CCWA, ACF, FoE, TWS, ANAWA appeal of EPA Report 1574

Transcription

1 Minister for Environment C/- Appeals Convenor Office of the Minister for Environment Level 22 Forrest Centre 221 St George s Terrace PERTH WA 6000 Re: EPA report Yeelirrie uranium project Report 1574 Tuesday 16 th August 2016 This Appeal is made by the Conservation Council of WA on behalf of our member groups and supporters and on behalf of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth Australia, the Wilderness Society and the Anti- Nuclear Alliance of WA. On the 3 rd of August 2016, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) published its report (Report 1574) recommending that the Yeelirrie uranium mine proposal (Yeelirrie Uranium Mine) by Cameco Australia Pty Ltd (Cameco) be rejected on the grounds that it cannot meet important objectives under the EP Act. We support this outcome and the application of the principle of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle in making this recommendation. We remain concerned about any future decision by the Minister that might overrule the EPA recommendation which is based on the best available evidence and science. The EPA Report 1574 details a number of conditions that could be applied to a mine at Yeelirrie if the Minister decides to approve the proposed Yeelirrie uranium mine, we do not share the EPAs view that these conditions would be sufficient to manage the environmental risks posed by the project. We would like to take this opportunity through the appeals process to highlight a number of deficiencies within the EPA decision on other important environmental aspects, which should also inform the Ministers deliberations. We hereby lodge an appeal against some of the content and some of the recommendations in Report 1574 under section 100(1)(d) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (EP Act). While we welcome the EPAs recommendation to reject the Yeelirrie uranium there are a number of areas where the EPA has failed to adequately consider or address serious environmental risks. The main grounds of appeal are as follows: There remains a high level of uncertainty about potentially significant environmental impacts and risks associated with the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine, which have not been satisfactorily addressed by Cameco or the EPA. The EPA has not applied the precautionary principle evenly across all the environmental risk areas of the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine. There have been major flaws in the assessment process including a failure to comply with the EPA s own procedures, a denial of procedural fairness and a lack of transparency. The EPA has unacceptably deferred its responsibilities under the EP Act to other government agencies. There are good policy reasons for the proposal not to be implemented, such as high- level nuclear waste, nuclear accidents and weapons proliferation.

2 There are major problems with the current regulatory framework (as identified by recent independent reviews) and a decision should not be made as to whether the proposal should be implemented until at least such time as these problems have been addressed. Subterranean Fauna The EPA decision: We note that the EPA decision identifies potential impacts to subterranean fauna from the proposal that includes; removal to habitat, surface disturbance that disrupts nutrient inputs, process chemical spills and changes to ground water levels (EPA report 1574 section 3.1). The overall recommendation by the EPA is that the Proposal is not consistent with these principles (Principle of the conservation biological diversity and ecological integrity, and the Principle of intergenerational equity), due to the threat of serious and irreversible damage, and the degree of uncertainty that biological diversity would be conserved. The EPA have based the decision to reject the proposal on the available evidence which suggests that a number of subterranean fauna could become extinct if the project were to go ahead, this decision and reasoning is prudent. Our submission to the EPA in response to the PER focused heavily on the risk of habitat removal both from mining and water drawdown. We also questioned the proponents use of surrogates to suggest that the species in PEC 49. existed outside the impact area. We are pleased to note that the EPA also found that the reference to surrogates in the proponent s response to submissions is not consistent with the use of surrogates in EAG12 (EPA2013). The proponents proposed management options: The proponent has outlined a number of management options to reduce the impact on subterranean fauna. We do not see any evidence that better management options could protect a number of the subterranean fauna species at the Yeelirrie site. The management options that the EPA refer to in their decision include; a troglofauna protection area, the protection of the subterranean fauna habitat in the NW paleochannel and some monitoring, surveying, reporting commitments. Please note that the proponent has proposed a troglofauna exclusion zone protected with a 50m buffer, in other assessments where a singleton has not been identified outside the impact are a 500m exclusion zone has been placed around the troglofauna habitat. A 50m exclusion zone is grossly inadequate and the proponent has given no justification to the merits of a 50m exclusion zone. Monitoring, surveying and reporting would surely document the decline in species but is not an active management strategy to protect them. If the proposal was approved and mining occurred, at what point would the proponent or the Government decide that the population was critically low and cease mining? It would be irresponsible to allow the project to be developed in the knowledge that the species could decline rapidly and mining would have to stop. Our concerns: The EPA decision was the correct decision to make. The proposed management options by the proponent in the EPA report 1574 are poorly defined and do not address the full suite of threats to subterranean fauna. It is possible that the proponent will lodge additional information on proposed management options

3 for subterranean fauna to the Appeals Convenor. If the proponent does lodge additional information the public should have an opportunity to review and comment on those proposed management option. In the appeals process when the public have lodged appeals the proponent is given the opportunity to prepare responses. In the same way the proponent can respond to appeals lodged by the public, the public should be allowed to respond to appeals lodged by the proponent. If this were not allowed it could be seen as a denial of procedural fairness and would demonstrate a lack of transparency. Outcome sought: For any appeal lodged by the proponent to be made publicly available with an invitation to other appellants and experts in the field a right of reply. For further background information on our specific concerns about the impact on subterranean fauna please see Attachment 1 CCWA joint submission Yeelirrie PER. Atriplex and other Flora The EPA decision: The precautionary principle has not been applied to the assessment of Atriplex to the same degree as it has been to subterranean fauna. While the EPA and many other agencies have considered the risk to Atriplex in detail the conclusion that the Atriplex Western population is the same as the Eastern population is not supported with enough evidence and there are indications that there s some unique variations of genus in the Western population. The proponent has the intention to remove 100% of the Western Population of Atriplex. The proponents proposed management options: We understand there are offset proposals, that early and progressive rehabilitation is proposed, that research into translocation is under consideration and some lengths to the protection of the Eastern population are ensured. There are a number of indirect impacts, that are outside the control of the company, that could serious hinder these efforts which we do not feel have been given adequate consideration and that the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity principle should have been applied here and require more evidence to the viability of management proposals. Our Concerns: That the EPA has deferred the final assessment of the Atriplex management to other agencies and have based their recommendation on this aspect without enough evidence to support that the proposed management strategies would not lead to the extinction of the Western Population of Atriplex which may contain unique and endemic genus of Atriplex. The protection measures for the Eastern Population which is degraded and under threat from salinity may be unsuccessful. While some proposed measure to fence might alleviate some of the threat to the Eastern Population water drawdown and salinity may seriously hinder the efforts to enhance the health of the population and may not be successful in the long term to protect that population.

4 In regards to the Western Population the proponent and the EPA have based their recommendation on the previous successful revegetation of Atriplex on the pit area (trial pit from the 1980 s when the site was operated by Western Mining Corporation). They have not considered that the pit remediation from previous exploration mining in the 1980 s did not involve the burial of tailings laden with chemicals and radionuclides. The proposed pit remediation will be significantly different to the previous pit remediation. This could seriously affect the ability to restore the natural soil profile, the chemical make up of the soils and seriously reduce the ability to revegetate the pit. It does not appear that the proponent or the EPA have considered the year, recovery of groundwater which could have a debilitating impact on the Atriplex translocation back into the pit area. See the section below on groundwater. We note that the Western Australia Museum lodged a submission, focused on subterranean fauna but with great relevance to the Western population of Atriplex. The made the comment that An extensive open pit will disrupt the hydrogeology and while the piezometric surface may recover in the medium term, it will be a much longer process to re- establish the fine grained salinity environment as groundwater flow paths are temporally very long. The hydrogeological impact of mining will take a long time to recover and may hinder attempts to revegetate, it is not clear to what extent the EPA has considered this risk to revegetation, or to what degree the proponent has factored this in to their management plan for Atriplex and other flora. With reference to Grevillea berryana, Acacia ayersiana, Eremophilia arcahnoides subsp. Arachnoides P3. Rhagodia sp. Yeelirrie station, Neurachne lanigera, Bossiaeae eremaea P3, Euryomyrtus inflata P3, Melaluca xerophila, Eucalyptus gypsophila there is a lack of detailed management plans for revegetation. Like many other significant environmental factors an actual flora and vegetation management plan is proposed to be developed after an environment assessment. For some of these species up to 99% of the population will be cleared and more detailed management plans should be developed and open to public review. The ability to re- establish these species will have broader implications for the ecology and diversity. There are no detailed plans at this stage for the revegetation for these individual species but rather over- arching processes that the EPA has recommended (in Appendix 6 to the EPA report 1572). These broad requirements around consultation with relevant Government agencies and the development of management plans relies on an assumption that these populations will be able to be restored yet there is no evidence or information provided to indicate that this is possible. Outcome sought: That the project be rejected on the grounds that it cannot meet important objectives under the EP Act precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity. That the Appeals Convenor and the Environment Minister consider the ongoing deferral of important environmental assessment aspects to other Government Agencies and how this deferral of responsibilities compromises the EPAs ability to properly assess project criteria with objectives under the EP Act.

5 Water balance and recharge The EPA decision: Has failed to consider climate change in making their recommendations on this aspect of the Yeelirrie proposal. The proponents proposed management options: Has based their assumptions on water recharge without consideration of climate change and have underestimated the short term and long term impacts on the groundwater, recovery rate and the impacts on downstream environs and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Our Concerns: In response to submissions Section 6 point 6. the Department of the Environment raised concerns about water balance and recharge rates and challenge Cameco s assumptions and lack of consideration for change to the climate and rainfall. Cameco s response refers back to Appendix H and section 5.1 in the PER. We went to review this section of the Appendix H2 only to find in Appendix H2 there is no section and there is no section 5.1. We submit to you that the EPA and the proponent has not demonstrated adequate consideration of this environmental aspect and the full extent of the impact of water consumption from the project. There should be consideration given to changes in rainfall due to climate change, changes in recharge rates to the aquifer and overall impact from water consumption and drawdown and the recovery time for the ground water and the hydrogeology of the area. This will have an impact over a long period of time on the aquifer and on the subterranean ecology and ground water dependent species. The EPA could not have considered this environmental aspect as supporting evidence and information has not been provided by Cameco to the EPA for consideration. We note the Department of the Environment raised this concern. In reviewing the EPA report 1574 section on water 3.5 Hydrological Processes and 3.6 Inland Waters Environmental Quality there is no indication that the EPA has considered the water balance of the project, they have not demonstrated any consideration of changes to climate, changes to the recharge rate and the overall impact this would have on replenishing aquifers and restoring water for groundwater dependent ecosystems. We note that the EPA has considered a year period for water levels to recover and has made the assessment that the slow recovery of water levels would not support the recovery of subterranean fauna. This same consideration of a slow recovery of water has not extended to other groundwater dependent species. Outcome sought: That the project be rejected on the grounds that there was a failure to consider the full range of risks to groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems. That the proponent and the EPA have as a result underestimated the impacts to groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems and that the project could pose unacceptable risks to groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems and downstream environs.

6 That the project be rejected on the grounds that the project cannot meet important objectives under the EP Act precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity. That the Appeals Convenor and the Environment Minister consider the ongoing deferral of important environmental assessment aspects to other Government Agencies and how this deferral of responsibilities compromises the EPAs ability to properly assess project criteria with objectives under the EP Act. For specific and details concerns on impacts to surface and ground water flows and quality please see Attachment 1 CCWA joint submission Yeelirrie PER. Impacts on water quality from contamination Despite the numerous pieces of legislation administered by the DoW, the agency does not have regulatory jurisdiction covering water quality in aquifers. The DoW does not apply water quality standards or criteria to groundwater held in aquifers and do not undertake any testing of water quality in aquifers. Consequently, the agency does not provide any guarantees of water quality to licensed water users or Traditional Owners, and it is the responsibility of license users to conduct water quality testing. Given this lack of regulatory jurisdiction over water quality, the DoW have not (and should not be expected to have) fully assessed the risks of groundwater contamination associated with this mining proposal in their advice to the EPA. The EPA appears to have relied solely on the advice from DoW in assessing the risks of groundwater contamination, and relied on the regulatory powers of the DoW and / or DMP in managing those risks. To the extent that the EPA and / or DoW are relying on the DMP to protect water quality from contamination by mine tailings, there are no outcome- based standards relating to water quality that are enforced for mining operations under the DMP s regulatory framework. The most protection that the DMP regulations provide is that contamination must be minimized to as low as reasonably practicable. This is not an outcome that can be independently measured and bears no relationship to the protection of the environment or public health. It should therefore not be relied upon by the EPA as a sufficient measure for the protection of this environmental factor. We note that this year the Western Desert Kidney Project 1 has released research identifying water quality as a serious public health issue in the Goldfields region. The research identifies that nitrates and uranium levels in drinking water are causing renal damage in both the Indigenous and Non Indigenous population. 2 Further research is underway, but other research in the USA also identifies the combination of nitrates and uranium in water pose an additional risk. It is believed nitrates mobilise uranium in water and together form uranyl nitrate which causes renal failure. Aspects of the proponents PER, particularly around groundwater and dust management, do not adequately address the potential pathways for uranium to enter drinking water and water quality WA Parliament Hansard Wednesday 29 th June a.pdf

7 Equally the DoW and EPA have failed to properly assess the risk to water quality or consider the potential impacts on public health. The possible conditions the EPA has listed for the Minister are totally insufficient in providing for the protection of water resources from contamination by the mine s operations and the potential impacts to public health are significant. That the project be rejected on the grounds that the project cannot meet important objectives under the EP Act Section 4A precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity. Air quality The EPA decision: The EPA Objective on air quality if to maintain air quality for the protection of the environment, human health and amenity and to minimise atmospheric gases through the application of best practice. Section 8. point 5 the proponent writes in reference to absent air quality The Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) prepared by the Office of the EPA did not require Cameco to assess the impacts of heavy metals as part of the PER. We note in the EPA report 1574 and in Appendix 6 the EPA has not considered Air Quality as a Key environmental factor and made no recommendations relating to air quality. Through the PER process we raised a number of concerns that have not been addressed in the EPA in report 1574, these two core air quality risk areas related to the stockpiling of ore and the scale of mining. The proponents proposed management options: The proponent has suggested that they will water the roads and other dust risk features periodically, the stockpiles continuously with water and dust suppressants. In these management options the proponent has considered a narrow range of wind speeds and conditions. Particularly during summer months with high rates of evaporation and high variability of wind speeds and potential for dust storms the proponent s management options have underestimated the risks and over- estimated their ability to manage dust. Our Concerns: The proponent intends to stockpile various grades of ore (containing radioactive materials and heavy metals) above surface for periods between 32 and 144 months (depending on the ore grades). In response to submissions on this issue the proponent refers back to the PER Appendix L1 Section 5.3 which outlines the various mine features which are sources of dust and management of those features. Eg. continuous watering or sealant product. There is however a lack of consideration of the capacity of the watering system or sealant product to control dust in unexpected conditions like in a dust storm. Much like our concerns with stockpiling, we have concerns that the management of dust from the pit may not be sufficient in the event of a dust storm. There is no clear discussion or consideration of management of dust in worst case conditions. In a number of areas where there is uncertainty the proponent refers to a future dust management plan that will consider these risks. If during the development of this final management plan it is discovered that there is no way to adequately control dust from stockpiles or from the mined out pit during a dust storm and this aspect of the project poses and unacceptable health risk to

8 workers, neighbouring pastoralists and cattle it could be too late. Again this is a failure to properly apply the precautionary principle and is based on information and management plans that are not yet finalised. Outcome sought: That the project be rejected on the grounds that there was a failure to consider the full range of dust management strategies and merits of those strategies to manage dust pollution and risks to public health. That the proponent and the EPA have as a result underestimated the risks of dust pollution and overestimated the proponent s ability to manage this risk. That the project be rejected on the grounds that the project cannot meet important objectives under the EP Act including the precautionary principle. That the Appeals Convenor and the Environment Minister consider the ongoing deferral of important environmental assessment aspects to other Government Agencies and how this deferral of responsibilities compromises the EPAs ability to properly assess project criteria with objectives under the EP Act. Existing regulatory framework is inadequate Mine Closure The Objective of the State s Mine Closure Guidelines is to ensure that for every mine in Western Australia a planning process is in place so that a mine can be closed, decommissioned and rehabilitated in an ecologically sustainable manner, consistent with agreed post- mining outcomes and land uses, and without unacceptable liability to the State. 3 No uranium mine in Australia has been successfully rehabilitated to the point where radiation at the site is at typical background levels or, no higher than pre- mining levels 4. Indeed, no uranium mine or mill site has been satisfactorily remediated on a permanent basis anywhere in the world 5. In light of this, any proponent wishing to operate a uranium mine clearly faces a substantial hurdle in demonstrating that it will remediate the mine site to an acceptable standard or meet the objectives of the States Mine Closure Guidelines. Cameco has not come close to demonstrating that it will meet such a standard. The Draft Mine Closure Management Plan presented in the PER was a draft. It is clear the EPA has ignored its own guidelines in assessing this aspect of the proposal. In the early stages of a mining project, it may be acceptable for provisional or proposed post- mining land use(s) to be identified, provided that there has been adequate consultation with the key stakeholders and that there is a clear process and timeline to further identify or refine the agreed post- mining land use(s), as part of the stakeholder consultation process. 4.9 Guideline for Preparing Mine Closure Plans 6. 3 DMP & EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans 4 Mudd, G. M. &Diesendorf, M., 2010, Uranium Mining, Nuclear Power and Sustainability Rhetoric versus Reality. In Sustainable Mining 2010 Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, Australia, August 2010, pp Spitz, K &Trudinger, J, 2008, Mining and the Environment: from Ore to Metal, CRC Press, December 2008, p Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans June 2011, DMP and EPA pg for- preparing- mine- closure- plans pdf

9 Uranium Mining We submit that there are major problems with the current regulatory framework for uranium mining, mining generally and tailings management, as identified by recent independent reviews. We submit therefore that a decision should not be made as to Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) s 44(2a). Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) s 44(2a) 7. In November 2008, the Liberal- National Government lifted an eight- year ban on uranium mining in Western Australia. 8 In May 2010, the then Minister for Mines and Petroleum, the Hon. Norman Moore, stated that best practice regulation will govern any future uranium mining. 9 However, a review of uranium mining regulation in Western Australia conducted in April 2012 by the Uranium Advisory Group stated that [a]at present, the overwhelming conclusion of the review is that the current framework, albeit robust and subject to regular updating with national guidelines does not fully deliver World Best Practice. 10 The Uranium Advisory Group (UAG) identified a number of areas where the existing regulatory framework was inadequate, including the uneven adherence to risk- based assessments, the lack of legislative and policy support for open publication of regulatory compliance data, and the lack of the required quality management systems in some agencies. 11 Clearly, if the Minister were now to decide that the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine be implemented, the government would be reneging on its promise that best practice regulation would govern any future uranium mining. The UAG is not the only source of criticism of the existing regulatory framework for uranium mining. As discussed in the Joint Submission, Nick Tsurikov, a consultant at Calytrix Consulting in a 2009 report entitled Uranium Exploration: Safety, Environmental, Social and Regulatory Considerations, set out a number of key issues regarding radiation management and standards in Western Australia, including: inadequacies in radiation management plans approved prior to 2008; incorrect assumptions and false values in relation to radiation management regulations; inconsistency between regulations on dose limits in guidelines and regulations; uncertainties regarding applicable regulations for the transport of uranium core samples and on limitations of uranium concentration in materials being transported; the need to establish an effective system of inspections of uranium exploration sites and uranium mines; a skills shortage of radiation safety officers and insufficient accredited training programs to address this; 7 Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) s44(2a) 8 Premier of Western Australia; Minister for State Development, 17 November 2008, 9 Minister for Mines and Petroleum, 20 May 2012, State Budget : World s best practice will rule uranium sector [Media statement], retrieved from anium&admin=barnett&minister=moore 10 Uranium Advisory Group, April 2012, Independent Review of Uranium Mining Regulation, retrieved from pmd_v2.pdf, p. vii. 11 Ibid.

10 contradictions in radiological rehabilitation requirements. In addition to these criticisms of the regulation of uranium mining in Western Australia specifically, there have been criticisms of the uranium mining industry across the country. A 2003 Senate inquiry described the uranium mining industry as characterised by a pattern of underperformance and non- compliance and concluded changes were necessary in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage. 12 Mining in Western Australia Not only is the regulatory framework with regard to uranium mining inadequate, we submit that the regulatory regime for mining in Western Australia is also seriously lacking. For instance in a review of the State s regulatory regime for mining in Western Australia 13, the Western Australian Auditor General identified a number of key areas where the government agencies that regulate the mining industry are overwhelmed and are failing to adequately monitor and assess mining compliance and environmental performance. Some key areas of concern that have been identified by the Auditor General include: DMP's planning and management of its inspections did not define the frequency of inspections needed to assure compliance with conditions; did not include risk assessment to select sites; did not have clear inspections guidelines or criteria to ensure consistency with inspections, and did not have clear controls to ensure inspection reports are consistent with authorised enforcement action. 14 Environmental enforcement has weaknesses: the enforcement policy relies on voluntary compliance and staff are advised to apply the lowest level of enforcement action that will achieve compliance, placing too much reliance on staff judgment this results in inconsistent and inappropriate action 15. One of our greatest concerns with uranium mining is the management of tailings. The regulation of tailings in WA is lacking and has increased our level of concern about the safety and management of uranium mine tailings both during the operation of a mine and post closure. The Guidelines on the Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage (Tailings Guidelines) 16 date back to CCWA has met with the DMP on two separate occasions in 2012 to discuss the UAG and the outcomes of their investigation into WA uranium regulations. In those meeting it was acknowledged that there are deficiencies in the Tailings Guidelines, which are also referred to in the UAG report. 17 At the time the UAG 12 Inquiry into Environmental Regulation of Uranium Mining (2003). Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Reference Committee (ECTIA). 13 Western Australian Auditor General, 'Ensuring Compliance with Conditions on Mining', Report 8, September 2011, 14 Ibid, pp Ibid, pp Department of Minerals and Energy, Guidelines on the Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage, May 1999, 17 Uranium Advisory Group, April 2012, Independent Review of Uranium Mining Regulation, retrieved from pmd_v2.pdf p.61

11 report commented that the DMP was upgrading the Tailings Guidelines but the draft document they were privy to suggests that the changes are still lacking protocols for dealing with this specific type of wastes. Tailings guidelines for WA have since been updated but without a single mention of uranium or radioactive mine waste tailings. 18 The updated 2013 Code of Practice for Tailings storage facilities in Western Australia 19 makes no differentiation between radioactive tailings or other types of tailings. This is part of a deliberate attempt by the Government to normalise uranium. As a result of this political attempt to make uranium appear as safe and normal as any other mineral has reduced the ability of Government agencies to develop robust regulations for the management of radioactive materials like tailings. The 2013 Code of Practice does not describe uranium mine tailings at all but includes radioactive pollution, materials or NORM as opposed to waste in a risk matrix. We note again that in ARPANSA guidelines 20 uranium mine tailings are classified as radioactive waste and we note that radioactive waste poses a unique level of long term and severe environmental risk. Specific guidelines on Managing Radioactive Waste 21 produced by the DMP, include a section on tailings management. This simply offers general advice like Without systematic tailings deposition and careful water management, the rehabilitation could be very costly, and be required at a time when cash flow is limited or non- existent. Much of this challenge can be overcome by adequate planning, associated with good tailings management and the use of sound technical approaches early in the life of the facility 22. Rather than any guidelines on what good or effective tailings management looks like, positive examples of tailings management or clear expectations on rehabilitation and long term management, these guidelines refer back to the 1999 Tailings Guidelines 23 `Guidelines on the Development of an Operation Manual for Tailings Storage' 24. The UAG report suggests other areas that must be addressed with regard to tailings guidelines. We submit that this is another example of existing regulations that are deficient, out- dated and do not meet world s best practice. Adding to our grounds of appeal that the EPA has irresponsibly deferred assessment to the DMP aspects of the uranium mine proposal with significant environmental risk. Outcome Sought: That the project be rejected on the grounds that the Governments framework for assessing and regulating uranium mining, ensuring mine closure and ensuring compliance does not meet this Governments commitments to deliver World s Best Practice regulations for uranium mining and so poses an unacceptable threat to the environment. 18 Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2013, Tailings storage, facilities in Western Australia code of practice: Resources Safety and Environment Divisions, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Western Australia Code of Practice for Tailings storage facilities in Western Australia 20 ARPANSA Code of Practice 2005, Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing 21 WA Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2013, Management of Radioactive Waste pg _Management_of_radioactive_waste.pdf 22 Ibid 23 WA Department of Mines and Petroleum Management of Radioactive Waste- pg _Management_of_radioactive_waste.pdf 24 Department of Minerals and Energy. Guideline on the Safe Design and Operating Standards for Tailings Storage. ailingsstorage.pdf

12 The Broader Nuclear Industry There are good policy reasons for the proposal to be rejected, such as high- level nuclear waste, nuclear accidents and weapons proliferation. The proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine raises not only local environmental issues, but also has much broader issues such as the global implications of uranium export, high- level nuclear waste, nuclear accidents and weapons proliferation. We submit that these issues ought to be taken into account when determining whether the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine should be implemented and indeed are good policy reasons for the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine not to be implemented. Uranium exported from Yeelirrie will at best end up as high- level nuclear waste. At worst it will end up as fissile (explosive) material used in nuclear weapons. There is also the potential for uranium exported by Cameco to be implicated in a nuclear disaster such as the continuing crisis at the Fukushima Dai- ichi nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan. No country has a repository for high- level nuclear waste. With regard to safeguards against weapons proliferation, the recently- retired Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr Mohamed El Baradei, has stated that the IAEA s basic inspection rights are fairly limited, that the safeguards regime suffers from vulnerabilities and clearly needs reinforcement, and that the safeguards system runs on a shoestring budget 25. We submit that Cameco should be required to provide details of any discussion around uranium sales to overseas countries so that the broader implications of the Yeelirrie Uranium Mine can be assessed. For instance, are the potential customers located in nuclear weapons states? Are they in states that are blocking the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cut- Off Treaty? Are they in undemocratic, secretive or repressive states? Are they in states that have not signed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty? Outcome Sought: If the proponent were to resubmit the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine that it should be reassessed by way of a public inquiry so that these important downstream security and safety issues can be properly addressed. Proponents Record In the Joint Submission provided to the EPA we submitted a referenced table of the proponents past performance at other mines internationally 26. This report details numerous incidents of accidents at mine sites from water inflow and pit collapse to radiation incidents, transport accidents, license breaches, failures to report and silencing community opposition. But most alarming in the current context is that 25 Statements from Dr El Baradei posted at S_UPDATES_2016.pdf?

13 Cameco has been taken to court by the Canadian Revenue Agency for tax avoidance. It is alleged that Cameco has dodged tax payments of up to $800 million 27. We expect Cameco will be in court in late 2016 facing charges of tax avoidance. Given the huge reliance on information provided by the proponent we would expect that proper due diligence would be applied by the EPA to ensure that the proponent, who has many operating mines overseas but no operating mines in Australia, operates to a high standard of environmental management and has a high standard of corporate social responsibility. We don t believe that the EPA has considered the past performance of the company and the many failures to protect the environment and behave responsibly. Outcome Sought: If the proponent were to resubmit the proposed Yeelirrie Uranium Mine that it should be reassessed by way of a public inquiry so that consideration could be given to the proponent s track record. Concluding Comments While we are pleased with the outcome of the EPA decision, the decision itself has been lacking in a number of key areas. The Conservation Council is continually disappointed with the PER processes which allows the deferral of key environmental assessment to other agencies, we question the legitimacy of this process and the legality of this process. There are a number of environmental aspects of the project that we raised through the PER process that were dismissed by the proponent and the EPA without adequate consideration and in some cases, we believe, without any consideration. The lack of consideration for Aboriginal heritage values or the protection of significant cultural features at Yeelirrie and without clear evidence of consultation and a constructive process of negotiation with Traditional Owners is a deep concern and is deeply disappointing. We are conscious that the proponent is likely to lodge an appeal on the EPA s recommendation regarding the protection of subterranean fauna. In the interest of transparency and procedural fairness we request that any appeal lodged by the proponent should be made publicly available, or at least available to other appellants, or those who lodged submissions to the EPA in regards to subterranean fauna. In regards to subterranean fauna we sincerely hope that the Office of the Appeals Convenor and the Minister uphold the EPA decision which is based on the best available science and evidence and embodies the object and principles of the EP Act 1986 Section 4A. Mia Pepper Nuclear Free Campaigner Conservation Council WA 27 National Observer April 15 th 2016 Did this company engineer the largest tax dodge in Canadian history? company- engineer- largest- tax- dodge- canadian- history