1. e6274
Remediation, Clean-up and other non-
NEPM concepts
Anthony Lane, Lane Consulting, anthony.lane@laneconsulting.com.au
Peter Gringinger, Lane Consulting, peter.gringinger@laneconsulting.com.au
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper explores the national, state and territory legislation, regulations and guidelines
to Land Contamination Management (LCM) process, and identifies the repetitious
guidance on the site assessment phases of the process and the dearth of guidance on the
remediation planning components of the process. The revision of the National
Environment Protection (assessment of Site Contamination) Measure and of AS4482.1 will
not provide guidance on post-assessment phases of the process.
We highlight that although the Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is an instrument formalized
in NSW and WA, guidance on remediation planning is rare. However, the RAP has
become ubiquitous in the CLM industry, due to the commercia pressures of needing to
documents the remediation planning process, despite it not having widespread legal
standing.
We describe alternative approaches from overseas, and explore the possibilities of utilizing
the Remediation Feasibility Study (RFS) process to direct more effort towards risk-based
remediation than HIL-driven clean up. This is also discussed in the context of the growing
concern amongst governments to apply ESD principles, both in the planning of
remediation and also in the growing demand for “intergenerational equity”- driven clean up.
It is proposed that the post-assessment phases of the CLM process are mad more
systematic with better guidance to industry. At the very least, a holistic representation of
the LCM process should be included in the revised NEPM and AS4482.1, and we should
be promoting the adoption of a phase in the LCM process for Remediation Feasibility
Study (RFS) and the adoption of an endorsed RAP document prior to any commitment to
remedial works.
BACKGROUND
The Land Contamination Management (LCM) process in Australia has evolved over the
past 20 years from a largely unregulated and predominantly “buyer beware” situation to
one in which we have a regulated approach. Some of the milestones in this short history
include:
• Ministerial Direction No.1 (Vic) 1989
• Certificates of Environmental Audit (Vic) 1989
• ANZEC Draft Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites
1990
• Unhealthy Building Land Act (NSW) 1990
• Contaminated Land Act (Qld) 1991
• ANZECC/NHMRC Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Contaminated
Sites 1992
• Contaminated Lane Management Act (NSW) 1997
• Site Audit Statements (NSW) 1997

2. • SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria 1997
• AS 4482.1 - Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil - 1997.
• NEPM Assessment of Contaminated Sites 1999
• Contaminated Sites Act (WA) 2003
The current published regulations and principal guidelines (with an emphasis on site
management and remediation aspects of the LCM) in each state and territory are
summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Land Contamination Management Regulations & Guidelines
Principal Legislation Selected Guidelines
NSW Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 • Guidelines for Consultants Reporting of
Contaminated Sites
• Guidelines for NSW Auditor Scheme
• Draft Guidelines for Assessment and
Management of Groundwater
Contamination
VIC Environment Protection Act 1970 • Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and
SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria 1997 Statements of Environmental Audit
SEPP Protection and Management of • The Clean Up and Management of Polluted
Contamination of Land 2002 Groundwater
• Groundwater Attenuation Zones
QLD Environmental Protection Act 1994 • Draft Guidelines for Assessment and
Management of Contaminated Land in
Queensland
WA Contaminated Sites Act 2003 • Reporting on Site Assessments
Draft Contaminated Sites Regulations 2004 • Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation for
Site Remediation
• Bioremediation of hydrocarbon
contaminated soils in WA
SA Environment Protection Act 1993 • Soil Bioremediation
Draft Environment Protection (Site • Draft Environmental Management of Onsite
Contamination) Amendment Bill 2005 Remediation
TAS Environmental Management and Pollution • Landfarming Petroleum Contaminated Soil
Control Act 1994
NT Waste Management and Pollution Control Act
2003
ACT Environment Protection Act 1997
Contaminated Sites Environment Protection
Policy 2000
CofA National Environment Protection Council Act • National Environment Protection
1994 (NEPC) (Assessment of Site Contamination)
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Measure 1999
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC)
Note: AS4482 is relied on by NEPM
A notable feature of this summary is the plethora of very similar regulations and guidelines,
which inevitably arise in Australia due to our federal system where primary jurisdiction for
management of natural resources and the environment rests with the states and territories.
In contrast, New Zealand has a simpler governance system (national government and
regional councils) and an omnibus regulation, the Resource Management Act 1991, which
is combined with a series of comprehensive guidelines (MoH/MfE, 1997; MfE, 1997, 1999,
2003, 2003 a, 2004, 2004a, 2004b).
In addition to the state legislation, regulations and guidelines, a national guideline was
developed in the form of the Environmental Site Assessment NEPM (NEPC, 1999). The
current NEPM review process is documented elsewhere, however for the purpose of this

3. discussion the scope of ANZECC 1990, 1992 and NEPM 1999 is briefly described. Other
national guidance, notably AS4482.1 emerged in 1997 and assumed the status of quasi-
regulation with minimal community or industry consultation. This standard is also under
review, with substantial input from the ACLCA, however it still promotes a relatively
dogmatic approach to sampling design.
Table 2 summarises the content of the NEPM and its predecessor guidelines.
Table 2 Scope of National Guidelines on LCM
LCM Activity ANZECC 1990 ANZECC/NHMRC 1992 NEPM 1999
Prevention of Contamination ●
Qualification of Auditors ●
Community Consultation ● ● ●
Phase 1 Preliminary ESA ● ● ●
Phase 2 Detailed ESA ● ● ●
Laboratory Methods ●
Use of Criteria and “ILs” ● ● ●
Data interpretation ●
Health Risk Assessment ● ● ●
Ecological Risk Assessment ●
Hydrogeological Assessment ●
OHS Management ● ● ●
Remediation Screening/Strategy ● ●
Remediation Feasibility
Remediation Plans
Remediation Implementation
Validation & Reporting ●
Post-Remediation Management ●
Note: ESA = Environmental Site Assessment
Figure 1 illustrates a simplified representation of the LCM process as an idealized “cycle”,
for the purposes of this discussion. It also emphasises the goal of returning land to a
multi-purpose condition, or at least “fit for use” condition following clean up, “clean” being
practically unattainable.
The current Australian
“Clean” Site regulations and guidelines
focus on the Site
Site fit for Use Contamination Assessment and Risk
Assessment part of the LCM
cycle, with greater emphasis
Remediation Site Assessments on soil than groundwater,
especially in the eastern
Risk Assessment states where groundwater is
an unknown quantity to the
Figure 1 Land Contamination Management “Cycle” populus of our cities. (The
paucity of helpful guidance to
the community and practitioners on the rudiments of hydrogeological assessment is a topic
for another day).
While NEPM provides a welcome consolidation of guidance on site assessment, some
jurisdictions still rely on their own similar guidelines in preference (e.g. NSW EPA). NEPM
is the current focus for guideline makers in the LCM industry, although it can only promise
to address the assessment part of the LCM process, avoiding the more complex and high
commercial risk part of the cycle in which remediation is planned, designed and
implemented. There is no equivalent national process for developing the much needed
guidance on remediation components of the LCM cycle.

4. Typically, the costs associated with each phase of the LCM cycle increase exponentially
from Phase 1, through Phase 2 to Remediation. Further, the number of remediation
projects in Australia is growing, despite the best efforts of the few courageous risk
assessors in the market to moderate the enthusiasm of the “dig and dumpers”. Therefore,
it follows that we have a growing part of the LCM sector of the economy which is regulated
but largely unguided in most of Australia - a most unsatisfactory situation.
REMEDIATION PLANNING
The LCM cycle looks different depending on your perspective. The process from an
uninformed observer’s view might look like that represented in Figure 2.
A Contamination Problem? The notable feature of this view is that the
process moves immediately from a one step
NEPM site assessment to the remedial action
Phase 1 / Phase 2 ESA
necessary to rectify the problem. This may be
possible in the simplest cases of immobile
? Remediation surface contamination, but is rarely the case. A
responsible and prudent environmental
practitioner should break the process into more
Site Close Out phases with hold-points for decisions, and
development of scopes and costing for each
Figure 2: Simplistic View of LCM successive phase.
The typical consultant’s conventional view generally looks like that represented in Figure 3.
Not only does this include a phased approach to site assessment and provides for an
assessment of risk early in the process, but it also includes a Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
The RAP typically identifies the appropriate remediation scope and method, the means of
delivery, and presents costings (usually
A Contamination Problem? under separate cover) to give the client
an opportunity to integrate the remedial
NEPM Phase 1ESA strategy with their project plans. The RAP
is already widely adopted in the CLM
Phase 2 ESA industry, despite having no legal standing
Risk Assessment
in most states.
Post Phase 2 ESA
The RAP has been included in NSW
RAP
? guidance since 1995 as a key component
in the LCM framework, later regulated
Remediation Implementation
under the Contaminated Land
Management Act (NSW)1997. The NSW
BU’s restored CUTEP
RAP includes a key component in which
the selected remediation option is
Monitoring & Management
justified – this could be seen as a
feasibility assessment component. The
Site Close Out
NSW EPA guidelines on RAP
Figure 3: LCM Process – A Conventional View preparation (in EPA NSW, 1997) present
a useful template for other state
jurisdictions without such guidance, and were more recently adopted in a similar guideline
in WA.

5. Another feature of remediation documentation is the RAP jargon. A selection of the
terminology often used interchangeably, which make the meaning of some RAP
documents most ambiguous, includes; The Goal; Remediation Strategy; Targets;
Objectives; Performance Monitoring; Validation; Remediation Feasibility Assessment;
Clean Up to The Extent Practicable (CUTEP); NAPL CUTEP; Mothballing; Groundwater
Management Plan; MNA; Triggers; Contingency Measures. There are no authoritative
guidance in Australia as to the intended meaning of most of these terms in the context of a
RAP. The NEPM only assists with guidance on the assessment phases of the process.
It is well established in most jurisdictions, and in the NEPM, that remediation should be
justified on the basis of the assessed risk to human health or ecological systems.
However, there are a number of circumstances, especially where groundwater is
contaminated, that the risks may be acceptable but clean-up seems to be necessary. This
can arise where the responsible authority decides that the ESD principles, particularly
Intergenerational Equity and Precautionary Principles would make inaction unacceptable
to the community, thus becoming a driver for remediation action.
REMEDIATION FESIBILITY ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN
While the formal inclusion of RAP into the CLM process in Australia would be a welcome
innovation, this often only formalises a dogmatic approach to selection of remediation
method and strategies. The vast majority of RAPs still relate to “dig and dump”
remediation projects. In a growing number of complex cases, especially involving
groundwater, LNAPL and DNAPL and recalcitrant compounds, the remediation planning
phase needs to be a more substantial activity than experienced on most projects in the
Australian market.
The remediation components of the LCM cycle need to include a process for assessment
of the feasibility of various remediation strategies and methods – a Remediation Feasibility
Study (RFS). This has been a feature of the US system where complex large scale
remediation projects have been undertaken for many years.
It must also be recognized that the US experience would not be directly transferable due to
differences in the intensity of contaminating industries and the dependence on
groundwater supply (approximately 45% of US potable water supply is from groundwater
compared to less than say 2% in Australia). However, a brief discussion of the US
approach is instructive.
In the US there are two main federal programs for remediation of contaminated sites:
The RCRA Corrective Action Program (commenced in 1976)
The CERCLA “Superfund” program (commenced in 1980)
The Superfund cleanup process, for example, involves a highly prescribed and inflexible
system of site assessment and remediation planning including:
The Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site Inspection (SI).
The inclusion of a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) via the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) based on limited investigations and public consultation.
A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is performed at the site to
characterize site conditions, assess risk to human health and the environment and
conduct treatability testing of treatment technologies and detailed evaluation of
alternative remedial actions.
A Record of Decision (ROD) is made by the EPA on the remedial strategy.

6. Remedial Design (RD) is a separate phase where the remedial strategy is
transformed into a documented design to allow contractors to tender for the works.
The Remedial Action (RA) works follow.
The process is completed in a series of inspection, verification, risk assessment,
monitoring and maintenance, and institutional controls that may conclude in closure
with deletion of the site from the NPL.
The RCRA Corrective Action program has similarities to Superfund, although recent
changes, notably the “Brownfields” program in 2002 (enactment of the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act), recognised the inflexibility and high cost
of taking a large number of sites through this process. Regulators and site managers are
increasingly recognising the value of implementing a more dynamic approach to
streamline assessment and cleanup activities at brownfields sites and by advocating
innovative, more effective, less costly technological remediation approaches as well as
developing streamlined guidance and support (e.g. Brownfields Road Map; USEPA, 2005).
It is notable that the emphasis of these processes is intended to be the remediation of
sites, their assessment being a given (a well understood and documented process
evolving since the 1970s).
Other national jurisdictions have also developed processes for guiding remediation efforts
under different legal backgrounds (e.g. UK and Germany), but with similar procedural
structures. A most contemporary and potentially more intuitively familiar process to
Australians than the US EPA processes has been developed in the UK through recent
guidance in CLR11 (EA UK/DEFRA, 2004). Another innovative process focused on
“Contaminated Mega-sites” in Europe is the so-called “Welcome” project lead by the Dutch
agency TNO (www.euwelcome.nl/kims/index.php). This again focuses on the risk-based
clean up and management of complex sites or districts.
Site Assessments/ The UK process for contaminated land
Risk Assessment management detailed in CLR11 (Figure 4)
provides a useful model for consideration in
Remediation Options
Identification
Australia. It is founded on a risk-based
Remediation
approach with remediation feasibility
Appraisal
Options
Remediation Options
assessment, remediation design and planning,
Evaluation and long term management components.
These are all aspects required in the successful
Remediation Strategy implementation of any complex contaminated
land management project.
Remediation Implementation Plan The CLM components we should be adopting
following the site assessment and risk
Implementation of
Design, Implementation & Verification assessment phases, would involved an initial
step to define clean up goals, objectives and
Remediation
Long Term Monitoring targets, which may be in the form of restoring
Strategy
beneficial uses of environmental segments
Site Close Out affected by contamination, or can be risk based.
An initial screening of available remediation
Figure 4: Simplified process of technologies and evaluation of their applicability
managing land contamination in the UK to site-specific conditions (technical, logistical
and financial), leading to selection of the most
appropriate option or combination of options (at the same time or consecutively - treatment
trains), defined and documented in detail in the Remediation Strategy.

7. Depending on the size of the site and complexity of the contamination issues, a more or
less extensive remedial investigation and feasibility study step in the process is required,
including pilot trials, treatability studies as well as more detailed financial analysis and
comparison of remediation options. The outcome of this process is the selection of the
remediation approach and provision of remediation design parameters, which will be used
in a remediation design phase. It is debatable whether a separate Remediation Design
phase is warranted in many cases, as many projects are undertaken on a “design and
construct” basis in which the RFS report is provided as the basis for the contractor to
tender and provide draft RAP documents. This keeps it relatively simple, although in the
most complex cases a separate design phase by the project owner may be justified.
The idealised LCM process including the RFS and RAP is summarised in Figure 5.
A Contamination Problem? The next step involves development
of implementation and management
NEPM Phase 1ESA plans for the remediation works, to
allow comprehensive documentation
Phase 2 + 3? ESA Risk Assessment of all steps in the remediation effort,
and provide the required data and
Define Goals / Objectives / Targets information for decisions on
remediation completion (CUTEP or
? Remediation Screening / Evaluation clean up to restore beneficial uses),
remediation optimisation or
Remediation Strategy contingency measures, if required.
RAP
Pilot Trials
RI / FS
Treatability Studies
Cost Analysis Additionally, procedures are required
for remediation implementation and
Remedy Selection / (Design) management, monitoring and
performance assessment and reviews
Remediation Implementation & until remediation targets are achieved
Management Plans
and/or beneficial uses of the segment
of the environment are restored. Plus
Clean up Targets Achieved?
work plans & programs, construction
& commissioning, OM&M, triggers,
CUTEP
contingencies, performance reporting,
remediation system optimisation,
Ongoing Monitoring & EPA Review or request for
Management termination of Monitoring & validation and verification of
Management remediation efforts, and
environmental and health & safety
Site Close Out management during remediation.
Figure 5: LCM Process – A Comprehensive View
Many remediation efforts will undergo
further regulatory controls, either in the form of institutional or administrative controls and
ongoing monitoring of the long-term attainment of the remediation goals. This requires a
final step of regular reviews and the possibility to terminate regulatory controls and to
achieve final site close out.
While wholesale adoption in Australia of this process or the UK type of guideline is unlikely
in the short term, it would be appropriate for environmental authorities to recognise the
need for such guidance. At the very least, a holistic representation of the LCM process
should be included in the revised NEPM and AS4482.1, and we should be promoting the
adoption of a phase in the LCM process for Remediation Feasibility Study (RFS) and
adoption of an endorsed RAP document prior to any commitment to remedial works.

8. REFERENCES
Australia and New Zealand Environment Council & National Health and Medical Research
Council 1990: Draft Australian Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of
Contaminated Sites. June 1990.
Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & National Health and
Medical Research Council 1992: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the
Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. January 1992.
Environment Agency and Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EA
UK/DEFRA) 2004: Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.
Contaminated Land Report 11, September 2004.
Environment Protection Authority NSW 1997 Contaminated Sites, Guidelines for
Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites.
Ministry of Health & Ministry for the Environment (MoH/MFE): 1997; Health and
Environmental Guidelines for selected Timber Treatment Chemicals, Wellington, June
1997.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 1997: Guidelines for Assessing and Managing
Contaminated Gasworks Site in New Zealand. Wellington, August 1997.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 1999: Guidelines for Assessing and Managing
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand. Wellington, June 1999.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 2003: Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New
Zealand. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1, Wellington, October 2003.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 2003a: Hierarchy and Application in New Zealand of
Environmental Guideline Values. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 2,
Wellington, November 2003.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 2004: Risk Screening System. Contaminated Land
Management Guidelines No. 3, Wellington, February 2004.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 2004a: Classification and Information Management
Protocol. Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 4, Wellington, June 2004.
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 2004b: Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils.
Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5, Wellington, February 2004.
National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) 1999: National Environment Protection
(Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.
Standards Australia 1997: Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially
contaminated soil, Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds. AS4482.1-1997.
USEPA 2005: Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Fourth Edition. EPA-542-B-05-001, September 2005.