PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSAL:
Briefly describe the nature of the proposal, i.e. ‘Revision of Australian Standard AS XXXX’ or ‘Revise Section X of BCA Volume One to include requirements for XXXX’ etc.
Revision of AS/NZS 3500.2 to included deemed-to-satisfy solutions for vacuum drainage systems.
PROPONENT:
Nominating organisation or individual / Plumbing Products Industry Group
DATE OF PIA:
To differentiate between versions include the document date and/or version number / 14 Dec 2015
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM:
Detail the nature and extent of the problem that is to be addressed by the proposal. Provide information on who is affected and in what way. Explain what evidence exists that shows there is a problem. Attach correspondence or details if necessary. If there is difficulty in articulating the nature of the problem then there is a possibility that the proposal is unwarranted.
AS/NZS 3500.2 (Plumbing and drainage Part 2: Sanitary plumbing and drainage) provides deemed-to-satisfy solutions for Section C2 of the Plumbing Code of Australia. This referenced standard currently provides no deemed-to-satisfy solutions for vacuum drainage systems which would allow the installer a DTS path for compliant installations. Plumbers, specifiers and manufacturers face uncertainty, potential additional cost and time delay when developing a design for a project, because they are required to undertake an alternative solution process for each installation.
OBJECTIVES:
Describe the objectives or intended outcomes that will be achieved by addressing the problem, remembering that the objectives should not pre-justify a preferred solution. The objectives need to be broad enough to allow consideration of alternative solutions without being so broad that too many options need to be considered. ‘To revise the BCA’ or ‘To revise a standard’ are not suitable objectives.
Provide an alternative deemed-to-satisfy solution option for sanitary drainage installations through the provision of a prescriptive pathway for vacuum drainage installations.
OPTIONS:
Consider alternative options that that may address the identified problem. Include the options of ‘No change’ and the development or introduction of a non-mandatory solution, such as a guide or handbook, or improved education or training.
Option 1:
No changeto the status quo and continue to use the PCA Alternative Solution process.
Option 2:
Develop a guide or handbook consolidating details from various manufacturers and made available to practitioners.
Option 3:
Include adeemed-to-satisfysolutionfor vacuum drainage systems in the current deemed-to-satisfy standard used for other drainage systems.
IMPACT ANALYSIS[1][2][3](OF ALL OPTIONS):
All options need to be assessed equally, i.e.the costs and benefits associated with each option, providingan indication of monetary value where possible, whilst also looking at societal and environmental costs and benefits. The benefits of any change need to outweigh these costs for an option to be considered. Forcing an individual or business, through regulation, to carry out their business in a way they wouldn’t normally generally has cost implications. Explain in this section who is likely to be affected by the proposal being put forward, and how they will be affected. Will the consumer, building owner or occupant be worse off financially? Will one firm or section of industry benefit to the detriment of another? Identify the sources of any data used and attach any supporting documentation.
Option 1:
Vacuum drainage systems have been in use overseas, and to some extent in Australia, for many years and as such are a well-developed alternative to traditional gravity drainage design. Although the Alternative Solution process provides a means of acceptance for this type of installation in Australia, the administrative process required is varied and can be time consuming and potentially costly, depending on the needs of the relevant jurisdictional approval authority.This canbe off-putting for some owners and unfortunately also limit the take up of what is consideredto be a feasible water saving alternative.Specifiers and developers of buildings havealso been known to have concerns about approval delays and the possible risks associated with professional liabilityinsurances.
Option2:
Plumbing and drainage, including designs incorporating vacuum systems, are currently regulated nationally for the purposes of community health. The provision of non-regulatory advice to inform part of this process could potentially put that at risk, especially if the information provided was inappropriately applied and/or the controlling authority did not have suitable documentation to satisfy an approval process. If the intention was to provide a clear DTS (or Alternative) Solution pathway, this option would not resolve the current problem.
Option 3:
The provision of a deemed-to-satisfy solution which is an alternative to the typical gravity drainage system will increase the scope for competition in the broader sector. It will also provide surety to those practitioners that need an alternative to gravity systems to overcome specific site and building constraints. Detailed prescriptive instructions will enable greater understanding by more practitioners generally and allow thisparticular sector of the industry to grow, giving certainty to participating stakeholders and potentially reducing installation costs.
Environmental and social impacts include reduced water usage, lower building operational costs and the ability to change use of a building or tenancy with much lower impact, especially with regard to heritage or special protection buildings.
In addition, disruption to the traditional industry sector could be expected to be minimal in market impact, possibly less than 1%.
CONSULTATION:
Explain what consultation has been undertaken to date. Detail who was consulted and in what manner. Note positive and negative feedback that has been received and whether the proposal has been revised as a result of consultation. If not all affected parties were consulted then explain why. Attach any supporting documentation.
Vacuum drainage systems have been used for over 20 years but industry has been limited due to the current compliance regulations of the States and Territories. When consulted through the Standards Australia development process S & T and New Zealand Regulators were in favour of a DTS solution being included in AS/NZS 3500.2. Consultation to date has included the WS-014 Standards committee and subcommittee WS-014-02 and the ABCB’s Plumbing Code Committee. Organisations representative in these groups include—
- Air-conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association
- Association of Accredited Certification Bodies
- Association of Hydraulic Services Consultants Australia
- Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council
- Australian Building Codes Board
- Australian Industry Group
- Australian Stainless Steel Development Association
- Building Officials Institute of New Zealand
- Department of Building and Housing (New Zealand Government)
- Department of Industry Innovation and Science
- Engineers Australia
- Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association of Australia
- Housing Industry Association
- International Copper Association of Australia
- Master Builders Australia
- Master Plumbers Australia
- Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers New Zealand
- National Fire Industry Association
- New Zealand Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
- Plastics Industry Pipe Association of Australia
- Plastics New Zealand
- Plumbing Products Industry Group
- State and Territory plumbing administrations
- The Institute of Plumbing Australia
- Water New Zealand
- Water Services Association of Australia
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED OPTION:
Provide a concluding summary which details the recommended option and why. Highlight any concerns or gaps in information that may affect a decision, or further research that may be necessary.
Based on the information available to date the recommendation is to proceed with the implementation of a prescribed solution for vacuum drainage in AS/NZS 3500.2, i.e. Option 3.
IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW:
Explain how the preferred option is to be implemented, and the preferred timeline. If implemented, how and when will the changes (if any) be reviewed?
Draft amendments to AS/NZS 3500.2 could be expected to go to public comment late 2015. Inclusion in a 2016 version of AS/NZS 3500.2 and consequentialreferencing in NCC Volume 3 (PCA) at its next revision is the preferred outcome.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Provide a list of attached supporting documents.
Good Practice Guidefor Preliminary Impact Analysis – July 2011 AustralianBuilding Codes Board
ATTACHMENT A
Expected economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposed options as likely benefits and costs
Benefits and costs are terms used to describe the positive and negative effects of a proposal. A benefit includes any item that makes any person better off, regardless of whether it can be easily measured or quantified.
A cost is any item that makes someone worse off, or that reduces a person’s sense of wellbeing. Cost items should include ‘opportunities forgone’ because a particular proposal has been adopted.
Costs to businesses — including small business — might include:
- ‘paper burden’ or administrative costs to businesses associated with complying with and/or reporting on particular regulatory requirements;
- licence fees or other charges levied by government;
- changes likely to be required in production, transportation and marketing procedures;
- shifts to alternative sources of supply;
- higher input prices; or
- restricted access to markets.
It is important to note that where there are medium or significant business compliance costs, the Business Cost Calculator (BCC), or approved equivalent, should be used to estimate these costs.
Costs to consumers may include:
- higher prices for goods and services resulting from restrictions on competition;
- reduced utility (quality, choice etc) of goods and services; or
- delays in the introduction of goods to the marketplace and/or restrictions in product availability.
Costs to the community and/or the environment may include:
- environmental degradation or pollution;
- reduction in health and safety;
- undesirable redistribution of income and wealth; or
- lower employment levels or economic growth.
Costs to government may include:
- running education campaigns/providing information;
- administration of licensing/inspection services;
- collection and collation of business information; and
- enforcement costs.
Benefits
The benefits of the options to business, consumers, government, other affected groups and the community at large should be identified and described. Many benefits may not be readily quantifiable. Examples of benefits include:
- improvements in product and service quality;
- availability of a wider range of products and services;
- reductions in costs or prices;
- reductions in workplace accidents and improvements in public health and safety;
- improvements in environmental amenity;
- reductions in compliance costs for business and administrative costs for government; and
- improvements in the information available to business, the workforce, consumers or the government
Good Practice Guidefor Preliminary Impact Analysis – July 2011 AustralianBuilding Codes Board
attachment B
Business Compliance Costs CHECKLIST
The following checklist will help you identify if the proposal has the potential to increase compliance costs on business.
- Will businesses incur costs when they are required to report certain events?
- Will costs be incurred by business in keeping abreast of regulatory requirements?
- Are costs incurred in seeking permission to conduct an activity?
- Will businesses need to purchase materials, equipment, or external services?
- Will businesses need to keep records?
- Will businesses incur costs when cooperating with audits or inspections?
- Will businesses incur costs when producing documents?
- Will businesses incur costs from other changes to their procedures or practices?
- Are there any other compliance costs, including indirect costs or impacts on intermediaries such as accountants, lawyers, banks or financial advisers?
If you have answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, you will need to determine if business compliance costs are low. In general, compliance costs to business would be low when only a few businesses are affected and the costs are negligible or trivial. For example:
- changes to regulation that are machinery in nature, involving technical changes which will not have an appreciable impact on business and are consistent with existing policy (such as indexation);
- there would be a very small initial one-off cost to business and no ongoing costs; or
- businesses would not need to seek advice about the change from external advisers.
Proposals which have a broad impact (ie affect a large number of businesses), or which involve a cost per business which is not negligible (in relation to the size of businesses involved), would not be considered to generate low compliance cost impacts. In these cases departments and agencies should contact OBPR which will determine the level of regulatory impact analysis required.
OBPR Best Practice Regulation Handbook
ATTACHMENT C
Competition Assessment Checklist
As part of a regulatory impact analysis, a practical approach for considering the impacts on business and individuals and on competition potentially flowing from regulatory proposals is through a set of threshold questions (a competition checklist) followed by, where appropriate, a competition assessment.The competition assessment checklist is made up of the following threshold questions. (Some examples are provided.)
- Would the regulatory proposal affect the number and range of suppliers?
–Establish a licence, permit or authorisation process as a requirement of operation?
–Affect the ability of some types of firms to participate in public procurement?
–Significantly alter costs of entry or exit to a supplier?
–Create a geographic barrier to the ability of businesses to supply goods or services, invest or supply labour?
- Would the regulatory proposal change the ability of suppliers to compete?
–Alter the ability of suppliers to advertise or market their products?
–Set standards for product/service quality that are significantly different from current practice?
–Significantly alter costs of some suppliers relative to others?
- Would the regulatory proposal alter suppliers’ incentives to compete vigorously?
–Impact on the mobility of customers between suppliers?
–Require/encourage the publishing of information on company outputs/price, sales/cost?
–Exempt an activity from general competition law?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘yes’, the policy officer should assess the scope and scale of the impacts.
OBPR Best Practice Regulation Handbook
Good Practice Guidefor Preliminary Impact Analysis – July 2011 AustralianBuilding Codes Board
[1] A list of possible costs and benefits to consider is at Attachment A
[2]A Business Compliance Cost Checklist is at Attachment B. If there are significant compliance costs, consider use of the Business Cost Calculator or similar tool
[3]A Competition Assessment Checklist is at Attachment C