVISION SOURCE: McMullen Nolan Group, December 2012.

HELENA EAST REMEDIAL AREAS

Helena East Boundary

Existing Cadastral Boundary

Existing Easement Boundary

Proposed Cadastral Boundary

Proposed Easement Boundary

Sector Boundary

Retained Building Footprint

RVR 1 Area

RVR 2 Area

RVR 3 Area

BLOCK 1BLOCK 1

BLOCK 2BLOCK 2

BLOCK 3BLOCK 3

BoilerBoilerHouse/

House/CopperCopperShopShop

PowerPowerHouse

House

PatternPatternStoreStore Pattern

PatternShopShop

FoundryFoundry

Element Shop

Element Shop

TarpaulinTarpaulinShopShop Main Store

Main Store

OilOilStoreStore

Chief MechanicalChief MechanicalEngineers BuildingEngineers Building

Time KeepersTime KeepersOfficeOffice

APPENDIX 1

Ministerial Statement 742

STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This document has been produced by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as an electronic version of the original Statement for the proposal listed below as signed by the Minister and held by this Office. Whilst every effort is made to ensure its accuracy, no warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of this document. The State of Western Australia and its agents and employees disclaim liability, whether in negligence or otherwise, for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the accuracy or completeness of this document. Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction except in accordance with copyright law is prohibited.

Published on 6 June 2007 Statement No. 742

STATEMENT THAT A PROPOSAL MAY BE IMPLEMENTED

(PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986)

HELENA EAST PRECINCT REMEDIATION & REDEVELOPMENT MIDLAND, CITY OF SWAN

Proposal: The remediation of approximately 17 hectares of land, known as the Helena East Precinct and the Southern Embankment located centrally in the former Railway Workshops area, which includes relocation of contaminated soil to an area immediately east of the Police Operations Support Facility known as the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell, as documented in schedule 1 of this statement.

Proponent: Midland Redevelopment Authority Proponent Address: Corner Helena Street and Yelverton Drive, MIDLAND WA 6056

Assessment Number: 1524 Report of the Environmental Protection Authority: Bulletin 1234 The proposal referred to in the above report of the Environmental Protection Authority may be implemented. The implementation of that proposal is subject to the following conditions and procedures: 1 Proposal Implementation 1-1 The proponent shall implement the proposal as documented and described in schedule 1

of this statement subject to the conditions and procedures of this statement. 2 Proponent Nomination and Contact Details 2-1 The proponent for the time being nominated by the Minister for the Environment under

sections 38(6) or 38(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is responsible for the implementation of the proposal.

2

2-2 The proponent shall notify the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment and Conservation (CEO) of any change of the name and address of the proponent for the serving of a notice or other correspondence within 30 days of such change.

3 Time Limit of Authorisation 3-1 The authorisation to implement the proposal provided for in this statement shall lapse

and be void within five years after the date of this statement if the proposal to which this statement relates is not substantially commenced.

3-2 The proponent shall provide the CEO with written evidence which demonstrates that

the proposal has substantially commenced on or before the expiration of five years from the date of this statement.

4 Compliance Reporting 4-1 The proponent shall submit to the CEO environmental compliance reports annually

reporting on the previous twelve-month period, unless required by the CEO to report at a frequency other than 12 months.

4-2 The environmental compliance reports shall address each element of an audit program

approved by the CEO and shall be prepared and submitted in a format acceptable to the CEO.

4-3 The environmental compliance reports shall:

1. be endorsed by signature of the proponent's chief executive officer or a person, approved in writing by the CEO, delegated to sign on behalf of the proponent's chief executive officer;

2. state whether the proponent has complied with each condition and procedure

contained in this statement; 3. provide verifiable evidence of compliance with each condition and procedure

contained in this statement; 4. state whether the proponent has complied with each key action contained in any

environmental management plan or program required by this statement; 5. provide verifiable evidence of conformance with each key action contained in any

environmental management plan or program required by this statement; 6. identify all non-compliances and non-conformances and describe the corrective

and preventative actions taken in relation to each non-compliance or non-conformance;

3

7. provide an assessment of the effectiveness of all corrective and preventative actions taken; and

8. describe the state of implementation of the proposal.

4-4 The proponent shall make the environmental compliance reports required by condition

4-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO. 5 Soil Remediation Criteria 5-1 Within the areas without “heritage constraints”, the proponent shall remediate the land

to the “appropriate remediation criteria” for the land use zones. Note:

1. “Heritage constraints” in the Helena East Precinct refers to an area within a notional two metre buffer zone from heritage structures within which a certified practicing engineer has determined that excavation be limited to preserve the fabric of those structures. Beyond the buffer zone, the wall of the excavation will be excavated on a slope to be determined by a certified practicing engineer to either the maximum depth of contamination or the maximum depth possible given the presence of other heritage structures.

2. “Appropriate remediation criteria” are to be derived for the different land use

zonings in accordance with the guideline, The Use of Risk Assessment in Contaminated Site Assessment,, Department of Environment and Conservation (2006) and other relevant guidelines in the Department of Environment and Conservation’s Contaminated Sites Management Series, to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO.

6 Site Validation

6-1 Following the development of remediation criteria under condition 5-1, the proponent shall develop a site excavation plan using the results of soil investigations to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO.

6-2 The proponent shall prepare a Validation Sampling Program to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO.

6-3 Within one month following the completion of remediation works, the proponent shall

carry out validation investigations of the soil in the Helena East Precinct and the Southern Embankment and prepare a Site Validation Report.

6-4 Prior to the issuing of land titles, the proponent shall have obtained the CEO’s approval

of the Site Validation Report referred to in condition 6-3. 6-5 The proponent shall make the Site Validation Report required by condition 6-3 publicly

available in a manner approved by the CEO.

4

7 Remediation Work on the Southern Embankment 7-1 Prior to commencing remediation works on the Southern Embankment, the proponent

shall revise the Site Environmental Management Plans: Remediation of Helena East Precinct Former Railway Workshops, Midland (March 2006, Version 2) included in Appendix 12 of the Public Environmental Review document (March 2006, Version 3) and include management methods for the remediation and recontouring works on the Southern Embankment to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO.

The management methods shall be consistent with the Environmental Protection Authority’s Guidance Statement 33, Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development and shall address:

1. risk of erosion and siltation during works on the Southern Embankment; 2. measures to minimise these risks; 3. rehabilitation of the area by planting with local native species of vegetation; and 4. monitoring of the final surface of the recontoured area for stability and erosion.

7-2 The proponent shall make the revised Site Environmental Management Plans required

by condition 7-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO. 8 Onsite Containment of Residual Contamination 8-1 For areas where soil does not meet the “appropriate remediation criteria” required by

condition 5-1, the proponent shall cover the residual waste fill with a geotextile visual warning barrier, which shall be either A12 Bidim cloth or Max 30 Enkagrid or a similar material approved by the CEO.

8-2 For areas zoned “residential”, the proponent shall provide a cover of not less than one

metre of “clean fill” over the geotextile visual warning barrier. Note:

1. “Clean fill” is defined as soil meeting the Ecological Investigation Levels criteria defined in the document Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water, Department of Environment (2003).

8-3 Where there are “heritage constraints”, described in condition 5 (See note 1), and one

metre of clean fill is not possible, the proponent shall manage the area to minimise erosion using treatment, such as hard stand or equivalent, as approved by the CEO.

8-4 For areas zoned other than residential, the proponent shall provide a cover of not less

than 0.5 metres of clean fill over the geotextile visual warning barrier.

5

8-5 Where there are “heritage constraints”, described in condition 5 (See note 1), and 0.5 metres of clean fill is not possible, the proponent shall manage the area to minimise erosion using treatment, such as hard stand or equivalent, as approved by the CEO.

9 Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Delineation and Management 9-1 Prior to the issuing of land titles in any area affected or potentially affected by the dense

non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in groundwater, the proponent shall carry out investigations to fully delineate the DNAPL contamination in the Helena East Precinct and shall report results of the investigations to the Environmental Protection Authority at the completion of these investigations.

This report shall:

1. delineate the nature and extent of the DNAPL contamination laterally and vertically; and

2. provide a risk-based assessment of the contamination to the Leederville Aquifer,

the Helena River and offsite groundwater. 9-2 Prior to the issuing of land titles in any area affected or potentially affected by the

DNAPL in groundwater, the proponent shall develop a DNAPL Management Plan with the objective of mitigating the risk of the DNAPL contamination to the Leederville Aquifer, the Helena River and offsite groundwater to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO.

This Plan shall address:

1. remediation strategy and actions and validation program;

2. monitoring requirements;

3. long-term management measures for the DNAPL contamination;

4. reporting requirements; and

5. contingency plans. 9-3 The proponent shall implement the DNAPL Management Plan required by condition 9-

2. 9-4 The proponent shall make the DNAPL investigation report and the DNAPL

Management Plan required by conditions 9-1 and 9-2 respectively, publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

6

10 Dust and Air Quality 10-1 Prior to ground-disturbing activity, the proponent shall revise the Dust and Air Quality

Management Plan (March 2006, Version 2) included in Appendix 11 of the Public Environmental Review document (March 2006, Version 3) to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO and the Department of Health.

10-2 Prior to ground-disturbing activity, the proponent shall implement the revised Dust and

Air Quality Management Plan required by condition 10-1. 10-3 The proponent shall make the revised Dust and Air Quality Management Plan required

by condition 10-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO. 11 Meat Industry Association Containment Cell 11-1 Prior to ground-disturbing works in connection with the Meat Industry Association

Containment Cell, the proponent shall prepare a Meat Industry Association Containment Cell Construction and Management Plan to the requirements of the Minister for the Environment on the advice of the CEO.


1. Design of the cell; 2. Detailed construction plan of the cell; 3. Criteria for materials placed in the cell; 4. Erosion monitoring and management of the cap; 5. Rehabilitation of the cell with shallow-rooted native vegetation; 6. Long-term management and ownership of the cell, including ownership of the

land, responsibility for post-closure management and monitoring, and annotations on the land title.

11-2 The proponent shall restrict the materials placed in the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell to those which comply with the following criteria:

• The average plus standard deviation of concentration results is less than twice the

Concentration Limit Criteria for a Class 1 Landfill or 95% Upper Confidence Limit is less that twice the concentration limits for a Class 1 Landfill; and

• The average plus standard deviation of Australian Standard Leachability Potential

results is less than the Australian Standard Leachability Potential criteria for a Class 1 Landfill or 95% Upper Confidence Limit is less than the Australian Standard Leachability Potential criteria for a Class 1 Landfill.

7

11-3 Within one month following the addition of the final load of contaminated soil to the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell, the proponent shall install a cap consisting of a layer of compacted clay of minimum thickness of 300 millimetres and with nominal permeability of less than 10-9 metres per second, followed by at least 500 millimetres of “clean fill” as defined in condition 8-2 (See note 1).

11-4 The proponent shall maintain the cap of the Meat Industry Association Containment

Cell, referred to in condition 11-3, with shallow-rooted native vegetation local to the area.

11-5 The proponent shall implement the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell

Construction and Management Plan required by condition 11-1. 11-6 The proponent shall make the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell

Construction and Management Plan required by condition 11-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

11-7 The proponent shall obtain approval from the CEO for any proposed disturbance to the

Meat Industry Association Containment Cell which may require a referral to the Environmental Protection Authority.

12 Surface and Groundwater 12-1 Within six months following completion of remediation, the proponent shall prepare

and submit a Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan to the requirements of the Minister on the advice of the CEO.


1. monitoring of groundwater at existing and any additional locations around the Helena East Precinct, the Southern Embankment and the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell, as determined by the CEO;

2. water quality monitoring of the Helena River; and

3. contingency plans.

12-2 The proponent shall develop groundwater and surface water monitoring targets for

groundwater and surface water quality which shall be consistent with background groundwater and surface water quality established during baseline studies or, in decreasing order of preference, Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water, Department of Environment (2003) and any future versions of Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council/Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (October 2000).

12-3 In the event that the target levels referred to in condition 12-2 are exceeded, the

proponent shall immediately modify activities on the project site to achieve levels below target levels as soon as possible.

8

If target levels are exceeded, the proponent shall take steps to:

1. identify the source of the contamination;

2. analyse significance of the contamination and need for remediation;

3. if feasible, remediate the source of contamination and implement a specific

monitoring regime to demonstrate that groundwater impacts have been addressed;

4. install an impermeable barrier or use a technique such as a Permeable Reactive Barrier or other suitable technique if remediation is not feasible; and

5. submit a report to the CEO within 30 days of the date the exceedance is detected

outlining actions taken to achieve levels below the target, including time to be taken.

12-4 The proponent shall monitor the groundwater around the Helena East Precinct, the

Southern Embankment and the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell and the water of the Helena River in accordance with sampling locations and a schedule approved by the CEO.

12-5 After not less than three years of groundwater and surface water monitoring following

the completion of remediation, the proponent shall consult with the CEO to determine when groundwater and surface water monitoring may cease.

12-6 The proponent shall make the Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring

and Management Plan, required by condition 12-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

12-7 The proponent shall make monitoring reports required in the Post-remediation Surface

and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

13 Post-remediation Subsurface Activities 13-1 Within three months following completion of remediation works and prior to any

subsurface activities, the proponent shall submit a Subsurface Management Plan to the CEO for approval.

13-2 The proponent shall implement the Subsurface Management Plan required by condition

13-1. 13-3 In the event that services or subsurface activities need to be located or to take place,

respectively, below the clean fill cover, prior to the installation of such services or the conduct of such activities, the proponent shall carry out soil validation tests to demonstrate that the soil is not contaminated.

9

Note: 1. It is preferable that all services such as power, drainage and telephone be installed

within the clean fill cover material (See condition 8-2, note 1). 13-4 In the event that the soil is contaminated, the proponent shall advise the CEO and shall

complete the works in accordance with the Subsurface Management Plan required by condition 13-1.

13-5 The proponent shall make the Subsurface Management Plan required by condition 13-1

publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO. Notes

1. Where a condition states "on advice of the Environmental Protection Authority", the Environmental Protection Authority will provide that advice to the Department of Environment and Conservation for the preparation of written notice to the proponent.

2. The Environmental Protection Authority may seek advice from other agencies or organisations, as required, in order to provide its advice to the Department of Environment and Conservation.

3. The Minister for the Environment will determine any dispute between the proponent and the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation over the fulfilment of the requirements of the conditions.

4. This approval does not obviate the proponent’s responsibilities under the provisions of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. An independent Contaminated Sites Auditor will be required to be engaged for this project.

5. Memorials on land titles and any restrictions on use will be dealt with under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003.

6. This approval does not obviate the proponent’s responsibilities under the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The Midland Redevelopment Authority has previously been granted approvals under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 subject to specific conditions.

7. All works undertaken at the Midland Railway Workshops site are required to be referred to the Heritage Council in accordance with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. The Heritage Council has highlighted that conditions 5-1, 8-3 and 8-5 are of relevance in terms of heritage considerations.

David Templeman MLA MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT; CLIMATE CHANGE; PEEL

10

Schedule 1 The Proposal (Assessment No. 1524) General Description The proposal is to remediate land in the Helena East Precinct and Southern Embankment of the former Midland Railway Workshop Site, shown in Figure 1 (attached). The land is to be prepared to a standard suitable for the land uses agreed in the Midland Redevelopment Scheme and Midlandmetro Concept Plan 2010. The remediation activities are described in the following document - Helena East Precinct Remediation and Redevelopment: Public Environmental Review, Version 3 March 2006. A summary of the key proposal characteristics are listed in Table 1. Table 1 – Summary of the Key Proposal Characteristics

Element Description Location of site

Figure 1; Lot 9006 DP 44198; Lot 14241 on Plan 27672, Reserve 42712.

Nature of contaminants

Waste Fill Waste fill consisting of coal cinder, foundry slag, building rubble, sand, steel and occasional asbestos products over the Helena East Precinct and Southern Embankment. Soil Soil over the Helena East Precinct and Southern Embankment affected by metals, hydrocarbons and/or solvents and localised cyanide contamination. Groundwater Widespread low-level metal contamination. Localised hydrocarbon and solvent contamination within areas where extensive hydrocarbons and/or solvents were identified in soil.

Total volume of contaminated soil and waste fill

119,000 cubic metres

11

Element Description Remediation activities

Excavate approximately 59,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil and waste fill and either: - Subject to treatment and reuse; - Relocate to onsite containment cell; or - Direct offsite for disposal or treatment. Residual contamination will be contained onsite using a geotextile warning barrier covered by clean fill. Contaminated groundwater encountered during excavation will be treated either onsite or offsite.

Containment cell Construct containment cell with a clean clay base not less than 300 millimetres thick. Cap containment cell with a compacted clay layer with a permeability of not more than 10-9 metres per second and cover with a layer of clean free-draining soil not less than 500 millimetres thick, which is stabilised with shallow-rooted native vegetation. Containment cell will contain not more than 80,000 cubic metres of material. Height of the cell will be not more than 12 metres.

End land uses In accordance with the Midland Redevelopment Scheme and the Midlandmetro Concept Plan 2010.

Figure (attached) Figure 1 - Location Plan.

Figure 1: Location Plan

APPENDIX 2

Ministerial Statement 742 Audit Table

1 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb

Audit Code Subject Action How Evidence Req's ofAdvice from Phase When Status Further Information

742:M1.1 Proposal Implementation

Implement the proposal as documented and described in Schedule 1 of Statement 742, subject to the conditions and procedures of the statement.

CRs Min for Env

Overall C Implementation

742:M2.1 Nominated Proponent

The proponent for the time being nominated by the Minister for the Environment under sections 38(6) or 38(7) of the EP Act is responsible for the implementation of the proposal.

Min for Env

Overall C Note, Midland Redevelopment Authority incorporated into the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, as established by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 in October 2011, but retains same charter for site redevelopment..

742:M2.2 Nominated Proponent

The proponent shall notify the CEO of DEC of any change of the proponents contact name and address.

DEC Overall Within 30 days of any change of address.

NC Post Assessment Form 1 was submitted to EPA on 16/10/2012, outside of 60 days of the change in name/address of the proponent.

742:M3.1 Time Limit of Authorisation

Authorisation to implement the proposal provided for shall lapse and be void within five years after the date of Statement 742 if the proposal is not substantially commenced.

Substantially commence proposal within five years of the date of Statement 742 (6 June 2012).

CRs DEC Overall CLD 2010

742:M3.2 Time Limit of Authorisation

The proponent shall provide written evidence to the CEO of the DEC within five years of the date of Statement 742 that the proposal has been substantially commenced.

CRs, Letter notifying the CEO that the project has substantially commenced.

DEC Overall By 6 June 2012. CLD 2010

742:M4.1 Compliance Reporting

Provide the CEO of the DEC with annual environmental compliance reports on the previous 12 month period, unless required by the CEO to report at a frequency other than 12 months.

The Annual Environmental Compliance Report will be submitted annually commencing 6 June 2008 to provide supplementary evidence.

CRs. The proponent shall submit CRs annually unless otherwise required by the CEO of DEC to report more frequently.

DEC Overall Annually, commencing 6 June 2008.

C This report comprises the CR for the period June 2011 to May 2012.


Prepare an audit program approved by the CEO and submit in a format acceptable to the CEO.

Address each element of the audit program. CRs DEC Overall CLD 2010


Submit environmental compliance reports (CRs) to DEC. The environmental compliance reports shall: 1. Be endorsed by signature of the proponent's Executive Director or a person, approved in writing by the CEO delegated to sign on behalf of the proponent's Executive Director; 2. State whether the proponent has complied with each condition and procedure contained in this statement; 3. Provide verifiable evidence of compliance with each condition and Procedure contained in this statement; 4. State whether the proponent has complied with each key action contained in any environmental management plan or program required by this statement; 5. Provide verifiable evidence of conformance with each key action contained in any environmental management plan or program required by this statement; 6. Identify all non-compliances and non-conformances and describe the corrective and preventative actions taken in relation to each non-compliance or non-conformance; 7. Provide an assessment of the effectiveness of all corrective and preventative actions taken; and 8. Describe the state of the implementation of the proposal.

CRs DEC Overall C As per this Audit Table and the attached CR.

2 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb



Make the environmental compliance reports required by condition 4.1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

1. Provide free copies of the documentation when approved for release to organisations: The DEC library (2 copies: 1 hard copy, 1 CD copy); Local Council Library (2 copies); Local Government Authority (2 copies); Local public library (2 copies). 2. Post document on MRA website. 3. Advertise the availability in the 'public notices' section of the local community newspaper.

CRs, letter to DEC with a copy of the advertisement in local paper.

DEC Overall IP Once submitted to EPA, this CR will be made publically available and evidence provided to the DEC to show compliance with 742:M4.4.

742:M5.1 Soil Remediation

Within the areas without 'heritage constraints', remediate the land to the 'appropriate remediation criteria' for the land use zones. Note: 'Appropriate remediation criteria' are to be derived for the different land use zonings in accordance with the guideline The Use of Risk Assessment in Contaminated Site Assessment , (DEC, 2006), and other relevant guidelines in the DEC's Contaminated Sites Management Series . Note: 'Heritage constraints' in the Helena East Precinct refers to an area within a notional 2m buffer zone from heritage structures within which a certified practicing engineer has determined that excavation be limited to preserve the fabric of those structures. Beyond the buffer zone, the wall of the excavation will be excavated on a slope to be determined by a certified practicing engineer to either the maximum depth of contamination or the maximum depth possible given the presence of other heritage structures.

Min for Env

DEC Operation C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2 areas. Compliant for RVR3 area.

742:M6.1 Site Validation

Develop a site excavation plan using the results of soil investigation to the requirements of the Min for Env on the advice of the CEO, following the development of remediation criteria under condition M5.1.

Site Excavation Plan. Min for Env

DEC Pre-construction

Following development of remediation criteria.

CLD 2010


Prepare a validation sampling program to the requirements of the Min for Env on the advice of the CEO.

Validation Sampling Program. Min for Env


CLD 2010


Carry out validation investigations of the soil in the Helena East Precinct and the Southern Embankment and prepare a Site Validation Report within one month following the completion of remediation works.

Site validation report. DEC Decommissioning

Within one month following completion of remediation works.

C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2 areas, compliant for RVR3 area.


Obtain the DEC's approval of the site validation report referred to in condition 6-3 prior to issuing of land titles.

Compliance reports, Letter of approval from DEC.

DEC Decommissioning

Prior to the issuing of land titles.

C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2 areas, compliant for RVR3 area.


Make the site validation report required by condition 6-3 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

1. Provide free copies of the documentation when approved for release to organisations: 1. The DEC library (2 copies: 1 hard copy, 1 CD copy); Local Council Library (2 copies); Local Government Authority (2 copies); Local public library (2 copies). 2. Post document on MRA website. 3. Advertise the availability in the 'public notices' section of the local community newspaper.

Compliance reports, Letter to DEC with a copy of the advertisement in local paper.

NC The RVR3 document has been endorsed, but was not made publically available during the reporting period.

3 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb


742:M7.1 Remediation Work on the Southern Embankment

Revise the Site Environmental Management Plan: Remediation of Helena East Precinct Former Railway Workshops, Midland (SEMP) (March 2006, Version 2) and include management methods for the remediation and recontouring works on the Southern Embankment, prior to commencing works on the Southern Embankment.

How: The management methods included in the revised SEMP shall be consistent with the EPA's Guidance Statement 33, Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development, and shall address: 1) Risk of erosion and siltation during works on the Southern Embankment; 2) Measures to minimise these risks; 3)Rehabilitation of the area by planting with local native species of vegetation; and 4) Monitoring of the final surface of the re-contoured are for stability and erosion.

Revised SEMP. Min for Env


Prior to commencing remediation works on the Southern Embankment.

CLD 2010

742:M7.2 Remediation Work on the Southern Embankment

Make the revised SEMP required by condition 7-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.



DEC Overall CLD 2011

742:M8.1 On-site Containment

Cover residual waste fill with a geotextile visual warning barrier in areas where soil does not meet the 'appropriate remediation criteria' required by condition 5-1.

Geotextile barrier shall be either A12 Bidim cloth or Max 30 Enkagrid or similar.

Compliance reports, survey information from contractor.

DEC Operation C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2. Compliant for RVR3. For RVR3, completion of placement of geotextile barrier along roadways adjacent Block 2, Block 3, and the Main Store will occur in conjunction with installation of services; these areas are barricaded in the interim to prevent soil contact.


Provide a cover of not less than 1m of 'clean fill' over the geotextile visual warning barrier in areas zoned 'residential'. Note: 'Clean fill' is defined as soil meeting the Ecological Investigation Levels criteria defined in the document Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water (DEC, 2010).


DEC Operation C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2. Compliant for RVR3. For RVR3, completion of placement of clean fill over geotextile barrier adjacent Block 2, Block 3, and the Main Store will occur in conjunction with installation of services; these areas are barricaded in the interim to prevent soil contact.


Manage area to minimise erosion using treatment, such as hard stand or equivalent, where there are 'heritage constraints', described in condition 5, and lm of clean fill is not possible.


DEC Operation C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2. Compliant for RVR3. For RVR3, hardstand treatments adjacent Block 2, Block 3, and the Main Store will occur in conjunction with installation of services; these areas are barricaded in the interim to prevent soil contact.


Provide a cover of not less than 0.5m of clean fill over the geotextile visual warning barrier in areas zoned other than residential.


DEC Operation C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2. Compliant for RVR3. For RVR3, completion of placement of clean fill over geotextile barrier adjacent Block 2, Block 3, and the Main Store will occur in conjunction with installation of services; these areas are barricaded in the interim to prevent soil contact.

4 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb



Manage area to minimise erosion using treatment, such as hard stand or equivalent, where there are 'heritage constraints', described in condition 5, and 0.5m of clean fill is not possible.


DEC Operation C Completed for RVR1 and RVR2. Compliant for RVR3. For RVR3, hard stand treatments adjacent Block 2, Block 3, and the Main Store will occur in conjunction with installation of services; these areas are barricaded in the interim to prevent soil contact.

742:M9.1 Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid Delineation and Management

Carry out investigations to fully delineate the dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) contamination in the Helena East Precinct and report results of the investigations to the EPA at the completion of these investigations prior to issuing of land titles in any affected or potentially affected by the DNAPL.

The Report shall: 1. Delineate the nature and extent of the DNAPL contamination laterally and vertically; and 2. Provide a risk-based assessment of the contamination to the Leederville Aquifer, the Helena River and off-site groundwater.

DNAPL Report. EPA Operation Prior to the issuing of land titles in any area affected, or potentially affected, by the DNAPL in groundwater.

CLD 2011


Develop a DNAPL Management Plan to therequirements of the Min for Env on the advice of the CEO.

How: The Plan shall address: 1. Remediation strategy and actions and validation program; 2. Monitoring requirements; 3. Long-term management measures for the DNAPL contamination; 4. Reporting requirements; and 5. Contingency plans.

DNAPL Management Plan. Min for Env

DEC Operation Prior to the issuing of land titles in any area affected, or potentially affected, by the DNAPL in groundwater.

CLD 2011

742:M9.3 Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid Delineation and Managemen

Implement DNAPL Management Plan required by condition 9-2.

CRs DEC Operation C Remediation of DNAPL source zone is reported in RVR2 and RVR3. Management of residual DNAPL-impacted soil is via the Subsurface Constraints Register and Subsurface Management Plan.


Make the DNAPL Report and Management Plan required by conditions 9-1 and 9-2 respectively, publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.




742:M10.1 Dust and Air Quality

Revise the Dust and Air Quality Management Plan (March 2006, Version 2) included in Appendix 11 of the Public Environmental Review to the requirements of the Min for Env on the advice of the CEO and DoH prior to ground disturbing activity.

Revised Dust and Air Quality Management Plan.

Min for Env

DEC, DoH

Pre-construction

Prior to ground-disturbing activity.

CLD 2010


Implement the revised Dust and Air Quality Management Plan (DAQMP) required by condition 10-1 prior to ground disturbing activity.


Prior to ground-disturbing activity.

CLD 2010


Make the Dust and Air Quality Management Plan required by condition 10-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.

1. Provide free copies of the documentation when approved for release to organisations: The DEC library (2 copies: 1 hard copy, 1 CD copy); Local Council Library (2 copies); Local Government Authority (2 copies); Local public library (2 copies). 2. Post document on MRA website. 3. Advertise the availability in the 'public notices' section of the local community newspaper.


5 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb


742:M11.1 Meat Industry Association Containment Cell

Prepare a Meat Industry Association (MIA) Containment Cell Construction and Management Plan to the requirement of the CEO on advice of the DEC prior to ground disturbing works.

How: The Plan shall address: 1. Design of the cell; 2. Detailed construction plan of the cell; 3. Criteria for materials placed in the cell; 4. Erosion monitoring and management of the cap; 5. Rehabilitation of the cell with shallow-rooted native vegetation; and 6. Long-term management and ownership of the cell, including ownership of the land, responsibility for post-closure management and monitoring, and annotations on the land title.


Prior to ground-disturbing works in connection with the MIA Containment Cell.

NR The area for a MIA Containment Cell was not available during remediation, hence it was not constructed.


Restrict the materials placed in the MIA Containment Cell to those that comply with the following criteria: 1. The average plus standard deviation of concentration results is less than twice the Concentration Limit Criteria for a Class 1 Landfill or 95% Upper Confidence Limit is less than twice the concentration limits for a Class 1 Landfill; and 2. The average plus standard deviation of Australian Standard Leachability Potential results is less than the Australian Standard Leachability Potential criteria for a Class 1 Landfill or 95% Upper Confidence Limit is less than the Australian Standard Leachability Potential criteria for a Class 1 Landfill.

CRs DEC Operation NR The area for a MIA Containment Cell was not available during remediation, hence it was not constructed.


Install a cap consisting of a layer of compacted clay of minimum thickness of 300mm and with nominal permeability of less than 10-9 m/s, followed by at least 500mm of 'clean fill' as defined in condition 8-2 within one month of the final load of contaminated soil.

CRs DEC Operation Within one month following the addition of the final load of contaminated soil.



Maintain the cap of the MIA Containment Cell, referred to in condition 11-3, with shallow- rooted native vegetation local to the area.

CRs DEC Decommissioning



Implement the MIA Containment Cell Construction and Management Plan required by condition 11-1.

CRs DEC Overall NR The area for a MIA Containment Cell was not available during remediation, hence it was not constructed.


Make the MIA Containment Cell Construction and Management Plan publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.


DEC Overall NR The area for a MIA Containment Cell was not available during remediation, hence it was not constructed.


Obtain approval from the CEO of the DEC for any proposed disturbance to the MIA Containment Cell which may require a referral to the EPA.

Letter to the CEO requiring approval.

DEC Overall NR The area for a MIA Containment Cell was not available during remediation, hence it was not constructed.

6 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb


742:M12.1 Surface and Groundwater

Prepare and submit a Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan to the requirements of the Minister on advice of the CEO within six months of completion of remediation.

The Plan shall address: Monitoring of groundwater at existing and any additional locations around the Helena East Precinct, the Southern Embankment and the MIA Containment Cell; Water quality monitoring of the Helena River; and contingency plans.

Compliance reports, Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan.

DEC Decommissioning

C Post-Remedial Surface and Groundwater Management Plan has been endorsed by Auditor and copies provided to DEC.


Develop groundwater and surface water monitoring targets for groundwater and surface water quality which shall be consistent with background groundwater and surface water quality established during baseline studies or, in decreasing order of preference, Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water (DoE, 2003) and any future versions of Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ,


C Post-Remedial Surface and Groundwater Management Plan has been endorsed by Auditor and copies provided to DEC.


Immediately modify activities on the project site to achieve levels below target levels in the event that the target levels referred to in condition 12-2 are exceeded as soon as possible.

How: If target levels are exceeded the following steps shall be taken: Identify the source of the contamination; Analyse significance of the contamination and need for remediation; If feasible, remediate the source of contamination and implement a specific monitoring regime to demonstrate that groundwater impacts have been addressed; Install an impermeable barrier or use a technique such as a Permeable Reactive Barrier or other suitable technique if remediation is not feasible; and Submit a report to the CEO of the DEC within 30 days of the date the exceedance is detected outlining actions taken to achieve levels below the target, including time to be taken.

CRs DEC Overall As soon as possible. Submit report to CEO within 30 days of the date of exceedance.

C No results above target levels were identified.

742:M 12.4 Surface and Groundwater

Monitor the groundwater around the Helena East Precinct, the Southern Embankment and the Meat Industry Association Containment Cell and the water of the Helena River in accordance with sampling locations and a schedule approved by the CEO of the DEC.

Compliance reports, Monitoring Reports.

DEC Overall C Monitoring to date summarised in RVR3.


Consult with the CEO of the DEC to determine when groundwater and surface water monitoring may cease after not less than three years of groundwater and surface water monitoring following the completion of remediation.

Compliance reports, Letter of approval from CEO of the DEC.

DEC Decommissioning

After not less than three years of groundwater and surface water monitoring following the completion of remediation.

C Addressed in response to DEC comments on the Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan. After 3 years, any proposal to cease monitoring will be put to the Auditor for endorsement.


Make the Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan required by condition 12-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO.


DEC Decommissioning

NC The Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan has been adopted but not yet made publically available.

7 of 8 MRA-2012-003-ACR_010_sb



Make the monitoring reports required by the Post-remediation Surface and Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan publicly available.


DEC Decommissioning

NR The report on the first post-remediation groundwater monitoring round will be made publically available once it is completed (anticipated in early 2013).

742:M 13.1 Post-remediation Subsurface Activities

Submit a Subsurface Management Plan (SMP) to the CEO of the DEC within three months following completion of remediation works and prior to any subsurface activities.

Subsurface Management Plan. DEC Decommissioning

Within three months following completion of remediation works and prior to any subsurface activities.

C The updated SMP has been completed and endorsed as part of MAR3.


Implement the Subsurface Management Plan required by condition 13-1.


C Implemented via making tthe SMP publically available via the Proponent's website so it is available to site owners.


Carry out soil validation tests to demonstrate that the soil is not contaminated in the event that services or subsurface activities need to be located or to take place, respectively, below clean fill cover, prior to the installation of such services or the conduct of such activities. Note: It is preferable that all services such as power, drainage and telephone be installed within the clean fill cover material.

CRs Decommissioning

NR


Advise the CEO of the DEC in the event that the soil is contaminated and complete the works in accordance with the Subsurface Management Plan required by condition 13-1.


NR

Audit Code Subject Requirement Status Further Information742:M1.1 Implementation Implement the proposal as documented

and described in Schedule 1 of Statement 742, subject to the conditions and procedures of the statement.

-

Key Characteristic DescriptionRemediation Activities Excavate approximately 59,000m3 of contaminated soil and waste fill

and either: subject to treatment and reuse, relocate to onsite containment cell, or direct offsite for disposal or treatment.

C

Residual contamination will be contained onsite using a geotextile warning barrier covered by clean fill.

C

Contaminated groundwater encountered during excavation will be treated either onsite or offsite.

C

Containment Cell Construct containment cell with a clean clay base note less than 300mm thick. Cap containment cell with a compacted clay layer with a permeability of not more than 10-9m/s and cover with a layer of clean, free-draining soil not less than 500mm thick, which is stabilised with shallow-rooted native vegetation.

NR Not possible during remedial timeframe, so the other options for managing contaminated soil were utilised.

Containment cell will contain not more than 80,000m3 of material. Height of the cell will be not more than 12m.

NR

End Land Uses In accordance with the Midland Redevelopment Scheme and the Midlandmetro Concept Plan 2010 .

C

APPENDIX 3

MRA Endorsement Letter

ministerial statement 742 annual compliance report …€¦ · ministerial statement 742 annual...

Documents