|
|
Changes to Contaminated Land Management Act |
|
| Focus: |
Property |
| Services: |
Property & Projects |
| Industry Focus: |
Property |
| Date: |
18 November 2009 |
| Author: |
Jane Robins, Senior Associate, Sydney |
THE LATEST CHANGES IN CONTAMINATION OBLIGATIONS IN NSW: DO YOU HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT?
Changes to Contaminated Land Management Act
Since December 2008, the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 has been undergoing an overhaul, with new waves of provisions coming into force in December, then July. Significant changes have included:
-
a change in the trigger for intervention by the EPA from “significant risk of harm” to “significantly contaminated land”;
-
the introduction of Preliminary Investigation Orders to force a range of people to undertake investigation;
-
“Management Orders” replacing “Investigation” and “Remediation” Orders;
-
the removal of the “no knowledge” defence;
-
the introduction of an offence for providing the EPA or a Site Auditor with false or misleading information;
-
the introduction of Penalty Infringement Notices to enable certain breaches to be dealt with by way of fine rather than court; and
-
the ability for the EPA to impose conditions on or revoke a voluntary proposal.
Duty to report contamination
In addition, section 60, the provision imposing a duty to report contamination, has been amended. On 1 December 2009, new Guidelines under section 60 come into effect. The Guidelines provide further detail on:
-
how to determine when to report, including a checklist for site owners and responsible people;
-
the notification triggers, i.e. the concentration of contaminants. It should be noted that these are set quite low, especially in relation to groundwater, to trigger reporting in more cases;
-
situations which are not intended to require reporting, such as diffuse urban pollution, the EPA is already involved, or a Site Audit Statement has been issued certifying the use of the land;
-
the factors as to whether a person should have been “reasonably aware” of the contamination, such as their qualifications and training, whether they could reasonably have sought advice and the circumstances of the contamination;
-
the form of the report to the EPA.
Penalties
Failure to comply with this duty to report can result in prosecution by the EPA, with maximum penalties currently set at:
-
Corporations: $165,000, with a further penalty of $77,000 for each day the offence continues; and
-
Individuals: $77,000, with a further penalty of $33,000 for each day the offence continues.
To learn more about these changes and how they might affect you, please contact Jane Robins at jane.robins@dibbsbarker.com. DibbsBarker will be conducting a seminar regarding these changes. Please register your interest by contacting Katie Graham at katie.graham@dibbsbarker.com.
Jane Robins, Senior Associate, Sydney
|
Recent Publications
01 Feb 2012
On 25 November 2011 the NSW Supreme Court awarded Ms Pedulla $3.8m in compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund.
25 Jan 2012
The FOS Summer 2011 Circular has provided an update on systemic issues identified during the September quarter of 2011, and much needed guidance in relation to the settlement provisions of its Terms of Reference.
19 Jan 2012
On 2 December 2011, ASIC released Consultation Paper 172: “Review of External Dispute Resolution Jurisdiction over Complaints When Members Commence Debt Recovery Legal Proceedings” (CP172).
|