COMPLIANCE AUDITS COMPLETED DURING 2014
Summary of Findings
This document is a summary of findings for compliance audits completed during 2014 by the
EPBC Act compliance auditing programme.
The projects audited were:
 Sea Dumping Permit No. SD2012/2262 – Dampier Heavy Load-Out Facility Berth and
Swing Basin Expansion Project, Western Australia
 EPBC 2008/4032 and Sea Dumping Permit No. SD2008/822 - Cape Lambert Port B
Development, Pilbara Region, Western Australia
 EPBC 2007/3333 - Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School, Gelorup, WA – Construction
of new sporting field
Sea Dumping Permit No. SD2012/2262 - Dampier Heavy Load-Out Facility Berth and
Swing Basin Expansion Project
A compliance audit of a sea dumping permit to load, for the purposes of dumping, and to dump
up to 98,300 cubic metres of dredge spoil, derived from capital dredging of the existing
Dampier Heavy Load Out Facility at the Port of Dampier, WA, was conducted by the
Department from July to November 2013.
There are 24 conditions set out in the Sea Dumping permit decision. The Dampier Port
Authority (DPA) generally demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sea dumping
permit conditions that were applicable at the time of the audit.
Permit condition 3 requires the DPA to undertake dumping activities in accordance with the
approved Dredge Management Plan (DMP). The DPA was found to have a non-conformance in
relation to the approved DMP which requires a daily log of observations of the plume to be
maintained and provided to DPA at the conclusion of the dredging works. The DPA confirmed
that the contractor did not provide them with a copy of the daily log of water quality
monitoring observations at the conclusion of the dredging works; this non-conformance
constitutes a non-compliance with condition 3 of the Sea Dumping Permit.
There were three undetermined findings in relation to permit conditions 3, 11 and 20. These
related to: implementation of the DMP; recording of observations for cetaceans, turtles or
dugongs within the monitoring zone; and undertaking monitoring and reporting as detailed in
the approved DMP.
The non-compliance has been dealt with administratively in line with the Department’s
Compliance and Enforcement Policy.
EPBC 2008/4032 and Sea Dumping Permit SD2008/822 - Cape Lambert Port B
Development, Pilbara Region, Western Australia
On 20 September 2013 Rio Tinto Australia (Rio Tinto) were directed to undertake an
independent compliance audit of the approval conditions for the Cape Lambert Port B
Development located in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia. This directive was made in
accordance with condition 15 of the EPBC Act approval, and as a component of the annual
compliance audit program. As a Sea Dumping Permit (SD2008/822) was required for this
project under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, the permit conditions were
also included within the scope of this audit.
The independent audit has addressed the criteria to the satisfaction of the Minister’s delegate.
Although the independent audit found that Rio Tinto had met the majority of activities to
satisfy the conditions of the EPBC Act approval and the Sea Dumping Permit, the audit and the
Department’s review of the findings identified the following non-compliances:
EPBC Condition 6 c): Although Rio Tinto are acting in accordance with an approved Marine
Turtle Management Plan, hatchling dispersal is not being assessed at Cooling Water Beach
which is a monitoring requirement as specified in the approval.
EPBC Condition 12: Requires the approved Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program
(ERMP) to be implemented. Some reporting timeframes in the ERMP had not been met.
EPBC Condition 21: Requires management plans, reports, systems and programs (however
described) in the conditions of approval to be made publicly available within 30 days of
approval by the Minister. One set of historical approved versions of these documents were not.
Further, the ERMP was not published on the Rio Tinto website at the time of the audit however
it has since been uploaded.
EPBC Condition 22: Requires all plans, reports or programs (however described) to include a
description of the EPBC Act listed species and habitat and an assessment of the risk to these
values, species or habitats. The ERMP did not include this information.
Sea Dumping Condition 2: Require all activities to be undertaken in accordance with the
conditions of the EPBC Act approval. As non-compliance was found with some of the EPBC
Act approval conditions by default there was non-compliance with this condition.
Sea Dumping Condition 6: Requires the Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan
(DSMP) to be made available on the Rio Tinto website within 30 days of the DSMP being
approved by the Minister. One approved version of the DSMP was not.
The non-compliances have since been addressed in accordance with the Department's
Compliance and Enforcement Policy.
EPBC 2007/3333 – Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School, construction of new sporting
field, Gelorup, WA
A compliance audit of the Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School’s (BCGS) construction of a
new sporting field at Gelorup, Western Australia, was conducted by the Department over the
period February to October 2014.
There are six approval conditions attached to the approval. Condition 1 requires the clearance
of no more than 2.3 hectares of native vegetation from within an area defined by the approval.
BCGS complied with the requirement that no more than 2.3 hectares of native vegetation be
cleared. However, based on the evidence provided, the requirement to clear within the area
defined by the approval was not able to be determined.
BCGS demonstrated compliance with conditions 4, 5 and 6 relating to: providing written
advice of the actual date of commencement to the Department within 30 days of
commencement of the action; substantial commencement of the action occurring within five
years of the date of approval; and the maintenance of accurate records of all activities
associated with or relevant to the approval conditions.
Condition 3 requires that, within 5 years of the commencement of the action, all activities must
be implemented and completion criteria met as specified in the Rehabilitation Management
Plan (RMP) and any changes to the outcomes to be achieved in the RMP approved by the
Minister. This condition was not applicable at the time of the audit as this timeframe is not due
until 17 January 2016.
2
A number of non-compliance and undetermined findings were identified in relation to
condition 2 which requires implementation of the RMP. The Department is engaging with the
BCGS to ensure that the non-compliances are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department in
accordance with the Department's EPBC Act Compliance and Enforcement Policy.
3