1 / 20

Draft Policy for Assessing & Managing Contaminants in soil: a progress report

This progress report discusses the development of a risk-based methodology to derive soil guideline values (SGVs) that are protective of human health. The report also explores the determination of good practice district plan provisions requiring appropriate risk management actions, as well as new policy initiatives on managing contaminants in soil. The policy aims to protect human health, ensure fit-for-purpose land, and manage and remediate land affected by hazardous substances to the extent practicable.

valdes
Download Presentation

Draft Policy for Assessing & Managing Contaminants in soil: a progress report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft Policy for Assessing & Managing Contaminants in soil: a progress report WMINZ Conference, 15 October 2009 James Court and Howard Ellis Ministry for the Environment

  2. NZ risk-based methodology to derive soil guideline values levels protective of human health; Determine good practice district plan provisions requiring appropriate risk management actions national environmental standard or guidelines New policy initiatives on managing contaminants in soil 2

  3. Environment protected (human health, ecological and all beneficial uses) Human health protected Fit for purpose land (maximising safe human use) Land affected by hazardous substances managed/remediated to the extent practicable Good quality land maintained

  4. [Section 31 of the RMA]: “the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land.” Good practice district plan policies and rulesWhy high priority? 4

  5. Contaminated land provisions in district plans

  6. Proposed subdivision, development, land-use change on HAIL list? Step 1 No Preliminary investigation Permitted Activity Assess site? Step 2 No Restricted discretionary activity site investigation reports to council Step 3 SGV exceeded? Yes No reports, RAP, mgt plan to council

  7. Other requirements use experienced and qualifiedprofessionals for site reports and audits RAP and/or risk management plan are subject to resource consent conditions waste tracking system to ensure contaminated soil is safely transported to correct and authorised destination off-site

  8. Toxicological risk RMA effects thresholds Significant adverse effects are reasonably likely Risk of acute exposure Risk is unacceptable Risk of chronic exposure Risk that adverse effects will occur Contaminant Concentration – Increasing level of risk SGV(health) Any adverse effects are no more than minor (Risk is acceptable) Negligible risk of exposure

  9. the national benchmark • not “pollute up to” levels. • not for assessing agricultural land per se SGVs(health) are for protecting human health Land </= SGV(health) is safe for human use Land > SGV(health)is to be remediated and/or managed

  10. SGVs for regulatory purposes: Land use scenarios (fruit and vegetable consumption) Rural residential/lifestyle (10% produce) Rural residential/lifestyle (50% produce) NON REG Residential (10% produce) High density residential (no produce) Parks/Recreation Commercial/industrial outdoor worker Can modify SGVs(health) on a site-specific basis as per guidance (Tier 2) if exposure is different from scenarios provided

  11. SGVs(healthfor regulatory purposes • SGV(health) derived for As, Cd, Cu, Cr (III, VI), Pb, Hg, B, BaP, DDTs, dieldrin, PCP, dioxin/furans, PCBs • SGV derivation methodology fully documented • Petroleum hydrocarbons (during 2010) • If no SGV(health)then look to CLMG No. 2 • If background > SGV(health)then risk is more than minor and may need to be managed

  12. Environmental effects assess on a site by site basis, use conceptual site model to identify: ecological effects effects on surface water, groundwater – including human drinking water sources impacts on amenity values

  13. How will everything fit together? TA Policies & Rules Investigating sites Reporting Timber treatment Sheep dips Risk screening SGVs Analysing soils Petroleum Gasworks Classifying sites 14

  14. How will everything fit together? Investigating sites Reporting Classifying sites District Policies & Rules Analysing soils SGVs NES Risk screening Timber treatment Gasworks Petroleum Sheep dips 15

  15. Tentative timetable (NES) Discussion document Nov 09 Submissions period to Mar ‘10 Submissions report April ‘10 Proposal to Minister June ‘10 If Cabinet approves Aug ‘10 Legal drafting Sep ‘10 Regulation as NES Nov ‘10

  16. Information management Local authorities are to maintain compatible databases to record and exchange information concerning contaminant in soil … An information management system shared between regional councils and territorial authorities and made accessible to those who need to make informed decisions about affected land is fundamental to achieving the effective and efficient public administration of land affected by soil contaminants.

  17. Risk Management Containment regulatory exposure pathway control Remediation regulatory source control Behaviour non regulatory receptor control

More Related