INQUIRY INTO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NSW
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
SUBMISSION GUIDE
The NSW Upper House (General Purpose Standing Committee No 5) is conducting an inquiry into the
performance of the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).
This is your chance to provide important feedback on the performance of the state’s environmental
regulator, and highlight your concerns with the way pollution and waste are regulated in NSW.
The committee is required to inquire and report on the performance of the NSW Environment Protection
Authority (EPA), and in particular:
(a) Measure the EPA’s recent performance against its objectives pursuant to section 6 of the Protection
of the Environment Administration Act 1991.
(b) To consider the following cases:
(i) land contamination issues at Botany and Hillsdale
(ii) EPA investigations and public statements about the effects of coal dust pollution in the Hunter
(iii) EPA investigation into ground water contamination in the Pilliga by Santos’ coal seam gas
exploration
(iv) the prosecution of Du Pont (Australia) Ltd for the alleged offence of land pollution in the western
Sydney suburb of Girraween
(v) the regulation of cruise passenger ships at the White Bay Cruise Terminal at Balmain
(vi) the regulation of forestry practices in Royal Camp State Forest
(c) Any other related matters.
Further information on the inquiry is available on the NSW Parliament website: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au
Submissions will be accepted until Friday 29 August 2014.
To make a submission:


Lodge your submission online at the NSW Parliament website
Post your submission to: The Director, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, Parliament House,
Macquarie St, Sydney NSW 2000
This guide is intended to assist our members and supporters to make a submission. It includes:
 General talking points
 Links to background information on various cases (drawing on information from local groups)
You may use the dot points included to help you write your own submission. Remember, it is often better to
personalise your submission. We encourage you to use your own words as much as possible and include your
own local experiences and own concerns.
For further information contact the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales on:
Email: policy@ncc.org.au or phone: (02) 9516 1488
or visit www.nature.org.au/campaigns/upper-house-inquiry-into-the-epa/
GENERAL TALKING POINTS
1) GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR AN EFFECTIVE EPA
What do you think would make an effective EPA?
You may wish to highlight some of these general principles that you think would make an effective EPA:
The role of the EPA:
 The EPA should operate as a fearless and independent environmental watchdog that puts the interests of
the community and natural environment first.
 In order to be effective and meet its objectives the EPA must be sufficiently resourced. Without adequate
resourcing the EPA has been unable to enforce compliance with conditions of licence or approval, defend
regulatory policies and actions through law when required, or prosecute offenders.
 The EPA should strive to adopt, and enforce, world’s best practice in order to meet it objectives.
Approvals and licencing:
 The EPA’s expert advice should be sought, and followed, with respect to development applications that
would result in the deterioration of environmental conditions.

The EPA’s independence in issuing and setting conditions on pollution licences should be reinstated for all
classes of development, including state significant development and state significant infrastructure
projects.
 Licence conditions must be:
-
clear, effective and enforceable,
developed in consultation with the best experts and independently of those being regulated;
based on the best available science and explicit performance measures, be regularly audited,
effectively policed, and adjusted as necessary to improve environmental outcomes.
 The EPA should adopt explicit performance measures for licence conditions, regularly monitor
achievement of performance measures and modify licence conditions as needed.
 The EPA should adopt measurable targets to manage environmental pressures (for example pollution,
loss of habitat), routinely reporting on the performance of its programs in terms of these targets.
Community engagement
 The EPA should:
-
reinstate the role of community and local council representatives on the EPA Board.
-
ensure that the quality and effectiveness of community engagement, including community
consultation committees, is monitored and reported on
-
ensure that such community consultative committees seek out the aims, needs and preferences of
the community and the environment, and can effectively contribute to policy and decisions on
pollution control.
2
Transparency and accountability:
 In order to improve transparency and accountability, the EPA should:
-
Prepare explicit and professional reports on each non-compliance investigation and make them
publicly available online.
-
Work with local communities to ensure best practice transparency, and access to ‘relevant and
meaningful’ information, in line with state goals and pollution law objectives.
-
Engage stakeholders including community and environment groups, using a clear and consistent set
of principles and protocols; regularly evaluate its community engagement. Reinstating community
and environment involvement in EPA boards at both state and regional levels would be a first step.
-
Expand its public register to provide for publication of all relevant details of the licensing process.
-
This includes:
- licence variation applications
- any public submissions received in relation to licensing decisions
- reasons for all licensing decisions
-
Welcome scrutiny by making its internal processes accessible and transparent
Outcomes for the inquiry:
-
This inquiry was set up because the EPA is no longer trusted by communities in NSW. We look to
this inquiry to address specific concerns in polluted communities and to create an EPA capable of
putting the environment and healthy communities ahead of polluters.
-
Proposals for major new and expended polluting developments should be put on hold until the
inquiry runs its course.
2) EPA’S PERFORMANCE AGAINST ITS OBJECTIVES
The inquiry has been asked to report on the EPA’s performance against its objectives (set out in section 6 of the
Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1991).
You may wish to provide your thoughts on the EPAs performance in the following areas:
 protecting, restoring and enhancing the quality of the environment in New South Wales, having regard
to the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development
 promoting pollution prevention
 adopting the principle of reducing to harmless levels the discharge into the air, water or land of
substances likely to cause harm to the environment
 minimising the creation of waste by the use of appropriate technology
 regulating the transportation, collection, treatment, storage and disposal of waste
 encouraging the reduction of the use of materials, encouraging the re-use and recycling of materials and
encouraging material recovery
 adopting minimum environmental standards prescribed by complementary Commonwealth and State
legislation and advising the Government to prescribe more stringent standards where appropriate
3
 setting mandatory targets for environmental improvement
 promoting community involvement in decisions about environmental matters
 ensuring the community has access to relevant information about hazardous substances arising from, or
stored, used or sold by, any industry or public authority
 conducting public education and awareness programs about environmental matters
3) YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE WITH THE EPA
Can you write about your own experience with the EPA?
For example:
 Have you had any experience with the EPA (positive or negative)?
 Can you describe your experience? What did the EPA do well? What did the EPA do poorly?
 What EPA action would have improved the environmental outcomes in this situation?
4) KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM
You may want to consider referencing recommendations set out in the following reports:
 The NSW Auditor General has recently released its Performance Audit on Managing Contaminated Sites
(Download full report here). The report makes a number of recommendations. The inquiry should find that
the EPA be required to implement the findings of that report.
 Following the 2011 Orica Kooragang Island incident, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW
commissioned EDO NSW to undertake a review of pollution laws in NSW -Clearing the Air - Opportunities
for improved regulation of pollution in New South Wales (Download full report here).
The report makes 33 key recommendations in the following key areas:
-
Improving the overarching pollution regulation framework
Improving strategic planning for polluting activities
Improving pollution management and licensing
Increasing community engagement
Improving compliance and enforcement
4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CASES
EPA INVESTIGATIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF COAL DUST POLLUTION IN
THE HUNTER [Information provided by Hunter Community Environment Centre]
Summary
The Hunter Community Environment Centre (HCEC) gained access under freedom of information laws to
correspondence between the EPA and other government agencies on coal dust pollution studies conducted in
the Hunter Valley rail corridor in 2012-2013. The documents reveal a systematic public relations effort by the
EPA to conceal the extent and impact of pollution caused by uncovered coal trains passing through residential
areas.
Recommendations
In undertaking this inquiry, we call on the Committee to:
 Confirm that the handling of the coal dust pollution studies by EPA staff, including the CEO, constitutes a
breach of public trust.
 Confirm that the coal dust pollution studies have demonstrated uncovered coal wagons are significant
sources of particulate pollution in the rail corridor with environmental and public health impacts.
 Confirm that the current regulatory arrangements for the management of particulate pollution for coal
trains are inadequate to meet the performance objectives of the EPA under the Act.
 Recommend that the EPA direct all coal rail operators to urgently implement appropriate dust mitigation
strategies, including the covering and washing of coal wagons.
 Recommend that the EPA initiate action against ARTC for failure to adhere to the conditions of their
licence relating to their required pollution reduction program.
 Recommend to the Planning Minister that no major developments of coal haulage and export coal
facilities in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley be approved until an independent and accurate assessment
of existing ambient air quality is obtained.
Further Information
 A two page briefing note, including further background information is available on the NCC website:
www.nature.org.au/campaigns/upper-house-inquiry-into-the-epa/
 A comprehensive briefing package on the ARTC coal pollution reports is available from
http://tinyurl.com/dustgate including a comparison of the conclusions in the two versions of the report;
independent expert reviews of the 30 May report; a background briefing on ARTC and the community
campaign to reduce coal dust pollution, links to the ARTC report and online videos of coal trains passing
through Newcastle suburbs.
 The correspondence between several government departments relating to the coal pollution licence
conditions held by the Australian Rail Track Corporation can be downloaded here:
http://miningleaks.com.au/hunter-coal-dust-cover-up. The documents, obtained by the Hunter
Community Environment Centre (HCEC) under freedom of information laws, demonstrate a systematic
public relations effort by the EPA to conceal the extent and nature of pollution caused by coal trains in
residential areas.
5
EPA INVESTIGATION INTO GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION IN THE PILLIGA BY SANTOS’ COAL
SEAM GAS EXPLORATION [Information provided by The Wilderness Society, Newcastle]
Background
Documents obtained by The Wilderness Society revealed that that groundwater in the Pilliga has been
contaminated by Santos CSG operations. An EPA press release revealed a “spill” which included “salts and
other elements” but failed to mention that those other elements included such cancer-causing nasties as
uranium, arsenic, lead, barium, boron, aluminium and nickel all in unsafe concentrations.
Eventually, the NSW EPA confirmed the contamination event, but failed to act with any proper legal force,
choosing to fine Santos only $1,500 dollars.
Concerns arising from the incident
Documents obtained by The Wilderness Society suggest that:
 The EPA ignored its own internal advice to go public on the leaking coal seam gas ponds in the Pilliga so
they could be seen to be active and on the front foot. Instead, they followed Office of Coal Seam Gas
(OCSG) advice stating it didn't want to single Santos out, and therefore instead decided to keep the NSW
public in the dark.
 The EPA did not pass on critical information and documents regarding the contamination to the NSW
Department of Health, instead asking Santos for permission to share the information, which was not
granted.
 The EPA allowed Santos to run the investigation into their leaking ponds. Had the EPA have taken the
lead and got the documents, they would have seen that Santos had already had confirmed in
independent reports that their ponds where leaking into the surrounding soil. Instead of taking the reins,
the EPA ran a vague 'investigation' in relation to a 'suspected leak', loosing months before knowing
contamination and leaks had occurred.
 The EPA chose not to talk to surrounding landholders around the groundwater contamination zone, even
though for months they knew that uranium contamination had taken place, and did not know if locals
were drinking that water.
 The EPA sat on a detailed 'holding statement' about the contamination event for months, which was
watered down and then never released, all on the advice of the Office of Coal Seam Gas (OCSG). OCSG
work closely with Santos, even though it regulates aspects of CSG (petroleum titles) alongside the EPA.
 The EPA wrote a vague media statement about the pollution incident and $1500 fine after the
investigation was closed, and uploaded the media release to their website, only actually emailing the
news to one media outlet, a newspaper in Narrabri that receives money from Santos, who chose not to
publish the pollution incident or fine.
Further information
 See Lock the Gate’s summary of the events:
www.lockthegate.org.au/revealed_epa_investigation_report_shows_extent_of_pilliga_contamination
 Read the EPA’ Santos Bibblewindi Investigation Report, available at:
www.nature.org.au/campaigns/upper-house-inquiry-into-the-epa/
6
THE REGULATION OF FORESTRY PRACTICES IN ROYAL CAMP STATE FOREST [Information provided by
North East Forest Alliance]
Summary
In August 2013, the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) undertook an audit of logging operations underway in
Royal Camp State Forest. The audit located 4 Koala High Use Areas in compartment 15, with one actively being
logged, one about to be logged and two scheduled for logging in the near future. A potential Koala High Use
Area was also identified in a logging area in compartment 16. NEFA publicly called on the Forestry Corporation,
the EPA and the responsible Ministers to immediately stop the illegal logging of the Koala High Use Areas. After
poor investigation and enforcement, NEFA complained to the EPA about their misrepresentation of NEFA’s
complaints, misrepresentation of evidence, refusal to investigate key complaints, failure to report findings on
key complaints, claims that they never found breaches that were clearly documented and shown to them in the
field, failure to duly consider evidence available to them, inadequate expertise, and unprofessionalism.
Recommendations
NEFA would like to see as an outcome of the Inquiry:
 A transparent and repeatable process and criteria for identifying and protecting core and potential Koala
habitat across all tenures;
 An independent process for assessing forests well in advance of logging to identify Koala habitat, with an
aim to complete the delineation of Koala habitat on public lands within 3 years;
 A requirement that habitat trees required to be retained for fauna habitat have their GPS localities
recorded when marking to better facilitate implementation, auditing and ongoing protection;
 The mapping of areas affected by, and vulnerable to, Bell Miner Associated Dieback in harvest plans and
the exclusion of logging from affected and vulnerable stands;
 Penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence and that are progressively increased for repeat
offences;
 Removal of a cap on the issuing of Penalty Notices, and their issuing for all significant offences and
repeat offences, according to explicit criteria;
 Requirements for rehabilitation of illegally logged sites and the provision of compensatory habitat;
 A requirement for the EPA to prepare professional and comprehensive reports documenting their
investigations and justifying their conclusions from significant investigations, rather than just sending
letters to complainants;
 A requirement for EPA auditors to have appropriate training and environmental expertise in what they
investigate;
 A requirement that all investigation reports be completed within 3 months and made publicly available
on the web;
 An independent mechanism to investigate complaints against the EPA.
Further information
 A two page briefing note, including further background information is available on the NCC website:
www.nature.org.au/campaigns/upper-house-inquiry-into-the-epa/
 A more detailed Audit of Royal Camp State Forest, undertaken by NEFA, is available at
http://nefa.org.au/audit/RoyalCamp/NEFA_Audit_Royal_Camp_SF.pdf
 A copy of NEFA’s complaint to the EPA can be found at:
http://nefa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/EPA_Royal-Camp_NEFA-Review.pdf
7
LAND CONTAMINATION ISSUES AT BOTANY AND HILLSDALE
Background
On 7 July 2013 it was reported that the EPA had covered up its discovery of toxic metals and chemicals on public
land in Botany. The EPA publically refuted these claims. The incident was the subject of a Media Watch report,
and the local community remains concerned that the EPA influenced the Media Watch process and has misled
the public in relation to the allegations.
Further information
 See the original story in the Sydney Morning Herald: www.smh.com.au/nsw/toxic-substances-found-inreserve-20130706-2pir9.html#ixzz2ZvzlZDP0
 See the Media Watch report here: www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3813729.htm
 See the EPA’s reports on the events at:
www.epa.nsw.gov.au/Oricabotanycttee/contamtestinghillsdale.htm
THE PROSECUTION OF DU PONT (AUSTRALIA) LTD FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE OF LAND POLLUTION
IN THE WESTERN SYDNEY SUBURB OF GIRRAWEEN
Background
In April 2011 vegetation and trees within one kilometre of an area near Magowar Road, Girraween suffered
symptoms of dieback. An initial investigation by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) found that the
dieback was due to a herbicide, called Metsulfuron-methyl. This type of herbicide is manufactured by Du Pont
(Australia) Ltd at 179 Magowar Road, Girraween. After an extensive investigation, the EPA commenced a
prosecution of Du Pont in the Land and Environment Court over the incident. Du Pont argued that could not
exclude the possibility that the samples collected by the EPA could have potentially contained herbicide
emitted by Du Pont either prior to or after the period of the charge that the EPA put before the Court. The EPA
withdrew the charges against Du Pont on 3 July 2013 and wrote to householders in Girraween was sent out
explaining the reason for the EPA’s case withdrawal.
Further information
 See EPAs’s letter to households in Girraween
THE REGULATION OF CRUISE PASSENGER SHIPS AT THE WHITE BAY CRUISE TERMINAL AT
BALMAIN
Background
Local White Bay Residents are concerned about the health and pollution impacts of the newly opened cruise
passenger facilities at White Bay, and are concerned that the State government does adequately monitor
pollution and has not responded to community concerns.
Further information
See recent news reports:
 www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-14/locals-demand-halt-to-cruise-ships-in-harbour/5261692
 http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
 www.altmedia.net.au/white-bay-residents-and-environment-minister-in-historic-first-meeting/94142
8