Uncategorized|29th Mar, 2021

Hold AGL accountable by writing your submission to the EPA

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is currently assessing AGL’s plans to build a gas import terminal in Westernport Bay.

During last year’s public hearings of AGL’s Environment Effects Statement (EES), the EPA made clear that AGL’s reports lacked the key information necessary to assess their works approval application.

正因为如此,22 Noti榴弹炮是服务”的部分ce’, requiring them to answer 25 questions on how their gas import terminal would be compliant with Victorian regulations.You can see the EPA’s questions here >>

AGL has provided the EPA withincomplete and misleading responses, and nowwe have until Wednesday 31 March to send our comments.Help us hold AGL accountable by filling outthe EPA survey>>

The EPA will decide on AGL’s works approval application one month after they receive Minister’s Wynne decision on the EES process.The EPA’s assessment is independent from this decision, and if they find AGL’s response is inadequate, this could potentially stop the project by itself.

This is another opportunity to protect Westernport Bay’s Ramsar wetlands and to stand with the Westernport community.

Make a submission by filling out the epa’s survey

Information for your submission

We have prepared the material below to help you in filling out your submission. The questions we have included are those that are most likely to impact AGL’s plans to get a works approval:

Survey Question 1. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Questions 1 – 4)

  • In broad terms AGL was requested to explain (1) How the wastewater discharges from their gas import terminal could “provide water for the environment” (2) How the wastewater would be used in any way beyond simply being disposed of, and (3) Provide info on whether their wastewater could be treated and managed to a level to protect beneficial uses.
  • AGL contends that providing water for the environment is not relevant to the EPA’s assessment, despite it being specified as a requirement in the explanatory note to clause 22 of the SEPP (Waters)
  • AGL’s argument that discharging cold, chlorinated water into Westernport Bay should be considered as “providing water to the environment” is ridiculous as (1) the environment will not be benefited by polluted water and (2) the sea does not benefit from more water. AGL directly disposing their wastewater directly into Westernport bay only benefits AGL.
  • AGL’s case that disposing wastewater into the environment could be qualified as their polluted water being “re-used” or “re-cycled” is simply outrageous.
  • If AGL wants to argue that exceeding environmental would not put beneficial uses at risk, they should have provided information to back that claim up.

Survey question 2. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 8)

  • Leave blank.

Survey question 3. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 12)

  • Leave blank.

Survey question 4. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 7)

  • Leave blank.

Survey question 5. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 16)

  • Leave blank.

Survey question 6. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 13)

  • Leave blank.

调查问题7。请提供您的意见low regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 5)

  • AGL has not properly addresseditsduty to avoid the generation of wastewater as it isstipulated by Clause of the SEPP (Waters).
  • Characterisingthe discharge hundreds of millionsoflitresof pollutedwater using as an example of ‘re-use’ or ‘re-cycling’ ismisleading. Disposingwaste products is the opposite of recycling or reusing.
  • Disposal is a better term as AGL is not planning to contain, treat or recycle their wastewater.
  • AGLarguesit is choosing to proceed with itsopen loopto avoid emittingcarbon pollution. Asking the EPA toassess what is preferablebetween climate action and the protection of the local environmentshowshow this project is deeply flawed.

Survey question 8. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 6)

  • Leave blank.

Survey question 9. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 9)

  • The lack of evidence on the area of water that will exceed the proposed guidelines values for temperature and chlorine-produced oxidantsdue to the FSRU’s wastewatermeans the project’sapplication should be rejected.
  • The burden of proof on whether AGL is adoptingall the “reasonably practicable” measures to avoid exceedance to the environmental quality objectives ison AGL. AGL cannot expect to benefit fromthe lack of informationit provided to the EPA.

Survey question 10. Please provide your comments below regarding AGL’s response to s22 (Question 11)

  • Leave blank.
Baidu
map