Problems with ACT law would have restricted the government from disciplining Koppers over missing groundwater test results because it needed to prove the corporation's reporting failures were causing "environmental harm".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The multinational company operated from the early 1980s to 2005, treating timber using copper, chrome and arsenic.
It polluted groundwater beneath its site in Hume with hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic toxin.
The contamination is not thought to have escaped the site, but the case exposed a series of issues with the enforcement of groundwater testing by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).
A key failing of the company was its lack of compliance with obligations to send in regular test results, including obligations under its legally binding 2002 environmental authorisation.
The ACT Legislative Assembly moved a motion last month requiring the government to make a formal statement in response to the Koppers case.
Environment Minister Simon Corbell made that statement this week, saying the EPA had to overcome legal obstacles before it could discipline Koppers for the missing test results.
He said the government would have needed to prove the company's non-compliance was causing environmental harm and then pursue action through the courts.
"As the tests results during the facilities operation did not indicate or constitute environmental harm, action was not warranted," Mr Corbell said.
The legal obstacle was not fixed until 2005 – the year the company stopped its production – when reforms introduced a strict liability offence, allowing the government to issue fines.
"This provided the EPA with an appropriate tool to deal with matters such as those which had occurred during the regulation of the Koppers facility," Mr Corbell said.
Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury said he was surprised it took the government so long to recognise the "failing" in the legislation.
"This report shows that it took the EPA until 2005 to ensure they had the powers they needed to enforce the environmental authorisation," Mr Rattenbury said.
"By this time, Koppers were shutting up shop in the ACT and it was too late for them to be reprimanded on their reporting failures."
Mr Corbell also used the statement to foreshadow upcoming changes to the territory's environmental laws.
Those changes, he said, would allow the EPA to proactively intervene to prevent pollution by broadening the definition of environmental harm to include "likely to cause harm to the environment".
Mr Rattenbury welcomed those changes and the additional information provided by the government in its statement.
"There were valuable lessons learnt from the [Koppers] situation, and we look forward to seeing even further changes to the Environment Protection Act that will ensure it is more responsive and flexible in terms of protecting our environment," he said.
The statement was also used to assure the community that the government's regulations and policies were strong enough to manage the territory's potential polluters and remediate "legacy" contaminated sites.
It also stated that the government had never approved any discharges of chemicals from the Hume site, despite Koppers needing permission between 2002 and 2005 for liquid to spill from the site.
Neighbours, who lived next to the site for decades, regularly witnessed foamy liquid discharged from the site during rain.