11.07.2015 Views

National Action Plan for Addressing Dioxins in Australia

National Action Plan for Addressing Dioxins in Australia

National Action Plan for Addressing Dioxins in Australia

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

EPHC<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program: <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong><strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Address<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>July 2005EPHCEnvironment Protection and Heritage Council


NOTEThis <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> has been developed by a Project Team of government officers, at therequest of the Environment Protection and Heritage Council. The views and op<strong>in</strong>ions expressed <strong>in</strong>this publication do not necessarily reflect those of any members or member government of theEnvironment Protection and Heritage Council.The contents of the Paper should not be used <strong>for</strong> any purpose other than as a basis <strong>for</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>gcomment to the EPHC Stand<strong>in</strong>g Committee.ISBN Web: 0 642 323 89 5ISBN Pr<strong>in</strong>t: 0 642 323 90 9A publication of the Environment Protection and Heritage Council© July 2005This work is copyright. It may be reproduced <strong>in</strong> part subject to the <strong>in</strong>clusion ofacknowledgment of the source and no commercial sale.


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>PREFACEStart<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> mid 2001, a range of studies were undertaken through the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program,which <strong>in</strong>volved measur<strong>in</strong>g emissions from sources such as bushfires, as well as assess<strong>in</strong>g the levels ofdiox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the environment, food and population. The f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of these studies were used todeterm<strong>in</strong>e the risk diox<strong>in</strong>s pose to our health and the environment.The reports from these studies show that the ambient levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the environment aregenerally low compared with other countries and that levels <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n population and <strong>in</strong> ourfood are also low.The next stage <strong>in</strong> the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program is to determ<strong>in</strong>e what actions need to be taken toensure that these levels rema<strong>in</strong> low and, where feasible, are reduced further or elim<strong>in</strong>ated. TheEnvironment Protection and Heritage Stand<strong>in</strong>g Committee welcomes comments on the actionsoutl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> this <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>. Proposals <strong>for</strong> other actions which could be considered are alsowelcome.Comments, along with name of the submitter, will be made publicly available. People ororganisations wish<strong>in</strong>g to rema<strong>in</strong> anonymous should request this <strong>in</strong> their submission.Submissions may be made to:Sarah ThomasChemical Policy SectionDepartment of the Environment and HeritageGPO Box 787CANBERRA ACT 2601Email diox<strong>in</strong>s@deh.gov.auPhone 1800 803 772Fax 02 6274 1164The clos<strong>in</strong>g date <strong>for</strong> submissions is Friday, 26 August 2005.All submissions are public documents unless clearly marked “confidential” and may be madeavailable to other <strong>in</strong>terested parties, subject to Freedom of In<strong>for</strong>mation Act provisions.General enquires on this paper or related background material should be directed to 1800 803 772.Form of submission:Submissions may be made <strong>in</strong> hardcopy or electronically emailed to diox<strong>in</strong>s@deh.gov.auElectronic submissions should preferably be provided <strong>in</strong> Microsoft Word <strong>for</strong>mat.In mak<strong>in</strong>g comments, please set out the basis <strong>for</strong> your views/conclusion and <strong>in</strong>dicate the relevant pagenumbers and/or section titles. Where you refer to publications or websites please <strong>in</strong>clude fullreferences.2


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>3


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Table of ContentsPREFACE ..........................................................................................................................................2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................6Units of measurements.....................................................................................................................101. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................111.1 <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program ............................................................................................... 111.2 What are diox<strong>in</strong>s?............................................................................................................. 112. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT DIOXINS IN AUSTRALIA? ...........................................133. WHY ARE DIOXIN LEVELS GENERALLY LOW IN AUSTRALIA? ..............................154. WHAT ARE THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION?..........165. WAYS TO ADDRESS DIOXINS IN AUSTRALIA..............................................................195.1 AIR................................................................................................................................... 19Emissions from combustion facilities...................................................................................... 19Emissions from domestic wood heaters................................................................................... 20Emissions from motor vehicles................................................................................................ 20Emissions from bushfires......................................................................................................... 21Air toxics NEPM...................................................................................................................... 215.2 SOILS............................................................................................................................... 22Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPM....................................................................................................... 225.3 WATER ........................................................................................................................... 235.4 SEDIMENTS ................................................................................................................... 235.5 BIOTA ............................................................................................................................. 245.6 WASTES.......................................................................................................................... 25Sewage effluent and biosolids.................................................................................................. 25Trade Waste ............................................................................................................................. 25Pulp mill guidel<strong>in</strong>es ................................................................................................................. 27Industrial residues .................................................................................................................... 27Used Oil Regulations ............................................................................................................... 285.7 NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY .................................................................... 295.8 HUMAN INTAKE........................................................................................................... 295.9 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS..................................................................................... 31Agricultural commodities ........................................................................................................ 31Stockfeeds ................................................................................................................................ 324


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>5.10 FOOD............................................................................................................................... 335.11 OTHER ACTIONS.............................................................................................................. 346. WHAT MEASURES DO OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE FOR DIOXINS?...........................35Air ..................................................................................................................................................35Soils..................................................................................................................................................35Water and sediments ........................................................................................................................35Biota.................................................................................................................................................35Foods................................................................................................................................................35Human body burden.........................................................................................................................35Appendix 1: Diox<strong>in</strong> measures <strong>in</strong> other countries.............................................................................37References........................................................................................................................................45TablesTable 1: Jurisdictional regulations <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong> emissions to air ........................................................19Table 2: Examples of diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> other countries.....................................................................36Table 3: Current standards and guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the Member States of the EU.................435


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> sets out a range of actions that could be taken by <strong>Australia</strong>n governments toensure that the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> rema<strong>in</strong> low and, where feasible, are reduced further orelim<strong>in</strong>ated. The actions <strong>in</strong>clude:Air emissions• Governments to develop national guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s emissions from combustion facilities<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g adopt<strong>in</strong>g or reaffirm<strong>in</strong>g the level of 0.1 ng TEQ/m 3 .• Governments to use recommendations <strong>in</strong> the Stockholm Convention Best AvailableTechniques and Best Environmental Practices guidance <strong>for</strong> new facilities and <strong>for</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>gfacilities when they are upgraded.• Governments to cont<strong>in</strong>ue with exist<strong>in</strong>g measures aimed at reduc<strong>in</strong>g particle emissions fromdomestic woodheaters <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g community education on the correct operat<strong>in</strong>g practices <strong>for</strong>woodheaters, seek<strong>in</strong>g improvements to woodheater <strong>in</strong>stallation and emission standards, andsponsor<strong>in</strong>g research to improve our understand<strong>in</strong>g of woodheater emissions.• The <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to monitor overseas research look<strong>in</strong>g at emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s fromdiesel, LPG and CNG vehicles to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether further action is required <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.• <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to undertake further research on diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from bushfires toprovide firmer evidence of diox<strong>in</strong>s to help governments determ<strong>in</strong>e appropriate responsemeasures, if any.• The EPHC Air Toxics Work<strong>in</strong>g Group to utilise NDP Ambient Air study data when assess<strong>in</strong>gthe relative priority of diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>for</strong> possible <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the Air Toxics NEPM.Soils• In the review of the Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPM dur<strong>in</strong>g 2005/2006, governments to consider<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>vestigation levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s. A health based <strong>in</strong>vestigation level <strong>for</strong> sitescontam<strong>in</strong>ated with diox<strong>in</strong>s will provide a trigger to assist <strong>in</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g whether a detailed<strong>in</strong>vestigation of a site is necessary.• Governments to cont<strong>in</strong>ue best ef<strong>for</strong>ts towards remediat<strong>in</strong>g sites contam<strong>in</strong>ated with significantlevels of diox<strong>in</strong>s and undertake this work <strong>in</strong> an environmentally sound manner.• <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to consider further research to improve our knowledge of naturaldiox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>for</strong>mation, and the sources and exposure risks of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the soils of coastal eastern<strong>Australia</strong>.Water• Governments to consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> water when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a futureupdate of the <strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Fresh and Mar<strong>in</strong>e Water Quality2000.Sediments• Governments to consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> sediments when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a futureupdate of the <strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Fresh and Mar<strong>in</strong>e Water Quality2000.6


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Biota• Subject to resources, the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to give consideration to undertak<strong>in</strong>g furtherstudies of biota <strong>in</strong> order to assess whether source directed measures are hav<strong>in</strong>g the desiredeffect <strong>in</strong> lower<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> the environment.Wastes• Where <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation identifies environmental or human health risks from diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> waterrecycl<strong>in</strong>g and biosolids activities, governments to consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s whenundertak<strong>in</strong>g a future update of the <strong>National</strong> Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS):o Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Water Recycl<strong>in</strong>g – Manag<strong>in</strong>g Health and Environmental Riskso Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Sewerage Systems – Biosolids Management• Governments to consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a review of theNWQMS Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Sewerage Systems: Acceptance of Trade Waste (Industrial Waste)1994.• Governments to take <strong>in</strong>to account the Stockholm Convention Best Available Techniques andBest Environmental Practices guidance <strong>for</strong> production of pulp when new mills ormodifications to exist<strong>in</strong>g mills are proposed.• Governments to set a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> fertilisers and <strong>in</strong>dustrial residues when applied toland <strong>for</strong> soil amelioration purposes.• No further action required at this time to amend the level of diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> re-ref<strong>in</strong>edbase oil.• Governments to cont<strong>in</strong>ue the removal from use and destruction of scheduled wastes <strong>in</strong>accordance with the three plans under the <strong>National</strong> Strategy <strong>for</strong> the Management of ScheduledWaste.• Governments to ensure that the Stockholm Convention guidance on Best AvailableTechniques and Best Environmental Practices is considered <strong>in</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g the process to treat theHCB waste so as to prevent or m<strong>in</strong>imise the <strong>for</strong>mation and release of diox<strong>in</strong>s.<strong>National</strong> Pollutant Inventory• Governments to consider report<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> toxic equivalents (TEQs) under the <strong>National</strong>Pollutant Inventory.Human <strong>in</strong>take• Governments to cont<strong>in</strong>ue with exist<strong>in</strong>g programs that discourage cigarette smok<strong>in</strong>g andpromote lower saturated fat <strong>in</strong>take.• Government to cont<strong>in</strong>ue to promote the health benefits of exclusive breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g to the age ofsix months, then the <strong>in</strong>troduction of complementary foods and cont<strong>in</strong>ued breastfeed<strong>in</strong>gthereafter.• Subject to resources, governments to consider periodically monitor<strong>in</strong>g the population burdenof diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> order to assess whether risk reduction strategies are hav<strong>in</strong>g the desired effect <strong>in</strong>lower<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> humans.7


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Agricultural productsFood• Subject to resources, <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to give consideration to undertak<strong>in</strong>g a study <strong>in</strong>three to five years <strong>in</strong> order to ensure diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> livestock commodities rema<strong>in</strong> with<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>ternational and domestic standards.• The <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to work with <strong>Australia</strong>n animal production <strong>in</strong>dustries to supportimplementation of voluntary measures to address hazards, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>in</strong> animal feeds.• Governments to work toward <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g vigilance to prevent contam<strong>in</strong>ation of the food supplywith diox<strong>in</strong>s.• Governments to consider the possibility of sett<strong>in</strong>g levels and values <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> foods.Other actions• The <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to cont<strong>in</strong>ue <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g possible legislative avenues with whichit can address diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the environment, as obliged under the Stockholm Convention.8


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>GlossaryATDS <strong>Australia</strong>n Total Diet SurveyBATBest Available TechniquesBEPBest Environmental PracticesCOPConference of PartiesCSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationDAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryDEHDepartment of the Environment and HeritageEPAEnvironment Protection Authority / AgencyEPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation ActEPHC Environment Protection and Heritage CouncilEUEuropean UnionFRSC Food Regulation Stand<strong>in</strong>g CommitteeFSANZ Food Standards <strong>Australia</strong> and New ZealandHCBHexachlorobenzeneMfEM<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>for</strong> the Environment, New ZealandMRLMaximum Residue LimitNAP<strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>NEPC <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection CouncilNEPM <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection MeasureNDP<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> ProgramNPI<strong>National</strong> Pollutant InventoryNRS<strong>National</strong> Residue SurveyNWQMS <strong>National</strong> Water Quality Management StrategyOCPOrganochlor<strong>in</strong>e PesticidesPCBs Polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated biphenylsPCDDs Polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated dibenzodiox<strong>in</strong>s (diox<strong>in</strong>s)PCDFs Polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated dibenzofurans (furans)POPs Persistent Organic PollutantsTCDD 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-diox<strong>in</strong>, the most toxic diox<strong>in</strong>TEQToxic EquivalentsUNEP United Nations Environment ProgramWHO World Health Organization9


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Units of measurementsSymbolMilligrams mg 1 x10 -3 (0.001g)Microgram µg 1 x 10 -6 (0.000 001g)Nanogram ng 1 x 10 -9 (0.000 000 001g)Picogram pg 1 x 10 -12 (0.000 000 000 001g)Femtograms fg 1 x 10 -15 (0.000 000 000 000 001g)10


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>1. INTRODUCTION1.1 <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> ProgramThe Commonwealth Government provided $5 million over four years towards the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong>Program (NDP), a program to improve our knowledge on diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and to determ<strong>in</strong>ethe risk to both human health and the environment.The Program began <strong>in</strong> 2001 and is be<strong>in</strong>g implemented <strong>in</strong> three phases. Phase one <strong>in</strong>volved gather<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation about the current levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n environment, community, food andlevels of emissions. Studies under this part of the program began <strong>in</strong> July 2001 and were completed <strong>in</strong>2004.Phase two used the <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation gathered <strong>in</strong> the phase one studies to undertake a risk assessment todeterm<strong>in</strong>e the potential risks of diox<strong>in</strong>s to the environment. An assessment was also made of thepotential risks <strong>for</strong> human health from exposure to diox<strong>in</strong>s either directly from the environment or fromdiox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> food.The f<strong>in</strong>al phase of the NDP is to decide on appropriate measures aimed at reduc<strong>in</strong>g, and wherefeasible, elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g the release of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>. This <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> outl<strong>in</strong>es a range of actionsthat could be implemented.1.2 What are diox<strong>in</strong>s?The term “diox<strong>in</strong>s” describes a group of compounds that belong to the larger family of persistentorganic pollutants. These compounds share similar chemical structures, properties and biologicalcharacteristics <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g toxicity. These compounds can accumulate <strong>in</strong> the body fat of animals andhumans and tend to rema<strong>in</strong> unchanged <strong>for</strong> long periods. Several hundred of these compounds existand are members of three closely related families:• polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated dibenzo-p-diox<strong>in</strong>s (PCDDs or diox<strong>in</strong>s)• polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated dibenzofurans (PCDFs or furans)• certa<strong>in</strong> co-planar polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated biphenyls (PCBs).<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> are not deliberately produced, but are released <strong>in</strong>to the environment as a result of combustionactivities <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g power generation, waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>eration, metal smelt<strong>in</strong>g and from the manufacture ofsome chemicals. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> are also generated from natural sources such as bushfires and volcanoes. Itis estimated that over 96 per cent of diox<strong>in</strong>s present <strong>in</strong> the environment have orig<strong>in</strong>ated fromemissions to air. PCBs were produced commercially <strong>in</strong> large quantities until the late 1970s and used<strong>in</strong> electrical appliances, such as trans<strong>for</strong>mers and capacitors, hydraulic fluids, plasticisers and dyecarriers. Some types of PCBs are also generated and released <strong>in</strong>to the environment as un<strong>in</strong>tentionalby-products of chemical manufactur<strong>in</strong>g and combustion processes.The NDP has focused on the 29 most toxic of these compounds which are recognised <strong>in</strong>ternationallyas be<strong>in</strong>g harmful to humans and animals. These are listed <strong>in</strong> Table 1. To assist the reader, the term“diox<strong>in</strong>s” is used <strong>in</strong> this paper to refer to the three families, but there are <strong>in</strong>stances where specificmention is made to furans and PCBs.11


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Table 1 Diox<strong>in</strong>, furans and PCB toxic equivalent factors (both I-TEF or NATO and WHO 98TEF).Congener IUPAC No. NATO CCMS or WHO 98 -TEF (3)WH0 94 -TEF<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> a2,3,7,8-TetraCDD a - 1 (1) 11,2,3,7,8-PentaCDD - 0.5 11,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDD - 0.1 0.11,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDD - 0.1 0.11,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDD - 0.1 0.11,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDD - 0.01 0.01OctaCDD - 0.001 0.0001Furans b2,3,7,8-TetraCDF b - 0.1 0.11,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF - 0.05 0.052,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF - 0.5 0.51,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDF - 0.1 0.11,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDF - 0.1 0.11,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDF - 0.1 0.12,3,4,6,7,8-HexaCDF - 0.1 0.11,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF - 0.01 0.011,2,3,4,7,8,9-HeptaCDF - 0.01 0.01OctaCDF - 0.001 0.0001Non-ortho PCB c3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB#77 0.0005 (2) 0.00013,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB#81 - 0.00013,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB#126 0.1 0.13,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB#169 0.01 0.01Mono-ortho PCB c2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB#105 0.0001 0.00012,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB#114 0.0005 0.00052,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB#118 0.0001 0.00012',3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB#123 0.0001 0.00012,3,3',4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB#156 0.0005 0.00052,3,3',4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB#157 0.0005 0.00052,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB#167 0.00001 0.000012,3,3',4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB#189 0.0001 0.000112


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>2. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT DIOXINS IN AUSTRALIA?Prior to establishment of the NDP, limited <strong>Australia</strong>n studies showed environmental levels were low,but a lack of <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation made it difficult to assess diox<strong>in</strong> impacts on the environment and humanhealth. Start<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> mid 2001, <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation studies were undertaken by lead<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Australia</strong>n scientificorganisations, with assistance from overseas experts, under contract to the <strong>Australia</strong>n GovernmentDepartment of the Environment and Heritage (DEH). Completed <strong>in</strong> 2004, these studies <strong>in</strong>volvedcollect<strong>in</strong>g samples from a range of environments across <strong>Australia</strong>, a cross section of the community,and a range of foods and agricultural commodities. Studies also looked at emissions from bushfiresand motor vehicles.As the laboratory analysis of diox<strong>in</strong>s is very expensive, the number of samples collected <strong>for</strong> eachstudy was limited and as a result caution must be taken with <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs. Despite theselimitations, the studies provide the largest survey of diox<strong>in</strong> levels ever undertaken <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> andwill provide valuable basel<strong>in</strong>e data <strong>for</strong> comparison <strong>in</strong> future work and <strong>for</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g trends.The studies show that the ambient levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the environment are generally low comparedwith other countries and that levels <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n population are also low. Specifically the studiesshowed:• the total emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s to the environment from all sources range from 160-1790 g peryear. Uncontrolled combustion (biomass burn<strong>in</strong>g, waste burn<strong>in</strong>g and accidental fires)contributes an estimated 1360 g or around 70% of all diox<strong>in</strong> emissions. Prescribed burn<strong>in</strong>gand wildfires contribute between 30-570 g per year, or about 20-30% of the total emissions.As there is still uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty about this estimate, the Department of the Environment andHeritage (DEH) has commissioned further research to ref<strong>in</strong>e it.• ferrous and non-ferrous metal production; production of chemicals and consumer goods suchas paper; fossil fuel power generation; waste disposal, landfill<strong>in</strong>g and waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators areother ma<strong>in</strong> sources of emissions, emitt<strong>in</strong>g 420 g or around 23%.• domestic woodheaters contribute around 4% of diox<strong>in</strong> emissions. Diox<strong>in</strong> levels are higher <strong>in</strong>air <strong>in</strong> urban areas dur<strong>in</strong>g w<strong>in</strong>ter most likely due to smoke from these heaters. However,ambient levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the major cities are still low compared with other countries.• diox<strong>in</strong>s from motor vehicles account <strong>for</strong> less than 2% of total diox<strong>in</strong> emissions. Leaded petrolvehicles accounted <strong>for</strong> about 40-45% of total diox<strong>in</strong>s emissions <strong>in</strong> 1998. With the bann<strong>in</strong>g ofleaded petrol <strong>in</strong> January 2002 the levels will have substantially decl<strong>in</strong>ed.• diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> soils are generally lower than those reported <strong>in</strong> many <strong>in</strong>dustrial countries.Levels <strong>in</strong> soils from urban and <strong>in</strong>dustrial locations are substantially higher than <strong>in</strong> agriculturaland remote locations. Higher levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s were found <strong>in</strong> soils from coastal eastern<strong>Australia</strong>. It has been suggested <strong>in</strong> other studies that high diox<strong>in</strong> levels may extend along theentire eastern coastl<strong>in</strong>e of <strong>Australia</strong>. The comparatively elevated levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> thesesoils are so far unexpla<strong>in</strong>ed. The other studies suggest this might be due to historicalgeological processes. The close proximity of these areas to the coast and possible past periodsof submergence by the sea led to elevated chlor<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> the soil, a known precursor <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation. The evidence <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong> <strong>for</strong>mation <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g natural geological processes <strong>in</strong>cludes:- a lack of identifiable human activities that could give rise to the diox<strong>in</strong> levels- the diox<strong>in</strong> profile does not relate to any current <strong>in</strong>dustrial activity13


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>- analysis of mar<strong>in</strong>e sediment core samples extend<strong>in</strong>g prior to the European occupationalso show<strong>in</strong>g elevated levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s- the occurrence of similar diox<strong>in</strong> profiles <strong>in</strong> soil and sediment samples from other partsof the world, e.g. Mississippi River <strong>in</strong> the USA, Germany and F<strong>in</strong>land.• aquatic environments <strong>in</strong> urban and <strong>in</strong>dustrial areas had higher levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> sedimentsand animals than samples from agricultural and remote locations.• diox<strong>in</strong>s emitted to air can deposit on plant, soil and water surfaces, which can then enter thefood cha<strong>in</strong> when animals eat leaves, soils or sediments contam<strong>in</strong>ated with diox<strong>in</strong>s. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong>levels <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>n fauna are highest <strong>in</strong> birds of prey due to their high position <strong>in</strong> the foodcha<strong>in</strong>. Mar<strong>in</strong>e mammals liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> estuaries close to urban/<strong>in</strong>dustrial areas also had relativelyhigh levels. Levels were generally much lower <strong>in</strong> herbivorous animals such as kangaroos.Overall, compared with fauna from other countries, the levels are generally low.• the ecological risk assessment concluded that the diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> fauna reflect the animal’sposition on the food cha<strong>in</strong> with herbivorous organisms hav<strong>in</strong>g the lowest levels, while birds ofprey had the highest levels. The assessment also concluded that fish are at low risk whenexposed to the diox<strong>in</strong>s levels <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n aquatic environment, mar<strong>in</strong>e mammals liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>open oceans of <strong>Australia</strong> have no risk, but dolph<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> urban/<strong>in</strong>dustrial estuaries were at risk.Terrestrial mammals are at a low risk when exposed to background levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s.• levels <strong>in</strong> agricultural commodities, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g beef, sheep, pigs, poultry, milk and farmedsalmon are low compared with levels <strong>in</strong> products from other countries. They are well belowstandards set by the European Union.• levels <strong>in</strong> food are low. Food samples collected under the Food Standards <strong>Australia</strong> NewZealand diet survey were analysed and showed that fish, meat and dairy products were themajor food groups contribut<strong>in</strong>g to diox<strong>in</strong>s exposure <strong>for</strong> the general population.• levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n population are low by <strong>in</strong>ternational standards. Levels arehigher <strong>in</strong> older people due to a number of factors <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g on-go<strong>in</strong>g accumulation over alifetime, the fact that older people were exposed to much higher levels <strong>in</strong> the 1940s-1960swhen regulations govern<strong>in</strong>g the control of <strong>in</strong>dustrial emissions were m<strong>in</strong>imal, and potentialdifferences <strong>in</strong> metabolism and body fat.• <strong>for</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>ns aged two years or older, the monthly <strong>in</strong>take of diox<strong>in</strong>s from food was between3.9-15.8 pg TEQ/kg body weight/month or between 6-23% of the <strong>Australia</strong>n TolerableMonthly Intake of 70 pg TEQ/kg bw/month set by the <strong>National</strong> Health and Medical ResearchCouncil.The reports of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program studies can be accessed on the DEH website at:http://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/chemicals/diox<strong>in</strong>s/<strong>in</strong>dex.html14


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>3. WHY ARE DIOXIN LEVELS GENERALLY LOW IN AUSTRALIA?The generally low levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong> environment can be attributed to a number offactors. Firstly, the levels are a reflection of the relatively low level of <strong>in</strong>dustrial activity <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>compared with other countries. For example, <strong>in</strong> many northern hemisphere countries, diox<strong>in</strong> levelsare high due to a number of factors such as the extensive <strong>in</strong>dustrial complexes which generate diox<strong>in</strong>sand past burn<strong>in</strong>g of municipal waste <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators without adequate controls <strong>for</strong> the clean<strong>in</strong>g ofexhaust gases. The large populations also contribute to higher levels through emissions from sourcessuch as domestic heat<strong>in</strong>g and motor vehicles. Stricter controls on diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from these sourcesand the use of improved technology have seen the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> many of these countries decl<strong>in</strong>eover the past decade.The NDP studies found that levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s were higher <strong>in</strong> urban areas than agricultural areas <strong>in</strong><strong>Australia</strong>. These elevated levels could be attributed to emissions over many decades from sourcessuch as <strong>in</strong>dustrial facilities, motor vehicles and domestic woodheaters. Some of the highest levels <strong>in</strong>urban areas were associated with <strong>for</strong>mer <strong>in</strong>dustrial sites contam<strong>in</strong>ated with diox<strong>in</strong>s due to pastchemical production activities.Secondly, actions taken by <strong>Australia</strong>n governments over the past decade to address other toxicchemicals have most likely also led to reduced emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s. Some of these activities <strong>in</strong>clude:• the implementation of clean air regulations by States and Territories requir<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dustrialfacilities to reduce emissions either through the use of more efficient filter<strong>in</strong>g systems orcleaner production techniques• the bann<strong>in</strong>g of backyard rubbish burn<strong>in</strong>g• establish<strong>in</strong>g programs to remove <strong>in</strong>efficient domestic woodheaters and implement<strong>in</strong>gawareness programs aimed at reduc<strong>in</strong>g particle emissions• <strong>in</strong> 2002 phas<strong>in</strong>g-out the use of leaded petrol which is a known source of diox<strong>in</strong>s• <strong>Australia</strong>n environment m<strong>in</strong>isters reject<strong>in</strong>g a proposal <strong>in</strong> 1992 <strong>for</strong> a centralised hightemperature waste disposal facility <strong>for</strong> the treatment of <strong>in</strong>tractable wastes and <strong>in</strong>steadpromot<strong>in</strong>g the separate treatment of each waste stream through programs such as the <strong>National</strong>Strategy <strong>for</strong> the Management of Scheduled Wastes 1 . Under this Strategy, three managementplans were developed to phase-out and destroy organochlor<strong>in</strong>e pesticides (OCPs),hxachlorobenzene (HCB) and polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated biphenyls (PCBs)• bann<strong>in</strong>g the manufacture and use of chemicals known to be sources of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gpentachlorophenol and 2,4,5-T• destroy<strong>in</strong>g OCPs and PCBs <strong>in</strong> destruction facilities which operate <strong>in</strong> accordance with world’sbest practice• remediat<strong>in</strong>g old <strong>in</strong>dustrial sites contam<strong>in</strong>ated with toxic chemicals, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s, such asthe 2000 Olympics site at Homebush Bay, Sydney.1 The Strategy was endorsed by environment m<strong>in</strong>isters <strong>in</strong> 1993 and provides <strong>for</strong> the safe management and disposal ofscheduled wastes. The Strategy provides <strong>for</strong> the development and implementation of the three national plans deal<strong>in</strong>g withorganochlor<strong>in</strong>e pesticides, hexachlorobenzene and polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated biphenyls.15


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>4. WHAT ARE THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION?In the 1990s, countries recognised the need to take <strong>in</strong>ternational action aimed at reduc<strong>in</strong>g persistentorganic pollutants (POPs) to protect the environment and human health. This led to the <strong>for</strong>mation ofthe Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants which entered <strong>in</strong>to <strong>for</strong>ce on 17 May 2004.As at 2 May 2005, 151 countries had signed and 98 had ratified the Convention. <strong>Australia</strong> ratified theConvention on 20 May 2004.The objective of the Stockholm Convention is to protect human health and the environment from theeffects of POPs. The Convention sets out a range of measures to reduce and, where feasible,elim<strong>in</strong>ate POP releases, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g emissions of by-product POPs and to ensure the sound managementof stockpiles and wastes that conta<strong>in</strong> POPs.The Convention focuses on the follow<strong>in</strong>g twelve POPs which have been used as pesticides, <strong>in</strong>dustrialchemicals, or are by-products from <strong>in</strong>dustrial processes. These chemicals have been identified <strong>for</strong>action due to their persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range dispersion and toxicity:Chemical Pesticide Industrial Un<strong>in</strong>tentionallyproducedAldr<strong>in</strong>ChlordaneDieldr<strong>in</strong>Endr<strong>in</strong>HeptachlorHexachlorobenzene (HCB) MirexToxaphenePolychlor<strong>in</strong>ated biphenyls (PCBs) DDT<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> (polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated dibenzo-p-diox<strong>in</strong>s)Furans (polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated dibenzofurans)Under Article 5 of the Convention, Parties are obliged to take measures to reduce, and where feasible,elim<strong>in</strong>ate releases of un<strong>in</strong>tentionally produced POPs, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s, furans, HCB and diox<strong>in</strong>-likePCBs. Parties must set out how they would implement these obligations <strong>in</strong> a <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>(NAP). The actions proposed <strong>in</strong> this paper would <strong>for</strong>m the basis of <strong>Australia</strong>’s NAP.Article 5 also requires Parties to promote the development of and (where appropriate) require the useof products or processes to prevent the <strong>for</strong>mation and release of un<strong>in</strong>tentionally produced POPs ; andpromote and, <strong>in</strong> accordance with its NAP, require the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) andBest Environmental Practices (BEP) <strong>for</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g and new sources. The Convention def<strong>in</strong>es “BestAvailable Techniques” as us<strong>in</strong>g the most effective and advanced techniques that can be practicallyadopted to prevent or m<strong>in</strong>imise harmful emissions of by-product POPs and other environmentalimpacts, or reduce them to acceptable limits. “Available” techniques means those techniques that areaccessible to the operator and that are developed on a scale that allows implementation <strong>in</strong> the relevant<strong>in</strong>dustrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to consideration thecosts and advantages. “Best environmental practices” means the application of the most appropriatecomb<strong>in</strong>ation of environmental control measures and strategies.16


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>The Convention requires Parties to use BAT <strong>for</strong> new sources <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g categories as soon aspracticable but no later than four years after the entry <strong>in</strong>to <strong>for</strong>ce of the Convention <strong>for</strong> that Party; thiswould be May 2008 <strong>for</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>:• waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g co-<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators of municipal, hazardous or medical waste or ofsewage sludge• cement kilns fir<strong>in</strong>g hazardous waste• production of pulp us<strong>in</strong>g elemental chlor<strong>in</strong>e or chemicals generat<strong>in</strong>g elemental chlor<strong>in</strong>e <strong>for</strong>bleach<strong>in</strong>g• thermal processes <strong>in</strong> the metallurgical <strong>in</strong>dustry <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g secondary copper, alum<strong>in</strong>ium andz<strong>in</strong>c production and s<strong>in</strong>ter plants <strong>in</strong> the iron and steel <strong>in</strong>dustry.Parties are also required to promote and require the use of BAT and BEP to prevent the release ofdiox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>for</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g sources <strong>for</strong> the above <strong>in</strong>dustries as well as other categories <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g:• open burn<strong>in</strong>g of waste, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g burn<strong>in</strong>g of landfill sites• thermal processes <strong>in</strong> the metallurgical <strong>in</strong>dustry not mentioned above• residential combustion sources• fossil fuel fired utility and <strong>in</strong>dustrial boilers• fir<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stallation <strong>for</strong> wood and other biomass fuels• specific chemical production processes releas<strong>in</strong>g un<strong>in</strong>tentionally <strong>for</strong>med persistent organicpollutants, especially production of chlorophenols and chloranil• crematoria• motor vehicles, particularly those burn<strong>in</strong>g leaded gasol<strong>in</strong>e• destruction of animal carcasses• textile and leather dye<strong>in</strong>g (with chloranil) and f<strong>in</strong>ish<strong>in</strong>g (with alkal<strong>in</strong>e extraction)• shredder plants <strong>for</strong> the treatment of end of life vehicles• smoulder<strong>in</strong>g of copper cables• waste oil ref<strong>in</strong>eries.An <strong>in</strong>ternational Expert Group compris<strong>in</strong>g representatives from Parties, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Australia</strong>, hasdeveloped draft guidel<strong>in</strong>es on BAT and provisional guidance on BEP. These Guidel<strong>in</strong>es are notprescriptive but will assist Parties <strong>in</strong> ensur<strong>in</strong>g that facilities, which are known sources of diox<strong>in</strong>s, areoperat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with world’s best practice. The first Conference of the Parties of the StockholmConvention (May 2005) recommended that Parties take the draft guidel<strong>in</strong>es and provisional guidance<strong>in</strong>to consideration, where practicable and feasible, <strong>in</strong> activities related to un<strong>in</strong>tentionally producedpersistent organic pollutants. The Expert Group will undertake further work over the next two yearsto improve the <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the BAT and BEP guidel<strong>in</strong>es with a view their considerationand adoption at the third Conference of the Parties <strong>in</strong> 2007. Consideration needs to be given todeterm<strong>in</strong>e how these guidel<strong>in</strong>es will be implemented <strong>in</strong> a consistent manner <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and how theymight be reflected <strong>in</strong> regulatory requirements <strong>in</strong> jurisdictions.Article 6 of the Convention requires Parties to develop appropriate measures to elim<strong>in</strong>ate releases ofPOPs from stockpiles and wastes by:17


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>• develop<strong>in</strong>g appropriate strategies <strong>for</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g stockpiles, products and articles conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g,consist<strong>in</strong>g of or contam<strong>in</strong>ated with POPs• implement<strong>in</strong>g measures to reduce or elim<strong>in</strong>ate releases from stockpiles and wastes conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gPOPs <strong>in</strong> a manner that protects human health and the environment• tak<strong>in</strong>g appropriate measures to ensure that waste products conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s are handled <strong>in</strong> anenvironmentally friendly manner and are disposed of <strong>in</strong> a way that destroys the POPs content• endeavour<strong>in</strong>g to develop strategies <strong>for</strong> identify<strong>in</strong>g sites contam<strong>in</strong>ated with POPs; ifremediation is required then it must be done <strong>in</strong> an environmentally sound manner.The three management plans developed under the <strong>National</strong> Strategy <strong>for</strong> the Management of ScheduledWastes will contribute to meet<strong>in</strong>g these obligations.18


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>5. WAYS TO ADDRESS DIOXINS IN AUSTRALIAA review of exist<strong>in</strong>g national, State and Territory environmental programs and legislation shows thatthere are a number of measures which apply controls, standards or guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> chemicals. Somealready cover diox<strong>in</strong>s whereas others could be modified to <strong>in</strong>clude, <strong>for</strong> example, a guidel<strong>in</strong>e level <strong>for</strong>the emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s. Some measures are subject to review over the next one to two years and theneed to consider diox<strong>in</strong>s could be covered <strong>in</strong> these reviews.This section outl<strong>in</strong>es the exist<strong>in</strong>g measures, identifies gaps and suggests actions to address diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong><strong>Australia</strong>.5.1 AIRThe <strong>in</strong>ventory of diox<strong>in</strong> emissions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> (NDP Technical Report No 3) shows that the ma<strong>in</strong>sources of diox<strong>in</strong>s to the environment are from uncontrolled combustion (<strong>in</strong>cludes prescribed burn<strong>in</strong>gand wildfires, waste burn<strong>in</strong>g and accidental fires) which is estimated to contribute nearly 70% of totalemissions. The next highest emitters of diox<strong>in</strong>s to air are metal smelt<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g z<strong>in</strong>c, alum<strong>in</strong>ium,iron and steel) and fossil fuel power generation. Domestic woodheaters contribute around 4%.Emissions from combustion facilitiesThe level of 0.1 ng TEQ/m 3 of diox<strong>in</strong>s has been accepted <strong>in</strong>ternationally as a goal <strong>for</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g bestpractice <strong>for</strong> controll<strong>in</strong>g emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s from combustion sources.In <strong>Australia</strong> this level has been adopted by most States and Territories with some jurisdictionsprescrib<strong>in</strong>g this level <strong>in</strong> legislation while others adopt<strong>in</strong>g it as a licence condition (Table 2). Theresponsibility <strong>for</strong> licens<strong>in</strong>g facilities rests with the States and Territories and not the <strong>Australia</strong>nGovernment.Table 2: Jurisdictional regulations <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong> emissions to airACT NSW QLD SA TAS VIC WALevel 0.1 ng/m 3 0.1 ng/m 3(stack)0.1 ng/m 3 0.1 ng/m 3 0.1 ng/m 3 *(stack)0.1 ng/m 3 * 0.1 ng/m 3How Lic Leg Lic Lic Leg Lic LicApplyNew &exist<strong>in</strong>gmunicipalwaste<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>eratorsafter 1997.EnvironmentProtectionLicences <strong>for</strong>other<strong>in</strong>dustry asnecessary.NewfacilitiesandupgradesNew andupgrade ofold facilitiesNewfacilitiesLegend:Leg: Prescribed through legislationLic: Prescribed through licens<strong>in</strong>g agreements* Currently develop<strong>in</strong>g a new measure of 0.0037 ng/m 3 at ground level to be set <strong>in</strong> legislation19


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>As discussed under Section 4, Parties under the Stockholm Convention are required from four yearsafter entry <strong>in</strong>to <strong>for</strong>ce <strong>for</strong> them to promote BAT and BEP <strong>for</strong> new facilities and exist<strong>in</strong>g facilities whichare to be modified. Although these Guidel<strong>in</strong>es will not be mandatory <strong>for</strong> Parties, they must be taken<strong>in</strong>to consideration and will provide a valuable benchmark aga<strong>in</strong>st which <strong>Australia</strong>n governments canensure that facilities that are known sources of diox<strong>in</strong>s are meet<strong>in</strong>g world’s best practice.<strong>Action</strong>s <strong>for</strong> Governments:Develop national guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s emissions from combustion facilities <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g adopt<strong>in</strong>g orreaffirm<strong>in</strong>g the level of 0.1 ng TEQ/m 3 .Use recommendations <strong>in</strong> the Stockholm Convention BAT and BEP guidance <strong>for</strong> new facilities and<strong>for</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g facilities when they are upgraded.Emissions from domestic woodheatersThe ambient air study (NDP Technical Report No 4) has shown that levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> ambient airare low compared with other countries. There was an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> urban areas over w<strong>in</strong>ter most likelydue to check words used <strong>in</strong> the Air report presumably due to wood burn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> residential heat<strong>in</strong>g.Domestic woodheaters account <strong>for</strong> around 4% of total diox<strong>in</strong> emissions.DEH, along with State and Territory governments, has implemented a range of measures to reducewoodsmoke from domestic heaters <strong>in</strong> recent years. These measures <strong>in</strong>clude woodheater replacementprograms, education and awareness programs, development of regulations to m<strong>in</strong>imise excessivesmoke from woodheaters, and the development of more str<strong>in</strong>gent particle emission standards.Although the pr<strong>in</strong>cipal objective of these <strong>in</strong>itiatives is to reduce particle emissions from woodheaters,it is expected that the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s over the w<strong>in</strong>ter months would also be reduced as a result ofthese <strong>in</strong>itiatives.<strong>Action</strong>s <strong>for</strong> Governments:Cont<strong>in</strong>ue with exist<strong>in</strong>g measures aimed at reduc<strong>in</strong>g particle emissions from domestic woodheaters<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g community education on the correct operat<strong>in</strong>g practices <strong>for</strong> woodheaters, seek<strong>in</strong>gimprovements to woodheater <strong>in</strong>stallation and emission standards, and sponsor<strong>in</strong>g research toimprove our understand<strong>in</strong>g of woodheater emissions.Emissions from motor vehiclesThe study of diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from motor vehicles (NDP Technical Report No 2) has shown thatmotor vehicles contribute less than 2% of total diox<strong>in</strong> emissions, with leaded petrol and diesel fuelvehicles the highest contributors. However, <strong>in</strong> January 2002 the Commonwealth Government phasedout the use of leaded petrol <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.With the phase-out of leaded fuel, it is expected that the total diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from motor vehicleswill have substantially decl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> recent years.There is little <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on the emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s from diesel vehicles, but what research has beenundertaken <strong>in</strong>dicates that diesel vehicles may contribute a large proportion of the total diox<strong>in</strong>emissions from motor vehicles. The reason <strong>for</strong> the <strong>for</strong>mation of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> diesel eng<strong>in</strong>es is stillunclear.20


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>In the absence of any diox<strong>in</strong> emissions data, vehicles us<strong>in</strong>g Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) andCompressed Natural Gas (CNG) are assumed to have emission factors similar to passenger carsrunn<strong>in</strong>g on unleaded petrol. However, the motor vehicle study noted that the overall impact of thesevehicle types on total diox<strong>in</strong> emissions is low due to LPG and CNG vehicles account<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> only asmall part of total vehicle kilometres travelled.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government:Monitor overseas research look<strong>in</strong>g at emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s from diesel, LPG and CNG vehicles todeterm<strong>in</strong>e whether further action is required <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.Emissions from bushfiresThe bushfires study (NDP Technical Report No 1) shows that prescribed burn<strong>in</strong>g and wildfires mayaccount <strong>for</strong> around 20-30% of total diox<strong>in</strong> emissions to the environment. Savannah fires <strong>in</strong> northern<strong>Australia</strong> account <strong>for</strong> 83% of these emissions.Restrictions cannot be placed on wildfires, but they are placed on hazard reduction control burns tom<strong>in</strong>imise impact on human health from smoke and not to destroy too much native vegetation. As theconditions <strong>for</strong> the <strong>for</strong>mation of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> bushfires are very complex and are still not fullyunderstood, it would be very difficult to place conditions on permits aimed solely at reduc<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>emissions.DEH will fund further research on the <strong>for</strong>mation and emission of diox<strong>in</strong>s from bushfires. Thisresearch will aim to provide a more accurate estimation of the total emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s frombushfires <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and to determ<strong>in</strong>e the extent to which diox<strong>in</strong> releases are the result of new diox<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation dur<strong>in</strong>g a fire, or re-mobilisation of exist<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong> stored <strong>in</strong> the top soil, ground litter andvegetation. The CSIRO, <strong>in</strong> conjunction with the <strong>National</strong> Research Centre <strong>for</strong> EnvironmentToxicology will undertake this research <strong>in</strong> 2005.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government:Undertake further research on diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from bushfires to provide firmer evidence on the<strong>for</strong>mation of diox<strong>in</strong>s to help governments determ<strong>in</strong>e appropriate response measures, if any.Air toxics NEPMIn February 2001, the <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection Council (NEPC) established a Work<strong>in</strong>gGroup to scope the development of a <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) <strong>for</strong> AirToxics, sometimes known as hazardous air pollutants. In June 2001, the Work<strong>in</strong>g Grouprecommended that five priority air toxics be the subject of a NEPM, from a list of 29 air toxics<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> were not identified as a priority at that time as there were <strong>in</strong>sufficient dataon their levels <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.In June 2001, NEPC commenced the development of a NEPM <strong>for</strong> Air Toxics to address benzene,toluene, <strong>for</strong>maldehyde, xylenes and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The draft Air ToxicsNEPM and Impact Statement were released <strong>for</strong> public consultation <strong>in</strong> May 2003. At the 9 th meet<strong>in</strong>gof EPHC <strong>in</strong> December 2004, Council resolved to make the <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection (AirToxics) Measure.While results from the NDP show that the risk presented by diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> ambient air <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> is verylow, diox<strong>in</strong>s, along with other air pollutants, will be considered <strong>for</strong> possible future <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the Air21


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Toxics NEPM. A Work<strong>in</strong>g Group has been established under the EPHC to develop a process toprioritise air toxics.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:The EPHC Air Toxics Work<strong>in</strong>g Group to utilise NDP Ambient Air study data when assess<strong>in</strong>g therelative priority of diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>for</strong> possible <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the Air Toxics NEPM.5.2 SOILSThe soil study (NDP Technical Report No 5) shows that diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> remote and agricultural areasare generally lower compared with soils <strong>in</strong> urban and <strong>in</strong>dustrial areas. Overall, the study found thatlevels <strong>in</strong> soils are generally low compared to levels <strong>in</strong> many other countries. The comparativelyelevated levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> coastal soils <strong>in</strong> Queensland are so far unexpla<strong>in</strong>ed. Scientists havesuggested that the higher levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> coastal eastern <strong>Australia</strong>n soils may be due to historicalgeological processes. Further research would be needed <strong>in</strong> order to confirm this view or to determ<strong>in</strong>eanother sources, if considered warranted.The area of land with this high level of naturally occurr<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong> is very large. Given the diox<strong>in</strong>levels found, it appears that remediation is neither warranted nor <strong>in</strong>deed feasible.There are currently no national agreed acceptable level or guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> place <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> soils <strong>in</strong><strong>Australia</strong>. However, the <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation)Measure 1999 specifies an effective process that covers chemicals that do not have a nationally agreedhealth <strong>in</strong>vestigation level.Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPMThe <strong>National</strong> Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation) Measure 1999 (SiteContam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPM) provides general guidance <strong>in</strong> relation to health-based soil <strong>in</strong>vestigation levels.The purpose of the NEPM is to establish a nationally consistent approach to the assessment of sitecontam<strong>in</strong>ation to ensure sound environmental management practices by regulators, site assessors,environmental auditors, land owners, developers and <strong>in</strong>dustry. The desired environmental outcome<strong>for</strong> the Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPM is to provide adequate protection to human health and theenvironment, where site contam<strong>in</strong>ation has occurred, through the development of an efficient andeffective national approach to the assessment of site contam<strong>in</strong>ation.The Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPM sets health-based <strong>in</strong>vestigation levels <strong>for</strong> a range of chemicals<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g heavy metals, pesticides and PCBs. However, it does not set health <strong>in</strong>vestigation levels. Atits 9 th meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> December 2004, EPHC agreed to undertake a review of the Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ationNEPM. It was resolved to establish a committee to assist with this review which would develop andrelease an issues paper.Some States and Territories have sites contam<strong>in</strong>ated with diox<strong>in</strong>s, and some of these have beencleaned up, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g some orphan sites. Clean-up of a contam<strong>in</strong>ated site is usually required if thelevels of contam<strong>in</strong>ation pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Wherecontam<strong>in</strong>ants are mov<strong>in</strong>g off the site, States and Territories will cont<strong>in</strong>ue to require, encourage orundertake the clean-up of such sites as they come to their attention and as contam<strong>in</strong>ated site policydictates.22


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong><strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:In the review of the Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation NEPM dur<strong>in</strong>g 2005/2006, consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g an<strong>in</strong>vestigation level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s. Investigation level <strong>for</strong> sites contam<strong>in</strong>ated with diox<strong>in</strong>s may provideguidance which will lead to uni<strong>for</strong>mity of site risk assessment.Cont<strong>in</strong>ue best ef<strong>for</strong>ts towards remediat<strong>in</strong>g sites where diox<strong>in</strong>s contam<strong>in</strong>ation poses an unacceptablerisk to the environment or human health and undertake this work <strong>in</strong> an environmentally soundmanner.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n GovernmentConsider further research to improve our knowledge of natural diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>for</strong>mation, and the sourcesand exposure risks to sources of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the soils of coastal eastern <strong>Australia</strong>.5.3 WATER<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> are <strong>in</strong>soluble <strong>in</strong> water, there<strong>for</strong>e the most effective way of determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g levels <strong>in</strong> aquaticenvironments is to analyse sediments and aquatic animals. This is discussed <strong>in</strong> section 5.4.As part of <strong>Australia</strong>’s <strong>National</strong> Water Quality Management Strategy, the <strong>Australia</strong>n and New ZealandGuidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Fresh and Mar<strong>in</strong>e Water Quality 2000 Volume 1 (the Water Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>es)provides a guide <strong>for</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>g water quality objectives required to susta<strong>in</strong> current, or likely future,environmental values (beneficial uses) <strong>for</strong> natural and semi-natural water resources <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> andNew Zealand.These and other <strong>National</strong> Water Quality Management Strategy guidel<strong>in</strong>es help communities and waterauthorities achieve consistency <strong>for</strong> the level of service provided by local water and sewage systems.The Water Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>es mention diox<strong>in</strong>s (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-diox<strong>in</strong>) <strong>in</strong> mar<strong>in</strong>eecosystems, but as there was <strong>in</strong>sufficient data available on diox<strong>in</strong>s when the guidel<strong>in</strong>es were be<strong>in</strong>gdeveloped, no level is given <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> any water ecosystem.It is expected that these guidel<strong>in</strong>es will be updated <strong>in</strong> the next few years. Inclusion of a level <strong>for</strong>diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> water could be considered, although as diox<strong>in</strong>s are <strong>in</strong>soluble <strong>in</strong> water, the sett<strong>in</strong>g of a levelmay be problematic given the difficulty <strong>in</strong> measur<strong>in</strong>g their presence.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> water when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a future update of the <strong>Australia</strong>nand New Zealand Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Fresh and Mar<strong>in</strong>e Water Quality 2000.5.4 SEDIMENTSThe results of the aquatic environment study (NDP Technical Report No 6) show that the levels ofdiox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> most aquatic environments <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> are generally low when compared to levels frommany other <strong>in</strong>dustrialised countries. However, sediments <strong>in</strong> urban and <strong>in</strong>dustrial areas hadsignificantly higher levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s than sediments <strong>in</strong> remote and agricultural locations. Someestuaries, <strong>for</strong> example, Port Jackson, Sydney had very high levels <strong>in</strong> sediments similar to those found<strong>in</strong> estuaries adjacent to <strong>in</strong>dustrial centres <strong>in</strong> other countries. These elevated levels may be due tohistorical contam<strong>in</strong>ation from <strong>for</strong>mer chemical manufactur<strong>in</strong>g sites near Homebush Bay. These sitesare subject to current clean-up activities by the NSW Government.23


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>The Water Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>es applies to sediment quality, but there are no levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s. Theseguidel<strong>in</strong>es are expected to be updated <strong>in</strong> future, with sediment levels a component of the update.Inclusion of a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s could be considered.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> sediments when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a future update of the<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Fresh and Mar<strong>in</strong>e Water Quality 2000.5.5 BIOTA<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> emitted to air can deposit on plant, soil and water surfaces. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> can then enter the foodcha<strong>in</strong> when animals eat contam<strong>in</strong>ated leaves, soils or sediments. The diox<strong>in</strong>s are then absorbed <strong>in</strong>toanimal fat. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> concentration as they move up the food cha<strong>in</strong>, so that carnivores aremore likely to have higher levels than herbivores.The fauna study (NDP Technical Report No 7) found that levels are generally lower <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>compared with fauna <strong>in</strong> other countries. Birds of prey had the highest levels, due to their position atthe top of the food cha<strong>in</strong>. Levels were much lower <strong>in</strong> herbivorous animals such as kangaroos, galahsand dugongs.There are currently no regulated levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> biota <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>. The ecological riskassessment (NDP Technical Report No 11) noted that more reliable risk estimations would require<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on the toxicity of diox<strong>in</strong>s to <strong>Australia</strong>n wildlife species. However, as <strong>Australia</strong>n ethicalcommittees and current State legislation generally do not allow toxicity test<strong>in</strong>g on native species, theestablishment of a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> biota would be very difficult. Reduction of emissions <strong>in</strong><strong>Australia</strong> will most likely lead over time to lower levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>n biota.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Subject to resources, the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government to give consideration to undertak<strong>in</strong>g furtherstudies of biota <strong>in</strong> order to assess whether source directed measures are hav<strong>in</strong>g the desired effect <strong>in</strong>lower<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> biota.24


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>5.6 WASTESSewage effluent and biosolidsThe risk to environmental and human health from diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> sewage effluent and biosolids is low.The <strong>in</strong>ventory of diox<strong>in</strong> emissions (NDP Technical Report No.3) shows that sewage treatment worksemit small amounts of diox<strong>in</strong>s to land. Emissions from biomass burn<strong>in</strong>g and paper productionrepresent the most significant contributors to land.The potential <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s to enter sewerage systems is low, primarily due to the limited number of<strong>in</strong>dustrial sources that produce diox<strong>in</strong>s and discharge to sewer. In addition, trade waste policiesemployed by sewage management authorities may limit or exclude diox<strong>in</strong>s from enter<strong>in</strong>g thesewerage system. Increas<strong>in</strong>g use of recycled sewage and biosolids has the potential to shift some ofthe load of diox<strong>in</strong> presently discharged to waterways to land.<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> recycled water are currently be<strong>in</strong>g considered by the Environmental Contam<strong>in</strong>antWork<strong>in</strong>g Group <strong>for</strong> the <strong>National</strong> Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Water Recycl<strong>in</strong>g - Manag<strong>in</strong>g Health andEnvironmental Risk be<strong>in</strong>g prepared under the <strong>National</strong> Water Quality Management Strategy(NWQMS). These Guidel<strong>in</strong>es are be<strong>in</strong>g developed <strong>in</strong> consultation with the States and Territories andare due <strong>for</strong> completion <strong>in</strong> 2005. They will cover water recycl<strong>in</strong>g and water sensitive urban designus<strong>in</strong>g a risk management framework already tested on the <strong>Australia</strong>n Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Water Guidel<strong>in</strong>es.These Guidel<strong>in</strong>es will supersede current guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> reclaimed water and urban stormwatermanagement.The NWQMS Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Sewerage Systems Biosolids Management were agreed to at the NaturalResource Management M<strong>in</strong>isterial Council <strong>in</strong> December 2004. These guidel<strong>in</strong>es are due <strong>for</strong> publicrelease <strong>in</strong> mid 2005. A level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s was not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> these guidel<strong>in</strong>es. However, as theknowledge of diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> biosolids is limited, further work and research is presently be<strong>in</strong>gundertaken <strong>in</strong> this area to confirm what the quantities are and the risks they pose.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Where <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation identifies environmental or human health risks from diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> water recycl<strong>in</strong>gand biosolids activities, consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a future update ofthe <strong>National</strong> Water Quality Management Strategy:- Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Water Recycl<strong>in</strong>g – Manag<strong>in</strong>g Health and Environmental Risks; and- Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Sewerage Systems – Biosolids Management.Trade WasteThrough the NWQMS Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Sewerage Systems: Acceptance of Trade Waste (IndustrialWaste) 1994, (Trade Waste Guidel<strong>in</strong>es), trade waste, a liquid waste generated from any <strong>in</strong>dustry,bus<strong>in</strong>ess, trade or manufactur<strong>in</strong>g process, must be managed to m<strong>in</strong>imise the cost to the community ofprocess<strong>in</strong>g waste, to ensure environmental protection and encourage waste m<strong>in</strong>imisation.There are currently no levels set <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s. However, the guidel<strong>in</strong>es may be amended where thelocal sewage authority has an appropriate scientific basis to nom<strong>in</strong>ate alternative criteria.25


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong><strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Consider <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s when undertak<strong>in</strong>g a review of the NWQMS Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong>Sewerage Systems: Acceptance of Trade Waste (Industrial Waste) 1994.<strong>National</strong> Strategy <strong>for</strong> the Management of Scheduled WastesIn 1991, the <strong>for</strong>mer <strong>Australia</strong> and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC)considered a draft strategy based on the recommendations of a jo<strong>in</strong>t task<strong>for</strong>ce to tackle the problem ofscheduled wastes. The Strategy was released to address concerns by <strong>in</strong>dustry and environment groupson the disposal of this waste. An <strong>in</strong>dependent panel was established to <strong>in</strong>vestigate the extent andproduction of scheduled waste and alternative disposal technologies to be used. Based on thisrecommendation, ANZECC rejected the proposal to establish a centralised high temperature wastedisposal facility and <strong>in</strong>stead, establish criteria and arrangements to assess new technologies. Therevised Strategy was considered by government and non-governmental agencies and <strong>in</strong> 1992ANZECC endorsed the ‘<strong>National</strong> Strategy <strong>for</strong> the Management of Scheduled Wastes’.The Strategy focuses on emerg<strong>in</strong>g, alternative, non-<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>eration waste destruction technologies withthe aim to provide <strong>for</strong> the safe management and disposal of scheduled waste. For the purpose of theStrategy, scheduled wastes means a material or article conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a chemical, or mixture of chemicalsexceed<strong>in</strong>g the threshold concentration and threshold quantity, which is:• organic <strong>in</strong> nature• resistant to degradation by chemical, physical or biological means• toxic to humans, animals, vegetation or aquatic life• bioaccumulative <strong>in</strong> humans, flora and fauna.The key aspects of the Strategy are:• identification of separate waste streams facilitat<strong>in</strong>g dist<strong>in</strong>ct and diverse management anddisposal options• nationally agreed and consistent pr<strong>in</strong>ciples and practice• regulatory support through legislation and regulations• commercially viable management disposal/destruction strategies <strong>for</strong> wasteholders• based on a consultative and open process.The ma<strong>in</strong> development under the Strategy, was the establishment of three management plans whichspecify threshold concentrations, quantities of chemicals to be covered and phase-out dates <strong>for</strong> thethree groups of chemical wastes:• Organochlor<strong>in</strong>e Pesticides Waste Management <strong>Plan</strong>• Polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated Biphenyls Management <strong>Plan</strong>• Hexachlorobenzene Waste Management <strong>Plan</strong>The three plans all require that emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s to atmosphere from the destruction of scheduledwastes shall not exceed 0.1 ng TEQ/m 3 .While there has been good progress <strong>in</strong> remov<strong>in</strong>g organochlor<strong>in</strong>e pesticides and polychlor<strong>in</strong>atedbiphenyls from use and destroy<strong>in</strong>g them, the process <strong>for</strong> the treatment of the hexachlorobenzene26


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>(HCB) waste held at the Orica site <strong>in</strong> Botany is under review. In determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the treatment process<strong>for</strong> the HCB waste, consideration should be given to the Stockholm Convention guidance on BestAvailable Techniques and Best Environmental Practices to prevent or m<strong>in</strong>imise the <strong>for</strong>mation andrelease of diox<strong>in</strong>s.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Cont<strong>in</strong>ue the removal from use and destruction of scheduled wastes <strong>in</strong> accordance with the threeplans under the <strong>National</strong> Strategy <strong>for</strong> the Management of Scheduled Waste.Ensure that the Stockholm Convention guidance on Best Available Techniques and BestEnvironmental Practices is considered <strong>in</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g the process to treat the HCB waste so as toprevent or m<strong>in</strong>imise the <strong>for</strong>mation and release of diox<strong>in</strong>s.Pulp mill guidel<strong>in</strong>esCommonwealth M<strong>in</strong>isters <strong>in</strong> May 1989 commissioned the CSIRO to undertake a study of bleachedchemical pulp mill technology and environmental implications. On the basis of the conclusions fromthis study, the first set of guidel<strong>in</strong>es, Environmental Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> New Bleached Eucalypt Kraft PulpMills (Pulp Mill Guidel<strong>in</strong>es) <strong>for</strong> the pulp mill <strong>in</strong>dustry were developed and subsequently revised <strong>in</strong>1995 to <strong>in</strong>clude current State/Territory policies and <strong>in</strong>corporate new technical <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation. Theobjective of these Guidel<strong>in</strong>es is to ensure protection of the environment from emissions generated byfuture pulp mills.The guidel<strong>in</strong>es set emission limits to ensure that the best technology and best environmentalmanagement practices are used <strong>in</strong> any new mill. The limits <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the effluent stream to bedischarged to water are set at 15 pg/L.In 2004 the Tasmanian Government reviewed these guidel<strong>in</strong>es to take <strong>in</strong>to consideration currentworld’s best practice <strong>for</strong> any future bleached eucalypt kraft mills. They are consistent with the BATand BEP guidance <strong>for</strong> production of pulp developed under the Stockholm Convention. The review,undertaken by the Tasmanian Resource <strong>Plan</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g and Development Commission, has set newrestrictions on a mill’s environmental impact which all but elim<strong>in</strong>ates diox<strong>in</strong>s and cuts organochlor<strong>in</strong>eemissions and organic matter discharged <strong>in</strong> waste water.With the discharge to effluent, the Commission has recommended that diox<strong>in</strong>s be set at a maximumlimit of 10 pg/L, a reduction from the previous level of 15 pg/L.The Stockholm Convention BAT and BEP guidance will be revised <strong>in</strong> future to <strong>in</strong>clude newtechnologies or practices.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Take <strong>in</strong>to account the Stockholm Convention BAT and BEP guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> production of pulpwhen new mills or modifications to exist<strong>in</strong>g mills are proposed.Reuse of <strong>in</strong>dustrial residues <strong>for</strong> land management applicationsIn October 2002 the EPHC agreed to develop a national approach <strong>for</strong> the re-use and recycl<strong>in</strong>g of<strong>in</strong>dustrial residues. The M<strong>in</strong>isters directed the EPHC Stand<strong>in</strong>g Committee to develop a nationalframework <strong>for</strong> the reuse and recycl<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>in</strong>dustrial residues focus<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>itially on their use <strong>in</strong> land27


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>management applications. It is envisaged that the framework would provide guidance onmanagement approaches <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>dustrial residues from source to end-use, and its ultimate fate <strong>in</strong> theenvironment.Industrial residues are by-products (wastes) from <strong>in</strong>dustry which can be reused and recycled as anefficient means of enabl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dustry to contribute to susta<strong>in</strong>able resource management. Industrialresidues have the potential to exhibit valuable soil condition<strong>in</strong>g and fertiliser properties due to theirhigh levels of essential elements, such as z<strong>in</strong>c and magnesium, which are deficient <strong>in</strong> some <strong>Australia</strong>nsoils. However, there are a number of elements, such as cadmium, that can have adverse affects onthe environment and human health, if present <strong>in</strong> high concentrations.The EPHC Industrial Residues Work<strong>in</strong>g Group is currently work<strong>in</strong>g with the Fertiliser Work<strong>in</strong>gGroup, a Primary Industries Stand<strong>in</strong>g Committee body, <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g national standards <strong>for</strong>contam<strong>in</strong>ants <strong>in</strong> fertiliser. A standard <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s will be <strong>in</strong>cluded.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Set a level <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> fertilisers and <strong>in</strong>dustrial residues when applied to land <strong>for</strong> soilamelioration purposes.Used Oil RegulationsThe Product Stewardship <strong>for</strong> Oil Program was <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> 2001 by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government toprovide <strong>in</strong>centives to <strong>in</strong>crease used oil recycl<strong>in</strong>g with the aim to encourage the environmentallysusta<strong>in</strong>able management and re-ref<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g of used oil.The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000 establishes the general framework and benefit entitlements ofthe arrangements. The objectives of the Act are to:• develop a product stewardship arrangement <strong>for</strong> used oils• ensure the environmentally susta<strong>in</strong>able management, re-ref<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and reuse of used oil• support economic recycl<strong>in</strong>g options <strong>for</strong> used oil.Under the Product Stewardship (Oil) Amended Regulations 2003 (No. 1), the total amount of diox<strong>in</strong>sand furans <strong>in</strong> re-ref<strong>in</strong>ed base oil (Category 1) must be less than 10 pg/g of oil. This level was basedon methods developed by the United States of America Environment Protection Agency.A review of the Act <strong>in</strong> July 2004 was tabled <strong>in</strong> the House of Representatives <strong>in</strong> November 2004. Therecommendations are now currently out <strong>for</strong> public consultation. There were no recommendations toamend the level of diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> re-ref<strong>in</strong>ed base oil.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government:No further action required at this time to amend the level of diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> re-ref<strong>in</strong>ed baseoil.28


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>5.7 NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORYThe <strong>National</strong> Pollutant Inventory (NPI) <strong>National</strong> Environmental Protection Measure is an Internetdatabase designed to provide the community, <strong>in</strong>dustry and government with <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on the typesand amounts of certa<strong>in</strong> substances be<strong>in</strong>g emitted to the environment.The NPI conta<strong>in</strong>s data on 90 priority substances, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans, whichwere identified as important because of their possible health and environmental effects. The NPIrequires report<strong>in</strong>g from a wide range of <strong>in</strong>dustry and non-<strong>in</strong>dustry sources us<strong>in</strong>g a variety oftechniques. Facilities must report on diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans if they exceed the report<strong>in</strong>g threshold i.e. if afacility uses 2,000 tonnes or more of fuel, or 60,000 megawatt hours of energy per year.Currently, the NPI reports the emissions of polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> kilograms per year.However, polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans are complex mixtures and are usually reported by otherprograms and studies <strong>in</strong> toxic equivalents (TEQ). TEQ is a means of scal<strong>in</strong>g the emissions of eachtype of diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans accord<strong>in</strong>g to their relative toxicity.The report<strong>in</strong>g of polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> TEQs would br<strong>in</strong>g the NPI <strong>in</strong>to l<strong>in</strong>e withcurrent world’s best practice. It would also provide a more useful data set, simplify report<strong>in</strong>g by<strong>in</strong>dustry and enable easier benchmark<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and between other countries.At the 9 th meet<strong>in</strong>g of EPHC <strong>in</strong> December 2004, Council resolved to review the NPI NEPM. The NPINEPM has been operational <strong>for</strong> six years and as the program is used by a variety of groups, the reviewwas to establish whether the program is currently deliver<strong>in</strong>g all the benefits expected of the program.The review targeted the areas <strong>for</strong> improvements and built on earlier reviews, evaluat<strong>in</strong>g whetherprevious recommendations were still relevant. The review set out to identify possible changes todesign parameters <strong>for</strong> the NPI. The outcome of the review will provide a start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>for</strong> Council toconsider whether to embark on a process to vary the NPI NEPM.The review has been carried out by an <strong>in</strong>dependent reviewer under the supervision of an EPHStand<strong>in</strong>g Committee work<strong>in</strong>g group and the results have been submitted to EPHC.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Consider report<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> toxic equivalents (TEQs) under the <strong>National</strong> Pollutant Inventory5.8 HUMAN INTAKEThe human health risk assessment (NDP Technical Report No 12) found that the public health risk <strong>for</strong><strong>Australia</strong>ns from the exposure of diox<strong>in</strong>s from food and other sources is low. However to keep thislevel low, the report made a number of recommendations with the aim of reduc<strong>in</strong>g any potential risksto human health:• programs to reduce the release of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>to the environment need to be ongo<strong>in</strong>g• ways to block the cycl<strong>in</strong>g of diox<strong>in</strong>s through the food supply need to be identified• reduc<strong>in</strong>g the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> feed given to livestock, poultry and aquaculture fish will helpto reduce the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the food supply29


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>• s<strong>in</strong>ce foods high <strong>in</strong> animal fats are a source of exposure to these chemicals, current ef<strong>for</strong>ts topromote lower saturated fat <strong>in</strong>take <strong>in</strong> the population should cont<strong>in</strong>ue• due to the <strong>in</strong>halation of diox<strong>in</strong>s through cigarette smoke, current programs to discouragecigarette smok<strong>in</strong>g should be ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed• the population burden of diox<strong>in</strong>-like compounds should be monitored periodically, to seewhether risk reduction strategies are effective.<strong>Action</strong> relat<strong>in</strong>g to reduc<strong>in</strong>g the environmental release of diox<strong>in</strong>s is considered under sections 5.1 to5.7 and section 5.11. <strong>Action</strong> relat<strong>in</strong>g to stockfeed is considered under section 5.9.As the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> breast milk are low by <strong>in</strong>ternational standards and have decl<strong>in</strong>ed over thelast decade (as outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> NDP Technical Report No 10) it should be noted that it is the advice of theWorld Health Organisation and the <strong>National</strong> Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) <strong>in</strong><strong>Australia</strong> that breast milk is the best food <strong>for</strong> babies.Ef<strong>for</strong>ts to promote lower saturated fat <strong>in</strong>take <strong>in</strong> the population are reflected <strong>in</strong> several recent<strong>Australia</strong>n Government <strong>in</strong>itiatives. The NHMRC's 2003 Dietary Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>n Adults andthe Dietary Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Children and Adolescents <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> both recommend 'limit<strong>in</strong>g saturatedfat' <strong>in</strong> the diet and provide practical advice on how this can be achieved. This recommendation issupported by the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government's national food selection guide, the <strong>Australia</strong>n Guide toHealthy Eat<strong>in</strong>g (1998), an educational resource provid<strong>in</strong>g advice on eat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> good health.Organisations such as Nutrition <strong>Australia</strong>, the Dieticians Association of <strong>Australia</strong> and the <strong>National</strong>Heart Foundation of <strong>Australia</strong> also support reduc<strong>in</strong>g saturated fat <strong>in</strong>take through provision ofprofessional and consumer-based advice, resources and projects. Other national <strong>in</strong>itiatives, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>ga focus on healthy eat<strong>in</strong>g, although not specifically aimed at reduc<strong>in</strong>g saturated fat <strong>in</strong>take, <strong>in</strong>clude:the <strong>National</strong> strategic framework and agenda <strong>for</strong> action <strong>for</strong> public health nutrition, (Eat Well<strong>Australia</strong>, 2000-2010) developed by the Strategic Inter-Governmental Nutrition Alliance and the<strong>Australia</strong>n Government's response to the issue of overweight and obesity <strong>in</strong> children - Healthy Weight2008: the national action agenda <strong>for</strong> children and young people and their families (2003).Tobacco leaf naturally conta<strong>in</strong>s both organic carbon and chlor<strong>in</strong>e ions and consequently, as <strong>for</strong> anythermal process, “combustion” of cigarettes and cigars produces diox<strong>in</strong>s. On studies undertaken <strong>in</strong>Germany and Sweden, emissions on average from the smok<strong>in</strong>g of a cigarette were0.1pg TEQ/cigarette. Recent studies <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> illustrate that on average the smok<strong>in</strong>g populationsmoke 14 to 15 cigarettes per day. For those who smoke approximately 20 cigarettes a day, this couldresult <strong>in</strong> a diox<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>take of 3 pg/day. For smokers, the health risk from other carc<strong>in</strong>ogenic componentsof cigarettes far outweigh the likely health risk from diox<strong>in</strong>s, however, it appears that encourag<strong>in</strong>gpeople to give up smok<strong>in</strong>g would help reduce their body burden of diox<strong>in</strong>s.<strong>Australia</strong> has a comprehensive tobacco policy expressed <strong>in</strong> the <strong>National</strong> Tobacco Strategy 2004-2009.The <strong>Australia</strong>n Government discourages cigarette smok<strong>in</strong>g through the national prohibition of tobaccoadvertis<strong>in</strong>g and sponsorship; health warn<strong>in</strong>gs on tobacco packag<strong>in</strong>g; the classification and schedul<strong>in</strong>gof smok<strong>in</strong>g cessation pharmacotherapies; customs duty and excise on tobacco products; control ofillicit production and distribution; and prohibition of smok<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> venues such as airports. TheGovernment has <strong>in</strong>troduced regulations to require new, graphic health warn<strong>in</strong>gs on cigarettepackag<strong>in</strong>g from March 2006. States and Territories are responsible <strong>for</strong> smok<strong>in</strong>g cessation supportservices (Quitl<strong>in</strong>es); regulation of retailers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g registration and licens<strong>in</strong>g where applicable;prevention, detection and prosecution of sales to m<strong>in</strong>ors; smok<strong>in</strong>g restrictions <strong>in</strong> non-<strong>Australia</strong>nGovernment venues (the vast majority); and local restrictions on advertis<strong>in</strong>g and sponsorship,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t of sale advertis<strong>in</strong>g. Both tiers of government are <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> public <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation30


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>campaigns. These ef<strong>for</strong>ts have given <strong>Australia</strong> one of the lowest smok<strong>in</strong>g rates <strong>in</strong> the world (17.4% ofthe population aged 14 and over were smokers <strong>in</strong> 2004).<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> Governments:Cont<strong>in</strong>ue with exist<strong>in</strong>g programs that discourage cigarette smok<strong>in</strong>g and promote lower saturatedfat <strong>in</strong>take.Cont<strong>in</strong>ue to promote the health benefits of exclusive breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g to the age of six months, thenthe <strong>in</strong>troduction of complementary foods and cont<strong>in</strong>ued breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g thereafter.Subject to resources, give consideration to periodically monitor<strong>in</strong>g the population burden of diox<strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong> order to assess whether risk reduction strategies are hav<strong>in</strong>g the desired effect <strong>in</strong> lower<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>levels <strong>in</strong> humans.5.9 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTSAgricultural commoditiesThe <strong>Australia</strong>n <strong>National</strong> Residue Survey (NRS) is a program conducted by the Department ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The NRS was established <strong>in</strong> the early 1960s as theCommonwealth’s response to grow<strong>in</strong>g concerns about pesticide residues <strong>in</strong> major meat exportmarkets. The purpose of the NRS now is to monitor and report the level of residues and contam<strong>in</strong>ants<strong>in</strong> food, <strong>in</strong>puts to production and/or the environment. S<strong>in</strong>ce then, the range of commodities coveredby the NRS has expanded and now, about 15 animal, 14 plant and selected fisheries and aquacultureproducts are monitored. The NRS is not <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the test<strong>in</strong>g of imported food or animal feedstuffs.Residue 2 test<strong>in</strong>g is an important part of the national strategy to m<strong>in</strong>imise unwanted residues andenvironmental contam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> food. Monitor<strong>in</strong>g identifies potential problems and any necessaryfollow-up action. Residue test<strong>in</strong>g is also an important measure of product quality, particularly <strong>for</strong>export<strong>in</strong>g countries such as <strong>Australia</strong>. The NRS also monitors and reports the level of residues andcontam<strong>in</strong>ants <strong>in</strong> food and <strong>in</strong>puts to production and/or the environment.The NRS conducts or is <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> monitor<strong>in</strong>g surveys and surveillance, compliance and residueprevention programs. Residue prevention programs are designed to prevent or m<strong>in</strong>imise the risks ofunacceptable residues to public health and trade. Chemical commodity comb<strong>in</strong>ations to be <strong>in</strong>cluded<strong>in</strong> surveys are determ<strong>in</strong>ed by the NRS <strong>in</strong> consultation with <strong>in</strong>dustries on the basis of risk assessments,and those comb<strong>in</strong>ations of highest risk are <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the NRS monitor<strong>in</strong>g surveys. In conduct<strong>in</strong>grisk assessments, the ma<strong>in</strong> factors considered <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>in</strong>ternational and/or domestic perceptions of thechemical commodity comb<strong>in</strong>ation as a possible public health hazard or trade barrier, the toxicity ofthe chemical or its break-down products and the extent and results of previous monitor<strong>in</strong>g of thechemical commodity comb<strong>in</strong>ation.Concentrations of residues of agricultural and veter<strong>in</strong>ary chemicals and environmental contam<strong>in</strong>ants,such as metals, are assessed aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>Australia</strong>n standards that are expressed as Maximum ResidueLimits (MRL), which are maximum permissible limits <strong>for</strong> chemical residues <strong>in</strong> food. MRL’s are setby Food Standards <strong>Australia</strong> New Zealand (FSANZ) and the <strong>Australia</strong>n Pesticides and Veter<strong>in</strong>ary2 Residues <strong>in</strong> agricultural terms are generally used to describe a small amount of a chemical treatment or its breakdownproducts which rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> or on a product. Residues <strong>in</strong> food safety <strong>in</strong>clude elements, such as metals, or other chemicalswhich may be present <strong>in</strong> food either through natural circumstances or as a consequence of <strong>in</strong>dustrial or agriculturalactivities.31


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Medic<strong>in</strong>es Authority (APVMA). MRLs have been set <strong>for</strong> PCBs <strong>in</strong> food such as meats, however thereare no current limits set <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans.Contam<strong>in</strong>ants that have been surveyed <strong>in</strong>clude organochlor<strong>in</strong>es, organophosphates, PCBs, andantimicrobials. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> were surveyed <strong>in</strong> 2002-03 <strong>for</strong> the first time under the NDP and the resultswere reported <strong>in</strong> the NDP Technical Report No 8. The NDP study shows that levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s anddiox<strong>in</strong>-like PCBs <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>'s meat, milk and fish are low and compare favourably with levelsreported <strong>in</strong> comparable studies from other countries. No samples conta<strong>in</strong>ed diox<strong>in</strong> levels exceed<strong>in</strong>gthe European Union standard. In view of the results of this survey, and given the significant costsassociated with diox<strong>in</strong>s test<strong>in</strong>g, DAFF does not support rout<strong>in</strong>e on-go<strong>in</strong>g test<strong>in</strong>g of livestockcommodities but would consider further test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the next three to five years, subject to resources.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government:Subject to resources, give consideration to undertak<strong>in</strong>g a study <strong>in</strong> three to five years <strong>in</strong> order toensure diox<strong>in</strong> levels <strong>in</strong> livestock commodities rema<strong>in</strong> with<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational and domestic standards.StockfeedsRegulatory controls over imports of animal feeds are primarily the responsibility of the <strong>Australia</strong>nGovernment. No specific legislation currently exists to address potential food hazards <strong>in</strong> importedanimal feeds unless they can be shown to be a quarant<strong>in</strong>e risk and dealt with under the Quarant<strong>in</strong>e Act1908. There are currently controls <strong>in</strong> every <strong>Australia</strong>n jurisdiction to prevent the use of restrictedanimal material <strong>in</strong> feeds <strong>for</strong> rum<strong>in</strong>ants. Other feed controls are managed under the "Uni<strong>for</strong>m<strong>Australia</strong>n Standards <strong>for</strong> the Labell<strong>in</strong>g and Content of Stock Foods", which was agreed to by the thenStand<strong>in</strong>g Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (now Primary Industries Stand<strong>in</strong>gCommittee, PISC) <strong>in</strong> February 1997.While <strong>Australia</strong>n animal production <strong>in</strong>dustries have considered and implemented voluntary measuresto address hazards <strong>in</strong> animal feeds, the regulatory framework has identifiable gaps. Controls overanimal feeds across domestic jurisdictions are very variable and there is no current Commonwealthstatutory structure to deal with imports of animal feeds beyond the scope of specific quarant<strong>in</strong>econcerns.The <strong>Australia</strong>n Government red meat <strong>in</strong>dustry partnership, SAFEMEAT, recently endorsed aproposed national framework <strong>for</strong> manag<strong>in</strong>g food safety risks associated with stockfeeds. In March2005, PISC agreed that the Primary Industries Health Committee (PIHC) would establish a work<strong>in</strong>ggroup to exam<strong>in</strong>e and evaluate components of a proposed framework <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g the issue ofanimal feed controls <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>. The work<strong>in</strong>g group will determ<strong>in</strong>e the scope of the framework <strong>for</strong>national feed standards ensur<strong>in</strong>g coverage of terrestrial and aquatic animal production. Reference willbe made to exist<strong>in</strong>g animal feed standards to ensure the standard is applied <strong>Australia</strong>-wide and iseffective <strong>in</strong> controll<strong>in</strong>g all known or anticipated hazards of concern <strong>in</strong> animal feeds.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Government:Work with <strong>Australia</strong>n animal production <strong>in</strong>dustries to support implementation of voluntarymeasures to address hazards, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>in</strong> animal feeds.Establish a work<strong>in</strong>g group to exam<strong>in</strong>e and evaluate components of a proposed framework <strong>for</strong>address<strong>in</strong>g the issue of animal feed controls <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>.32


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>5.10 FOODFSANZ, work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> partnership with <strong>Australia</strong>’s Commonwealth, State and Territory governmentsand the New Zealand Government, protects the health and safety of the people <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> and NewZealand by ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a safe food supply. A key activity <strong>for</strong> FSANZ is monitor<strong>in</strong>g the food supplyto ensure that exist<strong>in</strong>g food regulatory measures provide adequate protection of consumer health andsafety. The <strong>Australia</strong>n Total Diet Survey (ATDS) is part of that monitor<strong>in</strong>g.The ATDS estimates <strong>Australia</strong>n consumers’ dietary exposure to substances found <strong>in</strong> the food supplythrough the test<strong>in</strong>g of food samples collected from around <strong>Australia</strong> that are representative of the totaldiet. In order to achieve more accurate dietary exposure estimates, the foods exam<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the ATDSare prepared to a ‘table ready’ state be<strong>for</strong>e they are tested.The samples collected <strong>for</strong> the 20 th ATDS <strong>in</strong> 2000/2001 were analysed <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s. These results werethen comb<strong>in</strong>ed with dietary <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation from the 1995 <strong>National</strong> Nutrition Survey to assess thepopulation’s dietary exposure. The result<strong>in</strong>g dietary exposure assessment contributed to the overalldiox<strong>in</strong> human health risk assessment conducted by the Department of Health and Age<strong>in</strong>g as part of theNDP (NDP Technical Report No 12).For the general population, over 95% of exposure to diox<strong>in</strong>s is through the diet, with foods of animalorig<strong>in</strong> such as meat, dairy products and fish be<strong>in</strong>g the ma<strong>in</strong> sources.An <strong>Australia</strong>n Tolerable Monthly Intake (TMI) value <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans of 70 pg TEQ/kg bodyweight/month, was recommended by the Therapeutic Goods Adm<strong>in</strong>istration and the <strong>National</strong> Healthand Medical Research Council <strong>in</strong> 2002. This level was based on the most sensitive reproductiveeffects of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> animals. The recommended TMI from all sources comb<strong>in</strong>ed and <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gdiox<strong>in</strong>s, polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated furans and diox<strong>in</strong>-like PCBs, is equivalent to that set by the Jo<strong>in</strong>t ExpertCommittee on Food Additives (JECFA), a committee of the United Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The human health risk assessmentfound that <strong>for</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>ns aged 2 years or older, the monthly <strong>in</strong>take of diox<strong>in</strong>s was between 3.9-15.8pg TEQ/kg bw/month or between 6-23% of the TMI. S<strong>in</strong>ce the completion of the Human Health RiskAssessment of <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>, the Therapeutic Goods Adm<strong>in</strong>istration has considered available<strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation published post 2002 and found no evidence that would suggest the <strong>Australia</strong>n TMI shouldbe updated at this stage.As there are limitations associated with the data used to characterise the risk associated with exposureto diox<strong>in</strong>s from food, <strong>in</strong> general, conservative assumptions were used to m<strong>in</strong>imise the possibility thatrisks would be underestimated. On the basis of this analysis the public health and safety risk <strong>for</strong> all<strong>Australia</strong>ns from exposure to diox<strong>in</strong>s from foods is very low.The recommendations of the human health risk assessment were considered by the Food RegulationStand<strong>in</strong>g Committee (FRSC) <strong>in</strong> December 2004. This Committee agreed that source-directedmeasures that reduce the release of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>to the environment are the most appropriate means ofensur<strong>in</strong>g a long term reduction <strong>in</strong> the exposure of <strong>Australia</strong>ns to diox<strong>in</strong>s. The Committee also agreedto establish a work<strong>in</strong>g group to provide the FRSC with additional <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation relat<strong>in</strong>g to potentiallysett<strong>in</strong>g maximum levels, action levels and/or target levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> foods, and the related issuesof animal feeds and imported foods. The work<strong>in</strong>g group will <strong>in</strong>vestigate the feasibility andappropriateness of sett<strong>in</strong>g such levels and values, and research the related <strong>in</strong>ternational food supply<strong>in</strong>terventions and policies.33


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong><strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the Governments:Work toward <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g vigilance to prevent contam<strong>in</strong>ation of the food supply with diox<strong>in</strong>s.Consider the possibility of sett<strong>in</strong>g levels and values <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> foods.5.11 OTHER ACTIONSThe <strong>Australia</strong>n Government is also <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g possible legislative avenues with which it canaddress diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the environment, to ensur<strong>in</strong>g the discharge of <strong>Australia</strong>’s obligations under theStockholm Convention. One suggested legislative avenue is through approval be<strong>in</strong>g required underthe Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong> emissions above aparticular level or result<strong>in</strong>g from particular activities.<strong>Action</strong> <strong>for</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n GovernmentCont<strong>in</strong>ue to <strong>in</strong>vestigate possible legislative avenues with which it can address diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> theenvironment, as obliged under the Stockholm Convention.34


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>6. WHAT MEASURES DO OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE FOR DIOXINS?Some countries have implemented standards or levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> air, water, soil and other areas<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g daily human exposure (tolerable daily <strong>in</strong>take) and levels <strong>in</strong> food. Examples of the range ofguidel<strong>in</strong>es are shown <strong>in</strong> Table 3 while further <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on the range of measures <strong>in</strong> some countriesis provided <strong>in</strong> Appendix 1.AirFor emissions from combustion facilities, many countries have adopted the level of0.1 ng TEQ/m 3 recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, some countries,such as Canada, have set different levels <strong>for</strong> different <strong>in</strong>dustry sectors whether they are new orexist<strong>in</strong>g. The USA has a level of 0.2 ng/m 3 and Japan has limits between 0.1 and 5 ng TEQ/m 3 .SoilsThere are no common <strong>in</strong>ternational guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> soils. Where countries have establishedguidel<strong>in</strong>es the levels vary accord<strong>in</strong>g to the land use. Levels <strong>in</strong> agricultural and residential areas tendto be lower than levels <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>dustrial areas.Water and sedimentsAs diox<strong>in</strong>s are <strong>in</strong>soluble <strong>in</strong> water they are very difficult to analyse. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, very few countrieshave set guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> water. However, some countries have set levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>sediments with different levels <strong>for</strong> mar<strong>in</strong>e and freshwater.BiotaFew countries have established guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> biota. Canada has set levels <strong>for</strong> mammalsand birds.FoodsThere are no common <strong>in</strong>ternational guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> foods. The EU has developed standards<strong>in</strong> EU Regulation (EC) No. 2375/2001 but these only refer to diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans and do not <strong>in</strong>cludediox<strong>in</strong>-like PCBs. It is expected that <strong>in</strong> the future, a new EU standard will encompass diox<strong>in</strong>-likePCBs.Human body burdenA number of countries have established human exposure standards <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s, generally referred to astolerable daily or weekly <strong>in</strong>takes. Current or proposed tolerable daily <strong>in</strong>takes (TDIs) range from 1 pgTCDD/kg bw (the Netherlands and Germany), through 4 pg/kg bw (Japan), 5 pg TCDD/kg bw(Sweden, Norway, F<strong>in</strong>land and Denmark), to 10 pg TCDD or TEQs/kg bw (UK and Canada).35


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Table 3: Examples of diox<strong>in</strong> guidel<strong>in</strong>e levels <strong>in</strong> other countriesAIR 3 Levels expressed <strong>in</strong> TEQs 4Canada 0.1 ng/m 3UK 1.0 ng/m 3Ireland 0.1 ng/m 3US 0.2 ng/m 3Japan 0.1-5 ng/m 3SOILSCanadaUSAJapanF<strong>in</strong>landGermanyItalyThe NetherlandsSwedenWATERUKUSJapanSEDIMENTSUKJapanThe NetherlandsHUMAN INTAKECanadaUKUSAJapanAustriaDenmarkF<strong>in</strong>landFranceGermanyItalyThe NetherlandsSweden4 ng/kg1000 ng/kg1 ng/kg2 ng/kg1000 ng/kg5000 ng/kg1000 ng/kg250 ng/kg0.01 ng/L0.3 ng/L0.001 ng/L55 ng/kg – saltwater and freshwater150 pg/g100 ng/kg10 pg TEQ/kg bodyweight (bw)/day10 pg TEQ/kg bw/day0.006 pg TEQ/kg bw/day4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day10 pg TCDD/kg bw/day5 pg TCDD/kg bw/day5 pg TCDD/kg bw/day1 pg TCDD/kg bw/day1 pg TCDD/kg bw/day10 pg TCDD/kg bw/day1pg TCDD/kg bw/day5 pg TCDD/kg bw/day3 Levels shown <strong>for</strong> air are emission limits <strong>for</strong> sources.4 Countries express the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> different units. To assist <strong>in</strong> enabl<strong>in</strong>g comparisons, the levels <strong>for</strong> environmentalmedia are shown <strong>in</strong> ng/m 3 or ng/kg and <strong>in</strong> pg/kg <strong>for</strong> human <strong>in</strong>take.36


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Appendix 1: Diox<strong>in</strong> measures <strong>in</strong> other countriesNew ZealandIn 1995, the New Zealand M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>for</strong> the Environment (MfE) commenced a <strong>National</strong>Organochlor<strong>in</strong>es Program. The Program assessed the extent of contam<strong>in</strong>ation of the New Zealandenvironment by certa<strong>in</strong> organochlor<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g polychlor<strong>in</strong>ated diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans. The scientificand other reports aris<strong>in</strong>g from the Organochlor<strong>in</strong>es Program can be viewed on the MfE’s website athttp://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/hazardous/#organochlor<strong>in</strong>es.Surveys were undertaken of the background level of organochlor<strong>in</strong>es, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>in</strong>environmental media (air, soil, fresh water, estuaries and sediment). The level of diox<strong>in</strong>s found <strong>in</strong> theNew Zealand environment are generally low compared to other (northern hemisphere) countries <strong>for</strong>which comparable data has been collected. An <strong>in</strong>ventory of diox<strong>in</strong> emissions to air, land, water andreservoir sources has been compiled; a market basket survey of the level of organochlor<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> retailfoods enabled New Zealanders’ dietary <strong>in</strong>take to be assessed; and a major population-based survey ofthe levels of diox<strong>in</strong> and other organochlor<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> the serum of New Zealanders was also undertaken.On the basis of the serum study a diox<strong>in</strong> health risk appraisal was undertaken <strong>for</strong> the New Zealandpopulation.AirIn October 2001, the MfE released a proposal, <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> Reduc<strong>in</strong>g Discharges of <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> to Air,conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a draft national environmental standard to regulate diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from <strong>in</strong>dustrialfacilities. The orig<strong>in</strong>al diox<strong>in</strong>-specific proposal has now been superseded and <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>to apackage of proposed regulations to improve general ambient air quality <strong>in</strong> respect to other air toxics,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s. Certa<strong>in</strong> combustion activities are to be prohibited, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the open burn<strong>in</strong>g oftyres and oil, landfill fires, road-seal burn<strong>in</strong>g, new high temperature hazardous waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators,school and hospital <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators, and the burn<strong>in</strong>g of coated wire to recover metals.WaterA survey of New Zealand’s river<strong>in</strong>e and estuar<strong>in</strong>e environments showed them to be relatively free ofdiox<strong>in</strong>s, and markedly lower than concentrations reported <strong>in</strong> other developed countries.SoilThere are exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terim soil acceptance criteria <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the Health andEnvironment Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Selected Timber Treatment Chemicals (M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>for</strong> the Environment andthe M<strong>in</strong>istry of Health, 1997). It is anticipated that these will be reviewed <strong>in</strong> tandem with workplanned <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> to develop a possible contam<strong>in</strong>ated soil NEPM <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>.BodyThe M<strong>in</strong>istry of Health <strong>in</strong> 2002 adopted a new diox<strong>in</strong>s exposure Interim Maximum Monthly Intake(IMMI) value of 30 pg TEQ/kg body weight/month (approximately 1 pg TEQ/kg body weight /day).This value was established as a result of a WHO reassessment of toxicological data <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s. TheIMMI represents an approximately 10-fold reduction from what was previously considered to be an“acceptable” level of diox<strong>in</strong> exposure. The diox<strong>in</strong> criteria recalculation followed the methodology,exposure scenarios and exposure assumptions used <strong>in</strong> the 1997 Guidel<strong>in</strong>es to derive soil acceptancecriteria but replac<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>for</strong>mer TDI with the IMMI. In relation to New Zealand, estimated <strong>in</strong>takesare believed to be currently lower than the WHO range <strong>for</strong> most of the population, though they appearto have been higher <strong>in</strong> earlier years.37


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>CanadaUnder the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the federal Toxic SubstancesManagement Policy and the Canadian Council of M<strong>in</strong>isters of the Environment’s (CCME) Policy <strong>for</strong>the Management of Toxic Substances, diox<strong>in</strong>s are targeted <strong>for</strong> ‘virtual elim<strong>in</strong>ation’ 5 <strong>in</strong> the Canadianenvironment.In April 1996, the Deputy M<strong>in</strong>ister’s Committee of the CCME gave its approval <strong>for</strong> a task <strong>for</strong>ce towork towards assembl<strong>in</strong>g the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>es that <strong>in</strong>tegrated nationalenvironmental quality guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> water, soil, sediment, tissue residue and air. The CanadianEnvironmental Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>es represents the culm<strong>in</strong>ation of more than a decade of harmonised,national science-based development work <strong>in</strong> Canada.Determ<strong>in</strong>ation of the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) has focused on anthropogenic sources that arereleas<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans to the atmosphere and soil <strong>in</strong> a cont<strong>in</strong>uous process. Development of theCWS <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans takes <strong>in</strong>to consideration environmental benefits, available technologies,socio-economic impacts, opportunities <strong>for</strong> pollution prevention and collateral benefits from reductions<strong>in</strong> other pollutants.In January 1999 the Federal/Prov<strong>in</strong>cial Task Force on <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> released the first <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> and Furansand Hexachlorobenzene Inventory of Releases followed by a revised update published <strong>in</strong> February2001, which identified six priority sectors account<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> about 80% of national emissions that havebeen identified as priorities <strong>for</strong> action. These are:• waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>eration• burn<strong>in</strong>g salt laden wood• residential wood combustion• iron s<strong>in</strong>ter<strong>in</strong>g• electric arc furnace steel manufactur<strong>in</strong>g• conical municipal waste combustion.AirThe CWS, under the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> pulp and paper boilers burn<strong>in</strong>gsalt-laden wood, sets out numeric targets and timeframes <strong>for</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong> and furan emissionsfrom new and exist<strong>in</strong>g boilers. The diox<strong>in</strong> and furan standard <strong>for</strong> all exist<strong>in</strong>g pulp and paper millboiler emissions will be 0.5 ng/m 3 by 2006 and the standard <strong>for</strong> new pulp and paper mill boilers willbe 0.1ng/m 3.WaterThere are currently no standards <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> freshwater and mar<strong>in</strong>e environments.SoilDiox<strong>in</strong> and furan contam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> soil is the subject of national guidel<strong>in</strong>es. These guidel<strong>in</strong>es outl<strong>in</strong>eambient or "alert levels" which may be used by jurisdictions as benchmarks <strong>for</strong> the management andmonitor<strong>in</strong>g of diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans present <strong>in</strong> the environment. The CWS process has focussed on5 Virtual elim<strong>in</strong>ation is the reduction of releases to the environment of the most dangerous toxic substances to a level below which thesereleases cannot be accurately measured.38


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>anthropogenic sources that release diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans to soil <strong>in</strong> a cont<strong>in</strong>uous process. Thedevelopment of the standard <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans takes <strong>in</strong>to consideration environmental benefits,available technologies, socio-economic impacts, opportunities <strong>for</strong> pollution prevention and collateralbenefits from reductions <strong>in</strong> other pollutants.The levels <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> sediment and soil are as follows:OtherSediment- Freshwater (Interim Sediment Quality Guidel<strong>in</strong>e– ISQG)0.85 ng/kg- Freshwater (Probable Effect Level – PEL) 21.5 ng/kg- Mar<strong>in</strong>e (ISQG) 0.85 ng/kg- Mar<strong>in</strong>e (PEL) 21.5 ng/kgSoil4 ng/kgThe Canadian standard <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> wildlife tissue residue is 0.71 ng/kg <strong>for</strong> mammals and4.75 ng/kg <strong>for</strong> birds.Canada has also established a tolerable daily <strong>in</strong>take <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans of 10 pg/kg bodyweight perday <strong>for</strong> people.United K<strong>in</strong>gdomThe UK Environment Agency’s Strategy, Manag<strong>in</strong>g Chemicals <strong>for</strong> a Better Environment, focuses theAgency’s chemical management activities on those substances where the Agency can take action tomost effectively contribute to environmental improvement. This action may be direct or <strong>in</strong>direct andmay be at any po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> the chemical lifecycle. The strategy focuses on chemicals that may directlyaffect the environment or human health through environmental exposure.The Environment Agency is currently look<strong>in</strong>g at the risk a chemical poses on the environment; thisrequires consideration of two factors:• the hazardous properties of the chemical – e.g. its toxicity• the likelihood of exposure to that chemical – <strong>for</strong> example, environmental exposure is likely tobe higher <strong>for</strong> a chemical <strong>in</strong> wide use across society (e.g. a substance <strong>in</strong> a domestic clean<strong>in</strong>gproduct) than it will be <strong>for</strong> a chemical used <strong>in</strong> a few specialist applications at a few chemicalplants.<strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> have been identified as a group of chemicals listed <strong>for</strong> further <strong>in</strong>vestigation.The Environment Agency seeks to regulate releases to the environment of diox<strong>in</strong> emissions and lowerthe risk of caus<strong>in</strong>g detrimental effects to the environment or human health.AirIn the UK, diox<strong>in</strong> emissions are controlled under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations,under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. The proposed new European <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erationdirective will replace three exist<strong>in</strong>g directives on the <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>eration of municipal and hazardous waste,amongst other th<strong>in</strong>gs, sett<strong>in</strong>g a maximum diox<strong>in</strong> emission limit of 0.1 ng/m 3 <strong>in</strong> stack gas. Forcombustion processes the recommended limit value is 0.1 ng/m 3 and <strong>for</strong> various metal processes andpapermak<strong>in</strong>g processes, the recommended limit is 1.0 ng/m 3 .39


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>WaterThe UK standards <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> water are:Freshwater pelagic communitySaltwater pelagic communityFreshwater sediment benthic communityFreshwater sediment benthic communityMar<strong>in</strong>e sediment benthic community0.01 ng/lNo standard55 ng/kg (<strong>for</strong> 3% OC)185 ng/kg (<strong>for</strong> 10% OC)55 ng/kg (<strong>for</strong> 3% OC)Note: OC – Octachlorodibenzo-para-diox<strong>in</strong>Pelagic communities are those that live <strong>in</strong> the water (below the surface and above the seafloor)Benthic communities are those that live <strong>in</strong> or on sediments.SoilThere are currently no standards <strong>for</strong> levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s or furans <strong>in</strong> soil.OtherThe UK M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>for</strong> Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods has established a recommended maximumtolerable concentration of 0.66 ng/kg <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> cows milk.The UK has adopted a tolerable daily <strong>in</strong>take <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans of 10 pg/kg bodyweight per day<strong>for</strong> people.United StatesOver the last 20 years, the US EPA has looked <strong>for</strong> ways to reduce diox<strong>in</strong>s levels <strong>in</strong> the environment.Collectively, these actions have resulted <strong>in</strong> strict controls on all known and quantifiable major<strong>in</strong>dustrial sources of diox<strong>in</strong> releases. As a result of the EPA's ef<strong>for</strong>ts, along with ef<strong>for</strong>ts by stategovernment and private <strong>in</strong>dustry, known and quantifiable <strong>in</strong>dustrial emissions of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the UShave been reduced by more than 90% from 1987 levels.The EPA undertook a major scientific study entitled, Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Diox<strong>in</strong> (TCDD) and Related Compounds. The study is commonlyreferred to as the EPA diox<strong>in</strong> reassessment. The study focuses on sources of diox<strong>in</strong>s, levels of diox<strong>in</strong>likecompounds <strong>in</strong> environmental media, human exposures to diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on critical humanhealth end po<strong>in</strong>ts, mode of action, pharmacok<strong>in</strong>etics, dose-response and f<strong>in</strong>ally, key f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs pert<strong>in</strong>entto the potential hazards and risks of diox<strong>in</strong>s, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a discussion of all important assumptions anduncerta<strong>in</strong>ties.AirNew str<strong>in</strong>gent regulatory requirements promulgated by the EPA under the authority of the Clean AirAct set emission limits <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s, and other hazardous air pollutants based on maximum achievablecontrol technology. The EPA has recently regulated diox<strong>in</strong> emissions from facilities that burnhazardous waste which <strong>in</strong>clude waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators, cement kilns and some lightweight aggregate kilns.For example, the limit <strong>for</strong> discharges of diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans from municipal waste <strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators is 0.2ng/m 3 .WaterDiox<strong>in</strong> releases to water are managed through a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of risk-based and technology-based toolsestablished under the Clean Water Act. To ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> the level of dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water <strong>in</strong> the country, a40


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>maximum contam<strong>in</strong>ant level goal (non-en<strong>for</strong>ceable, voluntary health goal) of zero and a maximumcontam<strong>in</strong>ant level of 300 pg/L has been set.SoilUnder the EPA Superfund, an important aspect is the clean up of diox<strong>in</strong> contam<strong>in</strong>ated lands. Aroundthe country there are many Superfund sites which have successfully been cleaned up, however, toprevent further contam<strong>in</strong>ation of diox<strong>in</strong>s to land, the EPA has developed Hazardous WasteIdentification and Disposal Rules which identify and strictly limit the disposal options of wasteconta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s.The US Public Health Service and the EPA have both issued a directive that 1000 ng/kg is theappropriate criterion to use <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s and furans <strong>in</strong> residential soil.WastesThe EPA proposed rules to restrict the use of diox<strong>in</strong>-contam<strong>in</strong>ated pulp and paper sludge andguidel<strong>in</strong>es have been developed to limit the diox<strong>in</strong> concentration to 31.9 pg/L.The EPA proposed regulations limit<strong>in</strong>g the diox<strong>in</strong> content of cement kiln dust from cement plants andsludge when these by-product materials are used as soil additives.In October 2003, the US EPA made the decision not to regulate diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> land-applied sewage sludgeas studies have shown that diox<strong>in</strong>s from this source do not pose a significant risk to human health orthe environment.OtherThe US EPA has set limits on the level of human exposure of diox<strong>in</strong>s at 0.006 pg/kg bodyweight perday.JapanThe Law Concern<strong>in</strong>g Special Measures Aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> (the <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Law) came <strong>in</strong>to <strong>for</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> January2000 to regulate the levels of diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> air, water and soil as well as emissions from small<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>erators. This law also stipulates basic standards <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> soil. The <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Law stipulatesthe standards <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s as:Ambient Air 0.6 pg-TEQ/m 3WaterSedimentSoilEffluentTolerable Daily Intake1 pg-TEQ/L150 pg-TEQ/g1,000 pg-TEQ/g10 pg-TEQ/L4 pg-TEQ/kg bw/dayEuropean UnionThe cornerstone of the EU environmental action is the Sixth Environment <strong>Action</strong> Program entitledEnvironment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice which has the priorities of:• tackl<strong>in</strong>g climate change and global warm<strong>in</strong>g41


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>• protect<strong>in</strong>g the natural habitat and wildlife• address<strong>in</strong>g environment and health issues• preserv<strong>in</strong>g natural resources and manag<strong>in</strong>g waste.In October 2001, to secure better protection of human health and the environment from the effects ofdiox<strong>in</strong>s the Commission adopted a Communication on a Community Strategy <strong>for</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong>, Furans andPolychlor<strong>in</strong>ated Biphenyls. The Communication outl<strong>in</strong>es the problem of diox<strong>in</strong>s, the progress <strong>in</strong>address<strong>in</strong>g the problem, the rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g gaps, the basis <strong>for</strong> community action and develops a strategy toreduce the presence of these compounds <strong>in</strong> the environment, <strong>in</strong> feed and food.Table 4 describes the current guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s applied with<strong>in</strong> Member States of the EU.42


Country<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Table 4: Current standards and guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the Member States of the EUInc<strong>in</strong>eration ofWasteEmissions(I-TEQ/m 3 )Iron/SteelS<strong>in</strong>ter<strong>in</strong>gEmissions(I-TEQ/m 3 )Austria 0.1 ng Be<strong>for</strong>e 31 Dec2005 – 0.25 ngAfter 1 Jan2005 – 0.1 ng(Electrical arcfurnaces 0.4ng)Belgium 0.1 ng New plant –0.5 ngExist<strong>in</strong>g plant– 2.5 ngPaperProcess<strong>in</strong>gEmissionsContam<strong>in</strong>antSoils(I-TEQ/kg)No guidel<strong>in</strong>es –<strong>in</strong> the past wereapplied to<strong>in</strong>dividual casesand were samelevel as GermanyWater Fertiliser /Compost(I-TEQ/kg)N Fertiliser –50 ngCulturesubstrates –20 ngSewerageSludge100 ng I-TEQ/kgN 0.1 ng I-TEQ m 3Foodstuffs(TCCD/g)3 ng I-TEQ/kg(feed stock tocows)5 pg (foods with>2% fat)100 pg (foodswith ≤2% fat)Daily HumanIntake10 pgTCCD/kg/bw(A target of 1 pgshould beachieved)No maximumtolerable <strong>in</strong>takerecommendedDenmark 0.1 ng N 5 pg N-TEQ/kg/bwF<strong>in</strong>land New plant –1.0 ngExist<strong>in</strong>g plant –limit value 1.0ng (target value0.1 ng)France0.1 ng(new andexist<strong>in</strong>g)Proposedguidel<strong>in</strong>e – 2 ngLimit value –500 ng(agricultural andresidential)Germany 0.1 ng 0.1 ng 0.1 ng I-TEQ m 3 Agriculture –5 ng – 40 ngPlaygrounds –100 ngResidential areas– 1,000 ngIndustrial areas –10,000 ngN 5 pg N-TEQ/kg/bw1 ng I-TEQ/year N 5 pg I-TEQ/g(milk and milkproducts)N Compost –17 ng100 ng 5 pg I-TEQ/kg(milk)0.9 pg I-TEQ/kg(milk fat)1 pg I-TEQ/kg/bw1 pg I-TEQ/kg/bw43


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Ireland 0.1 ng 0.1 ng 0.1 ng I-TEQ m 3 NZero emissionsItaly 0.1 ng Farmable –5,000 ng/m 2750 ng/m 2Non-farmable –<strong>in</strong>to the VeniceLagoon10 pg I-TEQ/kgLuxembourg 0.1 ng 0.1 ng 0.1 ng I-TEQ m 3 NTheNetherlands0.1 ng 0.4 ng Residential andagricultural areas– 1,000 ngDairy farm<strong>in</strong>g –10 ngAquaticsediments –100ngCompost –63 ng I-TEQ/kg190 ng I-TEQ/kg6 pg I-TEQ/kg(milk and milkproducts)10 pg(Governmentstriv<strong>in</strong>g towardsa maximumdaily <strong>in</strong>take of1 pg)Portugal 0.1 ng N N N N N N N NSpa<strong>in</strong> 0.1 ng N N N N N N N NSwedenNew – 0.1 ngExist<strong>in</strong>g – 0.1 to2 ngUse of chlor<strong>in</strong>e<strong>in</strong> production hasstoppedLand withsensitive use –10 ngLand with lesssensitive use –250 ng250 ng I-TEQ/kg <strong>for</strong>groundwaterextractionVarious dietaryguidel<strong>in</strong>es exist<strong>for</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> typesof food5 pgTEQ/kg/bwUnitedK<strong>in</strong>gdom1.0 ng (with theobjective ofachiev<strong>in</strong>g0.1ng)1.0 ng 1.0 ng 0.66 ng (wholemilk)16.6 ng (milkfat)10 pgSource: European Commission DG Environment and UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Compilation of EU Diox<strong>in</strong> Exposure andHealth Data – Task 1 – Member State Legislation and Programmes, Ox<strong>for</strong>dshire, 1999N: There is no diox<strong>in</strong> related legislation that goes beyond the requirements of the relevant EC Directives44


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>References<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council/Agriculture and ResourceManagement Council of <strong>Australia</strong> and New Zealand (1994), Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Sewerage Systems –Acceptance of Trade Waste (Industrial Waste).<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1996), HexachlorobenzeneWaste Management <strong>Plan</strong>, Canberra http://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/chemicals/scheduledwaste/hcbplan.html.<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1999), Polychlor<strong>in</strong>atedBiphenyls Management <strong>Plan</strong>, Canberra http://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/chemicals/scheduledwaste/pcbs/<strong>in</strong>dex.html.<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1999), Organochlor<strong>in</strong>ePesticides Waste Management <strong>Plan</strong>, Canberrahttp://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/chemicals/scheduled-waste/ocps/ocpplan.html.<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (2000), <strong>Australia</strong>n and NewZealand Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> Fresh and Mar<strong>in</strong>e Water Quality.<strong>Australia</strong>n and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, <strong>National</strong> Strategy <strong>for</strong> theManagement of Scheduled Waste http://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/chemicals/scheduledwaste/strategy.htmlCommonwealth of <strong>Australia</strong> Air Toxics Program Technical Advisory Group (2000), Report onPrioritisation of Air Toxics, MelbourneCommonwealth of <strong>Australia</strong> (1995), Environmental Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> New Bleached Eucalypt KraftPulp Mills, <strong>Australia</strong>Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) <strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program TechnicalReports1. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> emissions from Bushfires <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>2. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> emissions from Motor Vehicles <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>3. Inventory of Diox<strong>in</strong> emissions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong> 20044. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> Ambient Air <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>5. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> Soils <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>6. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> Aquatic Environments <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>7. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> Fauna <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>8. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> Agricultural Commodities <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>9. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Population: Levels <strong>in</strong> Blood10. <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Australia</strong>n Population: Levels <strong>in</strong> Human Milk11. Ecological Risk Assessment of <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>12. Human Health Risk Assessment of <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999http://www.deh.gov.au/epbc/<strong>in</strong>dex.html45


<strong>National</strong> <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong> Program – <strong>National</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>for</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g diox<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>Department of the Environment and Heritage (1998) Guide to Controlled and Other Wastesunder <strong>Australia</strong>’s Hazardous Waste Act, In<strong>for</strong>mation Paper No. 4, June 1998, (Prepared by theHazardous Waste Section of Environment <strong>Australia</strong> as guidance <strong>for</strong> the operation of theHazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989).Department of the Environment and Heritage, Hazardous Waste Website –http://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/chemicals/hwa/<strong>in</strong>dex.html<strong>National</strong> Environment Protection Council, Guidel<strong>in</strong>es on Health Based Investigation Levels,<strong>National</strong> Environment (Assessment of Site Contam<strong>in</strong>ation) Measure, Schedule B (7A), 1999<strong>National</strong> Environment Protection Council, <strong>National</strong> Environment (Ambient Air Quality) Measure1998 http://www.ephc.gov.au/nepms/air/air_nepm.html<strong>National</strong> Health and Medical Research Council (2002), <strong>Diox<strong>in</strong>s</strong>: Recommendation <strong>for</strong> aTolerable Monthly Intake <strong>for</strong> <strong>Australia</strong>ns, CanberraDepartment of the Environment and Heritage, <strong>National</strong> Pollutant Inventory Websitehttp://www.npi.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dex.htmlDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, <strong>National</strong> Residue Survey Websitehttp://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A05746&contType=outputsNatural Resource Management M<strong>in</strong>isterial Council (2003) DRAFT Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>for</strong> SewerageSystems Biosolids Management – February 2003, CanberraProduct Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Regulations 2003 (No 1)http://www.deh.gov.au/<strong>in</strong>dustry/waste/oilrecycl<strong>in</strong>g/<strong>in</strong>dex.htmlFood Standards <strong>Australia</strong> and New Zealand, Total Diet Surveyhttp://www.foodstandards.gov.au/mediareleasespublications/publications/19thaustraliantotaldietsurveyapril2001/19thaustraliantotaldietsurvey/UNEP (2004) Guidel<strong>in</strong>es on best available techniques and provisional guidance on bestenvironmental practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention onPersistent Organic Pollutants, http://www.pops.<strong>in</strong>t/documents/batbep_advance/default.htm46

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!