Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288:reg:3:p7
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 3 (pt 7/8)
Character Range: 114102–117303

groundwater is affected.

It should be noted that some jurisdictions may have groundwater protection policies that require action even where levels do not exceed the AWQG values at the point of use.

3.6              Aesthetic considerations

    3.6.1          Introduction
Aesthetic issues generally relate to the presence of low-concern or non-hazardous inert foreign material (refuse) in soil or fill resulting from human activity. Sites that have been assessed as being acceptable from a human health and environmental perspective may still contain such foreign material. Geotechnical issues related to the presence of fill should be treated separately to assessment of site contamination.

Various forms of refuse may be identified in bore or test pit logs, for example fragments of concrete, metal, bricks, pottery, glass, trivial amounts of bonded asbestos-containing-materials, bitumen, ash, green waste, rubber, plastics and a wide variety of other waste materials. These materials commonly occur in former industrial and filled sites. Similarly, construction and demolition waste materials, some of which are inert and non-hazardous, are widely distributed in urban areas.

Other sites may have some soil discolouration from relatively inert chemical waste (for example, ferric metals) or residual odour (for example, natural sulphur odour).

Care should be taken to ensure adequate site characterisation, particularly when there is a diverse range of foreign material and associated fill and an appreciable risk inferred from site history (or lack thereof) for the presence of hazardous contaminants. For example, some ash fill may contain PAHs and metals, while other ash deposits may contain no contaminants of concern.

    3.6.2          Circumstances which would trigger an assessment of aesthetics
The following characteristics or presentations are examples of where site assessment may not have detected contamination above investigation or screening levels but where further assessment would be required:
    * highly malodorous soils or extracted groundwater (e.g. strong residual petroleum hydrocarbon odours, hydrogen sulphide in soil or extracted groundwater, organosulfur compounds)
    * hydrocarbon sheen on surface water
    * discoloured chemical deposits or soil staining with chemical waste other than of a very minor nature
    * large monolithic deposits of otherwise low-risk material, e.g. gypsum as powder or plasterboard, cement kiln dust
    * presence of putrescible refuse including material that may generate hazardous levels of methane such as a deep-fill profile of green waste or large quantities of timber waste
    * soils containing residue from animal burial (e.g. former abattoir sites).

    3.6.3          Assessment process for aesthetic issues
There are no specific numeric aesthetic guidelines, however site assessment requires balanced consideration of the quantity, type and distribution of foreign material or odours in relation to the specific land use and its sensitivity. For example, higher expectations for soil quality would apply to residential properties with gardens compared with industrial settings.
General assessment considerations