Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The scope of the approved project is that described in the referral (2005/2270) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as varied on 24 October 2008 and 9 June 2010. This indicates an approximate production rate of 750,000 tonnes per annum of refined copper equivalent.

(2) The issue in question in the 'adequacy test' was whether, in accordance with section 104(3) of the EPBC Act, as it applied to the project (i.e. pre-February 2007 version of the Act), the Minister had adequate information for the purposes of making an informed decision on approving under Part 9 of the EPBC Act (for the purposes of each controlling provision) the taking of the action.

(3) Further information was sought from BHP Billiton relating to: the stability of the open pit and rock storage facility; stability of the tailings storage facility under earthquake loading; infiltration modelling in relation to the closure strategy for the tailings and rock storage facilities; progressive rehabilitation; capacity for neutralisation of acidic seepage from the tailings and rock storage facilities; geochemical modelling of seepage from the tailings storage facility; workforce exposure to radon, post closure radiation doses; groundwater modelling; hydrodynamic modelling; operation of the desalination plant under different flow regimes; construction of the intake pipe for the desalination plant; dissolved oxygen in receiving waters; ecotoxicity testing for the desalination plant; noise and dust impacts; and the gas pipeline.

(4) No further information was sought by the Minister or his delegate under section 132 of the EPBC Act.

(5) The clock was not stopped in the formal assessment period. However, the Minister wrote to BHP Billiton on 21 December 2010 advising that the statutory timeframe in the EPBC Act was unlikely to be met due to the complexity of the project and the need to align with state/territory processes.

(6) Schedules 1 and 7 of the approval conditions also apply to the existing operation and, as such, can be regarded as 'new' conditions. Condition 28, however, reflects the existing environmental requirements on BHP Billiton under their uranium export permit.

(7) The Minister will consider the need for public consultation on the Environmental Protection Management Plan when it is submitted for approval.

(8) The department's assessment was that, taking into account the poor quality of groundwater below the tailings storage facility and the natural attenuation of seepage from the tailings, increasing the area of lining in the tailings storage facility would not result in improved environmental protection and may lead to geotechnical instability in the tailings storage facility.

(9) Questions about capital expenditure should be addressed to BHP Billiton.

(10) See answers to questions 8 and 9.

(11) No capital expenditure estimates were required as the environmental protection measures proposed by BHP Billiton were considered to be adequate.

(12) Where capital expenditure costs are relevant to the Minister's decision making, the Minister, or the department, will consider whether this material is commercial in confidence, if required.

(13) The Minister applied the conditions necessary to protect the environment.

(14) Condition 26 regulates the height of the groundwater mound below the tailings storage facility to ensure there is no interaction with surface vegetation. Conditions 22, 24 and 25 regulate lateral movement of seepage.

(15) The proponent must make the capital expenditure necessary to comply with the approval conditions.

(16) Questions about capital expenditure should be addressed to BHP Billiton.

(17) These matters are governed under State law. Subclause 24(10) of the Schedule to the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 provides that freehold land granted over the area of a special mining lease will revert to the State at the expiration of the period ending two years after the termination of the relevant lease.

(18) The approval condition for the mine closure plan includes requirements on the approval holder to ensure that the mine tailings do not present a serious hazard to the environment and public health. This includes a comprehensive safety assessment to determine the long-term risks to the public and the environment from the tailings storage facility. The approval holder will be required to achieve the environmental outcomes in the approved mine closure plan. If the outcomes are not achieved prior to the expiry date of the approval under the EPBC Act, the approval holder may be in breach of the approval conditions, unless the approval is extended. Conditions 34 and 35 of the approval allow the minister to impose a bond up to the full cost of implementation of the mine closure plan.

(19) BHP Billiton must dispose of tailings in a properly constructed facility and meet the environmental outcomes in the mine closure plan as required under condition 32 of the approval.

(20) BHP Billiton was required to provide a summary mine closure plan in the environmental impact statement. Condition 32 of the approval requires the proponent to prepare a mine closure plan within two years of the date of the approval, or prior to construction of the tailings storage facility, whichever date is the earliest. This plan must be approved by the Minister. The condition requires the plan to contain a comprehensive safety assessment to determine the long-term risk to the public and the environment (from closure to in the order of 10,000 years) from the tailings storage facility and rock storage facility.

(21) This information was provided in section 4.1 of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement 2011.

(22) The Minister has imposed the most stringent conditions needed to protect the environment.

(23) The open pit will remain as a permanent feature.

(24) The environmental impact statement demonstrated conceptually, to the Minster's satisfaction, how the mine could be closed and that the long term environmental risks could be acceptably managed. Condition 32 requires the proponent to prepare a detailed comprehensive closure plan for the Minister's consideration and approval. The Minister will determine the adequacy of the plan and the environmental outcomes and assessment criteria to be used.

(25) In approving the proposal, the Minister was satisfied that he had adequate information on the long-term risk to the public and the environment to make a decision.

(26) The Minister will consider the need for public consultation on the mine closure plan when it is submitted for approval.

(27) The tenure of the mining lease is a matter for the South Australian Government.

(28) No

(29) When the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced to the South Australian Parliament on 18 October 2011.

(30) In accordance with the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Act 2011, freehold title will not be granted until the South Australian Minister is satisfied that native title is or will be extinguished. The South Australian Government, BHP Billiton and the native title parties have negotiated a proposed Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) under the Native Title Act 1993 for the surrender of native title rights and interests in return for significant benefits for the native title parties as well as Indigenous people in the broader region. Authorisation of the ILUA is not expected until February/March 2012, with execution of the ILUA, including registration, to follow.

(31) The Minister's approval of the Olympic Dam expansion did not extend the period of extraction of water from the Great Artesian Basin. This extraction was assessed under the now repealed Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The period of extraction remains the same as approved by the Australian and South Australian governments following that assessment.

(32) See answer to question 31.

(33) The Minister will set the compliance criteria, not the proponent. The proponent will propose criteria for the Minister's consideration and approval.

(34) The decision to approve the project under the EPBC Act is separate to any other regulatory requirements that may apply to the project. BHP Billiton will need to have all relevant regulatory approvals in place to proceed with the project.

(35) See answer to question 34.

(36) The proposal the Minister was required to assess was that referred (and as varied) under the EPBC Act.

(37) The EPBC Act applies only to impacts of the action on the environment within the Australian jurisdiction.

(38) As noted on page 10 of the department's assessment report: 'The requirements for protection of workers are extensive and comprehensively regulated and monitored by the South Australian Government'.

(39) A dose constraint is a target for the optimisation of radiation protection, however, it is not a dose limit. It is a way of encouraging good practice and ensuring doses are as low as reasonably achievable. The Code of Practice and Safety Guide, Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing (ARPANSA 2005) notes that it is common practice in Australia to designate occupationally exposed employees who are likely to receive doses that are a significant fraction of the dose limit (for example, more than 5 millisievert per year). Designated workers are monitored more intensively and work to a higher dose constraint than non-designated employees who receive low doses and are monitored less intensively. Depending on the situation, non-designated workers may be occupationally exposed at sufficiently low levels that a dose constraint similar to the case for a member of the public dose constraint can be applied.

(40) This question should be addressed to BHP Billiton.

(41) Truck driving, where the load is uranium oxide, and train driving, where the load is copper concentrate, would be classified as an occupational exposure situation and the occupational dose limit applies.

(42) The assessment was informed by advice from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, as Australia's pre-eminent body on radiation protection matters. The approval conditions require compliance with the Code of Practice for Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing developed by the Agency and used by state/territory agencies. The code takes account of recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The Commission is an international non-governmental body of leading experts that issue radiation protection recommendations based on current best scientific understanding.

(43) This question should be addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing.

(44) The Australian Government has a national market-based approach to address greenhouse gas emissions, including the introduction of a carbon price. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions will also be subject to a plan to be approved by the South Australian Government.

(45) See answer to question 44.

(46) The Australian Government has a market-based policy that will encourage companies such as BHP Billiton to move to renewable energy sources.

(47) Questions relating to taxation rebates should be addressed to the Treasurer.