annual report 2012 -13 - epa website annual report 2012-13.pdf · 2012-13 annual report of the...

1ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY - Annual Report 2012-13

Annual Report 2012 -13

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 2012-13.

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:

EPA Board:GPO Box 1550Hobart, Tasmania 7001

Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer © environment Protection authority (Tasmania)

This document may be reproduced in whole or in 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 written permission of the Environment Protection Authority (Tasmania).

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. 50553

Printed on environmentally responsible and carbon neutral papers.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY - annual report 2012-13


Contents

introductionVision and Values/Purpose and Goals 2letter of Transmittal 3 The Year in review 5chair’s Foreword 5

Director’s Foreword 6

about the ePa 8Who We are 9

structure chart 9

What We Do: The ePa’s Functions 10

What We Don’t regulate and Why 11

Our strategy 12statement of expectation/intent 12

strategic Plan 12

General and special meetings 12

Other activities Undertaken by the Board 13

The ePa’s Goals 14clean air 14

air Quality 16

clean Water 19

Water Quality 19 Wastewater management 20 Derwent estuary Program (DeP) 22 Tamar estuary and esk river Program (Teer) 22

acceptable Noise 23

clean land 24

Waste management 25controlled Waste 26Waste advisory committee 26

sustainable Use of resources 27

Development assessments and regulation 28Development assessments 28

regulation 31

industrial Operations 31

achieving enforcement Outcomes 35enforcement 35

incident response 36

remediation Programs 37savage river rehabilitation Project 37

Partnerships and community engagement 38Grants 38

media 38

appendix 1 39Financial information 39

2 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY - Annual Report 2012-13

Vision and Values/ Purpose and Goals

Our VisionA Tasmania that is clean, healthy and sustainable.

Our Purpose To 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


October 2013

Hon Brian Wightman MPParliament HouseHobartTasmania 7000

Dear Minister

2012-13 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 2012 to 30 June 2013.

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

Yours sincerely,

John ramsayChairEnvironment Protection Authority

Letter of Transmittal


The Year in ReviewChair’s ForewordThe independent assessment process that the Board undertakes and administers pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, has in the past year, continued to enable a comprehensive assessment of proposals and projects that require approval under the Act.

To support an application, persons or organisations seeking a permit, must submit to the Board, comprehensive documentation considering and reporting on any environmental impacts of what is being proposed and how those impacts are to be safely managed. The information provided is thoroughly examined for its adequacy by the staff of the EPA Division, and on many occasions further information is sought. When a matter comes to the Board for its consideration, a detailed environmental assessment of the project or proposal has been undertaken, and draft conditions to manage any environmental impacts have been prepared. The Board then considers all the information provided and makes final approval decisions, always attaching condition to approved activities.

The Director’s Foreword outlines a number of the matters that the Board has considered in the past year which have become the subject of public discussion.

It is sometimes overlooked in the context of the public debate on projects, that in undertaking its role, the Board is entirely independent, there being no government or political participation in the decision making process. Further the decisions of the Board are able to be appealed, with the appeal hearing being conducted by the independent Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal.

In its work, the Board has again been well supported in the past year by the professional and expert staff of the EPA Division and the positive leadership provided by the Director of the EPA, Alex Schaap.

Thanks is due to my Board colleagues, Ian Abernethy, Louise Cherrie, Helen Locher and Alex Schaap, for their continued diligent commitment to the work Board and for the breadth of knowledge and experience that they are able to bring to the sometimes challenging aspects of the Board’s deliberations.

John ramsay Chair Environment Protection Authority


The Year in ReviewDirector’s ForewordThe Director 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. Both the Board and the Director are supported by the staff of the EPA Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Our risk based approach to regulation has given us a sound basis for planning our operations for best effect during the year. We have generally been able to attend to our planned priority work while also dealing with the issues that have presented during the year.

In terms of the planned work we are now working systematically through outstanding issues with higher priority regulated premises and making good progress. One example of that is the work we have been doing at Triabunna with the Seafish Tasmania fish waste processing operation. The waste water and odour issues at that plant were really very challenging and affected residents as far afield as Orford. The broader scale odour issues have largely been resolved so that Orford should no longer be impacted but the residents closer to the plant have continued to suffer unacceptable odour impacts from time to time. The company is now working through a detailed improvement program with specific deadlines set in an Environment Protection Notice to ensure that these nearby residents do not suffer another foul smelling summer.

We have also been able to progress our Burn Brighter this Winter initiative which we trialled in Hobart and Launceston last year and expanded this year into the Huon and Meander valleys.


Having identified chronic smoke exposure as a major environmental risk to public health which we felt was within our power to cost effectively address, we allocated a good deal of our air science and community engagement capacity to that end. We are now working very well with Councils to reduce smoke exposure from smoky chimneys and the results to date are encouraging.

Our focus on illegal dumping has also borne fruit during the year with some very pleasing results. We have been working actively with local Government to address unauthorized rubbish dumps and have enlisted the support of other agencies to help us detect offenders. The recent publicity given to the penalties imposed for dumping of vehicles in bush land should reinforce the message that we can and will catch illegal dumpers with the help of other agencies.

Some of our assessments of development proposals have attracted considerable attention in the public domain during the year and are perhaps worthy of further comment. While the Copping controlled waste facility was actually assessed during the previous year, the community commentary on that proposal has certainly extended well into this year. I think it important to point out that the Board appropriately considered the issues relevant to the potential impacts of that proposal on the local environment and despite the considerable commentary since, no issues have since been raised which would cause one to wish to revisit that assessment in any material way. I would argue that this should give the community some comfort about the rigour of the assessment process.

Another topical assessment was the iron ore mine proposed by Shree Minerals near Nelson Bay in the Tarkine region. This assessment was a difficult one for the Board because the geotechnical and geochemical issues were complex and warranted a good deal of careful consideration. The Board concluded that those issues could be effectively managed under appropriate conditions and the Council subsequently approved the development. While public commentary on the proposal has tended to focus upon wilderness values and impacts on Tasmanian devils, these considerations were not of great consequence in this assessment. The mine site is adjacent to active forestry operations, has nearby past quarry activity and is well served by roads and tracks. While it has aesthetic appeal it does not score highly in terms of wilderness values. The Board also concluded that devils use the area and may be impacted by habitat disruption and road kill but those impacts were not likely to be of sufficient consequence to warrant further mitigation measures.

Another Tarkine mine proposal, by Venture Minerals, for the Riley Creek mine near Tullah, has also attracted considerable public comment. This proposal was rather more straightforward as it involves a short term surface mining operation of very shallow iron ore deposits over an area which has previously been heavily disturbed and altered by mining and forestry operations. The issue of concern in this case was ensuring that site rehabilitation would allow for adequate recovery of the natural values of the area and the Board was satisfied that this could be achieved. Again the Board did not see the wilderness or devil issues as warranting further mitigation measures and the Council subsequently approved the development.

In the three cases mentioned above, the Board deliberated carefully on the issues and applied its knowledge and expertise to the wealth of evidence and expert advice laid before it. We made genuinely independent assessments of the issues and came to informed conclusions which are published for all to see. We sought to ensure that the risks which required mitigation were properly addressed by conditions but that conditions were not imposed unless they were genuinely warranted. Those decisions are matters of judgment and clearly not everyone will agree with the Board’s judgments in these cases and may be moved to seek review of them. That actually sounds like a pretty good system to me and, until we can come up with a better one, we will continue to play our part in the process as best we can.

Once again, I would like to express my thanks to the staff of the EPA Division and others within Government who have worked so hard to support the EPA Board and the Director in fulfilling our legislated obligations and duties. The environmental management business can be complex and varied and we are fortunate to have such a broad range of knowledge, experience and expertise to assist us through the many twists and turns we encounter.

alex schaap Director Environment Protection Authority


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

The EPA 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 the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. Through the roles and functions of both the Board and the Director, the EPA is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.

John

ram

say (Chair)

loui

se c

herr

ie (B

oard

Mem

ber)

ian

abe

rnet

hy (D

eput

y Ch

air)

Dr

Hel

en l

oche

r (B

oard

Mem

ber)

ale

x sc

haap

(Dir

ecto

r)


Who We Are

The EPA comprises a Board and Director. The Board has an independent Chair, Deputy Chair and two other independent members alongside the Director.

The members for the period July 2012 to end of June 2013 were John Ramsay (Chair), Ian Abernethy (Deputy Chair), Louise Cherrie (Member), Dr Helen Locher (member) and Alex Schaap (Director). When a Board Member is unable to take their place at a meeting, Deputies are asked to act in their place.

All the members of the EPA Board were appointed on skills merit and bring knowledge and experience of environmental management across a range of fields.

In 2012-13, the EPA Board was supported by staff in the EPA Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. The EPA Division supports the EPA in monitoring and regulating environmental performance and providing the community with information

about the quality of the environment by reporting on key performance indicators. While the majority of the EPA Division’s activities are reflected in this report, the 2012-13 DPIPWE Annual Report also contains information relating to performance indicators for the work of the EPA Division.

executive support

ePa Division

executive support

Policy and Business Branch

assessments industrial Operations

remediation Programs

compliance and incident response

Wastewater management air

environmental Policy and

support services

Waste management Water

Business services

Northern regulation Noise

Derwent estuary Program

Operations Branch

scientific and Technical Branch

analytical services Tasmania

communications

ePa Director

General manager

ePa Board


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

• Promoting Sustainability

What We Do The EPA’s Functions

statutory Functions

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

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

• Ensure that activities do not cause unacceptable pollution,

• Advise the Minister on any matter that may significantly affect the achievement of the objectives of the Act, 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. The WAC was established as a sub-committee of the Environment Protection Authority. 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 Why The EPA 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 environmentThe environmental impact of most commercial premises and smaller industrial activities in the state are regulated by local government. The EPA only regulates larger and specialised activities with a higher level of environmental risk.

Environmental policyThe 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 speciesWhile 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 Resource Management and Conservation 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 the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Division of 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 usePlanning, 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 efficiencyWhile 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 through measures such as the pricing of carbon emissions.


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 and Environment during the year to discuss strategic issues. The Director EPA also had regular meetings with both the Minister and the Secretary to discuss day-to-day operational issues.

During the 2012-13 financial year the EPA Board met formally for a general Board meeting on 12 occasions.

ePa Board members attendances in 2012–13

July

12

aug

12

Oct

12

Nov

12

Dec

12

Feb

13

mar

13

apr

13

may

13

Jun

13

Tota

ls

Mr J Ramsay ••

• • • • • • • ••

• 12

Mr I Abernethy • • • • • • • • • • 10

Dr H Locher • •

• • • • • • • •

• 11

Ms Louise Cherrie • •

• • • • • • • • •

11

Mr A Schaap ••

• • • • • • ••

• 11

Mr J Mollison • 1

• Key - Attended those meetings

Our StrategyStatement of Expectation/ Statement of IntentThe Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 requires the Minister responsible for administering the Act, to provide the Board of the EPA with a Statement of Expectation. The Board of the EPA is required to respond by providing the Minister with a Statement of Intent.

The Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage issued a Statement of Expectation to the EPA on 8 October 2012. The Statement outlined the Minister’s objectives on matters relating to the role and functions of the Authority, to 31 March 2014.

The Statement of Expectation sets out the Minister’s objectives in relation to the EPA Board; the EPA’s relationship with the State Government and the EPA Division, as well as governance matters and priorities for the EPA Board.

While it covers the objectives of the Minister’s role on any matter relating to the functions of the Board, it is important to note that it cannot prevent the Board from independently performing its statutory functions.

The EPA responded to the Minister on 24 December 2012 with a Statement of Intent, setting out how it will meet the objectives within the Statement of Expectation. The Statement of Intent is the blueprint for the Board’s objectives.

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 EPA 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.


Other Activities Undertaken by the BoardDuring 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 new Statement of Expectation from the Minister of Environment, Parks and Heritage and responded with a Statement of Intent setting out how it will address the performance of its functions and powers and achieve its objectives;

• Developed and published its second Strategic Plan after consultation with key stakeholders, which will inform and guide the Board through its processes in the next period to 2015;

• Received updates from the Chair related to the work of the EPA Waste Advisory Committee and agreed the reappointment of the Committee for a further year to progress its current agenda;

• Reviewed operational policies and procedures;

• Undertook an annual review of its delegations of its powers and functions;

• Developed and published guidance relating to community engagement and also information about the Board’s decision-making process;

• Received a report on the decommissioning and remediation of the former Burnie Paper Mill;

• Considered a report on the cost of Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) from abandoned mines and historic mining practices which represent a very significant financial and environmental liability to Tasmania and liaised with the Treasury Department about these concerns;

• Received reports regarding contractual obligations related to the Savage River Rehabilitation Project;

• Determined five applications for the remission of fees under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (General Fees) Regulations 2001 and delegated a number of fee remissions to the Director for decision;

• Received briefings from the Director on environmental issues associated with a number of Level 2 development applications;

• Contributed funding towards the Kids4Kids education conferences for a three-year period to 2015 from its Environment Protection Fund;

• Developed and sponsored a new Sustainability in Industry Award for 2013 from the Environment Protection Fund, delivered through Awards Australia;

• Assisted in promoting environmental sustainability best practice in Tasmania through a call for submissions to the Board to be highlighted through the EPA website and newsletter;

• Commenced work towards developing Water Quality Objectives for Tasmania; and

• Received an overview of air quality during the January 2013 Tasmanian bushfires.


The EPA’s Goals Clean AirClean air is vital for the health of our community, our economy and 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. Our success will be measured against the requirements of the policy, progress towards the national air quality standards and goals set in the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (Air NEPM) and achievement of the objectives of the Tasmanian Air Quality Strategy (TAQS).

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

• Assessing atmospheric emission from ongoing industrial activities and new proposals. These include boiler emissions from a cheese factory; a proposal for replacement of multiple stacks with a single stack at a large industrial plant; dust emissions from several quarry expansions and a mine site; and an assessment of a pilot plant smelting proposal.

• Working intensively with industrial facilities to bring their emissions into compliance and to minimise their impact on the environment, including the assessment of proposals for the use of alternative fuels at two facilities; review of dust management plans; and review of procedures to prevent uncontrolled emission of pollutants.

• Assessing odour impacts and odour mitigation plans from existing plants such as a fish processing plant and from proposed facilities including a brewery waste water treatment plant, several sewage treatment plant upgrades and a fish composting facility.

• Continued provision of advice and support to local government on air quality issues including smoke from domestic sources, emission of solvent fumes from a spray painting facility and an assessment of emission controls for a proposed coffee roasting facility.

• Continuing its work with local councils aimed at reducing smoke levels in Tasmanian communities by implementing the second phase, Burn Brighter this Winter 2013, of the Domestic Smoke Management Program. This program is based on targeted education and community engagement and includes smoke monitoring surveys in selected focus areas.

• Monitoring ambient particle levels in Launceston and Hobart by reference quality instruments in accordance with the requirements of the Air NEPM. The 2012 performance measure figures for Launceston and Hobart are indicated in Table 1.

• Installation of a new reference quality air monitoring station at Devonport, which commenced operation in early 2013. (See Figure 1.)

• 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.

• Continuing the operation of the BLANkET (Base-Line Air Network of EPA Tasmania) smoke monitoring network. The monitoring stations at Clearys Gates, Bryn Estyn, and Carrick were closed and stations were installed at New Norfolk, Campbell Town, Deloraine, Westbury, Hadspen, Longford and Perth.

• Improving our understanding of smoke dispersion from planned burns using air quality monitoring; atmospheric dispersion modelling; satellite imagery and Bureau of Meteorology air–parcel trajectory analysis.

• Continuing to conduct mobile smoke surveys in a number of Tasmanian towns and communities in winter 2012, and the deployment of new BLANkET stations, to improve our understanding of the extent of population exposure and to increase our knowledge of state-wide air quality issues.


Figure 1: The new reference air monitoring station at Devonport.

Perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

Uni

t of m

easu

re

2008

-09

act

ual

2009

-10

act

ual

2010

-11

act

ual

2011

-12

act

ual

2012

-13

act

ual

2013

-14

Targ

et

Air quality1H

obar

t

Number of days exceeding PM10 Standards

0 0 1 0 0 < 5

Laun

cest

on2 Number

of days exceeding PM10 Standards

1 0 0 0 1 < 5

Notes: 1. These measures refer to performance against the

National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) PM10 measure that counts the number of days that exceed the standard of 50 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Consistent with the reporting requirements for NEPM, the data is now calculated on a calendar year basis, for example 2010-11 refers to performance against the standard during the 2010 calendar year.

2. As result of the shift to reporting on a calendar year basis, there has been a slight amendment to the 2008-09 data previously published for Launceston.

Performance Information for 2012-13Table 1: air Quality Hobart and launceston- Number of days exceeding the Pm10 National standard


Air Quality

The key air quality issue in Tasmania relates to particle matter pollution from sources which include domestic wood heaters, industrial emissions, planned burning, motor vehicle emissions and road dust. 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. Recent work by the EPA has shown that winter-time smoke levels in many Tasmanian towns are comparable to, or greater than, those experienced in Launceston. Hence, the monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 (particles less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter respectively) forms the focus of the EPA’s Air NEPM monitoring program. Emission of pollutants arising from motor vehicles can also be harmful to human health. Therefore monitoring of carbon monoxide in CBD areas is also of relevance.

National environment Protection measure (NePm) on air Quality

In 2012, the EPA Division continued the operation of the NEPM stations at Hobart (New Town) and Launceston (Ti Tree Bend) and installed a third in Devonport which commenced live operation in early 2013. These stations are operated by the EPA for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the Air NEPM for particulates. They are equipped with reference PM10 and PM2.5 instrumentation and are designed to measure the 24-hour average particle levels. A fourth NEPM station on Macquarie Street in Hobart CBD was operated for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the Air NEPM for the monitoring of carbon monoxide. The Air NEPM national standard for carbon monoxide 9.0 ppm

(parts per million) averaged per (rolling) 8-hour period. The goal is to have no more than one exceedence per calendar year for a consecutive period of 10 years. Hobart Macquarie St recorded no exceedences of the CO national standard in 2012.

Air quality measurements were also undertaken at the other major stations at Rowella and George Town until mid-2012. Operations at Rowella ceased in mid-2012 and the station was subsequently removed. The George Town station continues to operate via the industry/local government consortium which partnered the EPA in the establishment of the station. The EPA is providing ongoing advice and support to the consortium but no longer has a direct operational role.

The Air NEPM national standard for the 24-hr average PM10 is 50 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre) and the goal is to have no more than five exceedences per calendar year.

Figure 2: The number of days each year in Launceston where the 24-hour average PM10 concentration exceeded the NEPM national standard of 50 μg/m3, since daily winter-time monitoring commenced in 1997.

1997

60

5047

4138

26

13

26

40

20

02001 20071999 20052003 20091998 2002 20082000 20062004 2010 2011 2012

24-hour Pm10 air Quality exceedences - launceston

No

of d

ays

wit

h P

M10

exc

eedi

ng 5

0µg/

m3

10 13

6 51 0 0

NEPM target: Less than 5 days exceeding 50µg/m3 by 2007

0 1

The advisory reporting standard set for 24-hr average PM2.5 is 25 μg/m3. No timeframe for compliance with the 24-hr average PM2.5 standard has yet been set.

Launceston, in 2012, recorded only one exceedence of the PM10 national standard. (Figure 2). There were however sixteen days with measurements above the advisory reporting national standard for PM2.5, compared to six days in 2011. Figure 2 below illustrates the substantial improvement in Launceston’s air quality, as measured by PM10, achieved over the past 16 years.

Hobart, in 2012, recorded no exceedences of the PM10 national standard, and three measurements above the advisory reporting national standard for day-averaged PM2.5.

It is clear that further reductions in ambient particle levels, particularly in Launceston, will be required to meet the new national standards for PM2.5 expected to be set in the coming years.


As there is often a great public interest in air quality, in 2012 the EPA continued to publish air quality data to the EPA website. Reference air quality data from the New Town, Ti Tree Bend and George Town air monitoring stations have a web-publication target of six weeks from the end of the month of acquisition. Changes in data analysis and publication processes have meant this target was not always met in 2012-13. The new systems will be fully operational in the near future. In addition to the reference data, indicative data collected from the smaller BLANkET stations are also made available in real-time on the EPA Division’s web pages.

The George Town and rowella air Quality monitoring stations

The George Town Air Monitoring Station (GAMS) was established in July 2007 in partnership with two local councils and with local heavy industries. Its purpose was to provide the George Town community with local air quality information and to inform the planning of any future industry expansion in the region. The station, as established, used reference instrumentation to measure ambient particle levels as PM10 and PM2.5 and levels of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen using gas analysers. In mid-2012 the EPA ceased operation of the reference instruments measuring PM10 and PM2.5. However, continuous, indicative, particle monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5

continues to be undertaken using an optical Dust Monitor as used in the BLANkET stations. Monitoring data from the GAMS are published on the EPA Division’s webpage.

In late 2007 the EPA Division took over the operation of the lower Tamar air monitoring stations. They were established in 2006 by the then Tasmanian Resource Planning and Development Commission, as part of the baseline environmental studies required prior to the construction of the proposed Gunns Limited pulp mill at

Longreach. The operating Tamar network consisted of a primary station at Rowella and a number of secondary stations in the general surrounding area. In mid-2012 all operations at Rowella were halted and the station was removed in early 2013. The secondary stations were also closed and removed.

Base-line air Network of ePa Tasmania (BlaNkeT)

The network of smaller stations, known as BLANkET (Base-Line Air Network of EPA Tasmania), continued to operate in 2012-13, with the real-time air quality and meteorological data made publicly available via the EPA Division webpage.

The EPA Division continued its analysis of planned burn smoke impacts and the assessment of winter-time domestic wood heater smoke levels at locations

throughout the State. EPA officers involved with the Smoke Management Working Group of the Forest Practices Authority continued to participate in the development of procedures to improve the management of planned burning activities in Tasmania, principally by contributing to the development of the Coordinated Smoke Management System (CSMS) administered by the Forest Practices Authority.

Work continues on monitoring smoke outside the major population areas to establish an understanding of the concentration and movement of smoke in small towns and urban areas and to better understand the extent of population exposure. The vehicle-based ‘Travel BLANkET’ system was further developed and used to conduct smoke surveys in a number of Tasmanian communities and towns in winter 2012. In some cases these

Figure 3: A graphical representation of a Travel BLANkET survey of Hadspen from the evening of the 2nd of August 2012. Each symbol represents an instantaneous smoke concentration measured at that location. Smoke levels are denoted by symbol colour and height above local ground level. Dark 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 or greater).


Distribution of Wood Heaters in Tasmania

A survey designed to obtain information about home heating practices in Tasmania was conducted on behalf of EPA Division during winter months of 2011. The main purpose of the survey was to find the spatial distribution of wood heaters in the populated urban and rural areas of Tasmania in order to gain a better understanding of the risk of health impacts of smoke from wood heaters on the community.

The total survey area included over 70% of Tasmanian households and was divided into eleven populated areas including Launceston, Burnie, Devonport and Ulverstone in the north and Hobart, New Norfolk, Sorell and Huonville in the south.

The survey results indicate that about 30% of households in Tasmania use wood heaters as the main source of energy for heating. The percentage of households using wood heaters varies significantly from region to region with Hobart being about 16% and Geeveston nearly 60%. The estimated total number of wood heaters in Tasmania is close to 60,000.

The data collected in the survey is presently being analysed along with other available data including air quality monitoring data, population density, topography and meteorology to identify areas which could potentially be affected by poor smoke dispersion and elevated smoke levels.

The Domestic smoke management Program

As part of the government’s ongoing efforts to achieve improvements in air quality, officers of the EPA Division and from the Huon Valley and Meander Valley Councils are working together on the Burn Brighter this Winter 2013 project. This project was launched in June 2013 as the second phase of the Domestic Smoke Management Program.

The aim of this program is to reduce smoke pollution in Tasmanian communities by improving the operation of domestic wood heaters. The program focuses on managing emissions from wood heaters by providing guidance on good wood heater operation to the operators of smoky wood heaters and where necessary through the provisions of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Distributed Atmospheric Emissions) Regulations 2007.

surveys provided the first-ever air quality measurements in these areas. Many towns were seen to experience poor air quality during the survey. As an example, Figure 3 shows a graphical representation of a Travel BLANkET survey of Hadspen from August 2012. In this figure, blue symbols represent low smoke levels, green symbols represent elevated smoke levels (around 50 μg/m3), and red symbols represent very high smoke levels (around 100 μg/m3 and higher). Several surveys were conducted at Hadspen in the winter of 2012. High smoke levels were observed each time. A BLANkET station was subsequently installed in central Hadspen in early 2013.

The Tasmanian air Toxics monitoring Program

The Tasmanian Air Toxics Monitoring program was discontinued in 2012. The program operated from 2008 to 2011.The monitoring results from the program indicated that the Monitoring Investigation Levels for benzene, toluene, xylenes, formaldehyde and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, specified in the Air Toxics NEPM, were unlikely to have been exceeded at any of the sites monitored during the period of the program. The annual Air Toxics monitoring reports for the program are published on the EPA Division’s website.


The EPA’s GoalsClean Water Water quality that is safe for community use and meets environmental requirements is a critical concern and important for many key Tasmanian industries. The EPA will pursue 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.

The EPA aims to achieve sustainable development and management of water quality by implementing state and national guidelines, and achieving best practice environmental management (BPEM) and accepted modern technology (AMT), setting water quality objectives, and facilitating stakeholder involvement in setting water quality targets.

HiGHliGHTs

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

• Assessing new development proposals and existing Level 2 activities, particularly their management of potential impacts on surface and ground water quality from emissions into water bodies and effluent reuse schemes;

• Conducting strategic ambient water monitoring programs include the Derwent Estuary Program, Savage River Rehabilitation Program, and the Macquarie Harbour Water Quality Program to assist in water quality management planning;

• Conducting specific water and sediment monitoring relevant to incidents to manage a number of environmental issues such as, elevated nutrients, bacterial pollution, contamination of water, sediment and biota with metals and other toxicants, and introduced pest species;

• Participating in the 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);

• Implementing a program to set eco-regional and sub-regional water quality objectives (WQOs) and biological condition objectives (BCOs) consistent with Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000); and

• Participating in the development of national policy and guidelines: the review of National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) and associated guidelines which influence the state’s policy development, such as Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Marine and Fresh Water Quality and Australian Guideline for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting

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 Policy provides for the implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) which is the main mechanism for water quality management in Australia. In particular, the State policy requires the development of ambient water quality objectives and the management and regulation of point and diffuse sources of emissions to surface waters and groundwater to meet these objectives.

Under the State Policy on Water Quality Management (1997), Protected Environmental Values have been set for all of Tasmania’s waterways, including estuaries, through an extensive process of community consultation and by agreement of the EPA Board. During 2012-2013, the EPA has continued with the development of water quality and biological condition objectives for surface waters in Tasmania on a regional and sub-regional basis as well for some specific sites.

To assist in developing water quality objectives for surface waters, the state has been divided up into (eco) regions, i.e., four freshwater hydrological and eight meso-scale marine bioregions (Figure 4).


Wastewater Management

The EPA regulates 82 of the largest wastewater treatment plants in Tasmania. These are plants with the capacity to treat an average dry weather flow of over 100,000 litres a day (equivalent to sewage from a town of about 400 people) and which state-wide treat nearly 54,000 megalitres of wastewater (from trade waste and domestic sewage) per year.

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 regulation of these plants is to ensure that pollutant discharges to the environment (to waterways or land based recycling schemes) are reduced to the maximum extent that is reasonable and practical having regards to best practice environmental management.

The EPA has been assisting the three regional water and sewerage corporations in developing their 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.

In 2012-13 major activities included:

• Issuing of updated environmental conditions;

• Implementing a risk-based approach to regulatory compliance activities;

• Compliance assessment and reporting (including State of Industry reporting);

• Providing the corporations with a compliance assessment of all Level 2 wastewater treatment plants;

• Implementation of a monitoring framework to assess the environmental effects of the discharge from wastewater treatment plants on a case-specific basis; and

• Review implementation of wastewater management plans developed by the corporations outlining key projects to improve performance in the wastewater sector.

These measures will help address the history of poor regulatory compliance in the wastewater sector and improve the quality of our environment. Preparatory work was also undertaken to facilitate a smooth transition to the establishment of TasWater as the state-wide water and sewerage provider in July 2013 (replacing the three Council owned regional corporations established in 2009).

Table 2 shows data from 2011-12, as it is the most recent compiled data available. The EPA regulated 82 Level 2 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Tasmania over the 2011-12 period, with a minimum throughput volume of 100 kilolitres per day. Of the 82 WWTPs, three were operated by organisations other than the water and sewerage corporations. This report covers only the 79 WWTPs operated by the water corporations.

Figure 5: Surface Water Monitoring used for determining water quality

The draft Tasmanian Biological Condition and Water Quality Guidelines (for fresh, estuarine, and marine waters) has been prepared. It provides Water Quality Objectives and Biological Condition Objectives and for Tasmanian waters and details the process for setting these objectives. Water quality guideline values for toxicants for the protection of aquatic ecosystems and other protected environmental values e.g., agricultural water and recreational water, have been derived from national guidelines

Figure 4: (Eco) Regionalisation of Tasmanian Surface Waters. Surface water data has been collated from a number of organisations including NRM, CSIRO, IMAS, Hydro Tasmania and other government agencies. This data has assisted the EPA Board in determining draft water quality and biological condition objectives.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of these monitoring sites.


Total annual volume of wastewater treated by all Level 2 WWTPs

53 972 ML which was the lowest volume reported since the July 2009 sewerage reforms and may reflect less rainfall infiltration to sewer and more accurate flow meter readings

Number of Outfalls to environment 13 were classified as marine discharge, 31 as estuarine or bay discharge and 35 as inland waters discharge. This categorisation was unchanged from the previous year.

Volume of effluent discharged to waterways annually

The majority was discharged to estuarine waters (32 700 ML or 61 per cent), followed by discharge to coastal waters (11 408 ML or 21 per cent) and then inland waters (6 151 ML or 12 per cent).

Volume of effluent reused annually 3 520 ML (or 6.5 per cent) of effluent was beneficially reused. The volume of effluent discharged to reuse schemes in 2011-12 decreased slightly from the levels achieved in the previous year

Comparative sewage treatment levels During 2011-12 approximately 41 649 ML or 78 per cent of all wastewater was treated to secondary standard. Tertiary treatment contributed just over 14 per cent of the total effluent volume (7 655 ML) and primary treatment just over eight per cent (4 475 ML). The majority of effluent discharged to reuse schemes continued to be treated to secondary standard. These proportions have remained fairly constant since 1 July 2009.

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

In 2011-12 flow-weighted compliance was again highest in the Ben Lomond Water region (92 per cent), followed by the Southern Water region (89 per cent) and the Cradle Mountain Water region (84.6 per cent). Ben Lomond Water has demonstrated stable compliance between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2012, with compliance levels consistently above 90 per cent. Cradle Mountain Water’s compliance levels remain somewhat behind the larger corporations, at around 85 per cent. Southern Water’s compliance results have varied the most widely; 2011-12 results continued the trend of slightly decreasing compliance of previous years. To date, the changes in levels of compliance with discharge to water limits have been relatively minor. This trend, or absence thereof, is in line with expectations at this point in time. Significant compliance improvements will in most cases be linked to major infrastructure upgrades or maintenance works

Sewage treatment plant indicative compliance with accepted modern technology (AMT) limits representative of the likely requirements to be placed on new and existing plants where discharging to waters

Not surprisingly, compliance against AMT limits is significantly lower than compliance with current regulatory limits. Flow-weighted AMT compliance percentages per region were highest for Ben Lomond Water (70 per cent), followed by Southern Water (62 per cent) and Cradle Mountain Water (61 per cent).

Compliance with discharge to land limits Southern Water consistently achieved a higher level of compliance (89 per cent) than Ben Lomond Water (85 per cent) and Cradle Mountain Water which operates only one effluent recycling scheme (77 per cent).

Number of wastewater treatment plants compliant at all times

Only two WWTPs achieved 100 per cent compliance with their respective regulatory discharge limits during 2011-12. A further 27 WWTPs achieved in excess of 90 per cent compliance. This compares to four WWTPs achieving 100 per cent compliance and 28 achieving between 90 and 99 per cent compliance in the previous year.

Biosolids reuse Ben Lomond Water removed approx. 10,000 dry solid tonnes and reused 7%; Cradle Mountain Water removed approx. 5,815 dry solid tonnes and reused 66%; while Southern Water removed approx. 3,600 dry solid tonnes and reused 85%. Reuse was largely composting and agricultural reuse applications.

Sewer overflows (the number of sewer overflows is weighted against the length of the sewer mains and channels in a region to give the average frequency of sewer overflows for the system per 100 km of sewer main.)

The sewerage reticulation network does not form part of the Level 2 WWTP activity and is, therefore, not directly regulated by the Director, EPA. However, under section 32 of the EMPCA, the corporations must notify the Director within 24 hours of becoming aware of the release of a pollutant occurring as a result of any incident including an emergency, accident or malfunction if this release causes or may cause environmental nuisance. Ben Lomond Water reported a reduction in both the number of sewer spills and the rate with 43 spills at three per 100 km compared to 64 spills at 4.4 per 100km in the previous year. Cradle Mountain Water reported a reduction in both the number of sewer spills and the rate with 54 spills at 4.5 per 100 km compared to 100 spills reported at 9 per 100km in the previous year. Southern Water reported the highest number of sewer spills at 76 spills at 3.6 per 100 km compared to 71 spills reported at 3.6 per 100km in the previous year.

Table 2


Derwent Estuary Program (DEP)

In 2012-13, the EPA Division supported the Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) through a cash contribution of $100,000, provision of analytical services, resources and personnel to support its water monitoring program, participation in technical committees, and other administrative assistance.

The 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.

Key projects carried out in 2012-13 included:

• Stormwater management – including Water Sensitive Urban Design projects to treat approximately 1000 hectares of urbanised catchments;

• Surveys and investigations of wetlands, seagrasses and rocky reefs;

• Weed control (rice grass and karamu);

• Monitoring of ambient, recreational and stormwater water quality;

• Investigations of heavy metals in sediments, fish and shellfish;

• Little penguin and spotted handfish conservation;

• Promotion of foreshore walking tracks (web site development); and

• Development of rocky reef, saltmarsh and wetland educational resources for teachers and students.

Many of these projects have been supported by Australian Government grants.

TEER Program

The Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Program, known as TEER, is a voluntary regional partnership between NRM (North), Launceston City Council, West Tamar Council, George Town Council, Meander Valley Council, Hydro Tasmania, Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment, the Department of Health and Human Services and the EPA. The Program’s aims are to provide a coordinated management approach and guide solutions and strategic investment in activities that protect, maintain and enhance the Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers. Over the last year, the EPA Division supported TEER through a $350,000 grant, participation on technical committees and workshops involved in the freshwater and estuarine ecological health assessment programs.

The main TEER program activities during 2012-13 have included:

• Analysis of data collected for the Freshwater and Estuarine Ecosystem Health Monitoring Programs to obtain a greater understanding of the water quality and management issues;

• Release of freshwater and estuarine report cards describing the ecosystem health in the Tamar Estuary and the contributing freshwater sub-catchments that make up the Tamar Catchment;

• Developing a water quality improvement plan and associated management programs for regions and catchments.

• Weekly monitoring during the summer recreational season of Lake Trevallyn for algal blooms. The major outcome similar to the previous year was a blue green algae bloom did not occur in Lake Trevallyn during 2012-13;

• Stormwater management has expanded over 2012-13 with the involvement of a dedicated stormwater officer providing advice to NRM Northern Region;

• The release of a Seafood Safety report investigating metal levels in wild oysters and some recreationally targeted fish species within the Tamar Estuary resulting in signage at key locations around the Tamar where shell fish might be harvested and information packages including brochures;

• Partnership with Launceston Flood Authority for managing siltation in the estuary around the greater Launceston area including assistance with the monitoring of sediment raking trials; and

• Partnership agreement with Tas Water to coordinate and implement an Ambient Monitoring Plan (AMP) to investigate the impact of Greater Launceston Sewage Treatment Plants on the receiving environment.

Figure 6: TEER Freshwater and Estuarine Ecosystem Health Report Cards


The EPA’s Goals Acceptable Noise 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.

HiGHliGHTsDuring the year the EPA has addressed noise pollution by:

• Undertaking the assessment of potential impacts from noise and vibration from new Level 2 Activities;

• Undertaking a review of operating conditions relating to noise for existing Level 2 and 3 Activities and where there may be excessive noise emissions. The result of this review was the introduction of new operating conditions for a number of these activities requiring ongoing noise reduction; and

• Some existing Level 2 Activities have employed more sophisticated noise survey features, for example high-resolution spectral analysis, which has assisted in better identifying dominant or intrusive noise characteristics for specific mitigation.

The responsibility for regulating noise generating activities and equipment is spread across a number of authorities in Tasmania, for example the EPA, Local Government Authorities and Tasmania Police. The EPA provides some technical support to Local Government Authorities in particular in relation to noise management. Recent examples of activities regulated by local government which have attracted EPA advice include commercial redevelopments that include noisy equipment such as gas compressors, installation of small wind turbines in both rural-residential and commercial areas, the use of gas guns for crop protection, noisy or poorly located heat pumps and seaplane operations.

Noise surveys have been carried out in support of the management of potentially noisy activities. The types of activities involved varied from heat pumps to power stations and their area of potential impact from several metres to several kilometres. About 200 surveys have been undertaken over the past 10 years using 130 sites, as shown in Figure 7. The locations are scattered across a diverse range of location types but tend to be concentrated around the population areas, as would be expected for noise issues. Ultimately these surveys will provide results that can be used to evaluate the acoustic environment against criteria such as the Acoustic Environment Indicator Levels as provided in the Noise EPP.

Figure 7: Locations of past noise surveys undertaken by the EPA


The EPA’s Goals Clean Land Land contaminated by environmentally hazardous materials can potentially affect the health and amenity of communities and taint surface and ground waters. It represents a burden for future generations. The EPA will pursue the goal of clean land by using the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 to prevent future contamination and remediate past contamination.

HiGHliGHTsDuring the year, the EPA has contibuted to this goal by:

• Review of Notices requiring investigation or remediation of contaminated land resulted in 11 notices being withdrawn or completed;

• Revision of the Compliance Management Plan which identified areas the Contaminated Sites Team will concentrate on during the next year to enhance the ability of the unit to undertake assessments;

• Conducted 116 searches for information on the potential contamination of specific properties (PIRs);

• Loss monitoring audit conducted on 22 Underground Petroleum Storage sites. Compliance was poor. Of the 18 that replied, six sites were in compliance; on seven sites where loss monitoring was being conducted the input data was inadequate and five sites there was no loss monitoring undertaken. Another audit is planned for 2013-2014;

• Issuing of 12 new notices to address land contamination;

• Implementation of the variation to the National Environment Protection [Assessment of Site Contamination] Measure 1999, which was registered in May 2013 and automatically became a State Policy in Tasmania. There are significant changes to the NEPM in the areas of human health and ecological risk assessment which impact on the assessment of hydrocarbon contaminated sites in particular; and

• Workshops were held in Hobart in May 2013 to provide industry, consultants and government with detailed information about the NEPM variation.

During the year, the Contaminated Sites Unit (CSU) of the EPA Division has contributed to the Clean Land goal by overseeing the implementation of Part 5A of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (the EMPCA) and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulations 2010 (UPSS Regulations).

The Director, EPA, has a number of legislative tools under Section 74C of the EMPCA that can be used to require a polluter – or in some instances, the land owner – to investigate, remediate or manage contamination issues at a site. The CSU regulates a number of these sites to ensure that works are completed to the appropriate standards, such as the National Environment Protection [Assessment of Site Contamination] Measure 1999.

activity or performance indicator 20

10-2

011

2011

-120

2

2012

-201

3

Notices issued addressing land or groundwater contamination

19 17 12

Notices completed/withdrawn

NR 13 11

UPSS decommissioning forms received

30 47 26

UPSS sites newly registered

365 58 20

Table 3: activity information - Part 5a of the emPca and UPss regulations


Table 4: Waste Generation and recovery rates

Table 5: Waste Disposal rates By sector

Table 6: Waste tonnage by sector

Waste Management

solid Waste

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 2012-13, officers supporting the EPA inspected Tasmania’s active municipal landfills, a number of recently closed waste facilities and several inert waste, composting and land-farming activities. 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 Division also receives information from a range of industrial recyclers to further assist in understanding the levels of recycling in Tasmania.

Tables 4, 5 and 6 outline the waste composition and recycling statistics for Tasmania over the last six 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 30 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 and is therefore unlikely to accurately reflect the actual level of activity within this sector. The main reason for low reporting in this sector is considered to be associated with the broad definition of clean fill in Tasmania as clean fill is not required to be reported under the Tasmanian Waste Classification System.

Waste Generation Tonnes landfilled recycled composted Generated recovered

2006/07 445,794 47,450 27,587 520,831 14.41%

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

2008/09 398,523 51,493 25,446 475,462 16.18%

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

2010/11 445,553 112,945 43,931 602,429 26.04%

2011/12 460,467 159,633 41,298 661,398 30.38%

Waste Breakdown by sector %

municipal c & i c & D

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%

Waste Breakdown by sector (actual Tonnage)

municipal c & i c & D Total

2006/07 286,868 145,195 13,730 445,794

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

Concerns have been raised about a number of unapproved disposal sites for inert demolition wastes currently operating across Tasmania. The EPA and Local Government are working closely together to ensure that the disposal of these wastes is undertaken in accordance with Tasmanian legislation.


Controlled WasteEach year the EPA issues consignment authorisations for controlled wastes entering Tasmania from interstate. Most consignments authorisations were issued to the Australian Antarctic Division for waste returned to Australia from the Antarctic (known as RTA Waste). Controlled waste that cannot be disposed of in Tasmania is also shipped to other jurisdictions for reuse, processing, or disposal. During 2012-13 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 2012-13, approvals were issued for the disposal of approximately 8,600 tonnes of this type of material. During 2012-13, officers supporting the EPA audited disposal records from asbestos removalists and dry-cleaners to ensure they were handling controlled wastes in accordance with the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2010. No significant breaches of the Regulations were found.

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. Environmental Approvals issued under this Regulation are usually for a period of between 12 months and 2 years. There are also a number of Environmental Approvals that have been operating with extensions beyond 2 years.

Table 7: controlled Waste approvals and authorisations

Waste Transport activity

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, 113 businesses are registered to transport a range of controlled wastes. Over the last two years there have been four revocations of registration. In each instance the registration was revoked at the request of the company involved.

The Director, EPA has the authority to exempt persons or companies from the requirement to be registered under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010. Exemptions from registration are only approved in exceptional circumstances. During 2012-13, four exemptions were approved for the transport of asbestos. The holders of the exemption must still comply with all the handling conditions that registered transporters must comply with.

Waste Advisory CommitteeThe 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 2012-13 comprised: John Ramsay, Chair (Chair, EPA Board), David Sales (Southern Waste Strategy Authority), Harry Galea (Northern Tasmanian Waste Management Group), Sandra Ayton (from September 2012) and Gerald Monson (July to September 2012) (Cradle Coast Waste Management Group), David Hurburgh (Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts), John Mollison (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment), Jamie Wood (industry representative) and Nigel Shearer (community representative). The full Committee met four 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. The Committee’s recommendations to the EPA Board in April 2011 for the establishment of a landfill waste levy to support implementation of the Strategy were broadly reflected in the July 2012 Local Government general meeting resolution in support of a small waste levy. The Committee has keenly monitored progress of the waste levy proposition in 2012-13.

activity indicator 2012-13

Consignment Authorisations 24

Interstate Waste Transport Certificates

340

Waste Approvals 83

Industry Audits 2

Environmental Approvals Issued 34

Environmental Approvals Total 42

activity indicator Units 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-2013

Registrations Issued No 6 68 26 17

Total Registrations No 6 74 98 113

Table 8 controlled Waste Transport certificated of registration issued


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.

To these ends, a facilitated workshop was held in Campbell Town in July 2012, which was well attended by a range of stakeholders from waste and resource recovery industries, business and local and state government. A list of priority waste and resource recovery issues was developed from the workshop. The Committee considered and refined this list, and agreed to sponsor a consultancy to assess the key issues and associated opportunities relating to the management of municipal, industrial, clinical and quarantine wastes, pit waste and sludges and organics.

During 2012-13, the WAC reviewed recommendations from the Waste Data working group, which was established by the EPA Division, to consider the establishment of a robust and administratively simple system for the regular, timely and ongoing collection of data relating to waste collection, recycling, treatment and disposal operations.

The EPA’s GoalsSustainable Use of Resources In 2012-13, the EPA motivated Tasmanians to act and live more sustainably by hosting displays and workshops at the Sustainable Living Tasmania Home Expo, the Love Living Locally Festival in Kingborough, World Wetlands Day at the Botanical Gardens, and Harmony Day, in collaboration with the Hobart City Council. In conjunction with the Kids Allowed in Kingborough program, three litter education sessions were conducted with preschool children. Seventeen individual school visits were also conducted, with a strong demand from teachers for marine litter education in 2012-13. In addition, educational workshops were presented on waste reduction for school aged children at the Kids4Kids Environment Conferences at Natone Primary School and the University of Tasmania.

Staff from the EPA Division delivered a hands-on teacher training workshop and a presentation relating to waste minimisation education at the Creating Connections in the Early Years conference hosted by the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation.

Staff also provided a presentation to adults on waste management in the home and at work, as part of the Living Smart series.

Every year the Publishers National Environment Bureau ensures that advertising space is available in Australian newspapers to promote recycling of newspapers. Accordingly, in 2012-13, for the 20th consecutive year, the EPA Division designed advertisements for placement in Tasmanian newspapers.

In late 2012-13, the EPA also completed negotiations with the Tasmanian Education Department as organisers of the annual Kids for Kids environment conferences in Hobart

and Port Sorell, to secure funding for the next three years.

Utilising funds from the Environment Protection Fund, the sponsorship arrangement will be used to support school children, especially from remote or outlying areas, to enable them to attend the conferences

case study – environmental Dispute mediation Trial

A mediation service has been trialled in Tasmania as a potential means of resolving disputes over neighbourhood environmental issues such as music and motorbike noise, smoke from wood fires and backyard burning, other air pollution sources, and water contamination. The 12-month trial was launched in February 2012 and was extended for six months until July 2013. Jointly funded by the EPA Board from the Environment Protection Fund and LGAT member Councils, the trial targeted environmental nuisance complaints that are difficult to manage because there is not an obvious regulatory or planning solution. These disputes may have arisen from, or been exacerbated by, a breakdown in communication between the disputing parties. It is in these situations that, if the relevant parties agree, such disputes may be resolved by mediation.

There were few enquiries of the service with only three of these resulting in progression to mediation. In several cases despite the referral agent (Environmental Health Officer) believing mediation could assist in resolving the issue, there was often one of the disputing parties unwilling to participate. The lack of enforceability of the outcome, disputes being beyond the scope of the trial and not meeting the referral criteria, and referral agents being unfamiliar with mediation as a tool for dealing with disputes, have all been factors resulting in the low uptake of the service. A final report outlining the process and outcome of the trial is being prepared for the funding partners.


Development AssessmentsDevelopment 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 EPA for assessment.

After the initial scoping phase for each assessment, the EPA specifies the detailed 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 asked to provide supplementary information to address any public or government agency comments received.

Development Assessments and Regulation

A publicly available assessment report describing the Board’s evaluation of environmental impacts is prepared for each proposal. The Board may either refuse the proposal or impose conditions to prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impacts of the proposal. Typically the Board’s conditions are imposed as part of a land use permit issued by the local Council. Smaller less complex assessments are carried out by the Director, EPA under delegation from the Board.

During the 2012-13 year, 19 assessments were completed (as listed in Table 9) compared to 23 in 2011-2012 and 19 in 2010-2011.

Detailed information, including the Board’s assessment reports and permit conditions, for each assessment is available at www.epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/approvals-process


client location activity Date approved Decision maker

Artec Pty Ltd Artec Bell Bay Chip Mill, 135 Mobil Rd, Bell Bay Tas 7253

a woodchip mill 19/10/2012 EPA Board

Coffey Plant Hire Pty Ltd Kamona Sand Pit, Off Goanna Rd, Kamona Tas 7260

a sand extraction pit

25/02/2013 Director

Echo Projects Pty Limited Acm Landfill, Minna Rd, Heybridge Tas 7316

a landfill 22/10/2012 EPA Board

Forestry Tasmania, Peppermint Hill Quarry, Tierneys Rd, Mengha Tas 7330

a forestry quarry 21/06/2013 Director

GJ & IS Glover Glovers Pit, Off Arthurs Lake Rd, Arthurs Lake Tas 7030

a quarry & crusher 3/12/2012 Director

Glenorchy City Council Derwent Park Stormwater Harvesting & Industrial Reuse Project - Aquifer Storage & Recovery, Derwent Park Tas 7009

aquifer storage and recovery

4/06/2013 Director

Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd 444, 448 &, 450 Lilydale Rd, Underwood Tas 7268

a quarry and materials handling

1/05/2013 Director

Hardrock Coal Mining Pty Ltd Fingal Tier Coal Project, Off Valley Rd, Fingal Tas 7214

an underground coal mine

28/08/2012 EPA Board

HBMI Pty Ltd Leslie Vale Quarry, Leslie Rd, Kingston Tas 7150

a quarry 11/12/2012 Director

MJ & LM House Lake Mikany Gravel Extraction, Off Faheys Lane, Irishtown Tas 7330

an extractive pit 20/12/2012 Director

Lion-Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd Old Surrey Road Cheese Factory, Old Surrey Rd, Burnie Tas 7320

a milk processing works


Nyrstar Hobart Pty Ltd Hobart Zinc Smelter, Risdon Rd, Glenorchy Tas 7010

the existing Nyrstar Hobart Wharf

15/04/2013 Director

Peter Royce & Shirley Jean Bellchambers Ml 54M/1976, Hodgetts Rd, Holwell Tas 7275

a sand pit 1/05/2013 Director

Shree Minerals Limited Nelson Bay River Magnetite Mine, Near Nelson Bay River, Temma Tas 7330

a mine and mineral processing works


Stornoway Quarries Pty Ltd Ml 1694 P/M Silver Plains, Off Interlaken Rd, Near Lake Sorell Tas 7030

a quarry 6/07/2012 Director

Tasmanian Advanced Minerals Pty Ltd Off Calder Rd, Calder Tas 7325 an inert waste depot 18/12/2012 Director

Tasmanian Advanced Minerals Pty Ltd Blackwater Silica Mine Off Blackwater Rd Near Kanunnah Bridge South Of Roger River West

an inert waste depot 2/11/2012 Director

The Trustee For Justiz Family Trust & Others T/A Allan Summers Transport

Ml 45M/1975 - 11M/2007, Elphinstones Rd, Wynyard Tas 7325

a gravel pit and screening

17/05/2013 Director

Venture Minerals Limited M/L 5M/2012 Riley Creek, Off Pieman Rd, Tullah Tas 7140

a panel mine and material handling


Table 9: ePa assessments 2012-13


A bilateral agreement between the State and Commonwealth means that the EPA also undertakes the assessment of proposals which require approval under Commonwealth environmental legislation. Table 10 below provides details of assessments that were either completed, or were in progress under the bilateral agreement during 2012-13:

In total, 37 assessments were in progress at the close of the 2012-13 year, compared to 47 at the end of the previous year. Many of these proposals relate to the mining, quarrying and mineral processing sector. Proposals regarding wind farms, wastewater treatment plants, wood processing facilities, waste management and a chemical works make up the remainder. A list of active assessments which have been formally lodged with the EPA is available on the EPA website.

During 2012-13 the EPA ‘called-in’ one non-Level 2 activity for assessment. This was Lynas Services Pty Ltd’s proposed didymium smelting pilot plant at Bell Bay.

Statutory timeframes apply to those stages of the assessment process that are under the control of the EPA. During 2012-13, three of the 75 statutory deadlines were exceeded. These comprised two breaches of timeframe for the issuing of project guidelines (by 5 days and 11 days) and one breach of timeframe for the notification of assessment class (by one day).

Development Assessments and Regulation continued

client location activity assessment status

Venture Minerals Limited Riley Creek, Off Pieman Rd, Tullah Tas 7140

a mine and materials handling completed

Bluestone Mines Tasmania Joint Renison Bell Mine, Renison Bell Tas 7469

a tailings storage facility in progress

Bright Phase Pty Ltd Cleveland Mine, Off Waratah Rd, Luina Tas 7000

a mine and tailing reprocessing

in progress

Forward Mining Limited Rogetta Rd, South-East Of Hampshire Tas 7000

a mine and mineral processing in progress

Grange Resources (Tasmania) Pty Ltd Savage River Mine, Savage River , Savage River Tas 7321

a tailing storage facility and waste rock dump

in progress

Low Head Wind Farm Pty Ltd Low Head Wind Farm, Soldiers Settlement Rd, Low Head Tas 7253

a wind farm in progress

Mancala Resources Pty Ltd Burns Peak Mining Operation - Burns Peak Forest Reserve, Off Murchison Hwy, Guildford Tas 7321

a mine in progress

Venture Minerals Limited Mt Livingstone , Off Pieman Rd, Tullah Tas 7140

a mine and material handling in progress

Venture Minerals Limited Mt Lindsay Tin-Tungsten-Magnetite Mine Project, Off Pieman Rd, Tullah Tas 7321

a mine and mineral works in progress

Proto Resources & Investments Ltd Barnes Hill Mine, Beaconsfield a nickel laterite mine in progress

Two of the timeframes for the completion of an assessment were extended by written agreement between the Board and the proponent.

The EPA Board’s Statement of Intent includes performance measures for the period to 30 June 2012. Table 11 indicates this measure for the 2011-12 financial year.

3.1 Objectives activity result

3.1.1 Ensure that the Board carries out its functions and activities in conformance with the requirements of the Act.

Percentage of assessments completed within the timeframes required by the Act

96%

Assessment decisions challenged and overturned because of incorrect procedures

Nil

Table 10

Table 11


RegulationThe EPA is Tasmania’s principal regulator of potentially polluting activities and waste. Its role is to ensure activities do not have an unacceptable impact on the environment or the community. This is achieved through compliance with state and national legislation, Codes of Practice, guidelines, the application of 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.

The Act provides for the EPA to set and enforce conditions on Level 2 activities, being those industrial and municipal activities with the highest potential for emitting pollutants. The Act, State Policies and regulations made under it also require approvals from the EPA to transport, manage and dispose of waste.

All Level 2 activities must operate in accordance with conditions set by the EPA. These conditions are generally contained in permits issued by planning authorities. The conditions attached to permits may be amended by issuing an Environment Protection Notice (EPN). In some instances, EPNs may be issued without prior permits. 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 risk of environmental harm occurring at a site.

Industrial OperationsOf the more than 600 Level 2 activities regulated by the EPA, about 400 are industrial activities. These range across a number of industry sectors, including food and textiles, wood processing, metallurgical and chemical plants, wood processing, mines and extractive pits. In general, the EPA regulates the larger-scale activities in these sectors.

Large or complex premises regularly prepare and submit to the EPA reports such as Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), Annual Environmental Reviews (AERs), Mine Closure Plans (MCPs), Care and Maintenance Plans (CMPs) and Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plans (DRPs) for review. Permit conditions are also reviewed on a regular basis, sometimes in conjunction with an EMP review. EPNs can be used to vary permit conditions and also for other purposes, such as requiring a clean-up or action to prevent environmental harm.

Specific regulatory issues of note that the EPA worked on in 2012-2013 are described below:

Food and Textiles Unit

Lion Dairy Drinks Pty Ltd Cheese Factory Expansion

A permit for the expansion of production at the Lion Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd cheese manufacturing operation in Burnie (previously known as Lactos) was issued in August 2012. Part of this expansion project involved the installation of an on-site wastewater pre-treatment plant, to reduce the pollutant loading in the cheese factory’s process wastewater, so that it could be accepted for discharge to sewer. This process wastewater is currently irrigated onto land, owned by Lion Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd, adjacent to the cheese factory site; however this is not a sustainable practice in the long term.

Extended negotiations between Lion Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd and TasWater (previously Cradle Mountain Water) regarding a Trade Waste Agreement for the acceptance of the treated process wastewater to sewer are likely to result in previously unplanned improvements to their proposed on-site wastewater pre-treatment plant design so as to meet TasWater’s requirements for trade waste discharges to sewer. Lion Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd has indicated that this would delay the construction of their on-site wastewater pre-treatment plant, and consequently the phase-out of process wastewater irrigation to land until March 2016.

The EPA Division is working closely with Lion Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd and their consultants to ensure no detrimental effects ensue from the continued land irrigation of process wastewater until sewer discharge is achieved.

Table 12: activity information regulation of level 2 activities

Performance measure U

nits

of m

easu

re

2012

-201

3

Management Plan reviews* No. 58

Environment Protection Notices issued

No. 56

Legal Instrument reviews* No. 84

Site inspections* No. 180

* As a result of a transition to a new reporting system during 2012/13, some datasets may be incomplete or overlapping.


Seafish Tasmania

Complaints about odour from the Seafish Tasmania’s plant continued in 2012-13. In accordance with the requirements of an EPN Seafish Tasmania developed an Odour Management Strategy. Works to capture and treat odour emissions from the activity are to be implemented in the second half of 2013. The wastewater management plan required by the EPN remained in development at the close of the year. Significant operational improvements have been made at the plant to address hygiene issues that were contributing to odour emissions.

JBS Rendering Quoiba

In May 2013 an updated EPN was issued to JBS Australia Pty Limited (also known as North West Rendering) to update conditions relating to environmental aspects of their Quoiba Rendering Plant. Additional requirements include timeframes to develop a program of works to reduce air emissions, implement the program of works, develop an Environmental Management Plan, provide an Annual Environmental Review and an improvement program for emissions from the coal fired boiler.

King Island Dairy Trade Waste Improvement Program

King Island Dairy Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Lion Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd, has progressed to the planning phase for Stage 3 and 4 of the $13.5 million upgrade to their wastewater treatment system. This follows the commissioning of a Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) Plant in 2012.

The proposed design involves installation of a secondary process to the effluent from the existing DAF Plant prior to discharge. Stage 3 and 4 will consist of an anoxic tank, aerated pond and clarifier. A Notice of Intent has been received by the EPA, and preparation of the Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan has commenced.

Wood Processing

Ling Siding and Tonganah

Since the announcement of the liquidation of Gunns Ltd there has been an acceleration in the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the Ling Siding and Tonganah sites, near Scottsdale. The EPA has been working with the Gunns Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) to ensure appropriate management of the removal of equipment and structures from the sites. The EPA has also required the investigation of potential contamination of the Tonganah site and further investigations and actions regarding recommendations in relation to contamination of the Ling Siding site, through the issue of Investigation Notices for both sites.

Sawmills

The restructuring of the native forest timber processing industry is continuing. This has resulted in continued regulatory effort in the managing of the closure of sites; the suspension of operations and/or the assessment of companies’ plans to value add and or restructure their operations.

The limited number of end use options for timber residues, such as off-cuts and chips, remains an issue for many operators. The EPA will continue to work with the industry to explore options to manage this issue.

The EPA Division is currently reviewing the Sawmill Code of Practice. It is intended that this review will result in the development of a new document which will assist timber processing operations to be environmentally compliant through the phases of their operational life, from commissioning and operations through to decommissioning and closure.

minerals, chemicals and metallurgical

Nyrstar

The EPA has continued to work closely with Nyrstar Hobart to improve environmental outcomes associated with the site. During the 2012/13 period significant stockpiles of process wastes were treated, removed for reprocessing interstate or stabilised for disposal at a facility approved to receive the material. A major review of groundwater data was undertaken by Nyrstar and a detailed Groundwater Management Strategy was approved by the Director in June 2013. This report lays the foundations for prioritising and implementing a range of proposed groundwater management and remediation actions across the Nyrstar site in the coming year.

Major improvements in the management and treatment of stormwater have also been implemented across the site during the 2012/13 period with in-principal agreement reached for a rehabilitation project incorporating a large new stormwater containment dam in the New Town Bay foreshore area.

Bell Bay Aluminium

During 2012-13 the primary aluminium smelter received approval for an increase in production to 188,000 tonnes per annum. This increase was able to be achieved by utilizing larger carbon anodes in conjunction with a relatively small increase in potline current. Even with the increased production the site achieved a significant reduction in total fluoride emissions from 1.06 kgF/tAl to 0.81 kgF/tAl. Increased efficiency of the potlines scrubber resulting from operational and engineering modifications in addition to a modification to cell hood design combined to enable the 23.5% reduction in fluoride emissions from the operation.

Whilst production was increased and atmospheric emissions were reduced the site also managed to achieve improvements in energy, greenhouse gas and water use efficiencies.


mining and extractives

Renison

Tailings Storage Facilities A and B were re-commissioned during 2012 to provide an additional two years of storage capacity. In the meantime, the mine is currently moving towards final closure of Tailings Storage Facility C. The planned close-out model for the dam is similar to that previously successfully applied to A and B dams in 2000/2001, and involves placement of an inert tailings stream to cover the tailings beaches followed by establishment of wetlands.

With changes to the composition and the coarse nature of its low sulphur tailings, the inclusion of the finer slime tailing was found to improve beaching problems (mounding) on discharge and ability to form the desired beach slope. The addition of fine tailings in the inert cover material is expected to maintain saturation levels which minimises oxygen transport and therefore risk of Acid Mine Drainage generation.

It is noted that the company is looking at the option of construction of a new tailings dam (TSF-D) for future tailings storage at Renison. The approval process for this new infrastructure has commenced.

Underground mining is in a high developmental stage meaning waste rock is developed underground at a higher rate than normal in order to access new ore bodies. Backfill sites underground have become restricted. Under guidance from the EPA, the company developed a proposal during 2012/13 to establish a 480,000 tonne temporary Waste Rock Dump (WRD) on an area to the east of the Processing Plant, over the historic HMS Floats area.

Copper Mines of Tasmania

CMT successfully trialled a descaling reagent to control scale build-up on pipes and pumps in its underground process. CMT also completed noise and dust monitoring surveys in accordance with the new EPN issued in 2011. The activity complies with permitted limits specified in the EPN.

A change in the strategy for tailings disposal at the Princess Creek Tailings Facility (PCTSF) was approved early 2013 and involves diverting the Princess Creek flow away from the Eastern Arm by construction of a ford thereby redirecting flow to the main storage area on the western side of the peninsula. The change allows tailings beaches to be developed in the Eastern Arm and against the dam embankment, which in turn allows the decant pond to migrate westwards and away from the dam.

CMT has installed an improved communication system at the mine, linking both underground operations with above ground operations through the use of both fibre optic and copper cable telecommunications and data cabling. The installation of Radio telemetry links for use with water pumping control and water quality monitoring are further communication system improvements implemented over the past year.

CMT was certified as being compliant with the requirements of ISO 14001:2004 (Environmental Management Systems), together with ISO 9001:2008 (QMS) and AS/NZS 4801:2001 within the last 12 months.

Beaconsfield

Since closure of underground operations in 2012, BCD have encountered some difficulties in implementing some aspects of the Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan (DRP), in particular, the poor performance of hydro-mining TSF#2 tailings for storage underground, and the logistics of moving and disposing of the sludge at the wetlands.

With a change in business direction, BCD has proposed to maintain operation of its processing mill at Beaconsfield whilst sourcing ore materials from elsewhere. Subsequently, the company is reviewing and amending the DRP, such that the environmental risk profile associated with the changed closure methodology will be identified and understood.

The EPA is continuing discussions with the company over these changes and requirement for an amended DRP to be finalised and submitted to the Director for approval.

Savage River

Grange Resources were given approval to undertake the Stage 1 cutback of the South Deposit Pit. This was necessary to avoid a projected ore shortfall in 2015 as a result of a wall failure in North Pit and delays arising from approval of the South Deposit Tailings Storage Facility (which is intimately linked to the Stage 2 development of South Deposit).

The company is proposing to construct a two-stage upstream raise of the Main Creek Tailings Dam (MCTD). The raise is planned in two lifts to RL 336 (3m raise) and RL 338m (2m raise). The design also covers the design of raises to two minor embankments located within the MCTD storage area: the North West Pond Embankment and the Causeway Embankment.


Pearshape Quarry, King Island

During 2012 King Island Council undertook a major re-development of Pearshape Quarry, one of two main quarries supplying gravel for the maintenance and construction of roads on King Island.

In the 1990’s part of the quarry was dammed and flooded in an attempt to control acid drainage produced by sulfidic rock at the site. In 2012, with the available gravel resource almost exhausted, Council submitted a proposal to the EPA to appropriately treat and release approximately 100 ML of acidic water stored in the impoundment, thereby exposing around 30 years supply of gravel.

The proposal has several advantages in that it will extend the life of the quarry without extending the quarry footprint, it will allow the acid water that is currently stored on the site to be managed in a sustainable way into the future and it will allow the site to be adequately rehabilitated which will reduce the risk of acid drainage on closeout.

Naracoopa Mineral Sands Mine

Naracoopa Mineral Sands Mine has continued to make improvements to environmental outcomes associated with the mining operation. Notable improvements include the appointment of an Environmental Officer to progress environmental improvements on-site, construction work has been completed to expand and bund the existing tailings and concrete pads at the Wet Mill, and the construction of a concrete hardstand in the main shed for concentrate storage.

A recent site audit carried out by officers representing the EPA identified environmental issues occurring as a result of the design of the vehicle track that provides access for mine machinery to the beach. The EPA has since approved a plan to rehabilitate the existing track and construct a new track that will eliminate the issues associated with the old track.

Power Generation

Hydro Tasmania – Musselroe Wind Farm

Hydro continued to progress with the development its 168MW Musselroe wind farm project at Cape Portland. The project started generating power in April 2013 with the commissioning of the first turbines.

During the reporting period Hydro continued to undertake site works. The road infrastructure was completed, work on the foundations for 56 turbines and foundations for the transmission line poles were completed and rehabilitation works for the areas disturbed during construction has now begun.

Regular inspections were undertaken by the EPA during the reporting period to ensure compliance with permit conditions.


EnforcementThe EPA Division supports the EPA by undertaking the investigation of non-compliance matters under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 and the Litter Act 2007.

The Division’s functions include facilitating and managing the investigation of alleged offences and prosecution of referred non-compliance matters under environmental legislation administered by the EPA; preparing the necessary documentation to facilitate proposed environmental litigation in forums such as the Magistrates Court of Tasmania and the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal; and providing compliance advice and support to the EPA’s regulatory functions.

Compliance Management functions include maintaining an overview of the enforcement system and providing recommendations to the Director, EPA, in relation to these matters; reviewing, collating and managing legal advice; and auditing referred statutory and enforcement instruments for consistency with current advice and procedural fairness.

As part of its enforcement activities, the EPA Division also administers the Litter Reporting System. In 2010-11, there were 657 reports received, of which 454 were acted upon. On receiving a litter report, a detailed verification process is carried out to ensure the facts and credibility of the report are confirmed, and to provide feedback to litter reporters.

Notable Enforcement Activities 2012-13

court Prosecutions

• A waste transport business was prosecuted through the Magistrates Courts and fined $18,000 in relation to a spill of sewage sludge on two busy highways in south-eastern Tasmania. The company was found guilty of five offences for breaches of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010. The company was also found guilty of one breach of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, for failing to comply with a requirement or direction of an authorised officer.

infringement Notices

• An individual was fined $1300 for disposing of general waste, namely car bodies and tyres, on state forest land at Lefroy in north-eastern Tasmania.

• A water management authority was fined $650 for contravening requirements of an environment protection notice, namely failing to provide and implement an environmental monitoring plan.

• A fish-waste processing company was fined $650 on two occasions for unlawfully causing environmental nuisance, namely odour, at Triabunna in south-eastern Tasmania.

• A fish-waste processing company was fined $650 for contravening a requirement of an environment protection notice, by allowing wastewater to discharge offsite, at Triabunna in south-eastern Tasmania.

• A water management authority was fined $1300 for depositing a controlled waste, namely sewage, into the River Derwent in southern Tasmania.

• Three individuals were fined $1300 each, and a fourth individual was fined $2600, for depositing general waste, including car bodies, at West Ridgley in northern Tasmania.

• An individual was fined $1300 for dumping general waste, namely advertising material, on reserved crown land at Seven Mile Beach in southern Tasmania.

Achieving Enforcement Outcomes

activity indicators 2008–09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Litigation Completed by Court or Tribunal - EMPCA

6 2 1 — 1

Prosecutions by Infringement Notice – EMPCA

7 5 19 10 12

Written Warnings – EMPCA 7 4 5 — 7

Referred Matters Commenced 23 27 33 11 10

Litter Infringement Notices Issued 463 404 371 436 389

Written Warnings – Litter 16 5 16 18 12

Litter Abatement Notices Issued — — 4 — 4

Litter Matters Completed by Court — 3 — — 0

Table 13: environmental compliance and enforcement activities


Incident Response The EPA Division operates a 24/7 state-wide pollution incident reporting hotline (1800 005 171). Its response to reported incidents may vary, depending on the circumstances and perceived, or assessed risks in each case. Sometimes, matters may be referred to other regulators or authorities, where they are the more appropriate responder. A field investigation is not warranted in all cases, if the likely impacts or consequences are limited. Reports of more significant pollution incidents are typically investigated further, with the aim of ensuring impacts on public health and the environment are minimised, and to determine the circumstances and gather evidence for any potential regulatory breaches.

850 pollution incidents were logged in the Division’s incident database in 2012-13, including:

• The sinking and subsequent re-floating of the Eileen M, a 20 metre fishing vessel, in New Town Bay in the Derwent River in February 2013. The EPA Division’s State Oil Pollution Control Officer was involved in the response and assisting TasPorts and the salvage operators. Oil spill containment boom from TasPorts Hobart stockpile was deployed around the vessel while the vessel was submerged.

• A TasRail train derailment occurred near Campania in April 2013, resulting in a small amount of chemicals leaking onto the ground adjacent to the railway. EPA provided advice on decontamination and clean-up of the area to TasFire and TasRail.

• 20 smoke-related reports from members of the public, during the planned burning season in autumn, a reduction from 84 reports received last year.

New Town Bay

Campania train derailment


Savage River Rehabilitation ProjectThe Savage River Rehabilitation Project (SRRP) is an innovative cooperative partnership between the EPA and the current operator of the Savage River Mine, Grange Resources, to remediate historical pollution. Acid rock drainage resulting from the previous mining operation, between 1967 and 1996, caused 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. Under the Goldamere Pty Ltd (Agreement) Act 1996 Grange Resources is indemnified from the effects of historical pollution.

The EPA administers the remediation funds and oversees the project as a whole. The SRRP is funded under two sources. The SRRP Environment Protection Fund holds cash provided by the previous mine operator in 1996, with a current balance of approximately $13.5 million. This fund is used for ongoing project administration, technical studies and research and development, and will fund the ongoing operation and maintenance of any for the remediation of historical pollution when the mine eventually closes. The second funding source is provided by Grange Resources under a purchase price agreement which allows for the company to undertake remediation contracts on the site for the Crown in order to “work off” the original purchase price of the mine. The current balance owing of the purchase price is approximately $9 million.

In 2006, the legacy waste rock dump ‘B Dump’ was reshaped and covered with a combined water-shedding and alkaline cover system. Remediation of the B Dump complex was a high priority for the SRRP as it contributes around 40% of the whole-of-site copper load. The results of the study show that alkalinity from the alkaline side cover has been migrating down into the waste rock below and is forming passivating layers on pyrite grains, and in turn reducing the acid generation rate. This is a positive result, but it may be some time before the remaining potentially acid forming waste rock in the dump is fully passivated; and

• The Expert Review of the SRRP commenced in late 2012-13, and will be completed during 2013-14. The objective is to undertake a review of the SRRP activities to date, and draft strategic plan, and to make recommendations to the SRRP Management Committee. The previous Expert Review took place in 2009.

Remediation Programs

Key activities during the 2012-13 year included the preparation of a draft Strategic Plan to guide the ongoing work of the project, ongoing investigations into options for addressing the long term management of the legacy acid drainage, and activities to assess the overall performance of the project, including:

• Completion of a project to obtain technical advice on the SRRP neutralisation system, for which previous small-scale pilot trials had shown that the system had the potential to treat acid drainage sources on the site using commercially-available limestone. Due to the high costs and uncertainty likely to be associated with full-scale prototype development, the SRRP has chosen not to pursue this strategy at this time and will continue to seek affordable options for the active treatment of acid drainage sources where required;

• Completion of the SRRP’s involvement in a three-year research project into the performance of the B Dump cover system.


Grants environment Protection Fund

The Environment Protection Fund (EPF) was established in 1996 under s97 of the Environment Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. The Fund is described in the detail of the Act but generally consists of money obtained through the payment of fees and charges under the Act including fines paid for breaches of the regulations (including seizures) and money paid to the Board by way of financial assurance.

Additionally the Funds may be increased by grants or provision by Parliament or through any investment of funds. The Fund can only be utilised for the purposes set out in the Act but the Board is able to use discretion as to the interpretation and allocation of the Fund.

The Environment Protection Fund (EPF) Scheme was launched in July 2006 to support projects to protect, restore or enhance the environment, reduce pollution and promote sustainable use of resources.

From this Fund the Board:

• Developed and sponsored a new Sustainability in Industry Award for 2013, delivered through Awards Australia. This award will recognise projects demonstrating innovative sustainable practice and seeks to reward projects and businesses striving beyond compliance.

• Contributed funding for a three-year period to 2015 towards the Kids4Kids Tasmanian Youth Environment Conferences to be held in both the North and South of Tasmania. The Conferences encourage students to examine the sustainable use of Tasmania’s river, land, marine and coastal environments.

Other GrantsThe Board has also supported the Governor of Tasmania’s annual environmental honours scholarships for a further year. The two scholarships are available to students undertaking an honours or masters project, in any faculty, which relates to the management of the environment. By supporting the scholarships, the EPA shows support for ongoing research in environmental science and management.

Media EPA communications were managed through the EPA’s Communications Co-ordinator. In 2012-13, the EPA produced 12 media releases on a range of topics including incident response, assessment approvals for level 2 activities and litter fines.

The EPA also responded to more than 70 media enquiries during the 2012-13 financial year. The EPA website www.epa.tas.gov.au was updated regularly with media releases, latest news, information and communiqués of the monthly EPA Board meetings. An EPA newsletter was also produced during the financial year.

Partnerships and Community Engagement


Financial InformationThe Tasmanian Government has established an independent Environment Protection Authority which is constituted of a Board of four independent members and the Director.

ePa Division Budget supporting the ePa

In 2012-13 the EPA Division’s operating budget was $12,608,000. Of this $9,442,941 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 as follows:

Further financial details relating to the EPA Division’s activities, are contained within the 2011-12 Annual Report for the Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and the Environment.

Remuneration of Board and Committee MembersMembers that were entitled to remuneration for membership in the 2011-12 year were:

J Ramsay - Chair

I Abernethy

L Cherrie

H Locher

C Mucha (Appointed as Deputy to H Locher 19 September 2011).

The current Board of the EPA was appointed on 1 July 2011 and is categorised as a Special Regulatory Board with a critical focus (F1) for remuneration rates. The rates below are the maximum fees, with the Minister able to set the fees at any level up to this maximum, taking into account issues such as the workload of the Board members, the current level of fees and capacity to pay:.

Chair: $36,352 per annum

Rate for Member: $21,311 per annum

Remuneration of members reflects all costs of performing Board duties. The total of remuneration received by members was $99340.48. Actual travel cost were funded too.

Appendix 1

Branch Budget FTEs EPA support

Directorate (excludes 5 EPA Board members) $444,967 2.6 95%

Policy and Business $2,852,735 27.98 60%

Scientific and Technical $2,672,713 24.5 100%

Environmental Operations $3,472,526 33.48 100%

Totals $9,442,941 120.18*

*As at 19 June 2013

annual report 2012 -13 - epa website annual report 2012-13.pdf · 2012-13 annual report of the...

Documents