Sign In
or Create a new account
Chapter 4 of the Discussion Paper discusses different regulatory approaches. What do you think about these regulatory approaches?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Compliance and Enforcement Review Discussion Paper
Comment 1 7 Sep 2010, 11:29 AM
The regulatory approaches are conventional and seem appropriate. However, an approach worth considering is one that is increasingly being used by Victorian Government agencies; that of complaince certifications and attestations which in some cases need to be reported in an organisation's Annual Report. Perhaps there can be tiered certifications and attestations, depending on the size of the organisation. Clearly there would need to be an independent review carried out to ensure integrity of the certifictaions and attestations. Also, this would not need to be a requirement every year, depending on the size and/or nature of the organisation.
Comment 2 20 Oct 2010, 10:48 PM
In considering risk-based regulation, responsive regulation, meta-regulation, restorative justice mode
when will the EPA consider having regulation control for Clean Fill Operators?
I know of a number of sites that are now contaminated by this Clean Fill industry quite a number of then along waterways so not only contaminated land but our water.
New thinking regulation is needed for control on CLEAN FILL Operators !!!!
Be an environment protector caring for country regulator
Comment 3 23 Oct 2010, 7:00 PM
All of the approaches are fine. An experienced EPA officer would be able to apply the appropriate option to "client". Unfortunately many of the officers are not experienced and need more guidance.
Comment 4 24 Oct 2010, 9:03 AM
I do not think much at all about what the EPA does not do.!!!
Why hasn't Hot Rock Australia required an EES on the site where they are to drill?
Considering the Government Guidelines state that this Company must follow EPA's Water Acts, then why have they not
been asked to comply? I would like an answer to this question. In writing please.
I have researched this company, and other Hydro Geothermal Plants, and found them a loathing misery
of nothing but Pollution at it's worst.
So why do they get away with digging massive Ponds to put their polluted water in, and yet have more…
Comment 4.1 24 Oct 2010, 9:09 AM
What does the EPA do?
Why is it that Moyne Shire is turning into the dumping Ground of the State?
Start giving us some answers over here as we are all fed up with this rubbish.
If it means I have to go to the Media, I am more than happy to do so............as you know fully well I have done this before today.
I want to see some action over here..................instead of a lack of attention provided regularly by the EPA
You don't even return phone calls.
The only call I have had recently was one about Hot Rock Australia.............no one at the EPA knew about this, or did they?
Do you know that this operation drags up radioactive isotopes? That it goes into the Ponds and into the air?
There is a lot more to it than that.
I have written to the EPA and still have no answers.
Time to go to your new Head and ask him is it?
Seems that is the only time anyone pays attention.
Sorry to sound so angry, but what choice does one have when the EPA are not doing their JOB!!!
Joanne Archbold.
Comment 5 24 Oct 2010, 4:55 PM
why are there still landfills operating without liners eg Maddingley Brown coal site in Bacchus Marsh
haven't the EPA learned anything from the Tullamarine Landfill
the regulatory approaches are not standard across the industry
it seems that deals are made
exemptions’ given all at the expensive of the environment
regulate don't make deals with the operates they are only in it for the money
the cheapest unenvironmental way does them
