Submission September Office of the Environmental Protection Authority. Contact Kane Moyle Manager Environment & Land Access

Transcription

1 Submission September 2014 Review of EPA Environmental Assessment Guidelines 8 (Environmental Factors and Objectives) and 9 (Application of a Significance Framework in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process) Office of the Environmental Protection Authority Contact Kane Moyle Manager Environment & Land Access k.moyle@cmewa.com The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia Level 10, 2 Mill Street, Perth, Western Australia Locked Bag N984, Perth WA 6844 p f e chamber@cmewa.com w cmewa.com

2 Contents About CME... 3 Recommendations... 3 Context... 4 Delineation between factors... 4 Cumulative Impacts... 5 Setting the level of assessment... 5 Application of graphs in referral documentation... 6 Conclusion... 6 Page 2 of 6

3 About CME The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME) is the peak resources sector representative body in Western Australia funded by its member companies, which generate 95 per cent of the value of all mineral and energy production and employ 80 per cent of the resources sector workforce in the state. The Western Australian resources sector is diverse and complex, covering exploration, processing, downstream value adding and refining of over 50 different types of mineral and energy resources. In 2013, the value of Western Australia s mineral and petroleum production was $113.8 billion, accounting for 91 per cent of the state s total merchandise exports and thus representing the majority of Western Australia s 43 per cent contribution to Australian merchandise exports. Furthermore, royalty payments to the State Government are forecast to total $6.1 billion in Recommendations o CME considers overlap of the environmental factors outlined in EAG 8 should be minimised especially in relation to the Water theme. o CME considers the collaborative development of clear and transparent guidance around cumulative impact assessments should be an immediate priority. o Following the development of cumulative impact guidance, CME recommend Cumulative Impacts to be added to the environmental factors in EAG 8. o CME recommend the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) engage with industry on the application of Assessment Proponent Information (API) - Category B to ensure the requirements of both EPA and industry are maintained. o CME recommend the EPA set the minimum required information for referral documentation and for the presentation of graphs showing the significance of impacts in referrals to be left as a choice for the proponent (i.e. not mandated by the EPA). Page 3 of 6

4 Context CME welcomes the opportunity to review and provide comment on Environmental Assessment Guidelines 8 - Environmental Factors and Objectives (EAG 8) and Environmental Assessment Guidelines 9 - Application of a Significance Framework in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EAG 9). Environmental assessment guidelines were developed and issued by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to provide advice to proponents and the public generally on the procedures and minimum environmental requirements expected to be met during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The purpose of EAG 8 is to: 1. Communicate the EPA s environmental factors and associated environmental objectives; 2. Describe the EPA s framework for environmental factors and objectives and how they link to EPA guidance; and 3. Outline the EPA s expectations for applying environmental factors, objectives and guidance through EIA. This guideline complements EAG 9 which describes how the EPA makes decisions, throughout the entire EIA process using a risk-based approach. The EPA committed to reviewing EAG 8 and EAG 9 after 12 months, specifically the use and experience of the guideline to identify any improvements that could be made. Overall, CME considers EAG 8 and EAG 9 provide a useful set of guidelines which assists proponents with the EIA process. The EAG s provide clarity and set out the framework for what will be assessed by the EPA and other regulatory agencies. It provides proponents (and regulators) with increased certainty in avoiding undesirable overlap, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) Part IV and Part V process. CME supports the continued application of EAG 8 and EAG 9, however, recommends the consideration of several matters outlined below. Delineation between factors A key issue identified with the implementation of EAG 8 is the environmental factor categories can be difficult to interpret in terms of their delineation/separation from other factors. For example, the environmental factors related specifically to the Water theme (as shown in the environmental factors and objectives table in EAG 8), Hydrological Processes and Inland Waters Environmental Quality would have previously been divided based on a natural timescale similar to below: o Existing hydrological regime (surface water and groundwater) o Change to hydrological regime (surface water and groundwater) o Closure and rehabilitation With the EPA s division of environmental factors, these elements can have considerable overlap. Theoretically, the following items could fall under the environmental factor of Inland Waters Environmental Quality : o Operational surface water discharge quality / contamination o Operational groundwater quality / contamination o Operations non-mineral waste Page 4 of 6

5 o Operations mineral waste o Closure mineral waste o Closure pit lakes Due to this overlap, the EAG 8 graph can appear to display more environmental factors for a project than is actually the case potentially thereby increasing the perceived significance of a project due to a large number of environmental factors. Further, this overlap relates to referrals and Public Environmental Review (PER) / Assessment Proponent Information (API) documents. The division of environmental factors in accordance with EAG 8 makes the PER and API more difficult and complex to prepare in terms of addressing aspects of surface water and groundwater (which in turn can also potentially overlap with vegetation and fauna sections). Feedback received indicates these EIA documents are seen as being somewhat disjointed and confusing to read by members of the public and other stakeholders. CME considers overlap of the environmental factors outlined in EAG 8 should be minimised especially in relation to the Water theme. Cumulative Impacts The EPA has in recent times placed an increased emphasis on cumulative impacts, including in the 2012/13 EPA Annual Report. The report specifically highlighted the cumulative impact of clearing in the Pilbara from mining development and an uncertainty around successful rehabilitation in this region. The EPA has since released Strategic Advice to the Minister for Environment surrounding cumulative environmental impacts of development in the Pilbara region. CME in concerned methodologies for conducting cumulative impact assessments are not particularly well understood, described or standardised. Consideration of cumulative impacts can vary considerably based on a projects location and environmental factors. The recently released whole-of-government environmental offsets guideline also identified a need for further guidance on the issue of cumulative impacts and how the EPA considers it in the context of resource development approvals. CME has provided the Department of Water with industry-endorsed guiding principles for the department s consideration in the development of approaches to manage the cumulative impacts of water use. CME reiterates the importance of a whole-of-government approach, noting the responsibility for the drivers of cumulative impacts is currently shared across several agencies. CME considers the collaborative development of clear and transparent guidance around cumulative impact assessments should be an immediate priority. Following the development of this guidance, CME recommend for Cumulative Impacts to be added to the EPA s environmental factors and objectives in EAG 8 and guidance material to be made available on the EPA s website. Setting the level of assessment Section of the Administrative Procedures states In some instances it is possible for the EPA to make a judgement that the proposal is fundamentally and fatally flawed. At this stage, the EPA will form the view that the proposal is environmentally unacceptable. It is in these circumstances, the EPA can apply the API - Category B (environmentally unacceptable) level of assessment (as shown in EAG 9). This decision is made at the same point as the EPA decides to assess the proposal. Page 5 of 6

6 CME acknowledges clear advice to proponents at this early stage of the referral process can be beneficial and lowers the financial risks associate with submitting a referral. However, CME is concerned the application of API - Category B level of assessment is ultimately a prejudgement of the outcome of assessment. It also doesn t allow proponents to request a full assessment (PER) following the EPA s decision to apply API Category B. CME proposes the following two options for addressing the abovementioned issues: o EPA to increase the emphasis on pre-referral discussions step shown in Figure 2 of the Administrative Procedures. At this early stage of the process, a feedback loop could be introduced to clearly show project refinements or further studies that can be conducted to reduce the perceived significance of the environmental impacts. o Proponents to be given the right to request a full assessment (PER) of their project if the EPA are considering the application of API Category B level of assessment. In this scenario, proponents would be able to make the request for a full assessment prior to the EPA s decision to apply API Category B or any time after (i.e. proponents can request for a full assessment several years after the decision has been made). CME recommend the EPA engage with industry on the application of API - Category B to ensure the requirements of both EPA and industry are maintained. Application of graphs in referral documentation CME is aware proponents are encouraged to present graphs in referral documentation showing significance of impacts and how the significance can be realistically quantified (e.g. Figure 9 in EAG 9 shows the 3 key factors at different levels of significance). Some proponents have been commended by the OEPA for presenting such graphs in referral documentation. CME considers the application of such graphs provides a valid conceptual representation, it does however, add complexity. Statements highlighting the relevance of environmental factors are preferred and that impacts can be reduced through mitigation of actions or specific conditions remain the most important input to the referral documentation. CME recommend the EPA set the minimum required information for referral documentation and for the presentation of graphs showing the significance of impacts in referrals to be left as a choice for the proponent (i.e. not mandated by the EPA). Conclusion CME welcomes the opportunity to review and provide comment on the EAG 8 and EAG 9. We look forward to working with the EPA on delivering transparent environmental assessment guidelines. If you have any further queries regarding the above matters, please contact Kane Moyle, Manager Environment & Land Access on (08) or k.moyle@cmewa.com. Authorised by Position Date Signed Nicole Roocke Deputy Chief Executive 19 September 2014 Document reference ENV-Review of EAG 8&9 CME Submission-v0.4 Page 6 of 6