HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Ministerial Statement

ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (14:01): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The ministerial statement, for the benefit of the house, is about the remediation of the new RAH site. I have been asked a number of questions about it both here and by the media, so I thought I would take the opportunity to give a detailed explanation as to what is happening.

Remediating the site is part of the construction contract for the new hospital. SA Health Partnership has a contract with Hansen Yuncken Leighton Contractors Joint Venture (HYLC) to design and construct the hospital. HYLC has in turn subcontracted elements of the remediation process to a number of specialist firms. Financial details of subcontracts are commercial-in-confidence.

However, I can report that an estimated total of 462,000 tonnes of soil will be removed from the new RAH site. As at the end of February 2012, about 55 per cent or just over half the soil—that is, 257,200 tonnes—has been removed from the site. This is the critical bit: upon leaving the site, the soil was classified by those who were responsible for removing it.

On leaving the site, 76,700 tonnes was classified as waste landfill; 29,900 tonnes was classified as intermediate landfill cover; 115,800 tonnes was low-level contaminated waste; and there is also 34,800 tonnes of what was suspected to be high-level contaminated waste, which is an informal term—the technical term for that is above low-level contaminated waste.

The rest of the soil is expected to be removed by late 2012 and is anticipated to be classified as either intermediate landfill cover or waste fill. The figures I have given are in tonnes, although under some of the specifications you will see the amount given in cubic metres, but I have used tonnes today just to be consistent.

The tonne to cubic metre conversion rate does vary depending on the density of the material and how wet it is and so on. As a general rule, as many would know, it is about 2:1—so, two tonnes to every cubic metre. Waste fill and intermediate landfill cover are taken straight off the new RAH site in accordance with EPA guidelines to other sites either for landfill or for re-use.

Low-level contaminated waste is taken to a Southern Resource Co engineered landfill site in southern Adelaide. Suspected high-level waste is also taken to a Southern Resource Co facility in southern Adelaide. High-level waste is from hotspots of contamination. I visited the site last week and I was advised that there are currently 19 hot spots.

Using a cautious approach, suspected high-level waste is taken to a licensed landfill site where it is held in temporary storage so it can be further tested to confirm if it is in fact high-level waste and, if it is, if required, treatment via bioremediation, chemical fixation/stabilisation process applies. Testing has found so far that no soil from the site has been classified as high-level contaminated waste—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Speaker, I come in here with all of the facts about the case. If they have evidence that is contrary to this, they should demonstrate it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The facts are, as I said, that testing has found that so far no soil from the site has been classified as high-level contaminated waste and, therefore, can be disposed of to landfill without treatment. The remediation process is overseen by an independent environmental site auditor, who is licensed by the EPA and appointed by the state. The EPA also has done some testing to ensure that the process they have used is correct, I am advised by the EPA.

SA Health Partnership takes the risk of the cost of remediating any known contamination, that is contamination that was in existence prior to 20 May—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: There isn't any; it's gone by magic.

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Waite!

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That is, contamination that was in existence prior to 20 May 2011, as identified in the state's extensive on-site remediation investigations. These costs are within the SA Health Partnership's $1.85 billion design and construction costs. The state takes 80 per cent of the cost of remediating additional unknown contamination, that is contamination that is not foreseen from the extensive on-site remediation investigations undertaken by the state. SA Health Partnership takes the remaining 20 per cent of the cost of remediating unknown contamination, which should incentivise SA Health Partnerships to minimise the cost of conducting such works.

Any claim arising regarding remediation will be assessed at the end of the remediation process on what is known as an 'open book' basis, when all information related to remediation of the site is available. So, in order for the state to pay extra, it has to be demonstrated that it was unforeseen and that there is an additional cost. The contractual arrangements are clear and are available on the state procurement website.

At the completion of all remediation work an audit report is required from the independent environmental auditor certifying that the site has been remediated to the extent necessary for a hospital. It is the responsibility of SA Health Partnership to obtain this approval.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT