Review of the · Review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 | Consultation paper 9 The CS Act introduced a hierarchy of responsibility for remediation, which lists the order of persons

Review of the

Contaminated Sites Act 2003

June 2012

Consultation paper

Department of Environment and Conservation

2 Review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 | Consultation paper

Review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 Western Australia’s Contaminated Sites Act 2003 and Contaminated Sites Regulations 2006 took

effect in December 2006 and are now due for their five‐year review. It is now time to ask:

Has the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 delivered?

Is the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 meeting the expectations of stakeholders and the wider

community in effectively identifying, recording, managing and remediating contaminated sites?

Is the legislation fulfilling its objective of protecting people's health and the environment?

Cover photographs: Former Midland railway workshops precinct, Midland Top left – Midland railway workshops in operation, (Image 007319D courtesy of State Library of Western Australia) Top centre – Former flanging shop during remediation works, (Photo courtesy of Midland Redevelopment Authority) Top right – Construction of the coal dam, 1905 (Photo courtesy of Midland Redevelopment Authority) Bottom left – Residential area around the former coal dam (Photo courtesy of Midland Redevelopment Authority) Bottom centre – Restored former flanging shop –the WA Police Forensic unit (Photo courtesy of Midland Redevelopment Authority) Bottom right – Former coal dam following remediation (Photo courtesy of Midland Redevelopment Authority)


Review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 | Consultation paper 3

Foreword

Western Australia has some of the most

comprehensive contaminated sites legislation in

the country.

Before the Contaminated Sites Act 2003

commenced operation in December 2006, there

was a lack of information on the location of

contaminated sites in WA. Where

contamination was suspected, the state's

powers were inadequate to enforce

investigation and clean up.

In general, if a site was found to be

contaminated, the current owner bore the cost and liability for the clean up, even if they

were not the polluter.

The introduction of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 remedied these deficiencies and

provided transparency for current and future landowners. Now, all contaminated sites must

be reported to the Department of Environment and Conservation, investigated and, if

necessary, cleaned up.

After five years of operation, the Act is now under review.

I urge you to have your say and make a contribution to this process to ensure that this state’s

contaminated sites legislation continues to protect people's health and the environment.

Hon Bill Marmion MLA

Minister for Environment



The approach

We, the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), are seeking

comments on the review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (CS Act) from interested parties such as

specialists in land contamination as well as anyone else with an interest in this field, including

members of the public.

Copies of the CS Act and Regulations can be downloaded from www.slp.wa.gov.au Copies of our fact sheets on key issues regarding the CS Act, as well as our administrative and technical guidelines, can be downloaded from www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites

Consultation timetable – key dates

Phase 1: Release consultation paper for public comment June 2012

Submissions close 28 September 2012

Phase 2: Analyse feedback, identify issues and develop policy

positions for inclusion in the discussion paper plus

carry out targeted consultation October 2012 – March 2013

Phase 3: Release discussion paper for further public comment April 2013

Phase 4: Analyse feedback, finalise policy positions and prepare draft amendments July – September 2013

Phase 5: Forward review report to Minister for Environment October 2013

Note: Dates for phases 3 – 5 are provisional.

Feedback from this consultation process will help government to identify any changes which

may need to be made to the CS Act and Regulations. In this paper we give background on the CS Act and its operation over the past five years and highlight areas where we are particularly seeking comment. We will use the responses to this paper to inform a more detailed discussion paper to be issued in 2013.

We raise a number of questions within this document; however, your comments are invited on any part of the operation of the CS Act and Regulations.

Responses should be received by Friday 28 September 2012.



Getting involved

You can provide feedback by sending your written response, preferably by email using the template

on DEC’s website www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites to: [email protected]

Or send by mail to:

Contaminated Sites Branch


Locked Bag 104

Bentley Delivery Centre

WA 6983

An online survey is also available at www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites

The survey seeks responses to a number of questions and provides opportunity for comments, suggestions and ideas.



Contents Introduction ................................................................................................... 7

What does the review of the CS Act aim to achieve? ......................................................................... 7

How the CS Act operates .................................................................................................................... 7

Is it working? ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Consultation issues ....................................................................................... 13

Duty to report ................................................................................................................................... 13

Site classification scheme ................................................................................................................. 13

Notification of site classification ....................................................................................................... 15

Hierarchy of responsibility ................................................................................................................ 16

Availability and value of information provided under the CS Act .................................................... 17

Mandatory disclosure requirements ................................................................................................ 19

Timeframes for investigation and remediation ................................................................................ 19

Source sites and affected sites .......................................................................................................... 20

Contaminated Sites Auditors ............................................................................................................ 21

Contaminated Sites Committee ........................................................................................................ 22

Where to from here? .................................................................................... 23



Introduction

What does the review of the CS Act aim to achieve?

The CS Act appears to be fulfilling its purpose and we have not identified any major issues

requiring changes to the legislation. Rather, the intention of the review is to fine‐tune the

legislation and administrative procedures so that they continue to deliver all the benefits of

the current legislation and process, but are:

Simpler: we want communication with the public on matters relating to the CS Act

to be straightforward and easy to understand.

More transparent: we want greater predictability and certainty for people affected

by contamination. We want clearer communication on timeframes in which persons

responsible for investigation and clean‐up should be taking action on a voluntary

basis.

More proportionate: we want greater emphasis on ensuring that investigations and

any clean‐up required are proportional to the risk posed to people’s health and the

environment.

How the CS Act operates

In December 2006, WA’s CS Act and accompanying Regulations took effect. The legislation is designed to identify, record, manage and remediate contamination and introduced mandatory reporting of ‘known or suspected contaminated sites’. Under the CS Act, land is contaminated where there is a risk of harm or potential harm to human health, the environment or environmental values from a substance present at above background concentrations. In order to identify contaminated sites, certain people have a duty to report ‘known and suspected contaminated sites’. These people include an owner or occupier of the site, a person who may have caused, or contributed to the contamination and, if one has been appointed, the auditor for the site. Any other person may report a site they know or suspect to be contaminated even though they do not have a duty to do so under the CS Act. We record reported sites on a register of contaminated sites, which allows people access to information on contaminated sites. The CS Act established a site classification scheme to facilitate appropriate investigation, clean‐up and/or monitoring of contamination and to ensure information regarding site contamination is recorded and accessible to decision‐making authorities and the public. After receiving a report of a ‘known or suspected contaminated site’, in consultation with the Department of Health, we assign one of seven possible classifications (set out in Schedule 1 of the CS Act) to the site:



Site classification scheme

Report not substantiated There are no grounds to indicate possible contamination of the site.

Possibly contaminated – investigation required There are grounds to indicate likely contamination of the site.

Not contaminated – unrestricted use After investigation, the site is found not to be contaminated.

Contaminated – restricted use The site is contaminated but suitable for limited uses.

Remediated for restricted use The site is contaminated but has been cleaned up so that it is suitable for limited uses.

Contaminated – remediation required The site is contaminated and needs to be cleaned up.

Decontaminated The site has been cleaned up and is suitable for all uses.

The classification is based on the potential risk the contamination poses to human health and the environment. Initially we assess the risk or potential risk posed by sites by comparing the concentrations of substances present in soil, sediment, groundwater and/or surface water with published assessment levels1. These assessment levels are sourced from relevant national and international guidance. For example, we use the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines2 for assessing potential human health risks for substances in water that is used for drinking. These generic assessment levels are conservative and it is possible for contaminants to be present at levels above the assessment levels without posing a significant risk to human health or the environment. Further investigation and risk assessment is required to assess the significance of any exceedences within the context of the site itself, considering issues such as the actual (or proposed) use of the site and the sensitivity of the surrounding environment. The site classification and detailed ‘reasons for classification’ inform what action is required next. We can review the site classification if new information is provided and re‐classify the site to a different classification and/or update the reasons for classification as appropriate. Fact Sheet 9 is available at www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites and provides additional information on the site classification scheme.

1 ‘Assessment Levels for Soil Sediment and Water,’ DEC, February 2010. 2 ‘Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.’ National Health and Medical Research Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, 1996.



The CS Act introduced a hierarchy of responsibility for remediation, which lists the order of persons who can be held responsible for investigating and cleaning up a site. As far as possible, the person who caused or contributed to the contamination (the polluter) will be the responsible party. Responsibility can also fall to other people in the hierarchy, including the current owner (which may also include a mortgagee in possession), an owner or occupier who changes the land use (and hence triggers a need for clean up) or, as the last resort, the state government. The CS Act also established the Contaminated Sites Committee (the Committee), which is an independent panel of experts appointed by the Minister for Environment. The Committee assesses appeals against site classifications and determines responsibility for remediation where requested. While DEC has overall responsibility for administering and enforcing the CS Act, investigating

and cleaning up contaminated sites in most cases is the responsibility of the polluter or the

current site owner. Our role includes classifying sites and ensuring that information on

contaminated sites is made available to the public. We can enforce the investigation or

clean‐up of a site if appropriate action is not being undertaken voluntarily. In general, we

have found that responsible parties are willing to carry out investigations and clean‐up.

However, we have issued one investigation notice where the responsible party was not

taking action.

The CS Act established an accreditation scheme for auditors to assist us with the process of

assessing contaminated sites in certain circumstances. Mandatory audit reports are

required under the CS Act where a site is a source of contamination that has moved off‐site

to affect other properties. For example, a service station where leaking underground fuel

tanks has resulted in a plume of contamination migrating onto an adjoining property. A

mandatory audit report is also required where a site is subject to a planning or Ministerial

condition or regulatory notice.

In support of the CS Act, we have released a series of guidance documents on the

assessment and management of contaminated sites in WA (the Contaminated Sites

Management Series). The series includes guidance on reporting sites, assessment levels for

determining whether a site is potentially contaminated, risk assessment, community

consultation requirements and how the CS Act interacts with the land use planning process.

The full range of guidelines is available at www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites

Is it working?

Before implementation of the CS Act we did not have a clear idea of how many contaminated sites were present in WA or where they were located. In the first six months



of the CS Act, about 2,200 sites were reported. We anticipated an initial large influx of reported sites, but this response exceeded our expectations.

By 31 December 2011, five years after the CS Act began, we had received over 3,000 reports of known and suspected contaminated sites and about 10–15 sites continue to be reported each month. These reported sites cover the length and breadth of the state; they are not all in metropolitan Perth. Under the CS Act, we are required to classify reported sites within 45 days. Due to the very large peak in the numbers of sites reported during April to June 2007, we were unable to classify all the ‘peak period’ sites within 45 days, and we are likely to take a number of years to process this backlog. We have prioritised the sites in the backlog based on a screening review of the information submitted and whether the available information indicates that there may be an immediate or serious risk to human health or the environment that is not being appropriately managed. The majority of sites reported since June 2007 have been classified within 45 days. In some circumstances, we can extend the timeframe for classification if submission of relevant technical information is imminent (such as where investigation of the site is underway and the resulting technical report is nearly complete). If we wish to extend the classification timeframe, we must give written notice to relevant parties within 45 days of receiving the report.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Dec

06-

Jun

07

Jul 0

7 -J

un 0

8

Jul 0

8 -J

un 0

9

Jul 0

9 -J

un10

Jul1

0 -S

ep10

Oct

10 -

Dec

10

Jan1

1 -M

ar11

Apr

11 -

Jun1

1

Jul1

1 -S

ep11

Oct

11-D

ec11

Reports and site classifications to 31 Dec 2011

Reports of known and suspected contaminationClassifications per period

Total classifications



Classified

Not yet classified

New data (to be re‐classified)

About half the reported sites are now classified

There is no statutory timeframe for us to assess new information submitted for sites already

reported. However, for sites that require the submission of a mandatory auditor’s report,

we have committed to reviewing that report and completing the classification within 21

days, more than halving the statutory 45‐day timeframe. We are currently achieving an

average turn‐around time of 21 days.

About half of all reported sites are now classified. The sites not yet classified include historical sites reported on a voluntary basis prior to the CS Act commencing, plus sites dealt with in the planning process. Although not all sites have been classified, all reported sites have been captured spatially by DEC on the contaminated sites database and register of contaminated sites. This spatial data is available to selected state government authorities to inform their statutory decision‐making.

Currently, about half of all classified sites are in the category possibly contaminated– investigation required. More information is required to determine whether these sites are contaminated, or whether clean‐up is required to reduce the risk to human health or the environment.



About 18 per cent of classified sites have been remediated to some extent and are classified decontaminated or remediated for restricted use. About 13 per cent of classified sites are classified as contaminated – remediation required. These sites generally remain in this category until clean‐up is complete, which can take months to years to achieve depending on the technology used.

Minim Cove – formerly a limestone quarry this site housed a fertiliser manufacturing plant between 1909 and 1969. The site is now remediated and today is a residential riverfront suburb with housing and public open space. Aerial photograph 264706PD courtesy of Aerial Survey’s Australia and State Library of Western Australia. Photograph of Minim Cove today courtesy of Landcorp.

256

45

171

1052

187

173153

Contaminated‐‐remediation required

Contaminated‐‐restricted use

Remediated for restricted use

Possibly contaminated‐‐investigation required

Decontaminated

Not contaminated‐‐unrestricted use

Report not substantiated

Site classifications as at 31 December 2011

Total number of classified sites: 2027



Consultation issues

Without limiting the scope of the review, the views and comments of interested persons and organisations are welcome in response to the following issues and questions:

Duty to report

The CS Act introduced mandatory reporting of known or suspected contamination so that

contaminated sites are identified and recorded on the Contaminated Sites Register, and the

identified risks are managed appropriately. If any other person, such as a contaminated land

consultant, becomes aware of known or suspected contamination, they may report it, but

are not obliged to do so.

The personal details of anyone reporting a site remain strictly confidential and cannot be accessed through Freedom of Information requests unless the person who made the report specifically authorises the release of the information.

Q1. Should a person with the professional knowledge to identify contamination have a duty to report it? Q2. Are the requirements for reporting known or suspected contamination clear?

Guidance on reporting known or suspected contaminated sites ‘Reporting of Known or Suspected Contaminated Sites’ (DEC, December 2006) provides guidance for persons with an obligation or desire to report known or suspected contaminated sites in accordance with the CS Act (including site owners and occupiers, government authorities, industry and other affected parties). The guideline provides examples of site scenarios where we recommend that the site is reported under the provisions of the CS Act.

Site classification scheme

The site classification scheme is aimed at providing a practical categorisation of sites that indicates the nature of the action required to investigate or manage the contamination.



Summary of the site classification scheme

CLASSIFICATION Example site scenarios

ACTION REQUIRED Red – urgent immediate action Amber – action required but not urgent Green – no action required

Contaminated – remediation required: The site is contaminated and needs to be cleaned up to make it suitable for the current or proposed use.

Immediate action is required to assess clean up options. This may require further investigation of the nature and extent of contamination and a timely clean‐up plan to reduce the risks to receptors.

Possibly contaminated –‐ investigation required:

There are grounds to indicate contamination, however, more information is required to confirm or dismiss the possibility of contamination or whether remediation is required.

Some cases require urgent action to investigate potential risks associated with the contamination.

In other cases, the potential risk is likely to be low and may not drive the time frame for investigation.

Contaminated – restricted use: The site is contaminated but suitable for limited uses.

Some restricted use sites require ongoing monitoring or maintenance of a management plan in order to ensure the risks remain low. In some cases no further action is required as long as the use of the site is consistent with the restrictions.

Remediated for restricted use: The site was contaminated but has been cleaned up to a standard where it is suitable for limited uses.

Some restricted use sites require ongoing monitoring or maintenance of a management plan in order to ensure the risks remain low. In some cases no further action is required as long as the use of the site is consistent with the restrictions.

Not contaminated – unrestricted use:

After investigation, no contamination was found at the site.

No further action is required.

Report not substantiated: There is not enough information to indicate that the site could be contaminated.

No action is required. If additional grounds to suspect contamination arise, the site needs to be reported again.



As you can see from the examples below, possibly contaminated – investigation required applies to a range of circumstances.

Examples scenarios that would be classified as possibly contaminated – investigation required

Example 1. Investigation has found that the concentration of some substances in soil and groundwater substantially exceed the assessment levels and may pose a risk to site workers, adjacent residents and a nearby river. Further investigation and assessment is required to determine if clean‐up is necessary for the site‐specific circumstances.

Example 2. An industrial precinct is being rezoned to residential land use. The site has a history of potentially contaminating activities including poor site operating practices. Investigation, and possible remediation, is required to ensure the land is suitable for residential land use before subdivision and redevelopment occurs.

In the first example, action is driven by the need to assess risks to site workers, nearby residents and the environment from known contamination. In the second example, contamination has not been identified; however, action is required to determine whether contamination is present and whether the site is suitable for a more sensitive land use.

Q3. In circumstances where contamination has been identified but requires further investigation to determine whether clean up is required for the current or proposed land use, would a new classification such as ‘contaminated – investigation required’ be helpful? Q4. Are there other circumstances where changes to the classification system would be helpful? Please provide example(s) to support your view.

Notification of site classification

Once a site has been classified, we must notify a number of people in writing including the owner or occupier of the site and relevant public authorities (such as the local government authority and the Western Australian Planning Commission). The CS Act specifies that certain information is to be included in the notification; hence, the notification is a formal document.

New development We propose to revise the format of the notification letters to make them easier to understand. The revision may include a ‘traffic light’ approach (as illustrated in the Summary of the Site Classification Scheme table included in this document) to indicate the circumstances (and urgency) for action.



Q5. If you have received, or read a notification of site classification, did you understand what actions were required?

Q6. Do you have any suggestions for improving the clarity of information

provided?

Fremantle Smelting Works 1898 – image 1172B/7 courtesy of State Library of Western Australia. Site is classified remediated for restricted use and is now South Beach – residential housing and public open space. Additional images courtesy of Landcorp.

Hierarchy of responsibility

The CS Act introduced a hierarchy of responsibility for remediation, which lists the order of persons who can be held responsible for investigating and cleaning up a site. As far as possible, the person who caused or contributed to the contamination (the polluter) will be the responsible party. Responsibility can also fall to other people in the hierarchy, including the current owner (which may also include a mortgagee in possession), an owner or occupier who changes the land use (and hence triggers a need for clean up) or, as the last resort, the state government.



Q7. Has the hierarchy for responsibility been helpful? Q8. Is the hierarchy sufficiently clear?

Availability and value of information provided under the CS Act

One of the objectives of the CS Act is to make information on contaminated sites available to interested parties, such as prospective purchasers of land and lending institutions, persons undertaking intrusive maintenance or utility works and relevant government agencies e.g. environmental and health regulators and planning authorities.

Site classification

Memorial registered on land title

How to access information

Report not substantiated No Submit a request for summary of records

Possibly contaminated – investigation required

Yes Submit a request for summary of records

Not contaminated – unrestricted use No Submit a request for summary of records

Contaminated – restricted use Yes Public database on DEC’s website. Mandatory disclosure for property transactions

Remediated for restricted use Yes Public database on DEC’s website. Mandatory disclosure for property transactions

Contaminated – remediation required Yes Public database on DEC’s website. Mandatory disclosure for property transactions

Decontaminated No Submit a request for summary of records

Sites with confirmed contamination are listed publically on the Contaminated Sites Database; however, sites classified as ‘possibly contaminated‐investigation required’ are not publically listed on the database.



Where to find information

Sites listed on Public Database and Register ‐‐ search online or contact DEC

Sites only listed on Register ‐‐ contact DEC

To minimise ‘blighting’ of sites where contamination has not been confirmed or where land has been decontaminated, information on these sites is recorded on the Contaminated Sites Register and is only available upon written request and payment of a fee. The register also includes details of sites reported but not yet classified. Two levels of information are available: A basic summary of records ($30 or free if searching the online Contaminated Sites Database) provides:

the location/address of the site

the classification for the site

whether a memorial has been placed on the Certificate of Title

any restrictions on use of the site, e.g. use of groundwater any notice given under Part 4 of the CS Act, e.g. investigation notice, clean up notice.

A detailed summary of records (available on application and payment of $300 fee) provides all the information included in a basic summary of records plus:

any certificate of contamination audit completed for the land a list of relevant information (reports/sampling and analysis programs) for the site

held by us – this material can be inspected by the person who submitted the request.

Q9. Is the process for obtaining information on contaminated sites clear and easy to use? Q10. Is the information provided in a basic summary of records useful? How could it be improved? Q11. Do you have any suggestions for improving the usability of the public Contaminated Sites Database?

Q12. If a new classification of ‘contaminated – investigation required’ is introduced, do you agree that information on these sites should be made publically available on the Contaminated Sites Database?



New development

As well as a team of environmental officers to review and classify sites, we employ data management officers to maintain the Contaminated Sites Database, process classifications and memorials and respond to information requests. We are also developing a more streamlined process to provide basic information requests via Landgate. Initially this will be a pilot for industry professionals with the intention of rolling it out to the wider public in mid 2012. This will reduce our manual processing of information requests and improve our turnaround times.

Mandatory disclosure requirements

Land owners must provide written disclosure to any new or potential owners if selling or transferring land that has been classified as:

contaminated – restricted use

contaminated – remediation required

remediated for restricted use or

where the land is subject to a regulatory notice under Part 4 of the CS Act and a memorial is registered on the Certificate of Title.

Disclosure is required at least 14 days before completing a land transaction.

Q13. Are the mandatory disclosure requirements clear? Q14. Have you encountered difficulties in knowing when to make a disclosure? Q15. Do you have any suggestions for improving the disclosure process?

Timeframes for investigation and remediation

The CS Act does not specify timeframes for the investigation and remediation of sites once they have been classified and we do not consider that these need to be included in any amendments to the CS Act. We acknowledge that individual sites may pose differing degrees of risk to the environment or human health and that many factors influence the timeframes for investigating and remediating sites. Under the CS Act, we can issue a regulatory notice to enforce investigation or remediation of a site where appropriate action is not being undertaken voluntarily.



We have a procedure of writing formally to the person(s) responsible for sites classified as requiring (1) remediation or (2) investigation (where we consider the site is high priority). In many cases, these ‘follow up’ letters result in voluntary action; however, it is our experience that some polluters and landowners delay taking appropriate action. So far, we have issued one regulatory notice relating to the investigation of off‐site impacts from a landfill.

Q16. Do you have any suggestions that may assist responsible persons in undertaking more timely investigations and clean ups?

Source sites and affected sites

Where contamination has moved from one parcel of land (a source site) to affect other land

(affected sites), it is important that the owners of the affected land are made aware of the

contamination as soon as possible. Currently the owner of a source site is required to report

the affected land parcels to us if they become aware that contamination has migrated off‐

site. They also have a responsibility to undertake community consultation with affected

parties. In practice, owners of affected sites are often unaware that their land is affected by

contamination until they are notified by us.



Q17. Should source site owners have a duty under the CS Act to notify affected land

owners (as well as DEC), as soon as they become aware that contamination has

migrated offsite?

Q18. What implementation difficulties might be encountered if this duty was

introduced?

Contaminated sites auditors

We accredit appropriately experienced professionals as contaminated sites auditors to provide independent advice on the acceptability of the investigation and remediation work carried out by contaminated land consultants. Contaminated sites auditors accredited in other Australian states may apply to us at any time, through mutual recognition procedures, for accreditation to work in WA. We also run a selection process once a year for new applicants. Currently, there are 29 auditors accredited to work in WA and in the 2010‐11 financial year, we received 51 audit reports.

Auditors review each stage of investigation and/or remediation works and submit a mandatory audit report to us on their findings. Depending on the length and complexity of the project, an interim audit report may be submitted prior to the final mandatory audit report.

A mandatory audit report is required for all ‘source’ sites where contamination has migrated on to another property as do planning applications with a contaminated sites condition to clear. We can also request a mandatory audit report for particularly complex sites where insufficient information has been submitted or to enable the site to be dealt with under the CS Act. We have committed to reviewing mandatory audit reports within three weeks of submission, more than halving the statutory 45‐day timeframe for new classifications. Our average turn‐around is currently 21 days.

Q19. Is the role of the contaminated sites auditor sufficiently clear? Q20. What additional advice could DEC provide to streamline the audit process?



Contaminated Sites Committee

The CS Act established an independent body of three to five members known as the

Contaminated Sites Committee (the Committee) to make statutory decisions about

responsibility for remediation of contaminated sites, disclosure statements and to

determine appeals against certain decisions made by the Chief Executive Officer of DEC. The

Committee is appointed by the Minister for the Environment and is independent of DEC in

its decision‐making role.

The Contaminated Sites Committee aims to manage the application and appeal processes

efficiently, effectively and fairly, without legal technicality or formality. Before the CS Act, it

was anticipated that decisions by the Committee on responsibility for remediation would

take around six months. In practice, the process is taking two and a half years on average

because not all available information is submitted at the start of the decision‐making

process. Copies of the Committee’s decisions on appeals can be downloaded from

www.consitescommittee.wa.gov.au

Q21. Should there be a time limit and requirement for all relevant documents to be

sent to the Committee to decide on the responsibility for remediation?

Q22. What time limit (e.g. three months) would be fair to all parties?

Q23. Can you suggest other ways to expedite the decision making process?

Only a few issues have been highlighted in this

consultation paper.

Are there any other comments you wish to make on the effectiveness of the scheme

established by the CS Act to identify, record, manage and remediate contaminated

sites?

Where relevant, please provide examples and supporting data (e.g. information on

costs incurred and how frequently the issue arises) to support your view. It would

be helpful if you could propose possible solutions to the issue(s) you are raising.



Where to from here? After the closing date for comments on this consultation paper, a summary of submissions received will be published on our website at www.dec.wa.gov.au/contaminatedsites. Please use the response template and complete the submission cover sheet provided to assist us in collating responses. Following the 12‐week public consultation period, we will analyse the feedback and comments received and produce a detailed discussion paper. The discussion paper will summarise the issues identified and propose possible solutions. This will be released for public comment prior to preparation of a review report for the Minister for the Environment. The report will be tabled by the Minister in Parliament. We would like to thank all stakeholders who contribute their time in providing input into this review process.

Documents

Review of the · Review of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 | Consultation paper 9 The CS Act introduced a hierarchy of responsibility for remediation, which lists the order of persons