ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

Annual Report 2004–2005

Annual Report 2004–2005

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

EPA Annual Report 2004–2005 i

The Hon John Hill MPMinister for Environment and ConservationParliament HouseNorth TerraceAdelaide SA 5000

Dear Minister

It is with pleasure that I present to you the Annual Report of the Environment Protection Authority for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005. This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1993 and the Public Sector Management Act 1995.

Yours sincerely

Dr Paul VogelChief Executive and ChairEnvironment Protection Authority

30 September 2005

This report provides an overview of the work of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) as the body responsible for administering the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the Act) for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005.

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

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

The Board’s comprehensive stakeholder and regional consultation program has continued, providing it with useful and timely information on the important issues that face communities and their environments. This two-way exchange with key stakeholders, both in metropolitan and regional areas, has allowed the Board to understand the aspirations of the community. Part of this program, the annual Round Table Conference, with participants from

some 25 key interest groups, gave us valuable insights into the community’s expectations of the EPA, and assisted us to better defi ne our how we can contribute to the sustainability agenda.

Another fundamental policy driver is the South Australian Strategic Plan, released in 2004. The EPA has reviewed its programs to ensure it aligns itself with this initiative. Along with the input from its consultative program, the Board, in consultation with EPA staff, has performed a thorough review of its previous strategic plan, and at year’s end was in the process of fi nalising its 2005–08 Strategic Plan. The key priorities for the organisation were: improving its service orientation; enhancing stakeholder engagement and relationships; exploring more innovative methods to effectively infl uence community and industry behaviour towards environmental protection and enhancement; and contributing to the development of a more effective land use planning and assessment system.

As well as concentrating on the future, this report demonstrates the extensive work of the EPA over the last 12 months in all facets of its operations—in policy development; in attaining better science and greater understanding of our environmental systems; in improving the organisation’s communication with people; in enhancing internal operations and guidelines for its role in development assessment; and clarifying its approach to compliance and enforcement. I thank all staff and stakeholders who, during

the course of the year, committed their time and efforts to these programs to protect and enhance our environment.

The Board of the EPA and its staff look forward to the opportunities ahead in working in collaboration with our stakeholders towards achieving a sustainable South Australia.


FOREWORD

iiiEPA Annual Report 2004–2005

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metreCARES Complaints and Reports of Environmental Signifi cance (web site)CDL container deposit legislation; correctly, beverage container provisions of the Environment Protection ActCE chief executiveCMS community mediation servicesCQMS Central Queensland Mining SuppliesCSIRO Commonwealth Scientifi c and Industrial Research OrganisationCSO Crown Solicitor’s Offi ceCWMB catchment water management boardDEH Department for Environment and HeritageDoH Department of HealthDTEI Department of Transport, Energy and InfrastructureDWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity ConservationEIP environment improvement programe-ELF electronic-Environment Licensing Form

EPA Environment Protection AuthorityEPO Environment Protection OrderEPP Environment Protection PolicyERD Court Environment, Resources and Development CourtFTE full time equivalentGoGO Greening of Government OperationsHRD human resource development KESAB Keep South Australia BeautifulL&D learning and developmentLEMP landfi ll environmental management planLGA Local Government AssociationLMRIA Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation AreaMIL monitoring investigation levelMoU memorandum of understandingMt mega tonnesNEPC National Environment Protection CouncilNEPM National Environment Protection MeasureNPC National Packaging Covenant

NPI National Pollutant Inventory ODS ozone depleting substancesOHSW occupational health, safety and welfare P&DR performance and development review PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsPIRSA Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South AustraliaPM10 particles of less than 10 microns in diameterPMW (PoPS) Protection of Marine Waters Act (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1987ppm parts per millionRPC Act Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982SARDI South Australian Research and Development InstituteSoE Report State of the Environment Report for South Australiathe Act Environment Protection Act 1993WPO Watershed Protection Offi ce ZWSA Zero Waste SA

vi

ABBREVIATIONS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL i

FOREWORD iii

ABBREVIATIONS vi

HIGHLIGHTS AND MAJOR INITIATIVES 1

Policy and strategy development 1

Science and smarter regulation 2

Engagement and review 3

INTRODUCTION 4

EPA BOARD AND ITS ACTIVITIES 6

Meetings and strategic planning 6

Stakeholder consultation program 2004–05 6

EPA Board members 8

EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008 11

WATER QUALITY 12

Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 12

Codes of practice 13

Vessel and Facility Code of Practice: Marine and Inland Waters 13

Water monitoring 13

Nepean Bay (Kangaroo Island) 13

Heavy metals in dolphins 13

Razorfi sh in the Northern Spencer Gulf 13

River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment for water quality 14

Lower Murray reclaimed irrigation areas (LMRIA) 14

Stormwater pollution prevention 15

Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Protection Offi ce 15

South East dairy industry effl uent management program and guidelines 17

Lake Bonney South East 17

Adelaide Coastal Waters Study 18

SA Water environment improvement programs 18

EPA Port River projects 18

Aquaculture 19

AIR QUALITY 20

National Environment Protection Measure 20

South Australia’s air quality 20

Fuel Quality EPP 23

Diesel NEPM 24

NRG Flinders 26

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE 27

Planning policy 27

Development assessment 27

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE 29

Noise monitoring 29

Train noise 29

Wind farm noise 30

WASTE AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY 31

Country Landfi lls Training Course 31

Landfi ll guidelines 32

Waste to Resources EPP 32

Small Business Eco-effi ciency Training Program 33

Greening the Supply Chain Program 33

Beverage container provisions expansion 33

Used packaging 34

POLICY AND LEGISLATION 35

Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005 35

New EPA position statements 36

State of the Environment Report 36

Review of licence fee structure 36

New dolphin sanctuary object to the Environment Protection Act 37

National policy 37

Environment protection policies (EPPs) 37

Site contamination 38

Regional Impact Assessment Statement 38

ENGAGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS 39

Round-table 2005 39

Community programs 41

EPA web site 41

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 42

Compliance and enforcement guidelines 42

EPA audits 42

Freedom of Information and the Public Register 43

Inspection of licensed premises 43

Pollution complaints line 44

CARES 44

Community mediation 44

Local government support 44

EPA-PIRSA Memorandum of Understanding 45

EPA-DAIS Memorandum of Understanding 45

Illegal dumping in South Australia 45

Key point source pollution programs 45

Emergency response 47

Environment protection orders 47

Enforcement and investigations 48

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT AND SYSTEMS 49

Information technology 49

Finance and administration 49

Fraud 50

Consultancies 50

Executive employment, staff employment and other human resource matters 51

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN REPORT 57

GoGO Priority Area 1: energy management 57

GoGO Priority Area 3: waste management 58

GoGO Priority Area 5: travel and fl eet management 59

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE

RADIATION PROTECTION AND CONTROL ACT 1982

JULY 2004–JUNE 2005 60

APPENDIX 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES 76

APPENDIX 2 PUBLICATIONS RELEASED OR UPDATED IN 2004–2005 110

APPENDIX 3 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATEMENT 112

APPENDIX 4 OTHER STATUTORY INFORMATION 116

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Anticipated expediture for key EPA functions 5

Figure 2 Mount Lofty Ranges watershed 16

Figure 3 Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Port Waterways in 2004 19

Figure 4 Adelaide’s air quality index for 2004 20

Figure 5 PM10 at the Kensington, Gawler, Netley and Elizabeth monitoring sites in the afternoon of 23 June 2004 21

Figure 6 PM10 data for Hummock Hill site, Whyalla, 2004 21

Figure 7 PM10 data for Civic Park site, Whyalla, 2004 22

Figure 8 PM10 data for Walls Street site, Whyalla, 2004 22

Figure 9 Port Pirie’s air quality index for 2004 22

Figure 10 Daily average particulate lead concentrations at the Oliver Street monitoring site, Port Pirie, 2004 23

Figure 11 Daily average particulate lead concentrations at the Frank Green Park monitoring site, Port Pirie, 2004 23

Figure 12 Sulfur dioxide daily averages in Port Pirie, 2004 23

Figure 13 Sulfur dioxide daily maximum 1-hour averages in Port Pirie, 2004 24

Figure 14 The waste hierarchy 32

Figure 15 Emergency response—incidents reported by type 47

Figure 16 Emergency response—source of calls 47

Figure 17 Number of staff leaving EPA 51

Figure 18 Workers compensation—annual trends 56

Figure 19 Workers compensation—hazard/incidents reports 56

Figure 20 GoGO Priority Area 3—paper diverted from landfi ll 58

Figure 21 GoGO Priority Area 3—recycling of containers 58

Figure 22 GoGO Priority Area 5—proportion of unleaded fuel used in dual fuel vehicles 59

Figure 23 GoGO Priority Area 5—greenhouse gas emissions 59

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Aquaculture assessments 2004–05 19

Table 2 PM10levels recorded on 23 June 2004. 21

Table 3 Referred development applications completed 27

Table 4 Small business eco-effi ciency workshops 33

Table 5 Freedom of Information applications and Public Register requests 43

Table 6 Inspections of licensed premises 43

Table 7 Number of complaints received by the EPA 44

Table 8 Environment protection orders 47

Table 9 Cases completed in the ERD Court 2004–05 48

Table 10 Cases proceeding in various courts 2004–05 48

Table 11 Consultancies 50

Table 12 Accounts payment performance 50

Table 13 Employee numbers, gender and status 51

Table 14 Number of employees by salary bracket 52

Table 15 Status of employees in current position 52

Table 16 Number of executives by status in current position, gender and classifi cation 52

Table 17 Average days leave taken per full time equivalent employee 52

Table 18 Number of employees by age bracket by gender 53

Table 19 Number of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander employees 53

Table 20 Number of employees with ongoing disabilities requiring workplace adaptation 53

Table 21 Cultural and linguistic diversity 53

Table 22 Number of employees using voluntary fl exible working arrangements by gender 54

Table 23 Documented individual performance development plan 54

Table 24 Training expenditure as a percentage of total remuneration expenditure by salary bands 54

Table 25 OHS&W statistics 55

Table 26 Workers compensation 56

Table 27 Performance against annual energy use targets 57

Table 28 IT equipment and energy consumption 57

Table 29 Printer consumables recycling 58

Table 30 EPA vehicle fl eet 59

Table 31 Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions 59

Table 32 Apparatus, sealed sources and premises registered under the RPC Act 69

Policy and strategy development

Environment Protection (Miscellaneous)Amendment Act 2005

The second phase of the government’s legislative review program for environmental protection was completed in 2005. The review covered many of the EPA’s activities, and was informed by two discussion papers on environmental offences under the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the Act); the fi ndings of Parliament’s Environment, Resources and Development Committee (May 2000); programs undertaken with local government to pilot sharing of environment protection responsibilities under the Act; and a number of election commitments of this government. Most exciting of the reforms was the establishment of civil penalties in South Australia. The reform will provide an alternative mechanism for the EPA to deal with less serious offences under the Act in a civil jurisdiction. The EPA is the fi rst environment protection regulator in Australia to have access to civil penalties.

Compliance and enforcement policy

The EPA completed a review of its Compliance and Enforcement Policy to clarify and improve consistency in the way that it deals with non-compliance with the Act. The Policy was approved by the Board in early 2005, following consultation with legal, business and community stakeholder groups.

Position statements

The Board released the EPA Position Statement Managing the Health Impacts of Pollution, which considers management approaches for dealing with the effects of pollution. The EPA also prepared a draft position statement for consultation, ‘The role of the EPA in working towards sustainability’. This statement describes how the EPA uses its decision-making powers, and program and policy development, to contribute to the sustainability agenda. It also describes its contribution to achieving the objectives of the South Australian Strategic Plan.

Strategic Plan

The EPA Board put a considerable effort during the year into reviewing its strategic plan, taking into account issues raised by stakeholders during the Board’s consultative program, presentations made by external parties from business, community and local government, presentations by EPA offi cers, and consultation with EPA staff. The Plan will be released early in the 2005–06 fi nancial year.

Codes of Practice–Water Quality Management

The EPA released several draft codes of practice that cover water quality management. All codes will be linked to the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003. The codes are for:• industrial, retail, and commercial

stormwater management• vessel and facility management:

marine and inland waters

• materials handling on wharves• wastewater overfl ow management• the oyster industry.

The EPA conducted an extremely successful program of consultation with stakeholders during development and after release of the codes. Stakeholders included statutory authorities, local government, industry, retail and commercial businesses, commercial and recreational boating users, marina and slipway operators, and owners, operators and contractors of wharf facilities. In addition to promotion, a range of non-regulatory tools will be used to assist in the implementation of the codes, including training and accreditation schemes.

Dairy guidelines

In conjunction with the dairy industry and Primary Industries and Resources SA, the EPA is running a program to improve the environmental performance of dairying operations in the South East region. The program will refi ne the standards for dairy effl uent management to encourage improved management at existing sites and environmentally sustainable expansion of the industry in the region.

The revised South East Dairy Industry Effl uent Management Guidelines was launched in June 2005. The regional program will enable the EPA to better communicate the revised guidelines with the industry, and assist farmers in applying the guidelines to their activities.

HIGHLIGHTS AND MAJOR INITIATIVES

1EPA Annual Report 2004–2005

2 EPA Annual Report 2004–2005

Science and smarter regulation

River Torrens audit

An EPA audit of industry along the Torrens has resulted in greater protection for the river system that runs through the heart of Adelaide. The EPA audited 47 businesses that are licensed by the EPA, to identify environmental risks to the river system and improve business practices. All the businesses audited voluntarily complied with EPA directions to improve their practices.

The EPA will continue to monitor businesses operating adjacent to the Torrens and work with them to minimise their infl uences on the waterway.

River Murray

• Risk assessmentIn conjunction with stakeholders, the EPA undertook the River Murray Risk Assessment project to develop strategies to minimise pollution risks to the River Murray. Through a series of workshops, groups of stakeholders outlined local concerns and problems with water quality. These were compiled into a database. Each hazard will be analysed to assess its effect on the ecosystem, potable water supplies, irrigation and recreational uses of the river. An action plan for each region will be developed in late 2005 with a fi nal report to be completed in early 2006.

• Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Areas (LMRIA)

In partnership with several government agencies and lower River Murray irrigators, the EPA is implementing a program of restructure and rehabilitation in the LMRIA to improve water quality in the river. This program involves structural works to minimise water use and drainage returns to the river, improvements to farm management and monitoring of water quality.

The EPA’s responsibility in the LMRIA is to improve water quality in the river by reducing the input of pollutants via irrigation drainage water.

The EPA has worked with consultants and local irrigators to develop environmental management and improvement plans for each irrigated property in the LMRIA. The plans, which have formed part of the current regional restructure, have been drafted using funding from the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. The farm-specifi c plans outline activities and timeframes. They will help irrigators improve their environmental management.

Port River programs

The EPA has participated in several projects to improve water quality in the Port Waterways catchment. These projects include the development of a water quality improvement plan to protect the environment of the Port Waterways by achieving nutrient discharge and environmental fl ow targets. The plan is supported by a catchment monitoring program to provide accurate information on discharges from surrounding urban catchments.

The project has sought methods of determining nutrient inputs to the waterways from all major sources, and developed a decision support tool to determine sustainable nutrient loads. It has developed a plan to achieve targeted nutrient reductions consistent with agreed environmental values. The EPA is also working with major point source dischargers to achieve further nutrient load reductions as technology and economics permit. This work will be fi nalised by late 2005.

Adelaide Coastal WatersStudy (ACWS)

Coastal waters and ecosystems off Adelaide have been severely affected by industrial, sewage, and stormwater discharges. This has resulted in an extensive loss of seagrass (at least 4000 hectares of seagrass have been lost over the last 30 years), increases in sand movement, degradation of reef systems, more frequent algal blooms, and reduced water quality. The objective of the ACWS is to improve knowledge and develop tools to assist with the sustainable management of Adelaide’s coastal waters by identifying the causes of ecosystem degradation and what can be done to halt and reverse the damage.

A steering committee, chaired by the Chief Executive of the EPA and comprising key stakeholders, oversees the study. Stakeholders have provided project funding of approximately $3 million. The CSIRO is managing the project and, along with a number of research organisations, is researching the problem. All research programs have been fi nalised and the study is expected to be completed in June 2006.

Policy mix studyfor the Mount LoftyRanges Watershed

In conjunction with government and industry stakeholders, the EPA is studying mixes of legislative and non-legislative tools that will achieve water quality objectives and mitigate pollution impacts on the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed. The project has two phases: addressing more general, high level issues, and then issues specifi c to the watershed. The study recognises that new, innovative and cost-effective approaches need to be employed to address diffuse sources of pollution in the watershed.

Engagement and review

Board engagement program

Understanding key environmental issues across the state is important for the Board’s vision for environmental regulation. The Board’s relationship with stakeholders is vital to inform the strategic directions for the EPA, and to identify partnership approaches to environmental protection and enhancement. Its program of consultation included a visit to the Riverland, communication with local government authorities, stakeholder involvement in Board strategic planning, discussions with members of Parliament, dialogue with representatives of heavy industry in SA, and the annual Round-table Conference.

Development assessmentprocess review

The EPA has reviewed its role and processes in the development application referral system. The primary objective of the review was to assess the EPA’s development assessment function and discover opportunities to improve performance, in both quality and timeliness of delivery. The review found ways in which improvements can be made, including organisational structure and culture, infrastructure and information systems. An implementation plan has been developed and six working groups established to focus on areas that require improvement. The EPA Board endorsed the fi ndings of the review and its recommendations in May 2005. Implementation of the review recommendations will continue in 2006.

Licence fee review

The EPA is developing a new system to determine licence fees and released a discussion paper in 2004 to seek public feedback. Over 80 submissions were received and analysed by the EPA. In March 2005 the EPA Board endorsed a licence fee structure which consists of:• a basic fee, which represents the

minimum paperwork required for every licence

• an environmental management com-ponent, which refl ects the work the EPA must do to manage the environ-mental risk of the activity(s) to be licensed

• a load-based performance compo-nent, in which fees are based on the amount and type of pollution created.

The EPA is currently refi ning the licence fee structure, which will involve further public consultation in early 2006.


Introduction


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

The EPA is South Australia’s primary environmental regulator. It is responsible for the protection and enhancement of air and water quality, and control of pollution, waste, and environmental noise. The EPA uses a number of ways to manage environmental risk and to ensure that the environment is considered by business, government and the community in their daily operations.

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

The functions of the EPA are detailed in the Environment Protection Act 19931 (the Act). In summary, they are to:• administer and enforce the Act, and

advise the Minister on administration of the Act and of other legislation that might affect the environment

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

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

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

The staff of the EPA administer the Act, and are assisted by South Australia Police and local government offi cers who have been appointed as authorised offi cers under the Act. The EPA Board is the governing body under the Act, and hence is accountable for its administration. The Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 is also administered by the EPA, but through delegations by the Minister for Environment and Conservation to the EPA Chief Executive. As such, the reporting requirements for the RPC Act for this reporting period are covered in a separate section of this report.

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

At 30 June 2005, there were 1997 licences issued under the Act for industries ranging from large cement manufacturers, electricity generators and wastewater treatment plants, to foundries, abattoirs and shipyards. Licences are assigned to environment protection offi cers who inspect licensed premises, negotiate environmental improvements and, where necessary, enforce regulations.

1 Refer to section 13(1) of the Environmnent Protection Act

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

Future directions

Figure 1 shows the anticipated expenditure against the key EPA functions as described in this report. A key challenge for the EPA, and one that will be assessed during the following fi nancial year, is reviewing its future funding allocations to ensure appropriate alignment and delivery of the priorities in the strategic plan.

Regulatory activities 42%

Projects & transfers3

26%

Environmentalmonitoring &evaluation

14%

Enforcement10%

Development assessment

7%

Licensing(authorisatins)

17%

Environment Protection

Policies(EPPs) 6%

Radiation protection & control activities

6%

General policy

advice to government

6%

Community engagement & behaviour

change programs

4%Advocacy role for ESD &

pollution prevention2%

National Environment Protection Measures

(NEPMs) 2%


Introduction

Figure 1 Anticipated expediture for key EPA functions2

2 Total funding incorporates recurrent and Environment Protection fund allocations.3 Projects and transfers include the transfer of waste levy revenue to Zero Waste SA and externally funded projects.


EPA Mission: To protect and restore the environment as the basis for a sustainable future

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

The Board is the governing body of the EPA. As such it provides strategic direction, develops environmental policy and monitors performance. It also makes decisions on signifi cant environmental issues under the Act.

The Board:• is independent and makes unbiased,

balanced decisions based on the best available evidence

• is open and responsive to its stakeholders

• is professional in its business• is pro-active and progressive• strives to provide quality and timely

information and advice• values the contribution of its support

and partnership organisations.

Meetings and strategic planning

During 2004–05, the Board met formally on 12 occasions. In addition to formal meetings, it also holds various consultation sessions with stakeholders, which are detailed below.

The EPA Board is responsible for setting priorities for the organisation. During the year, the Board sought input to assist them to develop the EPA’s Strategic Plan. This included stakeholder consultation that provided the Board with information on important environmental issues, as well as the challenges and opportunities that confront the organisation.

Stakeholder consultation program 2004–05

The EPA Board initiated a number of consultation sessions with stakeholders in 2004–05 in addition to the legislative requirement to hold an annual EPA Round-table conference. These sessions proved extremely benefi cial to all participants and provided the Board with an opportunity to hear directly from stakeholders about environment protection matters of importance to them. This program of consultation contributed greatly to refi ning the EPA’s priorities.

In reviewing the issues raised, it is clear that some are more important for a particular region, such as the Riverland community’s concerns about coordination of regulation between government departments along the River Murray, or water quality as it pertains to houseboats. Other issues raised refl ected the group consulted—for example, local government’s desire to discuss partnership programs and clarify roles and responsibilities.

However, some key themes became evident during the Board’s consultation program. These include:• land use planning—the effects of

industry and agriculture close to residential developments, changing land use and site contamination

• rural solid waste management—improving standards, landfi ll guidelines, long-term regionally based planning and illegal dumping.

Also evident from the consultation process is the need for the EPA to better communicate its role to the community and stakeholders.

EPA BOARD AND ITS ACTIVITIES

Riverland regional visit,16–17 November 2004The Board travelled to the Riverland region in November and hosted a regional Round-table in Berri. Approximately 50 people attended, including representatives from local government, grape growers and the boating industry. Waste management, water quality, noise and land management were discussed. A full write-up of the session is available on the EPA web site at <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/riverland_nov04.pdf>

In addition to the public meeting, the Board:• visited a dairy at Cowirra, near

Mannum, to learn about a trial to reuse excess fl ood irrigation water

• took a tour of a section of the River Murray to observe the effects of human activity on the river

• received a presentation from EPA staff on the River Murray Water Quality Risk Assessment Project, which aims to locate hazards that risk the water quality of the River Murray from the state border to the lower lakes.

Local governmentIn August 2004 the EPA Board held its monthly meeting at the Adelaide Hills Council chambers where they met with council members from the Adelaide Hills and Mt Barker. Issues highlighted during discussions included water quality and management, land use planning and partnerships with local government. Members were taken on a familiarisation tour to see fi rst-hand some of the environmental problems in the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed.

October 2004 saw the Board hold a networking session in Adelaide with representatives from the Walkerville, Port Adelaide Enfi eld, and Adelaide Hills Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA). Each group had an opportunity to talk with Board members. Common themes included the need for improved systems for processing development applications, land use planning legacy issues, and the need for both EPA and local government to clearly defi ne roles and responsibilities and take up opportunities for working together better.

Strategic planningOn 14 September 2004 representatives from the Local Government Association, the Environmental Defenders Offi ce and the Engineering Employers’ Association made presentations to the Board as part of the Board’s strategic planning program. Priorities identifi ed in this and subsequent sessions with EPA staff formed the basis of the soon to be released EPA 2005–2008 Strategic Plan.

Members of parliamentThe EPA Board met with members of parliament on 1 March 2005. The meeting resulted from an invitation by the Minister for Environment and Conservation, the Hon John Hill MP, to members of parliament to meet with the Board following debate in parliament on the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Members from both houses attended and took the opportunity to meet Board members, comment on their observations of EPA operations and raise concerns.


Epa Board And Its Activities

Actions taken in response to MPs’ concerns included revision of the EPA’s system for managing correspondence from members of parliament, and provision of contacts to MPs seeking information about progress of issues raised with the EPA.

Heavy industryRepresentatives of heavy industry met with Board members in May for a Round-table lunch. Discussion focused on opportunities for industry to work with the EPA to solve problems; benchmarking and environmental standards; separation distances and proximity of industry to residential areas and developments; and public reporting of environmental incidents.

Round-table 2005The annual Round-table is a required consultative measure under the Act. At this year’s conference the discussion concentrated on the EPA’s contribution to sustainability, including opportunities and challenges for the EPA. A more detailed account of the Round-table can be found in this report under ‘Partnerships’.

EPA Board Members

Dr Paul Vogel (Chair)EPA Chief Executive Dr Vogel was appointed in late 2002 and became ex-offi cio Chair of the Board at the commencement of the new governing arrangements for the EPA. In his previous position as Director of the Environmental Policy Unit within the Western Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet, he provided high level policy advice to the Premier and cabinet ministers on environmental issues, focusing on sustainability. Before this, he spent six years as a director with the WA Department of Environmental Protection in water and air quality protection and natural resource management. Dr Vogel brings to the Board ‘qualifi cations and experience relevant to environmental protection and management or natural resources management’ and ‘qualifi cations and experience relevant to management generally and public sector management’.

Mr Stephen HainsMr Hains was a member (and Deputy Chair) of the former EPA Board (then called the Authority) appointed in November 2002 for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, local government’ as well as for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, the reduction, re-use, recycling and management of waste or the environmental management industry’. He was appointed to the new Board at its proclamation. Mr Hains has been

City Manager of the City of Salisbury since 1991. Mr Hains is also a member of the Board of Zero Waste SA, and is Chair of the EPA Local Government Subcommittee (of the EPA Board), which is drafting a formal agreement to support the shared provision of environment protection services to the South Australian community. Mr Hains is also a member of the Northern Adelaide and Barossa Catchment Water Management Board and Chair of the Barker Inlet Port Estuary Committee.

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

Mr Mike ElliottMr Elliott, who was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, environmental conservation and advocacy on environmental matters on behalf of the community’, is the Director of Northern Adelaide Partnerships at University of South Australia. Before this he was a member of the Legislative Council from 1985 to 2002, during which time he was leader of the SA Democrats Party for nine years.

Ms Megan DysonMs Dyson was appointed to the Board for her ‘legal qualifi cations and experience in environmental law’. She is a sole legal practitioner and policy consultant in environmental law and policy, including advising the Murray-Darling Basin Commission on legal issues related to environmental fl ows, and the South Australian Government on a number of mainly water-related and natural resource management matters.

Mr Allan HolmesMr Holmes was appointed to the Board for his ‘qualifi cations and experience relevant to environmental protection and management or natural resources management’, as well as ‘qualifi cations and experience relevant to management generally and public sector management’. He is Chief Executive of the Department for Environment and Heritage, appointed in 2000. He previously held senior executive positions in the South Australian public service as Director National Parks and Wildlife, Director Heritage and Biodiversity Division, and Director Natural Resources Group.


Mr Andrew FletcherMr Andrew Fletcher is a highly respected engineer with more than 30 years experience in senior management roles in the engineering and construction industry. In 2004 he was named as one of Australia’s ‘100 Most Infl uential Engineers’ by Engineers Australia. He is a current member of the Economic Development Board and has extensive corporate governance experience in the private and public sectors, including signifi cant personal interests in the South Australian wine industry. He was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce or economic development’.

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

Mr Victor FarringtonMr Farrington has over 30 years experience in environmental management and engineering. He has worked in consultancy, industry and government, and is currently Senior Principal Environmental Engineer with URS Australia. His experience includes environmental assessment and approval documentation for a range of projects, including major planning and transport projects; water resource management; industrial, mining and petroleum sector projects; power stations and distribution systems; and major infrastructure projects including roadways, railways, marine facilities and airports. He has worked in Australia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, India, Indonesia, Taiwan and Thailand. Mr Farrington was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, the reduction, re-use, recycling and management of waste in the environmental management industry’.

Mr Max HarveyAs EPA Deputy Chief Executive, Mr Harvey is appointed under the Act as Chair of the Board during temporary absences of the Chief Executive. Mr Harvey is the Director of the EPA’s Operations Division and has held a number of senior management positions in the EPA and its predecessors over the last 20 years. He has senior management experience in waste management and environmental compliance and enforcement.

Outgoing member of the BoardDr Simon StoneDr Stone was appointed to the Board for his ‘practical knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce or economic development’. He is currently a consultant to the aquaculture industry, is a director of Thoroughbred Racing SA Inc, and serves on a number of government advisory committees on conservation and wildlife. He was the former chief executive offi cer of SA Aquaculture Management Group of Companies and has served in a variety of senior management roles within the banking, IT and telecommunications sectors. His term concluded on 9 April 2005. The EPA thanks Dr Stone for his valuable contribution to the Board over the past two years, and his commitment to the protection of the environment of South Australia.



• Legal• Northern Zone• Southern Zone• South East Region• Murray Bridge• Technical Support• Licensing and Operations Services• Investigations

OperationsMax Harvey

• Diagnostic X-rays• Radiation Health• Mining and Environment• Laboratory and Technical Administration

Radiation ProtectionKeith Baldry

SA GovernmentPremier and Cabinet

Minister for Environment and ConservationHon John Hill MP

EPA Board

Chief ExecutiveDr Paul Vogel

• Atmosphere and Noise• Aquaculture• Waste and Pollution Prevention• Water and Catchments• Planning and Local Government Support

Pollution AvoidancePeter Dolan

• Air Quality• Water Quality• Pollution Source Assessment• Healthy Rivers• Watershed Protection

Monitoring and EvaluationDr John Cugley

• Administration• Financial Accounting• Management Accounting• Human Resource Development• Information Technology

Corporate and Business SupportJohn O’Daly

The organisation


• Policy and legislation• Communications and Stakeholder Relationships• Strategic and Business Planning• Board and Misisterial Support• Continuous Improvement Services• Legal Services• Media and Public Affairs

Policy Coordination and Strategic Services

Tony Circelli


EPA Strategic Plan 2005–2008

Under the new governing arrangements for the EPA established in 2003, the EPA Board is responsible for setting directions for the organisation and monitoring performance. During the last 12 months the Board has reviewed the Strategic Plan, a process that involved stakeholders and EPA staff. As a result, emphasis has been given to the fi ve environmental goals, supported by seven cross-goal strategies. The Strategic Plan also includes fi ve corporate values that arose from staff consultation. The Strategic Plan is publicly available on the EPA web site4.

Vision

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

Mission

We manage and infl uence human activities to protect, restore and enhance the environment and to support human well being.

Values

Empathy—Listening to the needs of our stakeholders and responding with understanding, sensitivity and respect.

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

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

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

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

Environmental goalsThe Strategic Plan has fi ve environmental goals. They are deliberately aspirational, and achieving them will require longer than the three years of the Strategic Plan, as well as the coordinated and focused attention of all sectors of the community.

Goal 1—clean and healthy air

Goal 2—water quality that meets agreed environmental values

Goal 3—communities protected from unacceptable noise

Goal 4—sustainable land use

Goal 5—communities protected from unacceptable radiation.

Cross-goal stratergiesCovering the EPA and all environmental elements, the cross-goal strategies refl ect a large part of the EPA’s work. They include support functions such as IT systems and fi nancial management, as well as the methods to integrate regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to environmental protection and management. They will signifi cantly contribute to achieving the goals of this plan.

The plan sets out seven cross-goal strategies:

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-goal strategy 6: timely provision of reliable and relevant environmental information

Cross-goal strategy 7: timely development of innovative and relevant policy advice and legislation.

Key performance indicatorsDetails of established key performance indicators were included in the Portfolio Statements 2005–06, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2 (available at <www.statebudget.sa.gov.au>). However, as the next step in completing the strategic planning process, the Board will review performance indicators during the next fi nancial year to ensure that they are relevant and meaningful in measuring EPA performance in achieving its goals and strategies.


4 <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/strategic_0508.pdf>

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

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

In its role as a modern environmental regulator, the EPA provides leadership in water quality management by developing, applying, coordinating and promoting innovative tools and programs. These include:• development and implementation of

the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy and related codes of practice

• licensing and compliance monitoring of scheduled activities

• environmental complaint manage-ment, enforcement and prosecution (including providing support to other agencies, such as local councils, who choose to use the Act’s compliance and enforcement tools)

• advice on planning policy and as-sessment of referred development applications

• assessment of aquaculture licences or lease variations under the Aquaculture Act 2001

• awareness raising and behaviour change programs to encourage adop-tion of eco-effi cient and/or best envi-ronmental management practices and compliance with the Act, the Environ-ment Protection (Water Quality) Policy and associated codes of practice

• monitoring, assessment and research into the state of resources, the functioning of aquatic eco-systems and the identifi cation of sources and effects of pollution

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

Examples of these programs are further detailed in subsequent sections.

Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy

The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 (Water Quality EPP), which came into operation on 1 October 2003, aims to achieve the sustainable management of our waters by protecting or enhancing water quality while supporting economic and social development. The Water Quality EPP provides South Australia with a consistent approach to the management of water quality and brings the state in line with the National Water Quality Management Strategy.

Codes of practice

Codes of practice assist industry by describing what a person undertaking an activity needs to do to comply with the Water Quality EPP. The EPA, in partnership with industry groups, consulted the public on a number of industry and activity based codes of practice during 2004–05, including:• Vessel and facility management:

marine and inland waters• Materials handling on wharves• Industrial, retail and commercial

stormwater management• Wastewater overfl ow management• Environmentally responsible

pesticide use• Oyster farming industry.

The challenge when developing these codes is to provide an effective regulatory tool that is reasonable and practical and considers environmental, social and economic issues. The codes are due to be completed and linked to the Water Quality EPP during 2005–06.

The scope of programs required to coordinate the implementation of each of the codes of practice will be defi ned with the assistance of steering committees. These plans will provide vision and a foundation on which the EPA can build quality behaviour change programs in partnership with stakeholders and ensure the adoption and success of the codes.


Water Quality


Vessel and Facility Code of Practice: Marine and Inland Waters

The development of the Code of Practice for Vessel and Facility Management: Marine and Inland Waters has been a signifi cant undertaking due to both its scope (freshwater and marine applications), and management of grey– and blackwater discharges from vessels. Further adding to the complexities of development was the need to apply the code to a stakeholder group that includes a signifi cant percentage of EPA licensed sites (which are often operated on crown land through highly variable limited land tenure lease agreements) and to revoke the existing Code of Practice for Vessels on Inland Waters.

These complexities were addressed by engaging and consulting stakeholders. The vast majority of stakeholders indicated through the formal consultation process that they supported the principles of pollution avoidance that underlie the code of practice. However, they were concerned that the necessary infrastructure (such as waste collection facilities) and technological solutions (greywater treatment) would not be available to help them implement the code.

In response, the EPA continues to investigate partnerships for implementation of the code of practice—for example,negotiations have begun with the state’s transport authority to establish a method for gaining compliance and certifi cation of wastewater management systems in vessels. The boating industry association of South Australia has sought the EPA’s participation in their ‘Clean Marinas’ program.

Water monitoring

The EPA monitors state waters to assess their condition and to identify trends and problems. Over time this will allow assessment of the effectiveness of strategies to improve water quality.

Initiatives taken in 2004–05 were better integration of monitoring programs with other government programs. The EPA monitoring program covers:

• 43 rivers and streams and four lake systems

• 126 groundwater wells in the South East, Willunga Plains, Adelaide Plains, Northern Adelaide Plains, Barossa Valley and Eyre Peninsula aquifers

• nine estuary systems, including the Port River, the Coorong and coastal waters of Adelaide, Encounter Bay and Spencer Gulf.

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

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

Last year the EPA produced reports on Nepean Bay, razorfi sh in the Northern Spencer Gulf, and dolphins. The fi ndings of these reports are outlined below. In addition to these, reports on the Barcoo Outlet, rivers and streams, Boston Bay, a state-wide pesticide snapshot, Northern Adelaide and Willunga Plains aquifers and a state-wide risk assessment of endocrine disruptors are currently in production. The EPA is also developing a web-based reporting system to provide monitoring data on the Internet.

Nepean Bay (Kangaroo Island)

Water quality in Nepean Bay was generally moderate for ecosystem health, but compromised by nutrient enrichment probably from agricultural practices in the Cygnet River catchment. Links were found between nutrient enriched stormwater and wastewater discharges and seagrass loss in Nepean Bay. The report outlined further work that is needed to address seagrass loss and lack of re-colonisation.

Heavy metals in dolphins

An EPA study looked at heavy metals in the liver, kidneys and bones of the three dolphin species that occur in South Australian waters. The study found elevated mercury and cadmium levels in all three species from all areas, suggesting that the mercury and cadmium is naturally sourced. This is consistent with regional geology. Elevated lead was noted in dolphins from around Adelaide, due perhaps to the use of leaded petrol in the past.

Razorfi sh in the Northern Spencer Gulf

The EPA has used heavy metal levels in the razorfi sh, a bivalve that fi lters its food from the water, as an indicator of metal pollution in the Upper Spencer Gulf. This study found that, whilst loads discharged into Spencer Gulf have decreased signifi cantly over recent years, heavy metals are still at elevated levels in aquatic organisms.

Shellfi sh collection is prohibited around Port Pirie because of high levels of heavy metals. Results from one site in this zone exceeded food standards, with lead, selenium and zinc at very high levels, indicating that effects on the ecosystem are still signifi cant. A correlation between lead, selenium and zinc levels in razorfi sh and the distance from the Port Pirie smelter suggests that the smelter continues to cause signifi cant heavy metal pollution.

High levels of mercury found in the region were attributed to natural geological sources. As part of this study, a review of historical sediment metal concentrations indicated elevated concentrations of cadmium, lead and zinc, although no direct correlation with the smelter was observed.

River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment for water quality

The River Murray is a vitally important natural resource for South Australia. Human activities on the river and in the surrounding catchments have affected water quality, posing a risk to all users of the Murray, from industry (irrigation) to recreation and drinking water supply. The health of the Murray ecosystem is also infl uenced by poor water quality. It not only reduces the aesthetic value of the Murray, but also threatens the native fl ora and fauna that inhabit the river environs. Although sampling has measured general trends in water quality, the nature and location of pollution sources has not yet been assessed in detail.

The River Murray and Lower Lakes Catchment Risk Assessment for Water Quality project was developed by the EPA, River Murray Catchment Water Management Board and SA Water to better understand how water quality is degraded and to establish what needs to be done to address the problem. It is a collaborative effort with active community consultation.

The risk assessment, which began in October 2004, was applied to local regions along the river. This not only broke the workload down into manageable parcels, but also meant that consultation with stakeholders could be limited to parties with a signifi cant and direct interest in the area. Benefi ts to local communities include increased awareness of everyday activities that affect water quality in the river—helping them develop ways to manage signifi cant problems—and provision of reports that can be used to supplement grant funding applications for future work.

The agencies involved can use the information to better manage water quality by promoting WaterCare, recommending and supporting capital works, identifying where monitoring and research programs would be useful, and maintaining an up-to-date database of pollution sources.

In the long term, the risk assessment will help improve water quality and the health of ecosystems along the River Murray. This will benefi t the people of South Australia.

The project management committee is currently considering a strategy for the roll-out of the risk assessment, and for reviewing with stakeholders ways of managing those risks. This includes applications for federal funding such as the National Water Incentive and NRM based funding.

Lower Murray reclaimed irrigation areas (LMRIA)

The EPA, in partnership with several government agencies and lower River Murray irrigators—largely dairy farmers between the towns of Mannum and Wellington—is implementing a program to restructure and rehabilitate the LMRIA to improve water quality in the river. This program involves structural works to minimise water use and return of drainage to the river, farm management improvements, and water quality monitoring.

The EPA’s role in the LMRIA is to improve water quality by reducing the effects of contaminated irrigation drainage water. By 2008, the EPA will require farmers to retain runoff irrigation water on the farm and also capture the fi rst portion (5 ML/100 ha) of storm runoff. Until then, the EPA aims to improve environmental outcomes by implementing a staged program to protect the environment while supporting the farming industry’s viability. The EPA is coordinating or involved in several activities.

• The Environment Protection Act regulations were amended to give LMRIA irrigators an exemption from clauses of the Water Quality EPP while rehabilitation projects are in progress (2005–2008).

• An environment improvement and management program (EIMP) has been developed for each farm in the LMRIA. Each EIMP details actions, targets and timeframes for improving management.

An environmental authorisation will be issued to allow landholders to use fl ood irrigation while complying with EIMP conditions. An environment protection offi cer is being recruited to assist with implementation of and compliance with the terms and conditions of the EIMP.

• Drainage water reuse systems concept plans have been reviewed in associa-tion with DWLBC. Subsequently, some plans have been revised by engineers and designers.

• Agreement has been reached with irrigators on attempting to retain stormwater in the main drainage channels for up to two weeks to reduce E. coli levels before the water is returned to the river.

• Dairy milking shed effl uent systems will continue to be audited through-out the LMRIA. This will assess and enforce compliance with the Milking Shed Effl uent Code of Practice and Water Quality EPP. Approximately 50% of dairy sheds have been audited to date.

• The Cowirra surface irrigation reuse trial, conducted on one farm in the LMRIA, reduced drainage returns and water usage by over 50% during the trial while maintaining farm pro-ductivity. The fi nal report has been released and is available on the EPA web site5.

• A large-scale water quality monitor-ing program has begun to measure the quantity of pollutants discharged from irrigated areas and to assess the effi cacy of the farm rehabilitation pro-cess and farm management practices in reducing pollutant loads returned to the river. The monitoring program will continue until the completion of rehabilitation, when no surface irriga-tion runoff should be returned to the river (June 2008).

Information from these programs will be used to develop best practice for farms in the LMRIA.


5 <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/cowirra.pdf>

Water Quality


Stormwater pollution prevension

The EPA hosts and partially funds the position of Coordinator Stormwater Pollution Prevention Projects. This valuable role links the EPA, catchment water management board (CWMB) stormwater pollution prevention projects, local government, unlicensed industry and small business. It has been used in the unlicensed business sector to educate and infl uence, and to highlight the Water Quality EPP and associated codes of practice.

The Torrens, Patawalonga, Northern Adelaide and Barossa, and Onkaparinga CWMBs fund the stormwater pollution prevention projects, which are hosted by local government across metropolitan Adelaide. Eight projects employing 16 people were supported and funded this year.

Project offi cers visit unlicensed businesses, conduct environmental site reviews, provide advice, identify areas of concern and encourage adoption of best stormwater management practices. The projects aim to have all businesses comply with environmental legislation on stormwater management by raising awareness, followed when deemed necessary and appropriate, by enforcement.

A project web page, hosted by the CWMBs at <www.catchments.net>, introduces the projects. It provides links to local government project web sites and to stormwater management information and fact sheets for industry, business and mobile business operators. Information from these fact sheets has been adopted by the EPA as part of the Water Quality EPP communication strategy for the unlicensed business sector.

Initiatives endorsed by the CWMBs for this year include a business recognition scheme (which acknowledges small industry and business that have implemented improved stormwater management practices) and the production of a practical and informative video on how small business and industry can tackle stormwater pollution at the source.

The CWMBs have engaged a consultant to look at the stormwater pollution prevention projects. The consultant will:• investigate opportunities for local

government to gain revenue and save money as a result of supporting the projects

• identify the best ways to deliver the message

• assess how successful the project was in changing behaviour in the unlicensed business sector.

Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Protection Offi ce

The EPA’s Watershed Protection Offi ce (WPO) which was established in 2000, has continued the fi ve-year strategy endorsed by Cabinet to address water quality in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed. The WPO has recently been provided with ongoing funding to continue this work.

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

The EPA has established the Mount Lofty Ranges Water Resources Co-ordinating Committee, which brings together government agencies including Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, SA Water, Department of Health, Primary Industries and Resources SA, Planning SA and the EPA, to infl uence directions in water resource management.

The EPA, through the WPO, is an associate member of the eWater Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). The eWater CRC is a partnership between private and public water businesses and research groups across Australia. It seeks to produce practical products that bring economic, commercial and environmental benefi ts from the smart management of water.

The EPA continues to pursue diffi cult land use planning problems, undertake compliance audits and support the Waste Control Systems Management Strategy Project managed by the Adelaide Hills Council to address failed septic systems.

Policy mix is being reviewed to fi nd the best combination of regulatory and non-regulatory tools that will most effectively improve water quality in the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed. To infl uence and support future decision making, the EPA is developing computer-based catchment models to estimate daily runoff and pollutant loads in the watershed.

Communication and extension are educating and informing the community about the watershed and water quality. This is assisted by the inclusion of WPO material on the EPA web site, media releases, and engagement of the community through the Myponga Watercourse Restoration Project.

Facts about the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed• It provides 60% (on average)

of Adelaide’s water supply.

• 90% of the land is privately owned.

• There are 50,000 residents.

• It covers 1640 km2 in area.

• 90% of runoff occurs in July–September.

• It has a low water yield to catchment

area ratio.

• It contains approximately 9100 farm

dams (with more than 31 GL storage

capacity).

• It covers parts of nine council areas.

Figure 2 Mount Lofty Ranges watershed


Water Quality

The program was developed to include three key components:• a full review of existing regional

guidelines to ensure that they refl ect industry best practice

• provision of an industry extension offi cer to provide technical advice to industry operators on effl uent management at dairies (coordinated by PIRSA)

• program guidance from a steering committee with representation from government, industry and dairy farmers.

The program is already halfway through the initial three year program and launched revised guidelines in June 2005. In the latter half of this program, effort will be directed towards communicating these revised guidelines to the industry.

It is anticipated that this program will assist the industry establish a framework to maintain effective effl uent management at dairies in the region.

Lake Bonney South East

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

Lake Bonney SE—a large coastal lake about 10 km south of Millicent in the South East—has, like most of the South East region, been extensively altered since European settlement, particularly by the effects of drainage schemes and various land uses.

For over 60 years, large volumes of wastewater from pulp and paper mills have also adversely affected the health of the lake. In recent times, technological upgrades and modifi cations to the mills have signifi cantly improved the quality of wastewater discharged into the lake.

SOUTH EAST DAIRY INDUSTRY EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND GUIDELINES

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

This program is the only one of its kind in Australia that receives support and fi nancial commitment from all stakeholder organisations. The program brings together a number of interested organisations, including the EPA, South Australian Dairy Farmers Association, PIRSA, regional dairy farm operators, the South East Catchment Water Management Board, the South East Natural Resource Management Board, and regional milk processors.

In conjunction with the dairy industry and PIRSA, the EPA is undertaking a joint program to further improve the environmental performance of dairying in the South East region. This program was developed to refi ne standards for dairy effl uent management to improve operations at existing sites, as well as for the environmentally sustainable expansion of the industry in the region.

The project is trying to identify why the lake is in such poor condition and to work out how to improve it. Some of the major fi ndings include:• The pre-European Lake Bonney SE was

generally brackish to saline and was low in nutrients.

• The lake water is no more toxic than any other water of similar salinity.

• Low light penetration reduces the ability of plants and animals to thrive in the lake.

• It appears that resuspended cellulose fi bres from historical paper mill discharges may be responsible for much of the lake’s turbidity.

• The recent discovery of large growths of the aquatic plant, Ruppia megacarpa, in shallow water along the eastern shore indicates improvements are occurring to at least part of the lake’s ecosystem.

• A detailed water model is being applied to the lake to help understand the processes in the lake and assist in developing ways to improve water quality and environmental values in the future.

• Native fi sh species have recently been found in the lake, indicating that the lake is returning to a healthy state.

Over the next six months, data will be collected and assessed to calibrate the model, and a series of management scenarios will be developed and tested to help determine the future management of this signifi cant lake in the South East.


Adelaide Coastal Waters Study

The coastal waters and ecosystems off Adelaide have been severely degraded by industrial, sewage and stormwater discharges. This has greatly reduced the area of seagrass (at least 4000 hectares have been lost over the last 30 years) increased sand movement, degraded reef systems, increased the frequency of algal blooms and reduced water quality. Many of these issues are interlinked: attempting to manage one can affect others.

How the different components of the ecosystem off Adelaide interact is poorly understood, making it diffi cult to manage the system effectively. Much better management tools are needed that can be used with confi dence, and which are based on good science. The study will:• add to knowledge• fi nd ways to manage the problem• work out how to assess the

effectiveness of these actions• communicate the results to the

community.

The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (ACWS) will add to our knowledge and develop ways to improve the management of Adelaide’s coastal waters by fi nding the causes of the problems and what can be done to halt and reverse the degradation.

The study concentrates on seagrass loss, water quality degradation and sea fl oor instability. Seagrasses were chosen as the primary ecological indicator because they are sensitive to environmental change (like a canary in a coalmine) and because of the effects of seagrass loss on marine ecosystems, water quality and sand movement.

There are two dominant seagrass species off Adelaide, Amphibolis spp. and Posidonia spp. Amphibolis is an establishment species, which provides a stable environment for later colonisation by Posidonia. Amphibolis is, however, sensitive to reduction in light levels and to higher nutrient concentrations. It appears that human intervention has changed the conditions that support healthy Amphibolis growth and has reduced the abundance of Amphibolis compared to Posidonia. This has created ‘blow-outs’. Gradually these blow-outs expand to the point where the whole sea grass bed is threatened.

A steering committee, chaired by the Chief Executive of the EPA and comprising key stakeholders, oversees the study. Organisations represented on the Steering Committee are SA Water, Transport SA, the Torrens, Patawalonga and Onkaparinga CWMBs, PIRSA, Coast Protection Board, Mobil Refi ning Australia, TRU Torrens Island, LGA, Conservation Council, South Australian Fishing Industry Council, Planning SA, DWLBC and the EPA. The stakeholders have provided funding of approximately $3 million.

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

The ACWS is being undertaken in three stages: detailed design; research; and syntheses of the fi ndings into products that can be used to manage the system.

Stage 1 was completed in March 2002. Part of this work entailed determining what stakeholders needed and then designing research to address these needs. A Stage 1 report was produced and endorsed by the Steering Committee. Work on Stages 2 and 3 began in November 2003 and the study is expected to be completed in June 2006.

SA Water environment improvement programs

SA Water is currently committed to implementing 11 environment improvement programs (EIPs) in cooperation with the EPA. These EIPs aim to minimise the effects of wastewater treatment plants on the environment, consistent with the requirements under the Act and, where applicable, the Water Quality EPP.

To date, SA Water has completed eleven EIPs. Monitoring programs will be used to gauge the success of the various upgrades in reducing or eliminating environmental harm. This monitoring is currently under way.

EPA Port River projects

In 2003 the EPA was successful in obtaining $1.22 million in funding from the Commonwealth for six projects, with a total cost of $1.6 million, focusing on Port River waterways.

A key project is the development of a water quality improvement plan (WQIP) for the Port waterways, comprising the Port River and Barker Inlet. The project involves a number of steps:• stakeholder consultation to gain

agreement on environmental values for the waterway

• determination of nutrient inputs from all major sources

• development of a decision support tool to determine sustainable nutrient loads

• a plan to achieve specifi c nutrient reductions over time consistent with the agreed environmental values.

Notwithstanding the signifi cant reduction of nutrients already made, the EPA is working with major point source dischargers to achieve further nutrient load reductions as technology and economics permit. This work is on schedule to be fi nalised by late 2005.


19

Water Quality

EPA Annual Report 2004–2005

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

As part of the project, a feasibility study was made into a nutrient offsets scheme which would use trading of discharge rights between point sources and catchment sources to reduce pollution. The study found that such a scheme is unlikely to be feasible at present in the Port River due to the small number of major sources. This may be reviewed in the future as nutrient loads are reduced.

The project also included the development of the Code of Practice for Materials Handling on Wharves and the Code of Practice for Marinas and Boating Management, in consultation with industry and the community. It is proposed that these codes will be made enforceable under the Water Quality EPP.

Aquaculture

The Aquaculture Act 2001, which became operational in July 2002, has now been in operation for three years. Whilst responsibility for its administration rests with PIRSA, the Aquaculture Act stipulates statutory requirements that must be met by the EPA. This includes the assessment and provision of comments on aquaculture licence applications, variations of licence conditions and lease conversions, as well as statutory requirements of the Development Act 1993 and any general aquaculture issues that may arise.

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

In addition, in 2004–05 the EPA:• fi nalised a collaborative project with

the Western Australian EPA to develop a framework for environmental monitoring and management of marine based aquaculture in coastal environments in southern Australia

• developed an environmental management system for inland aquaculture

• developed guidelines for the use of chemicals in aquaculture

• prepared draft position papers or guidelines on:

– the use of treated timber in aquaculture

– local government assessment of aquaculture

• prepared the draft ‘Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of the South Australian Oyster Farming Industry’.

Table 1 Aquaculture assessments 2004–05

Number % completed within statutory time frame

Licence and licence variation applications 51 100

Development applications 27 100

Environmental monitoring programs 7 n.a.

Operational and zone policies 2 n.a.

Lease conversions 0 n.a.

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

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

South Australia has had good air quality most of the time and air quality in Adelaide has signifi cantly improved over the last 10 years, a positive trend that has been confi rmed by the EPA’s monitoring network. Ambient air quality monitoring in Adelaide has found that levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide and lead are very low and well within Air NEPM standards. Particle concentrations are also low most of the time, but occasionally dust storms elevate particle levels in Adelaide.

National Environment Protection Measure

The Air NEPM sets air quality standards and goals which each state and territory in Australia has committed to meet by 30 June 2008. Although these requirements are intended to apply generally to airsheds (ambient air quality) rather than near known sources of pollution (local or hotspot air quality) they are nonetheless a critical consideration when determining the allowable emissions from major producers of air pollution. If local air quality is found not to meet the NEPM requirements, the EPA develops site-specifi c solutions to ensure that the operation(s) causing the problem

reduce their emissions within a reasonable period. Often this is through an environment improvement program (EIP) approved by the EPA and enforced through the company’s licence.

At its April 2005 meeting, the national Environment Protection and Heritage Council initiated a review of the Air NEPM. The review will involve extensive stakeholder consultation and will be informed by a number of national research projects that are considering the effects of urban air quality on health. The SA EPA is a participant on the national review team.

South Australia’s air quality

The following provides a summary of air quality in Adelaide and key regional site in SA. Further information on pollutants is available at <www.epa.sa.gov.au/>

AdelaideIn 2004, Adelaide’s air quality, as determined by the air quality index, was ‘very good’ 46% of the time, ‘good’ 47% of the time, ‘fair’ 6% of the time, and ‘poor’ 1% of the time. Figure 3 illustrates these results by using combined data from the Adelaide, Elizabeth, Netley and Kensington monitoring sites. The data in this fi gure was calculated from validated air quality data for all of 2004, whereas the Air Quality Index displayed on the EPA web site is based on a twice-daily calculation from raw air quality data.


AIR QUALITY

Fair or worse air quality was mostly a result of elevated levels of particulate matter (particles less than 10 microns in diameter—PM10), mainly as a result of dust storms. In 2004 the Air NEPM standard of 50 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre) as a 24-hour average was exceeded once at Elizabeth, four times at Gawler, once at Kensington Gardens, three times at Netley and three times at Northfi eld. Since the Air NEPM goal for PM10 is no more than fi ve exceedences per year by 2008, all sites met the Air NEPM goal.

In relatively dry winters, Adelaide can be subjected to dust storms driven by strong winds. A dust storm of this type occurred in the afternoon of 23 June 2004. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 5, the monitoring sites in the Adelaide region experienced high levels of PM10 over a six-hour period. However, daily average values remained below the Air NEPM standard of 50 µg/m3.

In Adelaide, the goals of the Air NEPM were met for all pollutants when suffi cient data was available to meet the NEPM reporting criteria, which require a minimum data capture rate of 75% for each quarter of the year.

Campaign monitoring for some pollutants at the Gawler and Elizabeth monitoring sites was not conducted for the full calendar year, but the data collected during the monitoring period indicated that compliance with the NEPM goals would have been achieved.

WhyallaAt the eastern end of Whyalla, particulate pollution continues to be a concern. Figure 6 shows variations in daily average concentrations of PM10 at the industrial monitoring site at Hummock Hill in Whyalla where sampling is conducted once every three days. Of the 112 samples taken, 23 (21%) exceeded 50 µg/m3.

21

Air quality


Table 2 PM10 levels recorded on 23 June 2004

Maximum 10-minute Maximum 1-hour 24-hour averageMoniutoring site average (μg/m3) average (μg/m3) (μg/m3)

Elizabeth 171 160 34

Gawler 146 108 24

Kensington Gardens 223 209 40

Netley 114 86 24

By comparison, PM10 monitoring at Civic Park towards the western end of Whyalla had no measurements exceeding 50 µg/m3 (Figure 7).

A new monitoring site was established at Walls Street, in a residential area at the eastern end of Whyalla, using a TEOM monitoring unit to continuously record particulate pollution levels. Of the 357 24-hour averages obtained, 24 (6.7%) exceeded 50 µg/m3 in the 2004–5 fi nancial year (Figure 8).

In 2004, monitoring was calculated at Nicholson Avenue for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. For these pollutants the air quality was predominately very good. No exceedences of NEPM standard were measured.

Port PirieIn 2004, the air quality in Port Pirie, as determined by the air quality index, was ‘very good’ 54% of the time, ‘good’ 38% of the time, ‘fair’ 6% of the time, ‘poor’ 1% of the time and ‘very poor’ 1% of the time. Figure 9 illustrates these results using validated air quality data for 2004 from the Port Pirie (Oliver Street) monitoring site.

Concentrations of airborne lead in Port Pirie continue to exceed the NEPM standard of 0.5 µg/m3 as an annual average.

In 2004, the annual average lead concentration was 0.63 µg/m3 at Port Pirie West Primary School, 0.59 µg/m3 at Oliver Street and 0.28 µg/m3 at Frank Green Park6. At the Ellen Street site, close to the smelters, the annual average was 3.91 µg/m3.


6 Oliver Street and Frank Green Park are NEPM sites

Air quality


Daily airborne lead levels at the two NEPM sites (measured once every six days) for 2004 are shown in fi gures 10 and 11. Concentrations in Adelaide, by comparison, are close to zero and monitoring has been discontinued.

Sulfur dioxide concentrations are recorded at the Oliver Street site to monitor the effects of the lead smelter. The NEPM sulfur dioxide 24-hour standard of 0.08 ppm was not exceeded in 2004. However, the NEPM 1-hour standard of 0.20 ppm was exceeded on 39 occasions (and on 27 occasions in 2003). In 2004, the maximum hourly average concentration was 0.440 ppm (parts per million) compared to 0.487 ppm in 2003 (see fi gures 12 and 13).

Fuel Quality EPP

The South Australian Environment Protection (Motor Vehicle Fuel Quality) Policy 2002 (Fuel Quality EPP) was confi rmed in 2002. It is the fi rst environment protection policy in South Australia to be introduced on an interim basis and involved extensive consultation with the vehicle fuel supply industry and the Commonwealth Government.

With the introduction of the Fuel Quality EPP, South Australia now has some of the most stringent fuel standards in Australia. The interim EPP will be superseded, except for summer volatility limits, when Commonwealth fuel standards take effect in 2006.

Without the Fuel Quality EPP, closure of the Port Stanvac refi nery in August 2003 would have led to replacement of low toxicity petrol with overseas blends of potentially signifi cantly higher toxicity. To date, all fuel suppliers have complied with the EPP, as verifi ed by regular EPA audits of fuel shipments arriving from interstate and overseas, and via the regular reporting required. The rate of compliance was helped by the major refi ners’ accelerated programs to meet future national standards.

Diesel NEPM

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

The Diesel NEPM aims to achieve this through a range of optional strategies. The states have discretion as to which of these strategies are implemented. The selection of appropriate strategies will require proper weight being given to environmental, economic, social and equity considerations.

Compared to larger Australian cities, Adelaide generally has good air quality and Air NEPM standards are rarely breached. Therefore, current air quality is not a trigger for change in managing diesel emissions in South Australia.

However, diesel vehicles contribute disproportionately to urban air pollution and this, coupled with continued annual growth in fuel consumption by the diesel fl eet, provided the trigger for the reduction of emissions from in-service diesel vehicles.


While environment agencies take responsibility for leading South Australia’s response to NEPMs, it is often other state government departments that implement and develop the strategies. The Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI), with assistance from the EPA and other stakeholders, is seeking Commonwealth funding for a testing and repair program; this could lead to the establishment of a test facility and education program for diesel mechanics.

An enhanced version of the existing Smoky Vehicle Program has been developed with signifi cant consultation with government agencies. The enhancements increase the number of government offi cers authorised to deal with smoky vehicles, the ability for the public to report, and a centralisation of the administrative procedure within DTEI. The framework to deliver the enhanced version of the program is being prepared by the DTEI and the EPA will provide assistance to the program following its establishment.

DTEI is currently evaluating the use of biodiesel by public transport buses and trains. As part of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, four depot refuelling facilities for buses have been converted to a fi ve percent biodiesel blend and all trains use this blend. Trials of higher percentage blends in both the bus and train fl eet are continuing.

Air quality modellingThe EPA is modelling the air quality of our major airsheds to better understand how air quality varies with weather conditions and to predict how other factors infl uence air quality. Modelling has been shown to be a powerful prognostic tool that can show how changes in source emissions affect air quality. It can also be used to predict air quality for the next day.

Work undertaken with the CSIRO model called ‘The Air Pollution Model’, or TAPM, indicated that the model predicted the meteorology and ozone pollution situation reasonably well for the simulation period (17–31 December 2002). A report on the fi ndings from this study is available on the EPA web site7.

The Australian Air Quality Forecasting System (AAQFS) is being developed for Adelaide by the EPA, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. Once fully tested and verifi ed, AAQFS will provide twice-daily 24–36 hour forecasts to SA EPA for a wide range of pollutants. These forecasts, together with knowledge of local meteorology and air quality, will be used to issue daily air quality forecasts on the EPA web site. Such forecasts may mitigate the effects of air pollution on susceptible people.

Air toxicsIn December 2004, the Government of South Australia, along with other states and territories, passed a new National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure (NEPM). This NEPM covers the following air pollutants: benzene, formaldehyde, benzo(a)pyrene (an indicator for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)), toluene and xylenes8.

As part of this NEPM, the EPA is performing a desktop study of 13 South Australian airsheds, using existing data, to identify air toxics hotspots that may coincide with areas of susceptible population and so require monitoring. The study is being conducted using methodology agreed to by participating jurisdictions and the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC).

7 <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/modelling.pdf>8 <www.ephc.gov.au>

Air quality


The study has two stages: the fi rst highlights areas of elevated air toxics concentration (stage 1 sites), and the second locates areas with combined elevated concentrations and susceptible population (stage 2 sites).

At present, stage 1 of the analysis has been completed for South Australia. Analysis predicted areas of elevated formaldehyde concentration that may exceed the NEPM’s monitoring investigation level (MIL), based on correlation thresholds supplied by the New South Wales EPA. A limited number of stage 1 sites have been identifi ed for benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and toluene, with the benzene and toluene sites predominantly associated with industry emissions. There have been no stage 1 sites identifi ed for xylenes as yet in any of the South Australian airsheds.

Stage 2 of the analysis is to be completed and submitted to NEPC by September 2005. Stage 2 sites will be prioritised for further investigation.

The EPA monitors air toxics. Data has been obtained for benzene, toluene and formaldehyde as part of the EPA’s hotspot monitoring program and this data is available in reports on the department’s web site9. To date the MILs have not been exceeded for any of the target pollutants. Benzene levels measured at hot-spot sites, however, are close to the investigation level.

National Pollutant InventoryThe National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) provides information on the types and volumes of pollutants emitted to the environment (air, land and water). Each year industrial companies around Australia are required to decide whether they need to report to the NPI. Levels of pollutants from industrial and commercial sources are reported annually to the state EPAs. Levels of pollutants from diffuse sources (aggregate emissions) such as motor vehicles and households are calculated by government agencies and were fi rst calculated for the 1998–99 reporting period. Data updated for the 2002–03 period was released in January 2005. NPI data is available at <www.npi.gov.au>.

As its fi rst priority, the EPA has been working to ensure that all licensed facilities required to report are doing so. South Australia presently has 357 facilities reporting, an increase of 5% on the previous year.

The EPA supports the Commonwealth’s proposal to move to online web-based industry reporting. Validation of the last year’s data was particularly important, as it was a key resource in the review of the current licensing fee system for South Australia. The NPI data was assessed against existing monitoring data submitted by companies as a condition of their licences.

GreenhouseGovernment has commenced formulating a broad community-based strategy to deal with climate change, based on the themes of adaptation, emissions reduction, and innovation: Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy.

In this major initiative, EPA’s role is to assist the Department of Trade and Economic Development in facilitating the industry sector contribution to the state strategy. The activities of the South Australian Greenhouse Committee, the inter-agency group representing state government interests in greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation strategies, were subsumed into the work of the interagency team co-ordinating the strategy development.

The Commonwealth Government released the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2003 in early 2005, followed by state-based inventories for the year 2002. These provided data for the preparation of issues papers released to initiate the fi rst phase of strategy development. Of the 30.9 Mt of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to South Australia, transport was responsible for 19%, stationary energy 45%, and the combination of

agriculture and land use change and forestry 10% due to its net sink effect. The 7% of total SA emissions attributed to industrial processes did not take into account the sector’s use of fuel combustion; the sector would have to consider that use in any emission reduction programs. Total net emissions in 2002 (30.9 Mt) were 3.5% lower than in 1990 (32.0 Mt).

OzoneThe Commonwealth Government completed its program to replace current state legislation controlling sale and use of ozone depleting substances (ODS) and accreditation of related trades personnel. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Amendment Act 2003 (Cwlth) was passed in December 2003 but the Regulations for air conditioning and refrigeration and for fi re protection systems do not take effect until 1 July 2005. The Australian Refrigeration Council was appointed to administer the national licensing scheme and regulations controlling refrigerants. The Fire Protection Industry Association of Australia will administer the legislation pertaining to halon use. Annually decreasing quotas will apply to importation and use of substances prescribed by the Commonwealth legislation to supplement the licensing systems.

For the 5700 ODS state authorisations that expired on 31 May 2004, the EPA issued renewal notices to ensure that the existing ozone protection system continued until the Commonwealth scheme was implemented. The Commonwealth regulations allow continuation of current state ozone accreditations for two years from the date of the Regulations, or until their expiry, whichever occurs fi rst. The fi nalisation of the Commonwealth system will allow review of state legislation with a view to revocation.

9 <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pub_air.html>

Wood heatersWood smoke is of concern to the community and its effects on air quality, human health and amenity are well recognised. Wood heaters are a popular means of home heating, but they can cause unnecessary pollution if not operated effectively, or if damp wood is used.

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

In response to this research, in 2004 the EPA ran a campaign to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of wood heaters. The campaign published advertisements in the metropolitan and regional press. Information packs, including a DVD and VHS explanatory fi lm, an information brochure and ‘check your chimney’ postcard were available free from <www.epa.sa.gov.au/woodsmoke> the Australian Home Heating Association and participating local councils. The EPA also provided information packs to all public libraries in South Australia. The campaign received signifi cant radio and press coverage that amplifi ed consumer interest.

The campaign was evaluated after the winter of 2004 by follow-up market research. It was found that some people had modifi ed their behaviour as a result of the campaign, but this was limited to less than 10% of the wood heater owners surveyed. As a result, a follow-up campaign was run in 2005, again attracting good public exposure through various forms of media.

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

NRG Flinders

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

The scheme reduces the environmental damage that would otherwise be caused by coal-based electricity generation and extends the scope of the Port Augusta City Vision. The South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) has installed solar hot water systems on 100 of its houses, so that residents in public housing also benefi t. Port Augusta City Council, the local administrator of the scheme in partnership with the EPA, readvertised the scheme in the local press in 2004.

To date, 260 applications have been received from households, including 87 from the Housing Trust, with NRG Flinders contributing over $350,000 in rebates. The SAHT is currently considering extending the rebate scheme to additional properties in the Port Augusta region.



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

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

Planning policy

The Planning Section advised on proposed changes to local government development plans through the assessment of council and ministerial plan amendment reports. EPA assessment of proposed planning schemes encourages the development of planning policies that support ecologically sustainable development. The Planning Section also assessed other planning policy documents such as the Metropolitan and Outer Metropolitan Planning Strategies and worked closely with Planning SA in the early stages of the development of ministerial plan amendment reports. During the year, 69 planning policy documents were assessed.

The Planning Section provided advice on the proposed Sustainable Development Bill, which is intended to amend the Development Act.

Development assessment

The Planning Section of the EPA’s Planning and Local Government Support Branch coordinates the assessment of development applications of environmental signifi cance referred to the EPA by local government or the Development Assessment Commission. Since the referral process began in mid-1995, the EPA has assessed nearly 5500 development applications, an average of around 550 applications per year.

This year, 440 applications were assessed (see Table 3). The EPA can infl uence and, in certain cases, direct that proposals be refused or certain conditions attached to ensure that the environment and community are protected, and to encourage sustainable development10.

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

Table 3 Referred development applications completed

Development Description 2003–04 2004–05applicationtype No. On time (%) No. On time (%)

Schedule 8 Schedule 22: Activities of 172 79.1 172 90Part 11 major environmental signifi cance

Schedule 8 Schedule 21: Activities of 184 90.2 157 92Part 10(b) environmental signifi cance

Schedule 8 ‘Non-complying’ development 79 65.8 91 68Part 10(a) in a water protection area

Section 49 Crown development by 19 89.5 20 95 state agencies

Total 454 81.5 440 86.4

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

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

The following major projects were referred to the EPA during the year for assessment:• IWS Dublin Balefi ll Contaminated

Soil and Liquid Treatment Plant (amendments)

• Jeffries Composting Works (amendments)

• Hindmarsh Square Apartment Complex (amendments)

• Ceduna Keys Marina• Beringer Blass Wine Bottling and

Storage Facility (amendments)• Cape Jaffa Marina.

Development assessment process reviewDuring the year, the EPA reviewed the internal development application referral system. The EPA Board endorsed the fi ndings of the review and its recommendations in May 2005. The primary objective of the review was to look at how the EPA assesses developments and to fi nd opportunities to improve performance; both in quality and timeliness. The recommendations are aligned with the EPA strategic directions and the Economic Development Board recommendations.

The review uncovered areas where improvements can be made, including organisational structure and culture, and infrastructure and information systems. An implementation plan has been developed, and six working groups established, to concentrate on areas that need improvement, including spatial information and specialist advice. A ‘quick wins’ working group has also been established to attend to immediate issues that are low risk and low cost to the organisation. The EPA has had a number of ‘quick wins’ already with successful improvements to the process.

A budget allocation was made in 2005–06 to implement the review recommendations. The review has commenced and will continue to June 2006.

Implementation of the recommendations will make it more probable that statutory timeframes can be met and consistent, quality responses will be provided on development applications. It will also demonstrate the EPA’s commitment to be a ‘learning organisation’ and one that embraces a culture of continuous improvement.


ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE


Noise is defi ned as a pollutant under the Act and approximately 30% of all calls to the EPA Help Desk are about noise. Virtually all activity generates noise and the response to noise can be as wide and varied as the number of activities that produce it.

Currently the Environment Protection (Machine Noise) Policy 1994 and the Environment Protection (Industrial Noise) Policy 1994 provide the legislative basis for regulating noise under the Act. The draft Environment Protection (Noise) Policy (Noise EPP) is being developed to replace these two policies. It will clarify and bring consistency to environmental noise regulation, with clear and concise rules for many noise sources such as construction sites, wind farms, frost fans, air conditioning units and industrial premises. The EPP is the fi rst to link directly with the Development Act and the fi rst to specifi cally address development, as distinct from existing situations, to take a preventative approach to noise.

The Noise EPP was released for fi nal consultation and comments received have now been assessed. These comments will be used to deliver a fi nal draft of the EPP that will then proceed through the approval process in accordance with the Environment Protection Act.

In addition to standards for noise from industrial, commercial and residential activities, the EPP will incorporate guidelines prepared by the EPA for wind farms and audible bird scaring devices.

Noise monitoring

Long-term noise from various activities—including quarries, wind farms and industry—was monitored to assess its effect. The equipment now in use by the EPA records the sound in addition to its noise level. This enables desktop assessments that can differentiate between noise sources and determine whether the problem was caused by the source under investigation.

A signifi cant amount of data on wind farm noise was obtained in the fi rst half of 2005. This data, supplemented by weather monitoring, including wind speed information, has been analysed and will form the basis for review of the EPA’s Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines in the last half of 2005.

Train noise

Train noise includes the rumble of locomotives, the general rolling noise of wagons, and fl anging, wheel squeal and wheel howl. Idling trains, shunting, signal crossings and warning signals all make noise, a problem where residential development is close to the rail corridor.

The most annoying noise—squeal from interactions between wheels and rails, typically on curves—is most noticeable when freight trains pass through the Adelaide Hills. Extensive research into squeal has implicated a variety of causes. Added to these is an element of randomness that has made it diffi cult to identify consistent and therefore predictable causes.

A joint study by the EPA, rail track owners and rolling stock operators, using world-fi rst technology and the recent introduction of ID tags on all rolling stock, has provided the opportunity to focus on this issue. The study was able to identify individual wheel sets that squealed.

In late 2004, the EPA met with all rolling stock operators and the track owner, Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to discuss the results of the pilot study. As a result, ARTC is establishing a permanent monitoring station in the Adelaide Hills. It is expected to be operational in late 2005 and will provide data to assist in implementing a noise reduction trial.

In addition, in November 2004, the EPA was given an opportunity to present to the Rail Environment Forum established by the National Transport Commission (NTC). The NTC expanded their role to include rail environmental impacts in 2004. The presentation recommended the issue of rail noise be placed on the national agenda for consideration by the Land Transport Environment Committee (LTEC). This proposal was well received by stakeholders and the issue of rail noise standards was placed on the LTEC agenda for consideration in July 2005.

Wind farm noise

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

Standards Australia drew heavily on these guidelines to develop its draft standard Acoustics-Measurement, Prediction and Assessment of Noise and Wind Turbine Generators, which was fi rst released for public comment in June 2004 and is expected to be re-released in late 2005.

Standards Australia has also expressed interest in South Australian research on how wind affects the microphone used for recording noise made by wind farms. Almost a full years data was logged as part of the investigation into microphone ‘fl oor level’ effects under different weather conditions. This data will be used for a review of the guidelines in the last half of 2005.

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


As the community becomes more aware of its effect on the environment through its pattern of production and consumption, it expects that waste will be better managed. The EPA, along with Zero Waste SA (ZWSA), is working with industry, government and the community to achieve this.

ZWSA was established in July 2003 as part fulfi lment of government policy for a new legislative framework under which the state can work with local government and industry on waste reduction, recycling and disposal. The EPA has developed a strong working relationship with ZWSA in which it has a predominantly regulatory role, while ZWSA is responsible for compiling the draft integrated plan for managing waste, referred to as South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005–2010. To implement that strategy the EPA has started to develop a new environment protection policy for waste.

In South Australia, most waste is consigned to landfi ll and, in its role as the primary regulator of these sites, the EPA issued draft Landfi ll Facility Guidelines in 2004 for public consultation. Throughout the year, the EPA has consulted with local government and the waste industry on the guidelines through a collaborative working party.

Disposal is not the only option, as the waste stream contains many items that can be recycled or reused. The use of landfi ll will change as industry adopts better waste management systems and improves its practices. Moreover, the cost of disposal is increasing as landfi ll operating standards improve

31

and transport costs rise. Industry is beginning to appreciate that disposal as a sole waste solution is expensive. This is providing South Australia with a great opportunity to improve resource recovery.

In regional South Australia the issues are similar: improved management of smaller regional waste sites, and mechanisms for calculating the cost of landfi ll, mean local government is reassessing waste management options. Cooperation and regionalisation of waste infrastructure and waste management systems are being considered and implemented, and the viability of resource recovery is being reconsidered.

Waste types such as electronic goods, due to the quantities involved, need to be considered at a national level to allow their economical management and treatment. The EPA has been working with other jurisdictions through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council’s Waste Working Group, on waste tyres, electronic equipment and hazardous waste. The group is developing a national co-regulatory approach to managing these wastes (refer to ‘Policy and legislation’).

Waste management and disposal practices continue to improve. However, it is important that the EPA, in collaboration with other agencies such as ZWSA, continues to maximise the quantity of resources reused or recycled, with the ultimate goal of zero waste to landfi ll.


Country Landfi lls Training Course

The third Country Landfi ll Training Course, held in Victor Harbor over two days in April 2005, helped country landfi ll operators understand their obligations under the Act and fi nd some practical ways to meet their responsibilities. The workshop, which was arranged by the Waste Management Association of Australia and conducted with assistance from the EPA, Zero Waste SA and the Local Government Association, covered environmental management and operation of landfi lls; costs of landfi ll development, operation and closure; and lessons from case studies.

Presentations covered legal and licensing matters, safe handling of hazardous materials, landfi ll cost structures, landfi ll management and operational matters as well as occupational health, safety and welfare. Field trips were organised to landfi lls in Victor Harbor and Goolwa and to the transfer station in Strathalbyn. The second day looked at recycling in rural areas, EPA requirements for material resource recovery facilities, and landfi ll closure and post-closure considerations. Case studies from Alexandrina, Mt Gambier, Coorong and Yankalilla Councils covered a number of topics, such as costs of landfi ll and recycling, community involvement and landfi ll closure.

The workshop was well received by participants and it is expected that these courses will continue.

WASTE AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

Disposal

Least preferable

Landfi ll guidelines

The EPA reviewed its guidelines for landfi lls for domestic, industrial and commercial wastes, responding to an increasing demand by proponents, operators and licensees for:• more detailed guidance on planning,

designing and managing landfi lls• more transparency in the development

and implementation of standards and guidelines

• more assurance for short-, medium- and long-term planning of waste management facilities.

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

The revised draft guidelines for landfi lls propose standards that are not signifi cantly different from the existing requirements which were introduced in 1998. However, these guidelines clarify the EPA’s requirements and give landfi ll operators greater fl exibility to meet the requirements. It should be noted that in some instances the revised draft guidelines are not as strict as the current guidelines, e.g. reduced liner and cap thickness requirements.

The EPA has worked with landfi ll operators for approximately four years to achieve improvements in the operation and management of licensed landfi ll sites. EPA guidelines will apply to all landfi lls in South Australia, regardless of whether they are operated by a council or privately.

Local governments have raised concerns about the cost of implementing the guidelines. The EPA understands that community expectations on waste management and, in particular, resource recovery, have contributed to increases in councils’ waste management costs. The EPA has to balance concerns from these groups and to respond to demands for a level playing fi eld.

The EPA recognises the fi nancial implications of this transition period and has supported a staged approach to address landfi ll sites and achieve improved waste management in regional areas.

During the year, the EPA established an EPA Board Sub-committee and also a collaborative working party with membership from local government, the waste industry and Zero Waste to oversee the review of the guidelines.

Further effort is also being made to assess the costs of the proposed changes and timing of implementation. A landfi ll audit study, which will examine a number of landfi ll case studies from different areas of the state, is jointly funded through Offi ce of Local Government, Zero Waste SA, EPA and the Local Government Association.

Comments received from the consultation, together with fi ndings and recommendations from the Landfi ll Audit Project for Selected Council Landfi ll Facilities, will be assessed and considered before fi nalising the documents. The implementation plan will refl ect these fi ndings and consider reasonable steps and timeframes.

Waste to Resources EPP

The policy and operational environment for waste management has progressed both internationally and nationally since the existing waste management legislation was introduced. Waste is now increasingly seen as a resource which should not be squandered, but which should be avoided, minimised, re-used, recycled and only disposed of as a last resort. The application of the waste management hierarchy, as it is known (Figure 14), is refl ected in recent policy initiatives such as the SA Strategic Plan and the SA Waste Strategy (SWS) developed by Zero Waste SA. The SWS in particular, calls for regulatory support in a number of areas, most of which will be developed through a Waste to Resources EPP.

Although a number of measures will need to be considered to provide suffi cient incentive for waste minimisation and resource recovery, the proposed Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy (Waste to Resources EPP) will be a fundamental tool that will prescribe both mandatory and non-mandatory standards and guidelines to manage both waste disposal and waste reduction.


Figure 14 The waste hierarchy

Avoidance

Reduction

Reuse

Recycling

Recovery

Treatment

Most preferable

The key areas to be addressed by the proposed Waste to Resources EPP include the following measures:• to enable the EPA to more effectively

regulate the waste industry to achieve compliance, targets and outcomes in the SWS, including:

– requiring implementation of risk- based standards for waste disposal and resource recovery; this covers the roles that both local government and the waste industry have in these areas

– establishing more effective offences for illegal activities such as the deposition of waste to unauthorised sites (illegal dumping)

• promote and encourage resource effi ciency in the production of goods and services; this includes using alternative production systems to increase resource recovery effi ciency.

Consultation processes for the Waste to Resources EPP will commence during the 2005–06 fi nancial year.

Small Business Eco-effi ciency Training Program

The Small Business Eco-effi ciency Training Program has continued to train businesses from across South Australia in 2004–05 to help them improve their effi ciency while reducing their impact on the environment.

Workshops (Table 4) have been held in locations including Port Adelaide, West Torrens and Woodville.

The program delivers courses to small businesses and provides information and tools to help them improve their environmental performance and minimise costs by using cleaner production methods, recycling, waste minimisation and reuse.

Greening the Supply Chain Program

The Greening the Supply Chain Program has continued to cooperate with business and industry by promoting the benefi ts of eco-effi ciency, focusing on business supply chains. Industry Association Projects include the following.

South Australian wine industryThe partnership project with the South Australian Wine Industry Association was completed with the launch of the Sustainable Purchasing toolkit web site11. The toolkit was developed to assist industry improve the sustainability of the procurement process by providing practical templates, fact sheets and case study examples that will help wineries and vineyards work with suppliers in a more sustainable way.

Motor Traders Association of South AustraliaThis project has provided systematic environmental auditing, training, and follow-up evaluation to three key sectors of the motor trade industry to assist with long-term environmental improvements. The three sectors that were targeted included auto repair, collision repair, and new and used vehicle dealerships.

Five sites from each of the sector groups were visited. Each visit included an audit and then a follow-up site inspection two months later.

An educational program was undertaken with each sector group in conjunction with the visits to present an update on environmental management systems and to maximise the outcomes of the visits.

Mitsubishi Motors Australia LtdThe project has developed economically and environmentally sustainable packaging solutions for component parts sourced from South Australia, Australia and overseas for MMAL’s new 2005 vehicle. The vehicle will be launched in October 2005.

The project streamlined the inventory process for the manufacture of the new vehicle and has developed economical and environmentally sustainable packaging solutions for 80 components.

The environmental outcomes from improving supply chain effi ciency include reduced waste, lower resources usage and energy savings from improved transport effi ciencies.

Beverage container provisions expansion

Legislative amendmentsAmendments to the beverage container provisions of the Act (commonly known as container deposit legislation or CDL) are being drafted to make them clearer, more transparent and to improve regulation of the CDL system. Stakeholder consultation on the draft Bill is planned for late 2005, with the expectation that the legislation will be introduced to Parliament in mid 2006.

CDL media campaignA further round of CDL advertising was run in May and June 2005 to reinforce public awareness of the additional beverage containers (such as fl avoured milk and pure fruit juice containers under 1 litre and all soft [non-carbonated] beverages in containers up to and including 3 litres) that have attracted a 5c refund since 1 January 2003.

Press advertisements were compiled and the campaign was enhanced by the inclusion of a large coloured advertisement placed in a weekend paper environmental lift out and CDL editorial for World Environment Day.

33

Waste and Resource Effi ciency


Table 4 Small Business Eco-effi ciency Workshops

Performance indicators 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

No. of participants 550 364 235

No. of businesses participating 273 238 159

No. of workshops 30 28 10

11 <www.winesa.asn.au/suppliers>

Beverage container litterThe EPA continues to monitor quarterly litter returns conducted by KESAB (Keep South Australia Beautiful) together with container return statistics supplied by industry. The general trend for beverage container litter shows marked improvement, but is subject to seasonal variability that may disguise the long-term situation.

Used packaging

The Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Policy 2001 (the implementation in South Australia of the Used Packaging NEPM) gave brand owners, who could be signifi cant contributors to the waste stream, a choice to sign the National Packaging Covenant (NPC) or comply with the requirements of the Used Packaging NEPM/EPP. As at 30 June 2005, South Australia had 93 signatories to the NPC.

The South Australian Jurisdictional Recycling Group was established under the National Packaging Covenant. It arose from a cooperative approach between industry and government. The result has been essential for achieving a nationally consistent approach to the lifecycle management of packaging and paper, including its recovery, utilisation and ultimate disposal.

The South Australian Jurisdictional Recycling Group started the following projects:• a transport logistics study for rural

and regional South Australia to investigate options for increasing recycling rates in rural and regional areas

• public place and public recycling, developing guidelines for organisers who are responsible for running events. The guidelines are intended to encourage other stakeholders to increase their participation in waste minimisation and recycling

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

In December 2004 the EPA audited brand owners (required annually by the Used Packaging NEPM) to identify companies that are signifi cant contributors to the waste stream.

The EPA also gave presentations on the NPC at several forums and workshops, delivering information on national and state-based projects of the National Kerbside Recycling Group and the state-based Jurisdictional Recycling Group.

Following an extensive period of review and consultation, in December 2004 the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) considered a proposal to strengthen the National Packaging Covenant. At the meeting, EPHC asked jurisdictions to commence consultation on a set of targets for the Covenant.

In March 2005, the EPHC agreed to an interim extension of the Covenant to 14 July 2005, in order to allow the National Packaging Covenant Council time to develop a detailed proposal for future arrangements. Copies of the draft Covenant (including indicative target areas) and a regulatory impact statement were then released for public consultation on 15 April 2005. The consultation period was aligned with that of the Used Packaging Materials NEPM and concluded on 19 May 2005.

Based on broad consultation and input from jurisdictions, the National Packaging Covenant Council developed a fi nal draft proposal (including targets) for a strengthened Covenant. The EPHC is to decide on the future arrangements of the National Packaging Covenant and its associated NEPM in July 2005.


The EPA, under the Minister for Environment and Conservation, is responsible for administering the Environment Protection Act. Other acts administered by the EPA include:• Radiation Protection and Control

Act 1982• National Environment Protection

Council (South Australia) Act 1995• Wingfi eld Waste Depot Closure

Act 1999.

The EPA also has regulatory responsibilities under acts within the jurisdiction of other State Government agencies, such as the Aquaculture Act 2001 and the Development Act 1993.

The Environment Protection Act was assented to in October 1993 and came into operation on 1 May 1995. Changing community values and a better understanding of both environmental impact and contemporary approaches to environmental management requires a commitment to continually review and update the Act. Since it came into operation, parts of the Act have been amended, subordinate legislation such as EPPs has been introduced, and a number of areas where the Act could be improved have been identifi ed.

In early 2003, the Act was amended to establish new governance arrangements for the EPA and increased penalties for major offences. In June 2005, a further Bill was passed and assented to, the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2005.

As well as legislative policy development, the EPA also considers policy development in areas such as the effects of pollution on health, and more recently, its role in and contribution to the growing sustainability agenda.For initiatives related to legislative review of the Radiation Protection and Control Act, please refer to the separate section of this report on the administration of the Radiation Protection and Control Act.

Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005

The Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act was assented to on 9 June 2005 and the majority of the amendments were proclaimed on 1 July 2005.

The amendments stem from a number of general reviews of the Environment Protection Act since 1999.

• The EPA is empowered to negotiate a civil penalty for a contravention of the Act, or apply to the ERD Court for an order that a person pay to the EPA an amount as a civil penalty. A person may elect not to enter into civil penalty negotiations and, if the EPA seeks to apply to the Court for a civil penalty, the person may elect to be prosecuted for the contraven-tion, rather than be heard in the civil jurisdiction of the Court. The civil penalties will only apply to less seri-ous contraventions and strict liability offences, leaving existing criminal provisions in the Act to deal with more serious offences.

• Amendments to several offences under the Act will strengthen the power of the EPA and administering agencies, such as local councils, to protect the environment. Of particular impor-tance is a change to the offence of environmental nuisance to add a new strict liability offence. Additionally, the protection against self-incrimina-tion for corporations that operate a licensed activity is to be limited for most purposes in the Act, such that information sought by, and provided to, the EPA from such a corporation may be admissible in evidence in pro-ceedings for an offence under the Act.

• The amendments clarify the EPA’s power to continue to control and supervise sites of environmental concern, even though activities that require a licence are no longer being undertaken on that site. Clarifying the EPA’s power to continue to monitor and regulate closed sites previously subject to a prescribed activity, is essential to ensure proper manage-ment of public health and other environmental impacts on and around problematical closed sites.

• Consistent with the recommendations of the ERD Committee Parliamentary inquiry, changes to the process of making EPPs are proposed to achieve a more timely and effective process for developing such policies.


POLICY AND LEGISLATION

• The amendments aim to clarify the role of local councils in administering the Act so that better service may be provided to the community. They will be able to volunteer a greater role in en-forcing the Act by becoming administer-ing agencies for non-licensed activities. The amendments introduce a range of non-mandatory cost recovery tools to help administrative agencies recover the cost of administering the Act.

New EPA Position Statements

The EPA Board has started preparing statements that outline policy position and principles on key priority environmental issues. The key elements of a statement may include:• identifi cation of the environmental

issue• identifi cation of the EPA’s role in

managing the issue, or what the EPA is or will be doing

• identifi cation of the challenges and opportunities associated with the topic and/or what the EPA is intending to further assess or evaluate

• a call for action to better manage the issue—that is, what the EPA believes needs to happen.

Consultation is at the discretion of the Board, but would include at least any organisations that may be required to undertake specifi c action.

During the year, the EPA Board released two position statements, both of which are available on the EPA web site.

1. Managing the health impacts of pollution12—this statement acknowledges the potential effects on health caused by environmental pollutants, including adverse health effects from pollutants at levels lower than thresholds determined by expert health research bodies. The statement discusses management approaches to deal with pollution, and strategies

and approaches used by the EPA. The incomplete understanding of health impacts complicates this matter, but the statement calls for a number of initiatives to continue, or be initiated, to minimise pollution-based health risks. Critical amongst these is the need to develop strong collaborative partnerships between governments, industry and the community to manage these risks in a practicable, sensible and timely manner.

2. The role of the EPA in attaining sustainability (draft13)—this statement describes how the EPA uses its decision-making powers, and program and policy development, to raise the profi le of sustainability to ensure that decision makers and the general public take it into account. Two ways in which the EPA contributes to sustainability—addressing local environmental impacts, and managing and infl uencing others to address the cumulative effects of waste and pollution on our environment—are discussed. The statement describes how the EPA contributes towards the achievement of a number of objectives in South Australia’s Strategic Plan, namely in attaining sustainability, community wellbeing and increasing community prosperity. It recognises the need to communicate with others to ensure the EPA understands the expectations of interest groups and concludes with challenges that will need to be addressed in the transition to sustainability.

State of the Environment Report

The State of the Environment Report for South Australia (SoE Report) is a responsibility of the EPA under section 112 of the Act. The most recent SoE Report was released on 24 November 2003. The SoE Report provides an overview of the current state of South Australia’s environment and the pressures on it. The report looks at trends, to assess the effectiveness of efforts to deal with the environmental pressures, and to measure our progress towards achieving a healthy environment.

The State Government released a formal response to the SoE Report’s 116 recommendations early in 2005. Titled Action for the Environment, the response provides an overview of the many government initiatives to tackle environmental issues such as water quality, species loss and climate change.

This is the fi rst time that the government has responded to recommendations made in a state of the environment report14. The SoE Report 2003 and a more detailed Supplementary Report are available at <www.environment.sa.gov.au/soe2003>.

Review of licence fee structure

The review of the licence fee structure (LFS) continued in 2004–05 with the public consulted on options for a conceptual structure in November and December 2004. Over 80 submissions were received and analysed by the EPA and the LFS Reference Group. A licence fee structure consisting of a fl at minimum component (representing the minimum paperwork associated with every licence) an environment management component (refl ecting EPA regulatory effort which is linked to environmental risk of licensed activities) and a load-based performance component (where fees are based on the amount and type of pollutant emissions) was recommended by the LFS Reference Group and the LFS Steering Committee, and endorsed by the EPA Board in March 2005.

The EPA is currently developing the details of the LFS in consultation with the LFS Reference Group. Public consultation with stakeholders is planned for early 2006.

12 <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/stmt_health.pdf>


13 <www.epacomments.sa.gov.au/documents/sustain_stmt.pdf>14 A copy of the response can be found at <www.environment.sa.gov.au/sustainability/ measuring_progress.html#response>

New dolphin sanctuary object to the Environment Protection Act

The Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005 was assented to on 14 April 2005 and will be proclaimed in stages, with all of Schedule 2, the amendments to other operational Acts, to be in operation by 1 July 2005. When the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act is proclaimed it will add a new object to the Environment Protection Act, to which the EPA must have regard when making decisions affecting the Adelaide dolphin sanctuary.

National policy

The National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), which is part of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), is a statutory body with law making powers established by the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cwlth). Mirror legislation has been established in each state and territory (in South Australia, the National Environment Protection Council Act (South Australia) 1995). Members of the NEPC are the Commonwealth environment minister and ministers appointed by the fi rst minister from each participating jurisdiction.

The NEPC’s two primary functions are to:• make national environment protection

measures (NEPMs)• assess and report on their implemen-

tation and effectiveness in participat-ing jurisdictions.

The objective of NEPMs prepared by the NEPC is to ensure that all Australians are equally protected from air, water and soil pollution, and that decisions by businesses are not distorted, and markets not fragmented, by variations in environmental standards between jurisdictions.

While the NEPC can make NEPMs, the respective NEPC Acts do not contain implementation mechanisms. These are addressed by each jurisdiction separately, according to their legislation. In South Australia, NEPMs had automatically operated as environment protection policies (EPPs) under the Act (section 28A). With the passage of amendments to the Act that will delete the current section 28A, there will be greater fl exibility to choose the most appropriate legislative mechanism to implement the NEPM.During 2004–05 the EPHC has been working with major retailers to phase out single-use, light-weight plastic shopping bags. The EPHC has agreed that should targets not be reached, legislative mechanisms to ban plastic bags will be developed and brought into operation from the beginning of 2009. The South Australian Government has stated that it will independently introduce legislation to ban plastic bags should the national process not achieve its objectives.

The NEPC has resolved to develop a NEPM for product stewardship to underpin a co-regulatory regime. Product stewardship involves all parties in the product chain sharing responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products. Schemes aim to cover whole-of-life management of a product, including both upstream and downstream environmental pressures.

Environment protection policies (EPPs)

An EPP is one of a number of legislative tools provided for by the Act to address environment protection. An EPP can be made for any purpose to secure the objects of the Act. EPPs provide mid-level enforcement mechanisms below prosecutions for serious or material environment harm and provide a mechanism to manage diffuse pollution. This may include setting out requirements or mandatory provisions that will be enforceable under the Act.

When the Act came into operation on 1 May 1995, parts of the repealed legislation, including regulations, were translated into the following transitional EPPs, which were put in place during 1994 and 1995:• Environment Protection (Air Quality)

Policy 1994• Environment Protection (Burning)

Policy 1994• Environment Protection (Industrial

Noise) Policy 1994• Environment Protection (Machine

Noise) Policy 1994• Environment Protection (Marine)

Policy 1994• Environment Protection (Waste

Management) Policy 1994.

Since that time the following EPPs have been authorised:• Environment Protection (Milking Shed

Effl uent Management) Policy 1997• Environment Protection (Vessels on

Inland Waters) Policy 1998• Environment Protection (Motor

Vehicle Fuel Quality) Policy 2002• Environment Protection (Water Qual-

ity) Policy 2003 (repealing the Milking Shed Effl uent Management EPP, the Marine EPP and the Vessels on Inland Waters EPP).

Policy and Legislation


Site contamination

Site contamination is a signifi cant issue that must be recognised and considered in the purchase, sale, lease, development and redevelopment of all land, property and business. When a site has been contaminated, the problem should be assessed, remediated and managed to ensure that the land is suitable for its current or intended use. A major area of concern is the development or redevelopment of land for a sensitive use (such as residential, childcare, preschool or primary school) where the site is contaminated or is suspected to be contaminated.

Site contamination may result from historical industrial and agricultural practices and some current activities, including the disposal or intensive use of chemicals or waste.

There is currently no effective legislation to regulate the management of site contamination in South Australia. In the interim, the EPA continues to advise and guide, using an agreed strategy and administrative processes and procedures to assist in the management of site contamination, including the use of Environmental Auditors (Contaminated Land). These processes are supported by the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, which operates to a limited extent as an environment protection policy under the Act, and a memorandum of understanding between the EPA and the Department of Health.

The EPA and the State Government have developed a draft Site Contamination Bill to amend the Act to address site contamination.

In late 2004, the draft bill was provided to some 24 stakeholder bodies including Business SA, the LGA, the Housing Industry Association and the Property Council of Australia for comment. These bodies distributed copies of the documents to a number of their members for their comment. The LGA, for example, provided copies of the draft bill and explanatory report to all councils in South Australia and

also placed the documents on its web site, which is publicly accessible. Consequently, comments were received from organisations other than key stakeholders.

The written and oral comments are now being analysed. On the basis of these comments, the draft bill will be amended before its release for public consultation.

Regional Impact Assessment Statement

The preparation of a Regional Impact Assessment Statement is a requirement of the Cabinet submission process. One statement was prepared during 2004–05 associated with the Regulation of Pollutant Drainage Discharges in the Lower Murray Reclaimed Irrigation Area.


It also supports one of the key recommendations in the State of the Environment Report 2003—that of building effective working relationships and targeted community education and awareness programs, both necessary to move towards a more sustainable and prosperous way of life.

The EPA currently supports targeted education, monitoring and participation programs to raise industry and community awareness, develop shared ownership of environmental issues and their management, and encourage environmentally sustainable behaviour. By engaging with community groups and organisations, the EPA gives the community and industry sectors the knowledge and skills to protect the environment.

Round-table 2005

Once again the Board and Executive made good use of the opportunity at the Round-table to provide information on current problems and approaches, and gain input from stakeholders on the operation of the Act and matters of concern for the protection, restoration or enhancement of South Australia’s environment.

The people invited by the EPA to attend the Round-table represented a range of interests and expertise in the matters to be considered. Some people have attended since the inaugural Round-table in 1997 and some were attending for the fi rst time.

As the EPA matures and stakeholder expectations of the EPA increase, a more comprehensive and sophisticated approach to engaging our communities is needed. Communities in this context are defi ned as groups such as industry, business, all three spheres of government, community groups and the public. Through a range of forums including the EPA Round-table, parliament, media, consultation events and market research, the EPA is more aware of the need to engage more effectively with our stakeholders and the public and have made a strong commitment to address this need. Enhancing our engagement is important for three related, yet distinct, reasons:

1. to engender stakeholder confi dence, trust and understanding in the EPA’s ability to protect the environment

2. to create meaningful dialogue with stakeholders to ensure our decisions are appropriate and responsive

3. to enable communities to actively contribute to reducing damage to our environment, leading to a more sustainable future.

The EPA embarked on the development of an engagement strategy to communicate its future directions and priorities. It will focus on collaboration, information sharing, listening, consulting with and learning from stakeholders and working in partnership towards a sustainable future. This program has been highlighted as one of the EPA’s four priority areas in the 2005–2008 Strategic Plan.

The Board’s draft position statement on ‘The Role of the EPA in Attaining Sustainability’ was a good basis for discussion and encouraged some very useful observations and suggestions. A case study focused attention on the dilemmas and sometimes competing priorities the EPA faces when dealing with the impacts of pollution.

Stakeholders were invited to discuss what they expect from the EPA. Key themes arising included their expectations of the EPA as a credible leader to which they look for guidance. Strong regulatory leadership aligned with early intervention was seen as important, especially involvement in the planning process as a preventative process. The EPA also needs to be a facilitator of solutions and a problem solver, not just the policeman. The challenge for the EPA is to understand what this means for its roles, skill sets and policies. The Board and the EPA will consider these messages when developing and implementing the Strategic Plan and will continue to improve performance by reviewing internal functions and processes.

The full report on proceedings and outcomes from the June 2005 Round-table will be available on the EPA web site later in 2005.


ENGAGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS

Community programs

Involving the community in awareness-raising and action programs is critical to ensure that our environment is managed sustainably. Education and information are very effective at bringing about change and encouraging people to act in a sustainable manner.

The EPA’s community programs—WaterCare, Community Monitoring, Frog Census and AirWatch—collectively involve over 60,000 South Australians. The EPA values the important contribution of the many community networks and stakeholder groups that participate in these programs and ensure their success.

WaterCareOn the 13 September 2004 the Minister for Environment and Conservation, the Hon. John Hill MP, launched the new WaterCare public awareness campaign. This state-wide campaign was designed to raise awareness of problems facing the state’s water resources, and to promote the sustainable use and management of water.

The campaign included television and print advertising, and supporting promotional activity. It provided a context for its partners to inform their clients and the community in general about water and attempt to infl uence their behaviour. After a nine month campaign, market research found that:• awareness of stormwater pollution as

a serious problem has increased from 62% to 69%

• awareness of water conservation as a serious issue has increased from 60% to 68%

• acceptance by South Australians that their own behaviour affects stormwa-ter pollution has increased from 8.2 to 8.5 (ranking out of 10)

• acceptance by South Australians that their own behaviour affects water conservation has increased from 7.9 to 8.3 (ranking out of 10).


In March 2005 Cabinet approved WaterCare as a whole-of-government approach to communicating water issues to South Australians. This gives WaterCare a strong mandate to continue to publicise the problems facing South Australia’s water resources and to promote their sustainable use and management. In the coming year the WaterCare Offi ce will concentrate on broadening government support for WaterCare by involving government agencies outside the environment portfolio.

WaterCare is a joint initiative of the EPA, DWLBC, DEH, South Australia’s CWMBs and SA Water.

Community monitoring (incorporating Waterwatch)Following natural resource management reform and the subsequent change in Commonwealth funding arrangements, the EPA funded a review to determine how it can best work with the Waterwatch program. Throughout 2004–05 the EPA assisted with the following:• state-wide promotion, marketing

and events• maintenance of the Waterwatch

SA web site• fi nancial and technical support for

programs such as Saltwatch and Aquatic Snapshot under the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) program

• setting of state-wide standards and policy for QA/QC.

In addition, the EPA sought to further develop its involvement in community monitoring. This has helped to maintain positive relationships with the community, business and industry groups, and a number of Waterwatch stakeholders.

A highlight of the year was the development of a pilot data categories framework. The EPA worked with Waterwatch and community members to develop a framework that ensures that water-quality data collected by the community is of reliable quality.

Community monitoring groups are assigned categories based on their completion of QA/QC training. The data has been promoted (and used) by the EPA, the State Water Monitoring Committee and by organisations such as the catchment water management boards. An exciting recent development is the inclusion of salinity data in the Bureau of Rural Sciences Salinity Mapping Project for the Mount Lofty Ranges.

SaltwatchSaltwatch is a state-wide water-monitoring program that encourages communities to learn about salinity and water quality in their local area. In May, over 1500 people monitored 370 sites across the state in areas from Mt Gambier in the south, Tumby Bay in the west, Gladstone in the mid north and Barmera in the Riverland.

For the fi rst time, a pilot program was trialled with business and industry groups in the northern Adelaide and Barossa region. The pilot was very successful with eight businesses participating.

The event received extensive media coverage, informing the community of the salinity and water quality issues facing the state. The data and interpretation of results from Saltwatch 2005 will be written into a report with recommendations for the future delivery of the program.

AirWatchAirWatch is an established school program that aims to raise the profi le of air quality by monitoring local environments and increasing understanding of, and willingness to adopt, practices that protect local air quality. AirWatch is a nationally recognised program and in South Australia is funded by the EPA.Over the last nine months AirWatch has implemented and achieved a number of exciting initiatives. Some of these achievements were:• securing Channel 9 sponsorship

for 2005• the broadcast of primary students’

weather and visual air quality data weekly on the Channel 9 weather report by Keith Martyn, and his the attendance at key AirWatch events

At the end of June 2005 the subscription service introduced in May 2004 had 460 members and the list is growing steadily. A newsletter is e-mailed each month to list members, including industry, government, educational bodies and the general community throughout Australia as well as overseas.

• various AirWatch events including the ‘AirWatch Achiever Award’, ‘Smoke’s no Joke’ (a wood heater competition) and presentations at the Uraidla Sustainable Schools Forum

• AirWatch schools embarked on a project to work with EPA air quality monitoring scientists to measure the levels of particulates in their airsheds.

Initiatives that aim to engage the community to educate and encourage them to modify their behaviour were conducted under the AirWatch banner. These activities included:• fi nancial and planning support for

the EPA wood heater campaign• the formation of an EPA Green

Travel Plan Reference Group which is currently researching and developing a Green Travel Plan for the EPA.

EPA web site

The EPA’s web site15 provides information on air and water quality, environmental noise, radiation protection, waste reduction and eco-effi ciency, and the EPA’s role in land use, planning and development assessment. It describes licensing requirements and gives links to environmental legislation and policies. Almost all EPA publications are available for download from the publications page16. This information is provided free of charge.

In October 2004, the EPA launched a new service to improve the process of public consultation on new policies and guidelines. Those interested can now respond online using the consultation web site17 as well as by the more traditional means of post, fax and e-mail.

Engagement and Partnerships


15<www.epa.sa.gov.au>16<www.epa.sa.gov.au/pub.html>17<www.epacomments.sa.gov.au>

The Environment Protection Act is the primary pollution and waste control legislation in South Australia and aims to:• promote ecologically sustainable development• protect, restore and enhance the environment.

Under the Act everyone has a general environmental duty not to pollute the environment. This means that industry and the community (including local and state government) must care for the environment and not harm it.

The EPA administers and enforces the Act and its subordinate legislation, including EPPs. It does this in a number of ways, from providing advice through to enforcing the law. The Act provides the EPA with compliance and enforcement tools and with the discretion to determine:• when enforcement is required• which enforcement measures are

appropriate for the circumstance.

The EPA determines whether or not to take action by carefully examining and balancing social, environmental and economic factors. Action may begin with warning letters and end, if necessary, with prosecution.

Compliance and enforcement guidelines

The EPA completed and released the EPA Guidelines for Compliance and Enforcement (March 2005). The document provides guidance for using the compliance and enforcement provisions of the Act. It is intended for use by EPA authorised offi cers and the public and private sectors when dealing with environmental damage, pollution and other matters.

The guidelines provide for a multi-stage response to enforcing the Act. The level of response depends on factors such as the seriousness of the offence, an alleged offender’s history and the need for deterrence.

EPA audits

River Torrens auditWhen it responded to a major diesel spill into Torrens Lake in July 2003, the EPA audited licensed premises in the Torrens Catchment. The Torrens Stormwater Audit Project (TSAP) was a strategic project to address the following needs:• to identify and implement ways to

manage pollution sources (real and potential) in the stormwater system and the River Torrens

• to reduce community concern over the likelihood of a similar incident occurring

• to develop a method for, and assess the merit of, performing similar audits in other catchments and/or if the method could be used in the regular licence inspection process.

The audit began in late 2003 and was completed by December 2004. It covered a wide range of EPA prescribed activities listed under Schedule 1 of the Act. During this time 47 EPA licensed premises were visited and 112 site visits made.

The project focused on auditing licensed premises to examine onsite activities (i.e. chemical storage and handling, spill management, stockpiles, management of waste, wastewater generation, procedures and documentation) that could affect water resources (i.e. stormwater, natural watercourses, groundwater).

The Torrens Audit found some consistent problems with the potential to contaminate the stormwater system and/or the River Torrens; every site inspected was required to improve performance. The following are the most commonly noted management problems:• 41 of the 47 sites had inadequate

spill management procedures and spill equipment

• many sites were not adequately prepared to contain a spill

• most companies did not have documented procedures for a spill and staff were inadequately trained to manage spills

• at some sites wastewater was allowed to discharge into stormwater drains and into the river

• more effort was needed from organisations to identify potential pollution sources and to develop an emergency plan

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT


In response to this audit:• all licensees voluntarily upgraded

their sites and/or implemented procedures where required

• many sites incorporated the audit fi ndings and processes into their management systems

• work undertaken included implementing new environmental management systems, upgrading spill management equipment and emergency response capabilities, staff training, building improved bunding and new storage facilities for chemicals and other materials.

Unlicensed winery audit fi ndingsThree years after the successful 2001–02 environmental management audits of licensed wineries and distilleries in South Australia, the EPA completed random audits of unlicensed wineries (processing 500 tonnes of grapes or less) across fi ve wine regions of the state for vintage 2005.

The audits provided a snapshot of the environmental management systems in these facilities. Prior to the audits, the South Australian Wine Industry Association (SAWIA), with support from the EPA, conducted three half-day regional seminars in October and November to help unlicensed wineries comply with environmental legislation and to improve their environmental performance.

The EPA found problems in some wineries that may lead to breaches of the Water Quality EPP. These included insuffi cient bunding of tank farms and chemical storage, and inadequate solid and liquid waste management facilities. The audits also noted a lack of written procedures for handling emergency situations (to mitigate risk to the environment), staff environmental awareness training, and recording of waste production, environmental incidents and complaints in many of these facilities.

All the audited wineries were very cooperative and attentive to the issues found by the EPA. Many gave positive feedback on the environmental seminars and audit program. Some of the facilities have already improved their environmental management systems

by, for example, installing wastewater fl ow meters and treatment systems, and developing emergency response procedures, and waste management and incident records. In addition, some of the wineries are using environmental consultants to look for further opportunities for improvement. The audits also showed a number of good environmental management practices that are being used by some facilities that could be adopted by other small wineries.

A brief EPA assessment report was sent to each of the wineries to outline the fi ndings and inform them what they need to do to address environmental management defi ciencies.

Freedom of Information and the Public Register

In 2004–05, 49 Freedom of Information applications and 198 Public Register requests were received (Table 5). Public Register enquiries that do not require documentation are treated as information requests and are not recorded. It is estimated that there were up to 400 such enquiries (the same as 2003–04) during 2004–05.

Inspection of licensed premises

The Act specifi es a number of high-risk activities that require an authorisation from the EPA. This may be a licence, exemption or works approval. Holders of an authorisation must comply with the conditions attached to that authorisation.

In certain circumstances the EPA can vary the conditions of, or suspend, cancel or disqualify, an environmental authorisation.

During 2004–05, EPA offi cers inspected 1460 licensed premises, audited them for compliance with the Act and the conditions of the licence and, where necessary, negotiated improvements to the site environment (Table 6).

Compliance and Enforcement


Table 5 Freedom of Information applications and Public Register requests

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Freedom of Information 11 48 49

Public Register 158 138 198

Table 6 Inspections of licensed premises

Performance indicators 2002–03 2003–04 2003–04

Number of inspections of 1,082 1,021 1,460licensed premises

Number of authorisations 1,964 1,986 1,997

Number of active ozone authorisations 3,956 3,570 3,808(accreditations and exemptions)

No. of section 7 enquiries/responses *A: 54,579 *A: 54,848 *A: 52,080(as required under Land and Business *M: 1,727 *M: 1,838 *M: 2,273(Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994) *A–automatic enquiries to the Lands Titles Offi ce database involve perusal of the section 7 information maintained by the EPA. M–manual enquiries require an EPA offi cer search made upon request by the Lands Titles Offi ce.

Pollution complaints line

The EPA maintains a pollution complaints line—8204 2004, or Freecall 1800 623 445 for callers outside the metropolitan area—to receive calls about environmental concerns (Table 7). Depending on the nature of the call, the EPA’s response may be to:• provide information to theicaller

(verbal advice or mailing of information)

• register a formal complaint for follow-up by an authorised offi cer

• refer the caller to other agencies and bodies.

CARES

The on-line Complaints and Reports of Environmental Signifi cance (CARES) database has now been operating for three years. A mapping function has recently been added to CARES following suggestions from EPA staff and local government offi cers. There was a 1% increase in complaints received by the EPA during 2004–05 over the previous year.

In addition to EPA users, there are 14 councils and one other government agency that regularly use the database.

Community mediation

The EPA receives many less serious complaints through its pollution complaints line, which is maintained by the Customer Services Desk. The EPA continues to recommend mediation as the initial way to resolve pollution complaints, particularly those arising from domestic activities. In many cases, enforcement of the Act could be seen as heavy-handed and does little to help relations between neighbours.

The EPA has an arrangement with Community Mediation Services (CMS) to assist with managing pollution complaints from residential and some non-licensed commercial premises. CMS can provide trained and skilled mediators to help resolve disputes. The EPA provided fi nancial assistance to CMS for the production of brochures on the benefi ts of mediation and how to become involved in the process.

From an EPA perspective, the option of mediation has provided a mechanism to help a complainant resolve a confl ict. Due to the confi dential nature of the process, fi rm data on the success or otherwise of this approach is not available. However, the EPA surveyed customer satisfaction with its Customer Services Desk to assist in evaluating the service. The results of that survey should be available by September 2005.

Local government support

Since 1997 the LGA, councils and the EPA have explored the shared provision of environment protection services. This has included:• preparing a draft discussion paper

on sharing environment protection responsibilities (1997)

• making submissions to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of Parliament (1999)

• engaging consultants to undertake three studies—a survey of councils’ attitudes, a study of interstate models for sharing environmental responsibilities and a fi nal report that synthesised the outcomes of the fi rst two studies (2000)

• a trial in which three councils shared the provision of environment protection services with the EPA in their respective areas (2001–02).

All the above were used to develop a legislative and non-legislative package that includes:• amendments to the Act through

the Environment Protection (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2005

• a local government support function within the EPA

• the formation of a subcommittee of the Board of the EPA which will prepare a formal agreement with the LGA to facilitate cooperation and participation by both spheres of government in the management and protection of South Australia’s environment.

It is expected that once the EPA and local government have accepted the formal agreement, councils will be approached to become administering agencies. They will use the provisions of the Act to provide environment protection services to their communities (including cost recovery) as an alternative to the other legislative tools already administered by councils.

The existing Local Government Support Package will be further developed and maintained. Local government support will:• promote the need for consistent

compliance and enforcement standards across the state by administering agency staff and other authorised persons

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

• coordinate the provision of technical advice and training to council authorised offi cers and delegates to enable them to meet their obligations as administering agencies under the Act.


Table 7 Number of complaints received by EPA

Type of complaint 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Air quality 1842 2049 2581Air and noise n.a. 158 163Noise 1400 1655 1231Marine pollution 18 33 32Other 62 263 247Water* 175 368 284Waste 483 369 406

Total 3980 4895 4944

*Most water complaints are handled directly by local government.

EPA-PIRSA Memorandum of Understanding

In June 1999 the EPA and the Petroleum and Minerals Groups of PIRSA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) about environmental regulation of the petroleum and mineral industry. The MoU was to provide a framework for PIRSA and the EPA to effi ciently regulate the environmental performance of the mining and petroleum industries in South Australia.

A review of the MoU began in March 2003, proposed that the revised agreement would cover administrative arrangements for petroleum, minerals and mining, milling and treatment of radioactive ores. The administrative arrangements will clarify to all parties their legislative responsibilities; they will also establish criteria to facilitate consultation on how best to assess the environmental effects of petroleum and mining operations, and to develop a process for imposing consistent obligations for the petroleum and mineral industry.

The EPA and the Petroleum Group of PIRSA signed an administrative agreement in November 2003. The EPA and the Minerals Group of PIRSA will continue to negotiate and hope to fi nalise an administrative agreement in the latter half of 2005.

EPA-DAIS Memorandum of Understanding

The EPA and Workplace Services (WS) of the Department for Administrative and Information Services (DAIS) have begun to develop an MoU to develop a working relationship that will assist the EPA and WS to achieve consistent and effi cient compliance where the obligations and responsibilities of the parties overlap.It is proposed that the agreement would be an administrative arrangement that will clarify to all parties their responsibilities under legislation.

The EPA and WS will negotiate and fi nalise the MoU and administrative agreement in the latter half of 2005.

Illegal dumping in South Australia

A large number of illegal waste depot sites have been found, particularly on the outskirts of Adelaide, as a result of increased site inspections in country areas. Consequently, more environment protection orders, expiation notices and formal warning letters have been issued for illegal dumping. Preliminary investigation by the EPA has discovered that waste is illegally dumped for a variety of reasons, including:• limited community and industry

knowledge and understanding of waste fi ll criteria specifi ed in Regulations under the Act

• increased disposal costs at landfi lls• demolition and earth moving

companies convincing landowners to illegally accept material so that the company avoids transport costs and fees at authorised landfi lls.

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

To date, 144 unauthorised sites are listed on the Register. Of these, 70 are old sites that had been noted by the South Australian Waste Management Commission before 1995. The EPA has identifi ed a further 74 sites of which 34 have been resolved. A further four sites are before the ERD Court, eight are being dealt with by the EPA directly and a further 24 will be addressed using a risk-based approach.

Key point source pollution programs

OneSteelDuring 2004–05, fi ne particle levels (measured as PM10) exceeded 50 µg/m3 on 24 recorded occasions at Walls Street to 30 June 2005. This site has been designated as the site to measure the performance of OneSteel in controlling iron ore dust emissions and their effects on the adjacent community.

On 31 January 2005, the EPA imposed licence conditions on dust emissions. Although not required by the Act, the EPA consulted the local community on these conditions. OneSteel appealed against the imposition of these conditions in the ERD Court.

OneSteel has proposed Project Magnet to substantially reduce red dust emissions from the pellet plant. Project Magnet aims to replace the dry processing equipment at the pellet plant by importing magnetite slurry concentrate from the mine site for direct feed to the pellet plant. This process will, in all likelihood, substantially reduce dust emissions from the pellet plant. As part of Project Magnet, OneSteel proposes to increase its iron ore exports through a transhipping facility that will operate from the pellet plant wharf. OneSteel has obtained the necessary environmental approvals for the project.

The Government has indicated that it intends to introduce a Bill into Parliament to amend the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s Steelworks Indenture Act 1958. It is understood that the amendments will propose a ten-year environmental licence to be issued to OneSteel Pty Ltd upon confi rmation of commencement of Project Magnet. This licence will replace the existing EPA licence and will not be subject to variation for the duration of the licence, except with the consent of OneSteel or at the direction of Parliament. It is also understood that under the terms of the Indenture Bill, the EPA will be charged with the continuing administration and enforcement of the licence.

ZinifexZinifex is one of the world’s largest integrated zinc and lead companies. A program to reduce the lead levels in the blood of young children is focusing on sources of oxidised forms of lead that are highly bioavailable. Specifi cally, emissions from the slag fumer and kilns area are being targeted. Zinifex has entered into a three-year environment improvement program that addresses:• better understanding of the slag

fumer operation• improving the mechanical integrity

of the slag fumer and kilns plant• a total cleanup of the slag fumer and

kilns plant.




In addition, a statistician has been contracted to determine whether there is a relationship between ambient lead levels and lead levels in the blood of young children. If there is such a relationship, it will assist the EPA to further refi ne licence conditions, so requiring Zinifex to progressively reduce ambient lead levels.

Castalloy (Ion Automotive Pty Ltd, North Plympton)Castalloy’s appeal to the ERD Court in relation to an environment protection order and licence issued in 2003 has carried over into 2004–05 and at year’s end remained unresolved.

The company’s appeall—specifi cally licence conditions that address odour and noise emissions from the site —has been the main focus of ERD Court conference proceedings which have continued throughout 2004–05. A community representative was successful in joining the appeal and has been involved in all court proceedings.

The conference proceedings and information about the appeal have been subject to strict confi dentiality requirements, restricting the EPA’s ability to communicate the nature of these activities to parties external to the process. An administrator was appointed to ION Limited, Castalloy’s parent company, in December 2004 and they have maintained the appeal. Since that time, signifi cant discussions have been held between the EPA and the administrator, and a resin trial was conducted at the North Plympton premises. A second trial of the same resin is being conducted in July and August 2005 to better assess its economic and environmental impacts.

The administrator, community representative and the EPA are considering a proposal to resolve the licence appeal, but it is not clear whether this will be accepted by all parties in its current form. The licence appeal will be active until the end of August 2005, which is the expiry date of the current licence.

Adelaide Brighton CementThe EPA maintains a continuous dialogue with Adelaide Brighton Cement for the management and minimisation of both point source and fugitive emissions from the Birkenhead facility.

Adelaide Brighton Cement has committed to action through an EIP that will achieve compliance with the requirements of its licence and the general environmental duty. The major focus of the EIP over the next three years is on reducing dust emissions. Approximately $12 million has been committed for dust management. The EIP is progressive and the fi rst stage will commence during the new fi nancial year.

The EPA has monitored ground level hot spots in the Birkenhead area for approximately 12 months. This ambient monitoring was performed to compare emissions from all sources in the region with the air quality NEPM criteria.

An additional dust sampling program was undertaken by the EPA in the residential area adjacent to Adelaide Brighton Cement to determine:• the composition of the dust• its source (this is particularly

important as there are other potential sources on the LeFevre Peninsula)

• on the advice of Department of Health, whether the dust poses a risk to the health of residents.

The EPA and Adelaide Brighton Cement continue to put signifi cant effort and resources into testing alternative fuels and raw materials used in their cement kilns at both Birkenhead and Angaston. The process approved by the EPA to investigate alternative fuels and raw materials was developed in consultation with Adelaide Brighton Cement in 2001–02, and is included as a condition on Adelaide Brighton Cement’s licence. The trials involve gathering emissions data which will be assessed against established baseline data.

The use of alternative fuels in cement manufacturing is helping Adelaide Brighton Cement reduce its effects on the environment and improve its overall environmental performance. Alternative fuels and raw materials provide a waste management solution for the community and reduce the use of non-renewable resources.

Garden IslandDuring a compulsory ERD Court conference in August 2001, agreement was reached between the previous operator, Western Region Waste

Management Authority (Western) the landowner Land Management Corporation (LMC) and the EPA to enter into an environmental performance agreement for closure, rehabilitation and post-closure activities for the waste depot on Garden Island.

The closure plan for Garden Island was developed and accepted in principle by all parties in 2002. The capping implementation plan was then drafted, the aspects of which, after being discussed and negotiated, have now been accepted by all stakeholders.

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

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

The company’s solids recycling plant, commissioned in April 2001, has contributed to a signifi cant (20-fold) reduction in suspended solid concentrations discharged into the Port River, maintaining an operating target well below the licence limit. Stack dust emissions have been reduced during 2004–05 with a number of projects completed under the site EIP. A three-stage improvement plan for No. 1 milk of lime exemption EIP was completed and now complies with the air quality policy limit of 250 mg/m3 particulates.Strategies to manage Penrice’s environmental performance include: a fi ve-year site EIP to be completed by 31 October 2006; an ammonia reduction EIP with two stages to be completed by 31 December 2006; and an ongoing coastal waters monitoring program with EPA audit review and independent verifi cation.

Emergency response

The EPA responds to emergency pollution incidents when notifi ed through the EPA’s emergency 24-hour pager number. Emergency responses are of three types (Figure 15):• whole-of-government procedure,

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

• national response plan, which deals with oil or chemical spills at sea, and is coordinated by the Marine Group of the Department for Transport and Urban Planning

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

During 2004–05, the EPA responded to 135 incidents through its emergency pollution incident response system, an increase of two incidents over the previous year. Most calls came from licence holders and emergency services, and often involved an oil spill or a transport incident (Figure 16). More calls were received from the public as a result of changing the response criteria. Some examples include:• a Patawalonga incident where several

calls were received from the public as a result of numerous dead fi sh being found in the lake—the EPA coordinated the initial response to this incident

• a transport incident where the Country Fire Service responded to a report of herbicide leaking from a drum during transport—advice was given as to how to contain and dispose of the herbicide

• several incidents where, as a result of transport incidents, fuel such as diesel or petrol had escaped onto the roadway and could have polluted waterways

• the rollover of a truck carrying a large amount of kiln dust in a country area—advice was given on how to contain and clean it up.




Environment protection orders

Environment protection orders (EPOs) (Table 8) can be issued by authorised offi cers under s93 (1) of the Act for the following purposes:(a) for the purpose of securing

compliance with: (i) the general environmental

duty; or (ii) mandatory provisions of an

environment protection policy; or

(iii) a condition of an environmental authorisation; or

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

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

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

Table 8 Environment protection orders

EPOs recorded 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

EPA 141 79 52Police 264 309 309Councils no record no record 49


Table 9 Cases completed in ERD Court 2004–05

Offender name Charges

Kangaroo Island Council —various Seven charges of breaching conditions breaches of EPA authorisations relating of EPA authorisationto waste depots during 2002 Guilty plea to all counts, conviction recorded and fi ned $75,000

Trans Adelaide—overfl ow of diesel Cause serious environmental harm from Adelaide rail yards into recklesslyTorrens Lake Guilty plea, conviction recorded and fi ned $120,000 Cromatec Pty Ltd—Failing to complete Breach of licence conditions details of waste tracking forms asrequired Guilty plea, conviction recorded and fi ned $6,000

Table 10 Cases proceeding in various courts 2004–05

Alleged offender name Charges alleged

Adelaide Brighton Cement Pty Ltd Alleged discharge of oily bilge water from vessel Accolade in Port River—14 and 17 October 2002 Charge: discharge oily mixture into state waters S8 of the PMW (POPS) Act

Matter is before the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court

Dinko Tuna Farmers Pty Ltd Alleged discharge of an oily mixture into state waters at Port Lincoln, January 2003 from a vessel, contrary to S8 of the PMW (POPS) Act Matter is before the Port Lincoln Magistrates Court Spleithoffs (Netherlands Alleged discharged of an oily mixture into stateregistered company) waters near Outer Harbour, August 2003, from a vessel, contrary to S8 of the PMW (POPS) Act

Matter is before the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court Ross Dawkins Alleged receiving of waste without an EPA authorisation S36 of Act and causing material environmental harm, S80 (2) of the Act

Matter is before the ERD Court Peter Mitchell Alleged receiving of waste without an EPA authorisation S36 of Act and causing material environmental harm, S80 (2) of the Act

Matter is before the ERD Court Richard Crowley Alleged use of an ionising apparatus without holding authorisation under Radiation Protection & Control Act

Matter is before the Adelaide Magistrates Court

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

Enforcement and investigations

The Investigations Branch investigated 32 pollution related incidents, including fi ve from the previous year. For 12 of these matters there was insuffi cient evidence available to pursue a charge or prove that no offence under the Act had been committed. Eight of the matters were fi nalised by the issuing of environment protection orders and or expiation notices. At year’s end, the branch was investigating eight active matters and the Crown Solicitor’s Offi ce (CSO) was reviewing seven matters to determine whether suffi cient evidence is available to lay charges.

The branch also investigated three matters related to the Radiation Protection & Control Act. One matter is now before the Adelaide Magistrates Court, one is with the CSO under review, and no enforcement action was taken in relation to the other matter. During the year, the Investigation Branch was also involved in investigating three incidents pursuant to Protection of Marine Waters (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1987. Two of these matters are under review by the CSO and no enforcement action was taken in the other matter. Matters under this Act come under the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, but are investigated as a result of requests from that department.

Three matters were completed in the ERD Court and are shown in Table 9. There are six matters ongoing in various courts (refer Table 10).

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT AND SYSTEMSThe Corporate and Business Support (CABS) Division supports the EPA with administration and facilities management, fi nancial and budget management, human resource services and development, and information technology development and maintenance. The division has a number of corporate responsibilities to provide input into whole-of-government processes and reporting requirements on behalf of the EPA.

Information technology

The Information Technology Unit (ITU) has developed a number of signifi cant initiatives this year as part of the implementation of the IT strategic plan.

ELMO (ELectronic reporting of MOnitoring data) was implemented in September 2004. As part of their licence conditions, some EPA licensees are required to submit regular monitoring reports. A pilot program was developed to receive the data online using ELMO from a small group of our licensees, wineries and councils (STEDS). ELMO accepts data in a standard format and there is intelligence built into the forms for validation. Licensees can choose to use this or a facility in ELMO to upload monitoring reports in Word, Excel or any other format.

Radiation licensing and registration application forms can now be sent to the EPA electronically through e-ELF (electronic Environment Licensing Forms). e-ELF is a web based system which accepts application forms and has e-commerce facilities for payment of fees and invoices. Its usage for environment licensing application forms and renewals continues to increase.

A new radiation licensing system was implemented in April 2005 as a module of the GENI (General ENvironmental Information) system, using newer technologies. GENI is a web-based system, which can be accessed by all staff in the EPA, including regional offi ces. The previous radiation licensing system was over 20 years old and was not meeting the needs of the Radiation Protection Division and its clients. GENI has a built-in workfl ow to manage the business process, better reports and a much quicker and more effi cient renewal process.

A spatial interface was developed for CARES (Complaints And Reports of Environmental Signifi cance) the EPA’s complaints management system. Incidents, callers and alleged breaches under the Act are spatially mapped to help staff manage them.

The ITU helped set up the networking and IT infrastructure for a new offi ce area on Level 2 of SA Water House, and also to establish a purpose-built permanent IT training facility on Level 6. This will be used to train users of the various core-business IT applications used throughout the EPA.

The ITU has now taken on responsibility for providing GIS services and will develop a GIS strategy for the EPA in 2005–06.

Finance and administration

The 2004–05 year was again one of review and improvement for the Finance and Administration Branch. After implementation of major budget reforms in the 2003–04 year, a review was undertaken to ensure these reforms were well understood across the EPA. The review highlighted some minor

amendments, but otherwise suggested that the reforms were well received by those accountable and the initial intention of increased awareness and responsibility for budget management across the agency was largely achieved.

Another outcome of signifi cance included the assessment and implementation of the Australian equivalent of the International Financial Reporting Standards. Final training will be delivered early in the new year. The fi nance risk assessment project was also commenced with the aim, not only to analyse the process risks, but also to drive the planning process for the branch over the coming years. This is seen as not only a step toward improved risk management, but also as a forward planning tool for staff. It will be instrumental in future audit and planning processes.

Key outcomes for accommodation works were the completion of refurbishments in the main CBD building, including accommodation for the site contamination group, and the establishment of an in-house training facility. These facilities can be used by up to 70 staff in a group setting, or approximately 12 for computer-related training. They will be cheaper to operate than hiring alternative facilities.

A greening initiative established in 2004–05 was the development and introduction of GoGO (Greening of Government Operations). Key targets such as energy, fl eet management and recycling were reported monthly to the Executive Group and EPA staff. This was well received and resulted in improved fl eet management.


Table 11 Controlled entity consultancies

Value of consultancies let No. of consultancies Expenditure 2003–04 2004–05 2003–04 2004–05

Below $10,000 12 2 40,730 11,791$10,001–50,000 5 2 100,827 48,293Above $50,000 5 2 335,008 162,558Total 22 6 476,565 222,642

Below $10,000 No. of consultants in this category: 2 Value of consultants in this category: $11,791

Between $10,001–50,000

No. of consultants in this category: 2 Value of consultants in this category: $48,293

BDA Group Policy Mix Review for the Mount Lofty Watershed

CSIRO Environmental impacts of acid In-Situ Leach Mining Process

Above $50,000


BDA Group Evaluation of Options for the SA EPA Licence Fee Structure

URS Australia Radioactive Waste Store Feasibility StudyAdministered entity consultancies

Value of consultancies let No. of consultancies Expenditure 2003–04 2004–05 2003–04 2004–05

Below $10,000 – – – –$10,001–50,000 – – – –Above $50,000 1 1 795,790 476,859Total 1 1 795,790 476,859

Below $10,000 No. of consultants in this category: nil Value of consultants in this category: nil

Between $10,001–50,000

No. of consultants in this category: nil Value of consultants in this category: nil

Above $50,000


CSIRO Adelaide Coastal Waters Study

The plan for the 2005–06 year incorporates projects aligned with the key functions performed by the branch. These include:• administrative services• fi nancial services• business systems• advice and training• governance.

Achievements in 2004–05 included a review of records management methods by undertaking an internal audit and developing a self-improvement matrix; development of policies and procedures; adoption of further control and communications processes for budget and fi nancial management; and development of induction and training resources for staff. It is anticipated that the training resources will be operational by 2006–07 and will ensure that staff understand the fi nance and administrative processes they are responsible for.

Fraud

No instances of fraud were detected in the EPA during this fi nancial year. A fi nancial risk assessment project commenced during 2004–05. The project is assessing each fi nancial process, looking at the risks associated with it, along with where effi ciencies may be implemented. This project will therefore examine whether new strategies are required to control and prevent fraud in the future.


Table 12 Accounts payable performance

Particulars Number of Percentage of Value in $A of Percentage of accounts paid accounts paid accounts paid accounts paid (by number) (by value) Paid by the due date* 7,231 91% 11,137,244 89%

Paid within 30 days or 559 7% 1,029,449 8%less from due date

Paid more than 30 days 172 2% 333,322 3%from due date

*Note: The due date is defi ned as per section 11.2 of Treasurer’s Instruction 11 Payment of Accounts. Unless there is a discount or a written agreement between the public authority and the creditor, payment should be within thirty days of the date of the invoice or the date the invoice is fi rst received by the public authority.

Consultancies

Organisational Support and Systems


Contractual arrangementsDuring the 2004–05 fi nancial year the EPA did not enter into any contractual arrangements where the value of an individual contract exceeded $4 million.

Accounts payment performanceBoth the State Government benchmark of paying 90% of invoices within 30 days and the performance target for the Environment and Conservation Portfolio of paying 85% of invoices before the due date has been achieved in 2004–05. This is an improvement on the 2003–04 performance where the EPA did not meet the Portfolio target. (Table 12)

Executive employment, staff employment and other human resource matters

2004–2005 has seen developments and new initiatives in human resources. A key focus has been to build on the foundations of HR systems and processes established in the preceding year. The improvements have streamlined HR administration and increased our capacity to provide high level consultancy and advice, a service which is being well used by managers and employees. Additional tools, guidelines and templates were developed and training was provided so managers can improve recruitment and selection processes and outcomes. We have fi ne-tuned data collection and reporting to support improved human resource management.

Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare has been a priority area for the EPA this fi nancial year, with considerable progress achieved on the OHSW Action Plan. The OSHW Committee has been reviewed and revitalised with new members and new terms of reference. OHSW training programs were conducted for executive, managers, health and safety representatives and the OHSW Committee. Training for all other employees is scheduled for the next fi nancial year. We have established a consultative process to develop a suite of OHSW policies; the initial policies have been fi nalised.

Table 13 Employee numbers, gender and status 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Persons 203 219 222FTEs 195.66 214.45 214.91

2003–04 2004–05

Gender % Person % FTEs % Person % FTEs

Female 45.21 44.44 44.14 43.05Male 54.79 55.56 55.86 56.95

Turnover* 2003–04 2004–05

14.16% 10.81%

*Turnover is the ratio of staff who have left the EPA to the number of emplolyed staff. 2003–04 2004–05

Number of people who left the agency 31 24Number of people recruited to the agency 49 33

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Number of vacancies fi lled duringthe fi nancial year 26 70 63Number of people on leave withoutpay at 30 June 5 1 5

A leadership development program has been established and is set to commence early in the new fi nancial year. This program promises to be challenging and innovative, and will enhance the skills of existing leaders and develop future leaders. All staff were trained in ethics awareness, and the Public Service Code of Conduct was distributed to each employee.

The accompanying tables and graphs provide a picture of the EPA’s workforce and indicate changes across recent years.

Workforce diversityRecognising the value of workforce diversity and the benefi ts it brings to a workforce which is representative of the community that it serves, the following section provides information on the composition of the EPA’s workforce.


Table 14 Number of employees by salary bracket

2003–04 2004–05

Salary bracket Male Female Total Male Female Total

$0–38,599 5 22 27 5 9 14$38,600–$49,999 15 17 32 14 28 42$50,000–$65,999 70 47 117 71 49 120$66,000–$85,999 25 13 38 28 12 40$86,000+ 5 0 5 6 0 6

TOTAL 120 99 219 124 98 222

Table 15 Status of employees in current position FTEs Ongoing Short-term Long-term Casual Total contract contract

Female 57.85 27.96 6.7 0 92.51Male 97.4 15 11 0 122.4

Total 155.25 42.96 17.7 0 214.91

People Ongoing Short-term Long-term Casual Total contract contract

Female 61 30 7 0 98Male 99 14 11 0 124

Total 160 44 18 0 222

Table 16 Number of executives by status in current position, gender and classifi cation

2003–04 2004–05

Class Total Ongoing Contract Contract Total tenured tenured Male Female Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Total

ExecA 3 0 3 3 2 5 5ExecC 2 0 2 1 1 1

Total 5 0 5 3 3 6 6

Table 17 Average days leave taken per full time equivalent employee

Leave type 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Sick leave taken 5.84 5.95 7.33Family carer’s leave taken 0.54 0.56 .45Special leave with pay 0.28 0.48 .41

Leave management

Executivers


Indigenous employeesAn Aboriginal person is defi ned as a person who is a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of Australia, or identifi es as Aboriginal.

A Torres Strait Islander is someone who is a descendant of a Torres Strait Islander, or a traditional inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. (Table 19)


Age profi le

Table 19 Number of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander employees

2003–04 2004–05

% of Male Female Total % of Strategic agency agency benchmark*

Aboriginal/Torres 0.46 1 0 1 0.44 2.0%Strait Islander

* Benchmark from SA’s Strategic Plan

Table 18 Number of employees by age bracket by gender

2003–04 2004–05

Age bracket % of total Female Male Total % of total SA workforce*

15–19 0 0 0 0 0 7.420–24 1.83 4 1 5 2.25 11.325–29 15.53 23 12 35 15.77 10.030–34 18.72 16 16 32 14.41 10.735–39 14.61 19 20 39 17.57 11.140–44 12.79 16 14 30 13.51 12.245–49 10.05 6 18 24 10.81 12.350–54 12.33 6 17 23 10.36 11.355–59 12.33 7 22 29 13.06 8.160–64 1.83 1 4 5 2.25 4.065+ 0 0 0 0 0 1.6

Total 100 98 124 222 100.00 100.0

* as at February 2005 from ABS Supertable LM8

Table 20 Number of employees with ongoing disabilities requiring workplace adaptation

2003–04 2004–05

% of agency Male Female Total % of agency

1.37 3 1 4 2.00%

Disability

Table 21 Cultural and linguistic diversity 2003–04 2004–05

Total % Total % SA of agency Male Female of agency community*

No. of employees 18.26 17 20 16.67 20.3%born overseas

No. of employees who 0.91 0 0 0 15.5%speak language(s) otherthan English at home

TOTAL 19.18 17 20 16.67

* ABS Publication Basic Community Profi le (SA) Cat No. 2001.0

Cultural and linguistic diversity

Indigenous employees

Voluntary fl exible working arrangementsEPA staff have access to fl exitime, and a number of staff work part time and in job-share arrangements. In addition, several employees use purchased leave.

Human resource developmentThe EPA’s planned approach to human resource development (HRD) has continued during 2004–05. The Learning and Development Plan (L&D) for the year aligned with the objectives in the Corporate and Business Support Division’s Business Plan, which in turn aligned with the EPA Strategic Plan. The L&D Plan incorporated information from individual development plans, which were completed as part of the 2003–04 performance and development reviews (P&DR). The capability-based approach to the P&DR provided a useful summary of the skills and skill gaps of employees. Data from exit interviews was also analysed and fi ndings incorporated into HRD planning.

HRD policies provide a framework for HRD in the EPA to ensure equality of access to opportunities, to encourage consideration of a fl exible range of staff development approaches and to assist managers take a planned approach to developing their staff.

HRD initiatives from 2004–05 include:• A Leadership Development Program

was established in line with the EPA Strategic Plan and will commence in the new fi nancial year. The program will enhance the skills of existing leaders and develop future leaders. It was designed to link to an executive focus program developed for the EPA Executive team.


Table 22 Number of employees using voluntary fl exible working arrangements by gender

2003–04 2004–05

Total Male Female Total

Purchased leave 3 0 1 1Flexitime 205 116 91 207Compressed weeks 1 0 1 1Part-time job share 3 1 3 4Working from home 7 2 6 8

• All staff were trained in ethics awareness and the public service code of conduct was issued to all employees in conjunction with the performance development and review process. These programs build on work from previous years, including workplace dignity, to ensure everyone is aware of their rights and responsibilities.

• The Executive, managers, the OHSW Committee and health and safety representatives were trained in OHSW.

• Operations Division staff, and staff in other divisions who deal with EPA clients, were trained in client service.

• Records management training was provided to support the planned audit of records management.

• The Environment Forums series was run monthly and was alternately presented by people from within the EPA and from other agencies. These forums were well attended and provided a mechanism for keeping people up to date on trends in the environment fi eld and work being done by the agency.

Evaluation of training programs is part of the learning cycle as well as a mechanism to assess the EPA’s investment in HRD. Course participants complete evaluation forms at the end of each course, and the performance management system provides a means of judging whether staff have gained the skills and capabilities necessary to be more effective in their roles as a result of the course.

The following tables indicate inputs used to assist in assessing EPA’s investment in HRD.

Table 23 Documented individual performance development plan

2003–04 2004–05

% with a plan % with a plan negotiated negotiated % with a plan within the past within the past older thanSalary bracket 12 months 12 months 12 months % no plan

$0–38,599 72.8 66.67 23.81 9.52$38,600–49,999 76.3 71.74 17.39 10.87$50,000–65,999 60.5 73.33 15.00 11.67$66,000–85,999 76.5 82.05 12.82 5.13$86,000+ 100 100 0 0

Total 67.9 74.46 15.58 9.96

Table 24 Training expenditure as a percentage of total remuneration expenditure by salary bands

2003–04 2004–05

Salary bracket Actual 2003–04 Target 2004–05 Actual 2004–05 Target 2005–06

$0–38,599 3.50% 3.0% 3.46% 3.5%$38,600–49,999 3.35% 3.0% 2.73% 3.5%$50,000–65,999 2.88% 3.0% 3.20% 3.5%$66,000–85,999 2.50% 3.0% 3.67% 3.5%$86,000+ 2.36% 3.0% 3.04% 3.5%

Total 2.85% 3.0% 3.23% 3.5%


Equal employment opportunity programsEPA has worked with the Public Service Disability Recruitment Coordination Services and has considered referrals for vacant positions.

Aboriginal reconciliationAs part of the South Australian Government’s recognition of the interests of the Aboriginal people through the reconciliation process, the EPA would like to acknowledge the profound connection to land by Aboriginal people and communities across the state. The EPA has started to use a Kaurna acknowledgment statement at meetings, including the EPA Round-table 2005 conference.

To increase awareness of Aboriginal heritage and culture a native title and aboriginal heritage awareness session was held for EPA employees during 2004–05.

Occupational health, safety, welfare and injury managementEPA has progressed with the development and implementation of occupational health, safety and welfare (OHS&W) systems and processes to meet legislative and agency requirements. To assist in this process, the EPA has appointed an OHS&W Coordinator. The EPA OHS&W Committee Structure and Terms of Reference have been reviewed, resulting in the re-defi ning of OHS&W work groups and the election of health & safety representatives. An independent OHS&W systems audit was completed early in 2004–05 culminating an OHS&W action plan that has been endorsed by Executive. The action plan is a comprehensive document that contains items that will be addressed over the next two years and is being monitored by the OHS&W Committee.


Table 25 OHS&W statistics 2002–03 2003–04 2004–051 OHS&W legislative requirements Number of notifi able occurrences pursuant to – 1 – OHSW Regulations Division 6.6 Number of notifi able injuries pursuant to OHSW – – – Regulations Division 6.6 Number of notices served pursuant to OHSW Act – – – s35, s39 and s40

2 Injury management legislative requirements Total number of employees who participated 1 1 – in the rehabilitation program Total number of employees rehabilitated – – – and reassigned to alternative duties Total number of employees rehabilitated 1 1 – back to their original work

3 WorkCover action limits Number of open claims as at 30 June 2 – – Percentage of workers compensation 0.05% 0.05% 0.008% expenditure over gross annual remuneration

4 Number of claims Number of new workers compensation claims 2 1 2 in the fi nancial year Number of: fatalities – – – lost time injuries 1 – 2 injuries needing medical treatment 1 1 –

Total number of whole working days lost 5 10 6

5 Cost of workers compensation Cost of new claims for fi nancial year $2201 $2219 $1155 Cost of all claims excluding lump sum payments $5291 $7117 $1155 Amount paid for lump sum payments s42 – – – (s42, s43, s44) s43 – – – s44 – – – Total amount recovered from external sources (s54) – – Budget allocation for workers compensation – – 6 Trends Injury frequency rate for new lost-time injury/ 2.7 2.1 5.1 disease for each million hours worked

Most frequent cause (mechanism) of injury Sound & Work Trip, slip, pressure pressure fall Most expensive cause (mechanism) of injury Sound & Work Trip, slip, pressure pressure fall on level surface7 Meeting the organisation’s strategic targets


Notes: Reporting of hazards, incidents and injuries has increased due to the implementation of EPA specifi c reporting forms, a procedure, and an increase in staff awareness of the reporting process. Increase in exposure to fumes, dust and smoke: four reports relate to exposure while performing inspections in the fi eld, and the other three reports relate to internal delivery & storage procedures. Ergonomics relate to workstation equipment and placement, and work practice modifi cations. Manual handling relates to moving of equipment/objects and work practice modifi cations.

Table 26 Workers compensation

Financial year 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Cost of new claims for fi nancial year $2201.00 $2219.43 $1154.85Cost of pre current fi nancial year claims $4898.00 $0.00Total claims expenditure fi nancial year $5291.00 $7117.18 $1154.85Claims as percentage of salaries andwages ($14,812,838) .05% 0.05% 0.008%Injury frequency rate for new claims:2 new claims for 217 FTEs 2.7* 2.1* 5.1*Most expensive cause of new injury—sprain/strain to knee $2201.00 $2219.43 $1154.85Most frequent cause of new injury—trip slip & fall Days lost 5 10 6

* Number of injuries per 1,000,000 hrs worked

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACTION PLAN REPORTIn line with the Greening of Government Operations (GoGO) Framework, there are currently three priority areas for which the EPA has developed performance indicators: energy management, waste management, and travel and fl eet management.

GoGO Priority Area 1: energy management

Signifi cant energy management achievementsInformation technology equipmentThe phased approach for the adoption of TFT (thin fi lm transistor) screens for desktop computers (instead of cathode ray tubes (CRT screens)) commenced in 2003–04. While there were no new TFTs purchased in 2004–05, an additional 110 TFT screens will be purchased in 2005–06 and a further 25 in 2006–07. That should fi nalise the replacement program.

Table 28 opposite refl ects a reduction in CO2 emissions of 12 tonnes from 2002–03 to 2003–04 and, while there has been a slight increase of 8 tonnes in 2004–05, this is purely a refl ection of an increase in the number of PCs with no corresponding increase at this stage in the number of TFT screens.


Table 27 Performance against annual energy use targets

GHG emissions Energy use (GJ) Expenditure ($) (tonnes)

Base year 2000–01 1,502 61,542 4942001–02 1,336 54,561 4402002–03* 1,879 74,420 6182003–04 1,697 67,532 5582004–05* 1,695 73,737 558Target (2004–05) 1,799 74,937 592Target (2014) 1,447 60,268 47625% reduction of base year

* Note that 2002–03 incorporates the Radiation Protection Branch at Kent Town that transferred from DHS and 2004–05 takes into account an additional fl oor being leased in the SA Water House building in the CBD. The targets for these years have been revised to incorporate a 25% reduction in the energy use also.

Table 28 IT equipment and energy consumption

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 CRT CRT TFT CRT TFT screens screens screens TOTAL screens screens TOTAL

Number of desktop PCs 255 133 122 255 177 122 299Energy used (GJ) 135 70 27 97 94 27 121CO2 emissions (tonnes) 44 23 9 32 31 9 40

GoGO Priority Area 3: waste management

Paper recyclingThe 2004–05 year saw a slight reduction in recycling to a total of 10.6 tonnes compared with 13.7 tonnes in 2003–04. This refl ects a reduction in the amount of paper used rather than a lower percentage recycled.

Printing consumablesGiven the success of the recycling initiative provided by Close the Loop Limited, it was expanded in 2004–05 to incorporate decentralised offi ces, Mount Gambier in particular, with Stirling and Kent Town currently using Planet Ark to recycle their consumables. It is intended that these two offi ces will commence using Close the Loop in 2005–06. Reports provided by the company are summarised in Table 29 below but show that approximately 620 kilograms of waste has been diverted from landfi ll since the initiative’s inception in April 2002.

Fluorescent tubesThe EPA recycles fl uorescent lighting tubes through a company called Chemsal, which treats and disposes of them in a safe manner, given they contain a small amount of mercury, which is toxic to the human nervous system. Chemsal recovers the glass for re-use. This program, established in 2003, has been successful with approximately 324 tubes recycled in both 2003–04 and 2004–05.

Other recycled productsOther waste products such as glass, plastics, tins, milk and juice cartons accounted for 8400 litres (or 70 bins) recycled from the CBD building in 2004–05, and is reasonably stable compared with 2003–04, when 8520 litres (71 bins) were collected.

Other (non-recycled) productsOrganic waste, particularly food scraps, are collected in-house to be composted rather than sent to landfi ll. Over the past 12 months, approximately 738 kilograms from the CBD building has been composted.


Table 29 Printer consumables recycling 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 TOTAL

CBD buildingQuantity diverted (no. of items) 10 209 231 275 725Amount diverted (kg) 8.61 183.65 212.31 188.42 592.99Mount GambierQuantity diverted (no. of items) 25 25Amount diverted (kg) 26.52 26.52Total items 10 209 231 300 750 Total weight (kg) 8.61 183.65 212.31 214.94 619.51

Energy Effi ciency Action Plan Report

GoGO Priority Area 5: travel and fl eet management

The SA Government Energy Effi ciency Action Plan includes a requirement to increase the LPG vehicle fl eet from 10% to 20% by 2005. The EPA has already exceeded this target. Table 30 shows the vehicle types that are currently leased, taking note that the EPA currently leases 2 of the 13 government hybrid vehicles.

Table 31 shows that the EPA has again reduced both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from its vehicle fl eet. During 2004–05, the vehicle management policy was revised to incorporate a maximum of 20% unleaded fuel to be used in dual fuel vehicles. Upon commencement of this policy, a monthly report was developed to outline those vehicles exceeding the 20%. This led to driver behaviour changes over the year and resulted in an average of 22.8% unleaded fuel use in dual fuel vehicles outlined in Figure 22. Given a starting position of almost 38%, this has been a signifi cant reduction and it is likely that 2005–06 will be even better.

Figure 23 refl ects the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions by each fuel type and demonstrates that while the emissions from LPG vehicles are increasing, unleaded fuel emissions account for only 39% (reduced from 54% in 2002–03) of the total fuel used by EPA vehicles.


Table 30 EPA vehicle fl eet

At 30 June At 30 June At 30 June At 30 JuneVehicle types 2002 2003 2004 2005

Diesel only Nil 4 3 3Electric/unleaded (hybrid) 1 3 3 2Unleaded only 19 6 4 8LPG only Nil Nil 2 3Combined dual fuel(unleaded and LPG) 19 24 25 21

Total long-term hire vehicles 39 37 37 37

Table 31 Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Energy (GJ) 2566 2288 2082CO2 emissions (tonnes) 194 170 155

Environment Protection AuthorityGPO Box 2607Adelaide SA 5001Telephone: (08) 8204 2004Facsimile: (08) 8204 9393Freecall (country): 1800 623 445E-mail: [email protected] site: www.epa.sa.gov.au

September 2005

Printed on recycled paper

Environment Protection Authority

Annual Report on the administration of theRadiation Protection and Control Act 1982July 2004–June 2005

60

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

EPA Annual Report 2004–2005 61

The Hon John Hill MPMinister for Environment and ConservationParliament HouseNorth TerraceAdelaide SA 5000

Dear Minister

I am pleased to provide the Annual Report on the administration of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005, for tabling in Parliament in accordance with section 22 of the Act.

Yours sincerely


30 September 2005


This report provides information on the administration of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 (RPC Act) during the year 2004–05.

The RPC Act is administered by the staff of the Radiation Protection Division (the RPD) of the Environment Protection Authority, which provides support for the Radiation Protection Committee, established under Section 9 of the RPC Act. The committee advises the Minister and the RPD on radiation protection matters that it considers signifi cant and on matters that have been referred to it.

The RPD continues to enhance its role to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation, and provide a high-quality service to our clients. Our activities include assessing and inspecting uranium mining operations, X-ray apparatus, sealed radioactive sources, and premises in which unsealed radioactive substances are handled; investigating radiation accidents and incidents; assisting in the development of national standards and codes of practice for radiation protection; assessing licence applications; and providing training and education of general practitioners and registered nurses who operate X-ray units in rural and remote areas of the state.

During 2004-05 the RPD continued to implement the recommendations from the report on the audit of radioactive materials it conducted during 2003-04, to ensure appropriate controls are maintained on the storage of radioactive material and management of radioactive waste.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the RPD for their continued outstanding efforts during this year, and the members of the Radiation Protection Committee for their contribution and valued advice.

Dr Paul VogelChief ExecutiveEnvironment Protection Authority

FOREWORD

AEVA Australian Equine Veterinary Association AHMC Australian Health Ministers’ Conference ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety AgencyARPS Australasian Radiation Protection SocietyCT computed tomographyELF extremely low frequencyEPA Environment Protection AuthorityGENI General Environmental Information System GP general practitionerIAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyNDRP National Directory for Radiation Protection

NCP Review National Competition Policy Review of Radiation Protection LegislationNHMRC National Health and Medical Research CouncilNUIP (RC) National Uniformity Implementation Panel (Radiation Control)NORM naturally occurring radioactive materialPIRSA Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South AustraliaRPC (Act) Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982RHC Radiation Health CommitteeRN registered nurseSAR specifi c absorption rate

ABBREVIATIONS


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 61

FOREWORD 62

ABBREVIATIONS 63

INTRODUCTION 65

Radiation Protection Committee 65

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS 67

Review of the RPC Act 67

Non-ionising radiation 67

Exemptions granted under the RPC Act 67

Approval of personal monitoring devices 68

Radioactive waste management 68

Breaches of the RPC Act and Regulations 68

Radiation incidents and accidents 69

Registration of equipment and premises, and licensing of radiation users 69

Registration of former uranium mining and milling sites 70

Licences to mine and mill radioactive ore 70

Olympic Dam operations 71

Beverley uranium project 71

Honeymoon uranium project 71

Reporting procedures for incidents at uranium mines 71

Implementation of recommendations from the audit of radioactive material stored in South Australia 72

Equine radiography project 72

Training and education 72

Rural and remote X-ray operators 72

Maralinga rehabilitation 73

International and national activities 73

International activities 73

Radiation Health Committee 73

Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council 74

National Directory for Radiation Protection 74

Appendix Conferences attended 75

64

The purpose of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 (the RPC Act) is to control activities related to radioactive substances and radiation apparatus, and to protect the environment and the health and the safety of people against the harmful effects of radiation. Section 22 of the RPC Act requires the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to present to the Minister, for tabling in each House of Parliament, a report on the administration of the RPC Act at the end of each fi nancial year.

The RPC Act is committed to the Minister for Environment and Conservation, who has delegated its roles, functions, and powers, pursuant to Section 8 of the RPC Act, to the Chief Executive of the EPA and to offi cers of the EPA Radiation Protection Division (the RPD), the principal unit responsible for administering the RPC Act. The Director of the RPD reports to the Chief Executive of the EPA.

Offi cers of the RPD who are appointed as authorised offi cers under Section 16 of the RPC Act inspect radiation apparatus, radioactive sources, and premises where unsealed radioactive substances are kept or handled, and sites where radioactive ores are processed or have been processed in the past. They monitor all sources and types of radiation used in South Australia to ensure that they comply with the RPC Act and its regulations.

Offi cers of the Investigations Branch of the EPA Operations Division have also been appointed as authorised offi cers under the RPC Act. These offi cers assist the Radiation

Protection Division by investigating alleged breaches of the RPC Act and regulations.

At 30 June 2005 the Radiation Protection Division had 15 positions (14.25 full-time equivalents) comprising 13 scientifi c and technical staff and 2 administrative and clerical staff.

Radiation Protection Committee

Section 9 of the RPC Act provides for a Radiation Protection Committee of 10 members, one of whom is the Chairman. The Chairman must be an offi cer or employee of the department of the minister to whom the RPC Act is committed. The other members are to have qualifi cations or expertise relevant to the administration of the RPC Act.

The RPD supports the statutory committee, which has functions set out in Section 12 of the RPC Act. These are to:a. advise the Minister about the formu-

lation of regulations under this Actb. advise the Minister on the granting

of licences under this Act, including the conditions to which they should be subject

c. investigate and report on any other matters relevant to the administra-tion of this Act at the request of the Minister or the South Australian Health Commission or of its own motion.

The Committee appointed for the term of three years ending on 25 July 2004 was reappointed, for approximately 5 months, until 31 December 2004. The members and deputy members, and the section of the RPC Act under which each was appointed, are listed below.

INTRODUCTION


Members Deputy Members

Dr P Vogel (Chairman) s9(2)(a)

Dr TM Cain s9(2)(b) (Dr CW Lott)

Mr C Kapsis s9(2)(c) (Ms GA Upton)

Mr KG Smith s9(2)(d) (Dr PJ Storer)

Dr GS Laurence s9(2)(e) (Dr TD Utteridge)

Dr KH Lokan s9(2)(f) (Ms J Shearer)

Dr MI Kitchener s9(2)(g) (Dr BE Chatterton)

Mr S Caplygin s9(2)(h) (Ms TL Reif)

Dr PJ Sykes s9(2)(i) (Dr MT Lardelli)

Mr P Dolan s9(2)(j) (Ms S Douglas-Hill)


On 16 December 2004, a new Committee was appointed for the three years from 1 January 2005 until 31 December 2007. The members and deputy members of the Committee, and the Section of the RPC Act under which each was appointed are listed below.

Dr TM Cain resigned from the Committee and a replacement had not been appointed during the period of this report.

The Committee met four times during the year and considered matters summarised in the remainder of this report.

Members Deputy Members

Dr P Vogel (Chairman) s9(2)(a)

Dr TM Cain s9(2)(b) Dr CW Lott

Ms LM Ingram s9(2)(c) Mr C Kapsis

Ms SM Paulka s9(2)(d) Mr KG Smith

Dr GS Laurence s9(2)(e) Mr PJ Collins

Ms J Shearer s9(2)(f) Dr KH Lokan

Dr MI Kitchener s9(2)(g) Dr BE Chatterton

Mr S Caplygin s9(2)(h) Mrs TL Jenson

Dr PJ Sykes s9(2)(i) Dr MT Lardelli

Mr P Dolan s9(2)(j) Mr TF Whitworth


LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

Review of the RPC Act On 22 June 2005 a number of miscellaneous amendments to the RPC Act were made via proclamation of the Statutes Amendment (Environment and Conservation Portfolio) Act 2005. The changes related mainly to the transfer of administration of the RPC Act from the Health Portfolio to the Environment and Conservation Portfolio. The long title of the RPC Act was amended and is now:

‘An Act to provide for the control of activities related to radioactive substances and radiation apparatus, and for protecting the environment and the health and safety of people against the harmful effects of radiation; to amend the Health Act 1935-1980; and for other purposes.’

A working group of the Radiation Protection Committee appointed for the term 1 January 2005 until 31 December 2007 was formed to assist the EPA with a major review of the RPC Act. The review of the this Act is an important project of the EPA, and will make necessary improvements, including the adoption of provisions of the National Directory for Radiation Protection published by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and recommendations of the report on the National Competition Policy Review of Radiation Protection Legislation (NCP Review), May 2001.

Non-ionising radiationSources of non-ionising radiation that are a potential risk to health and safety of workers and the public are found in many scientifi c, medical and industrial practices and applications, and throughout the community. The harmful effects from exposure to high levels of non-ionising radiation are well known, but whether there are harmful effects from chronic low-level exposure is less clear.

The RPC Act provides for regulations to be made to control non-ionising radiation, the licensing of users and registration of prescribed sources of non-ionising radiation, but no regulations have been made as yet. The NCP Review recommended that jurisdictions include nationally consistent provisions in radiation protection legislation to protect people from the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation. The revised RPC Act must be able to accommodate regulatory controls for a wide variety of sources of non-ionising radiation.

The RPD advises the government, industry and the public on radiation safety of non-ionising radiation sources and recommends compliance with standards, guidelines and codes of practice. The RPD constantly reviews research into the effects of non-ionising radiation and updates public information as necessary.

The RPD responded to a large number of telephone enquiries from the public on possible health effects from exposure to sources of non-ionising radiation. The most common type of enquiry was about health risks

associated with power lines or other sources of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fi elds. Enquiries to the RPD over the health risks of mobile telephones and their base stations were also common.

Exemptions granted under the RPC ActUnder section 44 of the RPC Act, the Minister or his delegate is empowered to grant exemptions from any provision of the RPC Act, provided such action would not endanger the health or safety of any person. After careful consideration, the following exemptions were approved, subject to conditions:• On 8 July 2004, diagnostic

radiographers were granted an exemption from the requirements of Regulation 40 of the Radiation Protection & Control (Ionising Radiation) Regulations 2000 [Regulations]. This regulation specifi es practitioners who may authorise exposures or treatments using ionising radiation. The exemption applies in cases where the exposure is directed and authorised by a registered nurse who works in the emergency Department of Flinders Medical Centre, Noarlunga Health Services, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Women’s & Children’s Hospital for a period until 30 June 2005.

• On 9 September 2004, diagnostic radiographers were granted an exemption from the requirements of Regulation 40 in cases where the exposure is directed and authorised by a registered nurse who works in the Emergency Department of Lyell McEwin Health Service and RAH.


• On 9 September 2004, a conditional exemption from the requirement of Regulation 40 was granted to Dr Allan George Wycherley, Dr Patrick John Ziesing, Dr David Neil Jones, Dr Gabrielle Afi fee Cehic and Dr Sarah Helen Skinner to permit them to authorise treatment of patients with radionuclides.

• On 4 November 2004, a conditional exemption from Section 28 of the RPC Act (licence to use radioactive substances) was granted to urologists to the extent that they may use or handle radioactive I-125 while assisting radiation oncologists in a brachytherapy procedure involving implantation of the prostate with I-125 seeds at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

• On 18 November 2004, a conditional exemption from Section 28 of the RPC Act was granted to urologists to the extent that they may use or handle radioactive I-125 while assisting radiation oncologists in a brachytherapy procedure involving implantation of the prostate with I-125 seeds at Calvary Hospital.

• On 20 January 2005, a conditional exemption from Regulation 18 of the Regulations [the requirement for employers to provide personal radiation monitors] was granted to Aquaspex Water Testing Products in respect of staff handling only unsealed radioactive thorium-232 in Type C premises.

• On 24 March 2005, a conditional exemption from Regulation 45 (requirements for approval of research involving the use of ionising radiation on human subjects) of the Regulations was granted in relation to persons conducting research at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Lyell McEwin Health Service. The exemption specifi es that Dr L Barnden, Hospital RSO, or another medical physicist who has the appropriate knowledge and experience to perform the necessary dosimetric calculations, must be present as a member of, or as an adviser to, the Ethics of Human Research Committee of the hospital. The hospital may, under the conditions of the exemption, approve research that involves effective doses to an individual in one year that do not exceed:

(a) 0.1 mSv1 if the exposed person’s age is less than 2 years

(b) 0.5 mSv if the exposed person’s age is between 2 and 18 years

(c) 5 mSv in any other case.• On 20 April 2005, a conditional

exemption from Regulation 18 of the Regulations [the requirement for employers to provide personal radiation monitors] was granted to Gribbles Veterinary Pathology (‘VETLAB’ of SA) in respect of staff handling only unsealed radioactive C-14 in Type C premises.

• On 5 May 2005, a conditional exemption from Regulation 104 (2) of the Regulations [the requirement for a control panel to be isolated in a room adjacent to or behind a fi xed screen within the room in which an X-ray medical apparatus is installed] was granted to the Women’s and Children’s Hospital for the purpose of paediatric emergency radiography within the resuscitation rooms of the hospital’s emergency department.

Approval of personal monitoring devicesUnder Part 2, Division 4 of the Regulations, the Minister or his delegate is empowered to approve a specifi ed monitoring device or kind or class of monitoring device for detecting and measuring exposure to ionising radiation. The following personal monitoring devices were approved during the period:• On 23 December 2004, specifi ed

personal monitoring devices issued by ARPANSA, Radiation-Wise/Landauer and ARS/NZNRL were approved, subject to conditions, as monitoring devices in respect of Regulation 21.

• On 17 February 2005, the Personal Alpha Dosimeter (PAD) issued by the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada was approved, subject to conditions, as a monitoring device in respect of Regulation 21.

Radioactive waste managementApplications for approval of annual radioactive waste management plans for users of unsealed radioactive substances for the period 1 October 2004 to 30 September 2005 were considered and approvals granted to 22 organisations. Applicants included hospitals, universities, pathology laboratories, commercial laboratories, and Commonwealth and state government laboratories.

Approval to dispose of unsealed radioactive waste was granted when the waste and the disposal method complied with the requirements of the National Health and Medical Research Council Code of Practice for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste by the User 1985. Methods for disposing of very low-level radioactive waste include incineration, disposal via sewers and fume-hoods, and landfi ll burial.

Landfi ll burial has been on hold since 10 July 2003 when the Adelaide City Council ceased to accept very low-level radioactive waste at its Wingfi eld Waste Depot. Waste that had been normally disposed of by landfi ll burial remained in storage at several premises that are registered under the RPC Act. Some of the organisations holding this waste have limited storage capacity. The EPA is monitoring this issue and pursuing options for disposal of very low-level solid radioactive wastes via landfi ll burial.

Breaches of the RPC Act and RegulationsDuring the year the RPD received expert assistance from the EPA Investigations Branch to investigate three alleged breaches of the RPC Act or Regulations. At the end of the period of this report, one matter was before the Adelaide Magistrates Court, one was with the Crown Solicitors Offi ce under review, and no enforcement action was taken on the other matter.

1 Sv = sievert, unit of effective dose; millisievert (mSv) = 10-3 Sv

Radiation incidents and accidentsThe regulations under the RPC Act require employers of radiation workers, owners of X-ray apparatus or sealed radioactive sources, and occupiers of premises where unsealed radioactive substances are used or handled, to promptly report to the RPD any accidents when a radiation source is no longer under control, or a person has received, or may have received, an accidental exposure to ionising radiation. The RPD investigates all radiation accidents and incidents to determine the cause and any remedial action that could to prevent a recurrence.

Details of accidents and incidents involving exposure, or potential exposure, to radiation are provided to ARPANSA for the National Register of Radiation Accidents and Incidents.

During the period of this report the following incidents were reported to the RPD:• On 17 November 2004, a survey

company reported to the RPD that one of its nuclear moisture density meters (a Troxler Model 3430) containing sealed radioactive sources (300 MBq2 caesium-137 & 1.4 GBq3 americium-beryllium) had been damaged in an accident on a road under construction. A grader driver had accidentally reversed over the meter. Although the meter was damaged, there was no release of radioactive material and no person was injured in the incident. The companies involved reviewed work practices and procedures to prevent a recurrence.

• The RPD was advised of an incident that occurred on 12 January 2005 at a nuclear medicine department whereby a patient was administered with a wrong radiopharmaceutical tracer. A biliary tracer of 779 MBq of technetium (Tc)-99m-Disfoenin was administered instead of a bone tracer of 779 MBq of Tc-99m-HDP (Oxidronate). It was estimated that the patient received an effective dose of 8.0 mSv from the incorrect administration of the radiopharmaceutical. The department has reviewed its protocols and procedures for

preparing radiopharmaceuticals to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. The reviewed procedures included the use and double-checking of clearly identifi ed labels on each vial that contains a radiopharmaceutical tracer, as well as on each dose syringe and its lead shielding pot.

• The RPD received notifi cation from a nuclear medicine department of an incident on 18 May 2005, involving an administration of a radiopharmaceutical tracer to the wrong patient having the same surname as the intended patient. The patient was given a dose of 30 MBq of Tc-99m-O4 for a ventilation scan and subsequently received an estimated effective dose of 600 uSv4. The department’s standard protocol for administration of a radiopharmaceutical was not followed. The department has reviewed and updated its protocols/procedures to prevent a recurrence.

• A nuclear medicine department reported a radiation incident that occurred on 27 June 2005. Four patients who were booked in for bone scans were injected with Tc-99m-Pertechnetate instead of Tc-99m-MDP. The patients were re-booked for their bone scans after the incident. An extra effective dose received by each patient was estimated to be 11 mSv. A technologist who performed the dose preparation had re-constituted two different radiopharmaceutical kits on that same morning and possibly

misread the labels on the kits. Following the incident an offi cer of the RPD visited the department and had discussions with its RSO and chief technologist on how to prevent such a recurrence. Subsequently the department provided the RPD with a written copy of its reviewed and updated work protocols and procedures.

Registration of equipment and premises, and licensing of radiation users

Personal radiation licences and registrations of equipment and premises are normally renewed annually. The functions of issuing licences and registrations, and renewal notices, and the management of information required for them have been carried out for approximately 20 years using a dBase database system. During the year a new database and software for managing licences and registrations was developed under the EPA’s General Environmental Information System (GENI). Data was transferred from the old database to the new GENI database, and IT and RPD staff tested both the transferred data and functionality of the new software to ensure any faults or anomalies were detected and corrected.

The numbers of apparatus, sealed sources and premises registered under the RPC Act at 30 June 2005 are given in Table 32.


Legislative And Regulatory Developments

Table 32 Apparatus, sealed sources and premises registered under the RPC Act

Type Section of Act Number registered

Ionising radiation apparatus 32 1808

Sealed radioactive sources 30 586

Premises where unsealed radioactive substances are handled or kept 29 166

2 Bq = Becquerel = unit of radioactivity; megabecquerel (MBq) = 106 Bq 3 gigabecquerel (GBq) = 109 Bq4 microsievert (uSv) = 10-6Sv


At 30 June 2005, 4064 people held licences to use ionising radiation. In addition, it is estimated that 2000–3000 people not required to hold a licence were employed in occupations that involve exposure to ionising radiation. These include workers at Olympic Dam, Beverley and Honeymoon uranium projects, workers in Type C laboratories, operators of cabinet X-ray units and fully enclosed industrial X-ray units, users of industrial radiation gauges, and people assisting with medical, dental and veterinary X-ray procedures.

When required under the provisions of the RPC Act, radiation workers’ radiation doses were monitored using approved personal dosimeters. All radiation workers’ doses recorded were below the occupational limits prescribed in the regulations, and the average and median of doses received by all workers were well below occupational limits.

Registration of former uranium mining and milling sitesThe former Radium Hill uranium mine, 100 km south-west of Broken Hill, was developed in the early 1950s and operated until its closure in the early 1960s. The northern end of the remaining tailings dam at Radium Hill has been used as a repository for low-level radioactive waste since April 1981, when it was gazetted under the Crown Lands Act 1929 and placed under the care, control and management of the (then) Minister of Mines and Energy.

The Port Pirie Treatment Plant processed uranium ore from Radium Hill between 1953 and 1962 and was operated by the (then) Mines Department of SA. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 tonnes of radioactive tailings remain in tailings dams at Port Pirie, on land owned by the State Government, under the care of the Minister for Mineral Resources Development.

Some remediation work at both the Radium Hill mine site and the Port Pirie plant and tailings dams had been conducted over the last 20 years by the Department of Primary Industries

and Resources SA (PIRSA). The RPD advised on the radiological aspects of this work and conducted occasional inspections and monitoring. However, neither site had been subject to specifi c control under the RPC Act.

Australia signed the international Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (the Joint Convention) on 13 November 1998. The Joint Convention came into force on 18 June 2001. Following an assessment, the requirements of the Joint Convention and South Australia’s legal framework and controls on radioactive waste in this state, it was considered appropriate that the Radium Hill and Port Pirie sites be formally registered under section 29 of the RPC Act. Conditions applied to the registrations could facilitate compliance with Article 12 of the Convention, which concerns the safety of existing facilities and past practices. The Radium Hill and Port Pirie sites were fi rst registered on 28 February 2003. The registered occupier of the sites is the Minister for Primary Industries and Resources SA.

The initial conditions attached to the registrations were designed to require the development of appropriate long-term management plans for the sites. In particular, the conditions of registration required a preliminary investigation be conducted of both sites and a report of this ‘Phase I’ study to be presented within 12 months. This investigation work was subsequently conducted and reports on both sites provided to the RPD.

The RPD reviewed the Phase I reports and prepared draft conditions of registration for next stage of site characterisation work for endorsement by the Radiation Protection Committee.

Registration conditions enabling Phase II of site investigations were endorsed by the Radiation Protection Committee on 1 July 2004. The conditions include a more detailed site characterisation that incorporates modelling, and additional studies and investigations to assist decision making on remediation methods and options. Phase II will be completed by 30 November 2006.

Licences to mine and mill radioactive ore

The three current licences to mine and mill radioactive ores, issued under section 24 of the RPC Act, have been issued to:• WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation)

Pty Ltd• Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd

(Beverley uranium project)• Southern Cross Resources Australia

Pty Ltd (Honeymoon uranium project).

The licences are subject to conditions that include compliance with the Commonwealth Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1987 and the Code of Practice on Management of Radioactive Wastes from the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1982.

Transport of uranium ore concentrate to Outer Harbor is conducted in accordance with the regulations for the safe transport of radioactive substances.

A 3-month trial rail shipment of UOC from Olympic Dam and Beverley via rail to Darwin was approved in January 2005. As part of the trial, 48 containers that would normally be sent through Port Adelaide were trucked to Islington and then loaded onto freight trains to Darwin for export. The trial ended on 15 March 2005 and Department of Premier and Cabinet is producing a report on the trial.

The RPD conducts routine surveillance of uranium mining by auditing companies’ monitoring results and by conducting independent monitoring. Each licensed company provides quarterly occupational and environmental radiation monitoring data, including dose assessments, to the EPA. These reports are examined by divisional offi cers, compared with RPD monitoring results if appropriate, and reviewed with company offi cers at regular quarterly meetings.

Olympic Dam operations WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty Ltd holds a licence (LM1) under the RPC Act to mine and mill radioactive ores. Licence conditions stipulate annual reporting on the existing and proposed development of the project and details of the wastes produced. The LM1 report for 2003–04 was received on 30 August 2004 and was examined by the Radiation Protection Committee on 18 November 2004. The report includes an annual dose assessment summary and assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of radiation protection measures.

The dose summary indicated that the average dose for all designated workers in the mine and the processing plant was 17% and 14.5% respectively of the 20 mSv average annual limit. The maximum individual dose received was 56% of the limit.

The annual report of the Environmental Management and Monitoring Program for 2004 was presented to the Radiation Protection Committee on 19 May 2005. This report contains results of environmental radiation monitoring, and again confi rmed that the radiological effects of the operation continue to be confi ned within the mining lease. In particular, any addition to the annual radiation dose to members of the public living in Olympic Dam Village and Roxby Downs was assessed to be less than the detection limit for the methods used (5% of the 1 mSv annual limit).

There were three incidents during this period that were reported under the approved incident reporting procedures for uranium mines and subsequently considered by the Radiation Protection Committee. None of the incidents resulted in any injury to workers or represented a hazard to the environment. The spilt materials were removed and returned to the tailings retention system.

Offi cers of the RPD visited the project on fi ve occasions for radiation review meetings, inspections and/or workplace monitoring.

Routine transport of uranium ore concentrate from Olympic Dam to Outer Harbor continued without incident.

In June 2005 BHP Billiton made a successful takeover bid and has acquired more than 50% of WMC shares. Following the change of ownership new senior management staff and a joint company secretary were appointed.

Beverley uranium projectHeathgate Resources Pty Ltd, operators of the Beverley project 600 km north of Adelaide, hold a licence (LM4) under the RPC Act to conduct commercial uranium mining operations. This licence was renewed for 12 months from 4 August 2004.

The annual report of the Occupational Radiation Monitoring Program for 2003 indicates the average annual dose for workers at the Beverley mine was approximately 3% of the 20 mSv annual occupational dose limit recommended for designated employees. The maximum dose received by a worker was approximately 17% of the annual limit.

The annual report of the Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program notes that environmental monitoring confi rms doses to members of the public as a result of the mining operations are indistinguishable from background radiation levels.

Four incidents were reported during 2004–05 under the approved reporting procedures and subsequently considered by the RPC. None of the above incidents resulted in any injury to workers or represented a hazard to the environment.

Transport of product from the Beverley mine continued without incident. Division offi cers visited the site on three occasions during this reporting period.



Honeymoon uranium projectSouthern Cross Resources Pty Ltd holds a licence (LM3) to mine and mill at its Honeymoon site, 25 km from the NSW border near Broken Hill. The licence, which was renewed on 9 February 2005 for one year, does not permit the recovery of uranium from the ore zone.

The Honeymoon site remains on care and maintenance and offi cers of the RPD visited the site once during this period. A licence under the RPC Act that permits commercial operations will be required before the operations outlined in the EIS can begin.

Reporting procedures for incidents at uranium minesIn early May 2002, the State Government announced an independent review of reporting procedures for incidents at uranium mines.

The review, conducted by Mr Hedley Bachmann, made recommendations on incident recording and reporting procedures, the revision of secrecy and confi dentiality clauses of legislation, and mechanisms for improving information fl ow to state and Commonwealth government agencies and the public. The report was submitted to the government on 30 August 2002.

The recommended recording and reporting mechanisms came into effect on 28 February 2003. These were approved as part of the radiation management plans for uranium mining. The requirement for radiation management plans arises from conditions attached to the licence to mine or mill radioactive ores granted under Section 24 of the RPC Act.

One of the recommendations of the review was that the procedures be reviewed after 12 months from the date of their adoption. The review commenced in 2004 but was not completed during the period of this report. Issues being taken into account include changes in mine operations, technical diffi culties encountered during the fi rst year of the application of the recording

and reporting procedures, and the appropriateness of the reporting arrangements and recording trigger levels. The review, which is expected to be completed in 2005, will involve substantial consultation with other government agencies and mine operators.

Implementation of recommendations from the audit of radioactive material stored in South Australia

In September 2003, the RPD completed an audit of radioactive material stored in South Australia and issued a report that contained 20 recommendations associated with the fi ndings of the audit, and nine key recommendations for the future management of radioactive material in SA.

Many of the recommendations of the report cover activities controlled by the EPA under the RPC Act. The RPD developed a project plan to address implementation of the recommendations of the report, and made signifi cant progress in this regard. Key points relating to progress are given below.

• URS Australia Pty Ltd studied the feasibility of interim storage of radioactive wastes and options for long-term management of radioactive wastes. The studies were scheduled for completion at the end of July 2005.

• a fi rst draft of the EPA’s policy on the sustainable management of radioactive wastes was being prepared, and scheduled for completion in August 2005.

• The EPA was in the process of revising the RPC Act and associated regulations.

• Safety, security and accountancy of radioactive sources was to be built into the EPA’s new GENI database, and ultimately, conditions related to these placed on registrations; a register of wastes was also to be developed by the EPA and incorporated into the database.

• The waste shielding, containment and accountancy aspects of the implementation were completed and are being incorporated into the policy for the sustainable management of radioactive wastes; ongoing surveillance of source accountancy and waste identifi cation will be incorporated into the GENI database.

• To improve licensee control of sources and equipment, registrations are now issued for 12 months only and no longer for three years.

• The EPA continues to liaise with PIRSA on the long-term management of the Port Pirie and Radium Hill sites.

Equine radiography project

Since late 2002, the RPD’s Diagnostic X-rays Group has investigated and monitored a protocol for radiography of yearling horses before sale. Three veterinary practices were surveyed at three sites during the year, using monitoring badges with a minimum sensitivity of 10 µSv, as the fi nal monitoring of the project. The sensitivity of these badges reduced the need to monitor a large number of examinations.

Operator doses were measured during the examination of two horses at one site with a total of 72 X-rays, three horses at another site with a total of 105 X-rays. The largest sample was when seven horses were examined with a total of 265 X-rays. The latest radiation doses to operators were comparable with those of previous sessions. Radiation monitoring results for one practice indicated that adoption of the RPD’s recommendations had reduced the exposure of staff.

Offi cers of the RPD also visited the X-ray repository of the Adelaide yearling sales to view and audit the fi lms held there. A random selection of fi lms from 23 practices from around Australia and New Zealand was audited. Of particular concern was evidence of assistants holding cassettes with their hands.

The RPD’s involvement with radiation monitoring and observations of people involved in pre-sales equine radiography has enabled it to give good advice to ARPANSA and to the Australian Equine Veterinary Association (AEVA) on the AEVA draft code of practice for pre-sales equine radiography. A report on the Equine Radiography project was being fi nalised at the end of the period of this report.

The RPD will continue to work closely with the equine veterinary industry to ensure safe practices are employed.

Training and education

The RPD continued to help with education and training programs conducted by a number of organisations, including BreastScreen SA, the University of South Australia, Flinders Medical Centre, the University of Adelaide, the Royal Adelaide Hospital and various private medical imaging practices. Lectures on radiation protection legislation, and the principles and practices of protection from ionising and non-ionising radiation, were given to occupational users of radiation and to groups receiving training in occupational health and safety.

Rural and remote X-ray operatorsThree one-week basic diagnostic radiography courses were conducted for general practitioners (GPs) and registered nurses (RNs) requiring licences to perform limited radiographic procedures. These courses were held at the University of South Australia, School of Medical Radiation, which is incorporated in the School of Health Sciences. They were supplemented by several in-service training sessions in basic radiography that were presented at a number of rural sites.

This training and fi lm audits are considered crucial for maintaining appropriate standards of radiography by these licensed GPs and RNs in remote locations.


Maralinga rehabilitation

The former British atomic weapons test site at Maralinga (Section 400) is currently Australian Government land and is a licensed facility under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (Maralinga Facility Licence FV0043). The site includes burial trenches containing radioactive materials constructed during the Australian Government’s Maralinga Rehabilitation Project, completed in 2000.

It is proposed that the Australian Government return the Maralinga site, including Maralinga Village and the airfi eld, to the South Australian Government for addition to the Maralinga Tjarutja freehold lands. The Australian Government convenes the Maralinga Consultative Group, which consists of representation of the Australian Government, the South Australian Government including the RPD, and the traditional owners, the Maralinga-Tjarutja people. The Consultative Group’s tasks include developing a long-term management plan for the site; the Maralinga Land and Environment Management Plan (MLEMP). This plan details provisions for long-term radiation monitoring and surveillance of the site. The Maralinga site would be subject to the provisions of the RPC Act on the return of ownership to South Australia.

During the previous reporting period, the Consultative Group was involved in establishing provisions for return of the site to South Australia and the Maralinga-Tjarutja people. The Consultative Group examined a number of issues, including the current radiological state of the site, responsibilities for continuing management of the site under the MLEMP, procedures for handing back the land to Maralinga-Tjarutja, and indemnity issues.

The Consultative Group did not meet during the 2004–05 year.

International and national activities

International activitiesTo ensure that South Australia’s regulation of activities involving radiation keeps pace with international best practice, the RPD participates in international activities to the extent that its resources permit.

During the year the RPD helped to review of draft guidance documents of the IAEA circulated by ARPANSA. Such documents, when fi nalised, are often used in developing Australian policies and standards for radiation protection.

Radiation Health CommitteeThe Radiation Health Committee (RHC) is established under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. The RHC advises the CEO of ARPANSA and the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council on matters covering radiation protection, and develops policies and prepares draft publications to promote uniform national standards of radiation protection throughout the Commonwealth and its states and territories. The RHC includes a radiation protection offi cer to represent each states and territory. The Director of the RPD is a member of the RHC. The National Uniformity Implementation Panel (Radiation Control) [NUIP(RC)] is a working group of the RHC.

Three meetings of the RHC and the NUIP(RC) were held during the year. Items discussed at the meetings included: • development of standards, codes

of practice and safety guides for radiation protection, including:

– the recommendations for intervention in emergency situations involving radiation exposure (published in November 2004)

– the code of practice for the exposure of human subjects to ionising radiation for medical research purposes (published in May 2005)

– the draft code of practice and safety guide for radiation protection and radioactive waste management in mining and mineral processing

– the draft standard for limiting exposure to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fi elds (0 Hz to 300 kHz)

– the draft code of practice for the security & physical protection of radioactive sources

– the draft code of practice and safety guide for radiation protection in diagnostic and interventional radiology

– the draft code of practice and safety guide for radiation protection in veterinary science

– the draft code of practice for radiation protection in nuclear medicine

– the draft code of practice for the safe use of lasers in the entertainment industry

– the draft standard for occupational exposure to ultraviolet radiation

• further development of the National Directory for Radiation Protection to deal with its application to mining and mineral processing industries and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)

• certifi cation of personal radiation monitoring devices

• use of lasers on humans• the draft recommendations of

the International Commission of Radiological Protection (2005)

• radioactive waste management strategy—development of a national audit format and fi nal waste disposal options

• implementation of recommendations of the National Competition Policy Review of Radiation Protection Legislation

• the Australian Radiation Incident Register.

The RPD also participated in working groups and consultative groups that develop the standards, codes of practice and policies for inclusion in the National Directory for Radiation Protection.




Radiation Health and Safety Advisory CouncilThe Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council is established under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. The Council advises the CEO of ARPANSA on a range of matters including emerging issues, matters of major concern to the community, and the adoption of codes, standards, recommendations and policies on radiation protection and nuclear safety.

An offi cer of the RPD is a member of the Council.

The RHSAC met three times during the year. Issues discussed at the meetings included:• naturally occurring radioactive

material (NORM)• a national strategy for security of

radioactive sources• an indicator of sustainable

development for radioactive waste management

• emerging issues in medical radiation protection

• mobile telephones and exposure of children to RF fi elds

• the status and regulatory issues in construction of the replacement reactor

• current research in ultraviolet radiation exposure

• the National Directory for Radiation Protection (NDRP)

• the review of the Commonwealth’s mining and milling codes of practice on radiation protection and radioactive waste management.

National Directory for Radiation ProtectionIn August 1999, the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference (AHMC) affi rmed an approach to achieve national uniformity of radiation protection frameworks through the development of a national guidance document: The National Directory of Radiation Protection. Development of the directory has been managed by the RHC.

ARPANSA published the fi rst edition of the directory in August 2004 following approval of the RHC on 20 May 2004, and the endorsement by AHMC on 29 July 2004. It is noted in the Scope of the Directory that the fi rst edition will not be applied to the mining and mineral processing industries.

The endorsement by AHMC was conditional on additional cost benefi t analysis to meet subordinate legislation requirements in all jurisdictions of Australia. The additional cost benefi t analysis had been completed to the satisfaction of the RHC.


Appendix Conferences attended

RPD offi cers assisted in the organisation of and attended the annual conference of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS) in Adelaide in October 2004. A range of radiation protection issues that affect the regulatory functions of the RPD were discussed at the conference, including topics on radioactive waste management; emergency preparedness and response; industrial/medical uses of radiation; and environmental radioactivity and mining and milling of radioactive ores.

One offi cer attended the workshop on ‘Developments in Radiation Protection and Clinical Dosimetry’ in Sydney in December 2004. This was organised jointly by the Physics Special Group of the Australian New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine and the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine. The workshop highlighted matters of radiation protection concerning the medical use of radiation relevant to the regulatory functions of the RPD. Papers presented refl ected the issues of dose and radiation safety aspects of emerging technologies in the medical fi eld.

ARPANSA hosted a ‘National Conference on Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing’ in Melbourne during 11–13 April 2005. Three offi cers from the RPD attended the conference, which covered a range of issues on the revision and implementation of the Commonwealth mining codes of practice including: the future application of the NDRP to mining and minerals processing, materials transport, NORM and IAEA recommendations on exclusion, exemption and clearance.


APPENDIX 1—FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCEFor the year ended 30 June 2005 Note 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Employee benefi ts 4 16,036 15,605Supplies and services 5 7,434 8,515 Grants and contributions 6 5,984 7,624 Depreciation 7 882 996 Net loss from disposal of non-current assets 8 7 282 Net expense from correction of an error 10 – –Other 9 (31 ) 7

Total expenses from ordinary activities 30,312 33,029 REVENUES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Fees and charges 10 20,421 18,294Grants and contributions 11 1,817 1,765 Interest 12 323 645 Assets received free of charge 13 155 188 Other 14 46 567

Total revenues from ordinary activities 22,762 21,459 NET COST OF SERVICES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES 7,550 11,570 SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENSES Revenues 15 8,874 8,725 Expenses 15 2,128 –

Total South Australian Government revenues and expenses 6,746 8,725 NET RESULT BEFORE RESTRUCTURING (804 ) (2,845 ) Net gain/(loss) from administrative restructure 16 – (1,625 )

NET RESULT AFTER RESTRUCTURING (804 ) (4,470 ) CHANGES IN EQUITY THROUGH NON-OWNER TRANSACTION Net increase (decrease) in asset revaluation reserve 25 1,279 –

Total revenues, expenses and valuation adjustments recognised in equity 1,279 –

TOTAL CHANGES IN EQUITY OTHER THAN THOSE RESULTING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS OWNERS 475 (4,470 )


STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITIONAs at 30 June 2005 Note 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

CURRENT ASSETS Cash 17 5,194 6,286 Receivables 18 1,114 992Other 19 87 75

Total current assets 6,395 7,353 NON-CURRENT ASSETS Receivables 18 43 72 Financial assets 20 5 5 Property, plant and equipment 21 4,721 3,391

Total non-current assets 4,769 3,468 TOTAL ASSETS 11,164 10,821 CURRENT LIABILITIES Payables 22 1,237 1,582 Provisions for employee benefi ts 23 1,322 1,094 Other 24 6 67

Total current liabilities 2,565 2,743 NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES Payables 22 425 421 Provisions for employee benefi ts 23 3,042 3,000

Total non-current liabilities 3,467 3,421 TOTAL LIABILITIES 6,032 6,164 NET ASSETS 5,132 4,657

EQUITYAsset revaluation reserve 25 1,279 – Other 25 3,853 4,657

TOTAL EQUITY 5,132 4,657 Restrictions on contributions 27 Expenditure commitments 28

Appendix 1 – Financial statements and accompanying notes


STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWSFor the year ended 30 June 2005 Note 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES PAYMENTS Employee benefi ts (15,811 ) (14,997 )Supplies and services (7,653 ) (8,008 )Grants and contributions (5,984 ) (7,626 )

Total outfl ows from ordinary activities (29,448 ) (30,631 )

RECEIPTS Fees and charges 20,235 18,175 Grants and contributions 1,817 1,765 Interest 325 662 Loan repayments 59 70 Other 46 257

22,482 21,239 SA GOVERNMENT CASH FLOWS RECEIPTS Recurrent appropriations 8,106 8,718 Accrual appropriations 598 – Contingency funds 170 7

Total infl ows from SA Gov ernment 8,874 8,725 PAYMENTSReturn of Surplus Cash (2,128 ) –

Total outfl ows from SA Government (2,128 ) – NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 26 (220 ) (667 ) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchase of property, plant and equipment (873 ) (1,297 )Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment 1 1

NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES (872 ) (1,296 ) CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES Net receipts/payments from administrative restructures – (1,808 )

NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES – (1,808 ) NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH HELD (1,092 ) (3,771 ) Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 6,286 10,057

CASH AT THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD 5,194 6,286


NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTSFor the year ended 30 June 2005

1 OBJECTIVES OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

(a) Strategic contextThe Environment Protection Authority (the Authority) is South Australia’s primary environmental regulator for the protection, restoration and enhancement of our environment. The Authority promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development and works with government, industry and the people of South Australia, with key roles to:• review, develop and draft environmental protection policies and national environment protection measures • authorise activities of environmental signifi cance through an authorisation system aimed at the control and minimisation of pollution and waste• conduct compliance investigation and institute environmental monitoring and evaluation programmes• provide advice and assistance regarding best environmental management practice

The Authority has a key advocacy and engagement role across Government and with the people of South Australia, business and communities throughout South Australia (SA) to achieve a healthy and valued environment.

(b) Financial arrangementsThe Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH) provides some professional, technical and administrative support to the Authority. In addition, certain services are provided by DEH at no charge to the Authority and have not been recognised in the fi nancial statements as it is impractical to determine a value for these items. The costs of these services include salaries and overheads relating to the provision of various administrative services. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 31 May 2004 between DEH and the Authority relating to the future provision of these services.

The Authority’s sources of funds consist of monies appropriated by Parliament together with income derived primarily from fees, levies and licences to the public and industry. These include:• environment and radiation protection licences• waste levies from landfi ll depots• fi nes and penalties• section 7 enquiries

The fi nancial activities of the Authority are primarily conducted through deposit accounts with the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) pursuant to section 8 and section 21 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987. The deposit accounts are used for funds provided by Parliamentary appropriation together with revenues from services provided and from fees and charges.

(c) Reporting entityThe Authority was established by proclamation under the Public Sector Management Act 1995 in the Government Gazette dated 27 June 2002. The administrative unit was established from the Environment Protection Agency functions transferred from DEH and the Radiation Protection Branch functions transferred from the Department of Human Services. Employees relating to these functions were transferred effective from 1 July 2002. (For additional information relating to the Administrative restructure refer to note 2 (b)).



The administrative unit was established as a separate body to the statutory authority in 1995 under the Environment Protection Act 1993 (the Act) that is also called the Environment Protection Authority. Subsequent amendments to the Act in April 2003 (section 14B) introduced a governing board to the Authority, being the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (consisting of 9 members), to which the Chief Executive of the administrative unit is accountable. Through this governing arrangement, the statutory authority (through its governing Board) is responsible for the operations of the administrative unit. Also in existence is the Radiation Protection Committee consisting of 10 members. The Committee is responsible for the formulation of regulations under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982.

The Environment Protection Fund (Fund) is established under Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act 1993. The purpose of the Fund is to provide funds which may be applied to education, training, investigations, research and pilot programs in relation to the protection, restoration or enhancement of the environment and to facilitate assistance in relation to an environment performance agreement.

The Fund meets the accounting criteria of a controlled entity of the Authority and consequently the assets and the liabilities of the Fund are recognised by the Authority in the Statement of Financial Position, and the Fund’s revenues and expenses have been recognised in the Authority’s Statement of Financial Performance. The transactions of the Fund are disclosed in Note 31.

The Authority performs functions related to Authority and administered activities. The Authority Financial Statements include the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses controlled or incurred by the Authority in its own right. As administered items are insignifi cant to the Authority’s overall fi nancial performance and position, they have been disclosed in schedules of administered item revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash fl ows which the Authority administers on behalf of the SA government, industry and the Minister for Environment and Conservation but does not control. (Refer Note 32)

The administered items schedules detail the administered items’ revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash fl ows and as such the principles of consolidation have not been applied in preparing these fi nancial statements as the defi nition of an economic entity has not been satisfi ed. The administered item is Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee. Details of the administered items’ activities are contained in Note 32 along with the associated schedules of revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash fl ows.

2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

(a) Basis of accountingThe Authority’s fi nancial statements are a general purpose fi nancial report that has been prepared on an accrual basis pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act and in accordance with:• the requirements of the Act

• Statements of Accounting Concepts

• applicable Australian Accounting Standards (AAS)

• other authoritative pronouncements of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB)

• Urgent Issues Group (UIG) Consensus Views

• Treasurer’s Instructions and Accounting Policy Statements issued pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act.

Where there are inconsistencies between the above requirements, the legislative provisions have prevailed.

In the absence of a specifi c accounting standard, other authoritative pronouncement of the AASB or UIG Consensus View, consideration is given to the order of preference of other pronouncements as outlined in AAS 6 ‘Accounting Policies’.

The fi nancial statements, including administered items, have been prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, revenues are recognised when they are earned or when the Authority has control over them rather than when they are received, and expenses are recognised when they are incurred rather than when they are paid. Some revenues are recognised when cash is received as this is when the Authority gains control of these revenues. These revenues include items such as licence fees, fi nes and penalties.



81

The fi nancial statements have been prepared in accordance with the historical cost convention, with the exception of certain types of physical non-current assets which are valued at fair value, in accordance with APS guidance. Cost is based on the fair values of the consideration given in exchange for assets.

The fi nancial statements detail the revenues, expenses and fi nancial position of the Authority as a single entity and accordingly all intra Authority transactions and balances have been eliminated.

(b) Administrative restructuresEffective from 1 July 2003, the Zero Waste SA reporting entity was established by proclamation in the Government Gazette dated 26 June 2003 as a separate administrative unit under the Public Sector Management Act, resulting in a transfer of functions and staff from the Authority during the previous fi nancial year. (Refer Note 16)

(c) South Australian (SA) Government Revenues and Expenses

RevenuesAll Government appropriations are recorded as revenue in the Statement of Financial Performance at the time control passes to the Authority. In general, the Authority gains control of appropriations upon receipt of the funds.

ExpensesPayments include the return of surplus cash pursuant to the cash alignment policy paid directly to the DTF consolidated account.

(d) Non SA Government Revenues and Expenses RecognitionRevenues and expenses are recognised in the Authority’s Statement of Financial Performance when, and only when, the fl ow or consumption or loss of economic benefi ts has occurred and can be reliably measured.

Revenues and expenses have been classifi ed according to their nature in accordance with APS 13 ‘form and content of general purpose fi nancial reports’ and have not been offset unless required or permitted by another accounting standard.

RevenuesAll non SA Government revenues recorded in the Statement of Financial Performance are recognised when the Authority obtains control over the future economic benefi ts in the form of increases in assets or reductions in liabilities. With respect to licence fees and fi nes and penalties revenue, the Authority obtains control upon receipt.

The Authority is not economically dependent on one individual for its revenue, however, the amount of revenue earned from transactions with our customer base can be infl uenced by the South Australian economy.

ExpensesGrants and contributions are amounts provided by the Authority to entities for general assistance or for a particular purpose subject to terms and conditions set out in the contract, correspondence or by legislation and may be for capital, current or recurrent purposes.

(e) CashCash in the Statement of Financial Position and the Statement of Cash Flows is comprised of cash on hand (including petty cash and cashier fl oats) and monies held by DTF in special deposit accounts.

In October 2003 the Government introduced a policy with respect to aligning agency cash balances with appropriation and expenditure authority. In the current reporting period, the Authority transferred $2.13 million of its cash balance to the DTF consolidated account.

(f) ReceivablesReceivables are recognised and carried at the original invoiced amount less a provision for any doubtful debts. An estimate for doubtful debts is made when collection of the full amount is no longer probable, whereas bad (uncollectable) debts are written off as incurred.


(g) Property, plant and equipmentThe Statement of Financial Position includes all property, plant and equipment controlled by the Authority.

Assets disclosed at valuationIn accordance with the requirements of Accounting Policy Statement 3 ‘Revaluation of Non-Current Assets’ (APS 3), independent revaluations of classes of non-current assets only need to be undertaken where there existed an asset within a class that satisfi ed the criteria specifi ed in APS 3. That is, there existed an asset within the class with an original acquisition cost of at least $1 million and a useful life greater than three years. As no asset classes satisfi ed the revaluation criteria in APS 3, the Authority undertook a professional valuation exercise during the current reporting period for the following classes: • infrastructure• moveable vehicles• computing equipment• furniture and fi ttings• plant and equipment.

As a consequence of undertaking revaluations, assets within each of the above mentioned asset classes are recognised at different carrying amounts.

• Independent valuation 2004 represents assets within that class that were valued as part of the EPA Hazardous Waste Depot fi rst time recognition process and are carried at fair value. The independent valuations were performed as at 30 June 2004 by Mr Stephen F Hinkelthein—B App Sc (val), AAPI, Australian Valuation Offi ce.• Independent valuation 2005 represents assets within that class that were valued as part of the scientifi c equipment, plant and equipment and computer equipment valuation process and are carried at fair value. The independent valuations were performed as at 1 July 2004 by Simon O’Leary—AAPI (P&M), Australian Valuation Offi ce.• At cost represents assets within that class that are carried a their cost of acquisition and/or construction.

In accordance with the transitional provisions of AASB 1041 ‘Revaluation of Non-Current Assets’, any revaluation increments arising upon revaluing the above mentioned non-current asset classes to their fair value are credited directly to the asset revaluation reserve except that, to the extent that the net increment reverses a net revaluation decrement previously recognised as an expense in net cost of services from ordinary activities in respect of that same class of non-current assets, in which case the revaluation increments have been credited directly to accumulated funds.

In accordance with the transitional provisions of AASB 1041 ‘Revaluation of Non-Current Assets’, any revaluation decrements arising upon revaluing the above mentioned non-current asset classes to their fair value are debited directly to the asset revaluation reserve to the extent that a credit balance exists in the asset revaluation reserve in respect of that class of non-current assets, and any remainder of the net revaluation decrement is debited directly to accumulated funds.

Assets deemed to be at fair valueFor those classes of non-current assets where an independent revaluation has not been undertaken, the Authority’s non-current assets are deemed to be at fair value as determined by APS 3 ‘Revaluation of Non-Current Assets’ as issued by DTF. Accordingly, those items of property, plant and equipment controlled by the Authority have been brought to account at cost of acquisition and have been reduced to refl ect the portion of economic benefi ts consumed since the asset was acquired.

Asset classes that are deemed to be at fair value include:• application software



83

Intangible assets

Application softwareA number of software applications have been acquired and/or developed in-house by the Authority. The expenditure incurred on these applications is capitalised and recognised as an asset as it satisfi ed the defi nition and recognition criteria of an asset.

Intellectual property, databases and information systemsThe Authority controls a number of databases, registers, information systems and other intellectual property that were developed in-house and are used to store and manage intellectual property owned and controlled by the Authority. While the development and maintenance of these databases involves on-going costs to the Authority, the data has not been recognised in the fi nancial statements as assets, as it has not been possible to reliably measure the future economic benefi ts to the Authority.

OtherThe recoverable amount test prescribed in AASB 1010 ‘Recoverable Amount of Non-Current Assets’ has not been applied as the Authority is a not-for-profi t entity whose service potential is not related to the ability to generate net cash infl ows.

Property, plant and equipment provided free of charge is recorded as an asset at its fair value at the time control passes to the EPA. Assets received in this way are disclosed as revenue in the Statement of Financial Performance and Note 13.

Items of property, plant and equipment with an individual value of less than $2000 are expensed in the Statement of Financial Performance at the time they are acquired.

(h) Depreciation of non-current assetsAll non-current assets with an initial cost greater than $2000 having a limited useful life are systematically depreciated over their useful lives in a manner which refl ects the consumption of their service potential. Depreciation is provided for on a straight line basis, with the following depreciation periods:

• computing equipment 3 years • application software 3–15 years • plant and equipment 3–20 years • moveable vehicles 10–14 years • furniture and fi ttings 5–11 years

• buildings and improvements 5–50 years In accordance with AASB 1021 ‘Depreciation’, an annual review of the appropriateness of depreciation rates and associated useful lives is undertaken. The results of the annual review indicated that the depreciation rates and associated useful lives for the computing equipment class required change for PC equipment from 3 years to 4 years and for monitors from 3 years to 4 or 6 years. The new useful lives are now in accordance with the Authority’s replacement program for IT equipment. The fi nancial effect of this change is refl ected in Note 7 Depreciation.

(i) LeasesThe Authority makes a distinction between fi nance leases, which effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and benefi ts incidental to ownership of the leased assets, and operating leases under which the lessor effectively retains substantially all of the risks and benefi ts incidental to ownership.

Finance leasesThe Authority has not entered into any fi nance leases.

Operating leasesOperating lease payments are charged to the Statement of Financial Performance in the periods in which they are incurred. Details of operating lease commitments are disclosed in Note 28.


84

(j) PayablesThose amounts which represent liabilities for goods and services provided to the Authority are identifi ed as payables. (k) Provisions for employee benefi tsIn accordance with AASB 1028 ‘Employee Benefi ts’, a provision is made for the Authority’s liability for employee benefi ts arising from services rendered by employees to reporting date. These provisions represent the amounts which the Authority has a present obligation to pay to employees for services provided.

Accrued salaries and wagesThe liability for accrued salaries and wages represents the amount earned by employees at reporting date not yet paid by the Authority based on remuneration rates current at reporting date.

Sick leaveNo provision is made for sick leave as experience indicates that on average sick leave taken each reporting period is less than or equal to the accruing sick leave entitlement in each reporting period. This experience is expected to recur in future reporting periods such that it is improbable that existing accrued sick leave entitlements will be used by employees in the reporting period.

Annual leaveA provision has been made for the unused component of annual leave, including annual leave loading, based on the remuneration rates expected to apply when the leave is taken and related on-costs as at reporting date. The expected remuneration rates are calculated as the current remuneration rate plus a salary infl ation factor of 4%. This calculation is consistent with the Authority’s experience of employee retention and leave taking.

Long service leaveIn calculating long service leave benefi ts the Authority uses a benchmark of seven years, based on an actuarial assessment undertaken by DTF of a signifi cant sample of employees throughout the South Australian public sector. The long service leave entitlement estimated to be paid within 12 months of balance date is calculated by multiplying employee benefi ts by the remuneration rates expected to apply when the leave is taken and related on-costs as at reporting date. The expected remuneration rates are calculated as the current remuneration rate plus a salary infl ation factor of 4%. This calculation is consistent with the Authority’s experience of employee retention and leave taking.

Employee on-costsIn general, related on-costs of payroll tax and superannuation have been calculated by applying the standard applicable rates to leave balances as at 30 June. Superannuation on-costs are included for part only of the long service leave provision in recognition that it is estimated that 45% of the provision will be paid as a lump sum payment on cessation of employment and will not be subject to employer superannuation contributions. (Refer Note 23)

SuperannuationContributions are made by the Authority to several superannuation schemes operated by the South Australian Government. These contributions are treated as an expense when they are incurred. There is no liability for payments to benefi ciaries as they have been assumed by the superannuation schemes. Any liability outstanding at reporting date relates to any contribution due but not yet paid to the superannuation schemes and is treated as a payable not an employee benefi t.

Workers compensationThe workers compensation liability recognised for the employees of the Authority is based on an apportionment of an actuarial assessment of the whole-of-government workers compensation liability conducted by Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries based on 31 May data. Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries extrapolate this data to 30 June. For the 2004–2005 fi nancial year the Authority has refl ected a workers compensation provision of $0.077 million (2004: $0.071 million). (Refer Note 23)

The actuarial assessment conducted by Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries is based on the ‘payment per claim incurred’ (PPCI) valuation method. The assessment has been conducted in accordance with AAS 26 ‘Financial Reporting for General Insurance Activities’ and the WorkCover Guidelines for Actuarial Assessments. The liability covers claims incurred but not yet paid, incurred but not reported and the anticipated direct and indirect costs of settling those claims. The liability for outstanding claims is measured as the present value of the expected future payments refl ecting the fact that all the claims do not have to be paid out in the immediate future.



85

During the current reporting period, the Government Workers Compensation Fund (the Fund) was closed to all residual disability, redemption of future medical and income costs and death penalty claims with effect from 1 July 2004. Any new claims from 1 July 2004 are the responsibility of the Authority and as such the Provision for Workers Compensation Liability will be increased accordingly. All claims payments currently covered by the Fund (i.e. claims lodged prior to 1 July 2004) continue to be covered by the Fund and as such this liability is not relected within the Authority’s Financial Statements.

(l) Tax statusThe activities of the Authority are exempt from Commonwealth income tax but other Commonwealth taxes such as Fringe Benefi ts Tax (FBT), Goods and Services Tax (GST) and other State taxes including Payroll Tax are applicable.

(m) Accounting for Goods and Services Tax (GST)DEH prepares a business activity statement on behalf of the Authority under the grouping provisions of the GST legislation. Under these provisions, DEH is liable for the payments and entitled to the receipts associated with GST. As such, the GST applicable to the Authority forms part of the receivables and payables recorded in the Statement of Financial Position and the GST cashfl ows recorded in the Statement of Cash Flows of DEH.

Any GST incurred by the Authority as a purchaser that is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Offi ce (ATO) is, however, recognised as part of an item of expense.

(n) Impact of adopting Australian equivalents to international fi nancial reporting standardsAustralia will be adopting Australian equivalents to international fi nancial reporting standards (AIFRS) for reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2005. The Authority will adopt these standards for the fi rst time in the published fi nancial report for the year ended 30 June 2006.

In accordance with the requirements of AASB 1047 ‘Disclosing the Impacts of Adopting Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards’ a detailed assessment of the impacts of these new standards was performed on the accounts of the entity for year ended June 2005. The scope of this exercise was extensive giving rise to a number of new policies and procedures being developed to facilitate the implementation and interpretation of the new standards. While there will be changes to the disclosure for items within the notes to the accounts no material adjustments were identifi ed at the summary level of the accounts.

(o) SA Government specifi c disclosuresIn accordance with Accounting Policy Statement 13 ‘Form and Content of General Purpose Financial Reports’, the Authority has disclosed revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities where the counterparty/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government, classifi ed according to their nature.

(p) Comparative fi gures Comparative fi gures have been adjusted to conform to changes in presentation in these fi nancial statements where required. (q) Rounding All amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars ($’000) and expressed in Australian currency.

3 PROGRAMS OF THE AUTHORITY The Authority is funded by appropriation for the provision of environment protection, policy and regulatory services. In line with the objective of establishing the Authority to focus on environment protection activities, the Authority conducts its services through a single program, Environment and Radiation Protection. The purpose of this program is to achieve a clean, healthy and valued environment that supports social and economic prosperity for all South Australians.


4 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Notes 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Salaries and wages (i) 12,974 12,459Superannuation 1,529 1,387Annual leave 109 246Payroll tax 807 764Long service leave 122 108Workers compensation 15 6Sitting fees boards and committees 147 76 Other 333 559

Total 16,036 15,605

(i) Targeted voluntary separation packages (TVSPs) TVSP amounts paid by the Authority are included within salaries and wages expenses. During the year a total no employees of the Authority accepted packages in line with the State Government’s policy (2004: 4).

The TVSP component of termination payments totalled nil (2004: $0.34m). When TVSP’s are offered these costs are met from a central fund administrated by the Offi ce for the Commissioner for Public Employment (OCPE). A total of nil has been recovered relating to 2004–2005 (2004: $0.34m).

In addition, accrued annual leave, leave loading and long service leave entitlements amounting to nil was paid to employees who received a TVSP (2004: $0.18m). Employee remuneration The number of employees whose remuneration exceeded $100,000 was: 2005 2004

$110,000–$109,999 1 –$110,000–$119,999 2 1$120,000–$129,999 – 2$130,000–$139,999 1 –$220,000–$229,999 1 1

Total number of employees 5 4 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Total remuneration received or due and receivable by employees whose remuneration exceeded $100,000 5 4 Remuneration includes salary, employer’s superannuation costs, use of motor vehicles in accordance with prescribed conditions and associated FBT and contract termination payments, but does not include any amounts payable due to retirement under the TVSP arrangements. Average number of employees During the reporting period the Authority had an average of 210.9 employees (2004: 208).


Remuneration of Board members The number of Board members whose remuneration received or due and receivable fell within the following bands:

2005 2004

$Nil 8 2 $1–$10,000 6 17 $10,001–$20,000 6 3

Total number of Board members 20 22

In the current reporting period remuneration was paid to four members of the Radiation Protection Committee and eight members of the Board of the Environment Protection Authority. During the previous reporting period remuneration was paid to seven members of the Board of the Environment Protection Authority and eight members of the Radiation Protection Committee. Also paid in the previous reporting period was remuneration relating to the 02/03 fi nancial period for fi ve retired members of the Board of the Environment Protection Authority. 5 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES Notes 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Accommodation and property management services 1,661 1,618 Materials and consumables 205 329 Vehicles 354 352Travel and accommodation 173 211 Contractors 1,194 2,292 Consultant fees (i) 257 477 Fees for service 429 75 Computing 401 449 Minor plant & equipment 93 121 Printing and publishing 198 301 Postage, courier and freight 38 44 Advertising 645 181 Scientifi c and technical services 930 1,108 Telephone expenses 246 309 Audit fees 62 53 Equipment repairs and maintenance 54 58 Books, periodicals and newspapers 17 27 Entertainment 15 16 Equipment hire 10 6 Media monitoring 26 67 Conference and seminar presentation 108 82 Insurance 23 23 Transportation 90 87 Legal fees 11 47 Customer call centre costs 75 83 Hazardous waste storage and disposal costs 71 97Membership subscriptions 12 4Other 47 41

7,434 8,515



(i) The number and amount of consultant fees fell within the following bandwidths: Note 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Below $10,000 2 12 44 Between $10,000 and $50,000 2 44 76 Above $50,000 2 201 357

Total number and amount of consultant fees 6 257 477

Supplies and services provided by entities within the SA Government 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Accommodation and property management services 1,586 1,457Materials and consumables 36 –Vehicles 338 272Contractors 45 147Fees for service 250 –Computing 49 62Advertising 8 –Scientifi c and technical services 627 –Telephone expenses 182 138Audit fees 62 63Equipment repairs and maintenance 5 17Books, periodicals and newspapers 1 –Conference and seminar presentation 6 –Insurance 23 23

3,218 2.234

6 GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Note 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

State government (i) 5,657 5,958 Local government 65 1,498 Private industry and community 161 82Individuals 56 67 Other 45 19

5,984 7,624


(i) State government grants and contributions

2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Zero Waste SA* 5,641 5,432Environment and Heritage – 437 Onkaparinga Catchment Water Management Board – 79Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board – 10Dept of Primary Industries & Resources 16 –

5,657 5,958 * As per section 113 of the Act, the Authority earns and collects 100% of waste levies but is then required to transfer 50% of the levies collected to Zero Waste SA as per section 17 of the Zero Waste Act, 2004. This transfer represents the payment of waste levies monies to Zero Waste SA during 2003–04 in accordance with the Act. In the current reporting period, the waste levies transferred amounted to $5.14 million with the balance of $0.19 million being interest earned on the waste levies collected prior to transfer to Zero Waste SA.

7 DEPRECIATION

2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Buildings and improvements 3 5 Infrastructure 11 –Moveable vehicles 5 5 Computing equipment 107 259 Application software 159 40 Furniture and fi ttings 93 65 Plant and equipment 491 64Other 13 558

882 996

Change in depreciation due to a revaluation In the current reporting period, the Authority revalued its infrastructure, moveable vehicles, computing equipment, and plant and equipment classes upward. This revaluation process also involves a re-assessment of the useful life of each asset. As a result of the revaluation, depreciation on these assets has decreased by $0.12 million. $’000 Infrastructure 5 increaseMoveable vehicles 1 decreaseComputing equipment 3 decreasePlant and equipment* 124 decrease

123

* plant and equipment subject to revaluation and associated reassessment of useful lives were transferred from other assets during the current reporting period.

The fi nancial effect of the revaluation and reassessment of useful lives (reduction of $0.12 million) is incorporated into the Depreciation Expense on the reconciliation schedule in Note 21.

Depreciation written back due to revisions to Useful Life EstimatesDuring the current reporting period, the estimated useful lives of some computing equipment were reviewed. This resulted in the write back of depreciation expense totalling $0.09 million which appears in the ‘Depreciation Expense—Revision to Useful Life Estimation’ line of the reconciliation schedule in Note 21.



8 NET GAIN/(LOSS) FROM DISPOSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Proceeds from disposal of non-current assets 1 1 Less: written down value of non-current assets 8 283

(7 ) (282 ) 9 OTHER EXPENSES 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Bad and doubtful debts (39 ) 7Asset write-downs 8 –

(31 ) 7 10 FEES AND CHARGES 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Fines and penalties 161 60 Waste levies 12,107 11,580 Fees and licences 7,390 5,957 Section 7 enquiries 286 286 Fee for service 309 346 Sale of goods 9 1 Sale of services 159 64

20,421 18,294 Fees and charges earned from entities within the SA Government 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Fines and penalties 19 –Fees and licences 1,708 1,043Section 7 enquiries 273 278Fee for service 309 346

2,309 1,667


11 GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS Notes $’000 $’000 Commonwealth Government (i) 239 646State Government (ii) 969 438Private Industry and Local Government 609 666 Other – 15

1,817 1,765 (i) Commonwealth Government grants and contributions 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Natural Heritage Trust 129 –DEH Canberra 90 –Rural Industries Research Development 20 –Environment Australia – 500Other – 146

239 646 (ii) State Government grants and contributions 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Catchment Water Management Board 574 297Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 150 –Integrated Natural Resources Management Group 100 –SA Water Corporation 50 –Trade & Economic Development 50 40Primary Industries and Resources SA 30 –Environment and Heritage 15 101

969 438 (iii) Private Industry and Local Government 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 National Packaging Covenant 379 406NRG Flinders 200 200Kimberley Clark 30 30

609 666



12 INTEREST 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Interest on funds held 323 645

323 645 Interest and dividends earned from entities within the SA Government 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Interest on funds held 323 645

323 645 13 ASSETS RECEIVED FREE OF CHARGE 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Land and improvements – 170Plant and equipment 130 –Moveable vehicles 3 –Transfers received assets 22 17Other – 1

155 188 14 OTHER REVENUE 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Salaries and wages recoveries 34 561Insurance recoveries 10 –Other 2 6

46 567 Other revenue earned from entities within the SA Government 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Salaries and wages recoveries 34 561Insurance recoveries 10 –

44 561


15 SA GOVERNMENT REVENUES 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Revenues Recurrent appropriation 8,106 8,718Contingency funds 170 7 Accrual appropriation 598 –

Total SA Government revenues 8,874 8,725 Expenses Return of surplus cash 2,128 –

Total SA Government expenses 2,128 – 16 NET GAIN/(LOSS) FROM ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRUCTURE The Zero Waste SA reporting entity was established with effect from 1 July 2003, resulting in the transfer of functions, staff, assets and liabilities from the EPA. The realignment resulted in a net loss of $1.625 million due to the transfer of the following assets and liabilities: Assets

2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Cash – 1,808

– 1,808 Liabilities Payables – 20 Provisions for employee benefi ts – 163

– 183

Net gain/(loss) from administrative restructures – (1,625 ) 17 CASH 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Authority deposit account 1,834 3,506Environment Protection Fund deposit account 1,592 1,671 Accrual appropriation 1,763 1,103 Advance accounts 4 4Cash in transit – 1Cash on hand 1 1

5,194 6,286



18 RECEIVABLES 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Current: Debtors 1,065 950 Loans 38 46 Interest 15 17 Other 1 1 Less: provision for doubtful debts 5 22

1,114 992 Non-current: Debtors 3 4 Loans 40 91 Less: provision for doubtful debts – 23

43 72 Receivables from SA Government entitiesDebtors 45 83Interest 15 17

60 100 19 OTHER ASSETS 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Current: Prepayments 87 75

87 75 20 FINANCIAL ASSETS 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Non-current: Equity in listed entities 5 5

5 5


21 PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 (a) Land buildings and improvements Land: Independent valuation 2004 100 100

Total land 100 100 Buildings and improvements: Independent valuation 2004 93 –At cost 7 136Less: Accumulated depreciation 46 60

Total buildings and improvements 54 76 Infrastructure: Independent valuation 2004 37 –Independent valuation 2005 154 –At cost 80 133Less: Accumulated depreciation 77 28

Total infrastructure 194 105

Total land buildings and improvements 348 281

(b) Plant and equipment Moveable vehicles: Independent valuation 2005 64 –At cost 56 78Less: Accumulated depreciation 56 47

Total moveable vehicles 64 31 Computing equipment: Independent valuation 2005 15 –At cost 926 1,400 Less: Accumulated depreciation 622 1,008

Total computing equipment 319 392 Application software: At cost 1,059 719 Less: Accumulated depreciation 454 65

Total application software 605 654 Furniture and fi ttings: Independent valuation 2005 49 –At cost 1,072 824 Less: Accumulated depreciation 361 254

Total furniture and fi ttings 760 570 Plant and equipment: Independent valuation 2004 4 –Independent valuation 2005 3,246 –At cost 1,593 337 Less: Accumulated depreciation 2,562 260

Total plant and equipment 2,281 77



21 PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (continued) 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Other: Independent valuation 2004 – 4Independent valuation 2005 128 –At cost 14 3,705Less: accumulated depreciation 82 2,328

Total other 60 1,381 Capital works in progress: At cost 284 5

Total capital works in progress 284 5

Total plant and equipment 4,373 3,110

Total property, plant and equipment 4,721 3,391


Reco

ncili

atio

n A

reco

ncili

atio

n of

the

car

ryin

g am

ount

of

each

cla

ss o

f pr

oper

ty, pl

ant

and

equi

pmen

t is

dis

play

ed in

the

tab

le b

elow

.

Capi

tal

Bu

ildin

gs a

nd

M

ovea

ble

Com

puti

ng A

pplic

atio

n Fu

rnit

ure

& Pl

ant

&

Wor

ks in

Land

Im

prov

emen

ts I

nfra

stru

ctur

e Ve

hicl

es

Equi

pmen

t So

ftw

are

Fitt

ings

Eq

uipm

ent

Othe

r pr

ogre

ss

TOTA

L

Gros

s ca

rry

amou

nt

$’00

0 $’

000

$’00

0 $’

000

$’00

0 $’

000

$’00

0 $’

000

$’00

0 $’

000

$’00

0Ba

lanc

e at

30

June

200

4 10

0 13

7 13

3 7

8 1

,400

71

8 8

24

337

3

,709

5

7

,441

Addi

tion

s –

– –

– 4

0 –

68

106

2

6 5

55

795

Addi

tion

s –

tran

sfer

fro

m

capi

tal w

orks

in p

rogr

ess

– –

– –

– 9

2 1

70

14

– (

276)

–

Net

reva

luat

ion

incr

emen

t/de

crem

ent

– –

99

23

(3)

–

4

558

6

3 –

744

Tran

sfer

s be

twee

n cl

asse

s

(37)

3

9 1

5 (2

61)

251

5

5 3

,594

(

3,65

6)

– –

Asse

ts r

ecei

ved

free

of

char

ge

– –

– 4

4

8 –

– 2

76

– –

328

Disp

osal

s –

– –

– (

225)

(

2)

– (

31)

– –

(25

8)As

sets

wri

tten

-off

and

/or

impa

ired

– –

– –

(58

) –

– (

11)

– –

(69

)

Bala

nce

at 3

0 Ju

ne 2

005

100

100

2

71

120

9

41

1,0

59

1,1

21

4,8

43

142

2

84

8,9

81

Accu

mul

ated

dep

reci

atio

n/am

orti

sati

on

Bala

nce

as a

t 30

Jun

e 20

04

– (

61)

(28

) (

47)

(1,

007)

(

65)

(25

4)

(26

0)

(2,

328)

–

(4,0

50)

Depr

ecia

tion

exp

ense

–

(3)

(

11)

(5)

(

195)

(

173)

(

93)

(49

1)

(13

) –

(98

5)De

prec

iati

on e

xpen

se –

re

visi

on t

o Us

eful

Lif

e Es

tim

ates

–

– –

– 8

8 1

4 –

– –

– 1

02Ne

t re

valu

atio

n in

crem

ent/

decr

emen

t –

– (

20)

5

11

– 2

5

39

(2)

–

535

Tran

sfer

s be

twee

n cl

asse

s

18

(18

) (

8)

236

(

232)

(

16)

(2,

241)

2

,261

–

–As

sets

rec

eive

d fr

ee o

f ch

arge

–

– –

(1)

(

26)

– –

(14

6)

– –

(17

3)Di

spos

als

– –

– –

217

2

–

31

– –

250

Asse

ts w

ritt

en-o

ff a

nd/o

r im

paire

d –

– –

– 5

5 –

– 6

–

– 6

1

Bala

nce

as a

t 30

Jun

e 20

05

– (

46)

(77

) (

56)

(62

2)

(45

4)

(36

1)

(2,

562)

(

82)

– (4

,260

)

N

et B

ook

Valu

eAs

at

30 J

une

2004

10

0 7

6 1

05

31

393

6

53

570

7

7 1

,381

5

3

,391

As a

t 30

Jun

e 20

05

100

54

194

6

4 3

19

605

7

60

2,2

81

60

284

4

,721



22 PAYABLES 2005 2004 Notes $’000 $’000 Current: Creditors 905 832Accruals 90 568Employee benefi t on-costs (i) 242 182

1,237 1,582

Non-current: Employee benefi t on-costs (i) 425 421

425 421

(i) Employee benefi t on-costs Costs that are a consequence of employing employees, but which are not employee benefi ts, such as payroll tax and superannuation on-costs, are recognised as liabilities and expenses when the employee benefi ts to which they relate are recognised. The employee benefi t on-costs associated with each type of employee benefi t are as follows: 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Current:Accrued payroll taxAnnual leave 58 47Long service leave 10 5 Accrued salaries and wages 8 8

76 60 Superannuation Annual leave 140 100Long service leave 13 7Accrued salaries and wages 14 15

167 122

Total current employee benefi t on-costs 243 182

Non-current: Accrued payroll tax Long service leave 178 176

178 176 Superannuation Long service leave 247 245

247 245

Total non-current employee benefi t on-costs 425 421

Payables to SA Government entitiesCreditors 146 344Accruals 63 403Employee benefi t on-costs 667 665

876 1,412


23 PROVISIONS FOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Current: Annual leave 916 850Long service leave 161 89Workers compensation 21 21Accrued salaries and wages 224 134

1,322 1,094

Non-current: Long service leave 2,986 2,950 Workers compensation 56 50

3,042 3,000

Costs that are a consequence of employing employees, but which are not employee benefi ts, such as payroll tax and superannuation on-costs, are recognised as liabilities and expenses when the employee benefi ts to which they relate are recognised. These employee benefi t on-costs are recognised as Payables in Note 22 as they do not accrue to employees.

The aggregate current liability from employee benefi ts and related on-costs is $1.56 million (2004: $1.28 million).

The aggregate non-current liability from employee benefi ts and related on-costs is $3.47 million (2004: $3.42 million). 24 OTHER LIABILITIES 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Current: Deposits held – 50 Other 6 17

6 67



25 EQUITY Equity represents the residual interest in the net assets of the Authority. The State Government holds the equity interest in the Authority on behalf of the community. Asset Accumulated revaluation Total funds – $’000 reserve – $’000 $’000 2005 Balance at 1 July 4,657 – 4,657 Surplus/(defi cit) for the year (804 ) – (804 )Net increment/(decrement) related to the revaluation of:Infrastructure – 79 79Moveable vehicles – 28 28Computing equipment – 8 8Furniture and fi ttings – 6 6Plant and equipment – 1,097 1,097Other – 61 61

Balance at 30 June 3,853 1,279 5,132

Asset Accumulated revaluation Total funds – $’000 reserve – $’000 $’000 2004 Balance at 1 July 9,127 – 9,127 Surplus (defi cit) for the year 4,470 – 4,470

Balance at 30 June 4,657 – 4,657 24 RECONCILIATION OF NET CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES TO NET COST OF SERVICES 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 NET CASH PROVIDED BY/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES (220) (667) Adjustments Cash fl ows from government (6,746 ) (8,725 )Depreciation and amortisation (882 ) (996 )Assets received free of charge 155 188 Assets written off (8 ) –Net gain/(loss) on sale of assets (7 ) (282 )

Changes in assets and liabilitiesIncrease/(decrease) in receivables 93 5Increase/(decrease) in inventories – (2 )Increase/(decrease) in other assets 12 (37 )Decrease/(increase) in payables (262 ) (513 )Decrease/(increase) in employee benefi ts (270 ) (552 )Decrease/(increase) in other liabilities 61 11

NET COST OF SERVICES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES (7,550 ) (11,570 )


27 RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED The Authority is engaged in a variety of funding programs involving state and Commonwealth sources who provide monies to the Authority on the premise that these funds are expended in a manner consistent with the terms of the agreement. At reporting date the Authority had the following outstanding funding commitments: 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Environment Protection 1,755 1,530

1,755 1,530 28 EXPENDITURE COMMITMENTS Operating lease commitments: The total value of future non-cancellable operating lease commitments not provided for and payable as at the end of the reporting period are detailed below. These amounts have not been brought to account in the fi nancial statements. 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Not later than one year 1,853 1,391 Later than one year but not later than fi ve years 4,646 4,115

Total (including GST) 6,499 5,506 Included in the operating lease commitments above is $0.59 million (2004: $0.50 million) which is the GST component of the operating lease payments.

The operating leases held by the Authority are mainly property leases with penalty clauses equal to the amount of the residual payments remaining for the lease terms. The leases are payable one month in advance and the Authority has the right of renewal. There are no existing or contingent rental provisions. 29 FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS DISCLOSURE (a) Accounting policies and terms and conditions affecting future cash fl ows:Financial assets Cash deposits are recognised at their nominal amounts and interest is credited to revenue as it accrues. The Authority invests surplus funds with the Treasurer at call. Interest is earned on the average monthly balance at rates based on the DTF 90-day bank bill rate and interest is paid at the end of each quarter. The average effective interest rate for the reporting period was 5.16 percent (2004: 4.87%).

Debtors (trade accounts receivable) are generally settled within 30 days, are carried at amounts due and credit terms are net 30 days. A provision is raised for any doubtful debts based on a review of all outstanding amounts at balance date and bad debts are written off in the period in which they are identifi ed.

Loans are recognised at the nominal amounts lent and collectability of amounts outstanding is reviewed at balance date with provision being made for bad and doubtful loans. That is, where collection of the loan or part thereof is judged to be less likely rather than more likely. Loan repayments may be waived at the discretion of the minister. Interest is credited to revenue as it accrues in accordance with the fi xed interest rate loan repayment schedule. Similarly, principal repayments also occur in accordance with the loan repayment schedules and the principal is repaid in full at maturity.

Financial liabilities Creditors (trade accounts payable), including accruals not yet billed, are recognised when the Authority becomes obliged to make future payments as a result of a purchase of assets or goods and services at their nominal amounts and are generally settled within 30 days.

Borrowings are recognised when issued at the amount of the net proceeds due and carried at cost until settled. Interest is recognised as an expense on an effective yield basis.

All fi nancial assets and liabilities are unsecured.



29 FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS DISCLOSURE (continued) (b) Interest rate risk exposure: The Authority’s exposure to interest rate risk and the effective weighted average interest rate for classes of fi nancial assets and fi nancial liabilities is set out below. Weighted Floating More Non average interest 1 year 1 to 5 than interest2005 effective rate rate or less years 5 years bearing Total

% $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Financial assets Cash 5.16 5,194 – – – – 5,194 Loans N/A – – – – 78 78 Debtors N/A – – – – 1,079 1,079 Financial assets N/A – – – – 5 5

5,194 – – – 1,162 6,356 Financial liabilities Creditors N/A – – – – 1,662 1,662

– – – – 1,162 1,662

2004

Financial assets Cash 4.87 6,286 – – – – 6,286 Loans N/A – – – – 137 137 Debtors N/A – – – – 926 926 Financial assets N/A – – – – 5 5

6,286 – – – 1,068 7,354 Financial liabilities Creditors N/A – – – – 2,003 2,003

– – – – 2,003 2,003 (c) Net fair value of fi nancial assets and liabilities:The net fair value of cash and cash equivalents and non-interest bearing monetary fi nancial assets and fi nancial liabilities approximates their carrying value. Carrying Net fair Carrying Net fair amount value amount value 2005 2005 2004 2004

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Financial assets Cash 5,194 5,194 6,286 6,286 Loans 78 78 137 137 Debtors 1,079 1,079 926 926 Financial assets 5 5 5 5

6,356 6,356 7,354 7,354

Financial liabilities Creditors 1,662 1,662 2,003 2,003

1,662 1,662 2,003 2,003


30 AUDITORS’ REMUNERATION Services provided by the Auditor-General’s Department with respect to the audit of the Authority totalled $0.062 million (2004: $0.063 million) for the reporting period. No other services were provided by the Auditor-General’s Department. 31 THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FUND The following is a summary of the amounts included in the Fund. In refl ecting these amounts in the Authority’s fi nancial statements transaction between the Fund and the Authority have been eliminated. (Refer note 1(c)) 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 Statement of fi nancial performance for period ended 30 June 2005EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Employee benefi ts 682 670 Supplies and services 624 482 Grants and contributions 131 250 Net loss from disposal of non-current assets – 5 Other (1 ) 1

Total expenses from ordinary activities 1,436 1,408

REVENUES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Fees and charges 1,134 1,049 Grants and contributions – 30 Interest 99 143 Other – 16

Total revenues from ordinary activities 1,233 1,238

NET COST OF SERVICES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES 203 170

NET RESULT BEFORE RESTRUCTURING (203 ) (170 )

Net gain/(loss) from administrative restructure (refer note 16) – (1.808 )

NET RESULT AFTER RESTRUCTURING (203 ) (1.978 ) Statement of fi nancial position as at 30 June 2005CURRENT ASSETS Cash 1,592 1,671 Receivables 54 62

Total current assets 1,646 1,733

TOTAL ASSETS 1,646 1,733

CURRENT LIABILITIES Payables 186 24 Other – 50

Total current liabilities 190 74

TOTAL LIABILITIES 190 74

NET ASSETS 1,456 1,659



33 ADMINISTERED ITEM OF THE AUTHORITY (a) Reporting entity and strategic contextThe major objective of the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee (the Committee) is to carry out an integrated ecological study of the marine environment off metropolitan Adelaide. The study is referred to as the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (ACWS) and focuses on the issues of loss of seagrass, declining water quality, algal blooms, beach closures, sand loss and wide scale movement, sediment on reef systems, mangrove dieback and problems caused by exotic organisms.

(b) Administered item fi nancial arrangementsThe Committee’s sources of funds consist of monies contributed or to be contributed by Mobil Australia, Ports Corp, SA Water Corporation, Onkaparinga, Torrens and Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Boards, TRU Energy, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, the Coast Protection Board and the Authority.

The fi nancial activities of the Committee are conducted through the Authority’s special deposit account with the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Finance and Audit Act.

The Authority and DEH continue to provide fi nancial services to the Committee. Offi cers of the Authority and DEH provide technical and administrative support to the Committee at no charge. Certain facilities are also provided at no charge to the Committee include the use of plant and equipment and offi ce accommodation.

(c) Administered item summary of signifi cant accounting policiesThe administered item schedules of activities detail the administered item revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash fl ows.

In general, the Administered Item adopts the accounting policies of the Authority, as detailed in Note 2, deviations from these policies are as follows:

Provisions for employee benefi tsIn general, the administered item utilises the services of the Authority’s and DEH’s employees rather than recruiting and appointing employees in its own right. In the majority of cases, the services provided by the employees are provided free of charge. If, however, the services provided by the employees are directly attributable to the activities of an administered item and can be reliably measured the services are charged to the administered item on a fee-for-service (cost recovery) basis. Further, the provision for the liability for employee benefi ts arising from services rendered by employees is not recognised in the administered items’ schedules as the Authority and DEH are obligated to pay employees for services provided. Accordingly, the provisions for employee benefi ts are recognised in the Authority’s and DEH’s fi nancial statements.

Details of the administered item revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities and cash fl ows are provided in the following schedules.

Schedule 1(A): Administered Revenues and Expenses

for the Year Ended 30 June 2005Schedule 1(B): Administered Revenues and Expenses for the Year Ended 30 June 2004Schedule 2(A): Administered Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2005Schedule 2(B): Administered Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2004Schedule 3(A): Administered Cash Flows for the Year Ended 30 June 2005

Schedule 3(B): Administered Cash Flows for the

Year Ended 30 June 2004


33 ADMINISTERED ITEM OF THE AUTHORITY (continued) Schedule 1(A): Administered revenues and expenses for the year ended 30 June 2005 Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

$’000

EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIESSupplies and services 510

Total expenses from ordinary activities 510 REVENUE FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Grants and contributions 647Interest and dividends 42

Total revenues from ordinary activities 679 NET COST OF SERVICES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES (169 ) TOTAL CHANGES IN EQUITY OTHER THAN THOSE RESULTING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH OWNERS 169 Schedule 1(B): Administrated revenues and expenses for the year ended 30 June 2004 Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

$’000

EXPENSES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIESSupplies and services 806

Total expenses from ordinary activities 806 REVENUE FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES Grants and contributions 647Interest and dividends 45

Total revenues from ordinary activities 692 NET COST OF SERVICES FROM ORDINARY ACTIVITIES 114 NET RESULT BEFORE RESTRUCTURING (114 ) NET RESULT AFTER RESTRUCTURING (114 )

TOTAL CHANGES IN EQUITY OTHER THAN THOSE RESULTING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH OWNERS (114 )



33 ADMINISTERED ITEM OF THE AUTHORITY (continued) Schedule 2(A): Administered assets and liabilities as at 30 June 2005 Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

$’000

CURRENT ASSETS Cash 1,004Receivables 4

Total current assets 1,008

TOTAL ASSETS 1,008

CURRENT LIABILITIES Payables 144

Total current liabilities 144

TOTAL LIABILITIES 144

NET ASSETS 864

EQUITY Accumulated funds 864

TOTAL EQUITY 864

Schedule 2(B): Administrated assets and liabilities as at 30 June 2004 Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

$’000

CURRENT ASSETS Cash 692Receivables 3

Total current assets 695

NET ASSETS 695

EQUITY Accumulated funds 695

TOTAL EQUITY 695


33 ADMINISTERED ITEM OF THE AUTHORITY (continued) Schedule 3(A): Administrated assets and liabilities as at 30 June 2005 Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

$’000

CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIESPAYMENTS Supplies and services (366 )

Total outfl ows from ordinary activities (366 )

RECEIPTS Grants and contributions 637Interest and dividends 41

Total infl ow from ordinary activities 678

NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 312

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH HELD 312

Cash held at the beginning of the reporting period 692

CASH AT THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD 1,004

Schedule 3(B): Administrated assets and liabilities as at 30 June 2004 Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee

$’000

CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIESPAYMENTS Supplies and services (806 )

Total outfl ows from ordinary activities (806 )

RECEIPTS Grants and contributions 1,040Interest and dividends 44

Total infl ow from ordinary activities 1,084

NET CASH FROM/(USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES 278

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH HELD 278

Cash held at the beginning of the reporting period 414

CASH AT THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD 692




EPA Annual Report 2004–2005 109

APPENDIX 2—PUBLICATIONS RELEASED OR UPDATED IN 2004–2005

Publication No. Title

EPA Information

EPA 425/05 Construction noiseEPA 424/04 Environmental noiseEPA 514/04 Section 7, Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 and the Environment Protection AuthorityEPA 230/04 Wood burning heaters—and how to use them effectively

EPA Guidelines

EPA 485/04 Accredited licence applicationsEPA 578/05 Air pollution modelling—presentation of resultsEPA 580/04 Assessment of underground storage systemsEPA 585/05 Compliance and EnforcementEPA 584/05 Composite soil sampling for contaminated sitesEPA 572/04 Copper chrome arsenate (CCA) timber waste—storage and managementEPA 420/04 Environment improvement programs (EIPs)—a drafting guide for licenseesEPA 351/04 Waste levy regulationsEPA 414/04 Wastes containing asbestos—removal, transport and disposal

EPA Position Statement

EPA 601/05 Managing the health impacts of pollution

Annual reports

EPA 551/04 EPA Annual Report 2003–04 (includes reporting under the Radiation Protection Act)EPA 573/04 Round-table 2004

Public consultation drafts

EPA 568/04 Discussion paper—Licence fee structureEPA 565/04 Draft Code of Practice for Environmentally Responsible Pesticide UseEPA 552/04 Draft Code of Practice for Environmental Management of SA Oyster Farming IndustryEPA 581/05 Draft Code of Practice for Materials Handling on WharvesEPA 567/05 Draft Code of Practice for Industrial, Retail and Commercial Stormwater ManagementEPA 570/05 Draft Code of Practice for Vessel and Facility Management—Marine and Inland Waters Landfi ll Facility Guidelines: Capping systems for waste landfi lls Closure and post-closure plans for waste landfi lls Construction quality assurance Environmental assessment and water management strategies Landfi ll environment management plans Landfi ll facilities for solid waste Landfi ll gas and air quality management strategies Leachate containment and management systems Screening and siting of landfi ll facilities Site layout for landfi ll facilities Use of geosynthetic materials in base liner systems Use of geosynthetic materials in capping systems Use of geosynthetic materials in capping systems


Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Protection Offi ce

EPA 583/05 Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed (brochure)

Other publications

EPA 556/04 Air quality monitoring for sulfur dioxide in metropolitan AdelaideEPA 508/04 Ambient air quality monitoring trends in South Australia 1979–2003EPA 588/05 Ambient water quality monitoring—Nepean Bay, Kangaroo IslandEPA 592/05 Burial of livestock in shallow pits in the lower South East—assessment of groundwater impact (consultancy report)EPA 555/04 Community awareness and acceptance of container deposit legislation (consultancy report)EPA 579/05 Cowirra surface irrigation reuse trialEPA 466/04 Critter Catalogue Environment management assessment checklist for unlicensed wineries EPA Web Site (fl yer)EPA 566/04 Evaluation of Air Pollution Model TAPM (v.2) for AdelaideEPA 550/04 Greener Business Alliance: Project Report Yalumba’s Role Case studies: Anthony Smith Australia Pty Ltd Collotype Labels Pty Ltd JBM Juvenal Australia LF Jeffries Nonimees Pty Ltd Scholle Industries Tarac Technologies Pty Ltd Thornborough Estate (George Girgolas) Tributary Estate White Refrigeration Pty Ltd (for Yalumba Pty Ltd) Wirra Wirra WineryEPA 561/04 Greening the supply chain—Round 3 (brochure)EPA 553/04 Heavy metal concentrations in razorfi sh and sediments across the northern Spencer GulfEPA 575/04 Heavy metal contamination in the northern Spencer Gulf (brochure)EPA 512/04 Lake Bonney SE, South Australia—past, present and possible future Review of environmental impacts of the acid in-situ leach uranium mining process (consultancy report)EPA 574/05 River Murray & Lower Lakes Catchment Risk Assessment Project for Water Quality—Mannum to Mypolonga Trial (Vol.1A)EPA 594/05 River Murray & Lower Lakes Catchment Risk Assessment Project for Water Quality—Concepts and MethodsEPA 582/05 South Australia’s ambient air quality monitoring program—a review

Appendix 2—Publications Released or Updated in 2003–2004



APPENDIX 3—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATEMENT

The following details are provided as part of the information statement of the EPA under the provisions of section 9 of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA).

Organisation structure and functions

From 1 July 2002 the EPA became a separate administrative unit under the Environment and Conservation Portfolio. The EPA is South Australia’s primary environmental regulator; it is responsible for the protection of air and water quality, and the control of pollution, waste, noise and radiation, to ensure the protection and enhancement of the environment.

The EPA’s organisational structure and functions are set out in this annual report.

Boards and committees

Information on the EPA’s boards and committees is set out in this annual report.

Effect of organisation functions on members of the public

The EPA encourages environmental responsibility throughout the business and community sectors and works collaboratively towards achieving a healthy environment alongside economic prosperity.

The role and objectives of the EPA are detailed throughout this annual report and are published in the EPA 2005–08 Strategic Plan.

Public participation in environment policy

The public is invited to participate in development of environment policy through:

• public consultation sessions during the development of specifi c EPPs and other policy initiatives

• the annual Round-table Conference

• regional Round-table meetings

• specifi c issue forums.

The EPA also supports a number of programs to assist business and industry, community volunteers and South Australian teachers and students to become involved in protecting and enhancing the environment.

Public consultation and community monitoring programs undertaken in 2004–05 are detailed in this annual report.

Description of kinds of documents held by EPA

Publications produced by the EPA can be accessed through the department’s web site at <www.epa.sa.gov.au/pub.html>, or requested, free of charge, by telephoning the Customer Service Desk on 8204 2004. A list of 2004–05 EPA publications is set out in this annual report.

Other types of documents produced by the EPA include:

• administrative records

• asset maintenance records

• records and annual reports of boards and committees

• corporate and strategic planning records

• correspondence fi les

Appendix 3—Freedom of Information Statement

• fi nancial records

• occupational health and safety records

• personnel records

• policy documents

• procedures and reference manuals

• survey and environmental reports and records.

Please note that standard freedom of information charges for these documents may apply.

Documents available for purchase from the EPA in accordance with Section 109 of the Environment Protection Act include:

• applications for environmental authorisations

• environmental authorisations

• development authorisations

• beverage container approvals

• details of prosecutions and other enforcement action under the Environment Protection Act.

Policy documents

In relation to corporate policy the EPA refers to existing DEH corporate policy except in instances where specifi c EPA policy has been developed. Enquiries about such policy should be directed to DEH. The following list details existing EPA internal operating policies:

• IOP001 Guideline for the preparation of an internal offi ce policy or procedure for the EPA

• IOP002 Procedure for obtaining advice on sampling

• IOP003 Procedure to be followed when requesting legal advice

• IOP004 Overseas travel by EPA staff

• IOP005 Conference attendance by EPA staff

• IOP006 Guidelines for training & development expenditure

• IOP007 Licence renewal process for A-Class licences• – Attachment 0: Designation of licences as Class ‘A’ or Class ‘B’—Licence Consolidation• – Attachment 1: Licence renewal process fl ow chart for ‘A’ licences• – Attachment 2: Licence renewal process for A-Class licences, guidance notes for licence coordinators• – Attachment 3: Full process

• IOP008 Guidelines for study assistance

• IOP009 Accessing human resource development activities

• IOP010 Induction• – Attachment 1: Process for induction of new employees• – Attachment 2: Induction checklist• – Attachment 3: Reference lists


• IOP011 Guideline for preparing EPA Board papers• – Attachment 1: Required paper format and guidance notes• – Attachment 2: Agenda item proforma• – Attachment 3: Suggested agenda item proforma

• IOP012 Vaccination protocol for fi eld staff

• IOP013 Licensing requirements for the transport and disposal of recyclable/reusable wastes

• IOP014 WinTAP: Windows Time Allocation Program for EPA• – Attachment 1: TOIL Record Sheet

• IOP015 Responding to environmental emergencies & major pollution incidents• – Attachment 1

• IOP016 Threshold criteria—Matters for EPA Board Consideration

• IOP017 Guideline for the preparation of a Cabinet submission• – Attachment 1: Cabinet submission development process fl ow chart• – Attachment 2: Cabinet submission process checklist• – Attachment 3: Guideline—When is a Cabinet submission required?• – Attachment 4: Guideline—Notifi cation of intention to draft a Cabinet submission• – Attachment 5: Instructions for using Cabinet submission templates• – Attachment 6: Preparing Cabinet submissions.

• IOP018 Hazard Incident Injury Reporting, Investigation & Management• – Attachment 1: Risk Assessment

• Hazard–Incident–Injury Reporting Risk Rating &Risk Assessment Matrix• – Attachment 2: Hazard Incident Injury Reporting, Investigation & Management Policy

• Hazard–Incident–Injury Reporting Policy• – Attachment 3: Report Forms

• Hazard Report Forms

• Incident Report Forms

• Aggression Report

• Manual Handling Report

• Needle-stick Injury Report

• Vehicle Accident Report

• Notifi cation of Dangerous Occurrence Form

• IOP019 Allocation and Use of Mobile Telephones• – Attachment: Request for mobile telephone• – Attachment: Request for mobile telephone

• IOP020 Mobile Telephone—Reimbursing Personal Call Costs• – Attachment: Mobile telephone personal calls—reimbursement form


• IOP021 Vehicle Management• – Attachment: Non-Employee Application to Drive Government Vehicles• – Attachment: Application for Regular Home/Offi ce Travel • IOP022 Management of Desk Telephones

Access to organisation documents

Requests for access to documents or amendment of personal records in the possession of EPA should be directed in writing to:

Freedom of Information CoordinatorEnvironment Protection AuthorityGPO Box 2607ADELAIDE SA 5001 Telephone: 8204 9128

Policy documents may be inspected at Level 5, Grenfell St, Adelaide between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm Monday to Friday.


Appendix 3—Freedom of Information Statement

Overseas travel

Employee Destination Reasons for travel Total cost to agency*

Phil Hazell Hawaii Preparation of a joint $2863.00 American/Australian manual on best practice for catchment management in public water supply catchments.

Phil Gorey Berlin and Stockholm Present a paper at the 5th $8702.07 International Symposium on Management of Aquifer Recharge and meetings with European environmental protection agencies

Emma Clark London Attend and present a paper at the $9025.00 13th World Clean Air and Environment Congress

*Salary costs for staff not included in these fi gures

Direction by the minister

Pursuant to Section 111(2)(b) of the Act, the minister to whom the Act is committed has given no direction to the Board during the period to which the report related.

Boards and committees listing

• Board of the Environment Protection Authority• Sub-committees:• Pesticides Sub-committee• EPA/Local Government Sub-committee• Radiation Protection Committee


APPENDIX 4—OTHER STATUTORY INFORMATION

For further information please contact:

Information Of cerEnvironment Protection AuthorityGPO Box 2607Adelaide SA 5001Telephone: (08) 8204 2004Facsimile: (08) 8204 9393Freecall (country): 1800 623 445E-mail: [email protected] site: www.epa.sa.gov.au

ISSN 1322-1662September 2005

Printed on recycled paper

Environment Protection AuthorityAnnual Report 2004–2005

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