Ms O’CONNOR – Noting that other people want to ask questions and wanting to make sure that these questions are asked. Yesterday, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation informed us there was an estimated 130,000 cubic metres of contaminated fill beneath the footprint of the proposed stadium at Macquarie Point. Has the EPA engaged with MPDC on this volume of contaminated fuel, and does the EPA believe it can be safely treated?
Ms MURDOCH – Just to check, what numbers have you there? Because we have our numbers.
Ms O’CONNOR – Can you confirm this? 130,000 cubic metres yesterday. Ms Beach, I think, said?
CHAIR – I would have to check the Hansard to be sure.
Ms MURDOCH – It’s 130,000 to 220 tonnes that matches with our table here.
Ms O’CONNOR – I think a cubic metre is sort of a tonne.
Ms MURDOCH – Yes, that’s about right.
Ms O’CONNOR – 130 to 220 possibly is the range of volume?
Ms MURDOCH – Yes, so what would you?
Ms O’CONNOR – What we’re trying to establish here is the role of the EPA as one of the regulators under the order, although you are not as empowered as the Secretary of State Growth. What is the role of the EPA in assessing that contaminated material is and how to dispose of it. Do we think Copping has the capacity?
Ms MURDOCH – Happy to answer, there’s different classes. Our understanding is that only 10 per cent or 30,000 tonnes is of level three which would need to go to Copping. We understand that Copping does potentially have that capacity. The remaining is potential level two material.
I think you will find in what our management plans and their statements in regard to the Macquarie Point hearing outlined was that is up to them to do the site contamination assessments. Determine if it can be used on site, if it can be treated. That is our preferred. But it is level two, it’s not Level three and if whether or not it can be reused.
Ms ONG – In assessing the contaminated soil on the site, Macquarie Point Development Corporation needs to engage a suitably qualified person to do that.
Ms O’CONNOR – Environmental auditor accepted by the EPA.
Ms ONG – Yes. There is a particular qualification that they have to have. They will do the assessment, and this is a means we commonly use for contaminated sites and then once the the final tonnage is known, then it’s up to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation to ensure that it goes to a place approved to receive it. As Catherine said, we expect that around 10 per cent will be Level 3 and the Copping can accommodate that
Ms O’CONNOR – Do you expect there to be any level four contaminated soil?
Ms ONG – I don’t believe so, but this is part of the assessment that will happen.
CHAIR – There’s a risk it could be under the goods shed when they have to move the goods shed. Because that hasn’t been cleaned up under the goods shed.
Ms MURDOCH – But the site contaminator in that process should identify that and then they would have to completely comply with all those regulations in regard to those waste levels, yes.
Ms O’CONNOR – Given that you’re responsible for waste management, is the EPA comfortable that Copping has the capacity to take the contaminated fill that you don’t know the full volume of what you will be dealing with exactly at that site.
Ms MURDOCH – I am happy if you want to answer because the team has done that analysis for us. That was part of our consideration to put forward our recommended conditions. Yes, we understand Copping has availability at this point, but that’s obviously a commercial decision for Copping as well and that’s up to Macquarie Point to work within those.
Our requirement is obviously that it must be disposed of appropriately in accordance with the waste regulations. We will be informed of that when the the auditor is doing its work and actually determining on site exactly what this makeup is, but it is a decision for Macquarie Point, but they need to make sure where it’s going –
Ms O’CONNOR – In terms of the sequencing – Macquarie Point Development Corporation is responsible for commissioning an audit to have a look at what that fill is, including an assessment of what the composite of that fill is, what contaminants are in there and whether or not there’s a risk. It then makes an assessment of what needs to be moved. Is that where the EPA as a regulator might come in?
Ms ONG – We set limits on the landfills that we regulate, including Copping as to how much they can receive every year. As Catherine said, it’s a commercial decision on the part of the landfill operators to decide whether they can accommodate what might come off Macquarie Point.
Ms O’CONNOR – What if they can’t accommodate it? What happens then? It’s that Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s problem?
Ms MURDOCH – Well, it’s contaminated. It’s contaminated soil that can only go to a facility. If it can’t be treated on site, it needs to go to a facility that can handle that level of waste.
Ms O’CONNOR – There’s only one in the south, isn’t there?
Ms MURDOCH – Yes.
Ms O’CONNOR – Copping.
Ms MURDOCH – That’s for them to enter into those arrangements with it’s – until they find out exactly what they’ve got. But they’re aware of that process. We have stepped through that process with them. As this process continues, I would expect that we would be kept informed of those matters.
Ms O’CONNOR – Is there any sort of requirement in the order for the EPA to be kept informed? I don’t think so, but I’m just double checking. It’s been a couple of weeks since I’ve been into it.
Ms ONG – I think it would be part of our normal process.
Ms MURDOCH – We’re still a regulator.
Ms ONG – To be onsite and check what’s is happening. Just in terms of the material that’s not level 3, there are options other than Copping. There is McRobies and also Jackson Street.
Ms O’CONNOR – For the level 3 and above contaminants, what’s the cap that the EPA has put on Copping?
Ms MURDOCH – I don’t have that but we can get that, I’m pretty sure pretty quickly.
Ms O’CONNOR – That’s a volume cap, isn’t it?
Ms MURDOCH – Yes, it is.
Ms O’CONNOR – We did ask this question of MPDC yesterday, or I did. What’s the EPA’s knowledge of the historical contaminants onsite? What are we looking at here? Mercury, copper, lead, zinc, arsenic?
Ms ONG – Yes, there are metals, hydrocarbons, probably asbestos. A range of things that will need to be investigated –
Ms MURDOCH – Tested.
CHAIR – Magnetic sand?
Ms LOVELL – No playing in the sand pit there either.
Ms O’CONNOR – Is the EPA comfortable with the level of remediation – acknowledging that the footprint of the stadium, should parliament make the mistake of approving it, has underneath it contaminated fill. What’s the EPA’s – is the EPA broadly comfortable with MPDC’s assurances about site decontamination?
Ms MURDOCH – What we’re comfortable with are the conditions that we’ve proposed that the development of a waste management plan. The site auditor will manage risk appropriately and we will have oversight of what that looks like. We’re comfortable that our conditions enable us to actually understand the condition at the site, and that we can ensure that appropriate regulated processes are actually followed. That’s what we’re – we’re comfortable our conditions will enable us to do that.
The C cell is 45,000 tonnes per annum, that’s total that they’re licenced for.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. That’s interesting, isn’t it, because the broad assessment of the volume of potentially contaminated fill under the footprint of the stadium is that it might reach 220 cubic metres, the maximum capacity of copping and that’s a regulated threshold, isn’t it? Is 45 cubic metres correct?
Ms ONG – Yes, per annum?
Ms MURDOCH – This is scheduling and they get it there in March and then they do another one. That’s per annum and on the financial year.
Ms O’CONNOR – You still potentially, given the time-frames for the stadium, should parliament make the mistake of approving the order, you still potentially will have fill sitting on site that can’t go to Copping because a threshold’s been met within a year, given the volume.
Ms MURDOCH – That is not for us. That is MPDC and we have absolutely put those positions forward about here, and this is determining what you’ve got on site. What is that scheduling on site, so as any construction project, understanding that waste and that volume that they have and therefore the best process. They have to find out what’s on site, obviously, but they can schedule that. They can determine that and understand and manage that risk. Our contaminated waste plant, is that what that one’s called?
Ms ONG – Condition.
Ms MURDOCH – The condition that we have will include those things in there because, yes, we can’t have risk of contaminants to air into water and storm water. Those things absolutely need to be considered, but we’ve had those discussions.
CHAIR – is gaseous.
Ms MURDOCH – Yes. I’m comfortable they understand, and we’ve had those conversations with them that that process needs to be well thought through.
CHAIR – And planned.
Ms MURDOCH – Yes, planning, really important.
Ms O’CONNOR -Yes, the state is not particularly good at planning out large infrastructure projects and their consequences, but you can take that as a comment if you like.
CHAIR – We will.
