Introduction - Amazon S3



EPA Closing Remarks to the West Gate Tunnel Project Inquiry and Advisory CommitteeContents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc493244965 \h 1Contaminated soil and spoil management PAGEREF _Toc493244966 \h 3Groundwater PAGEREF _Toc493244967 \h 4Surface Water PAGEREF _Toc493244968 \h 4Ecology PAGEREF _Toc493244969 \h 4Air Quality PAGEREF _Toc493244970 \h 5Air monitoring program PAGEREF _Toc493244971 \h 5Smoky vehicle enforcement program PAGEREF _Toc493244972 \h 5Investigate the feasibility of a low emission truck zone PAGEREF _Toc493244973 \h 6Vegetation barriers PAGEREF _Toc493244974 \h 6Further investigations PAGEREF _Toc493244975 \h 6In-tunnel exposure PAGEREF _Toc493244976 \h 6Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc493244977 \h 7Surface noise and vibration PAGEREF _Toc493244978 \h 7Human health PAGEREF _Toc493244979 \h 8Greenhouse gas PAGEREF _Toc493244980 \h 8Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc493244981 \h 8IntroductionThe Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) has continued its involvement in the West Gate Tunnel Project (WGTP) throughout the course of the 6-weeks of hearings before the Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC), listening to and, where appropriate, examining the expert witnesses of, the Western Distributor Authority (WDA), state and local authorities, utility providers, community groups, businesses and other stakeholders and considering the written submissions and support material provided by those parties.As stated in our opening, the involvement of the EPA is to inform the IAC in its capacity as the State’s independent environmental advisor and within the terms of its reference. In closing, that advice refers to – what conclusions have been reached in the EPA’s focus areas;what concerns or information deficiencies of the WGTP have been reconciled and what remain outstanding; andhow to address any outstanding issues.The areas of focus for the EPA (with reference to the impact assessment technical reports) are – contaminated soil and spoil management;groundwater;surface water;ecology;air quality;surface noise and vibration;human health; andgreenhouse gas.The ventilation of issues across these areas throughout the course of the hearings crystallised the disparity of views and interests regarding the WGTP. Accordingly, it is appropriate to point out that, given its remit to advise on the environmental effects statement (EES) for the WGTP and assess the works approval for the tunnel ventilation system (Works Approval), the advice of the EPA given in these hearings and in these remarks - is based on the project details and configuration as presented by the WDA;in the absence of substantial, material and irreconcilable adverse environmental effects, does not extend to a recommendation on whether the project should proceed;does not address the overall merits of the WGTP; andassumes a continuation of the EPA’s consultancy and involvement in the project, should the IAC recommend it proceed.The EPA has separately submitted its recommended changes to the environmental performance requirements (EPRs), which, by and large, address the issues raised in its written submissions and opening comments.These remarks and the recommended changes to the EPRs take into account that much of the detail for the WGTP is yet to be formulated in the detailed design phase. This was a common theme in responses to examination questions asked by the EPA. As noted in the EPA’s opening remarks, the precision of its advice is dependent upon the project detail to which it is availed, which develops throughout the project lifecycle.Accordingly, and consistent with the EPA’s regulatory and advisory functions, material aspects of construction plans and operational management are subject to further consultation and the satisfaction of the EPA, which is reflected in the proposed amendments to the EPRs.It was not considered the WGTP presents a substantial, material and irreconcilable environmental hazard – based on the information and modelling presented during the hearings; andhaving regard to the precautionary principle.For the most part, the concerns of the EPA regarding the project have been addressed through tightened and expanded conditions in the EPRs, which are designed to facilitate regulatory compliance, better environmental outcomes and the protection of human health. It is not proposed to rehearse the amendments proposed to the EPRs in detail, but rather raise, on a general level, the issues that have raised most interest or concern in respect of the EPA’s focus areas.In respect of its assessment of the Works Approval, the EPA has entered into an agreement with the WDA pursuant to s. 67A of the EP Act extending its decision-making period to 7 December 2017, following the Minister’s assessment of the EES.Contaminated soil and spoil managementAn issue that was raised in examination concerned the proposed handling of contaminated soil in terms of its storage, treatment, reprocessing, on-site retention and transport. Whilst there is a framework under State environmental legislation consisting of works approvals and licences to regulate these activities, the EPA will also consider reclassification of contaminated soil upon application and demonstration of its suitability for specific reuse within the project. A detailed management plan approved by an environmental auditor appointed under the Environmental Protection Act 1970 (EP Act) and to the satisfaction of the EPA would be required. This process should facilitate the reuse of spoil, reduce the amount of contaminated soil disposed to landfill, optimise diversion paths and relieve some administrative burden whilst maintaining environmental protections, and is thereby aimed at achieving a ‘best practice’ outcome and waste-minimisation.The EPA has proposed changes to the relevant EPRs in this regard.GroundwaterThe EPA has proposed the EPRs include a considerable amount of additional detail concerning groundwater, together with a new EPR relating to the management, treatment, reuse and disposal of PFAS-contaminated groundwater in consultation with the EPA.The proposed changes to existing EPRs are significant in that they recommend – the development of a groundwater management plan (GMP) in consultation with the EPA;an expanded monitoring program prior to construction and reporting obligations designed to identify and notify the occurrence of groundwater contamination with a view to implementation of management and contingency measures; andfurther assessments to avoid or minimise the mobilisation of groundwater encountered by the project. It is acknowledged that the groundwater management measures are those recommended by the WDA’s expert, Jonathan Medd, so should be incorporated into a dedicated GMP.One residual issue is the proposed discharge of groundwater to sewer as the primary method of disposal, raising the issue of what consultation or agreements have been entered with the utility provider. This is a matter for further information from the WDA and/or investigation by the IAC.Surface WaterEPA has proposed changes to the SWP1 and SWP4 that serve to tighten the controls around surface water by prioritising the maintenance of existing water quality and conditions through the development of a baseline monitoring program and prioritising actions designed to maintain background conditions and enhance beneficial uses at upstream, local and downstream areas of the WGTP.A clear understanding of existing background conditions and beneficial uses within both the project area itself as well as its area of influence will serve to inform the development of an effective surface water management plan (SWMP) to manage the risks and potential impacts of the project.The SWMP should also include management measures for runoff and any potential disturbance of contaminated bed soil associated with construction, with amendments to SWP7 proposed to achieve this.EcologyA minor amendment has been proposed to EP5 to expand control measures and disturbance to riverbed and aquatic habitat caused by construction to cover both local and downstream impacts.Air QualityMuch attention has been paid throughout the hearings to Millers Road, due to the predicted increases in noise and pollution levels caused by the redistribution of vehicle traffic, particularly heavy vehicles, within the inner-west road network.The EPA make five recommendations to mitigate roadside air quality impacts as follows.Air monitoring programImplementation of an air monitoring program is required to understand the local impacts and assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce local impacts.Such a program should be co-designed, which is a collaborative process in which community members share the decision-making on issues that will directly affect them. Co-design in this regard is appropriate to be implemented in the WGTP, which is anticipated to directly affect community in Melbourne’s inner-west. Members of the community have fought hard to have their concerns heard, and co-design ensures community input is at the core of future decision-making about the air monitoring in their local environment.EPA has previously applied co-design in the Latrobe Valley air monitoring program following the Hazelwood mine fires. The EPA can help facilitate this process and provide advice to the WDA and community members and groups based on its experience in the Latrobe Valley co-design project. Information about this project is available on EPA’s website: . Smoky vehicle enforcement programIt is proposed the WDA fund a government-run smoky vehicle enforcement program for the WGTP, which could be specifically developed and applied to Millers Road to assist in reducing gross air polluting vehicle emissions.Noting that this program could also be applied to the tunnel components of the project, it is akin to the program in the M5 East Tunnel in Sydney that targets gross polluting vehicles and which has contributed to improved visibility and air quality in the M5 tunnel. Essentially, the program identifies gross polluting vehicles and then fines the owners of these vehicles and/or invites them to the retrofit of diesel vehicles and repair initiative to reduce or eliminate emissions from these vehicles in tunnel and surrounding areas. The program, which has been operating since early 2013, consists of a smoky vehicle camera system using smoke detectors, video and still cameras, and optical character recognition software to capture the registration number of smoky vehicles. The cost of the M5 East Tunnel smoky vehicle camera system is in the order of $3-4 million, with similar costs being anticipated for the WGTP. More information is available at . In this regard, the WDA should be expected to fund measures and programs related to the mitigation of impacts caused by the project, albeit in relation to the tunnel or road components.Investigate the feasibility of a low emission truck zoneLower emission vehicles can contribute to an overall reduction in the emissions from the vehicle fleet, however the effectiveness in significantly reducing impacts on Millers Road needs to be evaluated.Vegetation barriersWhere feasible, vegetation barriers should be established, taking into account physical constraints, lines of sight, etc.Further investigationsFurther targeted air quality investigations should be conducted of Millers Road and other roads anticipated to be adversely affected by increased traffic (such as Hyde Street) to more accurately determine variances in ambient air quality, sources of pollution, traffic flows and volumes, type of particulate matter, meteorological effects, etc.In-tunnel exposureIn respect of the tunnel component of the WGTP, the EPA recommends warning signs on the tunnel entry, in-tunnel and/or verbal messages over a public announcement system directing drivers to wind up their windows and switch their car ventilation settings to re-circulate.This is based on the NSW government In-tunnel Air Quality (Nitrogen Dioxide) Policy, which can be applied to address PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. The in-cabin study involving measurements of NO2 for nine different vehicles through five tunnels in Sydney found reductions of in-cabin concentrations ranged from at least 70% less than in-tunnel levels to typically 90% less than in-tunnel levels for newer vehicles.Whilst there were a number of submissions advocating for the inclusion of in-tunnel filtration, the evidence through modelling before the IAC indicates any improvement in ambient air quality emissions dispersed out of the stack at ground level would be minor and so does not appear justified, particularly given the significant financial and maintenance imposition of such a feature. Notwithstanding, as a precautionary measure, the EPA recommends the tunnel design accommodate the retrofitting of pollution control devices as reflected in the proposed amendments to AQP1 and AQP5.ConclusionIt is apparent that there can be no one solution to address the pollution effects of the WGTP generally, but particularly in respect of Millers Road, so a coordinated and location-specific approach of mitigation measures must be implemented to keep exposures to population at or below accepted national standards.As reasonably stated by Professor Anderson, all strategies that reduce pollution levels at a local level should be investigated.Surface noise and vibrationThe issues of – what mitigation strategies are proposed to be implemented; anda qualification rationale as to what construction is regarded as ‘unavoidable works’ under the Noise Control Guidelines remains uncertain, despite investigation of these issues during examination by the EPA.These issues have therefore been addressed via a proposed amendment to NVP3.In respect of noise generated by the tunnel ventilation system, the EPA expects low frequency noise to be addressed in the detailed design as part of the overall noise attenuation measures as noted by Mr Stead under examination.Human healthThe issues for human health cross other focus areas that are addressed elsewhere in these remarks and earlier submissions.Greenhouse gasBoth the overall project and the tunnel ventilation system are to achieve an ‘excellent’ rating on the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia’s (ISCA) infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating framework.EPA has proposed changes to GGP1 and GGP2 to reflect this.The EPA seeks to ensure that efficiency innovations and application of the ISCA framework remain front of mind in the detailed design phase so that opportunities to identify and implement best practice and sustainability and energy saving measures are not overlooked or dismissed due to any retrofitting constraints caused by the need to accord to the reference design.The WDA ought also consider energy savings through construction and excavation methods that reduce diesel and water use, as well as quantifying carbon reductions brought by offset planting. Whilst Mr Symons considered offset planting would not achieve significant carbon reductions, there is no apparent investigation of this measure.Lastly, the EPA will be assessing compliance with the Protocol for Environmental Management – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Efficiency in Industry in respect of the tunnel ventilation system, which Mr Symons indicated would be incorporated into the detailed design.ConclusionWhilst the EES documents and the evidence presented to the IAC did not reveal any reasons why the project should not be able to proceed, it is apparent the WGTP will present a number of environmental risks that need to be managed. Comprehensive and effective EPRs must be developed and applied to control the impacts of the project to ensure that any environmental effects comply with applicable environmental standards.The EPA commends its proposed amendments to the EPRs to the IAC and invites any further assistance it can give to the IAC in making its recommendations.PETER VAN EPSCounsel for the EPA VictoriaInstructed by EPA Victoria15 September 2017 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download