Submissions
The NSW Government tabled in parliament the Protection of the Environment Operations Environmental Monitoring Bill 2010 on 24 September 2010. This bill enables the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to place a levy on Environmental Protection Licence holders for undertaking additional monitoring.
The bill permits the EPA or the Minister to initiate is own investigation for the need for a monitoring program to consider impact on human health by licensed sites. Licence holders whom the EPA considered appropriate are then hit with a monitoring levy to pay for environmental monitoring programs including:
- The costs of investigating the need for a program,
- The development, implementation, operation and administration of,
- Any costs incurred by the EPA before the commencement of this bill
- Payments by the EPA for services provided by a person undertaking environmental monitoring programs for the EPA
Money collected is then placed into the Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) for use by the EPA. Any environmental monitoring will be required to have an independent assessment on its efficacy and its economics.
ASBG’s issues with the bill include:
- Inefficient – handing over the implementation and operation of such monitoring to the EPA rather than the current outcome based approach used in Environment Protection Licences
- Redundant — all the monitoring and more can be legally managed under licence conditions
- Undermines Licensed site’s rights of negotiation and appeal on such issues
- Retrospective — s295Z(4)(a) states … including any costs incurred by the EPA before the commencement of this Part.
.
 ASBG's Letter on the POEO (EM) Bill | 115 kB |
Subject to a COAG requirement the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) is undertaking a Review of Harmonisation of Environmental Regulation across Australia. This is being run jointly by the NSW and Victorian environmental agencies, of which the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water invited ASBG to provide comment on the scope of this review. The main issues ASBG put forward for inclusion in the scope of the review includes:
- Environmental reporting; streamlining, duplication reduction and harmonisation.
- Standardisation of: measurement, monitoring, accounting, verification across the following areas:
- Greenhouse emissions
- Air emissions (other than greenhouse)
- Water
- Waste
- Land
- Harmonisation of waste issues including: measurement, data collation, waste management type and improving the design of waste levies.
- Improvements to licenses, authorities and permits.
- National recognition of specific processes and systems which are Nationally recognised as best practice to assist in controversial projects.
- Pathways and timetables to address these issues.
ASBG looks forward to the next phase of this review and the possible processes that can be included to really improve the above issues for members, especially environmental reporting.
| ASBG's Response to EPHC's Harmonisation of Enviro. Regulation | 152 kB |
The Ambient Air Quality National Environment Protection Measure (AAQ NEPM) sets standards for air quality across Australia. If these standards are not met then the local state government, through its environmental agency is required to introduce controls to attain the standard. Changes to the AAQ NEPM are being considered that focus on how and when an environmental agency is to act rather than what are acceptable air quality limits.
Use of 'exceedences' above set limits is the main way in which the NEPM requires action. Some air pollutants have a permitted number of exceedences before the NEPM standard can be considered to have not been met.
ASBG's submission focused on the following four issues:
- Removal of the permitted number of exceedences of the standard which was not supported if the current exceedence approach is to be continued to be used
- Permitting 'exceptional' and 'natural' exceedences to be excluded from consideration of meeting the NEPM requirements. This was strongly opposed as it meant that governments could continue to ignore that they can control air emissions from such events such as prescribed burns, bush fires and dust storms.
- How exceedences should be reported and considered, which ASBG offered advice on improving the reasons and actions to deal with exceedences.
- Are there alternative methods - ASBG discussed this issue in detail promoting a proportional approach be used. This would also involve multi-departmental and multi-jurisdictional cooperation to manage air quality in a proportional and cost effective manner.
| ASBG's Submission on AAQ NEPM Review | 225 kB |
ASBG has written to the Ombudsman in relation to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to release Sydney Water's top 50 water users and their consumption going back some 8 years.
In response ASBG pointed out the significant general improvements made in the efficiency of water in the Sydney region, which was collectively as a result of action by industry, grant programs such as Sydney Water's Every Drop Counts program and other government initiatives such as Water Action Savings Plans.
Hence the issue is not the performance of industry in general, but the impact competitors and competing nations could do to Sydney's businesses. The need for confidentiality of resource use data has many justifications including:
- Competitors assessing the production levels of a site for future planning and obtaining additional market share.
- Competitors ascertaining product formulations, recipes, costs and other proprietary information.
- Competitors identifying sensitive resources and entering into price wars during times of supply shortage.
- Countries assessing, by the release of such data, that a local company has been provided with a form of government assistance, thereby launching international court challenges which can lead to trade barriers being established.
| ASBG's Letter on the release of top water users | 104 kB |
ASBG is running a campaign on streamlining the way in which environmental data is supplied to government under reguatlory obligations.
One of the main complaints from environmental managers have is the load of environmental reporting they are required to submit each year. Such reporting is also heavily weighted to the September - December timeframe, permitting little time left for environmental managers to undertake their primary role of environmental improvement.
Members are complain of the level of duplication, inconsistent data, and non-standaisation of report frameworks as well as non-recognition of other reporting systems. In addtion, is the inability of other agencies to access some eachothers' databases.
ASBG recommends the streamlining of the environmental reporting systems to:
- Cut duplication, via standarisation of measurment and data collation with flexibility
- Use of centralised databases for: Emissions - use the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI); Greenhosue - use OSCAR
- Accept cross recognition of other agencies' reproting systems such as EEO reports exempts the need for an Energy Savings Plan to be submitted
- Development of other national databases for waste and perhaps water as well.
ASBG is involved with the Queensland Department of Environment and Resoruce Management in their program to reduce greentape. Attached is ASBG's letter in response DERM's inviation to pursue greentape reduction in Queensland.
| Reducing Greentape in Queensland 2010 | 84 kB |
