Annual Report 2014 -15 - EPA Tasmania › Documents › EPA Annual Report 2014-15_web… ·...

1ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY - Annual Report 2014-15

Annual Report 2014 -15

ISSN 1837-6185 (Print) ISSN 1837 – 6193 (Online)

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Annual Report is a summary of our strategic, corporate and financial performance for 2014-15.

Inside you will find the year in review, including highlights, our strategic vision, our role, our people our operations and our performance.

We value your feedback. For further information please contact:

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) GPO Box 1550 Hobart, Tasmania 7001 Telephone: (03) 6165 4530

Email: [email protected] www.epa.tas.gov.au

Tasmanian environment photos courtesy of Michael Gay, EPA

DISCLAIMER © Environment Protection Authority (Tasmania)

This document is copyright to the Environment Protection Authority (Tasmania). It may be reproduced in whole or part for the purpose of study and training, subject to the inclusion of acknowledgement of the source and to it not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for other purposes requires the written permission of the EPA.

Printed using the Rethink® Environmental Management System developed by at+m integrated marketing to create environmentally responsible processes for print and production. Rethink® Certificate No. 55077

Printed on environmentally responsible and carbon neutral papers.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY - Annual Report 2014-15


Mission Statement

Our VisionA Tasmania that is clean, healthy and sustainable.

Our PurposeTo regulate developments and activities that impact on environmental quality and promote best practice, sustainable environmental management.

Our ValuesIndependenceOperate without fear or favour. Make informed decisions based on sound evidence. Answer to Parliament and the community for our performance.

LeadershipLead positive, proactive change in support of our purpose and vision. Clearly express our opinions on significant issues. Positively influence (Government) policy in pursuit of environmental goals.

CollaborationConsult with, and listen to, a wide range of interests, views and stakeholders across the community. Work in a partnership with other organisations and agencies with complementary skills and resources.

TransparencyCommunicate our role and goals explicitly. Share actions and progress openly and frequently. Show how we’ve delivered on our commitments and how we can improve.

Our GoalsClean Air

Clean Water

Clean Land

Acceptable Noise

Sustainable Use of Resources

4 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY - Annual Report 2014-15

October 2015

Hon Matthew Groom MPParliament HouseHobartTasmania 7000

Dear Minister

2014-15 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

It is with great pleasure that I present you with the Annual Report of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (1994).

Yours sincerely,

Warren JonesChairBoard Of The Environment Protection Authority

Letter of Transmittal


Contents

Mission Statement 3Letter of Transmittal 4 The Year in Review 6Chair’s Foreword 7

Director’s Foreword 8

About the EPA 10Who We Are 10

What We Do 12

Statutory Functions 12 What We Don’t Regulate and Why 13

Our Strategy and Actions 14

Strategic Direction 14 Activities in 2014-15 14

The EPA’s Goals 16Clean Air 16

Air Quality 17 Air Quality Monitoring 17 Domestic Smoke Management 18 Coordinated Smoke Management 20 Industrial Activities 21

Clean Water 22

Water Quality 22 Wastewater Management 24 Derwent Estuary Program 26

Clean Land 27

Contaminated Sites 28Waste Management 28Controlled Waste 29 Waste Advisory Committee 30

Acceptable Noise 31

Sustainable Use of Resources 32

The EPA’S Activities 33Development Assessments 33

Industrial Regulation 35

Compliance and Enforcement 38

Incident Response 39

Savage River Remediation 40

Community Engagement 42

Grants and Scholarships 42 Media and Communications 42

Finances 43


The Year in ReviewChair’s ForewordThe past year has been one of change for the Board of the Environment Protection Authority. The terms of the members incumbent at the beginning of the financial year expired on 1 July, although under the provisions of legislation, they continued to constitute the Board until 31 December 2014. Further, the former EPA Director, Alex Schaap, also a member of the Board, retired in April 2015. John Mollison, Delegate for the Director, attended meetings during Alex’s period of leave prior to retirement and until Wes Ford was appointed as the new Director (after the April Board meeting). From 1 January there was a complete turnover in the membership of the Board. Three new deputy members were also appointed.

In early January the new Board members and deputies undertook a comprehensive induction program to familiarise ourselves with the legislation under which we operate and the processes and procedures that have been developed and put in place by previous Boards. Since then, as well as transacting the normal business of the Board, we have continued to receive more detailed briefings on specific subject areas.

Now in its eighth year of operation, the Board is a mature institution with a well-developed set of processes, policies and procedures. The newly constituted Board has continued with the regular schedule of rolling reviews of policies and delegations which has also served to bring us up to date and provide the review process with a new set of eyes and different skill set.

Under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA), the Board is established as an independent decision maker for development applications and several other regulatory tools. The Board cannot be directed by

the Minister or the Government. The Act establishes a formal mechanism through which the Minister and the Board can communicate without prejudicing this independence. This takes the form of a Statement of Expectation issued by the Minister and a Statement of Intent through which the Board responds to the Minister. The Board received a new Statement of Expectation from the Minister in March 2015 and responded with a Statement of Intent in early July. (While the Statement of Intent overlaps the end of the financial year it is included to complete the set of current documents). Both documents are available on the EPA website.

Arguably the most important function of the Board is the assessment of new development applications for Level 2 activities which are referred by local government authorities. The past year has seen a steady workload of new development assessments, mostly in the extractive and mining industries. The assessments undertaken are listed in full in this Annual Report. No appeals were lodged against decisions by the Board during 2014-2015. Other key activities, including the oversight of the Savage River Rehabilitation Program and administration of the Environment Protection Fund are also described in the Report.

The Board could not function without the support of officers in the EPA Division of the Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE). The newly constituted Board has found this support to be well organised and of a high professional standard. On behalf of all Board members I would like to thank the staff of the EPA Division for their expertise and diligence that enables us to have confidence in our decisions. I would also like to acknowledge and thank

the former members of the Board - Ian Abernethy, Helen Locher, Louise Cherrie and, in particular, the past Chair John Ramsay who was the founding Chair of the Board along with the former Director, Alex Schaap. Their contributions to developing and ensuring that the Board’s decision-making processes are rigorous and objective are appreciated and valued by the present members. We look forward to continuing their work and further enhancing the reputation of the Board as an independent, fair and objective decision-maker on environmental matters.

Warren Jones Chair Environment Protection Authority


The Year in ReviewDirector’s ForewordThe Director, Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is a member of the EPA Board and is responsible for day to day regulation and exercising a range of powers under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). Both the Board and Director are supported by the staff of the EPA Division of the DPIPWE.

The 2014-15 year has been one of change for the Board and also for the position of Director. Despite these changes, the statutory requirements of the various assessment, regulatory, advisory and compliance functions of the EPA have continued, and have been consolidated within the EPA Strategic Plan and the EPA Division Business Plan strategies.

During the first half of the year, Alex Schaap continued in his role as Director, progressing a range of issues including a legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Notice (EPN) issued to amend the Shree Minerals’ permit, which had allowed the temporary above ground storage of acidic waste rock at the company’s Nelson Bay River mine. In December 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPN was not valid under EMPCA, meaning that the company was required to manage its waste rock in accordance with the original permit. This matter remains under active management.

During the period from December to the end of April, John Mollison was the Acting General Manager of the EPA Division and

acted for the Director under delegation. During this period he inducted the new Board and worked with members to develop the necessary knowledge to allow them to discharge their statutory responsibilities. I thank John for his leadership of the Division and support of the Board during this period.

I commenced in the role of Director in early May and participated in my first Board meeting in June.


Assessments

The Board and Director undertake environmental assessments of development proposals referred by Local Councils, and for developments not required to have a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. The assessment process continues to ensure that the Board and Director have sufficient information to make appropriate determinations on the environmental requirements of developments. The assessment material is published on the EPA website along with the Board’s Environmental Assessment Report.

During the year, 15 assessments were completed – all within the statutory timeframe – and 38 remained in progress. Assessments Section staff worked with officers from the Department of Environment to develop procedures, enabling the Board to undertake assessments that deal with Commonwealth Matters of National Environmental Significance. This will be completed after the Approvals Bilateral agreement is signed later in the year and will streamline the approval process for a number of developments in the State.

Regulation

The ongoing regulation of Level 2 activities involves a range of functions, including compliance auditing, issuing and reviewing EPNs, and regulating waste and contaminated sites. New data collection and reporting software has allowed the regulatory staff to better manage and report on planned audits and compliance with environmental conditions.

In regulating wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the EPA has focussed on strategic moves to improve overall compliance outcomes for TasWater, now

in its second full year as the statewide manager of 79 Level 2 WWTPs. This includes a review of TasWater’s draft wastewater management plan for 2015-18, which sets out upcoming priority projects at WWTPs and forecasts capital expenditure associated with these projects. It also outlines a strategic approach to address broader wastewater management issues such as reticulation performance, incident response and lagoon desludging. These measures will help address the history of poor regulatory compliance in the wastewater sector and improve the quality of our environment.

Investigation and compliance

The regulatory functions of the EPA include the investigation, and at times, prosecution of offences under EMPCA and its regulations, as well as matters under other legislation administered by the EPA. This includes the management of incidents, complaints and notifications, over 600 of which were reported to the EPA during the year. The EPA also administers the Litter Reporting System, under which 441 reports were received and 240 litter infringement notices were issued during the year. The EPA finalised Court action in September, successfully prosecuting a controlled waste transport business for the illegal disposal of liquid waste and sewage.

Scientific and technical advice

In order for the Board and Director to undertake their assessment and regulatory duties effectively, they require specific scientific and technical advice on a range of matters. The EPA has access to specialists within the Division who provide expert advice on water quality, noise, air quality and chemical management. These scientific and technical staff work closely with assessment and regulatory staff to support the statutory functions of the EPA. In October the EPA’s air quality monitoring network known as the BLANkET project received a Clean Air Achievement Award

from the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand in recognition of its significant contribution to achieving improvements in the quality of the air environment.

Policy and business support

The EPA continues to be well supported from a policy and business perspective. The Board regularly reviews its operating policies and procedures, delegations and authorities and the way it undertakes its business, and it is required to make determinations on fee remissions in accordance with the regulations. These administrative processes, including the requirement to manage a range of registers is undertaken on a daily basis by the EPA Division.

In my first report as Director, I wish to take this opportunity to recognise the professionalism of the EPA Division staff, noting their valuable support to both myself and the Board. From the perspective of the community and businesses we regulate, the significance of the EPA is much greater than the five individuals who make up the Authority, and it is a key element of the comprehensive Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania.

Wes Ford Director Environment Protection Authority


About the EPAWho We Are

War

ren

Jone

s (Chair)

Colin

Bux

ton

(Boa

rd M

embe

r)

Ant

hony

Fer

rier

(Dep

uty

Chai

r)Ca

ther

ine

Mur

doch

(Boa

rd M

embe

r)W

es F

ord

(Dir

ecto

r)

The Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) was established as an independent statutory authority under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) on 1 July 2008 as an integral part of Tasmania’s Resource Management and Planning System.

The EPA comprises a Board and a Director. The Board has an independent Chair, Deputy Chair and two other independent members alongside the Director. The Board has specific functions in relation to the environmental assessment of development proposals, environmental agreements, mandatory environmental audits, financial assurances, environmental improvement programs and the Environment Protection Fund. The EPA Director has a range of functions and powers, which relate generally to the enforcement provisions of EMPCA. Through the roles and functions of both the Board and the Director, the EPA is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of EMPCA.


The EPA Board and Director are supported by staff in the EPA Division of DPIPWE. This organisational relationship is represented in Figure 1. The support includes monitoring and regulating environmental performance, and providing the community with information about the quality of the environment by reporting on key performance indicators. Hence the majority of the EPA Division’s activities are reflected in this report, however the 2014-15 DIPIWE Annual Report also contains information relating to performance indicators for the work of the Division.

During the reporting period, the term of the existing Board members expired, and a new Director and new Board members were appointed. The outgoing Board members were John Ramsay (Chair), Ian Abernethy (Deputy Chair), Louise Cherrie (Member), Dr Helen Locher (Member) and Alex Schaap (Director). They were replaced by new members: Warren Jones (Chair), Anthony Ferrier (Deputy Chair), Catherine Murdoch (Member), Prof Colin Buxton (Member) and Wes Ford (Director). When a Board Member is unable to take their place at a meeting, Deputies are asked to act in their place. Outgoing Deputy Board Members, Warren Jones and Ian Abernathy, were replaced by John McCambridge and Harry Galea in 2014-15. All the members of the Board were appointed on skills merit, and bring knowledge and experience of environmental management across a range of fields.

EPA Division

Policy & Business

Assessments

Compliance & Incident Response

Environmental Policy & Support

Business Services

Industrial Operations

Wastewater Management

Waste Management

Northern Regulation

Operations

Remediation Programs

Air

Water

Noise

Derwent Estuary Program

Scientific & Technical

Biological Testing

Nutrients

Organic Chemistry

Water Chemistry

Metals

Analytical Services

CommunicationsExecutive Support

EPA Director

General Manager

EPA Board

Figure 1. Organisational chart of the EPA


Primary Operating Functions

In fulfilling its statutory functions, the EPA performs a range of operational activities including:

• Assessing Development Proposals

• Setting Environmental Conditions and Performance Requirements

• Facilitating Compliance and Enforcement

• Responding to Incidents and Complaints

• Informing Policy

• Monitoring Environmental Quality, and

• Promoting Sustainability.

About the EPAWhat We Do Statutory Functions

The EPA’s principal statutory functions are to administer and enforce the provisions of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA), and in particular, to use its best endeavours to:

• Further the sustainable development and environmental management and pollution control objectives of EMPCA

• Ensure that activities do not cause unacceptable pollution

• Advise the Minister on any matter that may significantly affect the achievement of the objectives of EMPCA, and

• Ensure that economic instruments and issues are considered in policy and program implementation.

Other Functions

The Board also oversees the Waste Advisory Committee (WAC). The WAC oversees and guides the implementation of the Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy and strengthens links between all levels of government, regional authorities, business and the community. The WAC was established as a sub-committee of the EPA. The Chair of the EPA Board also acts as Chair for the WAC and regularly updates the Board about the committee’s activities.


What We Don’t Regulate and WhyThe Board interacts with a number of other bodies engaged in regulation, planning or policy development. This typically occurs in areas in which the EPA may have an interest but does not have a mandate or legal jurisdiction. There may also be issues where the role and jurisdiction of the EPA abuts against or even overlaps with those of other bodies.

Smaller premises or operations which present lower risk to the environment

The environmental impact of most commercial premises and smaller industrial activities in the state are regulated by local government. The EPA only regulates larger and specialized activities with a higher level of environmental risk.

Environmental policy

The EPA does not determine Tasmania’s environmental policy. That is a matter for the elected government. The EPA may however provide policy advice to Government in relation to environmental matters to inform such policy decisions. The EPA may also be charged with formal decision making or implementation responsibilities which give effect to policies determined by Government.

Nature conservation and threatened species

While the Board certainly takes account of nature conservation and threatened species issues as an integral part of its assessment of development proposals, the EPA is not responsible for the regulation of such issues beyond ensuring compliance with the conditions it imposes upon developments. Those broader nature conservation and threatened species issues are dealt with by the Natural and Cultural Heritage Division of DPIPWE.

Forest Practices

Forest practices are regulated by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). In 2008, the EPA Board signed a memorandum of understanding with the FPA covering matters of overlapping jurisdiction in relation to the impacts of forestry activities in Tasmania. The EPA works with the FPA in the management of smoke from planned burns.

Chemicals and pesticides

The use of agricultural chemicals is regulated by Biosecurity Tasmania, DPIPWE. In 2009, the EPA Board signed a MOU with the DPIPWE in relation to regulating the environmental impacts of agricultural and veterinary chemical use. The Director is also a member of the ASChem Council, a statutory body which advises the Minister in relation to regulations about chemical management.

Marine aquaculture, fisheries, dams and water use

Planning, assessment and regulation of environmental impacts of aquaculture, fishing and water use are managed by the Water and Marine Resources Division of DPIPWE and the Assessment Committee for Dam Construction. The Director is a member of the Marine Farm Planning Review Panel, a statutory body which advises the Minister in relation to the sustainability of marine farm developments.

Climate change, greenhouse gasses and energy efficiency

While climate change has long been seen by the EPA as a critical issue for environmental management, the EPA does not have significant powers, functions or capabilities in this area. Such issues are dealt with by the Office of Climate Change in the Department of Premier and Cabinet and various Commonwealth Government agencies.


role and functions of the Board, the delegations and authorisations currently in place, guidelines on conflicts of interest and confidentiality, and the Statement of Expectation/Statement of Intent

• Received briefings on the State Policy on Water Quality Management and Savage River Rehabilitation Program

• Reviewed the EPA Policy Register

• Reviewed and approved revisions to the Fee Remission Guidelines

• Considered and approved Guidelines for Land Use Planners on Environmental Impact Assessments

• Received a new Statement of Expectation from the Minister and prepared a Statement of Intent in response

• Reviewed Guidelines for the preparation of a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan

• Received reports on several programs for which the Board had provided sponsorship through the Environment Protection Fund (Kids 4 Kids and the Sustainable Living Festival)

• Considered and approved a proposal from Awards Australia to continue sponsorship for the EPA Sustainability Award as part of the Tasmanian Community Awards and a request from the Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand to provide sponsorship for its conference held in Hobart in October 2014

• Received regular reports on the Environment Protection Fund

About the EPAOur Strategy and Actions Strategic Plan

The EPA’s Strategic Plan 2012 focuses on the priorities, objectives and tasks, consistent with the longer-term vision and purpose of the EPA. It also outlines the Board’s strategic goals for clean air, clean water, clean land, acceptable noise and sustainable use of resources. This is the Board’s second Strategic Plan, which was developed in consultation with key stakeholders.

Activities in 2014-15

General and Special Meetings

As set out in the Statement of Expectation and Intent, the Chair met with the Minister for Environment, Parks, and Heritage and the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water (DPIPWE) and Environment during the year to discuss strategic issues. The Director also had regular meetings with both the Minister and the Secretary to discuss day-to-day operational issues.

During the 2014-15 financial year the EPA Board met formally for a general Board meeting on nine occasions. Table 1 lists the attendances by Board members at the Board’s monthly meetings over the period from July 2014 to June 2015.

Activities Undertaken by the Board

During the year the Board made decisions on a number of assessment activities (as detailed further in this report under “Development Assessments”).

In addition to these activities the Board also:

• Received a comprehensive induction briefing for the members whose terms commenced on 1 January 2105, which included an overview of EMPCA, the

Strategic Direction

Statement of Expectation/Statement of Intent

The Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) requires the Minister responsible for administering the Act, to provide the Board of the EPA with a Statement of Expectation (SoE). The Board is required to respond by providing the Minister with a Statement of Intent (SoI).

The SoE sets out the Minister’s objectives in relation to the EPA Board, the EPA’s relationship with the State Government and the EPA Division, and governance matters and priorities for the Board. While it covers the Minister’s objectives, the SoE cannot prevent the Board from independently performing its statutory functions. The SoI, meanwhile, sets out how the EPA will meet the objectives of the SoE.

The Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage issued a SoE for 2012-2014 to the EPA in October 2012 and the EPA responded with its SoI in December 2012 This process was repeated during 2014-15, with the Minister issuing a new SoE for 2015 and the EPA reviewing the previous SoI and replacing it with one for 2015-16. The current SoE and SoI are available on the EPA website.


July

201

4

Aug

201

4

Sep

2014

Oct

201

4

Nov

201

4

Dec

201

4

Jan

2015

Feb

2015

Mar

201

5

Apr

201

5

May

201

5

Jun

2015

Tota

ls

Mr J Ramsay 2

Mr I Abernethy 4

Dr H Locher 4

Ms Louise Cherrie 4

Mr A Schaap 3

Mr W Jones 0

Dr C Mucha 0

Mr A Ferrier 0

Mr J Mollison 1

Mr W Jones 5

Mr A Ferrier 5

Prof C Buxton 5

Ms C Murdoch 5

Mr J Mollison 4

Mr J McCambridge 1

Mr H Galea 1

Mr W Ford 1

Notes: outgoing board members, Meetings attended, No meeting held

Table 1. EPA Board members meeting attendances in 2014-15• Received briefings from the Director on environmental issues associated with a number of Level 2 activities

• Received updates from the Chair related to the work of the EPA Waste Advisory Committee (WAC)

• Determined five applications for the remission of fees under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (General Fees) Regulations 2001.


The EPA’s Goals Clean Air HIGHLIGHTS

During 2014-15, the EPA contributed to the achievement of its air quality related goals by:

• Assessing atmospheric emissions from ongoing industrial activities and new proposals. Assessments often require the input of expert advice on Best Available Technology and Best Practice Environmental Management from the EPA’s air scientific officers. These officers also provide the knowledge and skills necessary to evaluate air dispersion modelling of odour and other pollutants emitted to air.

• Ensuring the specialist skills of air scientists are available to assist officers regulating industrial facilities, so as to bring emissions to air into compliance with regulatory requirements and to minimise impacts of pollution on the environment.

• Continued provision of advice and support to local government on air quality issues including smoke from domestic sources.

• Continuing work with local councils aimed at reducing smoke levels in Tasmanian communities by completing the third phase, Burn Brighter this Winter (BBtW) 2014, of the Domestic Smoke Management Program. The 2014 winter program involved targeted education and community engagement and included smoke monitoring surveys in Longford. Early in winter 2015 the program returned to Launceston, the focus area of the BBtW 2012 program.

• Monitoring ambient particle levels in Launceston, Hobart and Devonport using reference quality instruments in accordance with the requirements of the Air NEPM.

• Continuing the operation of the State-wide BLANkET (Base-Line Air Network of EPA Tasmania) air quality network to monitor ambient particle levels across Tasmania.

• Continuing winter air quality monitoring activities in Tasmanian towns and communities using the car-based Travel-BLANkET equipment and/or the easily relocatable BLANkET systems to improve our knowledge and understanding of statewide air quality issues and the extent of population exposure.

• Addressing public concern about the effect of smoke from planned burning by working with the Forest Practice Authority, forestry industries, the Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Health and Human Services to continue to improve the effectiveness of the Coordinated Smoke Management Strategy; and improving our understanding of smoke dispersion from planned burns using air quality monitoring, satellite imagery and Bureau of Meteorology air–parcel trajectory analysis.

• In October 2014 the EPA’s BLANkET project received a Werner Strauss Clean Air Achievement Award from the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand (CASANZ). The Award recognised the success of BLANkET and its significant contribution to achieving improvements in the quality of the air environment.

Clean air is vital for the health of our community, our economy and for the enjoyment of our natural environment. To ensure the continued improvement of air quality across Tasmania the EPA is committed to implementing the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 and the Environment Protection Policy on Air Quality (Air Policy). Our success will be measured against the requirements of the Air Policy, progress towards the national air quality standards and goals set in the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (Air NEPM), and the achievement of the objectives of the Tasmanian Air Quality Strategy (TAQS).


Air Quality

The key air quality issue in Tasmania relates to particle matter pollution from sources which include industrial emissions, motor vehicle emissions, road dust, domestic wood heaters, and planned burning. Public health concerns, particularly in relation to smoke from wood heaters and planned burning activities continue to be an issue in communities across Tasmania. Launceston is well known to be susceptible to a build-up in smoke levels, especially in winter, when cold, calm weather conditions are associated with temperature inversions in the Tamar Valley, inhibiting the dispersion of smoke. What is less well known, but is now apparent from the increased monitoring data from the BLANkET network and Travel BLANkET surveys, is that many Tasmanian towns and localities experience poorer wintertime air quality than is typically observed in Launceston. Hence, the monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 (particles less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter, respectively) continues to form the basis of the EPA’s air monitoring program.

Air Quality Monitoring

Reference Level PM10 and PM2.5

In 2014 the EPA continued to operate its reference level air quality monitoring stations at Hobart (New Town), Launceston (Ti-Tree Bend) and Devonport (Polytechnic). These stations are all equipped with reference level PM10 and PM2.5 instrumentation designed to measure the 24-hour average particle levels in accordance with the strict requirements of the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air) Measure (Air NEPM).

The 24-hr average national standard for PM10 set in the Air NEPM is 50 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre) and

the PM10 goal is to have no more than five exceedences of this standard per calendar year. Due to circumstances that could not be circumvented this year, the full processing of the reference level air quality data record for 2014 has not yet been completed. Hence 2014 monitoring data are subject to revision when the fully validated data record becomes available. Nonetheless, preliminary data indicates that Hobart, Launceston and Devonport recorded zero exceedances of the PM10 national standard in 2014.

Figure 2 represents the number of days each year where the 24-hour average PM10 concentration measured at Ti-Tree Bend (Launceston) exceeded the national standard of 50 μg/m3, since daily winter monitoring began in 1997. The Figure illustrates the significant improvement in Launceston’s air quality achieved

Figure 2. The number of days each year in Launceston where the 24-hour average PM10 concentration exceeded the national standard of 50 µg/m3.

Note: Although zero exceedances of PM10 standard in 2013 and 2014 were reported, there were limited data available in 2013 and so the strict Air NEPM requirements were not met, and data for 2014 are interim.

over the past 18 years, as measured by the number of exceedences.

The national advisory reporting standard currently set for 24-hour average PM2.5 is 25 μg/m3. No timeframe for compliance with the PM2.5 advisory standard has been designated and no goal has yet been set for this standard. However, a full 24-hour and an annual standard for PM2.5 is under consideration in the review of the Air NEPM, which is nearing completion.

In 2014, Launceston, Hobart and Devonport recorded 11, 1 and 0 days respectively with measurements above the 24-hour average advisory reporting standard for PM2.5. It is clear that further reductions in ambient particle levels, particularly in Launceston, will be required in order to meet the proposed new national 24-hour average standard for PM2.5, expected to come into effect in the next year or so.


Base-Line Air Network of EPA Tasmania (BLANkET)

Tasmania’s air quality monitoring network known as BLANkET (Base-Line Air Network for the EPA Tasmania) is now firmly established. It presently consists of 26 automatic monitoring stations concentrated in clusters around the State in addition to instrumentation at the three main stations at Hobart, Launceston and Devonport. All stations report real-time air quality and meteorological data to a central computer and the data are made available to the general public almost immediately via the website at www.epa.tas.gov.au/epa/real-time-air-quality-data-for-tasmania.

The real-time readings of the BLANkET stations are incorporated into the public health alerts provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on its website at www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/peh/alerts/air. The Asthma Foundation of Tasmania also takes data feeds and presents BLANkET data on its website at www.asthmatas.org.au/smoke-warning. In 2014-15 the BLANkET network continued to operate with a high degree of reliability and data availability.

Work using the BLANkET network continued in 2014-15 on monitoring smoke outside the major population centres in order to understand the concentration and movement of smoke in small towns and urban areas and to better estimate the extent of population exposure. Work undertaken by the EPA in recent years has shown that winter smoke levels in many Tasmanian towns are comparable to, or greater than, the smoke levels measured at Ti-Tree Bend station in Launceston.

Table 2 summarises the air quality data, collected in winters of 2014 (1 May to 3 September), from 17 ‘urban’ type stations in the BLANkET network. The table ranks these stations on measured air quality and illustrates that winter air quality recorded

Domestic Smoke Management

The Domestic Smoke Management Program (DSMP) is an initiative of the EPA, which started in 2012 in response to the growing understanding that poor winter-time air quality is widespread in many Tasmanian towns and urban areas. The focus of the program is community education on air quality issues and how to reduce smoke emissions from domestic wood heaters through effective operation. Air quality monitoring surveys using vehicle-based Travel BLANkET and smoky chimney surveys are also conducted as part of the program to enable appropriate information to be conveyed to specific households.

Part of the DSMP is realised through a series of annual collaborative projects with local government known as the Burn Brighter this Winter (BBtW) projects. In 2014, BBtW project was focused in Longford. A major objective was to implement communication and engagement activities, developing relationships with local interest groups, residents and key influencers. Project group members attended a range of events and meetings conducted by community interest groups located in the Longford area, providing interaction with small groups of residents and community leaders. A series of public information stalls were also held in Longford to raise awareness of BBtW and provide residents with a forum to discuss aspects of the project with project members.

During 2014, monitoring data was collected from a BLANkET station located in central Longford and from a series of Travel BLANkET surveys. Figure 3 shows a representation of the results of seven separate evening Travel BLANkET surveys with blue symbols representing low smoke levels, green symbols representing elevated smoke levels and red symbols representing very high smoke levels.

at a number of these stations was poorer than that experienced in Launceston over the same period. For these stations, both the winter-mean PM2.5 and the number of winter days with average PM2.5 over the national reporting standard of 25 μg/m3 were greater than those recorded at the Launceston station. Note that the data in this table are indicative (non-reference) data from the BLANkET network.

2014

Station Name

No.

of d

ays

with

dai

ly

mea

n P

M2.

5 abo

ve 2

5 µg

/m3

Dai

ly m

ean

PM

2.5 (

µg/

m3)

ove

r th

e en

tire

win

ter

peri

or

Longford 561 261

New Forfolk 54 22

Hadspen 49 22

Perth 49 22

Greeveston 31 19

Westbury 22 17

South Launceston 19 14

Launceston (TTB) 15 14

Deloraine 112 162

Ulverstone 63 133

Huonville 4 12

Hobart (NT) 2 10

Campbell Town 2 10

Wynyard 0 8

Lilydale 0 8

George Town 0 5

Smithton 0 6

Notes: All PM2.5 measurements were obtained using indicative (non-reference) level BLANkET instruments. (1) Longford: No data collected from 31 May to

3 June 2014 inclusive.(2) Deloraine station was removed on 2 July 2014. (3) Ulverstone: data collected between 4 June and

31 October 2014.

Table 2. Monitoring results for 17 ‘urban’ BLANkET stations for winter 2014 over 126 days (1 May to 3 September)


Visual searches for flues considered to be emitting excessive smoke were also conducted and all plume sightings were logged. An example of a chimney emitting what is considered to be an excessive amount of smoke is shown in Figure 4, while Figure 5 shows the approximate locations of excessive plumes (nominally greater than 10 m in length) in Longford, from sighting data from four separate evening searches, plotted on a latitude–longitude grid.

Figure 3. A representation of evening smoke levels in Longford, 2014.

Note: Blue symbols represent low smoke levels (around 10 μg/m3), green symbols represent elevated smoke levels (around 50 μg/m3) and red symbols represent very high smoke levels (around 100 μg/m3 and higher).

Figure 5. Locations of chimney smoke plumes considered to be ‘excessive’ in Longford, 2014

Figure 4. An example of an excessive smoke plume from a domestic residence, winter 2014.

In addition to the BBtW 2014 monitoring activities undertaken in Longford, a number of short-term (2 to 4 week) continuous air quality monitoring campaigns were also undertaken at residential properties in other communities. These data have provided insights into the level of population exposure to smoke experienced by residents living in close proximity to domestic wood heaters and have also highlighted the extent of the variation of smoke levels within these communities.


Invermay Case Study

One such short-term monitoring deployment was undertaken at a residential property in Invermay using a fixed, easily relocatable BLANkET monitoring station which was deployed for a period of 14 days. Monitoring data collected indicates that day-averaged PM2.5 levels were consistently high at the deployment location for the entire duration of the survey. Conversely, data from the Air NEPM monitoring station at Ti-Tree Bend, approximately 1km away, indicated that PM2.5 levels were more variable but generally lower during this period. The PM2.5 levels measured at these two stations, illustrated in Figure 6, are an indication of the substantial spatial variation in particle concentrations that can be measured across a given urban area.

The AirRater Project

The EPA’s Air Section is one of a consortium of institutes and agencies that successfully bid for an Industry Research grant from the Tasmanian Sense-T organisation. A grant of just over $800,000 dollars was awarded in May 2014 for the ‘AirRater’ project. The AirRater team consists of leading researchers in the fields of environmental health, with specialities in air pollution, pollen, smoke and heat. The collaborative project is between the Menzies Research Institute, UTAS School of Biological Sciences, EPA, CSIRO, ANU and the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The aims of the project include the development of a smart-phone app that will allow users to report air-related health symptoms and, in the longer term, receive personalised alerts. The grant will also fund five new BLANkET stations, which will provide additional network cover in the south and south-east of Tasmania.

Coordinated Smoke Management

Smoke from planned burning is a continuing issue of public concern in Tasmania as it can impact on human health, environmental amenity, tourism and viticulture. Although other sectors contribute, most of the concern to date surrounds burning activities undertaken by the forestry industry and by the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) in autumn.

Since 2009 planned burning activities undertaken by the forestry industry and by the PWS have been conducted using the Coordinated Smoke Management Strategy (CSMS), developed by the Smoke Management Working Group (SMWG) and in accordance with the Smoke Management Guidelines of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The SMWG is made up of representatives from the FPA, Forest Industries Association of Tasmania, Forestry Tasmania, Tasmania Fire Service, DHHS, PWS and the EPA. In 2014 the newly formed Fuel Reduction Unit of the State Fire Management Council also joined the SMWG. The proposed large increase in the total annual area of planned burns in the State’s Fuel Reduction Strategy will likely see an increased level of smoke in Tasmania at certain times. The EPA will continue to monitor ambient smoke levels from these planned burns and provide analysis to burn managers and agencies to further improve smoke management practices.

The CSMS requires burners to make daily bids for burn units in a given air shed. Bidding is managed by an automated web-based system devised by the FPA. The total burn unit allocation is set with reference to meteorological and other considerations. In accordance with established continuous improvement principles, the outcomes of the CSMS are reviewed each year to improve its future operations. Air quality data from the EPA’s BLANkET monitoring network is used to facilitate this process.

Figure 6. 24-hour average PM2.5 (BLANkET) levels at Ti-Tree Bend and Invermay, winter 2014

Note: Ti-Tree Bend air station (blue line) from 15 May to 1 September 2014 is compared with the 24-hour average PM2.5 levels measured at Invermay (red line) during the interval 2 July 2014 to 16 July 2014. The horizontal blue dotted line represents the Air NEPM national advisory standard of 25 μg/m3.


The Smoke Management Guidelines provide for improved planning of smoke dispersal using data and air dispersion models developed by the Bureau of Meteorology. When the guidelines predict poor smoke dispersal, the CSMS provides for restrictions to be imposed to ban or limit the number and size of burns. In this way the strategy operates to minimise the risk of high concentrations of smoke developing within individual air sheds.

The EPA facilitates the management of planned burns by:

• being the agency responsible for receiving and responding to planned burn smoke complaints from members of the public

• monitoring smoke from planned burning activities, in near real-time, using the state-wide BLANkET network and other air monitoring stations at Hobart, Launceston and Devonport, and

• undertaking studies of smoke concentrations and movements to inform the public, to assist burners in smoke management and to improve the operation of the CSMS. Reports written for these purposes are available on the EPA website.

In the 2015 autumn planned burn season, a total of 21 smoke complaints were received from the public. This is an increase over the 11 complaints received in 2014 but is comparable to the number for the 2013 season. Of these 21 complaints, there were nine from the Huon Valley and six from the Derwent Valley. In both of these regions burning is often conducted near to populated areas, hence the potential for smoke impacts is high.

Several complaints were also received in October 2014 related to a planned burn conducted on the upper West Coast, smoke from which subsequently

Figure 7. Tamar Valley under smoke in October 2014 due to fire on the West Coast

Figure 8. An example of an odour modelling result from the CALPUFF air dispersion model

entered the Tamar Valley. A full analysis of this October 2014 smoke event was presented in BLANkET Technical Report 29 published on the EPA website. A photograph of the smoke from this burn that reached the Tamar from the burn on the West Coast is shown in Figure 7.

management approach to guide regulatory authorities and industry in the maintenance and improvement of Tasmania’s air quality. Air emissions from existing or proposed industrial facilities are assessed against the criteria provided in the policy. This policy is currently under review as part of the statutory 10-year review of Environment Protection Policies, and a review report has been prepared on the Minister’s behalf.

The majority of industrial air quality assessments undertaken in 2014-15 were for facilities with a potential for producing odour emissions. These included assessments of several proposals for new industrial wastewater treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, a rendering plant and an asphalt plant. Other assessments undertaken included proposals for increases in production, particularly for mines and quarries, and the use of alternative fuels and feeds for industrial facilities.

In assessing the impacts of air emissions from industrial facilities, air dispersion models are often employed. These models take into account pollutant emission rates, meteorology and terrain to predict the likely impacts on the surrounding environment. A number of air dispersion models are used by the EPA. An example of an odour modelling result obtained from the CALPUFF model is shown in Figure 8.

Feedback from the users of the CSMS indicates that burn managers are able to make more informed decisions concerning smoke movement and dispersion, in part as a result of the BLANkET monitoring system and the analyses carried out by the EPA.

Industrial activities

The Air Policy implemented in 2004, provides a framework for the management and regulation of emissions to air for pollutants with the potential to cause environmental harm or nuisance. In particular, the policy sets out a


The EPA’s GoalsClean Water HIGHLIGHTS

During the year the EPA has contributed to this goal by:

• Assessing new development proposals and existing Level 2 activities, particularly the management of potential impacts on surface and ground water quality from emissions into water bodies. An example is the assessment of ambient monitoring and discharge management plans for sewage treatment plants.

• Maintaining the currency of the Oil Spill Response Atlas (OSRA), implementing strategic programs to identify priority areas for protection from oil spill events, and maintaining competency of personnel for responding to such events.

• Involvement in strategic ambient water monitoring programs including the Derwent Estuary Program and the Macquarie Harbour Water Quality Program to assist in water quality management planning.

• Conducting hydrodynamic assessment of water bodies and the plume dynamics from point sources of potential pollution.

• Specialist advice to Scientific and Technical Steering Committee and working groups for Fresh Water and Estuarine Ecological Health Assessment Programs as part of the Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Program (TEER) and the D’Entrecasteaux Scientific Working Group as part of the D’Entrecasteaux and Huon Collaboration Program.

• Implementing a program to derive water quality objectives consistent with Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 and the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.

• State’s representation for the review and development of the National Water Quality Management Strategy and the suite of documents forming the Strategy which influence the State’s policy development; and participating in the review of the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Marine and Fresh Water Quality and Australian Guideline for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting, which are to be released in 2016.

Water Quality

The overarching principles and objectives for water quality management in Tasmania are provided in the State Policy on Water Quality Management (1997). The management framework within the State Policy provides for the implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) which is the main mechanism for water quality management in Australia. Under the NWQMS, the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 has been through several stages of review and is due for release in 2016 through a web based platform supported by the Australian Government. A number of other existing NWQMS guideline documents continue to be reviewed.

Under the State Policy, Protected Environmental Values (PEVs) have been set for all of Tasmania’s waterways, including estuaries. Maps of land tenure for the associated PEVs have been prepared and are available on the EPA website.

The State Policy requires the development of ambient water quality objectives, which are used as a measure of success of strategies and actions required under the Policy for the management of pollution from point and diffuse sources of emissions to surface waters and groundwater. The water quality objectives are not used to set regulatory limits but are used in water

Water quality that is safe for community use and meets environmental requirements is a critical concern of the EPA. The EPA aims to achieve sustainable development and management of water quality by implementing State and national guidelines, best practice environmental management and accepted modern technology. The EPA has been pursuing this goal by implementing the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, which is the main legislation controlling water quality in Tasmania, and the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.


quality management for maintaining or enhancing water quality and furthering the objectives of the Tasmania’s Resource Management and Planning System. Draft water quality objectives and guideline values have been prepared for the protection of environmental values including protection of aquatic ecosystems, assessment of waste minimization programs, and reduction of emission of pollutants to waterways.

For the development of regional water quality objectives, the State has been divided up into eco-regions. These consist of four freshwater hydrological regions, three flushing class for estuaries and nine mesoscale marine bioregions (Figure 9). Water quality guideline values for the protection of aquatic ecosystems have been proposed for the 48 catchments within the hydrological regions and for critical events in the estuary flushing classes.

Hydrodynamic assessment of water bodies and the plume dynamics associated with discharging wastewater (effluent) into waterbodies is important in assessing potentially impacted areas. The equipment used by the EPA to study the current flow direction and velocity in the waterbody is an acoustic doppler current profiler. The equipment also assesses plume movement within the waterbody through measuring the suspended particulates originating from the discharge.

A 3D presentation of suspended particulates for tracking the plume is presented in Figure 10. The colours in the image indicate the levels of suspended particulates within the plume with red indicating the highest level. Some 15,000 measurements have been used to create the 3D image of the plume during a falling tide. A tight “chimney” of effluent rises into the surface waters where it spreads in a predominantly southerly direction and the lower portion of the plume moves in a north-easterly direction in the bottom water current.

Figure 9. (Eco) Regionalisation of Tasmanian Surface Waters

Figure 10. 3D presentation of suspended particulates for tracking the plume migration


Wastewater Management

In Tasmania, there are 32 Level 1 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) which treat an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of less than 100,000 litres a day (flow rate less than100kL/day). These WWTPs, which service smaller communities, are regulated by local government and are not discussed in detail in this report.

The EPA regulates 82 Level 2 WWTPs around the State. These are the largest WWTPs with the capacity to treat an average dry weather flow of over 100,000 litres per day (equivalent to sewage from a town of about 400 people) and which statewide treat nearly 50,000 megalitres of domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater. Of these, 79 are operated by TasWater, two are operated by Parks and Wildlife Service, and one is operated by the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority. The majority of these WWTPs use secondary treatment (70 out of the 82) while 11 provide for tertiary treatment and one uses primary treatment only.

Regulation of these plants involves:

• Enforcement of permit and Environment Protection Notice (EPN) conditions

• Review and amendment of permit and EPN conditions

• Enforcement of environmental legislation and regulations

• Inspection, review and oversight of activities for compliance and environmental performance, and

• The investigation and follow-up of environmental complaints and incidents.

The objective of this regulation is to ensure that pollutant discharges to the environment (to waterways or land based recycled water schemes) are reduced to the maximum extent that is reasonable and practical having regard to best practice environmental management. The EPA has been assisting TasWater in developing its capacity to improve the environmental outcomes of wastewater treatment plant operation. This is being done through provision of direct advice, minimising duplication of legislative requirements, reviewing EPA’s wastewater policies and guidelines, and updating of older permits.

During 2014-15, the EPA continued to focus on its strategic aim of moving WWTPs towards operating in line with the principles of the Tasmanian State Policy on Water Quality Management, 1997. This year a risk-based approach to regulatory compliance activities was implemented. It focussed on compliance assessment and ensuring adequate environmental monitoring to assess the effects of discharges from wastewater treatment plants on the state’s waterways. Specifically, the EPA has reviewed 57 Ambient Monitoring Plan (AMP) submissions (in most instances multiple

draft AMP reviews were needed), and made 179 WWTP compliance assessments, recording non-compliant results in 42 instances.The EPA also invested resources into two key areas that are indirectly related to regulation of WWTPs. The first is a review of TasWater’s draft wastewater management plan covering the period 2015-18; and the second is the development and maintenance of information systems for effluent quality, ambient monitoring and compliance data.

The review of TasWater’s draft wastewater management plan is important work because it is helping to align the EPA and TasWater priorities for investment in wastewater infrastructure and management. The Plan sets out upcoming priority projects at WWTPs and forecasts capital expenditure associated with these projects, and it also outlines a strategic approach to address broader wastewater management issues such as reticulation performance, incident response and lagoon desludging. These measures will help address the history of poor regulatory compliance in the wastewater sector and improve the quality of our environment. Table 4 shows the latest data available for TasWater’s operation of 79 WWTPs, which is primarily for 2013-14.

Table 4. Latest wastewater data available for 2013-14


Measure Performance

Total annual volume of wastewater treated by all Level 2 WWTPs

57 718 ML of wastewater per annum. This represents an increase of 15% from the previous year and is most likely linked to climatic factors, particularly increased rainfall.

Number of Outfalls to environment Of the 79 Outfalls, 13 were classified as marine discharge, 32 as estuarine or bay discharge and 34 as inland waters discharge. These categories are unchanged from the previous year.

Volume of effluent discharged to waterways annually

The majority of effluent was discharged to estuarine waters (30 092 ML or 54.1% followed by discharge to coastal waters (12 951 ML or 13.4%) and then inland waters (5 239 ML or 9.4%).

Volume of effluent reused annually 5 239 ML (or 9.4%) of effluent was beneficially reused, typically involving the irrigation of golf courses, agricultural land (e.g. pasture and seed crops) and municipal recreational areas. This proportion has risen again from 8.5% in the previous year, which was more than the proportion of total wastewater reused in 2011-12 at 6.5%, and represents the greatest volume of effluent discharged to reuse schemes achieved since the beginning of State of Industry Reporting in 2009 (see Figure 11).

Comparative sewage treatment levels Approximately 43 866 ML (77.3%) of all wastewater was treated to secondary standard, 7 696 ML (13.6%) received tertiary treatment and 5 155 ML (9%) received primary treatment. The majority of effluent discharged to reuse schemes continued to be treated to secondary standard. These proportions have remained fairly constant since 2009.

Sewage treatment plant compliance with current permits and EPNs where discharging to waters

Compliance has been calculated for TasWater as a single statewide entity and is compared against back calculations of statewide performance by the regional entities in previous years. Flow-weighted compliance with regulatory discharge to water limits has gradually decreased since the hand-over of the sewerage infrastructure from local councils to the regional water corporations and then TasWater. TasWater achieved approximately 84% compliance with the regulatory discharge to waters limits, compared to compliance of 91% in 2009-10. It is evident that the performance of the treatment plants operated by Taswater lags significatly behind the performance achieved by plants for similarly sized population centres on the mainland.

Sewage treatment plant indicative compliance with accepted modern technology (AMT)

Not surprisingly, compliance against more stringent AMT limits, which represent the likely requirements to be placed on new and existing plants, is significantly lower than compliance with current regulatory limits. Flow-weighted AMT compliance for 2013-14 is 63.2%, which is an improvement from the previous year.

Compliance with discharge to land limits A comparison of compliance against ‘Class B’ quality expectations over time shows that compliance levels have declined by approximately 5% over the course of the last five financial years. Whilst compliance remains at 91.8%, the downward trend in performance is concerning.

Number of wastewater treatment plants compliant at all times

Five WWTPs achieved 100% compliance with their respective regulatory discharge to waters limits during 2013-14, one less than in 2012-13.

Biosolids reuse Biosolids reuse involves managing biosolids safely and sustainably to beneficially utilise their nutrient, energy or other values. This may include biosolids which are used beneficially in agriculture (e.g. fertiliser), for soil conditioning, mine rehabilitation and other applications recognised as reuse. Approximately 6 700 tonnes of biosolids were stockpiled on site at various WWTP premises, awaiting determination of options for their end use. However, the proportion of stockpiled material decreased in 2013-14 from the previous year, whilst the proportion of material beneficially reused has increased, from around 16% in 2012-13 to 56% in 2013-14. This change can be attributed to the commencement of beneficial reuse of stockpiled material from the WWTPs at Ti-Tree Bend and Wynyard.

Table 4. Latest wastewater data available for 2013-14


Measure Performance

Notifications relating to wastewater incidents Under certain circumstances detailed in EMPCA, the EPA must be notified of a pollution incident. Wastewater related incidents typically relate to wastewater spills to land or water, or are odour related. The EPA uses this data to identify and address systemic issues. During 2014-15, the EPA received 235 notifications of wastewater related incidents, compared with 559 in 2013-14, and 325 in 2012-13.

State of industry reporting and discharge limit compliance

The EPA continued its contribution to the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage State of the Industry Report 2013-2014, which shows that TasWater achieved approximately 84% compliance with the regulatory discharge to waters limits and 91.8% compliance with discharge to reuse limits. To account for WWTPs of varying hydraulic capacities, the flow weighted average of individual WWTP compliance is used as the value representing overall compliance. By this measure, compliance with discharge to water limits has gradually decreased since the hand-over of the sewerage infrastructure from local councils to the regional water corporations (1 July 2009) and then TasWater (since 1 July 2013).

National Performance Reporting The National Performance Report 2013-14: urban water utilities compares TasWater’s performance with other Australian water utilities with a similarly sized customer base. Under the Report’s definitions, TasWater falls within the major utilities (large) with 100,000+ customers. With 79 level 2 WWTPs, TasWater manages many more plants than other utilities in this cohort (the others operate between 1 and 27 WWTPs). TasWater faces significant challenges in achieving compliance levels with comparable utilities. In 2012-2013 only one Australian utility with a similar sized customer base reported a compliance percentage lower than TasWater. Eleven utilities reported better compliance than TasWater with most reporting close to 100% compliance.

Figure 11. Trend in the proportion of reuse in WWTPs in Tasmania over the past five years

Table 4. Latest wastewater data available for 2013-14 - Continued

Derwent Estuary Program

The Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) is a regional partnership between local governments, the Tasmanian Government, industries, scientists and NRM groups to restore and promote the estuary. The DEP was established in 1999 and has been nationally recognised for excellence in coordinating initiatives to reduce water pollution, conserve habitats and species, monitor river health and promote greater use and enjoyment of the foreshore.

In 2014-15, the EPA supported the DEP through a cash contribution of $142,000, provision of analytical services, resources and personnel to support its water monitoring program, participation in technical committees, and other administrative assistance.

Key projects carried out in 2014-15 included:

• Signing of a new five-year Partnership Agreement to continue the program (Sept 2014)

• Monitoring of ambient and recreational water quality

• Publication of the State of the Derwent Estuary 2015, a summary of five years of science and management

• Derwent Science and Management symposium (June 2015)

• Weed control (rice grass and karamu)

• Investigations of heavy metals in sediments and biota

• Little penguin and spotted handfish conservation

• Promotion of foreshore walking tracks through the Greater Hobart Trails website

• Delivery of rocky reef, saltmarsh and wetland educational resources to teachers, students and the community, in partnership with the PWS Discovery Rangers, and

• Technical and financial support to assist the establishment of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel Collaboration.


The EPA’s Goals Clean Land

• Audited waste management facilities across Tasmania including the majority of putrescible landfills and composting sites to assess compliance.

• Continued to collect waste data based on the Tasmanian Waste Classification System, including information from a range of non-municipal sources such as industrial recyclers as well as Local Government, to provide a picture of Tasmania’s overall recovery rate.

• Regulated controlled waste approvals and authorisations, including registration of transport of controlled waste, including the shipment to other states.

• Through the Waste Advisory Committee, received the final report which was commissioned by the three regional waste bodies and the EPA, to investigate the economics of introducing a landfill waste levy in Tasmania and its impact on the cost of living.

HIGHLIGHTS

During the year, the EPA has contributed to this goal in the following ways:

• Increased understanding of the types of risks associated with trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at the automotive parts facilities at Mowbray and Rocherlea, Launceston. The Director, EPA has issued an Investigation Notice on the Rocherlea site and a Remediation Notice on the Mowbray site.

• Conducted 138 searches for information on the potential contamination of specific properties.

• EPA endorsement of the Site Contamination Practitioners Australia (SCP Australia) certification. From 1 July 2015, where a contaminated sites report is to be submitted for the Director, EPA’s approval or input, this document must include proof that the report’s author or reviewer is certified under the SCP scheme.

• EPA guidelines associated with the decommissioning of storage tanks under the UPSS Regulations were amended to bring them in line with the varied ASC NEPM. Between July and December 2014, Decommissioning reports were required to be provided along with Decommissioning Forms to ensure the standards provided under the ASC NEPM were being adhered to.

Land contaminated by environmentally hazardous materials can potentially affect the health and amenity of communities and taint surface and ground waters, and this represents a burden for future generations. The EPA has been pursuing the goal of clean land by using the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulations 2010 (UPSS Regulations) to prevent future contamination and to remediate past contamination.


Contaminated Sites

The EPA Director has a number of legislative tools under Section 74C of EMPCA that can be used to require a polluter, or in some instances a land owner, to investigate, remediate or manage contamination issues at a site. Works must completed to the appropriate standards, such as the National Environment Protection [Assessment of Site Contamination] Measure 1999 (varied in May 2013) (ASC NEPM) which is a State Policy under The State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

The Contaminated Sites Unit has been working closely with other State Government departments as well as with environmental consultants with expertise in this field in order to gain a better understanding of the types of risks associated with trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at the automotive parts facilities formerly operated by ACL Bearings at Mowbray and Rocherlea, Launceston. Both sites are known to be contaminated with TCE at levels where there is a potential risk to the health of workers inside the factories as well as excavation workers. The EPA Director has issued an Investigation Notice on the Rocherlea site and a Remediation Notice on the Mowbray site. Works are currently underway at both sites to further determine the nature and extent of the risks associated with on-site contamination at both locations. A tally of contaminated sites notices issued by the EPA Director along with UPSS activity is shown in Table 5.

Waste Management

The EPA is responsible for the regulation of a number of waste management facilities across Tasmania and oversees a range of regulatory programs associated with the transport, treatment and disposal of waste. During 2014-15, EPA officers audited most of Tasmania’s waste depots including the majority of Tasmania’s putrescible landfills and composting sites. The audit findings showed that Tasmania’s waste depots are, in general, operating in accordance with their permit conditions. The majority of non-compliances were associated with failing to supply required documentation such as Annual Environmental Reviews in a timely manner. Monitoring results for groundwater and surface waters, as required by permit conditions, were also reviewed.

Landfill operators and compost facilities are required to prepare annual reports for the EPA and provide waste data based on the Tasmanian Waste Classification System. The Waste Section of the EPA also receives information from a range of non-municipal sources such as industrial recyclers and this information helps to provide a better picture of Tasmania’s overall recovery rate.

Tables 6, 7 and 8 outline the waste composition and recycling statistics for Tasmania over the last seven years. Improvements in data collection and waste classification have resulted in a more accurate profile of waste generation and recycling in Tasmania by each sector. The reported recovery rate in Tasmania is currently just over 37 per cent and this figure is based on the best available data at the time of report preparation. Ongoing improvements in waste data collection are expected to result in a better understanding of waste generation and therefore a more accurate analysis of Tasmania’s recycling performance.

The reporting of Construction and Demolition waste generation is considered to be too low based on national benchmarks. It is therefore unlikely to accurately reflect the actual level of activity and waste generation within this sector. The main reason for low reporting in this sector is that most of the State’s Construction and Demolition waste ends up in clean fill sites, as the definition of clean fill in Tasmania is quite broad, and clean fill is currently not required to be reported under the Tasmanian Waste Classification System.

The EPA continues to monitor the storage and disposal of end-of-life tyres. There are currently no approved tyre recycling facilities in the State and this has resulted in an increase in the numbers of tyres stockpiled at approved and unapproved sites. The EPA and Local Government are working co-operatively to ensure that the storage of tyres is undertaken in accordance with Tasmanian legislation and in an environmentally responsible manner.

The EPA works closely with Local Government in relation to data collection and information sharing, to establish a more comprehensive understanding of the movement, resource recovery and disposal of materials across the state within the Local Government Sector.

Activity or performance indicator 20

10-2

011

2011

-201

2

2012

-201

3

2013

-201

4

2014

-201

5

Notices issued addressing land or groundwater contamination

19 17 12 10 7

Notices completed/withdrawn

NR 13 11 21 6

UPSS decommissioning forms received

30 47 26 11 10

UPSS sites newly registered

365 58 20 8 14

Table 5: Notices under EMPCA and activity under UPSS Regulations over the past five years


Controlled Waste

Each year the EPA issues consignment authorisations for controlled wastes entering Tasmania from interstate. Table 9 provides a summary of controlled waste approvals and authorisations over the past three years. Most of the consignment authorisations for 2014-15 were issued to the Australian Antarctic Division for waste returned to Australia from the Antarctic (known as RTA Waste). The remaining consignment authorisations originated from Victoria, supporting a trial currently being conducted for the use of material as an alternative fuel. Controlled waste that cannot be disposed of in Tasmania is also shipped to other jurisdictions for reuse, processing, or disposal. During 2014-15, 445 certificates were issued for controlled wastes to be shipped to Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland.

The disposal of low-level contaminated material to landfill requires EPA approval. During 2014-15, approvals were issued for the disposal of approximately 14,347 tonnes of this type of material. The tonnage listed during this reporting period has increased considerably as a direct result of the waste arising from significant development projects including the Parliament Square Redevelopment and the UTAS Residential Development.

During 2014-15, officers supporting the EPA audited disposal records from a number of Waste Depots and composting sites to ensure that they were operating in compliance with their permit conditions. A number of breaches relating to reporting requirements were found, but there were no significant breaches of other permit conditions.

Each year the EPA receives requests from Tasmanian businesses to approve the handling of controlled wastes under Regulation 12 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2010.

Waste (Tonnes) Landfilled Recycled Composted Generated Recovered

2007/08 419,800 51,880 32,692 504,372 16.77%

2008/09 398,523 51,493 25,466 475,462 16.18%

2009/10 386,803 96,740 40,411 523,954 26.18%

2010/11 445,553 112,945 43,931 602,429 26.104%

201/12 460,467 159,633 41,298 661,398 30.38%

2012/13 471,921 182,193 42,748 696,861 32.28%

2013/14 398,603 200,380 37,642 636,625 37.39%

Table 6. Waste generation (tonnes) and recovery rates over the past seven years

Waste Breakdown by Sector %

Municipal Commercial and Industrial

Construction and Demolition

2007/08 56.00% 38.50% 5.50%

2008/09 40.51% 53.02% 6.47%

2009/10 41.10% 51.76% 7.13%

2010/11 38.47% 52.82% 8.70%

2011/12 36.99% 56.25% 10.11%

2012/13 38.75% 40.05% 19.19%

2013/14 42.43% 50.69% 6.88%

Table 7. Waste disposal rates by sector over the past seven years

Waste Breakdown by Sector (Actual Tonnage)

Municipal Commercial and Industrial

Construction and Demolition

Total

2007/08 235,088 161,623 23,089 419,800

2008/09 159,370 208,558 25,446 393,374

2009/10 158,993 200,223 27,586 386,802

2010/11 171,412 235,356 38,785 445,553

2011/12 164,800 250,608 45,059 460,467

2012/13 182,891 198,454 90,575 440,748

2013/14 169,109 202,065 27,429 398,603

Table 8. Waste tonnage by sector over the past seven years


Environmental Approvals issued under this Regulation are usually for a period of between 12 months and two years. There are also a number of Environmental Approvals that have been operating with extensions beyond two years.

(Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010. Exemptions from registration are only approved in exceptional circumstances. During 2014-15, one application for an exemption was received, which was subsequently refused. The remaining five

Waste Management Group), David Hurburgh (Department of State Growth), John Mollison (DPIPWE), Jamie Wood (industry representative) and Nigel Shearer (community representative). The Committee met three times during the year.

A primary role for the Committee is to investigate options for funding mechanisms to deliver the waste and resource management strategy, with supporting programs and initiatives. Other key roles for the Committee are to facilitate and seek consensus amongst stakeholders on appropriate waste programs and initiatives for Tasmania, and to provide recommendations on priority areas in waste and resource management.

The Committee supported a proposal for a study into the economics of introducing a landfill waste levy in Tasmania and its impact on the cost of living, which was commissioned by the three regional waste bodies and the EPA Board. The study was undertaken by MRA Consulting, and the final report was accepted by the Committee in January 2015. Following presentation to the Board, the report was published on the EPA website.

The Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Matthew Groom, accepted an invitation from the Committee to attend its January 2015 meeting, to discuss the concept of a waste levy for Tasmania. Committee members presented the case for a state-wide levy to the Minister, who requested examples of practical projects that might be implemented in Tasmania to improve waste management, irrespective of the source of funding.

Subsequent to the meeting, the Committee compiled a list of potential projects, and forwarded it to the Minister. The projects spanned a wide range of issues, ranging from some of state-wide and regional significance to those having a local focus, and which would engage the community.

Number of Approvals and Authorisations 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Consignment Authorisations – Waste into Tasmania 24 24 26

Interstate Waste Transport Certificates – Waste out of Tasmania 340 411 445

Waste Approvals 83 62 73

Industry Audits 2 1 0

Environmental Exemptions Issued 4 11 0

Environmental Exemptions Total 4 15 5

Environmental Approvals Issued 34 38 49

Environmental Approvals Total 42 67 53

Table 9. Controlled Waste Approvals and Authorisations over the past three years

Number

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

2013

-14

2014

-15

Registrations Issued

68 26 17 18 14

Total Registrations

74 98 113 127 141

Table 10. Controlled Waste Transport Certificated of Registrations Issued over the past five years

The EPA regulates the transport of controlled waste. Transporters must be registered to transport controlled waste, and must comply with the conditions attached to their registration. Currently, 141 businesses are registered to transport a range of controlled wastes, and during 2014-15 there were no revocations of registrations and 14 Registrations were issued (see Table 10).

current exemptions, which were issued in previous financial years, were granted for the transport of asbestos, contaminated soil, and waste mineral oils. The holders of such an exemption must comply with all the handling conditions that registered transporters must comply with.

Waste Advisory Committee

The Waste Advisory Committee is established as a Committee of the EPA to oversee and guide implementation of the Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2009. The Strategy provides a framework for the coordinated management and delivery of waste avoidance, waste reduction and resource recovery initiatives, practices and services in Tasmania.

Membership of the Committee in 2014-15 comprised John Ramsay, Chair EPA Board (until 31 December 2014), Warren Jones, Chair EPA Board (from 1 January 2015), David Sales (Southern Waste Strategy Authority), Harry Galea (Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group), Sandra Ayton (Cradle Coast

The Director has the authority to exempt persons or companies from the requirement to be registered under Regulation 24 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control


The EPA’s Goals Acceptable Noise HIGHLIGHTS:

During the year the EPA has addressed noise pollution by:

• Undertaking the assessment of potential impacts from noise and vibration from new Level 2 Activities and for a number of proposed expansions to existing Level 2 Activities.

• Reviewing the operating conditions relating to noise and vibration from existing Level 2 Activities. For example, an increase in noise was identified at one activity where two old cooling towers had been replaced with two new units with very different fan configurations and this will require some form of mitigation. In another example, the EPA successfully encouraged a significant reduction in ground vibration from production blasts at a hard rock quarry.

• Providing advice and technical assistance to local government Environmental Health Officers in relation to managing noise from Level 1 Activities and general neighbourhood noise.

• Providing technical support to the current review of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations 2014.

The responsibility for regulating noise generating activities and equipment is spread across a number of authorities in Tasmania, including the EPA, the Marine Farming Branch of DPIPWE, Local Government Authorities and Tasmania Police. The EPA provides technical support to some of these authorities, particularly where the issue in question is uncommon, complex and/or likely to reoccur. To support Local Government in dealing with noise complaints, the EPA provided a presentation during the year on aspects of noise at a Local Government workshop on environmental nuisance.

The EPA carries out noise surveys to assess the noise impact of potentially noisy activities and to provide reference measurements for reviewing changes to the acoustic environment. The surveys are currently based on high-quality audio recordings, typically lasting about one week. About 250 such surveys have been undertaken over the past 13 years, with 22 conducted over the past 12 months. Of these 22 surveys, 12 have been carried out in relation to vessel noise in the Huon River and D’Entrecasteaux Channel areas, and five surveys were in support of local government and included trail bikes, heat pumps and early morning horse training. The locations of the surveys are presented in Figure 12. Apart from the concentration of surveys in the Huon and Channel areas, the locations for surveys undertaken in the past year tends to fall close to areas where previous surveys have been undertaken. These areas include the population centres and some rural/urban interface areas.

Figure 12. Locations of noise surveys undertaken by the EPA

Continued exposure to unacceptable noise levels can have an adverse effect on human health and the community’s quality of life. The Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009 (Noise EPP) was formulated as a framework to guide management of noise in several key areas including planning, transport infrastructure development, commercial and industrial activities, and domestic and miscellaneous sources of noise. The EPA also addresses environmental nuisance occurring from noise sources by implementing the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.


The EPA’s GoalsSustainable Use of Resources

HIGHLIGHTS:

During 2014-15, the EPA contributed to the achievement of its sustainable resource use goal by:

• Continuing with its environmental education program in schools and conducting two teacher training sessions for science teachers and environmental educators, attending community events, visiting schools and conducting waste-related workshops at the Kids4Kids environment conference in November 2014.

• Continuing with the development of Tasmanian teaching resources about waste and waste minimisation in line with the National Curriculum, which will enable teachers to deliver hands-on, interactive lessons about waste, from Kindergarten to Grade 6.

• Developing the Sustainability in Practice program which aims to promote Tasmanian business demonstrating sustainability.

• Continuing its sponsorship of the EPA Sustainability Award under the Tasmanian Community Achievement Awards run by Awards Australia.

The EPA is looking to promote Tasmanian businesses through the EPA website where they provide examples of good practice sustainability in action. The aim of the Sustainability in Practice program is to encourage and promote sustainability in Tasmania, to share practices so that activities, industries and whole sectors can follow suit, and to assist in advancing and demonstrating Tasmania’s clean green brand.

The EPA is a naming rights sponsor of the Sustainability Award category in the Tasmanian Community Achievement Awards, run by Awards Australia.

The EPA Sustainability Award is designed to recognise businesses and organisations demonstrating a commitment to sustainability, particularly in regard to waste minimisation and resource recovery. This might include limiting consumption of energy, water and materials and minimising the output of wastes – reducing, reusing and recycling. Sponsorship of the Award is a way for the Board to promote its vision and encourage businesses and organisations to become environmental innovators in whatever sector they belong. Submissions are received for projects or initiatives that have resulted in measurable improvements, showing demonstrable benefits, not only for the business or organisation involved but also for the wider community and/or industry sector.

The winner of the EPA Sustainability Award in 2014, which was announced by the Minister for Environment, the Hon Matthew Groom at a Gala dinner last November was Hazell Brothers Group. The remediation of their Leslie Vale Quarry drew together staff to collect seed from local species and propagate them in a custom built nursery made from recycled materials sourced from Hazell Bros construction sites. The rehabilitation project has minimised the impact of storm water run-off, erosion and has maintained the biological diversity of species at the Quarry.

This year’s Awards were officially launched by the Premier of Tasmania in May 2015. EPA Board members attended the official functions and presented speeches to open the call for nominations.

The first objective of the Resource Management and Planning System is to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity. Hence, sustainability is at the heart of the EPA’s mission and is reflected in its vision for a Tasmania that is clean, healthy and sustainable – meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.


The EPA’s ActivitiesDevelopment Assessments

After the initial scoping phase for each assessment, the EPA provides guidance detailing information that the proponent must provide to enable the assessment to proceed. When satisfactory information has been submitted by the proponent, comments on the proposal are invited from the public and relevant government agencies. The proponent may subsequently be required to provide additional information to assist the EPA Board in its assessment.

A publicly available environmental assessment report describing the Board’s evaluation of environmental impacts is prepared for each proposal. The Board may either refuse the proposal or require a Planning Authority to impose conditions should it permit the proposal. In some cases the Board can cause the Director to issue an Environment Protection Notice to contain conditions. Conditions imposed are to prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.

During the 2014-15 year, 15 assessments were completed (as listed in Table 11), compared to 21 in 2013-14 and 19 in 2012-13. Detailed information for each assessment, including the Board’s assessment reports and permit conditions, is provided on the EPA website under Completed Assessments.

A bilateral agreement between the State and Commonwealth governments means that the EPA Board’s assessment of development proposals, which also require Commonwealth approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth), may be accepted by the Commonwealth for the purposes of making its approval

decision. Table 12 provides details of assessments that were either completed, or were in progress under the bilateral agreement in 2014-15.

In total, 38 assessments were in progress at the close of the 2014-15 year, compared to 35 at the end of the previous year. Many of these proposals relate to the mining, quarrying and mineral processing sector. Proposals for a wind farm, wastewater treatment plants, a wood processing facility, a waste management facility, a rendering plant and an asphalt plant make up the remainder. A list of active assessments which have been formally lodged with the EPA is available on the EPA website.

The Board’s Statement of Intent includes performance measures, which are aimed at ensuring that the Board carries out its assessments according to the EMPCA. Statutory timeframes apply to those stages of the assessment process that are under the control of the EPA. Performance measures are the number of assessments completed within the timeframes required under section 27H of EMPCA, and the number of assessment decisions appealed and overturned because of incorrect procedures. In 2014-15, 100% of assessments were completed within the timeframe and no decisions were appealed and overturned because of incorrect procedures. This compares to the previous year where five of the 66 statutory deadlines were exceeded.

Development proposals for certain activities, known as Level 2 activities, must be referred to the Board of the EPA for environmental impact assessment. On occasion, non-Level 2 activities may be ‘called-in’ by the Director for assessment.


Client Location Activity Date Approved Decision Maker

Gourmet Oil Company (Australia) trading as Hagen Oil

Invermay oil refinery 3/07/2014 Director

NSFP SMARTFIBRE Mobil Rd, Bell Bay woodchip mill 29/07/2014 Director

MSD Constructions Lyell Hwy, Hayes gravel quarry 12/09/2014 Director

Western Tiers Proteins Burlington Rd, Cressy rendering or fat extraction works

22/09/2014 Director

Sattler Pastoral Anderson Bay Sand Mine, Bridport sand mine 22/09/2014 Director

Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Direens Corner, Rosebery wastewater treatment plant

4/11/2014 Director

Fulton Hogan Industries East Ridgley asphalt plant 24/11/2014 Board

Australian Bauxite Off Macquarie Road, Campbell Town quarry 26/11/2014 Director

Mancala Resources Off Murchison Hwy, Guildford mine 17/12/2014 Board

Southern Midlands Council Interlaken Rd, Oatlands quarry 4/02/2015 Board

MSD Constructions Lyell Hwy, Tarraleah quarry 3/03/2015 Board

Flinders Council Palana Road, Lughrata quarry 24/04/2015 Director

C A & S M Williams Tea Tree quarry 8/05/2015 Board

Newood Huon Huon Wood Centre, Lonnavale laminated veneer lumber mill

22/05/2015 Director

Cunningham Holdings Hylands Rd, Murdunna quarry 18/06/2015 Director

Table 11. Completed EPA Assessments for 2014-15

Client Location Activity Status

Bluestone Mines Tasmania Joint Venture Renison Bell Mine, Renison Bell tailings storage facility in progress

Elementos Cleveland Mine, off Waratah Rd, Luina

mine and tailings reprocessing in progress

Forward Mining Rogetta Rd, southeast of Hampshire mine and mineral processing in progress

Indicoal Mining Australia Off Lyell Hwy, Hamilton coal mine in progress

Low Head Wind Farm Low Head Wind Farm, Soldiers Settlement Rd, Low Head

wind farm in progress

Mancala Resources Burns Peak Forest Reserve, off Murchison Hwy, Guildford

mine completed

Venture Minerals Mt Livingstone, off Pieman Rd, Tullah

mine and material handling in progress

Venture Minerals Mt Lindsay Tin-Tungsten-Magnetite Mine Project, off Pieman Rd, Tullah

mine and mineral works in progress

Australian Hualong Off Trial Harbour Road, Zeehan mine in progress

Table 12. Assessments completed/in-progress under the Commonwealth-State bilateral agreement 2014-15


The EPA regulated 377 industrial premises during 2014-15. These premises vary in intensity, scale and complexity, and the environmental risks presented also span a wide range. Premises types include energy generators (wind farms) and suppliers (Bass Link), food and beverage processors, metallurgical and chemical plants, wood processing facilities, mines and extractive pits.

EPA’s regulation of industrial activities incorporates a risk-based approach to the monitoring of compliance via a scheduled program of inspections, audits and reviews to assess compliance and follow-up actions to address identified problems. Regulatory activity undertaken by the EPA also involves responding to complaints and incidents commensurate with the nature of their environmental risk.

Compliance is assessed with regard to conditions set by the EPA, which are generally contained in permits issued by planning authorities. These conditions reflect state and national legislation, Codes of Practice, guidelines, the Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM), Accepted Modern Technology (AMT) and adherence to the principles of continual improvement, which relates to the expectation that standards can, will and should change over time.

All EPA regulated activities must operate in accordance with conditions set by the EPA. The conditions attached to permits may be varied by issuing an

The EPA’s ActivitiesIndustrial Regulation

The EPA is Tasmania’s environmental regulator for Level 2 industrial activities as defined under EMPCA. This regulation is undertaken to ensure that environmental or community risks are managed and do not result in unacceptable impacts.

Environment Protection Notice (EPN). Typically the conditions for a Level 2 Activity are revised periodically, either when a new Environmental Management Plan is received, or if there is a change in the nature of operations or the risk of environmental harm occurring. Conditions are reviewed more frequently for higher risk premises. Less frequently, stand-alone EPNs are issued in order to require clean up or to prevent environmental harm or environmental nuisance.

Compliance is also assessed through the review of activity-specific data, such as plans, monitoring data and associated reports as required under conditions. Documents that are required to be provided include Environmental Management Plans, Annual Environmental Reviews, Mine Closure Plans, Care and Maintenance Plans, and Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plans. Large, complex premises and premises that present higher risks to the environment tend to have a greater number of such requirements imposed upon them.

During 2014-15, the EPA issued 46 EPNs, undertook 51 compliance audits and conducted 193 site inspections in its compliance activities for Level 2 industrial operations. Table 13 (on page 36) lists the notable regulation activities undertaken in 2014-15 under the industry sectors of Food and Beverages, Minerals, Chemicals and Metallurgical/Wood Processing, and Mining and Extractives.


Food and Beverages

Western Tiers Proteins The company’s rendering plant at Cressy received a permit for expansion in September 2014, and commenced operation in February 2015. The rendering plant currently processes red meat from its neighbour, Tasmanian Quality Meats’ abattoir. Processing of salmonid fish species is not permitted due to the proximity to Petuna Seafood’s adjacent fish hatchery.

Ashgrove Cheese The company’s wastewater holding and irrigation system at Elizabeth Town was re-located in February 2015 to another site on the property. This was to increase the distance from neighbouring residents, as odour from the dam was causing environmental nuisance. A revised Irrigation Management Plan is being developed for the new site.

JBS Australia The company continued to address odour nuisance at its North West Rendering plant in Devonport. It tested and upgraded biofilters, and replaced the extraction fan housing to improve negative pressure within the building. Trials of alternate boiler fuel sources and investigation of technologies to reduce particulate emissions have occurred.

Seafish Tasmania A further reduction in the number of odour complaints received suggests that the incidence of nuisance odour emissions continued to decline. This followed significant operational improvements at the company’s fish waste rendering plant at Triabunna. Some complaints of odour from the plant continue to be received and further improvement in environmental performance remains a priority.

Cascade Brewery Noise and odour surveys, which were required under permit conditions issued for the new wastewater treatment plant at the Cascade Brewery, have not indicated any environmental concerns and no environmental complaints arising from the operations of the wastewater treatment plant have been received.

Australian Weaving Mills The company has submitted a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan, including an Environmental Site Assessment, which is under review.

Lion Dairy and Drinks Allied with the project to expand production at its Burnie Cheese Factory, the company negotiated a trade waste agreement with TasWater for the discharge of its wastewater to sewer. The company is in the process of constructing an on-site wastewater treatment plant to meet prescribed effluent quality parameters by October 2017. In the interim, the company has submitted and received approval from the Director for a Wastewater Irrigation Transition and Emergency Management Plan which is now in the process of being implemented. This is to manage the existing wastewater irrigation onto adjacent farmland and the subsequent phased transition away from this practice.

Greenham Tasmania The company sought approval to trial pyrethrum briquettes at its Smithton Abattoir, as an alternative fuel to coal in the boiler. The pyrethrum briquettes proved to be a viable alternative fuel, however stack testing during the trials showed an exceedance of the particulate matter (PM) atmospheric emission limits. The company has since installed a bag house emissions filtration system on the boiler exhaust to reduce emissions to within the limits specified by the EPA.

Expansion of Inland Fish Farms for the Salmon Industry

Continued growth of the salmon industry is driving expansion of the inland fish farms which supply the marine farms with smolt. The EPA has been involved in the review of development proposals for new and expanding fish farms and has assisted Councils and the Inland Fisheries Service (IFS) by providing technical advice on environmental issues associated with water quality, management of wastewater and solid waste disposal. The industry is making major investments to increase production using recirculating aquaculture systems, which reduces water usage and effluent for a given production level. The EPA and IFS jointly conducted a review of the environmental performance and regulation of inland fish farms. The review found there is a need for consistent environmental regulation across the industry to ensure appropriate environmental standards are met for both existing and new activities.

Table 13. Industrial regulation activities undertaken during 2014-15


Minerals, Chemicals and Metallurgical/Wood Processing

Nyrstar Hobart The company continues to work collaboratively with the EPA to manage environmental aspects of the zinc works, including remediation of legacy issues. A number of projects associated with the change in ore types to be processed by the Nyrstar Hobart Smelter have been considered by the EPA.

Temco The company conducted an extensive investigation into an increase in frequency of furnace pressure trips which for safety reasons result in increased emissions to atmosphere. The investigation resulted in improved maintenance practices and changes to computer control systems. Instances of furnace pressure trips and atmospheric emissions have been significantly reduced as a result.

Former Tioxide site The EPA assessed the progress of the rehabilitation of the historic Tioxide sludge dams following ten years of leachate treatment through the Echo Projects Bioremediation System. As a result of this review the environmental bond was released as the monitoring demonstrated that the leachate no longer poses an environmental risk.

Wood Processing The EPA is working with Forico to ensure that the re-commissioning of its Surrey Hill woodchip mill is done in an environmental responsible way, such as ensuring appropriate management of contaminated soils.

Mining and Extractives

Acidic and metalliferous mine drainage (AMD) Prevention of AMD from mines continues to be a major focus for the EPA. The EPA has been working closely with a number of mines to better manage the surface storage of acid producing mine waste rock and prevent long-term issues. These efforts have included improving the engineering design of waste rock dumps to provide for encapsulation of acid producing material, incorporation of alkaline materials into the dumps and better monitoring of the performance of oxygen exclusion mechanisms through gas, temperature and effluent analyses. Long term disposal under a water cover remains the preferred option for management of potentially acid forming materials. Proposals to achieve water covers were progressed at sites, including the Renison Mine and Nelson Bay River Mine.

Rehabilitation The EPA has overseen the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the Moina Gold Mine and a number of small quarries. Rehabilitation of the Blackwood coal mines (1-3) and Huntsman 2 mine at Fingal progressed during the year.

Care and Maintenance The Nelson Bay River Mine and Riley Creek Mine were placed on Care and Maintenance by their operators in response to a down-turn in the iron-ore price. This is in addition to a number of other mines the EPA is currently regulating under Care and Maintenance, including: Avebury (nickel), Mt Lyell (copper), Mt Bischoff (tin), Hellyer (base metals), Que River (base metals), Comstock (zinc) and South Hercules (zinc). The Mt Lyell Mine was placed in Care and Maintenance following fatalities at the site. The company has undertaken a number of important projects during this period, including the raising of the Princess Creek Tailings Dam embankment to provide for sufficient water cover over the tailings.

Quarries Blasting at a basalt quarry in Kindred has on occasions exceeded the requirements of permit conditions for ground vibration and air blast over pressure. The EPA is working with the operators and their blast management contractors to ensure that future blasts are compliant. Current blasting is being more closely monitored and the present permit conditions are being reviewed.

Environmental Innovation Cement Australia Holdings continue to investigate a range of alternative fuels and raw materials in its cement making process. A number of materials typically considered as waste are able to provide valuable sources of energy and beneficial chemistry to the cement product. The performance of each material is evaluated through a trial program requiring comprehensive stack testing and product analysis overseen by the EPA.

Wind Farms The EPA has worked collaboratively with operators of Musselroe, Bluff Point and Studland Bay wind farms to address environmental issues. Efforts have been directed towards understanding eagle species’ behaviour and utilisation at the sites, genetic profiling of eagles, and offsetting impacts on eagles.


The EPA’s ActivitiesCompliance and Enforcement

The EPA’s Compliance Policy is published on the website. It describes the regulatory approach, regulatory tools and major considerations supporting decisions about compliance and enforcement responses. Compliance management activities include providing an overview of the enforcement system to ensure appropriate and consistent compliance actions are taken by the Director. They also include managing legal advice, auditing referred statutory and enforcement instruments, and providing compliance advice and training to support the EPA’s regulatory functions.

Enforcement activities include:

• managing the investigation of alleged offences and prosecution of referred non-compliance matters under environmental legislation administered by the EPA;

• preparing evidence to facilitate proposed environmental litigation in forums such as the Magistrates Court of Tasmania and the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal; and

• continuing to focus compliance effort on education and assisting environmental compliance.

The EPA also administers the Litter Reporting System. In 2014-15 there were 441 reports received, from which 240

litter infringement notices were issued. The majority of the reports were received through the EPA’s website reporting facility. A detailed verification process is conducted of litter reports to confirm the facts and credibility of the report, and to provide feedback to litter reporters.

Notable Enforcement Activities 2014-15

Table 14 provides a comparison of the Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Activities undertaken in 2014-15 compared with the previous four years. It shows that in 2014-15, there was one litigation completed by Court or Tribunal, nine prosecutions by Infringement Notice, six Written Warnings, 10 Referred Matters Commenced and 240 Litter Infringement Notices Issued.

The EPA finalized Court action against a controlled waste transport business in September 2014, for offences under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2010. The Tasmanian company was ordered to pay $5000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to three charges in relation to the disposal of liquid waste into a roadside drain and the disposal of sewage at two recreational facilities without approval.

A list of the Infringement Notices and associated fines is shown in Table 15.

Activity Indicators 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Litigation Completed by Court or Tribunal

1 — 1 — 1

Prosecutions by Infringement Notice 19 10 12 11 9

Written Warnings 5 — 7 3 6

Referred Matters Commenced 33 11 10 14 10

Litter Infringement Notices Issued 371 436 389 280 240

Written Warnings – Litter 16 18 12 5 —

Litter Abatement Notices Issued 4 — 4 3 —

Table 14. Environmental compliance and enforcement activities over the past five years

The EPA Division supports the Director by conducting compliance management and enforcement actions under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA), the Litter Act 2007, the Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act 1987, and the Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 2013.


Table 14. Environmental compliance and enforcement activities over the past five years

Incident Response

The EPA responds to environmental incidents and public complaints relating to the environment. The response to incidents reported varies depending on the circumstances and perceived or assessed risks in each case. Reports of significant incidents are investigated to determine the circumstances of the event, reduce potential impacts on the environment and public health and gather evidence to determine potential regulatory offences.

The EPA operates a 24 hour/seven day per week statewide environmental incidents and complaints reporting hotline (1800 005 171). Approximately half of the incidents, complaints and notifications received by the EPA were received by telephone during ‘out of hours’ periods.

In 2014-15 over 600 incidents, complaints and notifications were reported to the EPA. Some of the significant incidents attended by the EPA during the period included:

• The EPA responded to a number of small incidents where vessels had sunk or grounded. No significant spills occurred as a result of these incidents.

• The EPA responded to two incidents of mass fish deaths during the period. Both events were investigated and the deaths were attributed to natural causes.

• A significant number of dead juvenile Barracouta were reported in the River Derwent in the New Norfolk area.

• Residents of Scamander reported a large number of dead bream in the Scamander River. The EPA worked with NRM North and Break O’Day Council to investigate if the deaths were due to pollution

Infringements Fine

An earthmoving company was fined for unauthorised transport of a controlled waste, namely transformer oil, in the south of the State in August 2014.

$2100

A company was fined for arranging the removal of a controlled waste without approval, namely transformer oil, in the south of the State in August 2014.

$1400

A West Coast mining company was fined for three counts for contravention of an Environment Protection Notice (EPN), in relation to management of waste rock between August 2013 and October 2014.

$2100

A West Coast mining company was fined for contravention of an Environment Protection Notice (EPN), resulting in a chemical spill into the Henty River in May 2014.

$650

A water management authority was fined for depositing a controlled waste into recreational waters, due to the failure of a wastewater treatment plant in the south of the State.

$1400

A water management authority was fined for depositing a controlled waste into recreational waters, due to the failure of a wastewater treatment plant in the north of the State.

$1400

A water management authority was fined for depositing a controlled waste into recreational waters, due to the failure of a wastewater treatment plant in the north of the State.

$1300

Table 15. List of Environmental Infringement Notices issued in 2014-15

• Tasrail reported a significant derailment at Colebrook in Southern Tasmania. The derailment resulted in two locomotives and approximately 20 containers leaving the track. A number of containers were damaged and spilled. Materials included significant quantities of poultry oil, sugar and fish meal. All these materials presented a risk to the environment due their high nutrient content. The spill was successfully remediated with the assistance of the EPA.

• Huon Aquaculture reported the sinking of a vessel at its Hideaway Bay site. The EPA assisted by providing boom in an effort to contain fuel and oil leaking from the vessel.

• The EPA received advice that a pleasure craft had grounded at Taroona Beach after hitting a submerged rock. The EPA responded and assisted with containment of diesel from the ruptured fuel tank.


The EPA’s ActivitiesSavage River Remediation Governance and funding

Under the Goldamere Pty Ltd (Agreement) Act 1996, Grange Resources is indemnified from responsibility for the historical AMD and its effects. The Goldamere Agreement, which provides the basis for the SRRP, was recently extended to the end of 2034, which aligns with Grange Resources’ ‘life of mine plan’ for the site.

The EPA oversees the SRRP, which has a strategic plan that is updated annually. The SRRP Management Committee, with representatives from the EPA, Mineral Resources Tasmania and Grange Resources, is responsible for the day-to-day progress of the project. The project has two related sources of funding: the SRRP Environment Protection Fund is cash held in trust provided by the previous mine operator when they relinquished the lease; the second funding source derives from the Purchase Price Agreement, under which Grange performs agreed remediation activities to the value of the original purchase price of the mine. At 30 June 2015, the approximate balances of those funds were $13.5M and $7.9M respectively.

Summary of activities

SRRP activities in 2014-15 included both new and ongoing investigations into the long term management of the AMD, implementation of remediation initiatives, and activities to monitor and evaluate the performance of the project. Key activities included the following:

• Completion of the Old Tailings Dam Comprehensive Surveillance Report by GHD Pty Ltd to fulfil responsibilities and appropriate dam safety management guidelines, as the asset owner.

• Completion of the honours project titled Geochemical and mineralogical characterisation of tailings: Evaluating the benefit of water covers as a rehabilitation strategy, Savage River Mine, Tasmania, by Laura Jackson. This thesis examined the possibility of using water to cover

tailings in the Old Tailings Dam to prevent further oxidation and acid generation. Practical difficulties are likely to prevent this potential solution from being implemented.

• Completion of small project by UTAS titled Characterising pyrite chemistry at the OTD: evaluating tailings reprocessing as a management option. This investigation undertook light microscopy and laser multi-spectral analysis of samples taken for Jackson’s honours project to determine the mineralogical composition of these tailings. This information will assist investigations as to the potential value of the tailings, which the study found to be high in cobalt.

• Construction of the Old Tailings Dam pipeline was completed in early 2015. The pipeline enables AMD contaminated water to be piped to other sites within the mine for neutralisation. As this is the most significant source of AMD at Savage River, the completion of the pipeline will provide remediation options for the life of the mine.

• Continuation of monthly water quality monitoring program. This program of sampling is conducted by Grange Resources staff, with analyses conducted by Analytical Services Tasmania.

• Completion of an independent Water Quality Review by Technical Advice on Water, which analysed monthly water quality data from the Savage River and tributaries in the vicinity of the mine site, to evaluate the effectiveness of completed remediation works and direct future work.

The Savage River Rehabilitation Project (SRRP) operates as a cooperative partnership between the EPA and the operator of the Savage River Mine, Grange Resources. The aim of the SRRP is to remediate pollution resulting from the previous mining operation, between 1967 and 1996. This acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD) caused significant and ongoing environmental harm to the Savage River and tributaries. A major focus of the project is to promote the recovery of a modified but healthy ecosystem in the Savage River downstream of the mine and promote fish migration into the upper Savage River.


• Initiation of a three year contract to maintain water monitoring equipment and provide telemonitored data for the nine water monitoring points within and proximate to the mine site. This contract continues on from previous annually renewed contracts, and will be delivered by Entura.

• Stage one of the Savage River Toxicology Targets Review project was undertaken by Hydrobiology Pty Ltd, and the findings presented to the SRRP Management Committee. This review was recommended by the Water Quality Review, which found that changing proportions of contaminants, including reduced copper loads, warranted investigation as to potential impacts on downstream ecosystems.

The evaluations of AMD remediation work undertaken to date in this long-term project consistently show that the activities are having the intended effects, with improving water quality trends observed downstream of the mine. The industry / government partnership continues to operate effectively and efficiently in the delivery of collaborative solutions to this significant environmental problem.


The EPA’s Activities Community Engagement In 2014-15, some key activities

were sponsored by the Board in line with the purpose of the Fund.

• The Board continued its sponsorship of the EPA Sustainability Award as part of the Tasmanian Community Achievement Awards run by Awards Australia. The EPA Award is focused on rewarding businesses and organisations that have developed and implemented initiatives that demonstrably delivered measureable improvements in waste and resource efficiency.

• The Board provided $1000 towards promoting the EPA Sustainability Award at the Sustainable Living Festival in November 2014.

• In November 2014 the annual Kids4Kids environment conference, coordinated by the Tasmanian Department of Education, as supported by the second round of funding from a three year funding arrangement from the Environment Protection Fund. The sponsorship arrangement was used to support school children, especially from remote or outlying areas, to enable them to attend the conference, which encourages the students to examine the sustainable use of Tasmania’s natural and physical resources.

• The Board continued its support of the Governor of Tasmania’s annual environmental scholarship, with three scholarships being awarded to students in February 2015. The Governor’s Environment Scholarships are an industry and government sponsored program designed to encourage students with an interest in environmental management. The Scholarships are funded by organisations that have a commitment to excellence in environmental practices in Tasmania, including the EPA, Bell Bay Aluminium, Hydro Tasmania, TasNetworks,

SEMF, Nyrstar Hobart and Local Government Association Tasmania. The future sustainability of Tasmania is greatly assisted by partnerships and the Governor’s Environment Scholarships are an inspiring example of what can be achieved by working cooperatively towards a common goal.

Media and Communications

EPA communications were managed through the EPA’s Communications Co-ordinator. In 2014-2015, the EPA produced 15 media releases on a range of topics including incident response, assessment approvals for level 2 activities and litter fines; and responded to 42 media enquiries.

The EPA website www.epa.tas.gov.au was updated regularly with media releases, latest news, information and communiqués of the monthly EPA Board and Waste Advisory Committee (WAC) meetings. An EPA newsletter was not produced during the financial year.

Grants and Scholarships

The Environment Protection Fund (EPF) was established in 1996 under s97 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). The Fund generally consists of money obtained through the payment of fees and charges under EMPCA but may be increased by grants or provision by Parliament or through any investment of funds. The Fund is designed to support projects to protect, restore or enhance the environment, reduce pollution and promote sustainable use of resources.


The EPA’s Activities Finances

Members Date

Mr J Ramsay 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Mr I Abernethy 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Ms L Cherrie 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Dr H Locher 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Mr W Jones 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015

Mr A Ferrier 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015

Ms C Murdoch 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015

Prof C Buxton 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015

Deputy Members

Dr C Mucha 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Mr W Jones 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Mr A Ferrier 1 July 2014 – 31 December 2014

Mr H Galea 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015

Mr J McCambridge 1 January 2015 – 30 June 2015

Table 17. EPA Board Members and Deputy Members for 2014-15

Branch Budget FTEs EPA Support

Directorate 435,676 2.0 95%

Policy and Business 2,782,347 27.5 60%

Scientific and Technical 2,016,218 20.2 100%

Environmental Operations 3,443,758 31.7 100%

Totals 8,677,999 79.4

Table 16. Breakdown of budget figures for EPA support across the EPA Division

Financial information relates to the operation of the EPA which is constituted of a Board of four independent members and the Director, and supported by the activities undertaken by the EPA Division, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

EPA Division Budget Supporting the EPA

In 2014-15, the EPA Division’s operating budget was $11,966,000. Of this $8,677,999 was allocated to branches that fully or partially support the EPA. The proportion of these branch budgets and staff allocated to support the EPA is shown in Table 16. Further financial details relating to the EPA Division’s activities, are contained within the 2014-15 Annual Report for the Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and the Environment.

Remuneration of Board and Committee Members

The Chair was paid pro-rata $30,652 per annum and the members were paid $18,032 per annum. The total of remuneration paid was $84,422. Members that were entitled to remuneration for membership in the 2014-15 are shown in Table 17. Deputy members were paid sitting fees as required according to their attendance.

EPA BoardGPO Box 1550HOBARTTASMANIA 7001 www.epa.tas.gov.au

at+m

550

77

Annual Report 2014 -15 - EPA Tasmania › Documents › EPA Annual Report 2014-15_web… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Report 2014 -15 - EPA Tasmania › Documents › EPA Annual Report 2014-15_web… ·...