2017/2021: South Nowra: Select Committee on PFAS (per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) Submission 124
“…another PFAS contamination issue in the Shoalhaven which has been very little discussed and is probably unknown to most people. This arises from the use of paper offcuts for soil improvement. The offcuts concerned were ‘waste’ from the local sawmill which were fire retarding as a result of having been soaked in PFAS.
How the matter came to light is described in a NSW Land and Environment Court judgment_ Allen Price & Scarratts Pty Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council [2021] NSWLEC 1362. The judgment is lengthy but is available online on Caselaw NSW.
The Court proceedings arose as an appeal by the Applicant against the deemed refusal by the Respondent (the Council) of a Development Application for subdivision for the purpose of a large rural residential estate.
Council had raised a large number of issues, but site contamination was not one of them.
As is typical in Class1 appeals in the LEC, the matter commenced on site where objectors spoke to their concerns, follow by a site inspection by the Court, the parties and their experts (reported in [2] to [17] of the judgment).
During the course of the inspection the Court drew attention to a long low bund in part of the site and inquired as to what it was for and what it was made of.
Despite the fact that it was a very obvious feature, (see photos in [36] of the
judgment ) and that numerous experts had investigated the site, no one present could answer the questions.
The responses to the Court’s queries [17]-[23] showed that it was made of paper offcuts from the local sawmill (when it was under previous ownership), applied as a soil improver, and that it contained PFAS.
Further investigation was therefore required- documented at [24] – [42] of the
judgment.
Although a large amount of the contaminated paper offcuts were placed on the site the subject of the proceedings it is important to recognize that any Shoalhaven resident could collect offcuts for application to their gardens, and there does not appear to be any records of who made collections.
Has Council made landholders aware of the possibility that their gardens might be PFAS contaminated?
The PFAS contamination having been discovered, how it should be managed
became a major matter for discussion between the parties and their expanded number of experts. ( [195]- [220]) The Applicant developed a proposal for construction of a containment cell which would accommodate the contaminated sediment removed from across the site, and the long term management of the cell.
The Court approved the Development Application, subject to a considerable
number of conditions.
Simply because a Development Application has been granted consent does not necessarily mean that work commences- there can be many reasons why an applicant might decide not to proceed. I do not know whether development commenced and if it did whether the conditions were properly observed,
The Inquiry might find the case of relevance as identifying a ‘new’ cause of PFAS contamination which affects a relatively large area.