PROCEDURE - Home | NSW Environment, Energy and Science



|# |ACTION |FURTHER INFORMATION |RESPONSIBILITY |BY WHEN |

| | | |NPW|Per|Lod|Com|Uti|EMS| |

| | | |S |ish|ges|mer|lit|Com| |

| | | | |er | |cia|y |mit| |

| | | | |Blu| |l |Pro|tee| |

| | | | |e | |Ope|vid| | |

| | | | | | |rat|ers| | |

| | | | | | |ors| | | |

|1 |Develop list of common environmental |NPWS will compile a list of common environmental issues that affect the Perisher Range Resorts area as a whole to help NPWS |X | | | | | |During EMS development |

| |aspects (issues) for the Perisher |and stakeholders identify their own specific aspects, and thus the setting of objectives and targets. | | | | | | |process. |

| |Range Resorts | | | | | | | | |

| | |The list will be included in the EMS Information Booklet. | | | | | | |[review frequency – at |

| | | | | | | | | |least annually] |

| | |It should be noted that since the common list applies to NPWS and other stakeholders, the ‘aspects’ relate more to | | | | | | | |

| | |environmental issues rather than activities. | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |The EMS Operational Committee will review the Common Environmental Aspects List at least annually. | | | | | | | |

|2 |Develop list of stakeholder specific |For commercial and club lodges, this step is satisfied if you use the lodge workbook. |X |X |X |X |X | |Before implementing a |

| |environmental aspects for operations | | | | | | | |new activity or when |

| |within the Perisher Range Resorts |Identify aspects at a functional or activity level for each stakeholder (including NPWS), based on the common aspects list | | | | | | |reviewing an existing |

| |region |prepared in Step 1. Consider each activity whether normal or non-routine, and whether existing or proposed. | | | | | | |activity |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |Recommend recording the aspects using the Register of Environmental Aspects Form. | | | | | | |[review frequency – at |

| | | | | | | | | |least annually] |

| | |Consider using process assessment techniques to help highlight potential environmental impacts and possible mitigation | | | | | | | |

| | |measures. | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |Update the register for every change to a service or activity, or to the region’s environment or regulations. | | | | | | | |

|3 |Assess significance of each |For commercial and club lodges, this step is satisfied if you use the lodge workbook. |X |X |X |X |X | |Before implementing a |

| |environmental aspect identified in | | | | | | | |new activity or when |

| |Step 2 |For each environmental aspect assess the importance or level of risk posed by that aspect. Use a ‘three step’ process. | | | | | | |reviewing an existing |

| | | | | | | | | |activity |

| | |Step 1: Use the Consequence Criteria Table (attached) to allocate a consequence level for each aspect. Record the | | | | | | | |

| | |consequence level in column labelled “C” of the Environmental Aspects Register. If an aspect has consequences in more than | | | | | | |[review frequency – at |

| | |one category, the worse (ie more catastrophic) consequence should be selected. | | | | | | |least annually] |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |Step 2: Use the Likelihood Criteria Table (attached) to allocate a likelihood of occurrence for the impact. Record the | | | | | | | |

| | |likelihood level in column labelled “L” of the Environmental Aspects Register. | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |Step 3: Use the Risk Matrix Table (attached) to allocate a risk level based on the consequence allocation and the likelihood| | | | | | | |

| | |of the impact arising. Record the risk level in column labelled “R” of the Environmental Aspects Register. | | | | | | | |

|4 |Develop operational control |For commercial and club lodges, the lodge workbook will help you satisfy this requirement. |X |X |X |X |X | | |

| |procedures, environmental management | | | | | | | | |

| |programs and objectives and targets |Identify a mechanism for managing each aspect for all aspects identified as having a high or extreme risk level, or where a | | | | | | | |

| |as appropriate to reduce the impacts |potential non-compliance issue has been noted. | | | | | | | |

| |of the significant aspects | | | | | | | | |

| | |Where the specific aspect can be managed through operational control, develop and implement an operational control procedure| | | | | | | |

| | |or EMP for the aspect using Procedure - Operational Control. | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |Where the specific aspect can be managed through research and/or improvement, stakeholders will set specific objectives and | | | | | | | |

| | |targets to reduce the potential for impact using Procedure - Objectives and Targets. | | | | | | | |

|5 |Apply the NPWS Risk Management |NPWS are to manage and treat their specific aspects and the Perisher Range Resorts holistic aspects in accordance with the |X | | | | | |As specified in the Plan|

| |Strategic Plan (RMSP) in addition to |NPWS Risk Management Strategic Plan (RMSP): | | | | | | | |

| |the requirements of this procedure. | | | | | | | |[review frequency – at |

| | |All risks will be recorded on the Risk Register (refer to RMSP) | | | | | | |least annually] |

| | |A Risk Treatment Plan will be developed for all risks rated as ‘high’ or ‘extreme’ in accordance with the RMSP. | | | | | | | |

| | |Report risks as specified in the strategic plan | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |NPWS staff are to be competent in applying the RMSP prescribed by NPWS corporate. | | | | | | | |

|6 |Review list of common environmental |Prepare a report approximately 4 to 6 weeks before the Management Review meeting and distribute to participants for |X | | | | |X |Annually as part of |

| |aspects (issues) for the Perisher |consideration. During the review consider the complaints register, reported environmental incidents and accidents, and any | | | | | | |management review |

| |Range Resorts |nonconformities or reported improvement opportunities. | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | |

|7 |Review the list of stakeholder |For commercial and club lodges, this step is satisfied by completing the lodge workbook. |X |X |X |X |X | |Annually as part of |

| |specific environmental aspects for | | | | | | | |management review |

| |operations within the Perisher Range |Each stakeholder to review their stakeholder specific environmental aspects (including risk ratings and management | | | | | | | |

| |Resorts region |measures). | | | | | | | |

|8 |Maintain records in accordance with | |X |X |X |X |X | |Ongoing |

| |Procedure – Document Control and | | | | | | | | |

| |Records Management | | | | | | | | |

PURPOSE

To identify and assess the environmental impacts and aspects for every existing or new activity within the Perisher Range Resorts area for NPWS and stakeholders.

SCOPE

Covers every activity and service, whether existing or new.

Undertake the assessments:

- when initially establishing the environmental management system;

- whenever a new activity or service is planned or introduced;

- whenever a significant modification to an activity or service is proposed or occurs;

- whenever a change to regulations occurs; and

- for all activities and services reviewed annually.

DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED FROM THIS PROCEDURE

This Procedure generates the following documents:

- Common Environmental Aspects Register

- Stakeholder Specific Environmental Aspects Registers (incl. NPWS)

RELATED PROCEDURES AND FORMS

- Procedure – Document Control and Records Management

- Procedure – Operational Control

- Procedure – Objectives and Targets

- Form - Environmental Aspects Register

ATTACHMENTS

- Consequence Criteria Table

- Likelihood Criteria Table

- Risk Matrix Table

RECORDS OF REVISIONS

|Description of changes |Pages |Authorised by (signature) |Date |

|Rev 0 |3 |A. Henchman |25-7-02 |

| |(plus this page | | |

| |and attachments) | | |

|Rev 1 – Changes to risk consequence criteria, |3 |S. Dicker |18-9-02 |

|likelihood criteria, risk level descriptors and |(plus this page | | |

|Step 5 in line with revised NPWS Risk Management |and attachments) | | |

|Strategic Plan (May 2002). | | | |

ATTACHMENT: CONSEQUENCE CRITERA TABLE

|Rating |Consequence |

|Catastrophic |Damage to high conservation value natural and cultural heritage assets, which is unrecoverable or will take a long time and |

| |considerable effort (> $10million) to recover. |

| |Multiple fatalities from a single event or serial deaths over one year or cumulative and delayed disability due to a single |

| |cause at one location. |

| |Sustained national adverse media coverage which affects the statewide reputation of agency for more than 3 years. The event |

| |may lead to agency restructure /or change of Executive officers. |

| |Failure to meet financial performance criteria as planned, the shortfall being more than 50% of the goals set and/or direct & |

| |indirect costs, including litigation, exceeding $10 million. |

| |Breach of statutory or legal obligations resulting in imprisonment of a staff member, a fine > $50,000 or adverse statewide |

| |media coverage, legal and other costs exceeding $2.5 million. |

|Major |Damage to high conservation value natural and cultural heritage assets, which will take a few years and considerable effort (>|

| |$5million) to recover. |

| |Single fatality, multiple injuries or major incapacity or series of fatalities or major injuries due to a single cause at one|

| |location due to action or inaction by NPWS. |

| |Sustained state-wide adverse media coverage and possible intervention of Premier or Cabinet and/or changes in legislation. |

| |Failure to meet financial performance criteria as planned, the shortfall being 30- 50% of the goals set. Direct & Indirect |

| |Costs $1 million to $5 million. |

| |Breach of statutory or legal obligations resulting in a fine and/or adverse media coverage, legal and other costs exceeding of|

| |$500,000- $2.5million. |

|Moderate |Damage to conservation value natural and cultural heritage assets, which will up to 1 year and moderate effort (> $1million) |

| |to recover. |

| |Single, serious injury or illness requiring hospitalisation and rehabilitation due to a single cause at one location. |

| |Adverse local media coverage and/or intervention of Minister and questions in Parliament |

| |Failure to meet financial performance criteria as planned, the shortfall being 20-30% of the goals set. Direct & Indirect |

| |Costs $100,000 to $1 million |

| |Breach of statutory regulations resulting in clean up/restoration costs or fines up to $50,000. |

|Minor |Transient damage to high conservation value natural and cultural heritage assets, with rapid recovery – weeks to months. |

| |Single injury requiring medical treatment resulting in some lost time or a large number of incidents resulting in minor |

| |injuries. |

| |Local community concerns, local media coverage, resolved quickly. |

| |Failure to meet financial performance criteria as planned, the shortfall being 10-20% of the goals set. Direct & Indirect |

| |Costs $10,000 to $100,000. |

| |Minor breach of regulatory obligations. No fines or other costs, major internal disciplinary action. |

|Insignificant |Brief pollution with effective immediate remediation. |

| |Minor injury requiring first aid but no lost time or a few incidents which do not result in injury. |

| |Issue resolved in day-to-day management process. |

| |Failure to meet financial performance criteria as planned, the shortfall being up to 10% of the goals set. Costs up to |

| |$10,000. |

| |Warning or caution from regulatory authority, minor internal disciplinary action. |

ATTACHMENT: LIKELIHOOD CRITERIA TABLE

|Rating |Likelihood |

|Almost certain |Likely to occur about one a month |

|Likely |Expected to occur once every year |

|Possible |Will be expected to occur once every 10 years |

|Unlikely |Will be expected to occur once every 100 years |

|Rare |Will be expected to occur once every 1000 years or less |

ATTACHMENT: RISK MATRIX TABLE

|Likelihood/ Consequence|Insignificant |Minor |Moderate |Major |Catastrophic |

|Almost Certain |High |High |Extreme |Extreme |Extreme |

|Likely |Moderate |High |High |Extreme |Extreme |

|Possible |Low |Moderate |High |Extreme |Extreme |

|Unlikely |Low |Low |Moderate |High |Extreme |

|Rare |Low |Low |Moderate |High |High |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download