GUIDELINES

APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

Publication 1360 December 2010

INTRODUCTION

The Environment Protection Act 1970 (the Act) is Victoria’s primary environment protection legislation. The Act sets out a broad statutory framework and is supported by regulations and statutory policies, which provide more detailed requirements and guidance for the application of the Act. This legislation helps to drive resource efficiency, sustainable waste management and the prevention of pollution in Victoria through both mandatory and voluntary mechanisms. EPA Victoria is responsible for administering the Act and the regulations and policies that come under the Act. In doing this, EPA is required to have regard to eleven principles of environment protection that guide the administration of the Act1. These principles provide a decision-making framework for all of EPA’s statutory functions, including those that relate to waste management. In applying the environment protection principles, EPA focuses on making decisions that promote cost-effective and practicable2 outcomes that are in proportion to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed. When developing policies and setting standards, this typically requires an analysis of different options to determine which has the highest net benefit, thus delivering the best environmental, social and economic solution. When the nature of the issue being considered means that the use of in-depth decision-making tools cannot be justified, the principles are applied as rules of thumb to guide decision-making consistent with obtaining best integrated outcomes.

The wastes hierarchy is one of eleven principles of environment protection contained in the Act. The principles provide

a framework for EPA’s decision-making and are intended to benefit the Victorian environment and community. In making decisions, EPA takes all of the principles into account and applies them in an integrated manner.

PURPOSE

These environmental guidelines are made pursuant to section 13(1)(i) of the Act. They explain the environment protection principles and how they apply to EPA’s regulation of waste management in Victoria. The document focuses on the wastes hierarchy and how it is applied together with the other principles of environment protection in EPA’s decision-making — both regulatory decisions and non-regulatory decisions (partnerships and voluntary programs). The guidelines have been written for business, industry and the broader community, to provide greater clarity about how EPA applies the wastes hierarchy, in conjunction with the other principles, to promote cost-effective and practicable outcomes that are in proportion to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed. Some practical examples of how the wastes hierarchy is applied are included as case studies at the end of this document.

1 Section 1A(3) of the Act states that it is Parliament’s intention that, in the administration of the Act, regard should be given to the 11 principles of environment protection. 2 Practicable is not defined in the Environment Protection Act 1970. However, in determining whether an option is practicable, EPA has regard to its statutory policies and guidelines and to the particular financial, technical and logistical considerations relevant to the option being considered. In assessing whether an option is practicable, the following issues may be considered and factored into a cost–benefit decision-making approach: • Practicability does not mean that the option is the lowest cost option. A preferable option that costs more may still be practicable. • The expectation regarding the level of expenditure that is practicable will increase as the hazard of the waste increases. • Practicability will generally be considered in terms of what is ‘affordable’ in the context of the relevant industry sector, rather than what may be affordable for the individual business. • Logistical considerations include issues of location of the waste and facilities, and the quantity of waste. • Technical considerations include a wide range of issues that may render an option unable to adopted, or which may increase the cost of adoption.

1 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

These guidelines are not intended to specify the relevant requirements for waste producers that are subject to Victoria’s regulatory framework for waste management, but rather to clarify the place of the wastes hierarchy in EPA’s decision-making framework.

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

The underlying purpose of the Act is to provide a framework to protect the environment. As part of the Victorian government’s commitment to building sustainability principles into decision-making consistent with the purpose of the Act, the principles of environment protection (the principles) were introduced into the Act in 2001. The principles are contained in sections 1B to 1L of the Act. They are summarised below and set out in full in Appendix 1.

1 Wastes hierarchy The wastes hierarchy lists a general environmental order of preference for waste management with avoidance being the most preferred option and disposal being the least. While landfills represent the least preferred waste management option from an environmental perspective3, they will continue to be required for the foreseeable future to manage those wastes that cannot currently be practicably recycled or reused.

Most preferable

Least preferable

2 Integration of economic, social and environmental considerations The integration of economic, social and environmental considerations is a critical consideration alongside the wastes hierarchy to ensure that decisions regarding the most appropriate waste management outcomes take into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits.

3 Principle of integrated environmental management The principle of integrated environmental management requires consideration of the environmental impacts on all segments of the environment.

3 Landfills have the potential to have a number of negative environmental impacts, such as contamination of waters from leachate, release of methane from decomposition of organic wastes, noise, odours, and air emissions impacts from transportation of wastes. Current regulation of landfills is intended to ensure that these risks are minimised.

2 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

4 Principle of intergenerational equity The principle of intergenerational equity advocates protection or enhancement of the environment for the benefit of future generations.

5 Principle of accountability The principle of accountability specifies that the aspirations of the people of Victoria for environmental quality should drive environmental improvement.

6 Precautionary principle The key element of this principle is that lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason for postponing environmental protection measures where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage.

7 Principle of conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity This principle requires conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity to be a fundamental consideration in decision-making.

8 Principle of improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms This principle involves a number of elements, including: • factoring environmental costs into the valuation of assets and services; • imposing responsibility on polluters and waste producers for the costs of containment, avoidance and abatement; and • pursuing environmental goals in the most cost effective way.

9 Principle of shared responsibility This principle states that protection of the environment is everyone’s responsibility.

10 Principle of product stewardship Product stewardship requires management of environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of goods and services.

11 Principle of enforcement The principle of enforcement requires enforcement to be undertaken for the purpose of better protecting the environment, ensuring that ‘non-compliers’ do not get a commercial advantage and influencing attitudes and behaviours.

HOW ARE THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED?

EPA has regard to all of the principles of environment protection in its decision-making. These principles provide a set of guidance and are applied in an integrated manner. The relative importance of each principle depends on the issue under consideration. When considering waste management issues, EPA applies the wastes hierarchy together with the other principles to deliver overall net benefits from the solution adopted. This will typically require the costs and benefits of all waste management options to be properly assessed and considered. Where the final solution ultimately sits in the waste hierarchy will depend on a proper evaluation of a range of environmental, economic and social factors. In applying the wastes hierarchy in conjunction with the other principles, EPA seeks to achieve outcomes that are cost- effective, practicable (financially, technically and logistically) and in proportion to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed. EPA seeks to achieve these outcomes through its regulatory decision- making and non-regulatory decision-making, the latter of which primarily involves partnerships and voluntary programs. The application of the principles to EPA’s decision-making is set out diagrammatically in Appendix 2.

Regulatory Decision-making The wastes hierarchy and the other principles of environment protection guide the regulatory decisions made by EPA under the Act and the instruments created under the Act, such as regulations, State environment protection policies

3 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

(SEPPs) and waste management policies (WMPs). EPA’s key regulatory decisions regarding waste management can be grouped into four main categories: • development of regulations and statutory policies; • classification of wastes; • issuing authorisations; and • taking enforcement action. Below is an overview of how the wastes hierarchy has been applied, along with the other principles of environment protection, to these categories of regulatory decision-making.

Development of regulations and statutory policies EPA has a role in the development of subordinate legislation that set standards and supports the implementation of the Act. In particular, the Act provides for EPA to recommend regulations, SEPPs and WMPs to the Governor in Council. Prior to recommending regulations, a regulatory impact statement (RIS) must usually be prepared if the proposed regulations are likely to impose a significant economic or social burden on a sector of the public4. The primary purpose of a RIS is to ensure that the economic and social costs and benefits of regulatory proposals are examined fully so that Ministers proposing the regulations and members of the community can be satisfied that the benefits of the regulations exceed the costs. Similarly in developing SEPPs and WMPs, a policy impact assessment (PIA) must be prepared. The RIS and PIA process involves analysis of the different options or models that are available and the costs and benefits of each option. This process is an application of the principle of integration of economic, social and environmental considerations and the principle of improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. It ensures that the best environmental, social and economic solution is adopted in the regulations and statutory policies supporting the Act. The main regulations governing waste management in Victoria are the Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 (the Regulations). They are designed to drive resource efficiency and embed the wastes hierarchy in the management of hazardous wastes. The Regulations provide a decision-making framework within which industry must assess and implement, where practicable (technically, logistically and financially), opportunities to avoid, reduce, reuse or recycle their wastes and avoid disposal to landfill. Waste producers must implement the highest order option in the wastes hierarchy when it is ‘practicably accessible’. The term ‘practicably accessible’ incorporates the principle of integration of economic, social and environmental considerations. It is defined in the Regulations to mean the technology and required facilities are reasonably available and reasonably affordable given the scale, location and financial viability of the business.5 The key WMP governing landfills is the Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills) 2004. This WMP applies to all landfills in Victoria receiving solid non-prescribed waste and/or low hazard wastes6. The WMP sets out objectives primarily around the disposal end of the wastes hierarchy, which are then incorporated into EPA’s (and other waste management bodies’ and responsible authorities’) decision-making and planning. The WMP reflects the wastes hierarchy by requiring EPA to encourage the diversion of waste from landfill where a higher practicable waste management option exists consistent with the policy.7 Furthermore, it commits EPA to partnering with Sustainability Victoria, industry, the community and others in diverting wastes from landfill through waste avoidance, reuse, recycling, recovery of energy and treatment.8 One example of how this outcome is being achieved is through the Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Strategic Plan, which has been developed to further deliver on key targets for waste reduction in metropolitan Melbourne, particularly by encouraging the recovery and reuse of different materials.

4 The Subordinate Legislation Amendment Act 2010 amended the requirement from ‘any appreciable’ to ‘a significant’ economic or social burden on a sector of the public. This amendment has effect from 1 January 2011. 5 The Regulations apply primarily to prescribed waste, not the majority of the waste stream, which consists of municipal and non-prescribed industrial wastes. Prescribed wastes by definition represent an environmental risk if not properly managed. 6 Category C prescribed industrial waste 7 Clause 19(1) 8 Clause 10(2)

4 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

Classification of wastes Under the Regulations, EPA can classify waste according to its hazard or by determining a management option for particular wastes. The Regulations specifically state that a decision to classify waste must be consistent with all of the principles of environment protection in sections 1B-1L of the Act.9 EPA has issued a number of “classifications for disposal” which give a hazard categorisation to industry wide streams and to individual waste streams. One example is the classification for ceramic-based fibres with physico-chemical characteristics similar to those of asbestos. This classification states that when certain specified conditions are met these wastes are classified as category C wastes (low hazard waste), which means that the waste can be disposed of at landfills licensed to accept category C wastes. EPA is empowered to issue classifications that ban waste streams from landfill when alternative reuse, recycling, recovery of energy or treatment options are identified. Such classifications are referred to as ‘classifications for reuse’ and result in higher management of many industrial wastes that have previously been taken to landfill for disposal. EPA has issued four classifications for reuse10: for grease interceptor trap waste, used oil filters, large containers contaminated with prescribed industrial waste (see case study 2) and soils contaminated with organic compounds11. A decision to issue a classification for reuse involves consideration of the significance of the environmental problem and an assessment of the alternative reuse, recycling, recovery of energy and treatment options and their practicability. EPA generally enforces classifications for reuse by amending landfill licences to prohibit the acceptance of classified wastes, or to allow only temporary storage. Enforcement may also occur through the issue of notices. The Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills) contains a similar regulatory tool to the classifications for reuse. The WMP enables EPA to prohibit the disposal of specified wastes to landfill where it determines that a higher practicable waste management option exists consistent with the policy or where a significant environmental risk exists.12 Under the WMP, before banning any waste streams from landfill EPA is required to assess relevant financial, technical and environmental considerations. In particular, it must have regard to the following factors in making decisions about prohibiting the disposal of specified wastes to landfill: • environmental risk • practicability of avoidance, reuse and recycling, including: { existing and potential secondary markets 13 { technical, logistical and financial considerations. EPA has not imposed any bans on wastes to landfill under the WMP (the banning of the depositing of concrete to landfill has been investigated and determined to be of little or no benefit to the environment, given the prevailing high recycling rates for concrete). However, certain prescribed wastes have been banned from landfill under the former Industrial Waste Management Policy (Prescribed Industrial Waste).

Issuing authorisations Under the Act, EPA is required to make decisions regarding authorisations, which include works approvals; licences; accreditations; research, development and demonstration approvals; and permits to transport prescribed waste or prescribed industrial waste. EPA has a general obligation to have regard to the principles when making all decisions regarding authorisations. When making a decision to issue a licence, rather than specifying detailed operational requirements, EPA focuses on setting environmental performance outcomes in licences that are consistent with the principles. This allows licence- holders to work out how to achieve the outcomes specified with support and guidance provided by EPA. In relation to solid waste management, it is the responsibility of the licence-holder to determine the available alternative waste management options that it will utilise, such as storage, treatment, recovery of energy, recycling, reuse, or preferably, avoidance. The licence-holder is responsible for ensuring the preferred option is conducted in accordance with requirements under the Act (e.g. transport in permitted vehicles for prescribed industrial waste).

9 Regulation 11(7) 10 The four classifications for reuse were issued under the former Industrial Waste Management Policy (Prescribed Industrial Waste). 11 The classification for soils contaminated with organic compounds will be implemented by amending landfill licences to prohibit the acceptance of those soils when there is a licensed facility in Victoria that can store and/or treat those soils. 12 Clause 19(2) 13 Clause 19(4)

5 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

Taking enforcement action EPA has an enforcement role under the Act. In making decisions to take enforcement action, EPA acts in accordance with its Enforcement Policy and gives particular consideration to the principle of enforcement.

Non-regulatory decision-making: Partnerships and Voluntary Programs In addition to the regulatory powers conferred on EPA, the Act also provides for non-regulatory, voluntary programs and partnerships EPA provides technical and financial support to assist industry to improve its management of waste in accordance with the wastes hierarchy’s order of preference. This is achieved through partnerships between EPA and industry. Through the voluntary partnerships, EPA encourages businesses to consider the principles, including the wastes hierarchy, when making decisions regarding waste management. EPA works with business and others to identify and support opportunities that improve the environment and provide business returns by removing barriers that prevent companies from moving up the wastes hierarchy. These barriers can be technological, informational or simply the inertia of the established way of doing things. Examples of EPA’s non-regulatory approach include the HazWaste Fund and sustainability covenants, which are explained in brief below. Further information is available on the EPA website.

HazWaste Fund The HazWaste Fund (the Fund) is administered by EPA and is part of the Victorian Government’s strategy to reduce hazardous waste. It is designed to support industry, site owners and technology providers to invest in new technology for the remediation of contaminated soils and for the avoidance, reduction, re-use and recycling of hazardous waste. EPA’s administration of the Fund exemplifies its focus on the integrated application of the principles by both delivering the best environmental outcomes and ensuring that initial investment in opportunities to move up the wastes hierarchy become more economically viable for industry. The Fund is a result of the Victorian Government’s commitment to invest increased hazardous waste landfill levy revenue in projects to avoid waste or productively use wastes that cannot be avoided.

Sustainability covenants Sustainability covenants are voluntary agreements through which EPA and an organisation or a group of organisations can explore innovative ways of reducing the environmental impacts and increasing the resource efficiency of their products and services. Under a number of sustainability covenants, EPA provides support (financial and technical) to industry to identify and implement options that result in improvements to waste management in accordance with the wastes hierarchy’s order of preference. These options are usually identified because they deliver benefits to the environment and to the company (e.g. through reduced waste costs). The support provided by EPA helps industry realise the benefits.

6 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

CASE STUDIES

These case studies demonstrate how EPA has applied the wastes hierarchy in conjunction with the other environment protection principles, particularly for prescribed industrial wastes (PIW).

CASE STUDY 1: An example of EPA partnering with industry to implement higher order waste management options A partnership with EPA, coupled with in-house innovation, resulted in through the Alex Fraser Group. Further improvements to the batching Viridian (formerly known as Pilkington Australia) reducing the quantity system have reduced the amount of waste generated and of waste it produced and diverting a large volume of the remaining consequently reduced the amount recycled to 250 tonnes per year. waste from landfill. The diverted waste was directed to internal reuse Additionally, Viridian was able to increase the amount of cullet reused and external recycling options. internally, adding to the total waste reduction. Viridian manufactures raw float and rolled glass, with the major by- This cleaner production initiative involved a reduction in the PIW products being cullet (broken glass) and reject batch (raw material generated in the manufacturing process and utilisation of internal that is out of specification). The high pH levels of ‘reject batch’ reuse and external recycling options. In this case, the adoption of contribute to it being classified as PIW. higher order waste management solutions resulted in the following EPA partnered with Viridian to determine the causes of reject batch benefits for Viridian: and spillages from the batching area. The resulting action plan was a • elimination of landfill costs by reducing PIW to landfill by 600 combination of mechanical improvements and changes in practices tonnes per annum that resulted in an increased rate of internal reuse for this off- • reduced raw materials costs specification product of 70 per cent. EPA and Viridian then investigated • increased production efficiency alternatives for the remaining reject batch, including brick, cement and • improved energy efficiency. tile manufacturing. Testing of the material identified the off- specification batch as suitable for use in road base. Estimated savings were more than $140,000 per year. In addition to the direct benefits to the company, there were significant environmental Since implementing the action plan, Viridian has been able to reuse benefits arising from the reduction in waste being sent to landfill and approximately 250 tonnes per year of PIW that would have gone to the reduction in energy use. landfill. Initially about 350 tonnes a year was also recycled externally

CASE STUDY 2: An example of EPA identifying a waste stream as appropriate for alternative waste management In 2007, EPA issued a classification for large containers contaminated EPA specifically sought industry feedback on the most appropriate with PIW. Under this classification (the Classification), disposal of steel volume threshold for containers to be covered by the Classification. and plastic rigid containers with a volume equal to or larger than 200 Limited options for smaller container recovery were identified. The litres contaminated with PIW is prohibited. Such containers must be majority of submissions and comments supported the mandated reuse cleaned to allow them to be reused or recycled. or recycling of containers equal to or above 200 litres in volume. Prior to the issue of the Classification, EPA identified containers The environmental impact of the Classification was considered, contaminated with PIW as a significant source of PIW. Approximately including the risk of diversion of PIW to sewer and the net 2200 tonnes of drums and 2000 tonnes of waste containers and bags environmental impact of recovering rigid packaging. containing residual PIW were being sent to landfill in Victoria each The anticipated costs of changing management of the containers were year. This represented a considerable proportion (approximately five analysed and compared against disposal costs. EPA’s consultation with per cent) of the total wastes disposed annually to the landfills licensed the waste treatment industry found that treatment costs for recovery to receive these wastes. of all larger containers would not be greater than landfill disposal In addition to identifying the quantity of waste generated, EPA costs. considered the opportunities for diversion of containers contaminated EPA formally responded to the comments received from submissions with PIW from landfill for productive use, and the hazard associated and forums through publication of an Information Bulletin. EPA then with the waste. A major consideration was practicability. Consideration finalised the Classification, incorporating comments from the of practicability included factors such as technical, logistical and submissions and forums. financial factors, with particular focus on the availability of an industry The Classification supports the use of available waste management that could manage the waste. options, in accordance with the wastes hierarchy. However, in EPA released a draft classification for comment and consultation. developing the Classification EPA took into account all of the principles Feedback was received from several public forums held around of environment protection, with particular consideration given to the Victoria and from written submissions. Comments addressed numerous economic and environmental costs and benefits of implementation of environmental, technical, logistical and financial issues. the Classification.

7 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

CASE STUDY 3: An example of EPA working with industry to implement solutions lower down the wastes hierarchy Geocycle has developed Australia’s first hybrid ‘superblender’ to shred • net annual energy savings of around 198,000 GJ solid hazardous wastes contained in small containers, metal drums or • more than 1000 tonnes of steel recovered. small skips. The process captures and cleans the scrap metal from the To put the diversion of between 6000 and 7000 tonnes per annum of containers and drums for recycling, and blends the hazardous solids high hazard waste from landfill in context, in the 2009-2010 financial with waste solvent and oils for use as a liquid alternative fuel in year just over 49,000 tonnes of manufacturing PIW waste13 was cement kilns. deposited to landfill in Victoria. This single project will significantly The superblender uses an auger to shred a wide variety of solid wastes reduce the scale of the negative environmental impacts of sending PIW including hardened paint, inks, resins, greases, filter cakes and to landfill in Victoria, which include potential contamination of waters powders, is expected to divert, by 2012, around 6000 to 7000 tonnes from leachate, release of methane from decomposition of organic annually of hazardous waste from landfill. wastes, noise, odours and air emissions impacts from transportation of The project received $600,000 from the Victorian Government’s wastes. HazWaste Fund, as well as $1.8 million in Federal funding through the Rather than working with waste generators to reduce the generation of Australia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. waste, EPA opted to work with a processor to increase recycling and The use of waste for fuel reduces the amount of fossil fuels used by energy generation based on a stream of waste materials. Adopting a Cement Australia in its kilns and provides a safe, sustainable disposal solution lower down the hierarchy was based on the difficulty and solution for the waste material. expense of developing solutions in partnership with hundreds of waste The new process will realise significant sustainability benefits by 2012, generators and the knowledge that failure of any one upstream including: solution would necessitate downstream treatment in any case. In this case, an approach based on an insistence on achieving • about 16,000 tonnes of CO2 saved • between 6000 and 7000 tonnes of high-hazard waste diverted outcomes at the top of the wastes hierarchy would not have been from landfill annually financially, logistically and technically practicable. 13 I.e. total PIW to landfill less soil and asbestos.

CASE STUDY 4: An example of EPA working with industry to implement the wastes hierarchy Rosedale Leather is an EPA-licensed facility involved with crusting of Rosedale Leather now sends its waste to be recycled as a valuable wet white and wet blue hides in preparation for finishing into leather feedstock in compost. products. The wastes resulting from the production process are PIW, Benefits from composting this waste include: which are expensive to treat and dispose of. In partnership with EPA, • Around 600 tonnes per annum of waste is now diverted from Rosedale Leather engaged the Department of Primary Industries to landfill conduct a compost trial. The first step of the trial identified the levels • The company has saved around $80,000 per annum in landfill of the key components in the waste streams generated onsite and levies and transport costs. highlighted areas for further investigation and attention. This is another example of EPA and industry working in partnership to The different waste streams were then trialled individually through an identify opportunities to adopt solutions higher up the wastes in-vessel composting system and matured through windrow hierarchy that deliver better outcomes for the environment and for composting at the soil and organic recycling facility at Dutson Downs. industry. A grant of $47,000 from the HazWaste Fund supported this The research identified that some nutrients and trace elements within project. the waste were beneficial for compost and that those of concern could be successfully managed.

8 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

APPENDIX 1 – PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

1A Purpose of Act (1) The purpose of this Act is to create a legislative framework for the protection of the environment in Victoria having regard to the principles of environment protection. (2) The principles of environment protection are set out in sections 1B to 1L. (3) It is the intention of Parliament that in the administration of this Act regard should be given to the principles of environment protection. 1B Principle of integration of economic, social and environmental considerations (1) Sound environmental practices and procedures should be adopted as a basis for ecologically sustainable development for the benefit of all human beings and the environment. (2) This requires the effective integration of economic, social and environmental considerations in decision- making processes with the need to improve community well-being and the benefit of future generations. (3) The measures adopted should be cost-effective and in proportion to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed. 1C The precautionary principle (1) If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (2) Decision-making should be guided by— (a) a careful evaluation to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment wherever practicable; and (b) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options. 1D Principle of intergenerational equity The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations. 1E Principle of conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making. 1F Principle of improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms (1) Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services. (2) Persons who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance and abatement. (3) Users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle costs of providing the goods and services, including costs relating to the use of natural resources and the ultimate disposal of wastes. (4) Established environmental goals should be pursued in the most cost effective way by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable persons best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop solutions and responses to environmental problems. 1G Principle of shared responsibility (1) Protection of the environment is a responsibility shared by all levels of Government and industry, business, communities and the people of Victoria. (2) Producers of goods and services should produce competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and improve quality of life while progressively reducing ecological degradation and resource intensity throughout the full life cycle of the goods and services to a level consistent with the sustainability of biodiversity and ecological systems.

9 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

1H Principle of product stewardship Producers and users of goods and services have a shared responsibility with Government to manage the environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of the goods and services, including the ultimate disposal of any wastes. 1I Principle of wastes hierarchy Wastes should be managed in accordance with the following order of preference— (a) avoidance; (b) re-use; (c) re-cycling; (d) recovery of energy; (e) treatment; (f) containment; (g) disposal. 1J Principle of integrated environmental management If approaches to managing environmental impacts on one segment of the environment have potential impacts on another segment, the best practicable environmental outcome should be sought. 1K Principle of enforcement Enforcement of environmental requirements should be undertaken for the purpose of— (a) better protecting the environment and its economic and social uses; (b) ensuring that no commercial advantage is obtained by any person who fails to comply with environmental requirements; (c) influencing the attitude and behaviour of persons whose actions may have adverse environmental impacts or who develop, invest in, purchase or use goods and services which may have adverse environmental impacts. 1L Principle of accountability (1) The aspirations of the people of Victoria for environmental quality should drive environmental improvement. (2) Members of the public should therefore be given— (a) access to reliable and relevant information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of environmental issues; (b) opportunities to participate in policy and program development.

10 APPLYING THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULATION

APPENDIX 2: HOW THE PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FIT INTO EPA’S DECISION- MAKING – A DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION

This is a graphical representation of the relationship between EPA, the Act and the 11 principles of environment protection. It shows how the principles relate to EPA’s regulatory and non-regulatory decision-making processes.

Environment Protection Act 1970

contains supported by

establishes Policies and Regulations sets up requires framework for

requires and EPA Victoria supports responsible for

Regulatory Non-regulatory decision-making decision-making

inform inform inform

Principles of to be regarded when administering Act environment protection

11