Reviews of the noise, vibration and groundwater studies were published to provide a level of certainty to the public and key stakeholders about risks and proposed mitigation measures.
Status
Advisory note
current
Published:
Last updated:
On this page:
A project proponent is responsible for ensuring their EES is of sufficient quality and adequate for exhibition.
The EES documentation needs to adequately address the matters set out in the scoping requirements. It should include technical studies that sufficiently examine and clearly document the potential environmental impacts and risks of the proposal.
What does it mean if an EES is required?
The Minister will specify the procedures and requirements for an EES including:
- Matters that should be subject to in-depth investigation as part of the EES
- Scoping procedures that are to apply
- Quality assurance procedures to be adopted, including the need for expert peer review of any matter
EES Ministerial Guidelines – Determining the need for assessment
Quality assurance reviews
Quality assurance reviews focus of QA reviews is on the clarity and content of the report, while peer reviews focus on ensuring the study method and analysis is appropriate and that the stated conclusions are supported by the work.
QA is conducted within an organisation, in-line with procedures typically documented in a system (possibly an accredited quality management system) to ensure that the output is of a suitable quality for issue.
As a guide, a QA review should check for:
- consistency – consistent units of measurement or terminology throughout;
- correctness – correct data, formulae, conversions, or test methods;
- coherence – assumptions clearly stated and conclusions follow from the data presented;
- clarity – written for a broad audience; and
- conformance – method follows scope or problems/limitations discussed.
Peer reviews
A peer review is undertaken by reviewers external to an organisation to verify that investigation and assessment methods are suitable and meet best practice environmental assessment and are consistent with the body of technical knowledge in the subject area.
In the context of an EES, a peer review typically verifies that work is:
- technically sound
- conclusions are supported, and
- clearly covers the relevant matters identified in scoping requirements and Ministerial Guidelines.
This will include reviewing whether it is based upon appropriate data, has adopted suitable methods for assessment and that conclusions are supported by the work presented.
The EES documentation is expected to include a list of technical reports or outputs that have been peer reviewed, noting the names and affiliations of peer reviewers.
Peer review of technical reports
The proponent may choose, or the department may direct, that some technical studies are subject to peer review. Peer review is likely to be required for those studies of complex or uncertain processes or those that may give rise to contentious conclusions, such as:
- studies that rely on mathematical modelling to assess impacts
- studies that relate to non-quantifiable impacts, such as visual impact
- studies that relate to new or emerging topics as key environmental issues, such as arboriculture for infrastructure projects
- studies that relate to an environmental asset or value central to the assessment of environmental effects of the project, for example, the issue that might constitute a 'fatal flaw'
- studies relating to an environmental asset or factor that has proved problematic in comparable EESs.
Scoping requirements set an expectation that proponents will commission peer review of key technical studies. Proponents will prepare a list of technical studies to be peer reviewed for consideration by the technical reference group (TRG).
The TRG, based on its collective experience, may also assist in identifying studies that would benefit from peer review.
It may be prudent for a proponent to initiate expert peer reviews of EES studies on technically or scientifically complex matters where they may be range of expert views.
Commissioning peer reviewers
The proponent is usually responsible for engaging all experts and ensuring appropriate quality assurance and peer reviews.
In some circumstances, the Minister may direct the department to appoint independent peer review(s) of complex or particularly controversial matters, or where there may be a range of expert views. The cost of these peer reviews will need to be met by the proponent. The final written advice of peer reviewers appointed by the department will be exhibited together with the EES and provided to an inquiry if one is appointed.
In special circumstances, the Minister may direct the department to appoint expert peer reviewers to provide advice during the development of critical studies. Final written advice from peer reviewers appointed by the department will be made available during the exhibition of the EES. The final written advice of expert peer reviewers appointed by the department will be made available during the exhibition of the EES and will be provided to an inquiry, if one is appointed EES Ministerial Guidelines.
In some cases, the scoping requirements or Minister’s procedures and requirements issued for an EES could specify the studies that require peer review. The department would then appoint peer reviewers in consultation with the TRG, to review and provide expert advice to the department, proponent and TRG on the specific study/matter(s).
Appointment of these peer reviewers usually occurs early in the EES process. This enables the peer reviewer to advise on methodologies and data collection, and possibly the scope of the EES.
Managing information from a peer review
A peer reviewer is not expected to be more of an expert than the study's author. It is not expected that the author will ‘take direction’ from a peer review. Areas of disagreement may remain, particularly in areas that are non-quantifiable or emerging. This should not be viewed as a negative outcome but as a reflection of the robust and scientific debate that is common within assessment of some environmental effects that are more uncertain or complex. In these circumstances the peer reviewer would indicate any outstanding issues and whether, in their opinion, they are material to the technical integrity of the report and its conclusions.
The advice from peer reviews should be provided to the TRG and to the department for consideration, together with a revised technical report responding to the review.
It is expected that the report by the peer reviewer be published as an appendix to the study. The peer reviewer's report must therefore be publicly available when the EES is exhibited to provide evidence of transparency and identify any issues that were not resolved.
The peer reviewer may be required to attend the EES inquiry hearing to respond to specific questions and articulate their findings.
Example peer reviews in an EES
A review of the palaeontological and geological studies, consistent with the scope set by us with advice from the TRG.
A review of the studies prepared on the Southern Bent Wing Bat, in accordance with advice from the Commonwealth and TRG.
A group of independent experts was established to review and advise on key studies, as well as respond to specific questions from the public inquiry panel.
A review of an air quality study given the risk to air quality and consequently public health.
Reviews of studies relating to air quality, site rehabilitation, hydrology and water quality.
More information about quality assurance and peer review for EES is available in the Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effect - Scoping and preparing an EES.
Page last updated: 18/09/24