Heavy metal contamination and lead in mains water - articles from Tasmania

The following articles were submitted by Isla MacGregor

STATE: TasWater emails show company planned to hit back at scientists

Michael Atkin, ABC. First published April 11
12.04.16 4:20 am
15 comments

Documents appear to show TasWater had a strategy of avoiding unwelcome independent scientific findings about lead contamination in the water supply in north-east Tasmania.

Internal communications obtained by the ABC under Right to Information laws have revealed that TasWater planned to hit back against the scientists by challenging their research.

TasWater strongly denies any wrongdoing.

Unsafe lead contamination was first discovered in the drinking water in the small regional town of Pioneer in 2012.

Last year environmental scientists from Macquarie University, Professor Mark Taylor and PhD student Paul Harvey, released a peer-reviewed study into Pioneer’s water problems and claimed to have found answers.

They reported lead levels inside houses in Pioneer were 22 times above the safe drinking standard, which they described as the worst in Australia.

Professor Taylor and Mr Harvey explained their findings at a community meeting in Pioneer last April and invited the Department of Health and TasWater to attend, but TasWater declined.

A TasWater briefing note written before the meeting and sent to senior scientific and communications staff appears to show why.

Read the full story, ABC HERE

• Peter in Comments: TasWater has failed to disclose a possible conflict of interest in its review of the original Macquarie University research by an industry body called Water Research Australia. One of the directors of WRA happens to be a manager with TasWater …

TIM SLADE (and Isla MacGregor) have written extensively about Pioneer’s contaminated water on Tasmanian Times ...

• Pioneer folk wonder if TasWater’s WorkSafe Tasmania Award is a joke ...

• Local councils Vote for Transparency at TasWater

• A typical kneejerk response ...

• The Pioneer Cup: Horse-trading for safe drinking water in Tasmania

• Toxic TasWater, Part 2 ~ From the Operating Room to a Public Meeting with the Health Minister

• Toxic Tas Water

AND ...

• TasWater concedes NE Tas water may have been contaminated for years. A Will ... but no way?

• Rosebery - 7 years on and still waiting for safe water?

• Told you so, TasWater, TasWater and Dr Roscoe Taylor

• The axing of Pesticide Monitoring in Waterways

• Tasmania’s water dilemma

• Janine Britten in Comments Rosebery residents have been putting up with brown discoloured water for the past 3 months, which in this day and age is not acceptable. On contacting TasWater on Wednesday 6th april 2016, within two days the drinking water was clear ... is this telling us something; TasWater have been cost-cutting and not chlorinating the Rosebery water supply; after telling them of residents who were complaining of headaches and itchy skin they decided to act . When it rains the water is usually discoloured for a few days then clears but the past 3 months we have had very little rain, and discoloured water… !

• Alison in Comments: Parkinson’s ‘cluster’ in rural Victoria could be linked to pesticides, researchers say

TASMANIAN PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK

REGULATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES

Legislative amendments

Options Paper

Updated September 2012

KEY AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN POLICY PAPER

A free, publicly accessible Contaminated Sites Register

2. Protection of innocent landowners

3. Household audit services

4. Abatement funds to pay for hazard removal and management

5. Mandatory disclosure to tenants and purchasers

6. Community engagement for Level 2 and 3 activities

7. Public and environmental health investigations conducted in collaboration with affected communities

8. Monitoring off-site sediments

The Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network policy paper released in September 2011 outlined the key elements that we consider essential to an effective regulatory framework for contaminated sites. This updated position paper outlines our preferred legislative and policy approach to implement such a framework in Tasmania.

1. A free, publicly accessible Contaminated Sites Register

The Contaminated Sites Unit currently maintains a number of registers:

§ Contaminated Sites Register, including records of land and water contamination;

§ Environmentally Relevant Land Use Register, including details of environmentally relevant activities historically undertaken on site;

§ New Environmental Licensing and Monitoring System, including a database of EPNs and other management documents; and

§ Incidents database, setting out records of complaints, notifications etc made in respect of a property.

At present, these databases are not freely available (the cost to search the register is $77 per property) and are often not a comprehensive record of actual or potential contamination. To ensure that data in relation to contamination is easily accessible, in obvious locations that will come up using basic internet research skills, TPEHN believe that the government should:

n Undertake further work to improve knowledge regarding the extent of contamination in Tasmania;

n Maintain a comprehensive, on-line Contaminated Sites Register including all the information categories currently held by the Contaminated Sites Unit;

n Ensure that the LIST includes information about whether a property is on the Contaminated Sites Register.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND AMENDMENTS:

§ Government to dedicate resources towards developing comprehensive databases, and making the information available, free of charge, through the LIST. The LIST must also include reference to any health advisory note issued in respect of the property under the Public Health Act 1997.

§ Insert a new provision in EMPCA establishing a Contaminated Sites Register:

Section 74Z

The Director is to maintain a register containing:

(a) details of all notices issued under s.74C;

(b) a description of the location of each site subject to a notice under s.74C;

(d) any progress report submitted in respect of land subject to a notice under s.74C;

(e) any Annual Monitoring Review submitted in respect of a use or development undertaken on land identified as an Environmentally Relevant Land Use.

(2) A person is entitled to search the register referred to in subsection (1) and obtain copies of any document (including all attachments) referred to in the register without payment of a fee.

2. Innocent landowner provisions for property owners

Section 74B of EMPCA requires the current owner or occupier of land known or suspected to be contaminated to notify the Director regarding the contamination. We are concerned that this provision, in addition to the general environmental duty, will place an undue burden on an owner or occupier who was not responsible for the contamination (and did not reasonably have cause to believe that the land was contaminated). Part 5A of EMPCA currently addresses this is the following ways:

§ Notices are to be issued to the person who caused the contamination in the first instance, even if they are no longer the owner of the land. If the person responsible cannot be found or is bankrupt, the Director may only issue a notice to the current owner if s/he

§ Became the owner after the commencement of Part 5A and should not reasonably have been expected to believe that the land was contaminated at the time of purchase; or

§ Has accepted responsibility for contamination issues associated with the site (written documentation of this agreement is required).

§ When determining what work should be required under a notice, the Director is to have regard to the period during which all relevant parties were responsible for the land, the use to which each of them put the land and whether they were responsible for any known or likely incident during that time.

§ Where a notice is not complied with, the Director can carry out remediation work and recover the costs from the person who should have been responsible for the work (ss.74S and 74T).

This approach provides some protection for ‘innocent landowners’, but still allows some situations in which a landowner who has inadvertently purchased contaminated land to be subject to remediation costs in order to make their property liveable. TPEHN believe that further protection should be offered to ensure that people who unwittingly purchase contaminated sites are not subject to unfair clean-up costs.

The approach adopted in jurisdictions which have innocent landowner provisions is generally to allow a ‘grace’ period in which people on properties which they know or suspect may be contaminated can apply for an exemption certificate.

We note that innocent landowner provisions work most effectively in jurisdictions with comprehensive and accessible databases of contaminated sites. This is because it is easier for a potential purchaser to determine whether a site is subject to contamination, rather than to ‘innocently’ discover after purchase that they will be subject to considerable clean-up costs.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:

§ Insert a new section 74BA of EMPCA:

Section 74BA Exemption certificates

(1) An owner of land who gives notice to the Director under section 74B within 2

years of the commencement of this section may apply for an exemption certificate.

An application for an exemption certificate must be made in the prescribed form.

(3) Within 28 days of receiving an application, the Director must issue an exemption certificate to the owner if satisfied that:

(a) the land is a contaminated site;

(b) the person is not wholly or partly responsible for causing or possibly causing the area of land to be a contaminated site;

(c) the person did not fail to prevent any pollutant from escaping, being discharged, emitted or released on, onto or under the land, as far as it was reasonably within the person’s control to prevent or minimise the escape, discharge, emission or release of a pollutant; and

(d) the land was a contaminated site at the time the person became an owner of the land and, at that time, the person did not know, or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected, that the land was a contaminated site.

If not satisfied of the matters in subsection (3), the Director may refuse to grant an exemption certificate in respect of the land.

(5) Within 14 days of receiving an application under subsection (1), the Director may request such further information as the Director considers necessary to make a determination under subsection (3).

(6) If further information is requested under subsection (5), the period of time referred to in subsection (3) does not run while the request for information has not been answered to the satisfaction of the Director.

(7) If an application for an exemption certificate is refused under subsection (4), the applicant may, within 14 days after the day on which notice of the decision is served, appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.

§ Replace s.74C of EMPCA with the following:

Section 74C Contaminated Site Notices

Subject to subsection (2), the Director may issue one or more of the following notices in accordance with this Division:

(a) an investigation notice;

(b) a remediation notice;

A notice under subsection (1) cannot be issued to a person to whom an exemption certificate has been granted under section 74BA, to the extent provided for in the exemption certificate.

EPA to fund household audit services for any person residing on contaminated property

4. EPA to fund costs of removal of any relevant hazards found during household audits

The Environment Protection Fund established under s.97 of EMPCA is managed by the EPA Board and is currently able to be used to:

§ Pay out financial assurances and amounts due under environmental agreements;

§ Cover the costs of dealing with environmental emergencies;

§ Undertake education and training programmes in relation to the “protection, restoration or enhancement of the environment”;

§ Investigate, research or conduct pilot projects relating to the “protection, restoration or enhancement of the environment”; and

§ Make grants for environmental improvement purposes (defined in s.99 to include acquiring and applying knowledge for improving the environment, training people to carry out research, provision of advice and assistance to people carrying out environmental activities, publication of reports etc).

Arguably, these objectives are broad enough to allow the Fund to be used to provide for audit services and an abatement fund in respect of contaminated land. However, to ensure that money can be made available for that purpose, TPEHM recommend that the legislation be amended to explicitly allow funds to be allocated to those activities.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND AMENDMENTS:

§ The government should allocate money from the Environment Protection Fund for the purposes of conducting household audits and assisting affected households to take remediation measures, internally or under contract to an appropriate organisation.

§ Amend s.97(3) of EMPCA by adding the following subsections:

(g) for the purposes of conducting investigations relating to the identification and remediation of contamination;

(h) for the purposes of assisting any person to whom an exemption certificate has been granted under section 74BA to take action to minimise the impact of contamination on their property.

Mandatory disclosure to tenants and purchasers of contaminated properties

Potential purchasers

TPEHN note that the best protection will be offered to potential purchasers by ensuring that the contaminated sites register is comprehensive, readily available, easy to search and widely publicised. However, we recommend several additional amendments to provide greater assurance that purchasers are made aware of actual or potential contamination on residential properties.

Vendor disclosure

Part 10 of the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005, which has yet to commence, requires a vendor (including an agent) to ensure that “relevant disclosure documents” are available for any potential purchaser to inspect. It is an offence not to provide the disclosure documents, or to provide false or misleading information in the disclosure documents. A purchaser can rescind a contract of sale (prior to settlement) if the vendor did not comply with the disclosure obligations.

The Property Agents and Land Transactions Amendment Regulations 2010 set out in detail the information to be included in the “relevant disclosure documents” for any sale of residential land. Regulation 41C requires a vendor to complete a statement relating to his/her period of ownership which includes details of “any notices received in relation to soil contamination” and whether building materials are likely to have contained asbestos.

Commencement of the proposed regulations will address some of TPEHN’s concerns relating to disclosure of information regarding contamination.

In addition to the specific requirements of the vendor disclosure statement, s.196 of the

Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005 (which is also yet to commence) states:

196. Liability of agent

In addition to any disclosure of information required of a vendor under this Part, an agent of the vendor must disclose to a prospective purchaser any information that the agent knows or ought reasonably to know is likely to affect the purchaser’s decision to purchase the residential land.

(2) An agent of a vendor is liable for any loss or damage arising from a failure to disclose to a purchaser any information which the agent knew or ought reasonably to have known was likely to affect the purchaser's decision to purchase the residential land.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

§ Include links to the Contaminated Sites Register (once established) and the CSU search request forms from the Consumer Affairs and the REIT websites;

§ Commence Part 10 of the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005;

§ Insert Part 5A (Disclosure Documents) into the Property Agents and Land Transactions Regulations 2006 (as proposed by the draft Property Agents and Land Transactions Amendment Regulations 2010, but amended to include “any health advisory note issued under the Public Health Ac 1997” in the disclosure documents referred to in r.41C.

Local government certificates

During most conveyancing transactions, a potential purchaser will obtain a Land Information Certificate from the local council under s.337 of the Local Government Act 1993. Pursuant to r.44A of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005, a council land information certificate is to:

§ Be in the form set out in Schedule 6 of the Regulations; and

§ Answer the questions prescribed in Schedule 7.

Section 74H of EMPCA requires copies of any contaminated site notice to be served on the council for the area in which the land is situated, therefore TPEHN consider it appropriate to require information regarding such notices to be included in the land information certificate.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:

§ Amend Schedule 7, Part 2 (“Public Health and Environmental Matters”) of the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 by inserting the following after No. 10:

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

No. Question Answer

10A. Contaminated Sites Notice

(a) Has the council a record of an investigation notice, a remediation notice or a site management notice being issued under Part 5A, Division 3 of the Act in relation to the specified land?

(b) If YES to (a), provide particulars.

Public Health Act 1997

No. Question Answer

10B. Health Advisory Note

(a) Has the council a record of any health advisory notes issued in relation to the specified land?

(b) If YES to (a), provide particulars.

Tenants

There are not currently any legislated disclosure requirements in respect of rental properties, other than in respect of the condition report. There are two options for ensuring that any notifications regarding contamination are disclosed to tenants:

A stand-alone duty of disclosure; or

2. Requiring the condition report to include details of any contaminated site notice issued in respect of the property.

In either situation, a tenant should be entitled to terminate a tenancy agreement where the landlord has failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND AMENDMENTS:

§ Include links to the Contaminated Sites Register (once established) and the CSU search request forms from the Consumer Affairs and the REIT websites;

§ Insert a new provision 14A in the Residential Tenancy Act 1997:

14A. Property Owner Disclosure Statement

A residential tenancy agreement must include a signed disclosure statement from the owner of the residential premises (or an agent of the owner) in the prescribed form.

(2) Any person signing a disclosure statement must not knowingly or recklessly

(a) supply false, inaccurate or misleading information; or

(b) fail to supply all the information required to be included in disclosure statement.

Penalty: Fine not exceeding 50 penalty units

§ Insert a new Regulation 12 and Schedule 3 in the Residential Tenancy Regulations 2005:

Property Owner Disclosure Statement

For the purposes of section 14A of the Act, a disclosure statement is to be in accordance with Schedule 3.

Schedule 3 should include similar information to that required to be disclosed in a vendor disclosure statement under the draft Property Agents and Land Transactions Regulations 2010, including any contaminated sites notices and whether the building is likely to contain asbestos and any health advisory notes in respect of the property.

§ Amend s.38 of the Act by inserting a new (1)(d)-(e):

(d) the owner failed to provide a signed disclosure statement in accordance with section 14A; or

(e) the tenant becomes aware that the owner provided false information, or failed to disclose relevant information in the disclosure statement provided under section 14A.

Community engagement for Level 2 and 3 activities

The recent experience of residents in Copping in relation to the proposed hazardous waste facility demonstrates the inadequacy of current public notification provisions as a means of informing the community regarding proposed developments. Where a development is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, economy or the local community, more active community engagement is required.

The EIA Principles outlined in s.74 of EMPCA require an opportunity for “public consultation on the proposal before the assessment process is complete”. However, there is currently nothing which requires any active community engagement beyond small notices in the newspaper, letters to immediately adjoining owners and signs on the site. Where, like the Copping waste depot, the site is not on a main thoroughfare, the minimum statutory notification requirements provide no guarantee that affected community members will be aware of a proposal, or of their right to participate in its assessment.

Community engagement is needed to ensure that an affected community is aware of development proposals, including potential risks and proposed management responses. More effective community engagement will also facilitate more constructive feedback during the public comment period, and may result in developments that are more acceptable to the community.

TPEHN consider that the following use and development should be subject to mandatory community engagement activities:

n Level 2 activities under EMPCA;

n Projects of Regional Significance under LUPAA; and

n Projects of State Significance under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

TPEHN recommend that amendments be made to require the Director of the EPA to direct a proponent to undertake community engagement activities prior to the formal comment period in respect of one of these developments. The extent of necessary community engagement will differ for each project, and should be determined by the EPA. Community engagement activities must include, at a minimum, an information sheet regarding the proposal (and opportunities to comment) delivered to all homes in a specified area, and at least one of the following:

n Public meetings

n Information stall at local shopping centre

n Advertisements in local publications (e.g. local newspaper, school newsletter)

n Invitation to specified community organisations to meet with the proponent for a briefing regarding the proposal.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:

§ Insert new s.74AA of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994:

74AA. Community Engagement Directions

If the Director is required under this Act or any law to issue a Community Engagement Direction, the Director is to cause a Community Engagement Direction to be issued and served on the proponent in accordance with this section.

(2) Unless section 74AA(3) applies, the Community Engagement Direction -

(a) is to specify the use or development to which it relates; and

(b) is to require the proponent to take specified community engagement activities in relation to that use or development, which must include the activity described in subsection (5)(a); and

(d) is to contain a statement that the proponent may, within 14 days from the date on which the direction is issued, appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against the direction or any requirement contained in the direction.

(3) If the Director is satisfied that no community engagement activities are necessary in respect of the use or development, the Community Engagement Direction is to

state that the proponent is not required to carry out community engagement activities and provide reasons for that decision.

(4) The Director may only be satisfied under section 74AA(3) if the Director reasonably believes that any person who may be affected by the use or development is already aware of the activity.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “community engagement activities” includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

(a) information sheet provided to all owners and occupiers of properties within a specified distance of the land that is the subject of the application ;

(b) holding a public meeting;

(c) advertisement in a local publication, including a local or regional newspaper, Council Bulletin or school newsletter;

(d) invitation to specified local organisations to meet with the proponent to discuss the application.

§ Amend s.74 of EMPCA by inserting the following paragraph after (6):

(6A) if required by the Director pursuant to section 25(2)(ab), 25A(1) or 27(3A), an environmental impact assessment must be carried out in accordance with any Community Engagement Direction issued under section 74AA.

§ Amend s.25 of EMPCA by replacing s.25(2)(b) with the following:

(ab) the Director is to issue a Community Engagement Direction to the proponent in accordance with section 74AA;

(b) the planning authority is not to advertise the application in accordance with section 27G until it has received written notice from the Director that the Board has received sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of section 74(3), and the requirements of any Community Engagement Direction have been met; and

§ Amend s.25A(1) of EMPCA by inserting a new paragraph:

(ab) is to direct the Director is to issue a Community Engagement Direction to the proponent in accordance with section 74AA;

§ Amend s.25A of EMPCA by inserting a new subsection:

(2A) If a Community Engagement Direction is issued under section 74AA, the period referred to in subsection (3) does not run while the requirements of the Community Engagement Direction have not been met to the satisfaction of the Board.

§ Replace s.26 of EMPCA with the following:

Assessment of level 3 activities

Where an order has been made under section 18(2) of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 declaring a project to be a project of State significance, a direction under section 20(1) must require the Tasmanian Planning Commission established under the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997 to undertake the integrated assessment of the project of State significance in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles.

(2) The Tasmanian Planning Commission may direct the Director to issue a Community Engagement Direction to the proponent of the project of State significance in accordance with section 74AA, and the Director must comply with that direction as if it was a direction given by the Board under section 27(3A).

§ Amend s.27 of EMPCA by inserting a subsection:

(3A) Without limiting subsection (3), and subject to subsection (4), the Board is to direct the Director is to issue a Community Engagement Direction to the proponent in accordance with section 74AA;

§ Amend s.20 of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 by inserting new subsections (3)(ab) and (6):

(3)(ab) community engagement activities to be required in relation to the integrated assessment;

And “Community engagement activities” has the same meaning as in section 74AA of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

Public and Environmental Health investigations to be conducted in collaboration with affected communities

Any public health or environmental investigation in respect of a “proposed environmentally relevant activity” is to be undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles in s.74 of EMPCA. However, though the EIA Principles require an opportunity for “public consultation on the proposal before the assessment process is complete”, they do not actively require community involvement in all stages of the assessment process.

Furthermore, as the requirement for investigations to comply with the EIA Principles is limited to “proposed” activities, it may not capture investigations regarding the impact of existing operations or particular incidents.

Under s.24 of the Public Health Act 1997, the Director of Public Health may carry out investigations in relation to public health issues. For the investigation, the Director may require any person to give evidence and answer relevant questions, and may require the production of any relevant documents. There is no provision for community involvement in the conduct of these investigations.

TPEHN recommend that amendments be made to establish an Investigation Panel for public health investigations related to contamination of land or water. The Panel could include representatives of the Director of Public Health, the EPA, the affected community and any relevant industry body (depending on the nature of the contamination). The Panel would have all powers of the Director in respect of investigations.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:

§ Insert the following definition in s.3, following ‘contaminant’:

“contaminated site” has the meaning given by section 74A of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994;

§ Replace s.24 of the Public Health Act 1997 with the following provision:

24. Investigation

Subject to subsection (3), if a matter does not, in the opinion of the Director, justify an inquiry, the Director may carry out any necessary investigation into the matter.

(2) In carrying out an investigation, the Director –

(a) has the powers specified in section 22; and

(b) may take any action the Director considers necessary to protect public health.

(3) Where an investigation relates to land that is, or is likely to be, a contaminated site, the Director must refer the investigation to an Investigation Panel established under section 39A.

(4) For investigations referred under subsection (3), the Investigation Panel is to conduct the investigation in accordance with section 39B.

§ Insert the following provisions after s.39 of the Public Health Act 1997:

Division 7 – Investigation Panel

39A. Investigation Panel to be established for public health investigations on contaminated sites

Where the Director intends to carry out an investigation under section 24 in respect of any land that is, or is likely to be, a contaminated site, the Director is to establish an Investigation Panel to conduct the investigation.

(2) The Investigation Panel is to consist of –

(a) the Director, or a person nominated by the Director, who is the chairperson of the Panel; and

(b) the Director of the EPA Board under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, or a person nominated by the Director of the EPA Board; and

(c) a representative of the community adversely affected by the public health issues being investigated as part of the investigation; and

(d) a person with appropriate qualifications and experience in relation to contaminated sites, to be agreed on by the persons appointed under subsections (2)(a), (b) and (c); and

(e) two persons who, in the opinion of the Director, has qualifications or experience relevant to the investigation¹

At least one of the persons appointed under section (2)(e) is to be nominated by the person appointed under subsection (2)(c).

39B. Investigation of contaminated sites

In carrying out an investigation under section 39A, the Investigation Panel -

(a) has all the power of the Director specified in section 22;

(b) must provide opportunities for public consultation;

(2) Subject to subsection (1), the Panel is to determine its own proceedings.

Monitoring off-site sediments

TPEHN remains concerned that monitoring in relation to industrial activities is limited to monitoring emissions from the site, rather than monitoring sediment quality off-site, within a radius in which particulate emissions would settle.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

§ All permit conditions in respect of monitoring should ensure that an adequate sample of offsite sediments is regularly monitored to assess and manage off-site impacts.

^{1 For example, if the
contamination relates to mining, someone with expertise in relation to
rehabilitation of mining sites.}

Contaminated Waterways, Areas and Sites in Tasmania - A to Z

From SourceWatch

Contents

1 Contaminated Waterways, Areas and Sites in Tasmania - A to Z

1.1 Contaminated Areas and Sites Legislation for Tasmania

2 Background

2.1 Turning Tips into Playgrounds

2.2 Water Contamination from existing Tip and Waste Sites

3 A - Z Waterways and Drinking Water Supplies

4 A - Z Land

5 Articles and resources

5.1 Related SourceWatch articles

5.2 References

5.3 External resources

Contaminated Waterways, Areas and Sites in Tasmania - A to Z

Contaminated Areas and Sites Legislation for Tasmania

Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network is reviewing the Tasmanian Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act [Part 5A - Contaminated Sites] and with advice from the Tasmanian Environmental Defenders Office have developed some key amendments.

The Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network's Contaminated Sites Legislative Amendments Position Paper December 2011 can be found at:

Toxic group's call for reforms on regulation of contaminated sites Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network Tasmanian Times, 14th December, 2011

[1]

The Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network's revised Contaminated Sites Legislative Amendments Options Paper September 2012 can be found at:

Tasmanian Greens called on to support pollution control reforms TPEHN & CRCSBCS Tasmanian Times, 14th September, 2012

TPEHN Legislative Options Paper Download

Background

Turning Tips into Playgrounds

During the 1960s the conversion of suburban tips in Hobart into playing fields and childrens recreation areas was a popular activity. According to the Hobart City Council it made economic sense.[1] At the time the council envisaged converting 60 acres of old refuse sites over the next 30 years [tips located at the Cross Roads on the Domain, at Wellesley Park in South Hobart, at New Town Bay and at Whitton's Quarry near the suburb of Dynnyrne]. These suburban rubbish tips are now well used sports ovals and outdoor recreation areas.

Water Contamination from existing Tip and Waste Sites

In 2001 a report of water contamination at existing tip sites in Tasmania highlighted the long-term effects of waste disposal on groundwater quality. The report identified five disposal sites that had contaminated groundwater; it included the Hobart City Council’s waste dump at McRobie’s Gully located in the suburb of South Hobart. The other sites with groundwater concerns were at Port Latta, Port Sorell, Mt George near Georgetown and Bridport.[2]

“Groundwater contamination has been discovered mostly on older sites which were not built to current standards but which have met the standard of the day", the then Minister of the Environment, David Llewellyn said.

Mr Llewellyn said that while the Minerals Resources Tasmania report would not be finalised until November 2001, the Government believed it was necessary to start working with municipal councils to identify the extent of contamination and determine whether future groundwater protection strategies were required. The study also looked at the two existing land-fill tip sites in the Glenorchy City Council municipality at Jackson and Chapel Streets.[2]

In 2002 a Mineral Resources Report by Andrew Ezzy The effects of waste disposal on groundwater quality in Tasmania was made public. Among many serious findings it stated that the Howrah Landfill site was an uncontrolled site.[3] See also the Wentworth Park waste dump - Howrah Tipsite on Landfill pollution in Tasmania [2] There was no monitoring done during landfilling or when the landfill was opened up for housing.

In 2003 Tasmania's State of the Environment Report acknowledged that at least 100 of 176 identified landfill sites were likely to contain toxic substances that could contaminate ground water and soil.[4][5] Submissions from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and various Tasmanian politicians to have such contaminated sites registered on land titles have been unsuccessful[6]

A - Z Waterways and Drinking Water Supplies

BEING UPDATED

Contaminated by Metals

Main metal contaminants are: Aluminium, Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Chromium, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Tin and Zinc.

Aberfoyle Creek

Argent Creek

Arthur River

Mount Bischoff Rehabilitation Program, Mineral Resources Tasmania, [3]

Assay Creek [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Austral Creek

Avoca [township]

Towns issued with water warning, Jodie Stephens, The Examiner 7th November, 2012 [4]

Bakers Creek [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Boobyalla River

Branxholm Creek

Trustees of Scott's Estate v The Arba Tin Mining Company, The Mercury, 17th November, 1910, [5]

Broderick Creek

Colliers Swamp

Comstock Creek

Concert Creek

Conglomerate Creek

Cooleys Creek

Derwent River

Public warned of Derwent fish risks, ABC News Tasmania, 5th April, 2013, [6] 32 sites around the lower Derwent estuary warn against eating bream or shellfish and advise on weekly consumption limits for other fish such as flathead. [7]

Dolcoath Creek

Dundas River

East Queen River

Filter Plant Creek [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Fly By Night Creek

George River

Gipps Creek

GPS Creek

Great Musselroe River

Haulage Creek

Idaho Creek

King River

Acid Mine Drainage, State of the Environment Report, 2003, [7]

Lake Dora

Legerwood Rivulet

Linda Creek

Little Henty River

Little Musselroe River

Lisle Creek

Lucy Creek

Magazine Creek

Main Creek

Main Rivulet

Macquarie Harbour

Acid Mine Drainage, State of the Environment Report, 2003, [8]

Macquarie River

Macquarie River water quality must be tested, Rene Hidding, Liberal Party MP, 10th May, 2010 [9]

Marinoak River

Mill Creek

Nike Creek

Officers Creek

Oonah Creek

Parting Creek

Pea Soup Creek

Pieman River [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Pioneer [township]

Towns issued with water warning, Jodie Stephens, The Examiner 7th November, 2012 [10]

Primrose Creek [MMG Rosebey mine - ]

Princess Creek [Mt Lyell Mine tailings dam - ]

Que River

Queen River

Acid Mine Drainage, State of the Environment Report, 2003, [11]

Ring River [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Acid Mine Drainage, State of the Environment Report, 2003, [12]

Ringarooma [township]

Don't drink the water, Ian Townsend, ABC Radio National, Background Briefing, 31st March, 2013, [13]

Public Health Alerts, Department of Health and Human Services, 21st December, 2012 [14]

Ringarooma River

Planned tailings dam release to contaminate Rinagrooma Ramsar Wetland, Isla MacGregor, Tasmaniantimes.com 3rd April, 2013, [15]

Rosebery Creek [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Ruby Creek

Savage River

Acid Mine Drainage, State of the Environment Report, 2003, [16]

Spill at mine dam probed, Nick Clark, The Mercury, 16th March, 2013, [17]

I have never seen anything like it, Isla MacGregor, 25th March ,2013 Tasmaniantimes.com [18]

Seal River

Shallamar Creek

Silver Lead Creek

South Esk River

Mine's toxic legacy on Tasmanian farm, Rosemary Grant, ABC Online, 10th August, 2009 [19]

Southwell River

Stitt River [MMG Rosebery mine - ]

Storys Creek

Mine's toxic legacy on Tasmanian farm, Rosemary Grant, ABC Online, 10th August, 2009 [20]

St Pauls River

Continued Monitoring of Heavy Metal Health Issues Recommended Dr Chrissie Pickin, Tasmanian Government Media Releases, 12th October, 2010, [21]

Arsenic and Lead in drinking water – flawed advice on testing. Residents notified of alarming levels of arsenic and lead in drinking water at Royal George, but poor advice given to doctors on how to test for exposure, The LEAD Group Incorporated and Toxic Heavy Metals Taskforce Tasmania, Media Release, 3rd September, 2010, [22]

Strong's Creek

Svens Swamp

Tamar River

Alert over river metal levels, Bruce Mounster The Mercury 7th November, 2012 [23]

Tinstone Creek

Waratah River

Mount Bischoff Rehabilitation Program, Mineral Resources Tasmania, [24]

Websters Creek

Weld River

White Creek

Whitemark [township]

Lead contamination fears at Whitemark, Zona Black, The Examiner 11th May, 2012, [25]

Whyte River

Wyniford Creek

Zeehan Rivulet

Contaminated from Landfill [leachate]

Carlton River

South Hobart Rivulet

Sundown Creek

A - Z Land

Austin's Ferry

Beaconsfield

Buried treasure and toxins at Beaconsfield Michael West Sydney Morning Herald, 3 August, 2012 [26]

Bell Bay

Tasmania's environment protection agency is on notice Greg Bishop Comment 6: Complaint to EPA on BHP Billiton's TEMCO plant at Bell Bay Tasmaniantimes.com [27]

Burnie

Tassie's toxic time bomb Nick Clark Mercury, 6 December, 2009 [28]

Chapel Street, Glenorchy

Geilston Bay

George Town

Goodwood

Gormanston

Worst case of lead poisoning and Tasmanian Government inaction Elizabeth O'Brien LEAD Action News vol 8 no 3, 2001 [29]

Lenah Valley

Pollution watchdog failure sparks wider fears Linda Hunt ABC News, 7th November, 2011 [30]

Conflict in the Suburbs ABC 7.30, 4th November, 2011 [31]

New evidence Tasmanian EPA not doing it's job Kay Seltitzas [32] Comment 12 from B McIntosh

Lindisfarne Bay

Lutana

Lutana and parts of Hobart eastern shore soil contamination Contaminated Sites Unit, Environment Protection Authority [33]

New Town Bay

Old Proctor's Road, Mt Nelson

Price of Wales Bay

Pottery Creek Road. Glenorchy

The Domain

Queenstown

Rosebery

LEAD Action News "Toxic Heavy Metals Taskforce Tasmania, Rosebery Heavy Metal Table 2008" Note: "House 2" in the Heavy Metal Table is 14 Murchison Street, Rosebery.

Royal George

"Continued Monitoring of Heavy Metal Health Issues Recommended" Dr Chrissie Pickin, Tasmanian Government Media Releases, October 12, 2010.

The LEAD Group Incorporated and Toxic Heavy Metals Taskforce Tasmania, "Arsenic and Lead in drinking water – flawed advice on testing. Residents notified of alarming levels of arsenic and lead in drinking water at Royal George, but poor advice given to doctors on how to test for exposure", Media Release, September 3, 2010.

Wentworth Park, Howrah - Click on Landfill pollution in Tasmania

Wellesley Park, South Hobart

Williamsford

Zeehan

[In coming months, TPEHN members will upload historical material on many of these waste-landfill sites and add Googlearth contacts]

Articles and resources