Annual Report 2005-2006It is with pleasure that I present you with the Annual Report of the...

E N V I R O N M E N T P R O T E C T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

Environment Protection Authority Annual Report

1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

ANNUAL REPORT

1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006

Environment Protection Authority Annual Report 2005–2006

For further information please contact:

Information Officer Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Telephone: (08) 8204 2004 Facsimile: (08) 8124 1909 Freecall (country): 1800 623 445 E-mail: <[email protected]> Website: <www.epa.sa.gov.au>

ISSN 1322-1662 ISBN 1 921125 24 1 September 2006

© Environment Protection Authority This document may be reproduced in whole or part for the purpose of study or training, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and to its not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for purposes other that those given above requires the prior written permission of the Environment Protection Authority.

Printed on recycled paper

CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .............................................................................1FOREWORD ...............................................................................................3ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................5HIGHLIGHTS AND MAJOR INITIATIVES ...............................................................7

Organisational change ............................................................................... 7Policy and strategy development .................................................................. 7Science and smarter regulation .................................................................... 8

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 11EPA BOARD AND ITS ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 13

Meetings: general and special .................................................................... 13Stakeholder consultation program 2005–06 .................................................... 13EPA Board members ................................................................................ 17Outgoing members of the Board ................................................................. 19EPA Board Local Government Subcommittee .................................................. 20

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS .............................................................................. 21South Australia’s strategic plan: Strategic objectives........................................ 21EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008..................................................................... 22

ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS ............................................................................. 25Clean and healthy air .............................................................................. 25Water that meets agreed environmental values .............................................. 36Communities protected from unacceptable noise ............................................ 48Sustainable land-use ............................................................................... 51

CROSS GOAL STRATEGIES ............................................................................ 57Enhancing organisational capability, accountability and responsiveness.................. 57Contributing to a more sustainable South Australia .......................................... 61Promoting the adoption of eco-efficient practices ........................................... 62Developing strategic partnerships ............................................................... 73Predictable, consistent and fair compliance and enforcement ............................. 76Timely provision of reliable and relevant environmental information..................... 85Innovation and relevant policy advice and legislation........................................ 86

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT AND SYSTEMS ....................................................... 93Finance and administration ....................................................................... 93Human Resources and Development............................................................. 94Information technology system improvements ................................................ 98Occupational health, safety, welfare and injury management ............................. 98

APPENDIX 1 ORGANISATIONAL INFORMATION ............................................ 101APPENDIX 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES.................. 103APPENDIX 3 OTHER STATUTORY INFORMATION.......................................... 149APPENDIX 4 PUBLICATIONS RELEASED OR UPDATED DURING 2005–06 .............. 151APPENDIX 5 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATEMENT .................................. 153APPENDIX 6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................................... 157

4

List of Figures

Figure 1: Adelaide’s air quality index 2005....................................................... 26

Figure 2: PM10 data for Walls Street monitoring site, Whyalla, 2005......................... 27

Figure 3: PM10 data for Civic Park monitoring site, Whyalla, 2005 ........................... 27

Figure 4: Daily average particulate lead concentrations at Port Pirie South monitoring site, Port Pirie, 2005 ..................................................................... 28

Figure 5: Daily average particulate lead concentrations at Risdon Park monitoring site, Port Pirie, 2005............................................................................ 28

Figure 6: Sulfur dioxide daily maximum 1-hour averages in Port Pirie, 2005 ............... 29

Figure 7: Forecast output example—Australian Air Quality Forecast System ............... 35

Figure 8: The waste hierarchy ...................................................................... 63

Figure 9: Paper diverted from landfill ............................................................ 69

Figure 10: Recycling of containers (cans, bottles and cartons) ................................ 70

Figure 11: Proportion of unleaded fuel used in dual fuel vehicles ............................. 71

Figure 12: Greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................... 72

Figure 13: Emergency response—incidents reported by type ................................... 82

Figure 14: Emergency response—source of calls .................................................. 83

Figure 15: Workers compensation—annual claims cost .........................................100

Figure 16: Hazard and incident reports—annual trends.........................................100

List of Tables

Table 1: Referred development applications completed...................................... 54

Table 2: Aquaculture assessments 2005–06 ...................................................... 56

Table 3: Progress against 2005–06 Portfolio Statement targets .............................. 60

Table 4: Performance against annual energy use targets ..................................... 68

Table 5: Equipment and energy consumption ................................................... 68

Table 6: Printer consumables recycling .......................................................... 69

Table 7: EPA vehicle fleet .......................................................................... 71

Table 8: Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions ............................................ 71

Table 9: Freedom of Information applications and Public Register requests .............. 79

Table 10: Inspections of licensed premises ....................................................... 80

Table 11: Number of complaints received by the EPA .......................................... 80

Table 12: Environment Protection Orders......................................................... 83

Table 13: Finalised prosecutions 2005–06 ......................................................... 84

Table 14: Summary of Stage 2 sites across South Australia .................................... 90

Table 15: Total number of employees ............................................................. 94

Table 16: Employee gender balance ............................................................... 94

Table 17: Number of employees by salary bracket .............................................. 95

Table 18: Status of employees in current position............................................... 95

Table 19: Number of executives by status in current position, gender and classification 95

Table 20: Average days taken per FTE employee ................................................ 96

Table 21: Number of employees by age bracket by gender .................................... 96

Table 22: Number of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander employees ................... 96

Table 23: Cultural and linguistic diversity of employees ....................................... 97

Table 24: Number of employees with ongoing disabilities requiring workplace adaption. 97

Table 25: Number of employees using voluntary flexible working arrangements by gender................................................................................... 97

Table 26: Documented review of individual performance development plan ............... 97

Table 27: OHSW statistics............................................................................ 99

Table 28: Workers compensation statistics ....................................................... 99

Table 29: Account payment performance ........................................................103

Table 30: Use of consultants—controlled entity.................................................103

Table 31: Use of consultants—administered entity .............................................104

Table 32: Overseas travel by employees .........................................................149

Table 33: Summary of EPA advice on Plan Amendment Reports (PARs) and Statements of Intent (SoIs) .............................................................157

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

The Hon Gail Gago, MLC Minister for Environment and Conservation Parliament House North Terrace ADELAIDE South Australia 5000

Dear Minister

It is with pleasure that I present you with the Annual Report of the Environment Protection Authority for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. This report has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1993 and the Public Sector Management Act 1995.

Yours sincerely

Dr Paul Vogel Chief Executive and Chair Environment Protection Authority

29 September 2006

1

FOREWORD

This report provides an overview of the work of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) as the body responsible for administering the Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act) for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006.

Under the Act, the EPA’s responsibilities cover a broad range of activities. These include regulation of activities that pose a significant risk to the environment; the development of environment protection policies, environmental monitoring and evaluation, programs and investigations that promote ecologically sustainable development; and consultation with all levels of government, the private sector and the community on matters related to environmental protection and management.

The EPA Board has continued to provide proactive governance for the EPA, and has worked to refine the strategic directions for the organisation to achieve our vision of a clean, healthy and valued environment that supports social and economic prosperity for South Australians.

The Board’s comprehensive stakeholder and regional consultation program has continued, providing it with useful and timely information on the important issues facing communities and their environments. This two-way exchange with key stakeholders, both in metropolitan and regional areas, has allowed the Board to understand the aspirations of the community. Part of this program, the annual Round-table Conference, with participants from 25 key interest groups, provided us with valuable ideas as to the role of the EPA in managing the impacts of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions; and in how we can respond to the State’s draft greenhouse strategy, Tackling climate change.

The Board of the EPA, with input from staff and key stakeholders, finalised and released its Strategic Plan 2005–2008. As well as identifying its key environmental goals and strategies, the Board has taken steps to ensure that the EPA is well positioned to contribute to the South Australia’s Strategic Plan: Creating Opportunity (2004).

The key priorities for our organisation are: improving its service orientation; enhancing stakeholder engagement and relationships; exploring more innovative methods to effectively influence community and industry behaviour towards environmental protection and enhancement; and contributing to the development of a more effective land-use planning and assessment system.

In August 2005 the EPA embarked on a process of organisational and cultural change. The program is characterised by four key elements: an organisational re-structure to better align the core business of the EPA with the delivery of its strategic plan; a review and refinement of organisational key performance indicators; improved business systems and processes; and staff development and cultural change.

As well as focusing on the future, this report demonstrates the extensive work of the EPA over the last 12 months in all facets of its operations—in policy development; in a greater understanding of our environmental systems; in improving the organisation’s communication with people; in enhancing internal operations and reviewing its approach to its licensing function. I thank all staff and stakeholders who, during the course of the year, committed their time and efforts to these programs to protect and enhance our environment.

3

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Minister John Hill for his support and commitment to improving the functioning of the EPA and strengthening the systems for environment protection in this State. I look forward to working with Minister Gail Gago to continue the evolution of the EPA.

Dr Paul Vogel Chief Executive and Chair Environment Protection Authority

29 September 2006

4

ABBREVIATIONS

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metre AAQFS Australian Air Quality Forecast System ABC Adelaide Brighton Cement ABEF Australian Business Excellence Framework ARA Australian Rail Association CARES Complaints and Reports of Environmental Significance CDL container deposit legislation; or the beverage container provisions

of the Environment Protection Act 1993 CMS Community Mediation Service COAG Council of Australian Governments CQMS Central Queensland Mining Supplies CRC cooperative research centre CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation CSO Crown Solicitor’s Office DEH Department for Environment and Heritage DoH Department of Health DTEI Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation EIP environment improvement program e-ELF electronic-Environment Licensing Form EIA Electronics Industry Association EIMP environment improvement and management program EMS environmental management systems EP Act Environment Protection Act 1993 EPA Environment Protection Authority EPHC Environment Protection and Heritage Council EPO Environment Protection Order EPP Environment Protection Policy EPR extended producer responsibility ERD Court Environment, Resources and Development Court FOI freedom of information FTE full time equivalent GENI General Environmental Information Systems GIS geographical information systems GoGO Greening of Government Operations HRD human resource development IQQM Integrated Quality and Quantity Model IT information technology KESAB Keep South Australia Beautiful KPIs Key Performance Indicators L&D learning and development LEMP landfill environmental management plan LGA Local Government Association LMC Land Management Corporation LMRIA Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Area LTEC Land Transport Environment Committee MIL monitoring investigation level MLRW Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed MoU memorandum of understanding Mt mega tonnes NEPC National Environment Protection Council NEPM National Environment Protection Measure

5

NPC National Packaging Covenant NPI National Pollutant Inventory NRM natural resource management NTC National Transport Commission NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy ODS ozone depleting substances OHSW occupational health, safety and welfare PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PIRSA Department of Primary Industries and Resources, SA PM10 particles of less than 10 microns in diameter PMW (PoPS) Protection of Marine Waters (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act Act 1987

ppm parts per million RMT regulatory monitoring and testing RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances RPC Act Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 SACFM South Australian Centre for Manufacturing SAHT South Australian Housing Trust SAMDB South Australian Murray-Darling Basin SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute WaterCAST water and contaminant simulation package WPO Watershed Protection Office WQIP water quality improvement plan ZWSA Zero Waste SA

6


HIGHLIGHTS AND MAJOR INITIATIVES

ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

In August 2005, the EPA commenced a program of structural and organisational change to be implemented in a number of stages over the next two years. The program was in response to: increasing stakeholder expectations and emerging environmental challenges; the need for the EPA to better align itself with the key strategies and priorities of the EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008; and the Government's policy agenda described through South Australia’s Strategic Plan (SASP).

The organisational change program has four major initiatives: • a review of organisational structure • improved organisational performance measurement and reporting • staff development and culture change • processes and systems improvement.

The EPA’s divisions and branches have been restructured to improve accountability, clarify areas of responsibility against EPA Strategic Plan priorities and develop stronger partnerships for problem solving.

Transition to the new structure was finalised in June 2006 and the EPA will begin operating with the new structure at the beginning of 2006–07 financial year.

In addition, the adoption of an improved performance-based approach by the EPA will: • help to create a stronger culture of accountability within the organisation • assist in understanding the contribution and effectiveness of EPA programs in

achieving SASP objectives and EPA Strategic Plan objectives • provide the means to evaluate and improve programs and activities based on sound

evidence and rationale.

POLICY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

EPA Position Statement on Sustainability The EPA Position Statement on Sustainability describes how the EPA uses its decision-making powers, and program and policy development to raise the profile of sustainability to ensure that decision makers and the general public take it into account. Two ways in which the EPA contributes to sustainability—addressing local environmental impacts, and managing and influencing others to address the cumulative effects of waste and pollution on our environment—are discussed.

Civil penalties From 1 July 2006 the EPA is empowered to negotiate a civil penalty for a contravention of the EP Act, or apply to the Environment Resources and Development (ERD) Court such that a person pay to the EPA an amount as a civil penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution. Civil penalties will only apply to less serious contraventions and strict liability offences, leaving existing criminal provisions in the EP Act to deal with more serious offences.

This new system is a first in Australia for an environmental regulator. Unlike ‘administrative’ penalty provisions used by other Australian regulatory bodies, the use of negotiations to determine levels of civil penalties provides a timely, cost-effective

7


alternative to court proceedings for less serious offences where the alleged offender agrees to negotiate. The negotiation of civil penalties does not replace the important role of the courts for more serious offences.

The EPA has undertaken consultation to develop a civil penalty calculations policy to provide a transparent guide to the calculation of consistent and equitable penalties.

Landfill guidelines The EPA reviewed its guidelines for landfill design, construction, operation, closure and post-closure management to deal with municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste. This project was initiated in response to an increasing demand by proponents, operators and licensees for the guidelines to be more detailed and transparent, and reflect a risk-based approach.

Responding to concerns on implementation, particularly from local government, the EPA has supported a staged approach to address landfill sites and achieve improved waste management in regional areas.

The two-and-half year public consultation process is nearing completion and the EPA Board has resolved to release the guidelines and grant a three-month period for all stakeholders to provide submissions that relate to the released paper. An EPA Board subcommittee has been established to review the submissions.

SCIENCE AND SMARTER REGULATION

E2 Model The Watershed Protection Office (WPO) has developed a computer-based catchment model, E2, which is designed for application in a range of catchment sizes, from backyards to hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. E2 can model such scenarios as changes in land-use and land management, riparian zone modifications and responses to changing or variable climate.

The WPO will use this decision support tool in a range of EPA, WPO and Mount Lofty Ranges projects. For example, activities and spatial areas will be prioritised in the Mount Lofty Ranges Risk Assessment project and the water quality implications for the Myponga Riparian Restoration Project will be modelled and assessed.

Three-tiered licensing system In 2005–06 the EPA began implementing the three-tiered licensing system, which provides a formal risk-based approach to management of licensees. There are two components to the system:

• initially a default ranking is set for each activity based on the inherent risk that activity presents. A number of factors are used to determine this inherent risk, for example, the typical nature and quantity of emissions and typical effects on flora and fauna

• the second component undertakes an individual risk assessment for each licensee, using the default ranking as the base. A checklist has been developed which sets questions, with differing weightings, in a number of areas, for example, the sensitivity of the receiving environment and community, human and commerce impacts.

8


Three-tiered licensing also sets out how the EPA will manage licences within each tier, such as the number of inspections to be undertaken, and the nature of licence conditions to be applied.

To date, approximately 80% of licences have been assessed using this system.

Code of Practice—Vessels and Facility Management: Marine and Inland Waters Codes of practice (COP) are designed to assist operators in meeting their obligations under the EP Act and associated Environment Protection Policies (EPPs). They do this by closely examining an industry or activity and its impacts through a process of negotiation that formulates reasonable and practical outcomes, and recommends practices to achieve them, while meeting better environmental outcomes.

In partnership with relevant industry groups the EPA has finalised a number of industry and activity based COPs during 2005–06, namely:

• Vessel and facility management: marine and inland waters • Materials handling on wharves • Industrial, retail and commercial stormwater management.

For example, substantial negotiations on both content and implementation for the Code of practice for vessel and facility management: marine and inland waters have included finalising recommendations for greywater discharge in fresh waters, blackwater discharge in marine waters and management of wastewaters from tuna farming and other fishing industries.

EPA compliance audits of the Kilburn/Gepps Cross area The Kilburn and Gepps Cross area contains a number of major arterial roads and a mix of industrial, commercial and residential activities all in close proximity to each other. Residential development has changed the area and the EPA has to date received numerous complaints from local residents relating to noise, odour, smoke and dust pollution.

In response to community concern, the EPA undertook air quality monitoring, an odour survey and an audit of 15 sites licensed by the EPA in the Kilburn and Gepps Cross area. The project identified potential areas for improved performance by local industry to reduce impacts on the environment.

The next stage of the project will involve developing programs in conjunction with industry and the community to work towards environmental improvements in a collaborative manner. To date a summary report of the project to date has been developed for public distribution and a Regional Industry Group has been established to provide a forum for exchange of information. Community meetings are also planned to discuss the outcomes of the monitoring with a view to the establishment of a community awareness group.

South East dairy effluent management program and guidelines In conjunction with the dairy industry and the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia (PIRSA), the EPA is running a program to improve environmental performance of dairying in the South East region. The program refines standards for dairy effluent management to improve operations at existing sites and sustain an environmentally sustainable expansion of the industry in the region.

The program launched revised effluent management guidelines at an industry field day in June 2005. As part of the extension program, PIRSA staff visited some 75 farms in the reporting period, one third of which required upgraded effluent management systems. Detailed design work has been completed for two-thirds of the farms.

9


The continuation of this program in 2006–07 will assist the industry to establish a framework for maintaining effective effluent management at dairies in the region.

WaterCare WaterCare raises awareness of water issues and promotes responsible water use and management of South Australia’s water resources.

The initiative aims to encourage the community to work together to protect South Australia’s precious water resources. As a whole of government initiative, WaterCare connects programs and campaigns across State Government agencies and regional NRM boards.

Throughout 2005–06 WaterCare sought to further promote specific behaviour change measures in relation to water. Encouragingly, the March research report indicated a positive increase in the community’s acceptance that their own behaviour has an impact on the State’s water issues.

Community perception of the seriousness of water issues is high with an overall ranking of 8.7 out of 10, while 51% of respondents perceive water issues to be long term.

Board engagement program Understanding key environmental issues across the state is important for the EPA Board in developing and progressing its vision for the environment. To this extent, the Board continued its consultation program to build effective relationships with stakeholders and to identify partnership approaches to environmental protection and enhancement. Its program included a visit to the Fleurieu region, meetings with environment groups, continued stakeholder involvement in Board strategic planning, discussions with members of Parliament, dialogue with representatives of the waste management industry in SA, and the annual Round-table Conference.

10


INTRODUCTION

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is an independent statutory authority, and forms part of the Environment and Conservation Portfolio of South Australia for government administrative purposes. The portfolio also includes the Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH), Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) and Zero Waste South Australia (ZWSA).

The EPA is South Australia’s primary environmental regulator. It is responsible for protecting and enhancing air and water quality, radiation protection, and controlling pollution, waste and environmental noise. The EPA uses a number of ways to manage environmental risk and to ensure that business, government and the community consider the environmental impacts of their daily operations.

The EPA’s mission is to manage and influence human activities to protect, restore and enhance the environment and support human wellbeing. This is seen in the EPA’s capacity to regulate environmentally significant activities, and its role in influencing others and building partnerships with stakeholders and the community.

The functions of the EPA, detailed in section 13(1) of the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the EP Act), are to:

• administer and enforce the EP Act, and advise the Minister on its administration and of other legislation that might affect the environment

• prepare draft environment protection policies, contribute to national environment protection measures, and regularly review the effectiveness of policies, regulations, measures and practices, and advise the Minister about them

• facilitate the pursuit of the Objects under the EP Act by government, the private sector and the public, by advising on, and assisting with, the development of best environmental management practices

• regulate, control and/or monitor activities through an authorisation system for controlling and minimising pollution and waste, and through investigation, compliance assessment, environmental monitoring and evaluation and enforcement.

The staff of the EPA administer the EP Act, and are assisted by South Australia Police and local government officers who have been appointed as authorised officers under the Act. The EPA Board is the governing body under the EP Act, and hence is accountable for its administration.

The Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 (RPC Act) is also administered by the EPA, through delegations by the Minister for Environment and Conservation to the EPA Chief Executive. Reporting requirements for the RPC Act are covered in a separate section of this publication in the Annual Report on the administration of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982.

Significant administrative responsibilities under the EP Act include: licensing prescribed activities of environmental significance; monitoring air and water quality, waste and noise; and investigating incidents that cause, or could cause, serious or material environmental harm. There are also other compliance and enforcement operations under the EP Act. The EPA maintains a program of community involvement and environmental monitoring, as well as developing policy and reviewing legislation.

At 30 June 2006, there were 2120 licences issued under the EP Act for industries ranging from large cement manufacturers, electricity generators and wastewater treatment

11


plants, to foundries, abattoirs and shipyards. Licences are assigned to environment protection officers who inspect licensed premises, negotiate environmental improvements and, where necessary, enforce regulations and conditions of licence.

Some EPA powers are delegated to local government to deal with matters not licensed under the EP Act. The EPA assists these officers with training, provision of measurement equipment, and ongoing technical and legal support. It is currently working with local government to investigate opportunities for expanding their role in managing low risk environmental protection matters—generally matters not licensed under the EP Act. SA Police continue to use the powers under the EP Act to help them manage local nuisances, particularly domestic noise.

12


EPA BOARD AND ITS ACTIVITIES

The nine members of the EPA Board are appointed by the Governor. They are chosen for their qualifications, expertise and experience in the areas of: environmental protection and management; industrial, commercial or economic development; local government; the environmental management industry; environmental conservation and advocacy; and environmental law. This wide spectrum of expertise gives the EPA the capacity to make decisions on the complex problems and issues that confront the environment.

The Board is the governing body of the EPA. It provides strategic direction, develops environmental policy and monitors performance. It also makes decisions on significant environmental issues under the EP Act.

The Board: • is independent and makes unbiased, balanced decisions based on the best available

evidence • is open and responsive to its stakeholders • is professional in its business • is pro-active and progressive • strives to provide quality and timely information and advice • values the contribution of its support and partnership organisations.

MEETINGS: GENERAL AND SPECIAL

During 2005–06, the Board met formally on 11 occasions. It also held various consultation sessions with stakeholders, which are detailed below.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROGRAM 2005–06

In addition to the legislative requirement to hold an annual EPA Round-table Conference the EPA Board initiated a number of consultation sessions with stakeholders in 2005–06. These sessions proved extremely beneficial to all participants and gave the Board an opportunity to hear directly from stakeholders about environment protection matters of importance to them. This program of consultation contributes to the review and refinement of the EPA’s priorities.

As the Board has discovered in previous years, certain issues are clearly highlighted for particular regions, for example the Kangaroo Island community’s concern about waste management in the face of ever increasing numbers of visitors. Other issues raised reflected the group consulted, for example water quality management for dairies on the Fleurieu Peninsula.

Key themes remained evident during the Board’s consultation program this year: • land-use planning—the effects of industry and agriculture close to residential

developments, changing land-use and site contamination • rural solid waste management—improving standards, landfill guidelines, long-term

regionally based planning and illegal dumping • education and awareness raising—an important tool for communicating to EPA

stakeholders, particularly licensees.

13


Fleurieu regional visit The Board travelled to the Fleurieu region on 12–13 July 2005 and hosted a consultation session with local government in Victor Harbor and a meeting with dairy industry representatives. All three Fleurieu councils participated in the local government consultation session with lively discussion covering such topics as:

• management of landfills (including landfill environment management plans) • costs of recycling and waste management • landfill standards and criteria • limited life of existing landfills • dredging approvals • standards for bio-solids spreading.

Six dairy industry representatives met with Board members to discuss environmental management issues. Key themes raised during discussion were:

• the future of the dairy industry in the Fleurieu region • continuing the good working relationships between the dairy industry and the EPA • funding arrangements for development of statewide guidelines • opportunities to improve EPA services, including consistency of advice provided.

In addition to the consultation meetings the Board: • visited a dairy at Myponga to see dairy water management in practice • inspected riparian restoration works at a Myponga farm • visited Victor Harbor and Pedler Creek landfills.

Meeting with environment groups The Board held a consultation session in Adelaide on 9 August 2005 with representatives from various environment groups including the Australian Conservation Foundation, People’s EPA, Environmental Defenders Office, Conservation Council of SA Inc, The Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, The Marine and Coastal Community Network (SA Branch), Nature Conservation Society of SA Inc, KESAB and Friends of Gulf St Vincent.

Discussion covered matters such as: • managing the movement of marine pests transferred between locations in dredge

spoil • the need for ongoing, strategic dialogue between the EPA and environmental

associations • state of the environment reporting • strategic air quality issues for South Australia • sharing responsibilities for environmental protections issues between State and

local governments • the EPA’s role in climate change and greenhouse issues • auditing EPA performance.

Meeting with Members of Parliament The EPA Board met with members of parliament on 17 October 2005. This was the second meeting held following an invitation by the Minister for Environment and Conservation, the Hon John Hill MP, to Members of Parliament to meet with the Board as a result of debate in parliament on the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Members from both houses attended and commented on their observations of EPA operations and raised concerns. Individual member’s issues were taken on notice and responses provided following investigation by EPA staff.

14


Waste management industry meeting Representatives of the waste management industry met with Board members on 20 October 2005 for a round-table breakfast. The group received a presentation on the development of the EPA’s Waste Management Environment Protection Policy and then participated in broad discussions covering issues such as:

• providing an appropriate regulatory environment for all operators (especially the concept of a ‘level playing field’)

• ensuring that further consideration be given to: � increasing the levy on waste disposal � introducing a levy payable on all waste received at transfer stations and

providing a rebate for waste which is recycled or reused • looking at ways in which the EPA can improve its effectiveness in supporting the

waste management industry • acknowledging that industry involvement in the process of developing a regulatory

system is essential.

Kangaroo Island regional visit EPA Board members travelled to Kangaroo Island on 8 November 2005 where they visited a local abalone farm and inspected the Kingscote landfill site. Two meetings were also held on the day, firstly with Kangaroo Island council representatives and subsequently a public consultation session. Issues covered included current arrangements for waste management, environmental projects on the island, effluent management and the environmental impacts of tourism. The Board praised the rapid and extensive progress towards improving waste management practices on the island.

Meeting with NRM Council The Natural Resources Management (NRM) Council met with the Board on 13 December 2005 to discuss relative roles and responsibilities emanating from the key actions identified in the draft State NRM Plan. Both parties agreed there were positive outcomes to be achieved for NRM in South Australia with them working together towards common goals. They agreed to meet again in 2006 following the release of the final plan to explore the specifics of each group’s role and how they will work together.

Le Fevre Peninsula visit Board members toured Le Fevre Peninsula on 18 April 2006 to:

• meet with individuals who had participated as advisory group members in the development of the draft ‘Code of practice for materials handling on wharves’ and the draft ‘Code of practice for vessel and facility management: marine and inland waters ‘

• inspect Techport Australia and Port Adelaide waterfront redevelopment sites • tour Adelaide Brighton Cement’s Birkenhead site and view the alternative fuels

process trial.

The site visits gave Board members a clear appreciation of the breadth of EPA operations and the opportunity to meet and speak to local stakeholders engaging with the EPA.

Port Lincoln regional visit The final EPA Board regional consultation session for 2005–06 was held in Port Lincoln on 21 June 2006. Members of the Board visited lower Eyre Peninsula sites of interest to EPA including:

• Coffin Bay landfill to better understand the experiences of small rural landfill operators

• DK Quarries to look at the innovative fish composting process introduced into this company's operations

15


• Port Lincoln Tuna Processors state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facilities • Port Lincoln Waste Depot to view the development of the new landfill cell • SA Water's wastewater treatment plant at Billy Light's Point to understand local

water quality management infrastructure.

Board members appreciated the opportunity to meet directly with operators and gain an insight into the issues and challenges associated with these various operations.

In the afternoon, Board members participated in a public forum at Port Lincoln attended by over 50 people from local and State government, NRM groups, media, EPA licensees and the general public. Issues raised included:

• waste management costs for local government • concerns about illegal dumping • water quality, particularly with regard to the tuna industry • EPA's licence fee structure review • domestic noise • communications and working relationships with the EPA

The Chair and EPA Chief Executive, Dr Paul Vogel, responded to many of the issues raised on the day and informed participants of the Board's new Landfill Subcommittee, established to address the concerns of waste management operators in implementing the new Landfill Guidelines. The Subcommittee, to be chaired by the Board's deputy presiding member, Mr Stephen Hains, will consider submissions following a two-month period after the release of the new guidelines.

Round-table 2006 The annual Round-table is a required consultative measure under the EP Act. Approximately 40 participants from business, industry and community based organisations attended the Round-table held on 9 May 2005. The key topic for discussion was ‘the EPA’s role in contributing to the State’s draft greenhouse strategy: Tackling climate change’.

EPA Chair and Chief Executive Dr Paul Vogel opened proceedings with a review of EPA progress over the previous 12 months on matters raised at the last Round-table and the EPA’s change agenda. Speakers included Tim O’Loughlin (Executive Director of Sustainability and Climate Change, Department of the Premier and Cabinet) and Chris Bell (Director of Water and National Programs, EPA Victoria).

At the plenary session and small-group discussions participants contributed ideas and views on the EPA’s possible approaches to, and roles in, tackling climate change.

Participants also raised matters such as: • the complexity of government and the need to coordinate policy development and

provide a single contact point for business to access government services • a nationally consistent framework for emissions reporting which provides incentives

to industry • EPA support for major industries with the capacity to lead on emissions reduction

programs as a means of encouraging participation by small to medium enterprises— communicating what has been learned, rewarding action and innovation, and facilitating networks to develop robust tools for industry

• identifying EPA priorities—to target skills development and resourcing • the importance of education and awareness raising particularly for EPA licensees.

16


EPA BOARD MEMBERS

Dr Paul Vogel (Chair)

EPA Chief Executive Dr Vogel was appointed in late 2002 and became ex-officio Chair of the Board at the commencement of the new governing arrangements for the EPA. In his previous position as Director of the Environmental Policy Unit in the Western Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet, he provided high level policy advice to the Premier and cabinet ministers on environmental issues, focusing on sustainability.

Before this, he had spent six years as a director with the WA Department of Environmental Protection in marine and air quality protection and natural resource management. Dr Vogel brings to the Board ‘qualifications and experience relevant to environmental protection and management or natural resources management’ and ‘qualifications and experience relevant to management generally and public sector management’. His appointment period is from 10 April 2003 to 9 April 2008.

Mr Stephen Hains

Mr Hains was a member (and Deputy Chair) of the former EPA Board appointed in November 2002 for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government’ as well as for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, the reduction, reuse, recycling and management of waste or the environmental management industry’. He was appointed to the new

Board at its proclamation and was made Deputy Presiding Member on renewal of his appointment on 20 October 2005. Mr Hains has been City Manager of the City of Salisbury since 1991. He also represents the EPA as a member of the Board of Zero Waste SA, and is Chair of the EPA Local Government Subcommittee (of the EPA Board). His appointment extends to 20 October 2008.

Mr Mike Elliott

Mr Elliott, who was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, environmental conservation and advocacy on environmental matters on behalf of the community’, is the Director of Northern Adelaide Partnerships at the University of South Australia. He had been a member of the Legislative Council from 1985 to 2002, during which

time he was leader of the SA Democrats Party for nine years. His appointment extends from 21 April 2005 to 20 April 2007.

Ms Megan Dyson

Ms Dyson was appointed to the Board for her ‘legal qualifications and experience in environmental law’. She is a sole legal practitioner and policy consultant in environmental law and policy, including advising the Murray– Darling Basin Commission on legal issues related to environmental flows, and the South Australian Government on a number of mainly water-related and

natural resource management matters. Her appointment period is from 21 April 2005 to 20 April 2007.

17


Mr Allan Holmes

Mr Holmes was appointed to the Board for his ‘qualifications and experience relevant to environmental protection and management or natural resources management’, as well as ‘qualifications and experience relevant to management generally and public sector management’. He is Chief Executive of the Department for Environment and Heritage, appointed in 2000. Mr

Holmes chairs the Zero Waste SA Board and represents the State on the Murray–Darling Basin Commission. His appointment extends from 21 April 2005 to 20 April 2007.

Mr Andrew Fletcher

Mr Fletcher is an engineer with more than 30 years experience in senior management roles in the engineering and construction industry. He is a Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Port Adelaide Maritime Corporation, a member of the Defence Industry Advisory Board and a past

member of the Economic Development Board. He is also a board member of Penrice Soda Holdings Ltd and has extensive corporate governance experience in the private and public sectors, including significant personal interests in the South Australian wine industry. He was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce or economic development’. His appointment extends from 21 April 2005 to 20 April 2007.

Mr Mike Nagel

Mr Nagel has worked in global roles in the manufacturing industry in Australia and overseas for over 40 years. He retired in November 2004 after a distinguished career with Britax Rainsfords (now Shefenacker Vision Systems), the South Australian Centre for Manufacturing (as Executive Director) and lastly with Seeley International. Mr Nagel is currently a Trustee of VIVASA

(formerly the SA Business Vision 2010) and was elected as a Companion of the Institution of Engineers in 2000 for his support for engineering. He has been a Foundation Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors since 1990. He was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce or economic development’. His appointment period is from 20 October 2005 to 21 October 2008.

Mr Greg Panigas

Mr Panigas is State Manager, SITA/PWM/Pacific Waste Management with 12years experience in the waste management industry. He is a board member of both KESAB and the Waste Management Association SA Executive, and is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Mr Panigas was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in,

the reduction, reuse, recycling and management of waste or the environmental management industry’. His appointment extends from 4 March 2006 to 3 March 2009.

18


Ms Yvonne Sneddon

Ms Sneddon has expertise in a wide range of areas including sustainability reporting and strategy development; she serves on a number of boards and committees, and is Presiding Member of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. Ms Sneddon has over 25 years experience as a chartered accountant, was previously a partner in Deloitte Growth Solutions in Adelaide

and now practices as a non-executive company director. Ms Sneddon was appointed to the Board for her ‘qualifications and experience relevant to environmental protection and management or natural resources management’. Her appointment extends from 21 April 2006 to 20 April 2009.

OUTGOING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

Ms Linda Bowes Ms Bowes was appointed to the Board for her ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce or economic development’. She is the current Chief Executive of the SA Wine Industry Association, having been appointed to this position in 1994. Ms Bowes also has wide expertise and specialist knowledge in areas such as corporate management, strategic planning, legislative analysis and policy development.

Mr Victor Farrington Mr Farrington has over 30 years experience in environmental management and engineering in consultancy, industry and government. He is currently Senior Principal Environmental Engineer with URS Australia. His experience includes environmental assessment and approval documentation for projects, including planning and transport, water resource management, mining and petroleum, and power stations and distribution systems. Mr Farrington was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, the reduction, reuse, recycling and management of waste in the environmental management industry’.

Ms Ann Shaw Rungie Ms Shaw Rungie was appointed to the Board for her ‘qualifications and experience relevant to environmental protection and management or natural resources management’. She is a director of QED Pty Ltd and consults in environmental policy, strategy and change management. She has extensive experience in project management, public consultation, facilitation, strategic planning and environmental management. Much of her work is in environmental and natural resources policy, particularly in the water industry, and with major infrastructure projects. She is also former Chair of the SA Water Resources Council.

The EPA thanks all outgoing members for their valuable contribution to the Board and their commitment to the protection of the environment of South Australia.

Acting EPA Board Chair: Mr Max Harvey As EPA Deputy Chief Executive, Mr Harvey was appointed under the EP Act as Chair of the Board during temporary absences of the Chief Executive. However, following recent legislative change, the position Deputy Presiding Member to the Board was created to provide for a Board member to assume the role of Chair during absences of the Presiding Member. Mr Harvey is the Director of the EPA’s Regulation and Compliance Division.

19


EPA BOARD LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

The EPA Board Local Government Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) was established by the EPA Board in June 2005 under section 17(1)(b) of the EP Act as a forum for formal discussion and resolution of issues between the EPA and local government, and as a mechanism for involving local government in the EPA policy development process.

All members of the Subcommittee are appointed for two years. The Subcommittee is comprised of one representative from the Local Government Association Secretariat, one rural/regional local government representative, one metropolitan local government representative and two representatives from the EPA. The Subcommittee is chaired by Mr Stephen Hains as the EPA Board member with knowledge of, and experience in, Local Government. Subcommittee members include:

• Mr Stephen Hains, City Manager, City of Salisbury • Mr Michael Barry, Director Legislation, Infrastructure and Environment, Local

Government Association of SA • Mr John Coombe, Chief Executive, Alexandrina Council • Ms Verity Sanders, Strategic Planner Environment Policy, City of Port Adelaide

Enfield • Mr Tony Circelli, Director Policy Coordination and Strategic Services, EPA • Mr Peter Dolan, Director Pollution Avoidance, EPA.

The Subcommittee met four times in 2005–06.

Terms of reference Established as a Subcommittee of the EPA Board, the Subcommittee is ultimately accountable and reports to the EPA Board. The EPA/LG Subcommittee provides advice to the EPA Board and the LGA State Executive Committee. The Subcommittee receives matters referred from LGA State Executive and the EPA Board.

The Subcommittee’s functions include: • finalising a formal agreement to support the sharing of environment protection

responsibilities between the EPA and local government • establishing key performance indicators to be used as a two-way performance

measure on the efficacy of the formal agreement • overseeing the operation of the formal agreement including the resolution of any

disputes • advising the EPA Board on issues affecting the EPA’s relationship with local

government, and acting as an interface between the Board and local government on such issues

• providing advice to the Board on any matters referred to the Subcommittee by the Board.

The Subcommittee does not deal with any matter where the EPA regulates local government activities, including standards and regulation of waste management and landfill activities. Local government regulatory issues are managed through separate EPA programs.

20


STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

South Australia’s Strategic Plan: Creating Opportunity was released in August 2004 with the fundamental premise of ‘creating opportunity’ for all South Australians regardless of where they live and what they do. The plan identifies 79 targets that form the basis of measuring the State’s progress in six key strategic objectives. All State Government agencies are required to realign their business to reflect the objectives and targets of South Australia’s Strategic Plan. The plan is intended to be a dynamic, living document that responds to new ideas and changing circumstances, and is being reviewed as this annual report is being prepared.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S STRATEGIC PLAN: STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

The six key strategic objectives of the Strategic Plan, and the EPA’s position relative to them, are:

Attaining sustainability The EPA promotes ecologically sustainable development when making decisions, developing and implementing policy, and delivering programs. The EPA has developed a position statement on its role in attaining sustainability.

Growing prosperity The EPA aims to produce predictable, clear and risk-based environmental regulation to improve resource use efficiency, waste minimisation and pollution avoidance.

Improving well-being The EPA helps to protect, restore and enhance the environment to maintain and improve community health.

Fostering creativity The EPA will use lateral and creative thinking to develop innovative solutions to the challenges and problems inherent in environmental management.

Building communities The EPA will maintain and strengthen its engagement with key business, government and community organisations as a contribution to building trust and ‘social capital’.

Expanding opportunity By engaging with our stakeholders and using a range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches the EPA will work with industry and business sector to foster a sustainable economic base for South Australia.

As a part of the current review of South Australia’s Strategic Plan the EPA has proposed a new target—maintain and improve urban and regional air quality. In conjunction with the DWLBC, the EPA has proposed broadening the plan’s target through implementing the State’s Natural Resources Management Plan, which includes links to water quality. The EPA has recommended refinements to underpin the zero waste target with the inclusion of reference to better resource efficiency for industry.

21


EPA strategic plan 2005–2008

Under new governing arrangements for the EPA established in 2003, the EPA Board is responsible for setting directions for the organisation and monitoring performance. The core business of the EPA is to manage the risks and consequences of human activity on the natural environment. The benchmark by which the effectiveness of the EPA is judged is the degree to which the most significant risks and consequences are managed effectively.

Following careful consideration of South Australia’s Strategic Plan, and consultation with staff and key stakeholders, the Board released the EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008 in August 2005. This plan aligns EPA business and strategic directions with those set out in South Australia’s Strategic Plan.

The EPA Strategic Plan has five environmental goals, supported by seven cross-goal strategies. It also contains corporate values and four immediate priority actions:

• organisational culture, capability and service orientation—the EPA needs to: improve its communication and educational skills and capacity; monitor and improve its decision making to ensure that it considers economic and social factors; and make promotion of the organisation’s values within the EPA a key priority to deliver the plan

• stakeholder engagement and relationships—the EPA will maintain and, where necessary, strengthen its engagement with key business, government and community organisations

• smart regulation—the EPA will develop and test innovative programs and approaches to achieve its goals with a risk-based, least cost regulatory policy

• land-use planning—the EPA will continue to contribute to development of an effective land-use planning and development assessment system, which is critically important for ensuring sustainable development and prevention of future environmental problems.

The EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008 is available on the EPA website: <www.epa.sa.gov.au>.

The EPA’s major organisational restructure and review of reporting arrangements within the reporting period ensures improved structural and functional alignment with its Strategic Plan and demonstrates commitment to delivering its goals and cross-goal strategies.

22


Key aspects of the EPA Strategic Plan

VISION A clean, healthy and valued environment that supports social and economic prosperity for all South Australians

MISSION We manage and influence human activities to protect, restore and enhance the environment and to support human well-being.

VALUES Empathy Listening to the needs of our stakeholders and responding with

understanding, sensitivity and respect

Sound Practical and balanced judgment guided by sound science, analysis judgment and evidence

Cooperation Achieving results through open communications and working in partnership with each other and our stakeholders

Innovation Using lateral thinking and initiative for creative and innovative problem solving

Integrity Honesty, transparency and taking responsibility for all we say and do

Environmental goals Activities affecting environmental quality generally have three major sources:

• point sources, which are generally more obvious, for example stack or pipe emissions from industry

• diffuse sources, which are generally less obvious but can have a greater cumulative impact on environmental quality, for example runoff from roads, land-use in catchments, fugitive emissions from industry and mobile sources

• historical pollution caused by activities that have now generally ceased.

To address these risks the EPA has identified five environmental goals. They are deliberately aspirational, and achieving them will require the coordinated and focused attention of all sectors of the community in the long term. As a single agency, with a specific mandate, the EPA will work in partnership with relevant organisations and groups in the community to make a significant contribution on the journey towards these goals.

Goal 1: clean and healthy air

Goal 2: water quality that meets agreed environmental values

Goal 3: communities protected from unacceptable noise

Goal 4: sustainable land-use

Goal 5: communities protected from unacceptable radiation

These environmental goals complement the objectives of South Australia’s Strategic Plan. The EPA helps ‘improving well-being’ by minimising the production of pollutants and waste that may adversely affect the health and amenity of our community and ecosystems. It

23


contributes to ‘attaining sustainability’ by providing timely, high-quality advice and direction on development proposals and best practice approaches to environmental regulation.

The EPA has also articulated its role in sustainability by developing a position statement, and contributed to the development of a draft greenhouse strategy for South Australia: Tackling Climate Change.

Cross-goal strategies The seven cross-goal strategies and priority actions of the EPA Strategic Plan span the agency and the five environmental elements it is responsible for. The strategies include the support functions of the agency and provide the high-level tools (or approaches) used to promote behavioural change. They integrate regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to environmental management, and they make an essential contribution to the goals of this plan.

Cross-goal strategy 1: enhancing organisational capability, accountability and responsiveness

Cross-goal strategy 2: contributing to a more sustainable SA

Cross-goal strategy 3: promoting the adoption of eco-efficient practices by business

Cross-goal strategy 4: developing strategic partnerships and ensuring stakeholder engagement

Cross-goal strategy 5: ensuring a predictable, consistent and fair approach to compliance and enforcement

Cross-goal strategy 6: providing timely, reliable and relevant environmental information

Cross-goal strategy 7: developing timely, innovative and relevant policy advice and legislation.

24


ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS

GOAL 1: CLEAN AND HEALTHY AIR

In major urban centres, air pollution is a by-product of daily domestic, commercial, industrial and natural activities. The National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (Air NEPM) sets ambient community exposure standards for six common pollutants and requires each state to measure and assess the exposure of the public to those pollutants.

South Australia continues to have good air quality most of the time as evidenced by reports from the ambient air network <www.epa.sa.gov.au>. Ambient air quality monitoring in Adelaide has found that levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are very low and well within Air NEPM standards and so requirements for monitoring of these pollutants have been revised. Particle concentrations are also low most of the time but occasionally dusty days and fires elevate particle levels in Adelaide.

Nevertheless, we need to improve in a number of areas. Emissions from motor vehicles make a significant contribution to air pollution in urban areas. Several regional problems require continuing management, including lead and sulfur dioxide in Port Pirie, iron ore dust in Whyalla and wood smoke in the Adelaide Hills and Mount Gambier.

Poor air quality directly affects: • human health—through, for example, the exacerbation of asthma and respiratory

disease (particularly in the young and elderly) and the effects of lead on young children

• the environment—through damage to vegetation, animal health and the marine environment

• the State’s economy—through increased medical costs from pollution-induced illness, reduced workforce productivity, damage to infrastructure and adverse effects on tourism.

Little information is available in some areas, such as the Adelaide Hills, Port Augusta and the Barossa Valley, and monitoring is planned for these areas.

South Australia’s air quality More information on the following summary of air quality and pollutants in Adelaide and key regional sites in South Australia is available at <www.epa.sa.gov.au>.

Adelaide In 2005, Adelaide’s air quality, as indicated by the air quality index, was ‘very good’ 37% of the time, ‘good’ 50% of the time, ‘fair’ 10% of the time and ‘poor’ to ‘very poor’ 3% of the time. Figure 1 indicates these results using validated data from EPA monitoring sites in Elizabeth Downs, Kensington Gardens, Netley and Northfield.

25


Poor/Very Poor Fair 3%10%

Very Good 37%

Good 50%

Figure 1: Adelaide’s air quality index 2005

Recorded levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and sulfur dioxide in Adelaide were at all times within Air NEPM standards. Fair or poor air quality was generally caused by windblown dust that elevated levels of particulate matter [particles of less than 10 microns [μm] in diameter or PM10]. In 2005, the Air NEPM standard of 50 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m3) as a 24-hour average was exceeded six times at the Elizabeth Downs monitoring site, six times at the Netley site and twice at the Kensington Gardens site. Since the goal of the Air NEPM is that the standard should not be exceeded more than five times per year, the Elizabeth Downs and Netley sites did not meet the Air NEPM goal.

In dry weather, Adelaide can be subjected to elevated levels of airborne dust carried from rural areas by strong winds. For example, on 31 December 2005, all Adelaide monitoring sites, except a newly established site in Birkenhead, recorded one-day averages for PM10 that exceeded the Air NEPM standard of 50 μg/m3; the Birkenhead site recorded its highest value (49.9 μg/m3) since monitoring began in June 2005.

Whyalla Particulate pollution continued to be a problem at the eastern end of Whyalla. At the EPA monitoring site Hummock Hill, 27 (23%) of the 117 one-day samples obtained by high-volume sampling exceeded 50 μg/m3. The site in Walls Street recorded 356 one-day average PM10 values; of these, 30 (8%) exceeded 50 μg/m3

(Figure 2).

26


Figure 2: PM10 data for Walls Street monitoring site, Whyalla, 2005

By comparison, PM10 monitoring at Civic Park in Whyalla Norrie at the western end of Whyalla gave only one measurement exceeding 50 μg/m3 (Figure 3).

160

Part

icul

ate

mat

ter,

PM

10,

mic

rogr

ams

per

cubi

c m

etre

140

120

100

80

60 Air NEPMStandard

40

20

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 3: PM10 data for Civic Park monitoring site, Whyalla, 2005

Ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide were monitored at a site in Nicolson Avenue, Whyalla Norrie. The values recorded for these pollutants in 2005 were at all times less than the standards set by the Air NEPM.

27


Port Pirie The major industry in Port Pirie is a lead smelter that processes lead sulfide ores, causing lead and sulfur dioxide pollution.

Concentrations of airborne lead at most EPA monitoring sites in Port Pirie continued to be measured at levels exceeding the 0.5 μg/m3 standard set for the annual average by the Air NEPM.

In 2005, the annual average lead concentration was 0.73 μg/m3 at Port Pirie West, 0.60 μg/m3 at Port Pirie South, and 0.25 μg/m3 at Risdon Park. At a site close to the smelter in Ellen Street, Port Pirie, the annual average was 3.46 μg/m3. Daily average lead levels for 2005 at the two NEPM monitoring sites, Port Pirie South and Risdon Park, are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Lead

, m

icro

gram

s pe

r cu

bic

met

re

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 4: Daily average particulate lead concentrations at Port Pirie South monitoring site, Port Pirie, 2005

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Lead

, m

icro

gram

s pe

r cu

bic

met

re

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 5: Daily average particulate lead concentrations at Risdon Park monitoring site, Port Pirie, 2005

28


In 2005, the annual average and the one-day average sulfur dioxide levels recorded at the EPA monitoring site in Port Pirie South met the goals of the Air NEPM. However, the one-hour standard of 0.20 ppm set by the Air NEPM was exceeded on 29 days. Figure 6 shows the daily maximum one-hourly average sulfur dioxide concentrations recorded at the Port Pirie South site.

0.80

0.60

0.40

Sulf

ur d

ioxi

de,

daily

1-h

r m

axim

um,

part

s pe

r m

illio

n

Air NEPM Standard 0.20

0.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Date, 2005

Figure 6: Sulfur dioxide daily maximum 1-hour averages in Port Pirie, 2005

On six occasions in 2005, the Air NEPM standard of 50 μg/m3 for the one-day average concentration of particulate matter, as PM10, was exceeded at the Port Pirie South monitoring site. The Air NEPM goal has not been met as the NEPM permits the standard to be exceeded up to five days a year.

Strategy: Develop a coordinated and integrated framework for managing air quality

Implement national obligations through NEPMs on air toxics and diesel emissions The Air NEPM sets air quality standards and goals which each state and territory in Australia has committed to meet by 30 June 2008. These requirements apply generally to regional airsheds but allowable emissions from major producers of air pollution are a critical consideration in each region.

If local air quality is found not to meet NEPM goals and standards, the EPA and other agencies must develop region-specific solutions to rectify problems in those areas. This could include requiring companies to undertake environment improvement programs (EIPs) enforced through their licence. The EPA also conducts behaviour change programs to reduce the impact of diffuse and stationary pollution sources, and develops legislation and other non-regulatory tools to manage and minimise pollution from all sources.

Air Toxics NEPM The National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure (Air Toxics NEPM) was started in 2004 to develop an information base of the levels of ambient air toxics in Australia, with the aim of developing acceptable exposure standards. The EPA has identified potential sites of interest for air toxic monitoring and is currently verifying the suitability of those sites.

29


Diesel NEPM The National Environment Protection (Diesel Vehicle Emissions) Measure (Diesel NEPM), which was endorsed by the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) in June 2001, aims to reduce pollution from diesel vehicles already on the road. This is distinct from Australian Design Rules that apply to emissions from new diesel vehicles. The Diesel NEPM is currently being reviewed by the national Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC).

The Diesel NEPM aims to reduce diesel pollution through a range of optional strategies which the states and territories have the discretion to choose between. Appropriate strategies will be selected with proper weight being given to environmental, economic, social and equity considerations.

Compared to larger Australian cities, Adelaide generally has good air quality and Air NEPM standards are rarely breached. Therefore, current air quality is not a trigger for change in managing diesel emissions in South Australia. However, diesel vehicles contribute disproportionately to urban air pollution and fuel consumption in the diesel fleet continues to grow each year. Both factors make it worthwhile to reduce emissions from in-service diesel vehicles.

Environment agencies take responsibility for leading South Australia’s response to NEPMs, but other State Government departments often implement and develop the strategies. The Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) has established a Diesel NEPM Test and Repair Demonstration Program in South Australia. The emissions testing facility is currently being completed at the Regency Park Vehicle Inspection Centre. The aim is to test 800 diesel vehicles operating in SA and repair the worst 20% of them.

DTEI has developed a Smoky Vehicle Program to encourage the reporting of smoking vehicles, but this has not yet been funded.

In 2006, 5% biodiesel (B5) is being used in all diesel powered metropolitan buses (around 75%, with the remainder already running on compressed natural gas) and in all the diesel trains. B20, B50 and B100 have been tested under laboratory conditions and several buses are in regular operation running on B20. Increasing the biodiesel blend for the bus and train fleet as a whole to B20 is being considered.

Environment Protection (Motor Vehicle Fuel Quality) Policy The South Australian Environment Protection (Motor Vehicle Fuel Quality) Policy 2002 (Fuel Quality EPP) was the first EPP in South Australia to be introduced on an interim basis. It followed extensive consultation with the vehicle fuel supply industry and the Commonwealth Government.

With its introduction, South Australia had some of the most stringent fuel standards in Australia but the EPP has been effectively superseded by phased-in, tighter Commonwealth standards. The EPP’s summer volatility limits remain in place to minimise the emission of toxic, volatile organic compounds.

The Fuel Quality EPP ensured that when the Port Stanvac refinery was closed in August 2003, its low toxicity petrol was not replaced with overseas blends of potentially significantly higher toxicity. To date, all fuel suppliers have complied with the EPP, as verified by regular EPA audits of fuel shipments arriving from interstate and overseas, and through the regular reporting required. The 100%

30


compliance rate was helped by the major refiners’ accelerated programs to meet the more stringent national standards.

Wood heaters Wood smoke is of concern to the community and its effects on air quality, human health and amenity are well recognised. Wood heaters are a popular means of home heating that can cause unnecessary pollution if not operated correctly.

EPA research found more than half the wood heater owners in South Australia had never seen information on how to use their wood heater effectively. Nearly 70% did not regularly inspect their chimneys for excess smoke while the wood heater was operating.

In response to this research, the EPA ran a campaign to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of wood heaters in 2004. Evaluation by follow-up market research after the winter of 2004 found that fewer than 10% of the wood heater owners surveyed had modified their behaviour as a result of the campaign. A further campaign was run in 2005, attracting good public exposure through various forms of media.

A draft Code of Practice was also developed to promote environmentally responsible wood heater use. The Code prohibits the supply and sale of wood heaters that do not comply with Australian and New Zealand emission standards. It promotes responsible and efficient wood heater use, and provides a process for neighbours and administering agencies (such as councils) to deal with heaters that are causing smoke or odour nuisance.

In 2006, the EPA ran another wood heater media campaign that included a behaviour change program called SmokeWatch in the Adelaide Hills, in collaboration with the Adelaide Hills Council. In conjunction with these two programs, the EPA undertook hotspot monitoring of pollutants including particulate matter, benzene, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides in the Woodside area (results at www.epa.sa.gov.au). This program was well received by the media, public and wood heater owners. It will be evaluated in November 2006.

NRG Flinders In 2002, the Minister for Environment and Conservation announced the launch of the NRG Flinders scheme, which provides a rebate of $1000 for installing Australian Standard-certified solar hot water systems on housing in the Port Augusta City Council area. On behalf of the State Government, the EPA negotiated payment by NRG Flinders of $1 million over five years for solar energy installations as part of the utility’s long-term environmental obligation.

The scheme reduces the environmental damage that would otherwise be caused by coal-based electricity generation and extends the scope of the Port Augusta City Vision. The South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) has installed solar hot water systems on 100 of its houses, so that residents in public housing also benefit. Port Augusta City Council, the local administrator of the scheme in partnership with the EPA, re-advertised the scheme in the local press in 2006.

To date, over 350 applications have been received from households, including 87 from the SAHT, with NRG Flinders contributing over $450,000 in rebates. The SAHT is currently considering extending the rebate scheme to additional properties in the Port Augusta region.

31


Key point source pollution programs—Clean and healthy air

OneSteel During the 2005 calendar year, fine particle levels (measured as PM10) exceeded 50 µg/m3 on 30 recorded occasions at Walls Street, Whyalla. This site is used by the EPA to measure the performance of OneSteel in controlling iron ore dust emissions and their effects on the adjacent community.

OneSteel has proposed Project Magnet, a $3 million project that will lead to a three to four fold increase in iron ore exports and will make redundant the majority of the dust generating equipment in the Pellet Plant (a significant source of dust from the operations) to substantially reduce red dust emissions from the pellet plant. The project would see OneSteel increase its iron ore exports through a transhipping facility that will operate from the pellet plant wharf. OneSteel has obtained the necessary environmental approvals for the project.

A new Indenture Act was granted to OneSteel and came into effect on 3 November 2005. Contained within Schedule 3 of the Indenture Act is a 10year licence (Indenture licence) that cannot be altered by the EPA for that term. This licence replaces the existing EPA licence and will not be subject to variation for the duration of the licence, except with the consent of OneSteel or at the direction of parliament.

Upon commencement of the Indenture Act, the EPA began regulating OneSteel in accordance with the Indenture licence and with the provisions of the EP Act not affected by the Indenture Act.

Environment protection orders were imposed on OneSteel in April and May 2006 under the Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy 1994 to require that remedial work be undertaken on dust pollution control equipment at the pellet plant.

Zinifex Zinifex is one of the world’s largest integrated zinc and lead companies. A program to reduce the lead levels in the blood of young children is focusing on sources of oxidised forms of lead that are highly bioavailable1. Specifically, emissions from the slag fumer and kilns area are being targeted. Zinifex has almost completed an EIP that addresses: � better understanding of the slag fumer operation and why it

periodically pressurises and emits lead bearing fume � improved mechanical integrity of the slag fumer and kilns plant � a total cleanup of the slag fumer and kilns plant.

A new EIP will be negotiated during the second half of 2006, to start in 2007.

The Zinifex licence was modified to establish off-site ambient lead targets that the company must meet over the next five years. These targets are aimed at reducing children’s blood lead levels.

Bioavailable—the degree to which or rate at which a drug or other substance is absorbed or becomes available at the site of physiological activity after administration.

32

1


Zinifex also launched the ‘tenby10’ program which is aimed at reducing the blood lead levels of 95% of Port Pirie children aged 0–4 to less than 10 micrograms per decilitre by the end of calendar 2010. This program is a partnership between Zinifex, Port Pirie Regional Council, Department of Health (DoH) and the EPA and is a comprehensive and integrated approach to both emissions and exposure reduction.

Castalloy (Ion Automotive Pty Ltd, North Plympton) Castalloy’s appeal to the ERD Court over an environment protection order and licence issued in 2003 has carried over into 2005–06.

During the last year, the company, through its administrators, prepared plans for addressing noise and odour standards, which were finally accepted in September 2005 as part of a settlement in the ERD Court and the issue of a new 10-year EPA licence to the company.

The new licence required that the company meet the EPA odour standard by 30 June 2006, and noise standards progressively up to 30 June 2007. Information to date suggests that the company will be in compliance with the odour target by 30 June 2006, and noise levels have been significantly reduced.

Communication with the community has continued since the issue of the new licence.

The EPA will be closely monitoring compliance with the conditions of the licence and reporting to the community at an appropriate time.

Adelaide Brighton Cement The EPA maintains an ongoing dialogue with Adelaide Brighton Cement (ABC) for the management and minimisation of both point source and fugitive emissions from the Birkenhead facility.

In 2005, ABC committed approximately $12 million to a voluntary plan of environmental improvements, including a number of dust management initiatives, to be undertaken over three years. The environmental improvements are progressive and the first stages have begun.

ABC has engaged a facilitator to assist it to consult with residents regarding site operations and listen to community concerns. A community meeting was held on 22 March 2006 to establish a community group and again on 5 April 2006 to develop a charter and terms of reference for the group.

A community liaison committee, of which EPA is a member, has also been established. Land leased from the Land Management Corporation (LMC) and used to stockpile crushed limestone rock was required for the Port River Expressway’s new road and rail bridges. This storage has been identified as a likely contributor to particulate emissions from the site. Consequently, ABC sought development approval to relocate the stockpile to the former Shell Terminal land to the north of the Birkenhead site. Approval was granted, following a detailed environmental assessment and this material has been substantially relocated.

33


The EPA and ABC continue to put significant effort and resources into testing alternative fuels and raw materials used in their cement kilns at both Birkenhead and Angaston. This program is undertaken consistent with the process approved by the EPA to investigate alternative fuels and raw materials, and is included as a condition on ABC’s licence. The trials gather emissions data which will be assessed against established baseline data.

The use of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing is helping ABC reduce its effects on the environment and improve its overall environmental performance. Alternative fuels and raw materials provide a waste management solution for the community and reduce the use of nonrenewable resources. This program has a positive greenhouse gas benefit and reduces materials being disposed at landfill.

Bradken Resources Pty Ltd Bradken Resources is a major supplier of metal products, primarily to the mining industry. The company proposes to invest into the existing Kilburn site and expand its operations to supply growth in mining in the state and other heavy engineering projects. The proposed project will increase product output, expand the site workforce and upgrade the existing buildings and equipment, including a new melting furnace and expanded heat treatment capabilities.

The ‘Foundry Expansion by Bradken Resources Pty Ltd’ proposal will be assessed as a Major Development because of its economic importance, the scale of investment and additional employment, potential social impact on the adjacent community as a result of truck movements, and environmental impacts relating to emissions to air.

The EPA will be advising on best practice environmental standards for the expansion.

Strategy: Understand how air quality in major airsheds is affected by emissions

Develop an air quality forecasting system for Adelaide Air modelling is seen as a complementary tool to atmospheric monitoring. Modelling can predict air quality conditions for the next day and therefore can give advance warning of possible exceedence of air quality standards to the public with a degree of certainty. In 2004, the EPA contracted CSIRO to investigate and detail the extent of the risks, resources, costs and other relevant issues in implementing, using and maintaining the Australian Air Quality Forecast System (AAQFS). The study demonstrated that using AAQFS could significantly upgrade the EPA’s current modelling capability (Cope and Hess 2004).

The EPA, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO are currently developing AAQFS. Initial testing revealed some issues with predicting inversion heights and the model is currently being tested for these predictions. The next stage will be to evaluate the accuracy of the model for forecasting air pollution.

Forecasting could also be applied to regional airsheds as well as Adelaide and even expanded to the Adelaide Hills areas. It could be provided with current monitoring data. The meteorological predictions produced could also be used as datasets for other air models and to estimate impacts of changes to air emissions.

34


Once fully tested and verified, the AAQFS could generate daily 24–36 hour forecasts to the EPA for a wide range of pollutants (eg Figure 7). Together with a local knowledge of meteorology and air quality, these forecasts could form the basis of a future system for issueing daily air quality forecasts to the population.

Figure 7: Forecast output example—Australian Air Quality Forecast System

Air quality modelling EPA modelling is assisting with the understanding and management of air quality throughout South Australia. Base modelling runs will be used to predict how air quality varies with weather conditions and pollutant inputs, and estimate how other factors influence air quality. Modelling is a useful tool that can show how changes in source emissions affect air quality.

Current work with CSIRO’s ‘The Air Pollution Model’ is undertaking base modelling runs for airsheds throughout South Australia. Further development of these base runs will allow estimation of the effects of a variety of factors such as vehicle emissions and future developments on air quality.

The use of such modelling when confirmed with monitoring is seen as a useful tool in managing the State’s air quality.

35


GOAL 2: WATER THAT MEETS AGREED ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES

Water quality problems in South Australia are largely attributable to point source wastewater discharges, broad-scale diffuse pollution or a combination of both. In general, pressures on water quality are related to the degree of urban and rural development.

The EPA works in partnership with water resource managers to protect and manage water quality across the State. In South Australia, resource managers or stakeholders in water quality management include SA Water, NRM Boards, a range of other State Government agencies, local councils, industry groups and the community.

The EPA is currently working with stakeholders to refine the environmental values of South Australia’s waters to ensure that resource management and regulation is targeted and cost-effective. Pilot studies are developing methodologies that can be used to refine environmental values for marine and estuarine waters, rivers, streams, lakes and groundwater.

In its role as an environmental regulator, the EPA provides leadership in water quality management by developing, applying, coordinating and promoting innovative tools and programs such as:

• developing and implementing the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 (Water Quality EPP) and related codes of practice

• licensing and compliance monitoring of scheduled activities • environmental compliance management, enforcement and prosecution (including

support for other agencies, such as local councils, that choose to use the EP Act’s compliance and enforcement tools)

• advising on planning policy and assessment of referred development applications • assessing of aquaculture licences or lease variations under the Aquaculture Act

2001 • awareness raising and behaviour change programs to encourage adoption of eco-

efficient and/or best environmental management practices and compliance with the EP Act, the Water Quality EPP and associated codes of practice

• monitoring, assessment and research into the state of resources, functioning of aquatic ecosystems, and identification of sources and effects of pollution

• development and use of decision support tools such as water quality models to help determine the best way to deal with problems.

Examples of these programs are further detailed in the following sections.

Strategy: Lead the development of integrated water quality monitoring and assessment to support and evaluate South Australia’s water quality planning and management.

The EPA monitors State waters to assess their condition, identify trends and problems, and over time assess the effectiveness of strategies to improve water quality. Initiatives taken in 2005–06 included better integration of monitoring programs with other government programs and extension of the monitoring program to waters of the Northern Spencer Gulf. The program covers:

• 43 rivers and streams, and four lake systems • 126 groundwater wells in the South East, Willunga Plains, Adelaide Plains, Northern

Adelaide Plains, Barossa Valley and Eyre Peninsula aquifers • nine estuary systems, including the Port River, the Coorong and coastal waters of

Adelaide, Encounter Bay and Spencer Gulf.

36


Monitoring incorporates physical and chemical parameters, and biological indicators such as dolphins, bivalves and seagrasses.

The program has highlighted agricultural impacts on groundwater, and rivers and streams, with only four of the 43 rivers and streams monitored containing good quality water. Significant levels of pollutants were detected in every major groundwater resource. Adelaide coastal waters are still suitable for swimming but ecosystems in coastal waters and estuaries remain compromised by nutrients.

Statewide water quality monitoring programs Last year the EPA produced reports on heavy metals in dolphins, the Barcoo Outlet, Nepean Bay and commenced the establishment of web-based reporting for all water quality monitoring programs. In production are reports on rivers and streams, Boston Bay, a State-wide pesticide snapshot, the Blue Lake, the aquifers of the South East, Northern Adelaide and Willunga Plains aquifers and risk assessments of Gulf St Vincent, and a State-wide risk assessment of endocrine disruptors.

Current projects aim to refine monitoring and assessment protocols for macroinvertebrates, and develop monitoring method guidelines for surface water and groundwater sampling, and water quality analysis to support a consistent approach across South Australia.

Methodology development Alternative techniques are being explored to provide more reliable and cost-effective water quality monitoring in:

� endocrine disruptor toxicity assessments to identify risks to aquatic ecosystems

� satellite remote imagery to map nutrient impacts over large coastal and marine areas

� passive sampling of pesticides for a more appropriate assessment of ecosystem exposure

� underwater remote video transects, to enable large areas of seagrasses and other habitats to be viewed with minimal need for diving.

Reef health The EPA is one of several State and regional government bodies working in cooperation with community interest groups on a study to develop a methodology for assessing reef health and to provide a baseline of the ecological health of the State’s reefs.

The study is examining potential indicators of health and reporting on the ‘health’ status of South Australian reefs. The project has focused on including community groups and developing communication tools that engage the broad community on the State’s reefs.

In 2005–06 this project: � completed a comprehensive desk study consolidating local,

national and international studies on assessing reef health � developed survey protocols � developed assessment indicators � surveyed all 39 study reefs from the mouth of the Coorong into

Spencer Gulf

37


� evaluated the community’s potential to monitor temperate reef habitats

� filmed three short documentaries and developed web pages to communicate the study’s findings.

The final reports of the study, due for completion mid-2007, will include a report on the condition and health of the surveyed reefs. Plans are underway to expand the program to ultimately incorporate all of the State’s reefs.

Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Coastal waters and ecosystems off Adelaide have been severely affected by industrial, sewage and stormwater discharges: extensive areas of seagrass have been lost (at least 4000 hectares over the last 30 years), sand movement has increased, reef systems have degraded, algal blooms are more frequent, and water quality is poorer. The objective of the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study is to improve knowledge and develop tools for the sustainable management of these coastal waters by identifying the causes of ecosystem degradation, and the means to halt and reverse the damage.

Many of the coastal waters issues are interlinked: attempting to manage one can affect others. How the different components of the ecosystem off Adelaide interact is poorly understood. Improved management tools based on good science will enhance our ability to manage the system effectively.

The study will also work out how to assess the effectiveness of these actions and inform the community of the results.

The study concentrates on seagrass loss, water quality degradation and sea floor instability. Seagrasses were chosen as the primary ecological indicator because of their sensitivity to environmental change and because their loss affects marine ecosystems, water quality and sand movement.

Two seagrasses dominate Adelaide coastal waters: Amphibolis sp. is an establishment species, which provides a stable environment for later colonisation by Posidonia spp. It appears that human intervention has changed the conditions that support healthy Amphibolis growth and has reduced its abundance compared to Posidonia. This has created ‘blow-outs’ which gradually expand to the point at which the whole seagrass bed is threatened.

A steering committee oversees the study. It is chaired by the EPA Chief Executive, and has representatives from key stakeholders (SA Water, Transport SA, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, PIRSA, Coast Protection Board, Mobil Refining Australia, TRU Torrens Island, Local Government Association, Conservation Council of South Australia, South Australian Fishing Industry Council, Planning SA and DWLBC). The stakeholders have provided project funding of approximately $3 million.

The three-stage study is managed by CSIRO and the research was undertaken by Flinders University, the University of Adelaide, SARDI, Water Research Centre in WA, CSIRO and some private companies with particular expertise.

38


Stage 1, detailed design, was completed in March 2002 with design endorsement by the steering committee.

Work on Stage 2, research, and Stage 3, synthesis of the findings into products for managing the system, began in November 2003. All research programs have been finalised and the study is expected to be completed in the last quarter of 2006.

The implementation of the findings will require a cooperative approach and ongoing commitment from all partners that manage water quality in South Australia.

Water quality monitoring in the Mount Lofty Ranges The EPA’s Watershed Protection Office (WPO) was established in 2000 and continues to address water quality issues in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed.

The watershed, covering 1640 km2, holds Adelaide’s reservoir catchments and provides 60% (on average) of Adelaide’s water supply. The area is home to 50,000 residents in urban areas, rural townships and allotments. Only 10% of the area is closed to human activity. Land uses include horticulture, viticulture, market gardens, dairying, forestry, horse-keeping and grazing. Development pressure threatens water quality, and is a challenge for watershed management.

The WPO leads the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Ambient Program and the Storm Event program. For the Ambient Program, 22 sites are distributed across the watershed and sampled monthly during periods of sufficient flow. Three sites are sampled during storm events of a particular size and duration for the second program. These programs allow calibration and validation of the range of computer-based catchment models being developed by the WPO. Both programs have completed two years of sampling.

Composite Sampler Program The WPO is a partner in the Mount Lofty Ranges Composite Sampler program, along with SA Water, DWLBC, and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. Composite samplers are permanently fixed at eight sites, collecting water at specified flow intervals. The program has been running for more than 12 years.

The program measures a wide range of water quality parameters including nutrients, suspended sediments, pesticides and pathogens amongst others. The program is the only consistent, long-term water quality data set available in the MLR. This allows the EPA and other stakeholders to determine the impact of various land-use, land management, political, developmental, climatic, and other changes over time.

Determining trends and/or cause-effect relationships are based on data sets of a minimum quality and longevity. This is due to natural systems generally taking a significant length of time to exhibit the impacts of the types of programs run in the MLRW and is why the composite sampler program is so powerful an asset.

39


The data gathered from this program is fundamental as it provides consistent, reliable, historical and on-going data that is flow-weighted (it takes samples based on a pre-determined minimum flow). The flow-weighting is important as it is recognised that 90% of pollutants are derived from events.

The composite program underpins all of the monitoring within the WPO and is used for a range of predictive and evaluation tools including:

� WPO Modelling � Cox Creek Nutrient Mitigation Program.

eWater Cooperative Research Centre The EPA, through the WPO, is an associate member of the eWater Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), a partnership between private and public water businesses and research groups across Australia. The CRC aims to produce practical products that bring economic, commercial and environmental benefits from the smart management of water. Its product development activities are focused around five product areas: river operations and management; urban water systems package; river and catchment restoration package; water and contaminant simulation package (WaterCAST); and integrated monitoring and assessment system.

The WPO contributes 0.5 FTE and $50,000 per annum (through the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology) to the WaterCAST product area. WaterCAST is a suite of computer-based simulation tools that allow the prediction and management of rural and coastal catchment water quality and quantity. For further information, visit <www.ewatercrc.com.au>.

E2 Model The WPO has developed a computer-based catchment model, E2, which is designed for application in a range of catchment sizes, from backyards to hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. It provides output at various temporal and spatial scales. E2 can model such scenarios as: � changes in land-use � changes in land management � modification of riparian zones � construction of wetlands, dams etc. (eg interception of runoff and

constituent load) � modification of flow regimes or water management (may require

combining with a model such as the Integrated Quality and Quantity Model)

� response to changing or variable climate.

The WPO will use this decision support tool in a range of EPA, WPO and Mount Lofty Ranges projects, for example the Mount Lofty Ranges Risk Assessment project will prioritise activities and spatial areas for attention and the water quality implications of the Myponga Riparian Restoration Project will be modelled and assessed.

40


Strategy: Develop and coordinate the delivery of regulatory and non-regulatory behavioural change and management tools to address high-risk diffuse and point source water pollution

Programs conducted by the EPA’s Watershed Protection Officer (WPO)

Policy, planning and compliance The EPA participates in a number of programs and policy projects that promote risk-based water quality planning in the watershed.

Over the last 12 months the WPO has worked closely with Planning SA to prepare a Winery and Ancillary Developments Plan Amendment Report, to allow new development opportunities in the watershed subject to stringent locational, design and management criteria.

The WPO, in collaboration with SA Water, has prepared a technical report that divides the watershed into three areas based on different levels of water quality risk to drinking water supplies in the Adelaide region. Development control strategies and actions that support and seek to implement this policy were also incorporated into the Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region.

Myponga Watercourse Restoration Project The 1999 EPA report, Watercourse survey and management recommendations for the Myponga River catchment, concluded that livestock access to watercourses was one of the most significant issues threatening watercourse condition within the catchment.

In response, the WPO established the Myponga Watercourse Restoration Project in 2000 to help landholders restore their watercourses with fencing to exclude stock and provide a watercourse buffer zone, constructing stock crossings, establishing off-stream stock watering points, controlling erosion, removing woody weeds and revegetating.

More than 30 landholders have worked at 48 sites to construct 37 km of fencing protecting 19 km of watercourse, construct 23 stock crossings and plant many thousands of trees, shrubs, sedges and rushes.

Raising awareness and changing behaviour Protecting and improving water quality in the MLRW relies upon the understanding, knowledge and skills of those living and working in the region. The WPO has a dedicated and planned approach to raising awareness of water quality issues within the watershed.

The WPO ran information nights and developed information packs and promotion materials for small businesses and industries in the watershed to ensure knowledge of their responsibilities in relation to the Water Quality EPP and related codes of practice was up-to-date.

The media is continually targeted to provide updated information, not only to watershed residents but also to metropolitan Adelaide residents. The aim is to spread the message on the region’s importance as a source of drinking water and information on water quality issues as well as actions that can be taken to help improve and protect our water resource.

41


The EPA’s website content is updated for subject matter can find current information on water quality issues in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed, and about the WPO and its projects. Schools in particular were informed of the availability of information on the website.

Policy mix study As part of the EPA’s efforts to address diffuse-source water quality impacts, the effectiveness of existing and potential future policy instruments in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed were examined by: � reviewing and assessing policy ’mix’ options for Adelaide’s water

supply catchments in the watershed (Phase 1) including analysing the range of policy instruments available (legislative and non-legislative), and gaining insights from national and international research on the best combination of these instruments

� developing case study options, which include environmental, social and economic components of an appropriate policy design methodology.

Environmental management systems in agriculture The EPA, in collaboration with key rural industries, has initiated, participated in and managed two, three-year environmental management system (EMS) projects: ‘The Horticulture Watershed EMS Pilot Project’ and ‘The Horse EMS Pilot Project in the Watershed’ funded respectively by the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

Both projects were conducted from 2003 to 2006 and have increased the capacity and awareness of environmental management responsibilities by rural land managers. The projects took a pro-active environmental partnership approach to deal with complex environmental issues in light of a challenging economic and regulatory context.

Upper Cox Creek Nutrient Mitigation Program Initiated by SA Water and supported by the EPA and the AMLR NRM Board, the Upper Cox Creek Nutrient Mitigation Program addresses a long-standing issue of drinking water reservoir management. The Cox Creek catchment, represents only 1% of the total catchment area delivering source water to the Happy Valley reservoir but contributes about 40–50% of nutrients, mainly due to agricultural (annual cropping) activities. In 2005, the three partner agencies commissioned a triple bottom line assessment. Australian Water Environments conducted a feasibility study, scoping potential nutrient mitigation options.

To date, an investment of approximately $1.6 million has been made by the partners (and funding bodies) to combine technological solutions (sediment and nutrient trapping by a wetland system; creek bed and bank stabilisation) with on-farm and community actions.

Develop plans to implement water-related codes of practice Codes of practice are designed to assist compliance with the general environmental duty and therefore fulfil obligations under the EP Act and associated EPPs. They do this by closely examining an industry or activity and its impacts through a process of negotiation that formulates reasonable and practical outcomes and recommended practices to achieve them.

42


The EPA, in partnership with relevant industry groups, has been finalising a number of industry and activity based codes of practice during 2005–06:

• Vessel and facility management: marine and inland waters • Materials handling on wharves • Industrial, retail and commercial stormwater management.

For example, substantial negotiations on both content and implementation for the Code of Practice for vessel and facility management: marine and inland waters have included finalising recommendations for greywater discharge in fresh waters, blackwater discharge in marine waters and management of wastewaters from tuna farming and other fishing industries.

The EPA also provided substantial support and facilitation of strategies to address related implementation issues including development of greywater and blackwater treatment systems, potential regulation strategies and partnerships, and design and positioning of pump-out stations. Related planning policies and development assessments addressed, for example, in-water use of copper-chrome-arsenate treated timbers in freshwaters, a marina planning policy for the River Murray, and accessibility of wastewater disposal mechanisms for permanent and temporary moorings along the river.

River Murray programs

Lower Murray reclaimed irrigation area The EPA, in partnership with several government agencies and lower River Murray irrigators (largely dairy farmers in the region between Mannum and Wellington), is aiming to improve water quality in the Lower Murray reclaimed irrigation area (LMRIA) by reducing the current pollutant load returned to the River Murray in drainage water. The program focusses on: structural works to minimise water use and drainage to the river, farm management improvements and water quality monitoring.

By July 2008, the EPA will require that farmers retain and reuse excess runoff irrigation water on the farm and also capture the first portion (5 ML/100 ha) of stormwater runoff. Major infrastructure works are currently underway to meet these and other agency objectives (eg water metering). The EPA is also coordinating or contributing to several related activities in the LMRIA: � An environment improvement and management program (EIMP) has

been developed and implemented for each farm, which is linked to an exemption from the EP Act Regulations. Each EIMP details actions, targets and timeframes for improving systems and management (eg channel fencing, laneway grading and timing of fertiliser applications in relation to irrigation). A dedicated environment protection officer is managing the implementation of and compliance with the terms and conditions of the EIMP.

� For the past two irrigation seasons a water quality monitoring program has been measuring the quantity of pollutants discharged from six LMRIA sites to assess the efficacy of the farm rehabilitation process and management practices in reducing pollutant loads returned to the river. The monitoring program will continue until rehabilitation is complete and no surface irrigation runoff should be returned to the river.

43


� Dairy milking shed effluent system audits continue throughout the LMRIA to assess and enforce compliance with the Milking Shed Effluent Code of Practice and Water Quality EPP. Approximately 60% of dairy sheds have been audited to date.

� discussions with irrigation trusts on management of main drainage channel systems aim to maximise stormwater retention and minimise pollution impacts on the river during large rainfall events

� information from these programs will be used to further develop best management practice guidelines for farms in the LMRIA.

River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment for water quality Water quality management in the Murray-Darling Basin has implications for the whole of South Australia—the River Murray and Lower Lakes areas are intrinsically significant ecosystems, supplying water for drinking and irrigation, and are recreational and tourism. Yet their water quality and sustainability are subject to numerous pressures. At present the lack of integrated information on river water quality in South Australia is impeding a strategic approach to water quality protection and improvement.

The River Murray and Lower Lakes Catchment Risk Assessment for Water Quality project was designed to engage and provide information to a wide range of stakeholders on the sources of risk to water quality within the River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment in South Australia. The major objectives of the project were to: � identify the nature and location of hazards that present a potential

risk to water quality through consultation and engagement with community and other stakeholders

� develop a qualitative high-level understanding of those hazards and their risk to water quality using a risk assessment approach and geographical information systems (GIS)

� identify potential solutions to mitigate these risks � identify gaps in the knowledge and resources required to support the

full implementation of mitigation strategies.

Risks to water quality were assessed for the entire length of the river, Lower Lakes and Coorong in South Australia within the River Murray Water Protection Area. Local action planning areas were used as individual consultation regions, and workshops obtained community-based information on the nature and location of water quality risks. This was combined with agency and other stakeholder knowledge to form a database of information on water quality risks. A total of 928 different hazards to water quality were identified to the various environmental values (aquatic ecosystem health, raw water supply, and recreational including aesthetics). Final draft reports have been produced for each local action planning area containing tables of potential management actions and priorities to mitigate identified water quality risks.

The risk assessment project partners (South Australia Murray-Darling Basin NRM Board, EPA and SA Water) have a direct interest in River Murray water quality, and will use the information gathered to develop management strategies in collaboration with other agencies and the community. This stage of the project is being implemented in 2006–07 and is ongoing.

44


South East dairy effluent management program and guidelines The dairy industry is an important part of the economy and community of the South East region and is set to further expand with the implementation of the SA Dairy Industry Strategic Plan 2010. A unique approach was developed in which major stakeholders contributed to a program of guidance to the industry and farm-based technical advice.

This program is the only one of its kind in Australia that receives support and financial commitment from all stakeholder organisations. It brings together the EPA, South Australian Dairyfarmers’ Association, PIRSA, regional dairy farm operators, the South East NRM Board and regional milk processors.

An EPA program, in conjunction with the dairy industry and PIRSA, is further improving the environmental performance of dairying in the South East region. The program refines standards for dairy effluent management to improve operations at existing sites and sustain an environmentally sustainable expansion of the industry in the region.

The program has three key components: � a full review of existing regional guidelines to ensure that they reflect

industry best practice � an industry extension officer to provide technical advice to industry

operators on effluent management at dairies (coordinated by PIRSA) � program guidance from a steering committee with representation from

government, industry and dairy farmers.

The program launched revised effluent management guidelines at an industry field day in June 2005. As part of the extension program, PIRSA staff visited approximately 75 farms in the reporting period, approximately one-third of which required upgrades to effluent management systems. Detailed design work on effluent management system upgrades has been completed for two-thirds of the farms requiring upgrades.

The extension program is set to continue into the 2006–07 financial year.

Key point source pollution programs—water that meets agreed environmental values

Penrice Soda Products Penrice has a set of environmental management strategies in place with the EPA to deal with both air quality (particularly dust) and water quality (particularly ammonia and suspended solids).

The company’s solids recycling plant, commissioned in April 2001, has contributed to a significant (20-fold) reduction in suspended solid concentrations discharged into the Port River, maintaining an operating target well below the licence limit. Stack dust emissions have been reduced during 2004–05 with a number of projects completed under the site EIP. An EIP for No. 1 milk of lime dissolver stack was completed and the stack now complies with the air quality policy limit of 250 mg/m3 particulates.

Strategies to manage Penrice’s environmental performance include: a five-year site EIP to be completed by 31 October 2006; an ammonia reduction EIP with two stages to be completed by 31 December 2006; and an ongoing

45


coastal waters monitoring program with EPA audit review and independent verification.

Penrice is continuing to work towards a reduction of emission to air and water by carrying out the EIPs agreed with the EPA.

Implementation and maintenance of the Ammonia Reduction 2006–10 EIP with the goal of reducing ammonia discharge to the Port River began in 2006. Penrice has committed to achieving targets beyond the EIP goals by continuing to review best available technology economically achievable.

Particulate monitoring of the No.1 milk of lime dissolver and dense ash plant condenser vents continues to show these stacks remain below Air Quality EPP criteria. Monitoring of the No.1 milk of lime dissolver stack has shown a further reduction of particulate emissions.

SA Water environment improvement programs SA Water is currently committed to implementing eight EIPs in cooperation with the EPA. These EIPs aim to minimise the effects of wastewater treatment plants on the environment, consistent with the requirements under the EP Act and where applicable, the Water Quality EPP. Highlights of the 2005–06 year include commissioning of the new Victor Harbor and Whyalla wastewater treatment plants, which have been designed to facilitate wastewater re-use and to significantly reduce impacts on receiving waters.

To date, SA Water has completed 11 EIPs. Monitoring programs have been used to gauge the success of the EIPs in reducing or eliminating environmental harm. This monitoring is currently underway for the remaining programs.

Strategy: Lead the development of agreed environmental values and the subsequent application of the NWQMS and the Water Quality Policy for South Australia

The State NRM Plan, released in 2006, contains strategic policy at a State level for managing South Australia’s natural resources by providing a framework for all NRM initiatives, including regional NRM plans and all government agency activities. The EPA made substantial contributions to the development of this plan, particularly, in ensuring that water quality in South Australia should be managed in accordance with the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) and the Water Quality EPP.

Lake Bonney (South East) The EPA, Department of Trade and Economic Development, and Kimberly–Clark Australia are funding a project over 2003–06 to assess the condition of Lake Bonney (South East) and identify actions that can be taken to improve its health.

Lake Bonney (South East) is a large coastal lake about 10 km south of Millicent in the South East. Like most of the South East region, the lake has been extensively altered since European settlement, particularly by the effects of drainage schemes and various land uses. For over 60 years, large volumes of wastewater from pulp and paper mills discharged into the lake have also adversely affected its health. In recent times, technological upgrades and modifications to the mills have significantly improved the quality of the discharged wastewater.

46


Some of the major findings of the project to date are: • the lake water is no more toxic than any other water body of similar salinity • a number of aquatic plants have colonised and subsequently developed

extensive growths throughout the shallow margins around the lake • resuspended cellulose fibres from historical paper mill discharges as well as

algae, and fine sands and clays appear to be responsible for much of the lake’s turbidity

• like many shallow coastal lakes, the concentration of ammonia and sulphide in the sediments is high enough to cause toxicity to benthic invertebrates and perhaps some sensitive plants, pointing to the need to reduce organic matter input into the lake

• several fish species are flourishing in the lake, due partly to improved water quality in recent years and partly to increased habitat complexity associated with the aquatic plants growing around the lake margins

• the most recent water quality data from the lake show brackish water with high nutrients, colour, turbidity, algal biomass and elevated organochlorine compounds

• most water quality measurements in the lake comply with Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and with recreational guidelines for contact activities

• a detailed hydrodynamic water model has been developed for the lake and a complementary water quality model is now being applied to help understand and develop ways to improve both water quality and environmental values in the lake.

Over the next year, further data will be collected and analysed to improve the accuracy of the model and work will also continue on recovery of fish, plants and invertebrates in the lake for improved and sustained environmental health.

EPA Port River Projects In 2003 the EPA obtained $1.22 million in funding from the Australian Government for six projects, with a total cost of $1.6 million, focusing on Port River waterways.

A key project is the development of a water quality improvement plan (WQIP) for the Port waterways, comprising the Port River and Barker Inlet, through:

• stakeholder consultation to gain agreement on environmental values for the waterway

• determination of nutrient inputs from all major sources • development of a decision support tool to determine sustainable nutrient

loads • a plan to achieve specific nutrient reductions over time consistent with the

agreed environmental values.

The plan is supported by a catchment monitoring program that is providing accurate information about discharges from urban catchments.

The major sources of nutrients to the Port waterways are from Penrice Soda Products and the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant. Both dischargers are prepared to make significant investments over time to bring their nutrient discharge loads to levels that will meet agreed environmental values for the waterways, consistent with the NWQMS. As specific programs are developed, they will be ‘locked in’ through EIPs and conditions of their EPA licences.

47


Penrice has already embarked on this process and the EPA has approved an EIP that will see a reduction of 245 tonnes to 575 tonnes of nitrogen per year by 2010. In the longer term, Penrice is committed to a discharge load of 200 tonnes of nitrogen per year as suitable technology is identified, developed and implemented at their plant.

The draft WQIP is due to be released in September 2006.

Along with the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study, the Port waterways WQIP will lead to strategies to deal with long-term problems caused by the poor quality of water discharged to the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. A single EPA group will be responsible for ensuring a coordinated approach to strategy implementation for both investigations.

Resource kits to assist other water resource managers determine agreed environmental values In 2005–06 the EPA initiated development of resource kits to help determine environmental values as part of applying the NWQMS. An EPA guideline has been developed and a more detailed handbook will be finalised in 2006–07, after consultation with relevant resource managers, to ensure final products are appropriately targeted at the intended audience.

In partnership with the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and regional NRM boards, the EPA has also sourced the delivery of two workshops on the NWQMS.

These workshops aim to build capacity of South Australian water resource managers (from NRM boards, SA Water, DWLBC, local government) and other relevant stakeholders (eg EPA, DEH, Department of Health, PIRSA) on the content and application of the NWQMS and initiate a strategic and coordinated partnership approach to water quality management.

GOAL 3: COMMUNITIES PROTECTED FROM UNACCEPTABLE NOISE

Virtually all human activity generates noise. People’s responses to noise are as varied as the activities that produce it. Approximately 30% of all calls to the EPA Help Desk are about noise. Continued exposure to unacceptable noise can have adverse effects on community health.

To address noise problems, authorities administer environmental noise control using the provisions in a number of Acts. Notwithstanding this, the EPA has established a reputation as the lead government authority on environmental noise. To protect the community from unacceptable noise, the EPA concentrates on activities licensed under the EP Act and develops relationships with other authorities to manage noise from unlicensed activities.

Strategy: Develop a flexible and adaptive regulatory framework and a communication strategy to manage a variety of noise producing activities

The Environment Protection (Noise) Policy The EPA is in the final stages of preparing a draft Environment Protection (Noise) Policy (draft Noise EPP) to replace the two existing noise policies, the Environment Protection (Industrial Noise) Policy 1994 and the Environment Protection (Machine

48


Noise) Policy 1994. The two existing policies are based on technical content that has not altered significantly for almost 30 years.

The draft Noise EPP has been subject to extensive consultation with the public, industry and other key stakeholders. It will clarify and bring consistency to environmental noise regulation, with clear and concise rules for many industrial, commercial and residential noise sources such as construction sites, frost fans, wind farms, audible bird scaring devices, air conditioning units and industrial premises.

Once finalised, the EPA Board will consider the draft Noise EPP. After that, in accordance with the requirements of the EP Act, the Noise EPP will be presented to the Minister for approval, amendment or refusal. If approved, the draft Noise EPP will be referred for the Governor’s consideration.

The EPA has begun training EPA staff in the implementation of the Noise EPP.

The main features of the draft Noise EPP are: • setting general provisions that achieve the general environmental duty • outlining a range of considerations to take into account in determining

action to ensure compliance • setting provisions for special or unique noise sources • developing links with the State planning framework provided by the

Development Act 1993 • setting general provisions for managing development • setting rules for measuring noise.

The Government, business and the general community of South Australia will all benefit from the adoption of an effective noise policy that:

• sets noise standards based on guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization

• provides clarity for industry by clearly stating those issues the EPA and other administering agencies must consider in a noise investigation

• assists planning authorities in sustainable development with respect to noise emissions through integration with the Development Act

• assists enforcement agencies to apply a consistent and considered approach to noise emission complaints

• allows new and emerging issues to be integrated under its broad framework.

Strategy: Develop relationships with other authorities that manage noise

Wind farm noise Continued interest in electricity generation from renewable sources—in particular to secure the remaining portion of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target—has led to numerous discussions with proponents, and referral to the EPA of a number of development applications for wind farms. These applications have been assessed using the EPA’s Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines, which continues to be the only such guidelines dealing specifically with noise from wind farms in Australia.

The guidelines will be incorporated into the provisions of the new Noise EPP, rather than continue as a stand-alone guide.

Standards Australia drew heavily on these guidelines to develop its draft standard ‘Acoustics—measurement, prediction and assessment of noise and wind turbine

49


generators’. The committee for the standard, on which the EPA was represented, has prepared a final draft which is due for release.

Standards Australia has also expressed interest in South Australian research on how wind affects the microphone used for recording noise made by wind farms. Almost a full year’s data was logged as part of the investigation into microphone ‘floor level’ effects under different weather conditions. This data was used for a review of the guidelines in the latter half of 2005. The EPA produced a framework for amendments to the EPA guidelines in early 2006 which was released to industry and community stakeholders as well as interstate regulators. Comments have been compiled and used to draft potential amendments to the EPA guidelines to be released in late 2006.

Rail noise Rail noise includes the rumble of locomotives, the general rolling noise of wagons, and flanging, wheel squeal and wheel howl. Idling trains, shunting, signal crossings and warning signals all make noise, and cause problems where residential development is close to the rail corridor.

The most annoying noise—squeal from wheels against rails, typically on curves—is most noticeable when freight trains pass through the Adelaide Hills. Extensive research into squeal has suggested a variety of causes, and an element of randomness has made it difficult to identify consistent and therefore predictable causes.

A joint study, by the EPA, rail-track owners and rolling stock operators, using world-first technology and the recent introduction of identification tags on all rolling stock, has identified individual wheel sets that squeal.

In late 2004, the EPA met with all rolling stock operators and the track owner, Australian Rail Track Corporation to discuss the results of the pilot study. As a result, the corporation established a permanent monitoring station in the Adelaide Hills, operational since late 2005, that provides data to operators to identify rail wheel sets that are causing excessive noise. This system will play a key role in implementing EIPs for both the corporation and rail operators, which the EPA intends to initiate through future licence conditions.

National strategy In November 2004, the EPA gave a presentation to the Rail Environment Forum established by the National Transport Commission, whose role was expanded to include rail environmental impacts in 2004. The EPA recommended the issue of rail noise be placed on the national agenda for consideration by the Land Transport Environment Committee, of which the EPA is a member.

In 2005 the committee resolved to pursue national rail noise standards with the Australian Rail Association, using the existing code framework established for safety issues. It is now working closely with the association to ensure the standards address relevant environmental concerns. Community consultation A community forum on rail noise, facilitated by the Mitcham Council and attended by approximately 300 residents, was held at the Blackwood Senior Citizens Club in April 2006.

50


Presentations by the industry, politicians, local government and the community representatives preceded an open question and answer session. The questions were fielded by a panel, which included the EPA.

Subsequently, a working group of representatives of all stakeholders was established to inform the community on rail noise progress.

Assist local government and other administering bodies to manageenvironmental noise from non-licensed activities

During the course of the last year the Local Government Support Unit has provided training to all operational police officers in four South Australian Police Service Areas and expects to continue this training program.

Six permanent environment protection orders have been prepared for the police to manage persistent offenders who cause environmental harm by playing loud music generally late at night, adversely affecting the amenity value of the area and interfering unreasonably with enjoyment of the area by people living nearby. The police have indicated that offending generally stops following the receipt of a permanent order.

GOAL 4: SUSTAINABLE LAND-USE

The State of the Environment 2003 report highlighted the need to ‘… address the failure of the current land-use planning system and its administration to deal effectively with priority environmental issues …’

A sophisticated and informed land-use planning system would integrate industrial, agricultural, urban and infrastructure development with environmental and natural resource management, and assist with managing cumulative effects at the regional and catchment levels. Degradation of health and amenity values, as well as impacts on sensitive environments such as the Mount Lofty Ranges, River Murray water protection areas and the coast, can be minimised if the environment is considered and potential problems addressed at the planning stage.

Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 1993 requires certain development proposals to be referred to the EPA for assessment, for example non-complying development within both the River Murray and the Mount Lofty Ranges water protection areas, and development proposals involving prescribed activities of environmental significance.

The demand for land, particularly for residential land in the Adelaide metropolitan area, has led to redevelopment of former industrial, commercial and metropolitan agricultural (eg market garden) areas. New land uses incompatible with past land-use that may have contaminated the land, can cause problems. Site contamination needs to be addressed to ensure land is suitable for its intended use.

During the 2005–06 financial year, the EPA assessed approximately 500 higher-risk development applications, using tools such as separation distances for incompatible land uses, risk assessment and a precautionary approach.

Strategy: Develop an effective legislative and policy framework to manage the assessment and remediation of site contamination

51


Site contamination is a worldwide issue. The risks associated with it must be considered in the purchase, sale, lease, development and redevelopment of all land, property and business. If a site is contaminated, the contamination should be assessed and managed to ensure that the land is suitable for its current or intended use. This is particularly important when land is intended for a sensitive use (eg residential, childcare, preschool or primary school).

Sites may have been contaminated by historical industrial and agricultural practices or current activities, including the disposal or intensive use of chemicals or the deposition of waste.

There is currently no effective legislation to regulate the management of site contamination in South Australia. In the interim, the EPA continues to advise and guide, using an agreed strategy, and administrative processes and procedures, including the use of Environmental Auditors (Contaminated Land) appointed by the Victorian EPA. These processes are supported by the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, which operates as an EPP under the EP Act. In addition the EPA has established an interim memorandum of understanding with the Department of Health primarily to develop and sustain a cooperative working relationship on site contamination issues to ensure consistency in risk assessment, management and communication to all stakeholders.

The EPA, on behalf of the State Government, has now developed a draft Site Contamination Bill to amend the EP Act and provide the EPA with powers to properly regulate site contamination.

The State Government released the Environment Protection (Site Contamination) Amendment Bill 2005 for public consultation on 27 October 2005. The consultation period ended formally on 27 February 2006 but late submissions were accepted.

During the consultation, nine public meetings were held in Adelaide and in major regional centres (Mount Gambier, Berri, Murray Bridge, Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla). In addition, there were over 30 briefings for key stakeholders, local councils, industries, industry and professional bodies, community groups and government agencies.

Over 40 submissions were received from professional bodies, local councils, industries, industry, community groups and government agencies, and are currently under consideration. Recommended amendments to the Bill will be made where appropriate.

Key elements of the Bill include: • establishing an independent audit system for assessing and remediating site

contamination • ensuring development of a consistent framework for determining the person

responsible for site contamination in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle • providing powers to enable the EPA to order the person responsible for causing a

site to become contaminated to assess and remediate the property to ensure that there is no impact on human health or the environment

• providing greater certainty for owners and developers regarding responsibilities, standards and processes

• allowing for the legal transfer of full or partial responsibility for site contamination on the sale of land from vendor to purchaser.

As part of a recent organisation-wide restructure, the EPA appointed a dedicated manager for site contamination who will manage the process of implementing the new

52


legislation, associated regulations, policies and guidelines. This includes developing a comprehensive project plan that will provide for:

• recruiting and training staff required to implement the new legislation • developing internal systems and processes to support the legislation • writing and reviewing regulations to support the Bill • establishing the operational aspects of an audit system for site contamination in

South Australia • preparing and publishing information for those affected by the legislation • implementing an education and awareness campaign throughout the State

targeted at local government, environmental professionals and the public.

Strategy: Promote and participate in developing an integrated land-use planning system for South Australia

Planning policy The Planning Section of the EPA’s Planning and Local Government Support Branch provides advice on proposed changes to local government development plans through the assessment of council and ministerial plan amendment reports. EPA assessment of proposed planning schemes encourages the development of planning policies that support ecologically sustainable development. The Planning Section also assessed other planning policy documents such as the Metropolitan and Outer Metropolitan Planning Strategies, and worked closely with Planning SA in the early stages of the development of ministerial plan amendment reports. During the year, 74 planning policy documents were assessed. A summary of the advice provided is contained in Appendix 5.

The Planning Section also provided comment and advice on a number of amendments to the Development Act and Regulations including a proposal to increase fees payable to referral bodies.

Work collaboratively with Planning SA and other agencies on policy options In view of the nexus between planning, sustainable development and environment protection, the EPA works closely with Planning SA and a number of agencies to develop policies and decision-making regimes that consider the environment. During the year EPA officers have participated in:

• Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Wineries and Ancillary Development Plan Amendment Report

• Review of Development Application Referral Schedules • River Murray Marinas Working Group • State Referral Agencies Working Group • Coastal Marinas Working Group • Planning Strategies Agencies Working Group • Rural Land-Use Policy Coordinating Committee • Major Project Coordinators Group • Premier’s Annual Report on the Implementation of the Planning Strategy • Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region Planning Strategy Public Workshops • Planning and Development Forum • Industrial Land Strategy Reference Group.

Development assessment The Planning Section coordinates the assessment of development applications of environmental significance referred to the EPA by local government or the Development Assessment Commission. Since the referral process began in mid-1995,

53


the EPA has assessed nearly 6000 development applications, an average of around 600 applications per year.

This year, 532 applications were assessed (Table 1). The EPA can influence and, in certain cases, direct that proposals are refused or certain conditions are attached to ensure that the environment and community are protected, and to encourage sustainable development2.

Table 1: Referred development applications completed

Development 2004–05 2005–06 application type

Description No. On time

(%) No. On time (%)

Schedule 8 Schedule 22: Activities of major 172 90 175 97 Part 11 environmental significance

Schedule 8 Schedule 21: Activities of 157 92 147 93 Part 10(b) environmental significance

Schedule 8 ‘Non-complying’ development in 91 68 89 90 Part 10(a) a water protection area

Schedule 8 Windfarms n.a. n.a. 3 100 Part 9 Reg 29 Land Division n.a. n.a. 74 86

Section 49 Crown development by state 20 95 44 98 agencies

Total 440 86.4 532 93

Assessment of major developments and projects The EPA also assesses proposals declared by the Minister with responsibility for Development and Planning to be of major environmental, social or economic importance. These major developments and projects must be referred to the EPA if they include an activity of environmental significance as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the EP Act.

Documentation relating to the following major projects was referred to the EPA during 2005–06 for assessment: � IWS Dublin Balefill Contaminated Soil and Liquid Treatment Plant

(amendments) � Mannum Marina � Bradken Foundry � Olympic Dam Mine Expansion � Southern Ocean Lodge � Ceduna Keys Marina � Beringer Blass Wine Bottling and Storage Facility (amendments) � Cape Jaffa Anchorage Marina.

2 The EPA has directive power in relation to Schedule 22 referrals, activities that require a licence under the EP Act and for certain activities within the River Murray Water Protection Area.

54


Internal review of development assessment system The EPA has finalised a review of its role and processes in the development application referral system. The review found ways to improve performance, in both quality and timeliness of delivery, including organisational structure and culture, infrastructure and information systems. The EPA Board endorsed the findings of the review and its recommendations in May 2005.

An implementation plan saw six working groups focusing on areas that require improvement and implementation of the review recommendations continued into 2006. Overall timeliness of the EPA development assessment function has improved significantly with no reduction in assessment quality.

The development of the General ENvironmental Information Systems (GENI) database began for the Development Application module and is almost complete with the User Requirements receiving endorsement and the functional specification finalised in late June 2006.

The development referral schedules have been reviewed with 13 activities identified and endorsed for removal from Schedule 21. Planning SA has supported the recommendation of the EPA and it is expected a Cabinet submission will be sent for consideration during mid to late 2006. Planners’ guidelines have been developed and are being finalised for endorsement and deployment inline with the changes to the legislation.

Timeliness has continued to improve as incremental internal system changes are made. The EPA achieved 100% timeliness for two months over the past year even though development application numbers have continued to increase.

Aquaculture The Aquaculture Act 2001, which became operational in July 2002, has PIRSA responsible for its administration. However, the Aquaculture Act stipulates statutory requirements that must be met by the EPA such as assessment and provision of comments on aquaculture licence applications, variations of licence conditions and lease conversions. The EPA also addresses and responds to the statutory requirements of the Development Act and to general aquaculture issues that may arise.

The EPA is represented on the Aquaculture Advisory Committee, which advises the Minister responsible for administering the Aquaculture Act on matters pertaining to aquaculture.

55


Table 2: Aquaculture assessments 2005–06

Number % completed within statutory time frame

Licence and licence variation applications 53 100%

Development applications 30 100%

Environmental monitoring programs 5 n.a.

Operational and zone policies 5 n.a.

Lease conversions 0 n.a.

Aquaculture Advisory Committee meetings 3/3 n.a. attended

The EPA also finalised and distributed the Code of Practice for the environmental management of the South Australian oyster farming industry.

56


CROSS GOAL STRATEGIES

STRATEGY 1: ENHANCING ORGANISATIONAL CAPABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS

Culture change and performance improvement program In August 2005 the Chief Executive Dr Paul Vogel announced a program of structural and organisational change for the EPA to be implemented in a stages over the forthcoming 12– 18 months. The EPA Board and Executive endorsed program was in response to: increasing community and business expectations and emerging complex environmental challenges; the need for the EPA to align itself with the key strategies and priorities of the EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008; and the Government’s policy agenda described in South Australia’s Strategic Plan.

The organisational change program has four major initiatives: • a review of organisational structure • improved organisational performance measurement and reporting • staff development and culture change • processes and systems improvement.

The program is seen as being long-term, with significant milestones, to continually identify and address important emerging environmental issues, and adjust internal systems, skills and processes to respond in a timely and effective manner, and ensure efficient and effective use of the EPA’s resources.

As part of the cultural change program, the Board has approved a culture statement for the EPA, developed with input from staff.

57


EPA people

EPA systems and processes

EPA Culture Statement

As the State’s primary environmental regulator we manage and influence human activities to protect, restore and enhance the environment and to support human wellbeing. In a time of change, with increasing expectations and complex challenges, we are committed to developing an organisational culture that reflects our values of empathy, sound judgment, cooperation, innovation and integrity.

EPA staff are the heart of the organisation. We seek to attract and retain the best, by providing the opportunity to tackle challenging issues in a team based, collaborative and safe work environment. We take a risk-based approach to solving important problems and to decision-making. Practical and balanced judgments are guided by sound science, analysis and evidence. We value the use of lateral thinking and initiative to generate creative and innovative solutions. We focus on outcomes and are accountable for our decisions and actions.

EPA relationships

We are committed to dealing with each other, our stakeholders and the community respectfully and in a responsive manner. The EPA values stakeholders’ points of view and is empathetic to their concerns. We are honest, open, transparent and timely in our communications. Compliance and enforcement activities are underpinned by a predictable, consistent and fair approach. We seek to work in partnerships to tailor solutions that balance environmental, economic and social needs.

We value well-designed systems and processes that use best available technology. We seek better systems and processes that support EPA staff to work collaboratively, effectively and efficiently, and ensure that decisions are timely, and based on relevant information and knowledge.

Review of organisational capability The EPA assessed its management approaches, practices and systems in June 2006 using the Australian Business Excellence Framework (ABEF) as the benchmark. The ABEF tool will provide a clear picture of the EPA’s strengths and areas for improvement. The assessment process used facilitated workshops with Executive, managers and staff on topics including leadership, strategy, knowledge management, staff development, client relationships, innovation and sustainability. The results will provide a baseline for future comparison and a focus on the priority areas of the Culture Change and Improvement Program.

Review of organisational structure The EPA embarked on its restructure of divisions and branches in August 2005. The structure of the organisation had not been reviewed for a number of years. The Strategic Plan 2005–2008 had highlighted a number of internal opportunities to improve accountability, clarify areas of responsibility against Strategic Plan priorities and continue efforts in developing partnerships for problem solving.

To begin the process the Executive team identified five functional areas for the organisation, rather than the existing six divisions. Functions within four of the existing divisions were reviewed and it was proposed that some functions be aggregated or moved to different areas to better support and align the organisation with its strategic direction.

58


Executive sought feedback and input from all staff on the proposed functional structure, which influenced what has become the endorsed structure.

Transition to the new structure was finalised in June 2006 and the EPA will begin operating with the new structure at the beginning of the 2006–07 financial year.

Early feedback indicates that the structural change will better align the EPA with its organisational goals and clearer accountability. An ongoing program of monitoring and feedback will determine the effectiveness of the structural change.

Managing organisational performance In order to remain a viable and credible organisation the EPA needs to have a thorough understanding of how effective its programs are in managing environmental risk and how it is performing as an organisation. As well as assessing its organisational capability using the ABEF, the EPA is reviewing its organisational key performance indicators (KPIs), which are critical for monitoring the implementation of the strategic plan (which addresses the EPA’s response to significant environmental risks), improving EPA performance and underpinning the culture change program.

Developing improved key performance indicators The EPA’s KPIs need to effectively measure progress against the outcomes expressed in its Strategic Plan.

Current KPIs have been developed over time. They operate at the divisional and/or branch level and in many instances measure activity level rather than effectiveness outcome. A review of KPIs was commenced during the year with a view to better demonstrate the EPA’s contribution towards delivering the outcomes in the Strategic Plan.

The EPA will continue to report on existing KPIs during the 2006–07 financial year, while further refining the proposed KPIs. Reporting on the improved KPIs for priority areas of EPA business is anticipated to begin in the 2007–08 financial year.

Adopting an improved performance outcome based approach will:

• better demonstrate the extent to which strategic goals are being achieved (eg clean and healthy air)

• help to create a stronger culture of accountability within the organisation

• assist in understanding the contribution and effectiveness of EPA programs

• provide the means to evaluate and improve programs and activities based on sound evidence and rationale.

Organisational performance targets Currently the EPA measures and reports on its performance against a set of targets that reflect the major programs it delivers. These targets are published in the Whole of Government Portfolio Statement, which forms part of the annual whole of government budget papers. Table 3 lists these performance targets and outcomes.

59


Table 3: Progress against 2005–06 Portfolio Statement targets

Targets 2005–06 Progress as of 30 June 2006

Seek to release a Bill to adequately manage Public consultation and analysis of submissions site contamination for public consultation completed

Draft Bill and discussion paper developed

Release a discussion paper and draft Bill Government agency consultation completed aimed at strengthening SA’s container deposit system

Complete feasibility study into the long-term Feasibility study completed and recommendations management of radioactive wastes and make made recommendations to government on their interim and long-term storage Discussions underway with key parties before

recommendations for implementation are developed

Complete Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Study to be completed in August 2006

Complete water quality improvement plan for Draft plan developed in close cooperation with Port waterways stakeholders; available in August 2006

Work with stakeholders to implement findings

Provide additional support for local councils EPA support for local government agencies who become administering agencies for the Environment Protection Act

includes: technical support, advice relating to use of the compliance and enforcement measures, equipment, training/awareness sessions, information technology support (CARES database), administrative support tools

Implement air quality forecasting system for System currently being developed and trialled; Adelaide once implemented it will provide daily forecasts

for 24–36 hours on a wide range of pollutants

Finalise River Murray risk assessment and Final draft reports completed. Consultation with implement findings stakeholders to develop strategies for addressing

priority risks to water quality has commenced

Develop and implement environment Industry audit and environmental monitoring improvement plan for Gepps Cross–Kilburn finalised area Project report in final stages of preparation

Educational and training packages for industry being finalised

Progress a risk-based system for licence System developed; 80% of EPA licences assessed management using agreed criteria

Develop and implement a ‘future leaders’ program An EPA workforce capability development area is the provision of learning to ensure that managers have skills to provide leadership and management for their staff. The EPA implemented a leadership development program in the latter half of 2005 to enhance the skills of existing leaders and develop future leaders. A total of 12 participants were selected for the program, and the program review indicated the successful integration between new skills and the participant’s management and leadership styles. Another leadership development program will be planned for 2006–07.

60


STRATEGY 2: CONTRIBUTING TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The fundamental aim of sustainable development is to reduce the environmental footprint and protect natural ecosystems so that they are able to provide the support mechanisms needed to maintain a good quality of life for all organisms, including humans, that live on this planet. A range of tools and approaches can help change the attitudes of people and institutions to their environment, and reduce their footprint.

South Australia’s Strategic Plan: Creating Opportunity makes ‘attaining sustainability’ one of its six objectives. With a priority to make South Australia ‘clean, green and sustainable’, the EPA has an important role as an environmental regulator in supporting and facilitating sustainable economic development.

Attaining sustainability is relevant to many aspects of the EPA’s business. Principally, the EPA needs to continue evaluating how it uses its decision-making discretionary powers, and its policy advisory function. It also needs to contribute to raising the profile of sustainability, ensuring that it is taken into account by other decision-makers and the general community. Finally, it needs to consider the mix of approaches that are available to decision-making bodies like the EPA to achieve our priority environmental outcomes with a risk-based, least-cost regulatory approach—a concept referred to nationally and internationally as ‘smart’ or ‘better regulation’.

Participate in development of the State’s greenhouse strategy Development of the State’s strategy to deal with climate change continued, based on the themes of adaptation, reduction and innovation. Information and perspectives gained from an open summit in November 2005 were used in formulating a draft strategy. The draft Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy was released for public comment in February 2006.

In this major initiative, the EPA participated in the Project Managers’ Team and assisted the Department of Trade and Economic Development in facilitating the industry sector contribution to the strategy. The two agencies sought regular comment and advice from an industry sector working group and, with Business SA, held two workshops early in 2006 to ascertain the views of those in small and medium industries.

Development of detailed action plans began in May 2006 to concentrate on the response actions for the forthcoming one to two year period.

In May 2006 the Australian Government released the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2004 together with state-based inventories for 2004 and the full inventory series for 1990 to 2004 based on the current methodologies to allow trend analysis.

Of the 27.6 Mt of net greenhouse gas attributed to South Australia, energy use including transport resulted in 79% of net emissions; transport alone was responsible for 18% of the State total and energy generation comprised 34%. The contribution from agriculture was heavily offset by reafforestation activity reducing the net contribution to 8.6% of the State’s total emission. The total emission represents a reduction of approximately 14.7% from the 1990 baseline year.

Develop behaviour change programs The EPA coordinates a variety of behaviour change programs across the organisation including Smoke Alert, Air Watch, codes of practice, eco-efficiency and greening the supply chain. These programs are covered in relevant sections of this report.

61


WaterCare WaterCare is a whole-of-government initiative that raises awareness of water issues and promotes responsible water use and management of South Australia’s water resources.

The initiative aims to encourage the community to work together to protect South Australia’s precious water resources. As a whole-of-government initiative, WaterCare connects programs and campaigns across State Government agencies and regional NRM boards.

Raising awareness The WaterCare initiative continues to meet the goals, outcomes and milestones of the ‘WaterCare Strategic and Business Plan’.

The March 2006 campaign report concluded that a positive correlation continued to be drawn between campaign exposure and awareness of water issues, attitude to water and to a lesser extent, change in behaviour.

The research also suggests that the WaterCare campaign serves to reinforce and encourage those in the community who are pre-disposed to helping out on water issues. Overall, 67% of people surveyed held an awareness of the WaterCare campaign. Community awareness and understanding of the State’s water issues are still increasing with: � 80% of people listing water as one of the top three environmental issues

affecting the State � 72% of people rating water as South Australia’s most precious natural

resource.

Community perception of the seriousness of our water issues is high with an overall ranking of 8.7 out of 10, while 51% of respondents perceive our water issues to be long term.

Behaviour change Throughout 2005–06 WaterCare sought to further promote specific behaviour change measures in relation to water. Encouragingly, the March 2006 research report indicates a positive increase in the community’s acceptance that their own behaviour has an impact on the State’s water issues. Specifically, there was an increase in understanding their impact on: � water conservation—from 7.9 (September 2004) to 8.2 (March 2006) out of

10 � stormwater pollution—from 8.2 (September 2004) to 8.5 (March 2006) out of

10.

STRATEGY 3: PROMOTING THE ADOPTION OF ECO-EFFICIENT PRACTICES

As the State’s primary environmental regulator, the EPA has a key role in promoting more sustainable business practices through the uptake of eco-efficiency principles that bring about economic and environmental benefits.

The EPA continues to work with Zero Waste SA in finalising the development of the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy (Waste to Resources EPP) as well as developing a Product Stewardship Policy, particularly in a national context.

62


The principles of eco-efficiency and sustainability are used widely throughout the EPA (eg planning advice and licensing of industry) and specific programs assist businesses to adopt eco-efficient practices.

Waste to Resources EPP The policy and operational environment for waste management has progressed both internationally and nationally since existing waste management legislation was introduced. Waste is now increasingly seen as a resource which should not be squandered, but rather avoided, minimised, reused, recycled and only disposed of as a last resort. The waste management hierarchy (Figure 8) is reflected in recent policy initiatives such as South Australia’s Strategic Plan and South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005–2010. The Waste Strategy in particular, calls for regulatory support in a number of areas, most of which will be developed through the Waste to Resources EPP.

Most preferable

Reduction

Avoidance

Reuse

Recycling

Recovery

Treatment

Disposal

Least preferable

Figure 8: The waste hierarchy

Although a number of measures will need to be considered to provide sufficient incentive for waste minimisation and resource recovery, the proposed Waste to Resources EPP will be a fundamental tool that prescribes both mandatory and non-mandatory standards and guidelines to manage both waste disposal and waste reduction.

The proposed Waste to Resources EPP will: • enable the EPA to more effectively regulate the waste industry to achieve

compliance, targets and outcomes in the Waste Strategy, including: � requiring implementation of risk-based standards for waste disposal and

resource recovery � establishing more effective offences for illegal activities such as the

deposition of waste to unauthorised sites (illegal dumping). • promote and encourage resource efficiency in the production of goods and services

that have problematic impacts on our environment; this includes using alternative production systems to increase resource recovery efficiency.

The statutory consultation process for the Waste to Resources EPP is expected to begin during the second half of 2006.

63


Waste and resource efficiency The EPA has continued its strong support of ZWSA in working with industry, government and the community to better manage the use of resources and minimise waste.

ZWSA was established in July 2003 as part fulfilment of government policy for a new legislative framework under which the State can work with local government and industry on waste reduction, recycling and disposal. The EPA has a predominantly regulatory role and ZWSA is responsible for promoting waste management practices that, as far as possible, eliminate waste or its consignment to landfill, advance the development of resource recovery and recycling, and are based on an integrated strategy for the State.

The waste stream contains many items that can be recycled or reused. The use of landfill will change as industry adopts better waste management systems and improves its practices. Moreover, the cost of disposal is increasing as landfill operating standards improve and transport costs rise.

Waste streams such as electronic goods need to be considered at a national level to allow their economical management and treatment. The EPA continued to work with other jurisdictions through the EPHC’s Waste Working Group, on waste tyres, electronic equipment and hazardous waste. The group is developing a national co-regulatory approach to managing these wastes, with tyres, televisions and computers having priority.

New legislation in Europe is causing manufacturers to improve their waste and resource management. This has prompted the local Electronics Industry Association (EIA) to embark on a green manufacturing accreditation scheme to meet the new European standards as well as ISO 14001. In association with the DTED, the EPA is assisting the EIA to develop a training program for this new scheme.

Waste management and disposal practices continue to improve. However, the EPA, in collaboration with other agencies such as ZWSA, must continue to maximise the quantity of resources reused or recycled, with the aspirational goal of zero waste to landfill.

Landfill guidelines The EPA reviewed its landfill guidelines for municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial general waste in response to an increasing demand by proponents, operators and licensees for:

• more detailed guidance on planning, designing and managing landfills • more transparency in developing and implementing standards and guidelines • more assurance for short-, medium- and long-term planning of waste management

facilities.

Guidelines for waste management activities such as resource recovery and composting are also under review. Revised draft documents were released for an initial eight months consultation in March 2004, followed by the second stage of public consultation in March– April 2005.

The revised draft ‘Landfill facility guidelines’ propose standards that are not significantly different from the existing requirements, introduced in 1998. However, these guidelines clarify the EPA’s requirements and give landfill operators greater flexibility to meet them. In some instances the revised draft guidelines are not as strict as the current guidelines (eg reduced liner and cap thickness requirements).

The EPA has worked with landfill operators for approximately four years to improve the operation and management of licensed landfill sites. EPA guidelines will apply to all

64


landfills in South Australia, regardless of whether they are operated by a council or by the private sector.

Local governments have raised concerns about the cost of implementing the guidelines. The EPA recognises the financial implications of this transition period and has supported a staged approach to address landfill sites and achieve improved waste management in regional areas.

During 2005–06 the EPA established an EPA Board subcommittee and also a Collaborative Landfill Working Party with membership from local government, the waste industry and ZWSA to oversee the review of the guidelines.

Further effort has been made to assess the costs of the proposed changes and timing of implementation. A landfill audit study, which has examined six selected country landfills from different areas of the state, was jointly funded through the Office of Local Government, ZWSA, EPA and the Local Government Association.

Comments received from the consultation, together with findings and recommendations from the Landfill Audit Project for Selected Council Landfill Facilities, have been assessed and considered before finalising the Landfill Facility Guidelines.

The EPA Board has resolved to release the guidelines and provide a three-month period for all stakeholders to provide submissions that relate to the released paper. The EPA Board Landfill Guidelines Subcommittee will review the submissions.

Key point source pollution programs—promoting the adoption of eco-efficient practices

Garden Island During a compulsory ERD Court conference in August 2001, agreement was reached between the previous operator, Western Region Waste Management Authority (Western), the landowner LMC and the EPA to enter into an environmental performance agreement for closure, rehabilitation and post-closure activities of the waste depot on Garden Island.

The closure plan for Garden Island was developed and accepted in principle by all parties in 2002. The landfill capping implementation plan was then drafted and accepted by all parties.

The environment performance agreement—reflecting milestones, responsibilities and timeframes as negotiated in both the closure and capping implementation plans—as well as financial commitments by Western and LMC have been finalised. All documents are currently with Western’s member councils for endorsement and it is anticipated that proceedings will be finalised in the ERD Court early in the 2006–07 year.

Small business eco-efficiency training program The Small business Eco-efficiency Training Program has continued to train businesses across South Australia in 2005–06 to help them improve production efficiency while reducing their impact on the environment. In addition to workshops held in the Adelaide Metropolitan area, training sessions were held in Mount Gambier as part of Water Week organised by SA Water to promote water conservation in business and the community. Business SA continued to conduct a course in environment management systems with emphasis on eco-efficiency as part of the Environmental Improvers Program. In addition to sponsorship of the basic course, the EPA provided funds to develop specific course modules

65


on energy efficiency, water conservation and waste avoidance, thereby strengthening the practical advice that businesses could readily identify with and adopt.

Greening the supply chain program The Greening the supply chain program has continued to cooperate with business and industry by promoting the benefits of eco-efficiency, focusing on business supply chains. Several industry partnership projects were undertaken in 2005–06.

South Australian wine industry Following the success of the Sustainable Purchasing Toolkit launched with the South Australian Wine Industry Association and the Greener Business Alliance project centred on Yalumba, participating organisations in the wine industry initiated a project with government support to address operational factors that affect greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficient technologies and practices that improve eco-efficiency are contributing factors in managing response to climate change.

Motor Trade Association of South Australia Phase 2 of the project that began in 2004–05 extended the systematic auditing, training and follow-up evaluation of sectors of the motor trade to assist with long-term environmental improvements and operational efficiencies. An additional 45 site audits were completed in metropolitan and rural regions to give a broader perspective on practices throughout the industry. The broader view also helped to ensure that training materials and solutions offered for issues of concern were relevant to the range of situations existing across the State.

Participants were provided with evaluations and an EMS handbook that included a product and services directory to guide the organisation in its implementation of corrective actions. Principal issues within the six major sectors of the industry were identified, together with corrective measures and appropriate training.

Electronics Industry Association (EIA) Waste electrical and electronic equipment in landfill takes up volume with recyclable materials and creates potential for contamination of soil, surface and groundwater resources. International legislation that addresses waste and the content of new equipment, by requiring restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) used, will apply to all imported appliances and components. The EIA was offered financial assistance and technical advice to develop and implement a training course in ISO 14001 with specific emphasis on practical measures to comply with the RoHS Directive requirements. The intention is to enable electronic industries in South Australia to improve their sustainability by better environmental practices.

Used Packaging NEPM The Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Policy 2001 (the implementation in South Australia of the Used Packaging NEPM) gives brand owners who are deemed to be significant contributors to the waste stream a choice to sign the National Packaging Covenant (NPC) or comply with the requirements of the Used Packaging NEPM/EPP. At 30 June 2006, South Australia had 42 signatories to the NPC.

The South Australian Jurisdictional Projects Group was established under the NPC in a cooperative approach by industry and government. The result has been essential for achieving a nationally consistent approach to the lifecycle management of packaging and paper, including its recovery, use and ultimate disposal. The group was responsible for the following projects:

66


• a transport logistics study to investigate options for increasing recycling rates in rural and regional areas

• a public place and public recycling study to develop guidelines for organisers responsible for running events and encourage greater participation from other stakeholders to participate in waste minimisation and recycling

• a public attitudes study to research the South Australian community’s understanding of waste reduction and recycling as well as their behaviour.

In November 2005 the EPA audited brand owners (required annually by the Used Packaging NEPM) to identify companies that are significant contributors to the waste stream.

The EPA gave presentations at several forums and workshops on the NPC and the Used Packaging NEPM, delivering information on national and state-based used packaging projects.

Following an extensive period of review and consultation, the EPHC considered a proposal to strengthen the NPC. EPHC asked jurisdictions to begin consultation on a set of targets for the covenant.

EPHC had resolved to accept an interim extension of the NPC to 14 July 2005 to allow additional development of a revised NEPM and NPC. After consultation on a detailed proposal for future arrangements the EPHC agreed to a new, strengthened NPC for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2010 which includes specific targets and a revised Used Packaging NEPM.

Product Stewardship NEPM—national policy The Australian community has a clear desire for industry to support a healthier environment by exercising producer responsibility to reduce the environmental impacts of its products. Many firms operating in Australia are already exposed to product stewardship initiatives overseas (such as in the European Union, Japan and some US states and Canadian provinces) aimed at minimising waste, reducing toxicity and improving resource efficiency.

In July 2005 the EPHC requested that jurisdictions develop a generic Product Stewardship NEPM. EPA is participating in the project development team of state and Commonwealth government bodies.

The international initiatives vary from fully regulated to fully voluntary schemes. Australia’s national approach to product stewardship must ensure measurable environmental improvement within the Australian context and maintain consistency with international approaches.

Establishing voluntary sector initiatives underpinned by a regulatory safety net to capture non-participants (known as co-regulation) is an approach that is well supported by industry in Australia. It is the principle being followed in developing the NEPM and associated industry sector agreements.

Some sectors are already developing self-funded voluntary product stewardship initiatives that manage the environmental impact of products, particularly by increasing their recovery, reuse and recycling. The tyre industry and the television industry have approached governments seeking regulatory support to eliminate the threat posed by nonparticipants to the viability of their proposed voluntary product stewardship schemes.

67


Product stewardship agreements for these two sectors are being progressed in concert with the draft NEPM, to illustrate its application and are expected to be in place by the middle of 2007.

Energy efficiency action plan report In line with the Greening of Government Operations (GoGO) Framework, there are currently three priority areas for which the EPA has developed performance indicators: energy management, waste management, and travel and fleet management.

GoGO priority area 1: energy management

Table 4: Performance against annual energy use targets

Energy Use Expenditure GHG Emissions (GJ) ($) (tonnes)

Base Year 2000–01 1 502 61 542 494

2001–02 1 336 54 561 440

2002–03 * 1 879 74 420 618

2003–04 1 697 67 532 558

2004–05 * 1 680 73 071 553

2005–06 1 492 65 529 491

Target (2005–06) 1 759 73 307 579

Target (2014)* 1 447 60 268 476

25% reduction of base year

* Note that 2002–03 incorporates the Radiation Protection Branch at Kent Town that transferred from DHS and 2004–05 takes into account part of an additional floor being leased in the SA Water House building in the CBD. The target for 2014 has been adjusted to incorporate the changes that have taken place since the Base Year and in 2006–07 will reflect reclaimed floor area on Level 2 of the SA Water House building which has previously been sub-leased to Transport SA.

Table 5: Equipment and energy consumption

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

CRT CRT TFT CRT TFT CRT TFT

screens screens screens TOTAL screens screens TOTAL screens screens TOTAL

Number of desktop PCs 255 133 122 255 177 122 299 28 282 310

Energy used (GJ) 135 70 27 97 94 27 121 15 62 77

CO2 emissions (tonnes) 44 23 9 32 31 9 40 5 21 26

Significant energy management achievements Annual energy consumption for EPA locations The figures for 2005–06 show a significant improvement from the previous year in relation to energy use, expenditure and emissions even allowing for a tariff increase in the current year.

68


Information technology equipment The phased approach for the adoption of TFT (thin film transistor) screens for desktop computers, which commenced in 2003–04 is now almost complete with 160 new TFT screens purchased in 2005–06. The remaining 28 CRT monitors will be converted to TFT screens when the time comes for them to be replaced. Table 5 reflects a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 14 tonnes from 2004–05 to 2005–06 due to the monitor conversion process even allowing for the slight increase of 11 in the total number of PCs from the previous year.

GoGO priority area 3: waste management

Figure 9: Paper diverted from landfill

Paper recycling The 2005–06 year saw an increase in recycling to a total of 12.5 tonnes compared with 10.6 tonnes in 2004–05. This reflects an increase in the amount of paper used during the year with a corresponding increase in the percentage recycled as shown in Figure 9.

Table 6: Printer consumables recycling

2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 TOTAL

CBD Building

Quantity Diverted (no. of items) 10 209 231 282 289 1,021

Amount Diverted (kg's) 8.6 183.7 212.3 194.8 209.0 808

Stirling

Quantity Diverted (no. of items) 9 9

Amount Diverted (kg's) 8.9 8.9

Mount Gambier

Quantity Diverted (no. of items) 104 103 207

Amount Diverted (kg's) 107.7 103.3 211.0

Total items 10 209 231 386 401 1,237

Total weight (kg) 8.6 183.7 212.3 302.5 321.2 1,028.2

69


Printing Consumables The recycling initiative provided by Close The Loop Limited now extends to include regional offices at Mount Gambier, Stirling and Kent Town who are using recycling kits for their consumables. Given the small size of the Kent Town office, there have not been any completed returns to date. Reports provided by the company are summarised in Table 6 and show that a total of 1,028 kg of waste printing consumables have been diverted from landfill since the initiative’s inception in April 2002.

Fluorescent tubes The EPA recycles fluorescent lighting tubes through a company called Chemsal, which extracts the toxic liquid mercury from the tubes and disposes of it in a safe manner. They also recover the glass from the tubes that is reused. Since its inception in 2003 approximately 848 fluorescent tubes have been recycled in this manner.

Figure 10: Recycling of containers (cans, bottles and cartons)

Other recycled products Waste products such as cans, plastics, tins, glass, milk and juice cartons accounted for 7,440 litres (or 62 bins) recycled from SA Water House in 2005–06 and is down on last year’s figure when 8,400 litres (70 bins) were collected for recycling.

Other (non-recycled) products Organic waste such as food scraps, are collected in-house to be composted rather than sent to landfill. Over the past year, approximately 741 kg of kitchen waste from SA Water House has been composted.

70


GoGO Priority Area 5: travel and fleet management

Table 7: EPA vehicle fleet

At 30 June At 30 June At 30 June At 30 June At 30 June

Vehicle types 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Diesel only Nil 4 3 3 3

Electric/unleaded (hybrid) 1 3 3 2 Nil

Unleaded only 19 6 4 8 6

LPG only Nil Nil 2 3 7

Combined dual fuel

(unleaded and LPG) 19 24 25 21 19

Total long-term hire vehicles 39 37 37 37 35

Table 7 shows the vehicle types that are currently on long-term leases to the EPA ie leases of two or three years duration. Of the total 35 vehicles at 30 June 2006, 74% have LPG or the ability to run on LPG, which is well in excess of the requirements of the SA Government Energy Efficiency Action Plan. The number of vehicles that use only unleaded petrol has been reduced from eight to six during 2005–06 and will be further reduced to three when their current leases expire early in 2006–07 and will be replaced with dual fuel vehicles.

Table 8: Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Energy (GJ) 2566 2288 2082 2082

CO2 emissions (tonnes) 194 170 155 154

Table 5 shows that the EPA has maintained energy and greenhouse gas emissions from its vehicle fleet at similar levels to last year but the overall figures show a marked improvement from the 2002–03 year.

Figure 11: Proportion of unleaded fuel used in dual fuel vehicles

71


The current vehicle fleet management policy incorporates a maximum of 20% unleaded fuel to be used in dual fuel vehicles and a monthly report is prepared to highlight vehicles which exceed this requirement.

There has been a significant reduction in the use of unleaded fuel in dual fuel vehicles since this was first monitored. In the four years from 2002–03 to 2005–06 the percentage use of unleaded fuel has fallen each year from 33.3% in 2002–03 to 21.4% in 2005–06 as shown in Figure 3. It is likely that 2006–07 will see the percentage fall below the threshold required by the policy.

Figure 12: Greenhouse gas emissions

Figure 12 reflects the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions by each fuel type and shows that whilst emissions from LPG vehicles has increased slightly during 2005–06 this is due to the increased use of this fuel type in our vehicle fleet. Unleaded fuel emissions are at a similar level to 2004–05 but still represent a significant reduction on the base year of 2002–03.

72


STRATEGY 4: DEVELOPING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

Informed and engaged communities improve understanding between government and the community, and lead to stronger social cohesion and increased social capital, important for community well-being.

The EPA endeavours to work with all sectors of society and all levels of government to support and encourage involvement in environment and radiation protection.

Effective protection of human health and the environment requires informed, supportive and engaged community, industry, business and governments. This is being achieved through improved consultation and communications activities, the delivery of educational and behavioural change programs, improving access to our services and working in partnerships.

The engagement strategy, EPA—Engaging its Communities, has been developed, completed and approved by the EPA Board to help manage external perceptions of the EPA, communicate and share knowledge within the organisation, and develop mutually beneficial relationships with key stakeholders. The strategy sets out a framework to support the EPA in the delivery of its Strategic Plan and of the EPA’s organisational change program.

The process of developing the strategy engaged staff from all levels of the organisation. This process aimed to ensure ownership and engender clarity and consistency of communications with stakeholders by staff who embraced and demonstrated EPA values.

Communication plans and support for high priority projects The strategy will see considerable focus from the Communications and Public Affairs Branch to assist the organisation in developing strong relationships with all stakeholders, both internally and externally. Clear channels of communication will be developed and serve to improve relationships for all parties.

As an essential part of the strategy, development of effective communication and engagement plans for key initiatives will be required. Careful consideration will be given to linking engagement plans with stakeholder groups outside the EPA to ensure successful consultation, mediation and education in line with the focus of the South Australia’s Strategic Plan of transparency, openness and cooperation in government.

Community engagement projects

Pesky Particulate Project (DustTrack Project) Students from four Adelaide schools were recruited to monitor air pollution across Adelaide during the winter months. The four schools (Christian Brothers College, West Lakes Shore Primary, Elizabeth Vale Primary and Mount Barker Primary) measured particulates in the air over three months to examine the severity of particulate pollution in Adelaide and to identify potential sources. Specialised equipment (DustTracks) were installed at each school to measure pollution.

The students received training as part of the EPA’s AirWatch program. They downloaded and analysed the air monitoring data once a week and sent it to the EPA. They also maintained the monitoring equipment. Each school received a fun, interactive presentation on air quality and attended a closing celebratory event. This data is currently being analysed by the EPA under quality assurance measures before compiling it into a report.

73


Community education and behavioural change program (SmokeWatch) The EPA has developed a behaviour change program in partnership with the Adelaide Hills Council that encourages households to engage in efficient woodheater practices to minimise wood smoke.

The SmokeWatch program encourages residents to sign up to a SmokeWatch Challenge, in which they commit to undertaking four key efficient woodheater practices throughout winter in order to reduce wood smoke pollution. A variety of incentives are offered to help achieve this including a SmokeWatch competition. A strong emphasis has been placed on the development of partnerships with local businesses and includes activities for schools in the Adelaide Hills Council precinct.

In conjunction with SmokeWatch, the EPA will monitor the levels of particulates in the Adelaide Hills with specialised equipment set up at the Woodside Primary School. This is the first time any air monitoring has been done in the Adelaide Hills by the EPA.

EPA Workplace TravelSmart Program The Workplace TravelSmart Program established during the year will enable the EPA to take a leadership role in advocating and acting in accordance with SA Government’s sustainability principles and practices and will actively contribute to achieving the Greening of Government (GoGO) initiative.

This program will provide strategies to encourage staff to participate in sustainable transport (both travel to and from work, and business-related travel). It develops measures tailored to the needs of individual work sites and aims to promote a wide variety of practical measures to make it easier for staff and operational practices to meet the challenge of sustainable transport. The program has been developed in partnership with TravelSmart SA and the Adelaide City Council.

AirWatch program Twenty schools throughout the wider metropolitan area collect air quality data in the AirWatch program and deliver it to the EPA on a roster system; three schools per week submit their information. This is then forwarded to Channel Nine’s AirWatch program. The program has been extremely successful in both educating and involving students in an awareness of their environment and engaging them with the EPA.

Frog Census The EPA has been conducting the Frog Census for the past 12 years. In 2005, this highly successful South Australian community engagement program had 430 volunteer groups taking a total of 1674 recordings across the State during the week of 4–9 September when frogs are expected to be most vocal.

Frogs are bio-indicators of the health of waterways and pollution effects. The data collected by volunteers and assessed by the EPA is used to inform the public, stakeholders, local government and catchment water management boards about water quality. Data from the 2005 survey has been entered into the EPA Environmental Data Management System and feedback provided to participants.

Engagement and partnerships The engagement strategy represents a disciplined effort across the EPA to produce a vision, outcomes and actions for communication and engagement over the coming three to five years.

74


This focus has arisen from a number of factors including: • criticism from community/licensees about the EPA’s ability to interact with

stakeholders and develop mutually beneficial outcomes • feedback to Board members at meetings with stakeholders and Parliamentarians on EPA

communication and engagement practices • increasing pressure and expectations from Parliament, media and stakeholders to be

more open and transparent • feedback from EPA Round-table events and EPA staff.

The strategy outlines how the EPA will engage with its stakeholders to ensure it is a relevant and credible organisation, which is leading the way to sustainability. It is a purposeful process of engaging people within and outside the organisation in new paths of communication and engagement.

Communication goal outcomes

Branding A comprehensive market research project, which began in June 2005, had the main aim of identifying the needs of each key target audience (stakeholder groups, licensees, unlicensed businesses, community, local government) and our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in relation to them.

The research will be used to develop communication strategies tailored for each target group. The Communications team will be working closely with EPA officers to help develop strong and functional relationships with target audiences. This will help inform staff about the role they play in promoting and experiencing the values of the EPA and EPA culture.

Review and improvement program of the EPA website A review of the EPA website began during the year to determine the best strategy for its redesign. Stakeholders have discussed their needs for the EPA website in a number of focus group meetings with a cross-section of staff and management. The aim is to bring the EPA website in line with world’s best practice and best practice in government. Options for its redesign were received during the reporting year. A decision on the updated website will be made during the 2006–07 year.

Further encourage and support local government to provide environment protection services to non-licensed activities The existing Local Government Support Package will be further developed and maintained to:

• promote the need for consistent compliance and enforcement standards across the State by administering agency staff and other authorised persons

• encourage the community to resolve problems themselves if possible, in preference to involving authorities and, eventually, enforcement

• coordinate provision of technical advice and training to council authorised officers and delegates to enable them to meet their obligations as administering agencies under the EP Act. Odour diary for councils Odour diary kits were developed as a useful tool for council officers to hand out to affected persons when trying to resolve odour complaints, particularly if the source of the odour cannot be easily identified.

75


STRATEGY 5: PREDICTABLE, CONSISTENT AND FAIR COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Consistent and fair administration of the EP Act and the RPC Act builds credibility and trust with our stakeholders based on a shared understanding and responsibility for achieving environmental outcomes across government, community and industry at least cost to all parties.

It also helps to provide a climate of certainty for the business community, and sustain a level playing field for industry and commerce—important factors in attracting and retaining business and industry in the State.

The EP Act is the primary pollution and waste control legislation in South Australia and aims to:

• promote ecologically sustainable development • protect, restore and enhance the environment.

Licensing of environmentally significant activities is an important means of achieving environmental improvement. A licence sets obligations on the holder such as achieving certain environmental standards, monitoring of discharges or environmental improvements. Under the EP Act everyone has a general environmental duty to take all reasonable and practicable measures to minimise or avoid polluting the environment.

The EPA administers and enforces the EP Act and its subordinate legislation, including EPPs, by providing advice through to enforcing the law. The EP Act provides the EPA with compliance and enforcement tools and with the discretion to determine:

• when enforcement is required • which enforcement measures are appropriate for the circumstance.

The EPA determines whether or not to take action by carefully considering factors set out in EPAGuidelines for Compliance and Enforcement, which seeks to balance social, environmental and economic factors. Action taken may range from warning letters through to prosecution.

Compliance and enforcement guidelines The Board of the EPA endorsed EPA Guidelines for Compliance and Enforcement in late 2004. The aim of the Guideline is to provide a basis for determining appropriate enforcement action by the EPA on behalf of the Board.

A review of the Guideline in November 2005 provided an opportunity for amendments to reflect changes arising from the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005.

The new guidelines will come into operation on 1 July 2006. It provides guidance for using the compliance and enforcement provisions of the Act, with a brief overview of the ‘civil penalty’ system that is to be introduced. It is intended for use by EPA authorised officers, and the public and private sectors when dealing with environmental damage, pollution and other matters. The guidelines provide for a multi-stage and escalating response to enforcing the Act. The level of response depends on factors such as the seriousness of the offence, an alleged offender’s history and the need for deterrents.

The guidelines can be found at <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/guide_compliance.pdf>.

76


Increase emphasis on compliance auditing by region and industry sector Compliance auditing across regions and industrial sectors benefits both the industries audited and the EPA by:

• enabling a better understanding by industry of licence obligations • benchmarking licences and environmental performance • improving knowledge of industries by the EPA.

Throughout the year, audits were undertaken on: • non-licensed wineries • licensed industry in the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area • licensed waste depots in the Wingfield area.

Audit of licensed waste depots in the Wingfield area Throughout the year, operators of licensed waste depots in the Wingfield area have raised concerns regarding what is seen as an inconsistent approach by the EPA to licensing and compliance issues.

The EPA regards these concerns very seriously and has begun a compliance audit of all licensees. The audit will be broad and include issues such as development approvals and compliance with development approval conditions, comparisons of licence conditions across the sector, compliance with licence conditions and any EMSs in place.

The audit will be completed early in 2006–07 and will provide a basis for developing an EPA compliance management strategy for the area.

EPA compliance audit of the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area The Kilburn and Gepps Cross area contain a number of major arterial roads and a mix of industrial, commercial and residential roles all in close proximity to each other. Residential development has changed the area and the EPA has to date received numerous complaints from local residents about disturbances from noise, odour, smoke and dust pollution.

A risk exists for the air quality in the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area to be impacted by a combination of emissions from local industry and from diffuse sources such as motor vehicles using the major transport corridors in this area. Air quality can suffer from emissions of dust, odorous compounds and other chemicals into the ambient air from a range of diffuse and point sources.

The EPA had not previously monitored ambient air in the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area, thus a baseline of information was unavailable to compare the air quality of this area with other similar areas within the Adelaide airshed. It was resolved to develop a better understanding of the local emission levels and their potential impact on local residents by undertaking a detailed review in the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area. The review aimed to: � gain an improved understanding of the ambient air quality in the local area,

focusing on particulates, chemicals and odour � identify key areas of non-compliance and poor performance of licensed

premises in managing processes to control emissions to the environment � determine the adequacy of licence conditions imposed on licensed premises

within the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area.

The EPA provided all companies to be audited in the Kilburn–Gepps Cross area with EPA checklists before the audit. Where licensees identified non-compliances after

77


undertaking their own audit based on the checklist, the EPA worked cooperatively to remedy the non-compliances. Where non-compliances were not identified by the companies, the EPA undertook to take strong action.

A report on the audit will be released during the next financial year.

Licence reform The EPA is developing a new system to determine licence fees. In November 2004 the EPA sought public feedback on options for a conceptual fee structure. Over 80 submissions were received, and there was strong support for a fee structure of:

• a flat minimum component, representing the minimum paperwork common to all licences

• an environment management component, reflecting EPA regulatory effort which is linked to environmental risk

• a load-based component, where fees are based on the amount and type of pollutants discharged to the environment (giving effect to the polluter pays principle and providing a modest incentive to reduce pollutant emissions).

A reference group, consisting of industry and community representatives, analysed the submissions and recommended a fee structure consisting of these three components. The steering committee recommended this to the EPA Board which then endorsed the conceptual fee structure.

In conjunction with independent consultants BDA Group and in consultation with the reference group, the EPA developed the details of the fee structure and released a discussion paper in May 2006 seeking public feedback. Public consultation workshops were held in May and June.

The details of the fee structure will be revised based on submissions received. It is proposed that the new fee schedules for the Environment Protection (Fees and Levy) Regulations 1994 would apply to licences with a renewal date on or after 1 July 2007.

Progress review of licence conditions In 2005–06 the EPA continued to review licence conditions to ensure that they are:

• clear • enforceable • consistent with similar licensees • relevant • risk-based • technically accurate • reflective of environmental priorities • practical and realistic.

A set of standard licence conditions has been developed for many activities and, where appropriate, licences are progressively being upgraded to reflect these new standard conditions. At the same time, site-specific conditions are also being reviewed to ensure that they meet the above criteria.

Apply formal risk-based approach to the management of licences and incorporate principles of ‘smart regulation’ In 2005–06 the EPA began implementing the three-tiered licensing system, which provides a formal risk-based approach to management of licensees. It firstly sets a default ranking for each activity based on the inherent risk that activity presents. The factors used to determine this inherent risk are:

78


• typical nature and quantity of emissions (eg toxicity, persistence, noise, odour) • typical effects on flora and fauna • typical complexity of equipment/processes • level of confidence of technology or processes typically employed in the industry.

The second component undertakes an individual risk assessment for each licensee, using the default ranking as the base. A checklist has been developed which sets questions, with differing weightings, in the following areas:

• receiving environment • community human and commerce impacts • compliance history • pollutants/emissions • planning and land-use • licensee management.

Three-tiered licensing also sets out how the EPA will manage licences within each tier, such as the number of inspections to be undertaken, and the nature of licence conditions to be applied.

As at 30 June 2006, around 80% of licences have been assessed against the three-tiered licensing system.

Freedom of Information and Public Register In 2005–06, 34 Freedom of Information (FOI) applications and 190 Public Register requests were received (Table 9). Public Register enquiries that do not require documentation are treated as information requests and not recorded. It is estimated that there were up to 400 such enquiries during 2005–06. In addition, the EPA has a statutory obligation under the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 to provide information relating to environment protection.

Table 9: Freedom of Information applications and Public Register requests

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Freedom of Information 48 49 34

Public Register 138 198 190

Number of section 7 enquiries/responses A: 54 848 A: 52 080 A: 52 582 (as required under Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994) * M: 1 838 M: 2 273 M: 2 169

* A—automatic enquiries to the Lands Titles Office database involve perusal of the section 7 information maintained by the EPA. M—manual enquiries require an EPA officer search made upon request by the Lands Titles Office.

Inspection of licensed premises The EP Act specifies a number of high-risk activities that require an authorisation. This may be a licence, exemption or works approval. Holders of an authorisation must comply with the conditions attached to that authorisation.

During 2005–06, EPA officers undertook 987 inspections of licensed premises to audit them for compliance with the EP Act and conditions of their licence (Table 10).

79


Table 10: Inspections of licensed premises

Performance indicators 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Number of inspections of licensed premises 1 021 1 460 987

Number of authorisations 1 986 1 997 2 120

Number of active ozone authorisations 3 570 3 808 0 (accreditations and exemptions)

Pollution complaints hotline The EPA maintains a pollution complaints line (8204 2004, or Freecall 1800 623 445 for callers outside the metropolitan area) to receive calls about environmental concerns (Table 11). Depending on the nature of the call, the EPA’s response may be to:

• provide information to the caller (verbal advice or mailing of information) • register a formal complaint for follow-up by an authorised officer • refer the caller to other agencies and bodies.

Table 11: Number of complaints received by the EPA

Type of complaint 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Air quality 2 049 2 581 1 278

Air and noise 158 163 51

Noise 1 655 1 231 919

Marine pollution 33 32 22

Other 263 247 115

Water* 368 284 142

Waste 369 406 261

Total 4 895 4 944 2 908

* Most water complaints are handled directly by local government

Management of complaints—non-licensed activities During 2005–06, a trial of an alternative method of managing complaints about issues such as domestic air conditioners, noise from small industries, and other activities that are not licensed under the EP Act, was initiated.

The trial provided a dedicated resource (two staff) from the Operations Division to deal with all complaints that required a site investigation. Such an investigation was only initiated after the normal process of encouraging complainants to attempt to resolve local issues without EPA intervention failed. The EPA recommended the use of the Community Mediation Service (CMS) and/or the local council to people who were experiencing some local nuisance issues, and if this failed the EPA accepted responsibility to assist in resolving the issue.

This approach has been successful in resolving a number of complaints. The CMS has also provided a facilitation role where the EPA and community representatives have met to attempt to resolve disputes concerning some industrial activities.

80


CARES The on-line Complaints and Reports of Environmental Significance (CARES) database has now been operating for four years. The mapping function is proving to be a useful addition to the database. There has been a 60% reduction in complaints received by the EPA during 2005–06 over the previous year. This takes into account the closure of some industrial premises adjacent to residential areas and improved complaint management processes.

In addition to EPA users, 14 councils and two other government agencies regularly use the database.

EPA-DAIS Memorandum of Understanding on hazardous substances The EPA and SafeWork SA of the Department for Administrative and Information Services are finalising an MoU to develop a working relationship that will assist both organisations to achieve consistent and efficient compliance where the obligations and responsibilities of the parties overlap.

The agreement incorporates an administrative arrangement that clarifies the responsibilities of all parties under legislation.

The EPA and SafeWork SA will finalise the MoU and administrative agreement which is currently undergoing minor modifications, in the latter half of 2006.

Illegal dumping in South Australia The EPA has continued its focus to address illegal dumping in South Australia and has identified an additional 21 illegal dumps since June 2005 as a result of increased site inspections in country areas. Consequently, more environment protection orders, expiation notices and formal warning letters have been issued for illegal dumping.

Characteristically, illegal waste depots are found on the outskirts of Adelaide. Preliminary investigation by the EPA has discovered that waste is illegally dumped for a variety of reasons, including:

• limited community and industry knowledge, and understanding of waste fill criteria specified in Regulations under the EP Act

• increased disposal costs at landfills • demolition and earth-moving companies convincing landowners to illegally accept

material so that the company avoids transport costs and fees at authorised landfills.

The Unauthorised Waste Depot Register was compiled in 2005 to identify and assess all unauthorised waste depots across the State. The Register allows the EPA to deal with all known illegal sites on a priority basis and to monitor sites where waste has been deposited in the past.

To date, 165 unauthorised sites are listed on the Register. Of these, 70 are old sites that had been noted by the South Australian Waste Management Commission before 1995. The EPA has identified a further 95 sites of which 59 have been resolved. A further three sites are being dealt with by the EPA directly and a further 33 will be addressed using a risk-based approach.

Emergency response The EPA responds to emergency pollution incidents when notified through the EPA’s emergency 24-hour pager number. Emergency responses are of three types (Figure 13):

• whole of government procedure, known as the ‘Blue Book’, which deals with spills or leaks of hazardous substances onto land or into non-marine waters and is coordinated by emergency services (police, fire, and technical adviser)

81


• national response plan, which deals with oil or chemical spills at sea, and is coordinated by the Marine Group of DTEI

• other environmental incidents that do not trigger either of these emergency response systems, including incidents reported by EPA licence-holders, and some incidents reported by members of the public through the pollution complaints line that require an immediate assessment by the EPA.

During 2005–06, the EPA responded to 121 incidents through its emergency pollution incident response system, a 9% decrease in calls from the previous year. The bulk of the calls came from EPA licence-holders (Figure 14) with most seeking advice as a result of a transport incident involving the spillage of hydrocarbons. Examples include:

• spill of three drums of organophosphate liquid from a vehicle in a country area • report of dead fish in the North Para River • burst sewage sludge main and overflow into the Onkaparinga River • discovery of hydrocarbons in a stormwater drain in the Largs North area.

0 5

10 15 20 25 30

No.

1

Types of Incidents reported

Miscellaneous

Air

FireMedia

Oil

Transport incident

Haz Waste

Water incident

Sewage

Chemical Spill

Figure 13: Emergency response—incidents reported by type

82


9%

8% 7% 4% 2%

Calls Received from

30%

24% 16%

Licence Holder

Public

Police

Metro Fire

Country Fire

Other

Council

Technical Adviser

Figure 14: Emergency response—source of calls

Environment Protection Orders Environment Protection Orders (EPOs) (Table 12) can be issued by authorised officers under section 93 (1) of the EP Act:

(a) for the purpose of securing compliance with:

(i) the general environmental duty; or

(ii) mandatory provisions of an environment protection policy; or

(iii) a condition of an environmental authorisation; or

(iv) a condition of a beverage container approval; or

(v) any other requirement imposed by or under this Act; or

(b) for the purpose of giving effect to an environment protection policy.

Police officers are authorised under the EP Act to use EPOs to deal with complaints about noise from domestic premises. Some local government officers are authorised under the EP Act, but this authority is limited to the council area in which they are employed.

Table 12: Environment Protection Orders

EPOs recorded 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

EPA 79 52 44

Police 309 309 416

Councils No record 49 62

Enforcement and investigations The Investigations Branch considered 40 matters this year, 21 of which are now finalised. Four matters are under review by the Crown Solicitor’s Office to determine the sufficiency of evidence, six before various courts and nine currently under active investigation.

83


Of the 20 matters completed this year, six were concluded by court action, two by formal warning letter, and 12 cases did not proceed to prosecution and were dealt with by other means including issuing orders.

Three major investigations were conducted on the illegal disposal and/or receipt of waste, predominantly construction and demolition waste without EPA authorisation. One of these matters has been referred to the Crown and the others are still under investigation.

Table 13: Finalised prosecutions 2005–06

Offender name Charges

Richard Crowley Charge: Operation of ionising radiation apparatus without a licence. Contrary to Section 31 and Section 46(1) of the RPC Act 1982. Guilty plea. No conviction recorded and fined $2000.

Christine Ashby. Clare Charge: Operation of ionising radiation apparatus without Unauthorised use of X-ray holding a licence. machine by an unlicensed Contrary to Section 31(1) of the RPC Act 1982. operator Guilty plea. Conviction recorded and fined $200.

Ross Dawkins Charge: Undertaking a prescribed activity of This matter relates to waste being environmental significance, namely operating a waste deposited on the offender’s depot without an environmental authorisation. property. Contrary to Section 36 of the EP Act.

Guilty plea. Convicted and fined $500.

Peter Mitchell Charge: Undertaking a prescribed activity of This matter relates to waste being environmental significance, namely operating a waste deposited on the offender’s depot without an environmental authorisation. property. Contrary to Section 36 of the EP Act.

Guilty plea. Convicted and fined $60.

Auspine Pty Ltd. Kalangadoo Charge: Breach of licence condition. S45 (5) of the EP Act

Breach of licence condition that ER&D Court. Guilty plea. Convicted and fined $40,800. related to failing to roof an area used to store treated wood. The EPA had been attempting to get the company to roof the area over an eight-year period.

Shannon Michael Kernick. Pages Charges: Breach of mandatory policy and failing to comply Flat with Environment Protection Order.

Causing milking shed effluent to ER&D Court. Guilty plea. Convicted and fined a total of escape from his property and $5000 in relation to both counts failing to operate an effective disposal system

84


STRATEGY 6: TIMELY PROVISION OF RELIABLE AND RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

The best available environmental information is used to inform policy formulation and risk-weighted decision making. Decisions and actions are underpinned by sound science. This program aims to assure stakeholder confidence that the EPA is managing uncertainties and risk effectively.

Broadly, there are three types of monitoring from which the EPA gathers information: • EPA monitoring for strategic purposes, typically state of the environment

assessment • regulatory monitoring and testing (RMT) by industry; can be imposed by an EPA

authorisation to provide information to support the management of environmental risks and effectiveness of management strategies

• monitoring by industry to meet the reporting requirements of national reporting inventories and registers, including reporting to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI).

To ensure that the environmental information gathered from these types of monitoring supports decision making, a number of programs have been initiated and reviewed. These include the continued management of the South Australian jurisdiction of the NPI (section 150) and the initiation of the review of RMT (refer below).

Review of industry monitoring data The EP Act allows the EPA to include RMT as a condition of authorisation or order. This is mainly done in licences but may also apply to exemptions, environment protection orders and clean-up orders.

The EPA is implementing a risk-based system, incorporating principles from the Australian standard AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management, to determine when RMT should be required.

Where risk analysis shows that an environmental hazard presents a significant risk the EPA will consider imposing monitoring or testing. RMT will provide information that is targeted at significant environmental risks ensuring that monitoring information supports decision making. One of the main benefits of implementing the RMT framework is to review and maximise the cost-effectiveness of monitoring imposed on industry by the EPA.

Both industry and the EPA have a role in collecting environmental information. Over the past 12 months, the EPA has implemented the RMT framework which highlights the need for both industry and the EPA to effectively evaluate this information for decision making.

Two technical and four administrative guidelines for use by both industry and the EPA have been developed to ensure consistent, objective guidelines and criteria to assess monitoring data. The administrative guidelines provide all of the steps for developing, implementing, assessing and reporting on a monitoring program.

National Pollutant Inventory The NPI is an Australian government initiative supported by all jurisdictions including the EPA. It is an internet database that provides information on the types and volumes of pollutants emitted to the environment (air, land and water). The NPI provides pollutant emission estimates from industrial and commercial sources (reported annually by industry) and diffuse sources (calculated by government agencies).

85


It is mandatory under the EP Act in South Australia that all industrial sites that exceed the prescribed thresholds set by the Commonwealth report back to the NPI. Currently 381 facilities report in South Australia and the EPA actively seeks new reporters and provides support to industry in completing the reporting process. The EPA has recognised the need to develop processes for ensuring industry emission data released on the NPI website is accurate. The EPA validates all data received, including checking of calculations and methodology used by industry reporters. The EPA is also looking to add the auditing of selected reporting sites as a further validation step to ensure data is being reported accurately to the NPI. It is important that the data is accurate as possible as the use of NPI data is growing within the EPA.

The EPA has increased the focus on supplying information on NPI to industry information on the NPI to other government agencies and the general public. It circulates a summary report of the previous year’s data, updates the South Australian EPA website and updates NPI information to all stakeholders.

NPI data is technical in nature and an interpretive guide published on the EPA website during the year assists with the use of the data collected by the inventory. In addition, to ensure that the NPI support provided by the EPA is meeting the requirements of industry stakeholders, the EPA conducted a survey of industry NPI reporters in December 2005 and January 2006 to determine their current and future technical needs. The outcomes of this survey will be used to direct the support and service provided by the EPA for the NPI program and be further expanded to include government agencies and the community to ensure that the needs of all stakeholders in the NPI program are being met.

STRATEGY 7: INNOVATION AND RELEVANT POLICY ADVICE AND LEGISLATION

The EPA, under the Minister for Environment and Conservation, is responsible for administering the EP Act, as well as:

• Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 • National Environment Protection Council (South Australia) Act 1995 • Wingfield Waste Depot Closure Act 1999.

The EPA also has regulatory responsibilities under acts within the jurisdiction of other State Government agencies, such as the Aquaculture Act 2001 and the Development Act 1993.

The EP Act was assented to in October 1993 and came into operation on 1 May 1995. Changing community values and a better understanding of both environmental impact and contemporary approaches to environmental management require a commitment to continually review and update the EP Act. Since it came into operation, parts of the EP Act have been amended, subordinate legislation such as EPPs has been introduced, and a number of areas where the EP Act could be improved have been identified.

In early 2003, the EP Act was amended to establish new governance arrangements for the EPA and increased penalties for major offences. In June 2005, a further Act was passed and assented to, the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005.

As well as legislative policy development, the EPA also considers policy development in areas such as the effects of pollution on health, and more recently, its role in and contribution to the growing sustainability agenda.

86


For initiatives related to legislative review of the RPC Act, please see the Annual Report on the Administration of the Radiation Protection and Control Act.

The purpose of EPA’s legislative and policy program is aimed at guiding the South Australian community towards sustainable practices. In addition, EPA continues to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions to represent the State’s interests at the national level, and to ensure that South Australia is well positioned to address strategic state, national and global environmental issues.

Implement the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendments Act On 1 July 2005 the EP Act was amended to incorporate most of the amendments contained in the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005.

The amendments stem from a number of general reviews of the EP Act since 1999: • Several offences under the Act have strengthened the power of the EPA to protect

the environment. The protection against self-incrimination for corporations that operate a licensed activity has been limited for most purposes in the Act, such that information sought by, and provided to, the EPA from such a corporation may be admissible in evidence in proceedings for an offence under the Act.

• The amendments clarify the EPA’s power to continue to control and supervise sites of environmental concern, even though activities that require a licence are no longer being undertaken on that site. Clarifying the EPA’s power to continue to monitor and regulate closed sites previously subject to a prescribed activity, is essential to ensure proper management of public health and other environmental impacts on and around problematic closed sites. Consistent with the recommendations of the ERD Committee Parliamentary inquiry, the process of making EPPs was changed to be more timely and effective.

• The amendments aim to clarify the role of local councils in administering the EP Act so that better service may be provided to the community. They will be able to volunteer to undertake a greater role in enforcing the EP Act by becoming administering agencies for non-licensed activities. The amendments introduce a range of non-mandatory cost recovery tools to help administrative agencies recover the cost of administering the EP Act.

As at 1 July 2006 the remaining amendments in the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005 will come into operation.

The EPA will be empowered to negotiate a civil penalty for a contravention of the EP Act, or apply to the ERD Court for an order that a person pay to the EPA an amount as a civil penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person may elect not to enter into civil penalty negotiations and, if the EPA seeks to apply to the Court for a civil penalty, the person may elect to be prosecuted for the contravention, rather than be heard in the civil jurisdiction of the Court. The civil penalties will only apply to less serious contraventions and strict liability offences, leaving existing criminal provisions in the EP Act to deal with more serious offences.

A change to the offence of environmental nuisance will occur to add a new strict liability offence.

A number of projects were required to implement the amendments in the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005. Completed are:

• amendment of the category C offences in the Environment Protection (Machine Noise) Policy 1994 and the Environment Protection (Burning) Policy 1994 to category D offences such that the maximum penalty of the offence remains at $500

87


• replacement of the term ‘Authority’ with ‘Authority or administering agency’ in relevant EPPs to implement the new administering agency system in the EP Act. Sections of the following EPPs have been amended to enable councils who volunteer to become administering agencies to use the tools contained in the policies: � Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy 1994 � Environment Protection (Burning) Policy 1994 � Environment Protection (Industrial Noise) Policy 1994 � Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003

Public consultation was undertaken to seek comment on the draft Civil Penalty Calculations Policy that is being developed to provide a consistent and equitable method of negotiating a civil penalty.

EPA, in collaboration with Business SA, developed a program to educate industry on the key amendments. The program commenced in May 2006 and will continue to be delivered in 2006–07.

Review of container deposit legislation Amendments to the beverage container provisions of the EP Act (commonly known as CDL) are being drafted to improve the efficiency of the CDL system by addressing a number of systemic issues.

Public consultation on the draft Bill is planned for mid-2006, with the expectation that the legislation will be introduced to Parliament in early 2007.

EPA position statements The EPA Board has started preparing statements that outline policy position and principles on key priority environmental issues. The key elements of a statement may include:

• identification of the nature of the environmental issue • identification of the EPA’s role in managing the issue, or what the EPA is or will be

doing • identification of the challenges and opportunities associated with the topic and/or

what the EPA is intending to further assess or evaluate • a call for action to better manage the issue—that is, what the EPA believes needs to

happen.

During the year, the EPA Board finalised one position statement, which is now available on the EPA website, and began preparation of a second.

Sustainability This statement describes how the EPA uses its decision-making powers, and program and policy development, to raise the profile of sustainability to ensure that decision-makers and the general public take it into account. Two ways in which the EPA contributes to sustainability—addressing local environmental impacts, and managing and influencing others to address the cumulative effects of waste and pollution on our environment—are discussed. The statement describes how the EPA contributes towards the achievement of a number of objectives in South Australia’s Strategic Plan, namely in attaining sustainability, community well-being and increasing community prosperity. It recognises the need to communicate with others to ensure the EPA understands the expectations of interest groups and concludes with challenges that will need to be addressed in the transition to sustainability.

88


Precaution This draft statement considers the various definitions of the Precautionary Principle and its application for a range of decisions made by the EPA. It examines how the precautionary approach is currently applied in decision making, the context for its application and will propose an enhanced framework for its application.

National policy The NEPC, which is part of the Commonwealth EPHC, is a statutory body with law-making powers established by the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994. Mirror legislation has been established in each state and territory. In South Australia, the National Environment Protection Council Act (South Australia) 1995. Members of the NEPC are the Commonwealth environment minister and ministers appointed by the first minister from each participating jurisdiction. South Australia is represented by the Minister for Environment and Conservation.

The NEPC’s two primary functions are to: • make NEPMs • assess and report on their implementation and effectiveness in participating

jurisdictions.

The objective of NEPMs prepared by the NEPC is to ensure that all Australians are equally protected from air, water and soil pollution, and that decisions by businesses are not distorted, and markets not fragmented, by variations in environmental standards between jurisdictions.

While the NEPC can make NEPMs, the respective NEPC Acts do not contain implementation mechanisms. These are addressed by each jurisdiction separately, according to their legislation. Previously, in South Australia, NEPMs had automatically operated as EPPs under the Act (section 28A). With the passage of amendments to the Act that deleted section 28A, there now exists greater flexibility to choose the most appropriate legislative mechanism to implement the NEPM.

During 2005–06 the EPHC has been active in a number of key areas including: • climate change and greenhouse gas reporting mechanisms (in response to direction

by COAG in February 2006, the EPHC/Ministerial Council on Energy Working Group has accelerated investigations into mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas and energy use)

• waste management issues such as the phasing out of plastic bags and developing a NEPM for product stewardship to underpin a co-regulatory regime

• starting reviews of a number of NEPMs, including those for Ambient Air Quality, Air Toxics, Site Contamination and Used Packaging

• releasing the draft National Guidelines for Water Recycling—Managing Health and Environmental Risks for public consultation.

Air NEPM review The Air NEPM sets air quality standards and goals which each state and territory in Australia has committed to meet by 30 June 2008. Although these requirements are intended to apply generally to airsheds (ambient air quality) rather than near known sources of pollution (local or hot spot air quality) they are nonetheless a critical consideration when determining the allowable emissions from major producers of air pollution. If local air quality is found not to meet the NEPM requirements, the EPA develops site-specific solutions to ensure that the operation(s) causing the problem reduce their emissions within a reasonable period.

89


Often this is through an EIP approved by the EPA either voluntary or enforced through the company’s licence.

However, in urban airsheds, most breaches of the NEPM standards are the consequence of non-point source emissions (i.e. those from motor vehicles and domestic premises, particularly in relation to solid fuel combustion heaters). Management of these sources has focused on improving emission standards for new models and providing education and information to users on changed behaviours that will reduce emissions.

At its April 2005 meeting, the NEPC initiated a review of the Air NEPM. The review will extensively consult stakeholders and be informed by a number of national research projects that are considering the effects of urban air quality on health. The EPA is a participant on the national review team.

Air Toxics The Air Toxics NEPM was made in December 2004 after it was concluded there was a need for information on air toxics in Australian ambient air. In particular benzene, formaldehyde, benzo(a)pyrene (as an indicator of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)), toluene and meta, ortho and para xylenes, were considered the air toxics of most concern.

The NEPM called for a desktop analysis to determine areas of peak air toxic concentrations using available information, including previous monitoring data and the NPI. The analysis would identify areas of elevated pollutant concentration, classified as Stage 1 sites, and also those coincident with areas of susceptible population, classified as Stage 2 sites.

EPA desktop analysis on 13 individual airsheds across South Australia used a national methodology developed by all participating jurisdictions and NEPC. The results of the Stage 1 analysis indicated that there were numerous areas of elevated formaldehyde concentrations (264), and a limited number of areas of elevated concentrations of benzene (4), PAHs (4) and toluene (4). There were no areas with elevated xylene concentrations across the State. Of the 264 Stage 1 formaldehyde sites, 229 were located in the Adelaide airshed. The results of the Stage 2 analysis are displayed in Table 14.

Table 14: Summary of Stage 2 sites across South Australia

Airshed Benzene Formaldehyde PAH Toluene Xylenes

Adelaide 2 10 1 4 0

Mt Gambier 0 7 1 0 0

Pt Augusta 0 2 0 0 0

Pt Lincoln 0 1 0 0 0

Whyalla 1 5 1 0 0

Initial ambient air monitoring is being considered at three locations; two in metropolitan Adelaide and one in Mount Gambier. Only three sites were selected so that the results of the desktop analysis could be properly

90


verified before committing to further monitoring as concerns over the accuracy of the assessment method and its results had been raised.

To date, monitoring of air toxics at these sites using methodology approved by NEPC has not been conducted and the results of the desktop study have not been verified. The monitoring of benzene, formaldehyde and toluene has been conducted at several locations over this reporting year as part of the EPA ‘Hot Spot’ monitoring program.

Site contamination review Nationally, contaminated sites are recognised as being a major environmental matter that can impact on the health and safety of humans and on the environment.

To ensure that there was a nationally consistent approach to the assessment of site contamination, the Assessment of Site Contamination NEPM was made by Council on 10 December 1999 and gazetted on 22 December 1999. The NEPM made provision for a review after five years of operation. In December 2004, NEPC approved the commencement of the review.

The review team, which included a member from the South Australian EPA, prepared and released an issues paper for public consultation. From the comments received, the review team developed a discussion paper which presented a number of options to amend the NEPM and released the paper for comment in March 2006. Public meetings detailing the options presented in the paper where held in each of the States and Territories during the consultation period. In Adelaide, the public meeting was hosted by the EPA on 24 May 2006.

It is anticipated that the process to vary the NEPM will be approved by NEPC at its October 2006 meeting.

NPI Review The NEPC agreed upon the National Environment Protection (National Pollutant Inventory) Measure in 1998. This legislation was agreed to by all the Environment Ministers of Australia through an MoU and was first implemented for the 1998–99 financial year.

A minor variation occurred in 2000, delaying the introduction of the Table 2 list of substances by one year. Industry has been required to report against all 90 Table 2 substances since July 2001.

A review of the NPI to assess if the program was delivering on its goals and objectives was conducted in 2005. This review identified a number of possible variations to the NPI program, both on a legislative basis and an implementation level.

The EPHC agreed to prepare a variation to the NPI NEPM in July 2005. The variation has now been drafted and will be presented to the EPHC for release for public comment.

Major changes proposed to the NPI NEPM include: � a name change to ‘National Emissions Inventory’ � the inclusion of reporting on greenhouse gas emissions

91


� the inclusion of the reporting on transfer of substances from one location to another

� substance and threshold changes � removal of the aquaculture reporting exemption � changes to the reporting time frames � administrative changes to clarify the NEPM wording.

92


ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT AND SYSTEMS

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

The past year was extremely challenging for the Finance and Administration Branch with higher than usual staff turnover, and skills shortages across the public sector impacting on the ability to manage the initial commitments along with the impacts of the Organisational Change Program.

Nevertheless, significant improvements have been made to the financial data integrity processes that led to training all financial delegates across the EPA to ensure a complete understanding of responsibilities regarding procurement. This also resulted in modifications to delegation instruments to ensure a consistent approach was being adopted.

Records management processes within the Branch have been reviewed, with a new structure implemented that will be finalised during 2006–07.

The Organisational Change Program was an opportune time to review the financial chart of accounts to ensure that it was reflective of the new administrative structural arrangements of the EPA, and would provide for improved financial reporting. The coding structure had many flow-on effects that included the requirement to remodel the internal budget allocations and amend every employee pay code. With input from Managers across the EPA, the new coding structure was developed and successfully implemented on 1 July 2006.

The Change Program also provided an opportunity to move staff in line with the new working arrangements. Level 2 of the SA Water House building has been undergoing refurbishment and was aptly completed prior to the required staff movements.

The plan for the 2006–07 year includes streamlining management reports to allow for an increase in value-add activities; outsourcing the accounts payable function to DEH; implementing an accounts payable invoice scanning solution along with an online credit card statement system. These automated systems will allow for reduced administrative burden across the EPA and complement the changing code structure and delegation training provided. An increased focus will be placed on accommodation with completion of stage 3 of the Level 2 refurbishment and the development of a Strategic Facilities Plan in preparation for the future.

93


HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

Critical Human Resources and Development (HRD) areas for 2005–06 have been staff development, further establishment and review of HRD and OHSW systems and HR change management capability support for the organisational restructure. The HRD Branch continues to provide high-level consultancy, learning and development, and OHSW coordination which is well used by managers and staff.

Regular HRD quarterly reports were commenced providing trend analysis for: employee sick leave and turnover; accrued excessive annual leave; budget impacts of reclassifications; and learning and development activities and costs.

Both a leadership development program and an executive program were delivered in the latter half of 2005. Both programs were challenging, demonstrating innovation in enhancing leadership and management skills.

Disability Action Plan The HRD Branch is currently investigating the development of a Disability Action Plan to ensure the promotion of independence for both employees and customers with disabilities. As part of this, an environment assessment has been conducted to ensure accessibility of the organisation for people with disabilities.

The accompanying tables and graphs provide a representation of the EPA’s workforce and identify some changes in recent years.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Indigenous Cultural Awareness Workshops A key area from the HRD 2005–06 Learning and Development Plan were a series of Indigenous Cultural Awareness workshops, as part of the recognition of the interests of aboriginal people. The program was designed to promote engagement with the Aboriginal community within the workplace through an understanding of Aboriginal culture and customs. A protocol for use of the Kaurna Ninna Marni Statement of Acknowledgement was also developed through EPA consultation.

Traineeships The EPA has provided traineeships particularly in the administration area, which has assisted young people to gain valuable skills in their particular vocation coupled with practical work experience.

EPA Workforce Statistics Table 15: Total number of employees

Persons 213

FTE's 205.7

Table 16: Employee gender balance

Gender % Persons % FTEs

Male 58.22 59.2

Female 41.78 40.8

94


Table 17: Number of employees by salary bracket

Salary Bracket Male Female Total

$0–$43 999 5 15 20

$44 000–$54 999 18 23 41

$55 000–$67 999 66 38 104

$68 000–$88 999 31 13 44

$89000+ 4 0 4

TOTAL 124 89 213

Table 18: Status of employees in current position

STATUS OF EMPLOYEES IN CURRENT POSITION

FTEs

Ongoing Short-Term Contract

Long-Term Contract

Other (Casual)

Total

Male 98.74 13 10 0 121.74

Female 64.45 17.48 1.71 .27 83.91

TOTAL 163.19 30.48 11.71 .27 205.65

Persons

Ongoing Short-Term Contract

Long-Term Contract

Other (Casual)

Total

Male 101 13 10 0 124

Female 68 18 2 1 89

TOTAL 169 31 12 1 213

Executive Employment

Table 19: Number of executives by status in current position, gender and classification

NUMBER OF EXECUTIVES BY STATUS IN CURRENT POSITION, GENDER AND CLASSIFICATION

Classification Ongoing Contract Tenured

Contract Untenured

Total

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

EXEC0A 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0

EXEC0C 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

TOTAL 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 0

95


Leave Management

Table 20: Average days taken per FTE employee

Leave Type 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Sick Leave 5.84 5.95 7.33 7.31

Family Carer’s Leave

0.54 0.56 0.45 0.56

Special Leave with Pay

0.28 0.48 0.41 0.29

Workforce Diversity

Table 21: Number of employees by age bracket by gender

Age Bracket Male Female Total % of Total South Australian Workforce

Benchmark*

15–19 0 0 0 0 7.9

20–24 0 4 4 1.88 10.7

25–29 9 16 25 11.74 9.8

30–34 14 18 32 15.02 10.5

35–39 22 17 39 18.31 11.4

40–44 16 12 28 13.15 12.4

45–49 16 11 27 12.68 12.4

50–54 15 6 21 9.86 10.9

55–59 26 3 29 13.62 8.3

60–64 5 2 7 3.29 4.4

65+ 1 0 1 0.47 1.3

TOTAL 124 89 213 100 100.0

* Benchmark as at January 2006 from ABS Supertable LM8

Table 22: Number of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander employees

Male Female Total % of Agency

Target*

Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander People

0 0 0 0 2%

* Target from South Australia’s Strategic Plan

96


Table 23: Cultural and linguistic diversity of employees


SA Community*

Number of employees born overseas

19 19 38 17.84 20.3%

Number of employees who speak language(s) other than English at home

5 8 13 6.1 15.5%

TOTAL 24 27 51 23.72

* Benchmarks from ABS Publication Basic Community Profile (SA) Cat No. 2001.0

Table 24: Number of employees with ongoing disabilities requiring workplace adaption


TOTAL 3 2 5 2.3%

Voluntary flexible working arrangements

Table 25: Number of employees using voluntary flexible working arrangements by gender

Arrangement Male Female Total

Purchased Leave 1 1 2

Flexitime 117 83 200

Compressed Weeks 0 1 1

Part-time Job Share 1 3 4

Working from Home 2 5 7

Employee Training and Development

Table 26: Documented review of individual performance development plan

Employees with… % Total Workforce

a plan reviewed within the past 12 months 65%

a plan older than 12 months 26%

no plan 9%

97


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

The Information Technology (IT) Branch has contributed to a number of significant initiatives of the EPA.

The ‘Business Continuity Planning Project Stage 1’ has successfully completed high-level risk assessments of all business processes supported by the EPA’s IT systems. After assessing the risks, high-level mitigation plans and high-level contingency plans were developed for these critical systems.

Electronic faxing was implemented in the EPA. All staff can now send and receive faxes from their desktop. This has led to efficiency gains and savings by decommissioning a third of all fax machines.

A new module for Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) was implemented in the GENI system in March 2006, replacing the previous system which was not meeting the needs of CDL staff. It uses a web-based interface and incorporates workflow needs. The entire database of approvals can be used by the inspectors off site to check if the containers are approved or not.

A new module of GENI for Section 7 processing has been developed and is currently being tested. Significant effort has gone into the development of DA tracking module. The implementation of these two modules is planned in 2006–07.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND INJURY MANAGEMENT

During 2005–06 the EPA has further progressed the implementation of OHSW systems and processes. These achievements have been towards meeting legislative, government and agency requirements, including Workplace Safety Management in the Public Sector 2004– 06 Implementation Plan, and recommendations from the previous independent OHSW Systems Audit completed in early mid 2004.

A recommendation from the independent audit was the completion of an action list by divisional workgroups, of which 88% have now been completed. Action areas included the rectification of work area hazards, such as staff members’ immediate ergonomic and physical environment, signage and equipment modification and handling, and recently, workstation chairs have been upgraded. In addition, Divisional workgroups have undertaken risk assessments to identify staff safety risks and establish risk management strategies.

The audit also identified items to be included in the two-year OHSW Action Plan, of which 44% of action items have been completed. Achievements included the implementation of seven OHSW policies and procedures; staff training on OHSW roles and responsibilities; the establishment of supporting OHSW administration systems; organisational and divisional performance reporting; and the standardisation of OHS&W documents.

98


Table 27: OHSW statistics

Financial Year 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

1 OHS&W legislative requirements Number of notifiable occurrences pursuant to OHSW Regulations 1 — 1 Division 6.6 Number of notifiable injuries pursuant to OHSW Regulations Division — — — 6.6 Number of notices served pursuant to OHSW Act s35, s39 and s40 — — —

2 Injury management legislative requirements Total number of employees who participated in the rehabilitation 1 — — program Total number of employees rehabilitated and reassigned to alternative — — — duties Total number of employees rehabilitated back to their original work 1 — — Number of open claims as at 30 June – 1 -Percentage of workers compensation expenditure over gross annual 0.05% 0.008% 0.006% remuneration

3 Number of claims Number of new workers compensation claims in the financial year 1 2 2 Number of: fatalities — — —

lost time injuries — 2 0 injuries needing medical treatment only 1 — 2

Total number of whole working days lost 10 6 2 4 Cost of workers compensation

Cost of new claims for financial year Cost of all claims excluding lump sum payments Amount paid for lump sum payments (s42, s43, s44)

Total amount recovered from external sources (s54) Budget allocation for workers compensation

$2 219 $1 155 $462 $7 117 $1 155 $498

s42 — — — s43 — — —

s44 — — — — — — — — —

5 Trends Injury frequency rate for new lost-time injury/disease for each million 2.1 5.1 5.4 hours worked Most frequent cause (mechanism) of injury Work Trip, Slip, Body

pressure Fall Stressing Most expensive cause (mechanism) of injury Work Trip, Slip, Body

pressure Fall on level Stressing surface

6 Meeting the organisation’s strategic targets. See above

Workers Compensation

Table 28: Workers compensation statistics

Financial Year 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06

Cost of New Claims for Financial Year $2 219.43 $1 154.85 $461.95 Cost of Pre Current Financial Year Claims $4 898.00 $0.00 $497.70 Total Claims Expenditure Financial Year $7 117.18 $1 154.85 $959.65 Percentage of Salaries and Wages ($15,052,208.35) 0.05% 0.008% 0.006% Injury Frequency Rate for New Claims: 2 New Claims for 205.65 FTE’s 2.1* 5.1* 5.4*

Most Expensive Cause Of New Injury – Body Stressing $2 219.43 $1 154.85 $959.65

Most Frequent Cause Of New Injury Work

Pressure Trip Slip Fall Body Stressing

Days Lost 10 6 2

* Number of injuries per 1,000,000 hrs worked

99


$959.65 2005/06 $497.70

$461.95

$1,154.85 2004/05 $0.00

/

$2,219.43

$1,154.85

$4,898.00 $7,117.18

2003 04

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000

New Claims Old Claims Total Claims

Figure 15: Workers compensation—annual claims cost

Hazard and Incident reports

Figure 16: Hazard and incident reports—annual trends

Notes: • The number of Hazard/Incident/Injury reports have decreased by 16 from 35 in 2004–05 to 19 in 2005–06. • An increase in Building/Equipment Failure/Maintenance relates to minor building maintenance, vehicle servicing

and broken office equipment. • An increase in Manual Handling incidents relates to the manual handling of objects off site. • A fall in Ergonomic related incidents is reflected by staff education on workstation set up and the purchase of

ergonomic chairs. Only 1 Hazard report in 2005–06 related to Exposure to Fumes/Gas/Smoke. Proactive work was undertaken in the EPA Air Sampling Facilities by substituting a hazardous high concentration calibration gas for a low concentration calibration gas, therefore eliminating the potential for staff exposure to high concentrations of hazardous gas.

100


APPENDIX 1 ORGANISATIONAL INFORMATION

EPA ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

Support

r

EPA Board

Max Harvey

Radiation Protection Keith Baldry

Pollution Avoidance Peter Dolan

Monitoring and Evaluation Dr John Cugley

Corporate and Business

John O’Daly

Policy Coordination and Strategic Services

Tony Ci celli

SA Government Premier and Cabinet

Minister for the Environment and Conservation Hon John Hill MP

Chief Executive Dr Paul Vogel

Operations

• Policy and Legislation • Communications and Stakeholder

Relationships • Strategic and Business Planning • Board and Ministerial Support • Continuous Improvement Services • Legal Services

• Legal • Northern Zone • Southern Zone • South East Region • Murray Bridge • Technical Support • Licensing and Operations Services • Investigation

• Diagnostic X-rays • Radiation Health • Mining and Environment • Laboratory and Technical Administration

• Atmosphere and Noise • Aquaculture • Waste and Pollution Prevention • Water and Catchments • Planning and Local Government Support

• Air Quality • Water Quality • Pollution Source Assessment • Healthy Rivers • Watershed Protection

• Administration • Financial Accounting • Management Accounting • Human Resource Development • Information Technology

Figure 17 EPA Organisational Structure 2004−05

101


EPA Board

Max Harvey

John

Policy, Planning

Support

SA Government Premier and Cabinet

Minister for the Environment and Conservation Hon Gail Gago MLC

Chief Executive Dr Paul Vogel

Regulation and Compliance

Science and Sustainability

Peter Dolan

Radiation Protection Keith Baldry

O’Daly

and Communications

Tony Circelli

Corporate and Business

• Strategic Policy • Communications and Public

Affairs • Strategy Management and

Governance

• Waste to Resources • Processing and Wastewater • Manufacturing and Industry • South East Region • Investigations • Licensing and Regulatory Services • Regulatory Reform and Performance

• Diagnostic X-rays • Radiation Health • Mining and Environment • Laboratory and Technical Administration

• Industry Sustainability • Site Contamination • Community and Local

Government Support • Environment Assessment • Air and Noise • Water Quality

• Administration • Financial Accounting • Management Accounting • Human Resource and Development • Information Technology

Figure 18 New EPA Organisational Structure 2005−06

102


APPENDIX 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES

Account Payment Performance The State Government benchmark of achieving 90% of invoices being paid within 30 days was not achieved in 2005–06 due to staff turnover and initial periods of outsourcing the function to the Department of Environment and Heritage. The performance target for the Environment and Conservation Portfolio of paying 85% of invoices before the due date has been achieved in 2005–06.

Table 29: Account payment performance

Particulars Number of accounts paid

Percentage of accounts paid (by number)

Value in $A of accounts paid

Percentage of accounts paid

(by value)

Paid by the due date* 9 364 86% 11 892 598 78%

Paid within 30 days or less from due date

1 208 11% 2 834 280 18%

Paid more than 30 days from due date

332 3% 633 089 4%

* Note: The due date is defined as per section 11.2 of Treasurer’s Instruction 11 Payment of Accounts. Unless there is a discount or a written agreement between the public authority and the creditor, payment should be within thirty days of the date of the invoice or the date the invoice is first received by the public authority.

Contractual arrangements During the 2005–06 financial year the EPA did not enter into any contractual arrangements where the total value of an individual contract exceeded $4 million.

Fraud There have been no instances of fraud detected in the EPA during this financial year. A Financial Risk Assessment project was finalised during 2005–06 that assessed each financial process undertaken in terms of the risks associated with it along with where efficiencies may be implemented. The outcomes of this project will form the basis for potential new strategies that may be implemented to strengthen the controls for the prevention fraud in the future.

Use of consultants

Table 30: Use of consultants—controlled entity

Value of Consultancies

Let

No. of Consultancies

2003–04


2004–05


2005–06

2003–04 Expenditure



Below 12 2 8 40,730 11,791 31,517 $10,000

$10,001– 5 2 4 100,827 48,293 63,591 $50,000

Above 5 2 – 335,008 162,558 – $50,000

Total 22 6 12 476,565 222,642 95,108

103


Below $10,000

Number of consultants in this category: 8 Value of consultants in this category: $31,517

Between $10,001–$50,000


URS Australia P/L Audit of Radioactive Material

Porter Novelli (SA) P/L Adoption and Outreach Strategy for Horse keepers in the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed

Management Consulting Alliance P/L Customer Service Review

Keith Jones State Greenhouse Strategy

Above $50,000

Number of consultants in this category: Value of consultants in this category: Nil Nil

Table 31: Use of consultants—administered entity

Value of Consultancies

Let


2003–04


2004–05


2005–06




Below $10,000

– – – – – –

$10,001– $50,000

– – – – – –

Above $50,000

1 1 1 795,790 476,859 539,232

Total 1 1 1 795,790 476,859 539,232

Below $10,000

Number of consultants in this category: Nil

Value of consultants in this category: Nil

Between $10,001–$50,000

Number of consultants in this category: Nil

Value of consultants in this category: Nil

Above $50,000


CSIRO Adelaide Coastal Waters Study

104

INCOME STATEMENT For the Year Ended 30 June 2006

EXPENSES Employee Benefits Costs

Supplies and Services

Grants and Contributions

Depreciation and Amortisation

Net Loss from Disposal of Non-Current Assets

Other Expenses

Total Expenses

INCOME Fees and Charges

Grants and Contributions

Interest

Assets Received Free of Charge

Other Revenue

Total Income

NET COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES

REVENUES FROM / (PAYMENTS TO) SA GOVERNMENT Revenues

Expenses

Note 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

4 16,234 16,036

5 7,602 7,542

6 6,230 5,984

7 927 656

8 45 7

9 2 (31)

31,040 30,194

10

11

12

13

14

20,269

1,088

428

48

13

21,846

20,421

1,817

323

93

46

22,700

15

15

9,194

9,308

335

7,494

8,874

2,128

Total South Australian Government Revenues and Payments 8,973 6,746

NET RESULT (221) (748)

The net result is attributable to the SA Government as owner

The accompanying notes form part of these statements

BALANCE SHEET As at 30 June 2006

Note 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and Cash Equivalents 16 6,005 5,194

Receivables 17 1,080 1,114

Other Current Assets 19 44 87

Total Current Assets 7,129 6,395

NON-CURRENT ASSETS Receivables 17 15 43

Financial Assets 18 5 5

Property, Plant and Equipment 20 3,090 3,454

Intangible Assets 21 695 606

Total Non-Current Assets 3,805 4,108

TOTAL ASSETS 10,934 10,503

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 22 1,552 1,238

Employee Benefits 23 1,506 1,314

Other Current Liabilities 24 146 6

Total Current Liabilities 3,204 2,558

NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 22 333 413

Employee Benefits 23 3,011 2,925

Total Non-Current Liabilities 3,344 3,338

TOTAL LIABILITIES 6,548 5,896

NET ASSETS 4,386 4,607

EQUITY

Asset Revaluation Reserve 25 1,221 1,221

Retained Earnings 25 3,165 3,386

TOTAL EQUITY 4,386 4,607

The Total Equity is Attributable to the SA Government as Owner Restrictions on Contributions 27 Expenditure Committments 28 The accompanying notes form part of these statements

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY For the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Asset Revaluation

Note Reserve $’000

Retained Earnings Total

$’000 $’000

Balance at 30 June 2004 - 4,657 4,657

Changes in accounting policy 2(o) - (661) (661)

Adjusted opening balance - 3,996 3,996

Net Increment/(Decrement) related to the Revaluation of:

Infrastructure 42 - 42

Moveable Vehicles 26 - 26

Computing Equipment 4 - 4

Furniture and Fittings 6 - 6

Plant and Equipment 1,082 - 1,082

Other 61 - 61

Correction to Long Service Leave Liability - 138 138

Net Result for 2004-05 - (748) (748)

Total recognised income and expense for 2004-05 1,221 (610) 611

Balance as at 30 June 2005 25 1,221 3,386 4,607

Restated balance at 30 June 2005 1,221 3,386 4,607

Net Result for 2005-06 - (221) (221)

Total recognised income and expense for 2005-06 - (221) (221)

Balance at 30 June 2006 25 1,221 3,165 4,386

All changes in equity are attributable to the SA Government as owner


CASH FLOW STATEMENT For the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Note 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

CASH OUTFLOWS

Employee Benefits Payments (16,053) (15,811)

Supplies and Services (7,143) (7,761)

Grants and Contributions (6,230) (5,984)

Other Payments (2) -

Cash Used in Operations (29,428) (29,556)

CASH INFLOWS

Fees and Charges 20,427 20,235

Grant and Contribution Receipts 1,088 1,817

Interest Received 432 325

Loan Repayments 40 59

Other Receipts 13 46

Cash Generated from Operations 22,000 22,482

CASH FLOWS FROM SA GOVERNMENT RECEIPTS FROM SA GOVERNMENT

Recurrent Appropriation 8,674 8,106

Contingency Funds 419 170

Accrual Appropriation 215 598

Total Receipts from SA Government 9,308 8,874

PAYMENTS TO SA GOVERNMENT Return of Surplus Cash (335) (2,128)

Total Payments to SA Government (335) (2,128)

NET CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 26 1,545 (328)

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Purchase of Property, Plant and Equipment (734) (765)

Proceeds from Sale of Property, Plant and Equipment - 1

NET CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES (734) (764)

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 811 (1,092)

Cash and Cash Equivalents at the Beginning of the Financial Period 5,194 6,286

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 6,005 5,194


1

Notes to and Forming Part of the Financial Statements

NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the Year Ended 30 June 2006

OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

(a) Strategic Context The Environment Protection Authority (the Authority) is South Australia's primary environmental regulator for the protection, restoration and enhancement of our environment. The Authority promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development and works with government, industry and the people of South Australia, with key roles to:

• review, develop and draft environmental protection policies and national environment protection measures

• authorise activities of environmental significance through an authorisation system aimed at the control and minimisation of pollution and waste

• conduct compliance investigation and institute environmental monitoring and evaluation programmes

• provide advice and assistance regarding best environmental management practice

• minimise adverse impacts of radiation on human health and the environment.

The Authority has a key advocacy and engagement role across Government and with the people of South Australia, business and communities throughout South Australia (SA) to achieve a healthy and valued environment.

(b) Financial Arrangements

The Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH) provides some professional, technical and administrative support to the Authority. The identifiable direct costs of providing these services are met by the Authority. In addition, certain services are provided by DEH at no charge to the Authority and have not been recognised in the financial statements as it is impractical to determine a value for these items. The costs of these services include salaries and overheads relating to the provision of various administrative services. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 31 May 2004 between DEH and the Authority relating to the future provision of these services. The Authority's sources of funds consist of monies appropriated by Parliament together with income derived primarily from fees, levies and licences to the public and industry. These include:

• Environment and Radiation Protection Licences

• waste levies from landfill depots

• fines and Penalties

• section 7 enquiries.

The financial activities of the Authority are primarily conducted through Deposit Accounts with the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) pursuant to Section 8 and Section 21 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, 1987. The Deposit Accounts are used for funds provided by Parliamentary appropriation together with revenues from services provided and from fees and charges.

(c) Reporting Entity

The financial reporting entity, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), includes the following:

2


• The Environment Protection Authority—an Administrative Unit established on 1 July 2002 pursuant to the Public Sector Management Act 1995 as part of a restructure of the Government's environment protection functions

• a Statutory Authority also named the Environment Protection Authority established through amendments to the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the Act)

• the Environment Protection Fund as established under the Act.

The Fund meets the accounting criteria of a controlled entity of the Authority and consequently the assets and the liabilities of the Fund are recognised by the Authority in the Balance Sheet, the Fund's revenues and expenses have been recognised in the Authority's Income Statement, and the Fund's Changes in Equity have been recognised in the Authority's Statement in Changes in Equity. The transactions of the Fund are disclosed in Note 32.

The Authority performs functions related to Authority and Administered activities. The Authority's Financial Statements include the assets, liabilites, revenues and expenses controlled or incurred by the Authority in its own right. Administered Items have been disclosed in schedules of Administered Item revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, changes in equity and cash flows which the Authority administers on behalf of the SA Government, industry and the Minister for Environment and Conservation but does not control. (Refer Note 33)

The Administered Items schedules detail the Administered Items' revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, changes in equity and cash flows and as such the principles of consolidation have not been applied in preparing these financial statements as the definition of an economic entity has not been satisfied. The Administered Items are:

• Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

(a) Basis of Accounting

The Authority's Financial Statements are a general purpose financial report that has been prepared on an accrual basis pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act, 1987 and in accordance with:

• the requirements of the Act

• Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS)

• Other authoritative pronouncements of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB)

• Treasurer's Instructions and the Accounting Policy Framework issued pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act, 1987.

Where there are inconsistencies between the above requirements, the legislative provisions have prevailed.

These financial statements are the first statements to be prepared in accordance with Australian Equivalents to International Reporting Standards (AIFRS). AASB1 First Time Adoption of AIFRS has been applied in preparing these statements. Previous Financial Statements were prepared in accordance with Australian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.


Reconciliations explaining the transition to AIFRS as at 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2005 are in Note 2(o).

In the absence of a specific Accounting Standard, or other authoritative pronouncements of the AASB, consideration is given to the order of preference of other pronouncements as outlined in AASB 108 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’.

The financial statements, including administered items, have been prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, revenues are recognised when they are earned or when the Authority has control over them, rather than when they are received and expenses are recognised when they are incurred, rather than when they are paid. Some revenues are recognised when cash is received as this is when the Authority gains control of these revenues. These revenues include items such as non-perpetual leases and licence and accreditation fees, fines and penalties.

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the historical cost convention, with the exception of certain types of physical non-current assets which are valued at fair value, in accordance with Accounting Policy Framework (APF) guidance. Cost is based on the fair value of the consideration given in exchange for assets.

The financial statements detail the revenues, expenses and financial position of the Authority as a single entity and accordingly all intra Authority transactions and balances have been eliminated.

The Cash Flow Statement has been prepared on a cash basis.

The continued existence of the Authority in its present form, and with its present programs, is dependent on Government policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament for the Authority's administration and outputs.

Comparative Information

The presentation and classification of items in the financial report are consistent with prior periods except where a specific Accounting Policy Statement or Australian Accounting Standard have required a change. Comparative figures have been restated on an AIFRS basis except for financial instrument information as permitted by AASB 1. The comparatives have been restated to assist users' understanding of the current reporting period and do not replace the original financial report for the preceding period.

(b) Changes in Accounting Policies

Provisions for Employee Benefits On 1 July 2005 the Authority changed its policy for recognising provisions for employee benefits in accordance with AASB 119 ‘Employee Benefits’. Under the new policy the amount of the provision is calculated using the remuneration rate expected to apply at the time of settlement, rather than the remuneration rate applicable at reporting date.

Asset Capitalisation Threshold Change The revision of the asset capitalisation threshold from $2,000 to $5,000 in the 2005/2006 financial year impacted the reported balances for Fixed Assets, Retained Earnings and the Asset Revaluation reserve for comparative data. These prior period adjustments relate to the expensing of the cost and reversing of revalued components of the written down value for assets under the $5,000 threshold. The impacts of these are as follows:


• A decrease in Property, Plant and Equipment of $0.661 m at 30 June 2004

• A decrease in Depreciation Expense of $0.194 m (2005: $0.229 m)

• An increase in Supplies and Services (Minor Assets Expense) of $0.145 m (2005: $0.108 m)

• A decrease in the Loss on Disposal of Non-Current Assets of $0.033 m (2005: Nil)

• A decrease in revenue from assets recognised for the first time of Nil (2005: $0.062 m)

• A decrease in the Asset Revaluation Reserve of Nil (2005: $0.058 m)

(c) South Australian (SA) Government Revenues and Expenses

Revenues Appropriations for program funding are recognised as revenue when the Authority obtains control over the assets. Control over appropriations is normally obtained upon their receipt and are accounted for in accordance with Treasurer's Instruction 3 ‘Appropriation’.

Any grant revenues have been recognised in accordance with AASB 1004 ‘Contributions’ as the Authority is a ‘Not-for-Profit’ Entity.

Expenses Payments include the return of surplus cash pursuant to the cash alignment policy paid directly to the DTF Consolidated Account.

(d) Non SA Government Revenues and Expenses Recognition

Revenues and expenses are recognised in the Authority's Income Statement when, and only when, the flow or consumption or loss of economic benefits has occurred and can be reliably measured.

Revenues and expenses have been classified according to their nature in accordance with APF 2 General Purpose Financial Reporting' and have not been offset unless required or permitted by another accounting standard.

Contributions are recognised as an asset and income when the Authority obtains control of the contributions or obtains the right to receive the contributions and the income recognition criteria are met (ie the amount can be reliably measured and the flow of resources is probable).

Revenues All Non SA Government revenues recorded in the Income Statement are recognised when the Authority obtains control over the future economic benefits in the form of increases in assets or reductions in liabilities. With respect to licences, leases and accreditation fees revenue, where the period exceeds one reporting period, the Authority obtains control upon receipt.

The Authority is not economically dependent on one individual for its revenue, however, the amount of revenue earned from transactions with our customer base can be influenced by the South Australian economy.

Income from the disposal of non current assets is recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer and determined by comparing proceeds with carrying amount. When revalued assets are sold, the revaluation increments are transferred to retained earnings in accordance with Accounting Policy Framework 3 Asset Accounting Framework paragraph APS 3.11.


Any grant revenues have been recognised in accordance with AASB 1004 as the Authority is a ‘Not-for-Profit’ Entity.

Resources received/provided free of charge are recorded as revenue and expenditure in the Income Statement at their fair value in accordance with the Accounting Policy Framework 3 Asset Accounting Framework paragraph APS 2.12. Resources provided free of charge are recorded in the expense line items to which they relate.

Expenses Grants and Contributions are amounts provided by the Authority to entities for general assistance or for a particular purpose subject to terms and conditions set out in the contract, correspondence or by legislation and may be for capital, current or recurrent purposes.

(e) Current and Non-Current Clasification

Assets and liabilities are characterised as either current or non-current in nature. EPA has a clearly identifiable operating cycle of 12 months. Assets and liabilities that are sold, consumed or realised as part of the normal operating cycle even when they are not expected to be realised within 12 months after the reporting date have been classified as current assets or current liabilities. All other assets and liabilities are classified as non-current.

(f) Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash in the Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement is comprised of cash on hand (including petty cash and cashier floats), at call accounts with banks and monies held by DTF in Deposit Accounts.

Cash eqivalents are comprised of cash held in the accrual appropriation account with DTF.

(g) Receivables

Receivables are recognised and carried at the original invoiced amount less a provision for any doubtful debts. An estimate for doubtful debts is made when collection of the full amount is no longer probable whereas bad (uncollectable) debts are written off as incurred.

(h) Property, Plant and Equipment

The Balance Sheet includes all Property, Plant and Equipment controlled by the Authority.

Non Current Asset Acquisition and Recognition Assets are initially recorded at cost or at the value of any liabilities assumed, plus any incidental cost involved with the acquisition. Where assets are acquired at no value, or minimal value they are recorded at their fair value in the Balance Sheet. If however, the assets are acquired at no or nominal value as part of a restructuring of administrative arrangements then the assets are recorded at the value recorded by the transferor prior to transfer. Where payment for an asset is deferred, EPA measures the obligation at the present value of the future outflow, discounted using the interest rate of a similar length borrowing.

In accordance with Accounting Policy Framework III Asset Accounting Framework paragraph APS 2.15, 2.16 and 7.2 all non current tangible assets with a value of $5,000 or greater are capitalised.

Assets held for sale are separately disclosed and measured at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less cost to sell.


Assets Disclosed at Valuation In accordance with the requirements of Accounting Policy Framework 3 ‘Asset Accounting Framework’, independent revaluations of classes of non-current assets need only be undertaken where there existed an asset within a class that satisfied the criteria specified in Accounting Policy Framework 3 ‘Asset Accounting Framework’. That is, there existed an asset within the class with an original acquisition cost of at least $1 million and a useful life greater than three years. The Authority undertook a professional valuation in 2004-2005 and hence no valuations were undertaken in the current reporting period.

In accordance with Accounting Policy Framework 3 Asset Accounting Framework, the Authority must use the fair value method of asset valuation for revaluations which occur after 1 July 2002.

Non-current assets in Note 20 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’ are disclosed, within each class, to distinguish between the different carrying amounts and valuation methodologies.

In accordance with Accounting Policy Framework 3 ‘Asset Accounting Framework’, any revaluation increments arising upon revaluing the abovementioned non-current asset classes to their fair value are credited directly to the asset revaluation reserve except that, to the extent that the net increment reverses a net revaluation decrement previously recognised as an expense in Net Cost of Providing Services in respect of that same class of non-current assets, in which case the revaluation increments have been credited to the Income Statement.

In accordance with the provisions of AASB 116 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’, any revaluation decrements arising upon revaluing the abovementioned non-current asset classes to their fair value are debited directly to the asset revaluation reserve to the extent that a credit balance exists in the asset revaluation reserve in respect of that class of non-current assets, and any remainder of the net revaluation decrement is debited to the Income Statement.

Assets Deemed to be at Fair Value For those classes of non-current assets where an independent revaluation has not been undertaken, as the criteria within APF 3 ‘Asset Accounting Framework’ have not been met, these classes of non-current assets are deemed to be at fair value.

Asset classes that did not satisfy the criteria and are therefore deemed to be at fair value include:

• moveable vehicles

• computing equipment

• application software

• furniture and fittings

• plant and equipment.

Intangible Assets An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance. Intangible assets are measured at cost.

Application Software The acquisition of or internal development of software is capitalised when the expenditure meets the definition and recognition criteria of an intangible asset outlined in AASB 138 Intangible Assets, and when the amount of expenditure is greater than or equal to $5,000 in accordance with Accounting Policy Framework 3 ‘Asset Accounting Framework’ paragraph APS 2.15.


All research and development costs that do not meet the capitalisation criteria outlined in AASB 138 are expensed.

Intellectual Property, Databases and Information Systems The Authority controls a large number of databases, registers, information systems and other intellectual property that were developed in-house and are used to store and manage intellectual property owned and controlled by the Authority. Whilst the development and maintenance of these databases involves on-going costs to the Authority, in general, neither the systems nor the data have been recognised in the financial statements as assets, as it has not been possible to reliably measure the future economic benefits to the Authority.

Other Property, Plant and Equipment provided free of charge is recorded as an asset at its fair value at the time control passes to the Authority. Assets received in this way are disclosed as revenue in the Income Statement. (Refer Note 13)

Items of Property, Plant and Equipment with an individual value of less than $5,000 are expensed in the Income Statement at the time they are acquired.

(i) Depreciation and Amortisation of Non-Current Assets

All non-current assets with an initial cost greater than $5,000 having a limited useful life are systematically depreciated over their useful lives in a manner which reflects the consumption of their service potential. Depreciation is provided for on a straight line basis, with the following depreciation periods:

• computing equipment 3-10 years

• application software 3-10 years

• plant and equipment 3-30 years

• moveable vehicles 10-25 years

• furniture and fittings 5-15 years

• buildings and improvements 3-50 years

Leasehold improvements are amortised over the useful life of the asset or the lease term, whichever is the shorter.

The useful lives of all major assets held by EPA are reassessed on an annual basis.

(j) Leases

The Authority makes a distinction between finance leases which effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of the leased assets and operating leases under which the lessor effectively retains substantially all of the risks and benefits incidental to ownership.


Operating Leases Operating lease payments are charged to the Income Statement in the periods in which they are incurred. Details of Operating Lease Commitments are disclosed in Note 28.

(k) Payables

Those amounts which represent liabilities for goods and services provided to the Authority and other amounts, including interest, are identified as payables. Accrued expenses represents goods and services provided by other parties during the period that are unpaid at the end of the reporting period and where an invoice has not been received. All payables are measured at their nominal amount and are normally settled within 30 days from the date of the invoice or the date the invoice was first received, in accordance with TI 11 Payment of Creditors' Accounts.

(l) Provisions for Employee Benefits

In accordance with AASB 119 ‘Employee Benefits’, a provision is made for the Authority’s liability for employee benefits arising from services rendered by employees to reporting date. These provisions represent the amounts which the Authority has a present obligation to pay to employees for services provided.

Accrued Salaries and Wages The liability for accrued salaries and wages represents the amount earned by employees at reporting date not yet paid by the Authority based on remuneration rates current at reporting date.

Sick Leave No provision is made for sick leave as experience indicates that on average sick leave taken each reporting period is less than or equal to the accruing sick leave entitlement in each reporting period. This experience is expected to recur in future reporting periods such that it is improbable that existing accrued sick leave entitlements will be used by employees in the reporting period.

Annual Leave A provision has been made for the unused component of annual leave, including annual leave loading and related on-costs based on the remuneration rates expected to apply when the leave is taken. The expected remuneration rates are calculated as the current remuneration rate plus a salary inflation factor of 4%. This calculation is consistent with the Authority’s experience of employee retention and leave taking.

Long Service Leave In calculating long service leave benefits the Authority uses a benchmark of seven years, based on an actuarial assessment undertaken by DTF of a significant sample of employees throughout the South Australian public sector. The long service leave entitlement estimated to be paid within 12 months of balance date, is calculated by multiplying employee benefits and related on-costs by the remuneration rates expected to apply when the leave is taken. The expected remuneration rates are calculated as the current remuneration rate. This calculation is consistent with the Authority’s experience of employee retention and leave taking.

Employee On-Costs In general, related on-costs of payroll tax and superannuation have been calculated by applying the standard applicable rates to leave balances as at 30 June. Superannuation on-costs are included for part only of the long service leave provision in recognition that it is estimated that 65% of the provision will be paid as a lump sum payment on cessation of employment and will not be subject to employer superannuation contributions. (Refer Note 22)


Superannuation Contributions are made by the Authority to several superannuation schemes operated by the South Australian Government. These contributions are treated as an expense when they are incurred. There is no liability for payments to beneficiaries as they have been assumed by the superannuation schemes. Any liability outstanding at reporting date relates to any contribution due but not yet paid to the superannuation schemes, any such amount is treated as a payable not an employee benefit. (Refer Note 22)

Workers Compensation The workers compensation liability recognised for the employees of the Authority is based on an apportionment of an actuarial assessment of the whole-of-government workers compensation liability conducted by Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries based on 31 May data. Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries extrapolate this data to 30 June. For the 2005-2006 financial year the Authority has reflected a workers compensation provision of $0.094 m (2005: $0.077 m). (Refer Note 23)

The actuarial assessment conducted by Taylor Fry Consulting is based on the Payment Per Claim Incurred (PPCI) valuation method. The assessment has been conducted in accordance with AASB 4 ‘Insurance Contracts’ and the WorkCover Guidelines for Actuarial Assessments. The liability covers claims incurred but not yet paid, incurred but not reported and the anticipated direct and indirect costs of settling those claims. The liability for outstanding claims is measured as the present value of the expected future payments reflecting the fact that not all claims have to be paid out in the immediate future.

Changes to the fund took effect from 1 July 2004. Any new claims from 1 July 2004 are the responsibility of the Authority and as such the Provision for Workers Compensation Liability will be reported accordingly. All claims payments currently covered by the Fund (ie claims lodged prior to 1 July 2004) continue to be covered by the Fund and as such this liability is not reflected within the Authority's Financial Statements.

(m) Tax Status

The activities of the Authority are exempt from Commonwealth income tax but other Commonwealth taxes such as Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT), Goods and Services Tax (GST) and other State taxes including Payroll Tax are applicable.

(n) Accounting for Goods and Services Tax (GST)

DEH prepares a Business Activity Statement on behalf of the Authority under the grouping provisions of the GST legislation. Under these provisions, DEH is liable for the payments and entitled to the receipts associated with GST. As such, the GST applicable to the Authority forms part of the receivables and payables recorded in the Balance Sheet and the GST cashflows recorded in the Cash Flow Statement of DEH.

Any GST incurred by the Authority as a purchaser that is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is, however, recognised as part of an item of expense.

(o) Changes in Accounting Policy - AIFRS

The Authority has adopted AIFRS for the first time for the year ended 30 June 2006.

The adoption of AIFRS has resulted in adjustments to the Balance Sheet and Income Statement. There have been no material adjustments to the Cash Flow Statement.


Comparatives

At 01/07/2004 At 30/06/2005

Previous AGAAP

Adjustments AIFRS Previous AGAAP

Adjustments AIFRS

$’000 $'000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Current Assets 7,353 - 7,353 6,395 - 6,395

Non Current Assets 3,468 (661) 2,807 4,769 (661) 4,108

Current Liabilities (2,743) - (2,743) (2,566) (8) (2,558)

Non- Current Liabilities (3,421) - (3,421) (3,468) (130) (3,338)

Net Assets 4,657 (661) 3,996 5,130 (523) 4,607

Retained Earnings 4,657 (661) 3,996 3,851 (465) 3,386

Asset Revaluation Reserve - - - 1,279 (58) 1,221

Total Equity 4,657 (661) 3,996 5,130 (523) 4,607

Net Result (4,470) - (4,470) (804) 56 (748)

Other impacts of adopting AIFRS A major change is the treatment of accounting policy changes under AIFRS. These now apply retrospectively except for specific exemptions in accordance with another standard. The resulting adjustments arising from events and transactions before the date of transition to AIFRS have been recognised directly in retained earnings at the date of transition to AIFRS.

In particular, the movement in Non-Current Assets is due to a change in the asset capitalisation threshold (Refer Note 2(b)). Movements in Current and Non-Current Liabilities reflect adjustments to the calculation of Long Service Leave and related On-Costs.

There have been no identified impacts of AIFRS standards issued but whose adoption date is subsequent to the preparation of these standards.

The estimates applied by the Authority under AIFRS are consistent with the estimates applied under previous Australian AGAAP, after adjustments to refect any differences in accounting policies.

(p) SA Government Specific Disclosures

In accordance with Accounting Policy Framework II General Purpose Financial Reporting Framework, paragraph 4.1 and 4.2, EPA has disclosed revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities where the counterparty/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government, classified according to their nature. Transactions below the $100,000 threshold have been included with the non SA Government transactions, classified according to their nature.

3


(q) Comparative Figures

Comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to changes in presentation in these financial statements where required.

(r) Rounding

All amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars ($’000) and expressed in Australian currency.

PROGRAMS OF THE AUTHORITY

The Authority is funded by appropriation for the provision of environment protection, policy and regulatory services. In line with the objective of establishing the Authority to focus on environment protection activities the Authority conducts its services through a single program, Environment and Radiation Protection. The purpose of this program is to achieve a clean, healthy and valued environment that supports social and economic prosperity for all South Australians.

4 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2006 2005

$’000 $’000

Salaries and Wages (i) 11,699 11,452

Annual Leave 1,147 1,117

Long Service Leave 458 636

Employment On Costs - Superannuation 1,523 1,529

Employment On Costs - Other 850 822

Sitting Fees Boards and Committees 117 147

15,794 15,703

Employment Costs - Other

OH&S 80 35

Other On-Costs 168 122

Staff Development 192 176

440 333

Total Employee Benefits 16,234 16,036

(i) Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages (TVSPs)

TVSP amounts paid by the Authority are included within salaries and wages expenses.During the year a total of 1 (2005: NIL) employee of the Authority accepted a package in line with the State Government’s policy.

The TVSP component of termination payments totalled $0.136m (2005: Nil). These costs were reimbursed by the Department of Treasury and Finance.

In addition, accrued annual leave, leave loading and long service leave entitlements amounting to $0.061m (2005: Nil) were paid to the employee who received a TVSP.


Employee Remuneration

The number of employees whose remuneration exceeded $100,000 was: 2006 2005

$100,000 – 109,999 - 1

$110,000 – 119,999 2 2

$120,000 – 129,999 1 -

$130,000 – 139,999 1 1

$220,000 – 229,999 - 1

$230,000 – 239,999 1 -

Total Number of Employees 5 5

2006 2005 $'000 $'000

Total remuneration received or due and receivable by employees whose remuneration exceeded $100,000" 726 698

Remuneration includes salary, employer’s superannuation costs, use of motor vehicles in accordance with prescribed conditions and associated FBT and contract termination payments, but does not include any amounts payable due to retirement under the TVSP arrangements.

Number of Employees at Reporting Date As at the reporting date the Authority had 225 employees (2005: 211).

Remuneration of Board and Committee Members Under legislative requirements and co-operative management arrangements a number of boards and committees currently provide advice to the Minister and EPA management. The number of Board and Committee members whose remuneration received or due and receivable fell within the following bands:

2006 2005

$Nil 16 17

$1 - $10,000 7 6

$10,001 - $20,000 5 6

$20,001 - $30,000 2 -

Total Number of Board and Committee Members 30 29

The Board of the Environment Protection Authority consists of 9 members. During the 2005/06 financial year, 3 members resigned and 3 new members were elected. A total of 10 members received sitting fees.


Board members and their respective remuneration is as follows. Board of the Environment Protection Authority

Name Period Remuneration Bandwidth

Dr Paul Vogel (Chair) Ongoing $Nil

Ms Megan Dyson Ongoing $20,001 - $30,000

Mr Mike Elliot Ongoing $20,001 - $30,000

Mr Andrew Fletcher Ongoing $1 - $10,000

Mr Stephen Hains Ongoing $10,001 - $20,000

Mr Allan Holmes Ongoing $Nil

Mr Mike Nagel From 20/10/2005 $10,001 - $20,000

Ms Linda Bowes Resigned 02/09/2005 $1 - $10,000

Ms Ann Shaw-Rungie Resigned 20/04/2006 $10,001 - $20,000

Mr Greg Panigas From 04/03/2006 $1 - $10,000

Ms Yvonne Sneddon From 21/04/2006 $1 - $10,000

During the 2005/06 financial year, members of the Board were paid $8,868 in Superannuation.

The Radiation Protection Committee consists of 19 members, including 9 proxies. In the current reporting period, 4 members received payment of sitting fees. Both members and proxies have been included in the count. In the previous financial year, 4 members of the Radiation Protection Committee were paid sitting fees.

In accordance with the Department of Premier and Cabinet Circular No. 16, government employees did not receive any remuneration for Board duties during the financial year.


5 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

2006 2005

$'000 $’000

Accommodation and Property Management Services 1,762 1,661

Materials and Consumables 178 205

Vehicles 338 354

Travel and Accommodation 203 173

Contractors 597 366

Consultant Fees (i) 95 257

Computing 823 401

Minor Plant and Equipment 330 201

Printing and Publishing 155 198

Bank Fees 7 6

Postage, Courier and Freight 38 38

Advertising 296 645

Scholarships, Awards and Prizes 7 7

Scientific and Technical Services 806 930

Telephone Expenses 260 246

Audit Fees 64 62

Equipment Repairs and Maintenance 44 54

Books, Periodicals and Newspapers 20 17

Document Storage and Preservation 5 4

Entertainment 41 15

Equipment Hire 12 10

Monitoring Fees 13 26

Photocopying and Preservation 8 7

Conference and Seminar Presentation 86 108

Insurance 23 23

Transportation 96 90

Fee for Service 1,130 1,257

Customer Call Centre Costs 71 75

Hazardous Waste Storage and Disposal Costs 69 71

Membership Subscriptions 23 12

Other 2 23

7,602 7,542


(i) The number and amount of Consultant Fees fell within the following bandwidths:

2006 2005

No. $'000 No. $’000

Below $10,000 8 31 2 12

Between $10,000 and $50,000 4 64 2 44

Above $50,000 - - 2 201

Total number and amount of Consultant Fees 12 95 6 257

2006 2005

Supplies and Services provided by entities within the SA Government $'000 $’000

Accommodation and Property Management Services 1,626 1,586

Vehicles 329 338

Fee for Service 389 295

Computing 396 49

Scientific and Technical Services 656 627

Telephone Expenses 172 182

3,568 3,077

2006 2005

6 GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS $'000 $’000

Private Industry & Community Organisations and Associations 347 161

State Government (i) 5,732 5,657

Individuals 84 56

Local Government - 65

Other 67 45

6,230 5,984

2006 2005

(i) State Government Grants and Contributions $’000 $’000

Zero Waste SA * 5577 5,641

Environment and Heritage 125 -

Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board 10 -

SA Water 10 -

Conservation Council 10 -

Dept of Primary Industries & Resources - 16

5,732 5,657

* As per section 113 of the Environment Protection Act 1993 the Authority earns and collects 100 percent of waste levies, however is then required to transfer 50 percent of levies collected to Zero Waste SA as per section 17 of the Zero Waste SA Act 2004. This transfer represents the payment of waste levies monies to Zero Waste SA in accordance with the Zero Waste SA Act 2004.


7 DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION 2006 $'000

2005 $’000

Depreciation

Buildings and Improvements 3 3

Infrastructure 10 10

Moveable Vehicles 3 4

Computing Equipment 48 -

Furniture and Fittings 98 88

Plant and Equipment 483 385

Other 10 8

Total Depreciation 655 498

Amortisation

Application Software

Total Amortisation

272

272

158

158

Total Depreciation and Amortisation 927 656

Change in Depreciation due to Change in Accounting Policy

In 2005-2006, the Authority increased its asset threshold from $2,000 to $5,000 for all classes of assets. This threshold adjustment was applied to 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. As a result the depreciation of these assets was decreased by $0.194 m in 2005-2006 ($0.229 m in 2004-2005). 2004-2005 comparative has been re-stated to include this threshold change and adjustment has been made to opening balances for 2006.

2006 2005

$'000 $'000

Plant and Equipment 53 106

Moveable Vehicles 1 2

Computing 130 109

Furniture & Fittings 5 5

Other Fixed Assets 5 5

Infrastructure - 1

Application Software - 1

Total Net Decrease 194 229

8


9

10

2006 2005 NET GAIN/(LOSS) FROM DISPOSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS $'000 $’000

Proceeds from Disposal of Non-Current Assets - 1

Less: Written Down Value of Non-Current Assets 45 8

(45) (7)

In 2005/2006, the Authority replaced its computing equipment and during the 2005/2006 stocktake, the Authority disposed of some major plant and equipment.

OTHER EXPENSES

Bad and Doubtful Debts

Asset Write-Downs

2006

$'000

2

-

2

2005

$’000

(39)

8

(31)

FEES AND CHARGES

Fines and Penalties

Waste Levies

Fees and Licences

Section 7 Enquiries

Support Services

Sale of Goods

Sale of Services

2006

$'000

101

11,528

8,178

294

172

-

(4)

20,269

2005

$’000

161

12,107

7,390

286

309

9

159

20,421

2006 2005 Fees and Charges earned from entities within the SA Government $'000 $’000

Waste Levies 856 1,708

Section 7 Enquiries 20 273

Sale of Services - 309

876 2,290


2006 2005 11 GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS $'000 $’000

Commonwealth Government (i) 153 239

Commonwealth Government Refunds (59) -

State Government (ii) 994 969

Private Industry (iii) - 609

1,088 1,817

2006 2005

(i) Commonwealth Government Grants and Contributions $'000 $’000

Natural Heritage Trust 35 129

Dept for Environment and Heritage Canberra 90 90

Rural Industries Research Development 15 20

Dept Agriculture fisheries 13 -

153 239

2006 2005

(ii) State Government Grants and Contributions $'000 $’000

Catchment Water Management Boards 74 574

Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 505 150

Integrated Natural Resources Management Group 190 100

SA Water Corporation 50 50

Trade & Economic Development - 50

Primary Industries and Resources SA - 30

Environment and Heritage - 15

Dept for Further Education Employment 150 -

Others 25 -

994 969

2006 2005

(iii) Private Industries Grants and Contributions $'000 $’000

National Packaging Covenant - 379

NRG Flinders - 200

Kimberley Clark - 30

- 609


12 INTEREST

Interest on Funds Held

Interest earned from entities within the SA Government

Interest on Funds Held

13 ASSETS RECEIVED FREE OF CHARGE Plant and Equipment

Transfers Received Assets

14 OTHER REVENUE

Salaries and Wages Recoveries

Insurance Recoveries

Other

15 SA GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENSES

Revenues

Recurrent Appropriation

Accrual Appropriation

Contingency Funds

Total SA Government Revenues

Expenses Return of Surplus Cash

Total SA Government Expenses

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

428 323

428 323

2006 2005

$'000 $’000

428 323

428 323

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

48 71

- 22

48 93

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

7 34

- 10

6 2

13 46

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

8,674 8,106

215 598

419 170

9,308 8,874

335 2,128

335 2,128


16 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS

Cash

Authority Deposit Account

Environment Protection Fund Deposit Account

Advance Accounts

Cash on Hand

Cash Equivalent Accrual Appropriation

Total Cash and Cash Equivalents

17 RECEIVABLES Current:

Debtors

Loans

Interest

Other

Less: Provision for Doubtful Debts

Non-Current: Loans

Other

18 FINANCIAL ASSETS

Non-Current:

Equity in Listed Entities

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

2,579 1,834

1,333 1,592

4 4

1 1

3,917 3,431

2,088 1,763

2,088 1,763

6,005 5,194

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

1,049 1,065

26 38

11 15

1 1

7 5

1,080 1,114

12 40

3 3

15 43

2006 2005 $'000 $’000

5 5

5 5


19 OTHER ASSETS Current:

2006 $'000

2005 $’000

Prepayments 44

44

87

87

2006 2005

20 PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT $'000 $’000

(a) Land, Buildings and Improvements and Infrastructure

Land:

Independent Valuation 100 100

Total Land 100 100

Buildings and Improvements:


At Cost (Deemed fair value) 7 7

Less: Accumulated Depreciation 46 43

Total Buildings and Improvements 45 48

Infrastructure:


At Cost (Deemed fair value) 66 66

Less: Accumulated Depreciation 76 66

Total Infrastructure 178 188

Capital Works in Progress:

At Cost 158 284

Total Capital Works in Progress 158 284

Total Land, Buildings and Improvements and Infrastructure 481 620


(b) Plant and Equipment 2006 $'000

2005 $’000

Moveable Vehicles:

Independent Valuation

At Cost (Deemed fair value)

Less: Accumulated Depreciation

Total Moveable Vehicles

55

46

53

48

55

46

50

51

Computing Equipment:




Total Computing Equipment

6

212

185

33

6

164

154

16

Furniture and Fittings:




Total Furniture and Fittings

49

1,180

430

799

49

1,021

332

738

Plant and Equipment:




Total Plant and Equipment

2,816

1,374

2,543

1,647

2,980

1,277

2,250

2,007

Other:




Total Other

69

76

63

82

69

6

53

22

Total Plant and Equipment 2,609 2,834

Total Property, Plant and Equipment 3,090 3,454


Reconciliation A reconciliation of the carrying amount of each class of property, plant and equipment is displayed in the table below.

Buildings and Moveable Computing Land Improvements Infrastructure Vehicles Equipment

Gross Carrying Amount: $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Balance at 30 June 2005 100 91 254 101 170 Additions - - - - 64 Additions - Transfer from capital works

in progress - - - - -Assets received free of charge - - - - -Disposals - - - - (16) Balance at 30 June 2006 100 91 254 101 218

Accumulated Depreciation:

Balance at 30 June 2005 - (43) (66) (50) (154) Depreciation expense - (3) (10) (3) (48) Assets received free of charge - - - - -Disposals - - - - 17 Balance at 30 June 2006 - (46) (76) (53) (185)

Net Book Value

As at 30 June 2005 100 48 188 51 16 As at 30 June 2006 100 45 178 48 33

Furniture Plant and Capital Works 2006 and Fittings Equipment Other in Progress Total

Gross Carrying Amount: $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Balance at 30 June 2005 1070 4257 75 284 6402 Additions - 121 70 395 650 Additions - transfer from capital works

in progress 159 - - (521) (362) Assets received free of charge - 50 - - 50 Disposals - (238) - - (254) Balance at 30 June 2006 1229 4190 145 158 6485

Accumulated Depreciation:

Balance at 30 June 2005 (332) (2250) (53) - (2948) Depreciation expense (98) (483) (10) - (655) Assets received free of charge - (2) - - (2) Disposals - 192 - - 209 Balance at 30 June 2006 (430) (2543) (63) - (3396)

Net Book Value:

As at 30 June 2005 738 2007 22 284 3454 As at 30 June 2006 799 1647 82 158 3090

448

606

606


21 INTANGIBLE ASSETS 2006 $'000

Computer Software (Internally Generated)


Less accumulated amortisation

1,415

720

Total Computer Software (Internally Generated) 695

Total Intangible Assets 695

Intangible Asset Movement Schedule

Gross Carrying Amount

Balance at 30 June 2005

Additions - Transfers from Capital Works in Progress

Balance at June 30 2006

1,054

361

1,415

Accumulated Amortisation

Balance at 30 June 2005

Amortisation Expense

Balance at June 30 2006

(448)

(272)

(720)

Net Book Value:

As at 30 June 2005 606

As at 30 June 2006 695

22 PAYABLES Current:

2006 $'000

Creditors

Accruals

1,215

113

Employee Benefit On-Costs (i) 224

1,552

Non-Current: (i) 333

333

(i) Employee Benefit On-Costs

2005

$’000

1,054

2005 $’000

907

90

241

1,238

Costs that are a consequence of employing employees, but which are not employee benefits, such as payroll tax and superannuation on-costs, are recognised as liabilities and expenses when the employee benefits to which they relate are recognised. The employee benefit on-costs associated with each type of employee benefit are as follows:

413

413


Current: Accrued Payroll Tax

2006 $'000

2005 $’000

Annual Leave 55 58


Accrued Salaries and Wages 1 7

68 75

Superannuation

Annual Leave 121 139



156 166

Total Current Employee Benefit On-Costs 224 241

Non-Current: Accrued Payroll Tax

Long Service Leave Superannuation

Long Service Leave

170

163

172

241

Total Non-Current Employee Benefit On-Costs 333 413

Payables to SA Government entities 2006 $'000

2005 $’000

Creditors 357 146

Accruals 63 63

Employee Benefit On-Costs 572 667

992 876

23 PROVISIONS FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2006 $'000

2005 $’000

Current:

Annual Leave 1,004 916


Workers Compensation 25 21


1,506 1,314

Non-Current: Long Service Leave 2,942 2,869

Workers Compensation 69 56

3,011 2,925


Costs that are a consequence of employing employees, but which are not employee benefits, such as payroll tax and superannuation on-costs, are recognised as liabilities and expenses when the employee benefits to which they relate are recognised. These employee benefit on-costs are recognised as Payables in Note 22 as they do not accrue to employees.

The total current and non-current employee expense (ie aggregate employee benefit plus related oncosts) for 2006 is $1.7 m and $3.5 m respectively. (2005 $1.6 m and $3.5 m respectively)

In the 2006 financial year, the Long Service Leave benchmark contained within the Accounting Policy Framework IV Financial Assets and Liabilities Framework was amended, based on an actuarial assessment.

2006 2005 24 OTHER LIABILITIES $'000 $’000

Current:

Unearned Revenue 131 -

Other 15 6

146 6

25 EQUITY

Equity represents the residual interest in the net assets of the Authority. The State Government holds

the equity interest in the Authority on behalf of the community.

Asset Retained Revaluation

2006 Earnings Reserve Total

$'000 $'000 $'000 Balance at 1 July 3,386 1,221 4,607 Deficit for the Year (221) - (221)

Balance at 30 June 3,165 1,221 4,386

Asset Retained Revaluation

2005 Earnings Reserve Total

$'000 $'000 $'000

Balance at 1 July

Deficit for the Year

Net Increment/(Decrement) related to the Revaluation of:

Infrastructure

Moveable Vehicles

Computing Equipment

Furniture and Fittings

Plant and Equipment

Other

Correction to Long Service Leave Liability

3,996 - 3,996

(748) - (748)

3,165 1,221 4,386

- 42 42

- 26 26

- 4 4

- 6 6

- 1,082 1,082

- 61 61

138 - 138

Balance at 30 June 3,386 1,221 4,607


26 RECONCILIATION OF NET CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES TO NET COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES

NET CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES

2006 $'000 1,545

2005 $’000 (328)

Adjustments

Cash Flows from Government (8,973) (6,746)

Depreciation and Amortisation (927) (656)

Assets Received Free of Charge 48 93

Assets Written Off - (8)

Net Loss on Sale of Assets (45) (7)

Changes in Assets and Liabilities (Decrease)/Increase in Receivables (Decrease)/Increase in Other Assets (Increase)/Decrease in Payables (Increase) in Employee Benefits (Increase)/Decrease in Other Liabilities

(62) (43)

(319) (278) (140)

93 12

262 (270)

61

NET COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES (9,194) (7,494)

27 RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED

The Authority is engaged in a variety of funding programs involving State and Commonwealth sources who provide monies to the Authority on the premise that these funds are expended in a manner consistent with the terms of the agreement. At reporting date the Authority had the following outstanding funding commitments:

2006 2005

$'000 $’000

Environment Protection 1,344 1,755

1,344 1,755

28 EXPENDITURE COMMITMENTS

Operating Lease Commitments: The total value of future non-cancellable operating lease commitments not provided for and payable as at the end of the reporting period are detailed below. These amounts have not been brought to account in the financial statements.

2006 2005

$'000 $’000

Not Later than One Year 1,827 1,853

Later than One Year but not Later than Five Years 2,752 4,646

Total (Including GST) 4,579 6,499

Included in the operating lease commitments above is $0.416 m (2005: $0.591 m) which is the GST component of the operating lease payments.


The operating leases held by the Authority are mainly property leases with penalty clauses equal to the amount of the residual payments remaining for the lease terms. The leases are payable one month in advance and the Authority has the right of renewal. There are no existing or contingent rental provisions.

29 CONTINGENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

The Authority is not aware of the existence of any contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2006.

30 FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS DISCLOSURE

(a) Accounting Policies and Terms and Conditions affecting Future Cash Flows:

Financial Assets Cash deposits are recognised at their nominal amounts and interest is credited to revenue as it accrues. The Authority invests surplus funds with the Treasurer at call. Interest is earned on the average monthly balance at rates based on the DTF 90 day bank bill rate and interest is paid at the end of each quarter. The average effective interest rate for the reporting period was 5.37% (2005: 5.16%).

Debtors (trade accounts receivable) are generally settled within 30 days, are carried at amounts due and credit terms are net 30 days. A provision is raised for any doubtful debts based on a review of all outstanding amounts at balance date and bad debts are written off in the period in which they are identified.

Loans are recognised at the nominal amounts lent and collectability of amounts outstanding is reviewed at balance date with provision being made for bad and doubtful loans. That is, where collection of the loan or part thereof is judged to be less likely rather than more likely. Loan repayments may be waived at the discretion of the Minister. Principal repayments occur in accordance with the loan repayment schedules and the principal is repaid in full at maturity.

Financial Liabilities Creditors (trade accounts payable), including accruals not yet billed, are recognised when the Authority becomes obliged to make future payments as a result of a purchase of assets or goods and services at their nominal amounts and are generally settled within 30 days.

All financial assets and liabilities are unsecured.


(b) Interest Rate Risk Exposure:

The Authority’s exposure to interest rate risk and the effective weighted average interest rate for classes of financial assets and financial liabilities is set out below.

Weighted Floating More Than Non Average Interest 1 Year 1 to 5 5 Years Interest

2006 Effective Rate Rate or less Years Rate Bearing Total

Financial Assets % $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Cash 5.37 6,005

Loans N/A -

Debtors N/A -

Financial Assets N/A -

- - - - 6,005

- - - 38 38

- - - 1,057 1,057

- - - 5 5

6,005 - - - 1,100 7,105

Financial Liabilities

Creditors N/A - - - - 1,885 1,885

- - - - 1,885 1,885

2005 Weighted Floating Average Interest

Effective Rate Rate 1 Year or less

1 to 5 Years

More Than 5 Years

Rate

Non Interest Bearing Total

Financial Assets % $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Cash 5.16 5,194

Loans N/A -

Debtors N/A -

Financial Assets N/A -

- - - - 5,194

- - - 78 78

- - - 1,079 1,079

- - - 5 5

5,194 - - - 1,162 6,356


Creditors N/A - - - - 1,651 1,651

- - - - 1,651 1,651

(c) Net Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities:

The net fair value of cash and cash equivalents and non-interest bearing monetary financial assets and financial liabilities approximates their carrying value.


Carrying Net Fair Carrying Net Fair Amount Value Amount Value

2006 2006 2005 2005

Financial Assets $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Cash 6,005 6,005 5,194 5,194

Loans 38 38 78 78

Debtors 1,057 1,057 1,079 1,079

Financial Assets 5 5 5 5

7,105 7,105 6,356 6,356


Creditors 1,885 1,885 1,651 1,651

1,885 1,885 1,651 1,651

31 AUDITORS’ REMUNERATION

Services provided by the Auditor-General’s Department with respect to the audit of the Authority totalled $64,000 (2005: $62,000) for the reporting period. No other services were provided by the Auditor-General's Department.

32 THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FUND

The following is a summary of the amounts included in the Fund. In reflecting these amounts in the Authority's financial statements transactions between the Fund and the Authority have been eliminated. (Refer note 1(c))

Income Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 2006 2006 2005

EXPENSES $’000 $'000 Employee Benefits Costs 611 682

Supplies and Services 546 623

Grants and Contributions 119 131

Total Expenses 1,276 1,436

INCOME Fees and Charges 1,017 1,134

Interest 81 99

Total Income 1,098 1,233

NET COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES 178 203

NET RESULT (178) (203)


Balance Sheet as at 30 June 2006

CURRENT ASSETS Cash & Cash Equivalents Receivables Total Current Assets

TOTAL ASSETS

CURRENT LIABILITIES Payables

Employee Benefits

Total Current Liabilities

TOTAL LIABILITIES

NET ASSETS

EQUITY

Retained Earnings

TOTAL EQUITY

Statement of Changes in Equity for the Year Ended 30 June 2006

2006 2005 $'000 $'000

1,333 1,592 49 54

1,382 1,646

1,382 1,646

96 186

8 4

104 190

104 190

1,278 1,456

1,278 1,456

1,278 1,456


$’000 $’000

Balance as at 30 June 2004 1,659 1,659

Net Result for 2004/2005 (203) (203)

Net income/(expense) recognised directly in equity for 2004/2005 (203) (203)

Balance as at 30 June 2005 1,456 1,456

Net Result for 2005/2006 (178) (178)

Net income/(expense) recognised directly in equity for 2005/2006 (178) (178)

Balance at 30 June 2006 1,278 1,278


33 ADMINISTERED ITEM OF THE AUTHORITY

(a) Reporting Entity and Strategic Context

The major objective of the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee (the Committee) is to carry out an integrated ecological study of the marine environment off metropolitan Adelaide. The study is referred to as the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (ACWS) and focuses on the issues of loss of seagrass, declining water quality, algal blooms, beach closures, sand loss and wide scale movement, sediment on reef systems, mangrove dieback and problems caused by exotic organisms.

(b) Administered Item Financial Arrangements

The Committee’s sources of funds consist of monies contributed or to be contributed by Mobil Australia, Ports Corp, SA Water Corporation, Onkaparinga, Torrens and Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Boards, TRU Energy, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, the Coast Protection Board and the Authority.

The financial activities of the Committee are conducted through the Authority's Special Deposit Account with the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Finance and Audit Act, 1987.

The Authority and DEH continue to provide financial services to the Committee. Officers of the Authority and DEH provide technical and administrative support to the Committee at no charge. Certain facilities are also provided at no charge to the Committee including the use of plant and equipment and office accommodation."

The Authority and DEH continue to provide financial services to the Committee. Officers of the Authority and DEH provide technical and administrative support to the Committee at no charge. Certain facilities are also provided at no charge to the Committee including the use of plant and equipment and office accommodation.

(c) Administered Item Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

The Administered Item schedules of activities detail the Administered Item revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, changes in equity and cash flows.

In general, the Administered Item adopts the accounting policies of the Authority, as detailed in Note 2, deviations from these policies are as follows:

Provisions for Employee Benefits

In general, the Administered Item utilises the services of the Authority's and DEH's employees rather than recruiting and appointing employees in its own right. In the majority of cases, the services provided by the employees are provided free of charge. If, however, the services provided by the employees are directly attributable to the activities of the Administered Item and can be reliably measured the services are charged to the Administered Item on a fee for service (cost recovery) basis. Further, the provision for the liability for employee benefits arising from services rendered by employees is not recognised in the Administered Items' schedules as the Authority and DEH are obligated to pay employees for services provided. Accordingly, the Provisions for Employee Benefits are recognised in the Authority's and DEH's financial statements.


Details of the Administered Item revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, changes in equity and cash flows are provided in the following schedules.

Schedule 1(A): Administered Revenues and Expenses for the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Schedule 1(B): Administered Revenues and Expenses for the Year Ended 30 June 2005

Schedule 2(A): Administered Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2006

Schedule 2(B): Administered Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2005

Schedule 3(A): Administered Statement of Changes in Equity for the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Schedule 4(A): Administered Cash Flows for the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Schedule 4(B): Administered Cash Flows for the Year Ended 30 June 2005



Schedule 1(A): Administered Revenues and Expenses for the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES $’000 Supplies and Services 579

Total Expenses from Ordinary Activities 579

REVENUES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES

Grants and Contributions 50

Interest and Dividends 42

Total Revenues from Ordinary Activities 92

NET SURPLUS/(COST OF SERVICES) FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES (487)

TOTAL CHANGES IN EQUITY OTHER THAN THOSE RESULTING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH OWNERS (487)

Schedule 1(B): Administered Revenues and Expenses for the Year Ended 30 June 2005


EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES $'000

Supplies and Services 510

Total Expenses from Ordinary Activities 510

REVENUES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES



Total Revenues from Ordinary Activities 679

NET SURPLUS/(COST OF SERVICES) FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES 169

TOTAL CHANGES IN EQUITY OTHER THAN THOSE RESULTING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH OWNERS 169


Schedule 2(A): Administered Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2006


CURRENT ASSETS $'000

Cash 399

Receivables 2

Total Current Assets 401

TOTAL ASSETS 401

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 24

Total Current Liabilities 24

TOTAL LIABILITIES 24

NET ASSETS 377

EQUITY Retained Earnings 377

TOTAL EQUITY 377

Schedule 2(B): Administered Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2005


CURRENT ASSETS $’000

Cash 1,004

Receivables 4

Total Current Assets 1,008

TOTAL ASSETS 1,008

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 144

Total Current Liabilities 144

TOTAL LIABILITIES 144

NET ASSETS 864

EQUITY Retained Earnings 864

TOTAL EQUITY 864


Schedule 3(A): Administered Statement of Changes in Equity for the Year Ended 30 June 2006


$’000 $’000

Balance at 30 June 2004 695 695

Net Result for 2004-2005 169 169

Total recognised income and expense for 2004-05 169 169

Balance as at 30 June 2005 864 864

Net Result for 2005-06 (487) (487)

Total recognised income and expense for 2005-06 (487) (487)

Balance at 30 June 2006 377 377

Schedule 4(A): Administered Cash Flows for the Year Ended 30 June 2006


CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES $'000 PAYMENTS Supplies and Services (699)

Total Outflows from Ordinary Activities (699)

RECEIPTS



Total Inflows from Ordinary Activities 94

NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES (605)

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH HELD (605)

Cash at the Beginning of the Reporting Period 1,004

CASH AT THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD 399




CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES $’000 PAYMENTS

Supplies and Services (366)

Total Outflows from Ordinary Activities (366)

RECEIPTS



Total Inflows from Ordinary Activities 678

NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 312

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH HELD 312

Cash at the Beginning of the Reporting Period 692

CASH AT THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD 1,004


APPENDIX 3 OTHER STATUTORY INFORMATION

Overseas Travel

Table 32: Overseas travel by employees

Number of employees

Destination/s Reason for travel Total cost to agency

One San Francisco & Chile

Comparison with international EPA’s

$2,500

and develop further understanding of the wine and uranium industries

Reconciliation Statement The EPA would like to acknowledge the land on which the EPA meets is the traditional lands for the Kaurna people and that it respects their spiritual relationship with their country. The EPA also acknowledges the Kaurna people as the custodians of the Adelaide region and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today.

In fulfilling its functions, the EPA is cognisant of the cultural and natural heritage of traditional owners and strives to achieve positive outcomes wherever these matters are concerned.

Direction by the Minister Pursuant to Section 111(2)(b) of the Act, the Minister to whom the Act is committed has given no direction to the Board during the period to which the report related.

Board and Committee listing • Board of the EPA

Sub-committee: � EPA/Local Government Sub-committee � Landfill Guidelines Sub-committee

• Radiation Protection Committee.

149


APPENDIX 4 PUBLICATIONS RELEASED OR UPDATED DURING 2005–06

EPA Guidelines

EPA 245/05 Air conditioning and pipework systems—wastewater removal

EPA 386/06 Air quality impact assessment—using design ground level pollutant concentrations (DGLCs)

EPA 585/06 Compliance and enforcement of the Environment Protection Act 1993

EPA 396/05 Dredging and earthworks drainage

EPA 623/06 Environmental management of on-site remediation

EPA 373/06 Odour assessment—using odour source modelling

EPA 609/05 Personal radiation monitoring devices

EPA 189/05 Reclaimed water irrigation of pasture for grazing of cattle and pigs

EPA 620/06 Responsible pesticide use

EPA 589/05 Soil bioremediation

EPA 602/05 Use of cyclones for removing dust from gas streams

EPA 188/06 Use of water treatment solids (WTS)

EPA Position Statement

EPA 596/05 The role of the EPA in attaining sustainability

EPA Codes of Practice

EPA 552/05 Environmental management of the South Australian oyster farming industry

Annual reports

EPA 600/05 EPA Annual Report 2005–06 (includes reporting under the Radiation Protection Act)

EPA 615/05 Round-table 2005 report

Public consultation drafts

Discussion paper on the Calculations Policy for the negotiation of civil penalties under the Environment Protection Act 1993

EPA 568/06 Discussion paper on the draft Licence Fee Structure for public consultation

Draft hazardous waste strategy for public consultation

EPA 618/05 Explanatory paper—Environment Protection (Site Contamination) Amendment Bill— public consultation

Other publications

EPA 622/06 Ambient air quality in Gawler, South Australia monitoring campaign: 2002–2004

EPA 616/05 The heavy metal status of South Australian dolphins

151


EPA 617/05 Brochure: The heavy metal status of South Australian dolphins—an overview

EPA 587/05 The impact of rain on water quality at the Barcoo Outlet and Patawalonga Lake

EPA 613/05 Interpretive guide for the NPI—a guide to understanding South Australia’s NPI data

EPA 604/05 Kilburn odour study

EPA 625/06 National Pollutant Inventory (NPI)—South Australia summary report, 2004–2005

EPA 560/05 Nutrient flux assessment in the Port Waterways

EPA 558/05 Port Waterways Water Quality Improvement Plan—Stage 1

EPA 557/05 Setting environmental values for the Port Waterways

EPA 611/05 South Australia's air quality 2004 data tables

EPA 610/05 South Australia's air quality—2004

Brochure: Take the SmokeWatch challenge

EPA 597/05 A tradeable rights instrument to reduce nutrient pollution in the Port Waterways

Consultancy reports

EPA 598/05 Consultancy report: A feasibility study on nutrient load reduction options for the Upper Cox Creek Catchment

Consultancy report: Customer satisfaction—callers ringing the EPA

Consultancy report: A proposed licence fee system for South Australia

Joint publication

EPA 528/06 Guidelines for establishment and operation of cattle feedlots in South Australia

152


APPENDIX 5 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATEMENT

The following details are provided as part of the information statement of the EPA under the provisions of section 9 of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA).

Organisation structure and functions From 1 July 2002 the EPA became a separate administrative unit under the Environment and Conservation Portfolio. The EPA is South Australia’s primary environmental regulator; it is responsible for the protection of air and water quality, and the control of pollution, waste, noise and radiation, to ensure the protection and enhancement of the environment. The EPA’s organisational structure and functions are set out in this annual report.

Boards and committees Information on the EPA’s boards and committees is set out in this annual report.

Effect of organisation functions on members of the public The EPA encourages environmental responsibility throughout the business and community sectors and works collaboratively towards achieving a healthy environment alongside economic prosperity.

The role and objectives of the EPA are detailed throughout this annual report and are published in the EPA 2005–08 Strategic Plan.

Public participation in environment policy The public is invited to participate in development of environment policy through: � public consultation sessions during the development of specific EPPs and other

policy initiatives � the annual Round-table Conference � regional Round-table meetings � specific issue forums.

The EPA also supports a number of programs to assist business and industry, community volunteers and South Australian teachers and students to become involved in protecting and enhancing the environment.

Public consultation and community monitoring programs undertaken in 2004–05 are detailed in this annual report.

153


DESCRIPTION OF KINDS OF DOCUMENTS HELD BY EPA

Publications produced by the EPA can be accessed through the department’s website at <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pub.html>, or requested, free of charge, by telephoning the Customer Service Desk on 8204 2004. A list of 2005–06 EPA publications is set out in this annual report.

Other types of documents produced by the EPA include: � administrative records � asset maintenance records � records and annual reports of boards and committees � corporate and strategic planning records � correspondence files � financial records � occupational health and safety records � personnel records � policy documents � procedures and reference manuals � survey and environmental reports and records.

Please note that standard freedom of information charges for these documents may apply.

Documents available for purchase from the EPA in accordance with Section 109 of the EP Act include: � applications for environmental authorisations � environmental authorisations � development authorisations � beverage container approvals � details of prosecutions and other enforcement action under the EP Act.

Policy documents In relation to corporate policy the EPA refers to existing DEH corporate policy except in instances where specific EPA policy has been developed. Enquiries about such policy should be directed to DEH. The following list details existing EPA internal operating policies:

IOP001 Guideline for the preparation of an internal office policy or procedure for the EPA

IOP002 Procedure for obtaining advice on sampling IOP003 Procedure to be followed when requesting legal advice IOP004 Overseas travel by EPA staff IOP005 Conference attendance by EPA staff IOP006 Guidelines for training & development expenditure IOP007 Licence renewal process for A-Class licences

• Attachment 0: Designation of licences as Class ‘A’ or Class ‘B’—Licence Consolidation

• Attachment 1: Licence renewal process flow chart for ‘A’ licences • Attachment 2: Licence renewal process for A-Class licences, guidance notes

for licence coordinators • Attachment 3: Full process

IOP008 Guidelines for study assistance IOP009 Accessing human resource development activities IOP010 Induction

• Attachment 1: Process for induction of new employees

154


• Attachment 2: Induction checklist • Attachment 3: Reference lists

IOP011 Guideline for preparing EPA Board papers • Attachment 1: Required paper format and guidance notes • Attachment 2: Agenda item proforma • Attachment 3: Suggested agenda item proforma

IOP012 Vaccination protocol for field staff IOP013 Licensing requirements for the transport and disposal of recyclable/reusable

wastes IOP014 WinTAP: Windows Time Allocation Program for EPA

• Attachment 1: TOIL Record Sheet IOP015 Responding to environmental emergencies & major pollution incidents

• Attachment 1 IOP016 Threshold criteria—Matters for EPA Board Consideration IOP017 Guideline for the preparation of a Cabinet submission

• Attachment 1: Cabinet submission development process flow chart • Attachment 2: Cabinet submission process checklist • Attachment 3: Guideline—When is a Cabinet submission required? • Attachment 4: Guideline—Notification of intention to draft a Cabinet

submission • Attachment 5: Instructions for using Cabinet submission templates • Attachment 6: Preparing Cabinet submissions.

IOP018 Hazard Incident Injury Reporting, Investigation & Management • Attachment 1: Risk Assessment � Hazard-Incident-Injury Reporting Risk Rating &Risk Assessment Matrix

• Attachment 2: Hazard Incident Injury Reporting, Investigation & Management Policy � Hazard—Incident—Injury Reporting Policy

• Attachment 3: Report Forms � Hazard Report Forms � Incident Report Forms � Aggression Report � Manual Handling Report� Needle-stick Injury Report � Vehicle Accident Report � Notification of Dangerous Occurrence Form

IOP019 Allocation and Use of Mobile Telephones • Attachment: Request for mobile telephone • Attachment: Request for mobile telephone

IOP020 Mobile Telephone—Reimbursing Personal Call Costs • Attachment: Mobile telephone personal calls—

reimbursement form IOP021 Vehicle Management

• Attachment: Non-Employee Application to Drive Government Vehicles • Attachment: Application for Regular Home/Office Travel

IOP022 Management of Desk Telephones IOP023 Filling of Positions During Restructure IOP024 Role & Responsibilities of the Emergency Response Team IOP025 Volumetric Survey Assessment

155


IOP026 Manifest Audit Process for Liquid Waste IOP027 Weigh Data Audit Process for Solid Waste

Access to organisation documents Requests for access to documents or amendment of personal records in the possession of EPA should be directed in writing to:

Freedom of Information Coordinator Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Telephone: 8204 9128

Policy documents may be inspected at Level 5, Grenfell St, Adelaide between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm Monday to Friday.

156


APPENDIX 6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Supporting data During the year, 74 planning policy documents were assessed. A summary of the advice provided is detailed in Table 29.

Table 33: Summary of EPA advice on Plan Amendment Reports (PARs) and Statements of Intent (SoIs)

Council/PAR Date Site Contamination

Water quality

Air quality

Noise Other

Adelaide Hills Council Flood Management PAR

09/09/05 Proposed approach supported

Alexandrina Council Goolwa Airport SoI

19/05/06 X X X X

Alexandrina Council Hindmarsh Island PAR

23/03/06 X X X X

Alexandrina Council Strathalbyn General SoI

27/4/06 X X X X

Alexandrina Council Industrial/Commercial SoI

27/04/06 X X X X

Barossa Council Kroemer Crossing (North) SoI

6/7/05 X

City of Burnside Skye & Auldana Incorporation PAR

1/6/06 Waste management

Campbelltown Residential (Depot Site) SoI

19/4/06 X X X

Ceduna General & Coastal SoI 19/5/06 X X X X

Ceduna Smoky Bay PAR 25/08/05 X X X X

Charles Sturt Findon Urban Village PAR

21/4/05 X X

Cleve General SoI 12/10/05 X X

Coorong East Wellington PAR 19/12/05 X X

Coorong General SoI 30/8/05 X X X X

Coorong Warrengie (Development) Zone PAR

16/6/06 X X X X

Gawler Residential, Town Centre & Development Plan Format PAR

17/8/05 X X X X Non-complying

development

Goyder General SoI 15/11/05 X X X X

Grant Country Township Expansion PAR

21/9/05 X X

Grant Industrial, Commercial & Bulky Goods PAR

15/12/05 X

Grant Recreation & Lifestyle SoI 18/5/06 X X X X

Grant Retail (Neighbourhood Centre) Zone SoI

18/5/06 X X X X

Grant Rural & Country Living PAR 21/9/05 X X

Grant Transport Services SoI 19/5/06 X X X X

Holdfast Bay Residential – Coastal & Foreshore SoI

6/12/05 X X

Kimba General SoI 21/7/05 X X X X

157



Water quality

Air quality

Noise Other

Kimba General PAR 7/2/06 X X X X

Light Industry (Gawler Belt) Zone Land Division PAR

5/9/05 X X

Light Kingsford Regional Industrial Estate SoI

20/10/05 X X X Public notification

Light Minor Amendments PAR 30/9/05 X X X

Loxton Waikerie General PAR 28/11/05 X X X

Mid Murray Neighbourhood Centre SoI 24/3/06 X X X X Waste management

Mid Murray Development Plan Review 2006

31/3/06 X X X

Ministerial Gawler Urban Boundary PAR

21/1/06 X X X

Ministerial Watershed Wineries PAR 19/1/06 X Compliance & enforcement issues

Mount Gambier Fletcher Jones SoI 9/9/05 X X

Mount Gambier Fletcher Jones PAR 13/1/06 X X

Rural City of Murray Bridge Minor (Light Industry) PAR

17/11/05 X X

Rural City of Murray Bridge Primary Industry PAR

17/2/06 X X X X Waste management

Rural City of Murray Bridge Riverine & Minor Townships PAR

28/11/05 X X X X

Naracoorte Lucindale Council Hynam Abattoir PAR

1/9/05 X X X

Naracoorte Lucindale Council Effluent Disposal Waste Control System SoI

6/7/05 X

Naracoorte Lucindale Council Effluent Disposal Waste Control System PAR

3/3/06 X

City of Onkaparinga Aldinga Sellicks Desired Character SoI

15/9/05 X X X

City of Onkaparinga Residential Development and Suburb Character SoI

22/11/05 X X

City of Onkaparinga Seaford Meadows SoI

21/9/05 X X X X

City of Playford’s Munno Para District Centre PAR

27/3/06 X X

City of Port Adelaide Enfield Industrial Zones SoI

31/10/05 X X X X Hazardous waste management

Port Pirie Regional Council General SoI

6/7/05 X X

City of Prospect Residential Policy PAR

12/8/05 X X X X

City of Salisbury Industry Zone Burton PAR

Proposed amendments supported

City of Salisbury – Places of Worship PAR

1/9/05 X X

DC Streaky Bay Deferred Urban Zone SoI

9/9/05 X X X

DC Tatiara Keith Rural Living PAR 9/2/06 X X X X

158



Water quality

Air quality

Noise Other

City of Tea Tree Gully Golden Grove District Centre & Adjacent Areas SoI

21/7/05 X X X

DC Tumby Bay General Farming, Todd River Water Protection Zone and Rural Living PAR

22/12/05 X X X

DC Tumby Bay Urban Areas (Tumby Bay and Port Neill) SoI

22/12/05 X X X X

City of Unley Village Living (Corridors and Centres) SoI

13/9/05 X X

City of Victor Harbor Outer Retail Centres SoI

17/8/05 X X X

City of Victor Harbor: Residential (Hindmarsh Valley) SoI

22/12/05 X X X X

City of Victor Harbor Town Centre SoI 17/8/05 X X

Wakefield Regional Council General Review SoI

21/7/05 X X X X

Wakefield Regional Council Port Wakefield Town PAR

21/11/05 X X X X

Wakefield Regional Council Primary Industry PAR

2/9/05 Proposed amendments supported

City of Walkerville Town Centre PAR 14/12/05 X X X

Wattle Range Council Better Development Plan Conversion & General SoI

11/11/05 X X X X

City of West Torrens Brickworks Markets Precinct SoI

11/5/06 X X X

City of West Torrens General PAR 8/11/05 X X X

City of Whyalla Whitehead Street PAR 26/10/05 Proposed amendments supported

DC Yankalilla Townships SoI 12/7/05 X X X X

York Peninsula Industry (Commercial Bulk Handling) PAR

5/7/05 X X X Public notification

DC Yorke Peninsula’s Port Clinton PAR 15/11/05 X X Public notification

EPA Response DC Yorke Peninsula Pt. Victoria Town SoI

30/3/06 X X X X

DC Yorke Peninsula Shack Design Guidelines PAR

17/10/05 X

159

Annual Report 2005-2006It is with pleasure that I present you with the Annual Report of the...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Report 2005-2006It is with pleasure that I present you with the Annual Report of the...