Contaminated Land Auditors, Green Tape, ERAs and Waste

Contaminated Land Auditors

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has established the framework for assessing and approving auditor applications. Individuals applying to be a contaminated land auditor can refer to the draft prescribed guideline and draft prescribed code of conduct when completing and submitting the application form.  There are concerns this will make for a lower standard for contaminated site auditors who will find it easier to get their Qld certification.  Due to interstate licensing recognition requirements Qld qualified auditors will be permitted to operated in all other Australian states.

Green Tape Reduction

The Forms and fees finder: environmental authorities is an interactive web tool developed by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection to help business and industry understand the requirement for applying for a new environmental authority and managing their existing environmental authorities (for example, amending, amalgamating, transferring and surrendering their environmental authority).

This tool translates the licensing framework for both prescribed environmentally relevant activities (ERAs) and resource activities in the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to a question and answer format.

The tool prompts users to select all their ERAs and identifies their application requirements, from the correct application form and annual fee to which environmental considerations should be covered in an application.

Draft eligibility criteria and standard conditions

The Environmental Protection 1994 allows for standard applications for an environmental authority to be made for certain lower-risk activities. A standard application is one where the activity is subject to eligibility criteria and standard conditions. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection has prepared 19 sets of draft eligibility criteria and standard conditions for activities such as screening, small sewage treatment plants and meat processing.

The proposed eligibility criteria and standard conditions for the 19 prescribed ERAs have been released for public consultation.

One can use the template and the Consultation information sheet – Draft eligibility criteria and standard conditions for ERAs – Supporting information and making submissions when preparing your submission. Submissions close on 19 August 2013 and can be sent to: Epact.Policy@ehp.qld.gov.au

Waste Management Review

The Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 expires on 1 September 2013. A review of the regulation has been undertaken and a discussion paper outlining several options is now available for comment.

Submissions close on 22 July 2013. You can email submissions to: Epact.Policy@ehp.qld.gov.au

oil and gas Safety and Health Fee

I note a trend in State Governments where administrative costs are extracted from the industry sectors they oversee.

I am interested in your views on the changes in the oil and gas industry with the new fee structure.  What are the implications for your industry?

Will the proposed changes make environmental compliance simpler? Will fees provide a stable funding base to deliver critical safety and health functions?

The Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee was introduced on 1 July 2010.

The fee system was designed to cover the cost of the State Government’s activities carried out for the purpose of safety and health for petroleum and gas operations in Qld.

There was a revision of the way the Petroleum and Gas Inspectorate was funded.

Since then, there has been a restructure the State Government departments.  Depending on where one is operating and what one is doing, Petroleum and Gas operators will also be subject to laws for:

·        environmental protection,

·        land protection,

·        native title,

·        strategic cropping land.

A discussion paper was circulated to stakeholders in early 2012 to allow industry to provide comment on whether there were any unintended overlaps in the fees, whether the fee system covered all industry sectors effectively and whether the fees could be more efficiently applied or administered. As a result of that consultation it is proposed to further amend the fee system.

The unprecedented growth in the size and complexity of Qld's onshore petroleum industry required the regulator to extend its regulatory operation to keep pace.

Now, Industry is encouraged to provide comment on a discussion paper, ‘Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee - Post Implementation Review and Regulatory Impact Statement.’

The consultation process is being used to assess the impacts of recommended amendments to regulations for the Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee.  The adjustments to the Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee were designed to better reflect the range and level of compliance checks required for various industry activities.

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines inspectorate carries out audits, inspections and investigations of petroleum exploration and production, pipelines, automotive LPG, gas users, and licensing for the installation and servicing of domestic, commercial and industrial gas devices. The following permits are governed by the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 and Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Regulation 2004:

·        authority to prospect,

·     petroleum lease (this lease is also governed by the Petroleum Act 1923 and Petroleum Regulation 2004),

·        petroleum potential commercial area,

·        petroleum survey licence,

·        petroleum pipeline licence,

·        petroleum facility licence,

·        data acquisition authority,

·        water monitoring authority.

So why has such new fees been introduced?  In brief: to cover revenue and allocation shortfalls.  The downside in this approach is if that industry sector shrinks, will the scale of the administration also shrink too?

The Petroleum and Gas Safety and Health Fee is expected to raise about $7.1 million next financial year.

The Qld Government’s proposed fee restructure aims to recover costs in proportion to the supervision & intervention required by the inspectorate in areas such as exploration, production and distribution. 

The fee restructure also aims to assist the industry to cover the full cost of running the specialist inspectorate as the Qld Government attempts to reduce the industry’s compliance costs.

The fee goes towards the employment of additional inspectors, continuous staff training and administration of the compliance services.

Inspectors conducted almost 3,500 audits and inspections last financial year.  Petroleum and gas inspectors investigated almost 530 accidents and incidents in 2011-12, involving more than 50 injuries but no fatalities.

Proposed measures include annual returns instead of quarterly reports and a better explanation of the 15 fee categories used to determine companies’ fees.

These changes are based on feedback to the Qld Government through consultation with industry operators.

For more information visit the Department of Natural Resources and Mines website

Vegetation Management Amendment

The Vegetation Management Framework Amendment Bill 2013 was referred to the Qld State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee for consideration.  The committee was headed up by the Honourable David Gibson.  

A report was tabled to the House on Tuesday 14 May 2013, recommending the Bill be passed.

The Bill proposes to remove regulations regarding regrowth control on freehold and indigenous land, these regulations will still apply to leasehold land and in reef watercourses.

While it seems inevitable that this legislation will be passed by the Qld LNP Majority Government any day now, it would be nice to have some sensible discussion of the issues.

At one end of the spectrum, the World Wide Fund for Nature are running television and radio advertisements, which they say aims to prevent one of the largest environmental rollbacks in Australia’s history.

At the other end: AgForce's reinstated the AgForce Vegetation Management Committee have been gathering information on their perceived limitations of the current Vegetation Management Act 1999. AgForce are seeking public support for farmers in their bid to sustainably produce food. AgForce are painting Vegetation Management legislation as an unworkable administrative burden.

Greentape & lighthanded regulation

Greentape and “Lighthanded” regulation

The Greentape Reduction legislation introduced by the former Qld Government, prior to the last election is now coming into force on 31 March 2013.

The Qld Government is highlighting two important initiatives from this legislation:

·       the deletion of 20 environmentally relevant activity (ERA) thresholds from the Environmental Protection Regulation and

·       the implementation of a new Regulatory Strategy.

EHP's new Regulatory Strategy is a fundamental shift in the way environmental and regulatory activities will be undertaken, an increase its compliance activities and its enforcement actions will become stronger and more consistent.

One of the department’s first “light handed” actions was to relax processes to provide local governments with flexibility to manage their environmental relevant activities during natural disasters.

The release of the EHP Environment Recovery Plan sets out three key stages in the environmental recovery timeline:

·       Immediate or short term recovery—which aims to meet the immediate needs of affected communities. This includes restoring critical water supply and sewage treatment services.

·       Medium term recovery—which aims to address less urgent, high priority environmental issues and includes activities to manage waste and debris.

·       Long term recovery—which aims to restore the environment to near pre-disaster levels and includes such things as permanent repairs to water/sewerage infrastructure, and restoration of natural areas.

EHP has been working with local governments and industry as it addresses the requirements under the immediate and medium term recovery activities and has established a Local Government Recovery Coordinator to assist local councils with their immediate recovery and reconstruction work.

Gladstone Harbour

Gladstone Harbour is a test case for the Qld State Government’s approach to Environmental regulation in Qld.

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has expressed his desire to annex Gladstone Harbour from the Great Barrier Reef marine Park.

The Qld Government has appointed Dr Ian Poiner as the chair of the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Science Panel for the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.

Dr Ian Poiner who will be joined by a further seven scientists specialising in hydrodynamic, biogeochemistry, marine biodiversity, water quality, marine toxicology, ecosystem health and decision support and modelling.

ERA Thresholds Deleted

I note a the Qld State Government is making a wholesale move towards “A light-handed regulatory model”.  I shall be analyzing and unpacking the implications of this in future editions of this blog.

ERA Thresholds Deleted

The Queensland Government has approved amendments to the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008, including the deletion of 20 environmentally relevant activity thresholds. This will reduce the environmental regulatory burden for 9400 small to medium-sized businesses throughout Queensland. It is estimated that industry will save $6.18 million in annual fees.

The amendments to the Environmental Protection Regulation will take effect on 31 March 2013 to align with the changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 resulting from the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and other Legislation Amendment Act 2012.

removing "ecologically sustainable" from ESD

The Queensland Government is committed to more effective and efficient processing of development applications. 

These changes will be implemented through legislative amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA).

Read more about the Sustainable Planning Act 2009

The Sustainable Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

The Sustainable Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 was passed by Parliament on 13 November 2012.

At planning reform forums in May to July 2012, local governments, the development industry and environmental sector representatives identified that a number of concepts and processes within Queensland's planning and development system could be improved. This information is being used to identify priorities for change over the next 6 to 24 months.

The Bill seeks to achieve planning reform by:

• improving the coordination and responsiveness of state government in dealing with particular development applications (proposing development within or partially within state jurisdiction)
• removing ineffective master planning and structure planning arrangements
• reducing regulatory 'red tape' for development applications involving a state resource
• providing some flexibility to accept a development application where not all the mandatory supporting information has been provided
• providing that certain provisions within the Queensland Planning Provisions also apply to local government planning schemes made under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (repealed)
• enabling the Planning and Environment Court to order costs in certain circumstances
• introducing an alternative dispute resolution process in the Planning and Environment Court for minor disputes which will enable these disputes to be resolved more quickly.

State planning policies

The Queensland Government is establishing a new approach to state planning policies that simplifies and clarifies the state's interests. The new approach means that one single state planning policy will be developed to replace the various current state planning policies in existence.

Sustainable Business Weekly QLD Edition [Waste Wars]

Waste Bans, Priority Product Statements & Product Stewardship!

The current Government formally resolved to respond to repeal the waste levy, to take effect 1 July 2012.  On 10 April 2012 they made good on the election commitment to abolish the former Government’s waste levy.

ASBG wrote to the QLD Government to clarify their intentions with the changes to the waste legislation.  In response, Tony Roberts, Assistant Director-General, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) provided ASBG with a letter stating:

This levy will not be replaced and programs that may have been funded by this levy have been suspended.

ASBG in its correspondence also warned that discontinuation of the levy will make it economically attractive to send wastes from Sydney and the Hunter regions to south east Queensland in a about year.

Mr Roberts responded:

Your concerns in relation to the interstate waste coming into Queensland are noted.  Although the levy will be repealed, provisions of the Act relating to waste disposal and recycling reporting at landfills will be retained.  Information that waste disposal sites will still be required to provide includes the amount and type of waste and where it came from.  This gives the department the ability to monitor interstate waste movements

It is clear levy will not be replaced and programs that may have been funded by the levy have been suspended. However, many aspects of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 have been adopted by the current Qld Government.  When the levy is repealed on the 1 July 2012, the provisions of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 relating to waste disposal & recycling data reporting at landfills will be retained. 

Under s152-153 reporting entities includes landfills and recycling activities as defined under the Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation 2011.   Such entities must provide an annual report on among other things, waste types and amounts collected and as described under the regulations.  Failure to provide a report is $10,000 maximum fine.  There appears no penalty for false or misleading data or reporting.   ASBG has considerable issues with the ability of the DEHP to police and be able to demonstrate miss-representation of the origin of waste arriving at landfills.  Such monitoring appears to rely on the honesty of the waste deliverers.  If there is commercial interest the reliability of such information will be questionable.  

Minister Andrew Powell intends to explore these policy options more fully and develop suitable approaches in consultation with stakeholders.

Provisions of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 allow for the introduction of disposal bans, which is also referred to in Mr Roberts response. Under the existing legislation, the Minister may regulate waste for the purposes of a disposal ban, but only after considering all of the following:

·       Whether prohibition on the disposal of the waste is the most effective point of intervention in the life cycle of the waste;

·       Whether there are viable existing or potential collection systems & markets for  any benefit that may be obtained from not disposing of the waste;

·       Whether the costs of  monitoring, enforcement & market development are proportional to the benefits;

·       Whether voluntary or other measures for the avoidance of disposal have been shown not to be effective;

·       Whether a prohibition on disposal is required to support an accredited product stewardship scheme, a regulated product stewardship scheme or an approved program.

The Minister may also recommend regulation that identifies waste for the preparation of a priority product statement and the use of product stewardship arrangements, to shift the obligation onto waste generators to reduce waste. 

However, a ban will not stop wastes crossing the border.  Free trade between states and territories is a cornerstone of the Australia Constitution.  As such a ban must only cover a specific waste type, but cannot discriminate from where that waste came from within Australia, otherwise it would be unconstitutional.

By ASBG’s reckoning once an economic trigger has been reached transport of wastes from the high levy areas in NSW will head north.  As it seems from this letter the $35/t for non-municipal wastes will no longer apply, then control of the issue shifts to the NSW Government.  This may well end up capping the NSW levy, as NSW Treasury will lose revenue if they set the levy rate too high.  The NSW Government is currently reviewing the Waste and Environment Levy and it will be interesting if they find such an outcome and recommend a maximum cap on levy rates for various levied areas in NSW.

On the other hand the Queensland Government is cutting the cost of waste disposal by removing the levy.  This will not only affect standard commercial wastes, it will also reduce the costs for regulated high and regulated low “hazard” wastes.  ASBG has always had issues with the application of the $150/t and $50/t levy rates for these wastes.  In fact if they had stayed in place such wastes would have had considerable economic incentive to send such wastes across to NSW and pay the northern NSW levy rate.

The loser out of all this levy process will be the environment.  Transporting wastes long distances is a perverse outcome from waste levies purported to improve the environment, where in this case the reverse will occur.  That is unless either NSW or Queensland changes its waste levy position.

why are we walking for water (& sanitation)

Some friends & acquaintances are attempting to organise a Walk.

They are trying to plan a route to or from a place of political significance or media interest in Brisbane. The folks who enforce the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 at Brisbane City Council are making this nigh impossible.

They are trying gather friends, high-profile supporters and politicians to join the walk........and they need your help.

The tentative date for the alleged Brisbane Walks For Water is Friday the 23 March, 2012 at noon (12:00 gmt +10).

They shall rendezvous at Reddacliffe Place and march around the CBD if they can get permission to do so.

They don't have public liability insurance. They have not filled out countless forms or got all the necessary approvals. They just want to organise a walk. How hard can it be?

It is a walk for water & sanitation.

Why is the world walking for water and sanitation in March 2012?

Do you even know what the hell sanitation is?

Let's start with some statistics:

• One in eight people in the world do not have access to safe drinking water.
• One in three people don’t have access to a private clean toilet.

Women and children walk on average six kilometres every day to fetch water for their basic needs. They often walk to unprotected water sources, such as rivers or muddy dugouts, and the average weight of water they carry is 20kg. ( UNDP, Human Development Report, 2006)

2.6 billion people still live without a clean and safe toilet ( UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Report, 2010). Instead, they have only a roadside, bucket or plastic bag to use. This is humiliating and also often leads to water contamination and the spreading of diarrhoeal diseases such as dysentery and cholera.

Women and girls are especially affected by poor sanitation access. They risk being sexually assaulted when using latrines in remote locations or walking to fields to defecate.

4,000 children die every day from diarrhoea caused by unclean water and unsafe sanitation ( WHO, Safer Water, Better Health, 2008).

Diarrhoeal diseases are the biggest killer of young children in Africa, killing

more than HIV/AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

This lack of access to clean water and sanitation impacts severely on health, education and income.

It’s time for change. We are not talking about a change of Government.

The World Walks for Water and Sanitation 2012 is a global event taking place around World Water Day, from 17-25 March 2012. Thousands of people across the world will walk together to demand an end to the water and sanitation crisis. The walks will build on the success of the World’s Longest Toilet Queue in 2010 and the World Walks for Water campaign in 2011. Last year, over 350,000 people in more than 75 different countries walked together to demand that politicians keep their promises and step up their efforts to protect the right to sanitation and water for all.

Because of these global actions, governments are beginning to take notice, promises have

been made, and there has been progress both internationally and within countries. This has

encouraged hundreds of organisations and thousands of people to come together again

in 2012 and keep up the pressure!

In April 2012, world leaders will attend the second High-Level Meeting (HLM) of the Sanitation and Water for All partnership in Washington D.C. It is really important that your Development or Finance Minister attends this meeting. You can take the opportunity of your walk to invite them to attend and demand that real progress and firm actions are delivered upon.