2014 Annual Report

1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014

Compliance and enforcement

Compliance and enforcement


The EPA issues licences to regulate activities with the potential to harm the environment. Approximately 2 300 licences are currently regulated under the EP Act, with approximately 150 registered premises, 5 500 individual licences and eight mining and milling licences under the RPC Act.

The EPA undertakes inspections of licensees’ premises to assess compliance with the EP Act, Environment Protection Policies and licence conditions. Inspections are prioritised based on the environmental risk associated with the activity, potential impacts to sensitive receptors and ongoing compliance issues at the site.

During 2013–14, the EPA inspected 937 licenced sites and of those, 212 were high-priority sites with a range of resultant actions, including formal written warnings and environment protection orders. For more serious cases of non-compliance, the EPA commenced investigation with a view to civil or criminal prosecutions under the EP Act.

Environment protection orders

Environment protection orders (EPOs) can be issued by authorised officers under section 93(1) of the EP Act:

  • for the purpose of securing compliance with either:
    • the general environmental duty
    • mandatory provisions of an Environment Protection Policy
    • a condition of an environmental authorisation
    • a condition of a beverage container approval
    • any other requirement imposed by or under the EP Act.
  • for the purpose of giving effect to an Environment Protection Policy.

Police officers are authorised under the EP Act and generally use EPOs to deal with complaints about noise (for example, loud music) from domestic premises. Some local government officers are also authorised under the EP Act, but this authority is limited to the council area in which they are employed. Table 9 shows EPOs for 2013–14 and compares with previous years.

Table 9—Environment protection orders

EPOs recorded 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
EPA 15 21 19 12

Conviction for water contamination

The EPA successfully prosecuted a Mount Barker company for discharge of hydrocarbon-contaminated water, a listed pollutant, into stormwater.

The company was fined and ordered to pay costs for the breach of the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003.

‘A conviction sends a message of deterrence to those individuals who might consider such illegal action.’ Andrew Wood, Executive Director Operations, EPA, Waste Management & Environment, April 2014

Civil enforcement and prosecutions

More serious incidents of non-compliance may result in civil or criminal prosecutions under the EP Act.

The EPA has a dedicated investigations unit within the Investigations and Tactical Support Branch, which investigates breaches of the EP Act and the RPC Act in accordance with established compliance and enforcement criteria (refer to Our regulatory approach). Prosecutions pursued by the EPA are conducted by the Crown Solicitor’s Office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Investigations Unit conducted a total of 18 investigations during 201314, including 14 new incidents and four matters carried over from previous years. The status of the four matters carried over is:

  • 3 matters are currently with the Crown Solicitor’s Office (CSO) for adjudication
  • 1 brief is currently being prepared for adjudication by the CSO.

Of the 14 new investigations for 201314, seven have been finalised by other compliance actions:

  • 4 expiations
  • 2 currently negotiating civil penalties
  • 1 that requires no further action.

Of the seven active investigations:

  • 4 are currently with the CSO for adjudication.
  • 3 are still under investigation

Finalised prosecutions and civil penalties are:

  • 3 prosecutions (Table 10)
  • 1 matter dealt with by way of a negotiated civil penalty (Table 11).

Table 10—Finalised prosecutions 2013–14

Name Charges Penalty
Gilbert Motors Pty Ltd 21 January 2012
Discharge of hydrocarbons into the stormwater system at Mount Barker
28 January 2014
Charge: Breach of a mandatory provision of an Environment Protection Policy, under section 34(2) of the EP Act and Clause 17(1)(a) of the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003
Sinisia Turkovic 4 June 2013
Illegal dumping of asbestos waste into a skip bin on Main North Road, Para Hills West
21 November 2013
Charge: Breach of a mandatory provision of an Environment Protection Policy, under section 34(2) of the EP Act and Clause 10(1) of the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010.
Convicted and fined $15 000. Ordered to pay prosecution costs of $800 and victimofcrime levy of $160
Roger Walter Moore 12 August 2011
Disposal of 6 200 litres of greasetrap waste onto land without the permission of the owner
18 October 2013
Charge: Intentionally or recklessly contravened a mandatory provision of an Environment Protection Policy, under section 34(1) of the EP Act and Clause 10(1) of the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010.
ERD Court. Convicted and fined $3 000. Ordered to pay victimofcrime levy of $160

As an alternative to criminal prosecution for less serious offences under the EP Act, the EPA may negotiate a civil penalty directly with an individual or corporation the EPA believes has committed the offence, or may apply to the Environment Resources and Development Court for an order that the person(s) pay an amount as a civil penalty to the EPA. EPA-negotiated civil penalties are developed in compliance with its policy for calculation of civil penalties under the EP Act.

Table 11—Finalised civil penalties 2013–14

Name Charges Penalty
Prensa Pty Ltd 15 February 2012
Failure to notify the EPA of the existence of site contamination at the site, or in the vicinity of the site, that affects or threatens water occurring naturally under the ground or is introduced to an aquifer or other area underground due to the rupturing of an underground diesel storage tank at Toll Distribution, Vater Street, Dry Creek.
6 September 2013
This matter dealt with by way of negotiated civil penalty (section 104A EP Act) for the amount of $13 986.