REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENTsearch.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au/appeals/documents/062-064-10_A… · Collie Urea Project, Shire of Collie & Port of Bunbury Appeals Convenor’s

Office of the Appeals Convenor Environmental Protection Act 1986

REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

APPEALS AGAINST THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF T HE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY (REPORT 1358)

COLLIE UREA PROJECT SHOTTS INDUSTRIAL PARK, SHIRE O F COLLIE AND PORT OF BUNBURY

Proponent:

Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd

Appeal numbers 062 – 064 of 2010

July 2010

Collie Urea Project, Shire of Collie & Port of Bunbury Appeals Convenor’s Report to the Minister for Environment, July 2010

Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd Page i.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ii

Recommendations ................................................................................................................ ii

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1

3. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1

4. OVERVIEW OF APPEAL PROCESS........................................................................... 6

5. GROUNDS OF APPEAL.............................................................................................. 7

5.1. APPEAL GROUND 1: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS........................................... 7

5.2. APPEAL GROUND 2: AIR QUALITY ........................................................................ 14

5.3. APPEAL GROUND 3: FAUNA HABITAT .................................................................. 16

5.4. APPEAL GROUND 4: WATER SUPPLY................................................................... 23

6. COLLIE BASIN ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY........................................................... 24

7. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 25

References: ......................................................................................................................... 26

Figures: Figure 1 Shotts Industrial Park Figure 2 Collie Urea Plant location plan Figure 3 Collie Urea Plant layout Figure 4 Pipeline and conveyor alignments Figure 5 Proposed clearing and remnant vegetation area


Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd Page ii.

Executive Summary This report addresses appeals received in objection to the contents of, and recommendations in, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) report in relation to Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Perdaman) proposed Collie Urea Plant in the Shotts Industrial Park, and transport of the urea to Bunbury Port. The appeals were submitted by WWF-Australia (WWF), the Conservation Council of Western Australia (the Conservation Council) and Birds Australia. The grounds of appeal relate to the following:

1. Greenhouse gas emissions;

2. Air quality;

3. Fauna habitat; and

4. Water supply. In assessing these appeals, a number of existing, proposed and future projects in the Collie region were considered, including the proposals for Muja A and B and Bluewaters Power Stations, in relation to providing a strategic and consistent approach to address greenhouse gas and air quality emissions, black cockatoo habitat, and water supply within the context of the individual proposal. Recommendations Following consideration of the information provided during the appeals process, it is recommended the appeals be allowed to the extent that:

Greenhouse gas emissions The conditions be amended to achieve the following outcomes:

1. The proponent be required to develop and implement a Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, which reflects the EPA’s objective of minimising greenhouse gas emissions and consideration of advances in technology.

2. The Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program should require the proponent to:

a. demonstrate that maximising energy efficiency and opportunities for future energy recovery have been given due consideration;

b. ensure the greenhouse gas intensity is equivalent to or better than benchmarked best practice for equivalent plants; and

c. ensure that the plant achieves continuous improvement in net greenhouse gas emissions through the periodic review and adoption of advances in technology and process management, including consideration of carbon capture and storage.

3. The Program to be reviewed annually, and audited by an independent specialist every two years, with reports provided to the EPA and made available to the public.

Consistent with the EPA’s recommended condition 8-5, the Program should have effect until such time as the EPA determines that an emissions trading scheme is in place which applies to the proposal.


Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd Page iii.

Air quality The conditions be amended to include a requirement for the proponent to ensure emissions do not, in combination with other emitters in the Collie region, cause pollution, environmental harm or otherwise unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare or amenity of persons outside the proposal site. It is further recommended that emissions for air pollutants be controlled to levels reflecting best practice, and that the detailed conditions meeting the EPA’s objective is determined by the DEC through conditions applying to works approvals and licences under Part V of the EP Act. Fauna habitat In relation to fauna habitat, it is recommended that condition 5 be amended to require the proponent to ensure:

� mitigation of the potential impacts to nesting and foraging habitat including through restoring vegetation offsite; and

� a fauna specialist is present prior to clearing to identify fauna that is present and to arrange relocation consistent with approval from the DEC.

It is also recommended that the monitoring requirement be clarified, with a monitoring program to be developed in consultation with the DEC. These changes are consistent with conditions applied to clearing proposals by the DEC under Part V of the EP Act.

It is otherwise recommended that the appeals be dismissed. The precise wording of the conditions associated with the above amendments are recommended to be considered through consultation with relevant decision making authorities under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.


Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd Page 1.

1. INTRODUCTION This report relates to appeals lodged in objection to the contents of, and recommendations in, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) report in relation to the proposal by Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Perdaman) for the Collie Urea Plant in the proposed Shotts Industrial Park, and transport of the urea to Bunbury Port. The appeals were lodged by the following parties:

� WWF-Australia (WWF);

� Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc. (the Conservation Council); and

� Birds Australia. This document is the Appeals Convenor’s formal report to the Minister for Environment under section 109(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (the EP Act). 2. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The proposal by Perdaman is to establish a urea production plant in the proposed Shotts Industrial Park, 7.5 kilometres (km) east of Collie (see Figure 1 and 2). The plant would process coal mined from the Griffin coal mine north of the Shotts Industrial Park into urea which would be transported by rail to Bunbury Port, 55 km to the west, for export. The project includes:

� the urea production plant (see Figure 3);

� infrastructure corridors including approximately:

o 8.5 km coal conveyor linking the plant and coal mine;

o 7 km water supply pipeline linking with the Water Corporation’s pipeline from Wellington Dam; and

o 5 km wastewater pipeline to Verve Energy’s Collie Power Station (see Figure 4);

� a rail spur connected to the existing rail network; and

� a storage shed and shiploading facilities at Berth 5, Bunbury Port. 3. BACKGROUND Collie Urea Project The level of assessment for the proposed Collie Urea Project was set as Public Environmental Review on 14 April 2009. The Public Environmental Review was released from 28 September to 24 November 2009. The proponent submitted a response to the issues raised during the public review on 18 December 2009. On 10 May 2010, the EPA released its report and recommendations in respect to the proposal (Report 1358). The key environmental factors assessed by the EPA were vegetation and fauna habitat, water supply, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise emissions, and wastewater disposal. The EPA concluded that it is unlikely that the proposal would compromise its objectives, provided there is satisfactory implementation by the proponent of the recommended conditions.



Figure 1: Shotts Industrial Park location plan (Source: Figure 2, GHD September 2009)



Figure 2: Collie Urea Plant location plan (Source: GHD, Perdaman, July 2009b)



Figure 3: Collie Urea Plant layout (Source: Figure 6, GHD, September 2009)



Figure 4: Pipeline and conveyor alignments (Source: Figure 1, GHD December 2009)



On 31 August 2009, the Collie Urea Project was referred (referral 2009/5067) under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EBPC Act). The referral relates to the construction of the urea production plant and supporting infrastructure, and identified that the land assembly and clearing of the Shotts Industrial Park is the subject of a separate EPBC referral, submitted by the Western Australian Land Corporation (LandCorp). The purpose of the referral for the Collie Urea Project is to address the residual potential impacts of the construction and operation of the plant and associated infrastructure, including the water supply pipeline, wastewater pipeline, and coal conveyor (Perdaman August 2009). Shotts Industrial Park The EPA advised that on 10 March 2010 it determined not to assess the Shire of Collie “Local Planning Scheme 5 – Amendment 1” to rezone land to facilitate the establishment of the Shotts Industrial Park. The proposed rezoning is from Rural and State Forest to Industrial (LandCorp 2009). The Shire of Collie advised that the Council approved the amendment, and it is currently being considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. It is noted that the EPA advice to the Shire of Collie (letter dated 25 March 2010) included that in assessing the scheme amendment there was insufficient information to assess the potential impacts of specific industrial proposals. As such, the EPA deferred the noise, ecological linkage, flora and fauna, and air quality factors to ensure that the EPA has an opportunity to assess future industrial proposals that may have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts, under Part IV of the EP Act. Further, the EPA Report 1358 stated that the Federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) is assessing the proposed site of the Shotts Industrial Park separately under the EPBC Act. 4. OVERVIEW OF APPEAL PROCESS Pursuant to section 106 of the EP Act, a report was obtained from the EPA on the matters raised in the appeals. In accordance with normal procedures, the proponent was also given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the third party appeals. Representatives of the Office of the Appeals Convenor conducted a site visit, and discussed the matters of concern with representatives of Perdaman, WWF, the Conservation Council, Birds Australia, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), the EPA and the Shire of Collie. Additional comments and advice was received from the DEC and the Department of Water (DOW). The environmental appeals process is a merits based process. Appeal rights in relation to EPA report and recommendations normally consider the environmental merits of the assessment by the EPA, based on objectives as set by the EPA as well as other environmental factors. The appeals process considers environmental significance, relevance of factors, additional information not considered by the EPA, technical errors and attainment of policy objectives. Where the development has been the subject of previous EPA assessments, those assessments and any subsequent Ministerial appeal decisions are also considered.



5. GROUNDS OF APPEAL The issues of concern and outcomes sought by the appellants are addressed under the following grounds of appeal:

1. Greenhouse gas emissions;

2. Air quality;

3. Fauna habitat; and

4. Water supply. Each of the above grounds of appeal are addressed in turn. 5.1. APPEAL GROUND 1: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.1.1. EPA recommendations In line with recent power station assessments, the EPA recommended conditions requiring the proponent to:

� report progress towards implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS);

� install CCS within five years of the EPA deeming the technology is economically and technically proven; and

� develop of a greenhouse gas abatement report. The EPA also proposed a condition which is a sunset arrangement should the recommended conditions be non-complementary to any future Commonwealth greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in force in Western Australia. 5.1.2. Appellant’s concerns By this ground of appeal, the Conservation Council raised a number of concerns in relation to the EPA’s report, which are summarised as follows:

1. lack of policy in respect to greenhouse gas emissions; and

2. uncertainties associated with the application of CCS technology. The Conservation Council is concerned that the EPA is not doing enough to fulfil the Western Australian contribution to the Commonwealth government’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 60% below 2000 levels by 2050. In addition, the Conservation Council noted that given other proposed high emissions developments in Western Australia, including very significant emission growth expected from liquefied natural gas developments, it considered that this project will make it much more difficult for Western Australia to contribute to Australia’s bipartisan national greenhouse emissions reduction target range of 5-25% reduction by 2020. Policy context The Conservation Council submitted that in the absence of a comprehensive energy or climate change policy in Western Australia, the Collie Urea proposal should either be rejected or remitted to the EPA for reconsideration once a policy on climate change has been developed. The Conservation Council recommended that the policy should be developed by the EPA.



In addition, the Conservation Council stated that there is no longer any policy justification for treating carbon pollution differently from other pollution sources in Western Australia given the following findings and decisions:

� the United States EPA has recently declared CO2 a ‘dangerous pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act;

� the draft Commonwealth Government legislation to reduce carbon emissions refers to ‘carbon pollution’; and

� numerous other legal proceedings in Australia and overseas have confirmed carbon emissions as a ‘pollutant’ under various legislation with similar definitions of pollution to the EP Act.

The Conservation Council submitted that in the absence of a national or state policy framework for climate change, the EPA was effectively making policy “on the run” with the implication that outcomes of this process will operate as a policy to guide future developments. Carbon capture and storage The Conservation Council submitted that CCS is an unproven technology that cannot be relied on for the Collie Urea proposal, and stated that the notion that CCS technology will be able to mitigate the predicted 3.4 Mtpa of CO2 is irresponsible and unacceptable. In particular, the Conservation Council considered recommended condition 8-2 to be problematic, and raised the following matters of contention:

� In the absence of CCS, the proponent does not intend to provide any direct offsets for greenhouse gas management.

� It is impossible to predict if and when this technology will be ‘economically and technically proven’. As such, the EPA is sanctioning a highly polluting facility with no certainty that the pollution will ever be mitigated.

� There is insufficient clarity as to the definition of ‘economically and technically proven’. In conjunction with the lack of definition of or policy regarding ‘CCS-ready’, this adds another layer of uncertainty and unlikelihood that the technology will ever be implemented.

� It is uncertain whether the Southern Perth Basin can sequester CO2, and it is noted that the predicted capacity of 3.2 Mtpa CO2 does not cover this project, let alone the additional developments proposed in the Collie area.

� Environmental impacts of CCS have not, and cannot, be adequately assessed but should be considered at the time of assessing the proposal. It is considered that the potential environmental impacts of CCS are significant, including the release of carbon dioxide which could pose a threat to the environment.

� It is unacceptable for the EPA to allow a development to proceed on the condition that specifies a particular technology on the assumption that it will be employed sometime in the future, when the environmental impacts of that technology are not known, and not able to be assessed.

� The condition requiring the retrofit of CCS technology places the EPA in breach of its own policy to set ‘outcomes-based’ conditions, and transfers an unacceptable liability to State Government for the subsequent environmental impacts of this technology which have not been assessed.

In light of the above, the Conservation Council recommended the responsibility of managing any residual risks from implementing conditions associated with specific technologies must be explicitly placed with the proponent. Further, the Conservation Council recommended that if CCS forms part of the conditions for the approval of the project then, a legal instrument must



accompany the approval that transfers all future environmental and economic liabilities for CCS to the proponent, and a full public assessment of the environmental impacts should be undertaken. The Conservation Council believed that if the recommended conditions are applied and this project goes ahead, then the State must commission, and make public legal and technical advice regarding the extent and potential cost of future liability, given that this amounts to a public subsidy of polluting industry. In addition, the Conservation Council stated that the EPA’s draft Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Policy requires proposals to implement ‘best-practice’ technology to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the Conservation Council sought that the proponent be required, from the time of commissioning, to reduce the proposal’s emissions to equivalent levels as CCS would achieve. 5.1.3. EPA response Policy context The EPA advised that the Federal Government previously announced that it is delaying the implementation of its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Nevertheless, when implemented, the EPA expressed the view that a carbon market of some form has the potential to be a significant policy tool for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by reflecting contemporary climate science and dealing with the cumulative environmental impact of carbon pollution. Although CCS for power stations and similar proposals is currently unproven technology, the EPA considered that it potentially offers the most viable method of managing greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA recognised that the outcomes of studies undertaken by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute and the Collie South West Hub Geo-sequestration Project, together with carbon pollution price signals emanating from the CPRS, will be the drivers for the development and implementation of CCS technology. This is reflected in recommended conditions 8-1 to 8-5 which require the proponent to periodically advise the EPA of progress made towards the implementation of CCS, and to retrofit CCS technology within five years of the EPA concluding that CCS is economically and technically proven. In view of the above, the EPA considered that the Conservation Council was not justified in claiming that the EPA has abrogated its responsibility to manage and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by failing to develop and apply a policy for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions that reflects contemporary climate science and deals with the cumulative environmental impact of carbon pollution. Carbon capture and storage The EPA has employed the definition of “carbon capture ready” provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2007. The EPA outlined that CCS is the collection and sequestration of carbon and that to reduce plant emissions, the ability to capture carbon dioxide is essential. There are a number of possibilities for storage, including within geological formations, as mineral carbonates, as biomass, or in deep ocean masses, each of which have various advantages and disadvantages. The EPA considered that the legal liability associated with the environmental impacts of CCS technology, particularly in regard to the possible release of large volumes of CO2 from a geo-sequestration site, is a complex policy issue which needs to be resolved by both the State and Federal Governments in consultation with proponents and other relevant stakeholders.



In light of this, the EPA advised that the Department of Mines and Petroleum is currently developing legislation which would enable CCS to occur and be regulated. A proposal for storage may also require an environmental impact assessment. Further, the EPA noted that the recommended condition to require CCS within five years of CCS becoming technically and commercially feasible does not absolve proponents from obtaining relevant approvals which may be necessary. The EPA supported the use of outcome-based conditions, rather than prescriptive conditions, where the intended outcome can be clearly defined and measured (Draft Assessment Guideline No. 4, page 3, December 2009). The EPA is of the opinion that condition 8-2 does require an environmental outcome, which is the capturing and sequestering of carbon dioxide. 5.1.4. Proponent’s response Perdaman considered that it is necessary to consider the entire life cycle when assessing the greenhouse gas contribution of the Collie Urea Project, because over the life of urea the actual CO2 balance is positive, with more CO2 sequestered than emitted. The two main points in the urea life cycle where CO2 is captured are during:

1. the manufacture of urea, where CO2 is reacted with ammonia to produce urea; and

2. application of urea in agriculture, where the resulting accelerated plant growth accelerates the rate of CO2 absorption in photosynthesis.

In addition, Perdaman considered that as the majority of urea produced at Collie will be exported, it becomes necessary to consider the CO2 balance from local source to overseas destination and end use, to arrive at correct conclusions regarding greenhouse impacts. Taking this into account, Perdaman concluded that urea manufacture at Collie can result in a net reduction of CO2. Further, Perdaman stated that CO2 produced during urea manufacture will be offset by more than an equivalent amount of CO2 being absorbed when the product is used in agriculture. Policy context Perdaman considered that whilst greenhouse gas emissions policy determination is a matter for the EPA, climate change related environmental policy must be developed and implemented globally. In response to the Conservation Council’s claim that the Collie Urea Plant will be a highly polluting facility, Perdaman stated that CO2 is not classified in Australia as a registered pollutant and rejected the suggestion that the plant is highly polluting. A ‘go it alone’ approach by the EPA and the DEC to policy measures on greenhouse gas emissions was not supported by Perdaman, as the greenhouse gas issue is of global nature. Also, Perdaman considered that the consequences of going-it-alone on regulation for the Western Australian economy would be severe but the benefits to the global environment negligible. Carbon capture and storage Perdaman stated that notwithstanding its conclusion that the project can result in a net reduction of CO2, the policy of Perdaman is that it will bio- or geo-sequester CO2 released during urea manufacture when the technology to do so is commercially available. Whilst the technology is not available, Perdaman advised it cannot achieve the Conservation Council’s suggestion that, from commissioning the plants emissions be reduced to levels equivalent to those CCS would achieve.



However, Perdaman acknowledged that the science of CCS is improving around the world, and identified that several global commercial projects have been operating for over 10 years (for example, Dakota-Weyburn 1.4 Mtpa and Snohvit 1 Mtpa). Regarding the Lower Lesueur Geosequestration Study, Perdaman provided the following details:

� the proponent is the Department of Minerals and Petroleum, with funding from State and Australian Governments, and Collie coal industries (including Perdaman);

� the study is at the prefeasibility stage and it is Perdaman’s understanding that the environmental impacts of the project will be assessed in due course if the study proceeds to feasibility stage;

� the study is not sufficiently advanced to assess the potential impacts now, and Perdaman accepted that each potential site requires detailed investigation to define suitable risk mitigation measures as part of the environmental impact assessment;

� the early results from the Lower Lesueur geosequestration study are encouraging;

� if the study proceeds to development stage, the intention is that a commercial operator will be appointed to own and operate the facilities, with risk and liability transferred from the Government to the commercial operator at that point; and

� the project will be scalable, and whilst the initial capacity target is 3.2 Mtpa, Perdaman understands that the facility will be capable of expansion if needed, and the likely capacity is currently considered to be 5-8 Mtpa.

Perdaman agreed with the Conservation Council that a standard definition for CCS ready is lacking and supported that such a definition be developed for Australia and globally. With this in mind, Perdaman advised $400 million is being pre-invested in CO2 purification and compression technology, to ensure that high purity concentrated CO2 will be ready for future sequestration opportunities. The Collie Urea Project will produce a concentrated (over 95% CO2), largely desulphurised CO2 at a modest pressure (above ambient). Also, Perdaman advised it is exploring alternative sequestration options such as bio-sequestration in algae production, and stated that the prospects are promising for the establishment of a downstream bio-sequestration industry at Collie. Perdaman are in discussions with biotechnology companies regarding the possible use of CO2 in algae processes for the manufacture of biofuels feedstocks. In addition, Perdaman advised it is investing in offsets through the planting of Jatropha trees on a wasteland site in India. The Jatropha tree is a non-food fast growing renewable long life oil-plant that is well suited to use in biodiesel manufacturing processes. Finally, Perdaman noted that other local opportunities are extending the successful geo-sequestration by mineralisation technology as successfully pioneered by Alcoa Alumina, where a high caustic waste is converted to a safe carbonate mineral using CO2. 5.1.5. Consideration The key issues of concern raised under this ground of appeal relate to:

� current and proposed national and state policy for managing greenhouse gas emissions, and related guidance;

� uncertainties of adopting and implementing CCS, including determining the economic and technical viability, identifying and committing to capture and storage facilities (that is, carbon capture ready), and environmental impact assessment associated with CCS; and

� ensuring best practice to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



In relation to greenhouse gas emissions, it is understood that the Western Australian Government supports national action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and is of the view that decisions on the design, implementation and timing of the regulation of greenhouse emissions are matters for the Commonwealth and the Australian Parliament. However, given the Commonwealth Government’s deferral of the CPRS, it is considered that there is merit in the intent of the EPA’s recommendation to ensure greenhouse gas emissions occurring prior to the commencement of a national scheme are considered at a State level. It is noted that the EPA considered it is unlikely that CCS will become technically and commercially viable in Western Australia in the near future. The EPA noted that the CCS technology is now technically feasible, but the full chain of CCS – capture, transport and storage of carbon dioxide – has yet to be demonstrated for the full capacity of a coal-fired power station in Australia. It noted that various demonstration projects and pilot plants currently demonstrate only part of the CCS chain. Therefore, the EPA advised that proponents do not consider CCS technology as commercially feasible. The EPA stated that given the potential total emissions for Western Australia is in the order of 133 Mtpa, the task of reducing Western Australia’s emissions to 28 Mtpa within four decades (that is, Western Australia’s contribution towards the Commonwealth’s goal to achieve a reduction of 60% from 2000 levels by 2050) becomes daunting, especially when the long operational life of relevant projects is considered. The EPA recognised the importance of a joint Government/Industry focus on developing real options for geosequestration of carbon dioxide in Western Australia, and in this regard, also recognised and encouraged the Commonwealth Government, Western Australian Government and Industry joint investment in the Collie South West Hub Geo-sequestration Project. Perdaman commissioned a greenhouse gas assessment and management plan, which outlines measures to minimise greenhouse gas emissions (GHD July 2009a) as a part of the Public Environmental Review for the Collie Urea Project. The management measures include:

� a carbon reduction strategy to further increase energy efficiencies and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions intensity; and

� a carbon offset strategy, to consider various options to enable reduction of CO2 emissions, once developed to commercial maturity, such as bio- and geo-sequestration, mineralisation, and renewable energy projects.

It is noted that the EPA assessment of this environmental factor in Report 1358, recognised that should the Lower Lesueur formation be found suitable, CO2 from the Collie Urea Project would be much more practical to store than CO2 from the surrounding power stations. Although CCS has been accepted by both the proponent and the EPA as the most likely method of managing the greenhouse gas emissions from industries, the information provided during the appeals investigation, and related proposals, outline significant uncertainties as to whether or not it will be a viable method for the Collie region. It is recognised by both the proponent and the EPA that extensive additional work is required to determine the viability of the Lower Lesueur Formation as a suitable geosequestration site. In addition, it is noted that environmental impact assessment of adopting and implementing CCS is not deemed achievable at this point by the EPA, due to current technical and regulatory uncertainties associated with the implementation of CCS technology. However, both the EPA and the proponent expect the environmental impact assessment would be considered once CCS is accepted technology.



In consideration of the environmental objectives identified by the EPA, and taking into account the information presented in the appeals, it is recommended that this ground of appeal be allowed to the extent that:






3. The Abatement Program be reviewed annually, and audited by an independent specialist every two years, with reports provided to the EPA and made available to the public.

Consistent with the EPA’s recommended condition 8-5, the Program should have effect until such time as the EPA determines that an emissions trading scheme is in place which applies to the proposal. Through these changes, the onus will be on the proponent to establish that the plant operates according to best management practices, and that net greenhouse gas emissions are assessed on a regular basis pending the implementation of a national emissions trading system. The conditions are recommended not to include a requirement for CCS to be implemented – rather, this is one of a number of options that can be considered based on best available information. It follows that the EPA’s recommendations in respect to the EPA assessing when CCS is viable should be deleted. The two yearly reviews by an independent specialist will provide a mechanism for the proponent’s performance against the Program to be the subject of public and EPA scrutiny. In relation to liability concerns raised by the Conservation Council, it is noted that other jurisdictions (notably Queensland, Victoria and the Commonwealth (in respect to Commonwealth waters)) have enacted carbon capture and storage legislation which (among other things) address liability for sequestered greenhouse gases. The precise wording of the Ministerial conditions is recommended to be determined through consultation with relevant decision making authorities under section 45 of the EP Act. Aside from the above changes, it is recommended the remaining components of the appeals be dismissed.



5.2. APPEAL GROUND 2: AIR QUALITY 5.2.1. Appellant’s concerns The Conservation Council noted that the EPA predicted air pollution in the Collie airshed to exceed recommended levels in the coming years. The Conservation Council raised concern regarding the EPA’s approval for this project’s air pollution, including dust, sulphur dioxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide, given the approval is based on the ability of Muja A and B air pollution measures being successful. The Conservation Council submitted that the EPA reconsider its recommendation on this environmental impact. 5.2.2. EPA response The EPA noted that the Muja A and B refurbishment is a separate proposal. The EPA advised that having been briefed by the DEC Air Quality Management Branch on the Collie airshed, it is aware of the need for Muja A and B to achieve effective air pollution control measures in order to achieve acceptable air emissions in the Collie airshed. The EPA addressed this in section 3.3 of Report 1358. The DEC advised the EPA that emissions from Muja A and B are the main contributor to predicted exceedances within the Collie airshed, and the Collie Urea Plant contributes very little to the predicted ground level concentrations. Following further review and discussion with the DEC Industry Regulation staff, the EPA recommended conditions 7-4 and 7-5 be amended to the following:

7 Air Quality 7-4 The proponent shall install equipment and manage ongoing operations such that

‘best practice’ emission concentrations for hydrogen sulphide are achieved. Note: ‘Best practice’ is as defined in Environmental Protection Authority Guidance Statement No. 55 - Implementing Best Practice in Proposals Submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment Process.

7-5 The proponent must provide a report showing the basis on which ‘best practice’ was

determined, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment and Conservation, prior to applying for a Works Approval under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

The EPA considered the above changes:

1. provide the DEC with greater autonomy to require best practice emission performance in the Works Approval and operating Licence; and

2. recognise that ‘best practice’ for stack emissions is usually specified as an “emission concentration” rather than an “emission rate”.

5.2.3. DEC advice The DEC concluded in its advice that as a part of the works approval and licence requirements, the proponent will be required to provide sufficient predictive modelling to derive targets and limits for all key contaminants for each significant point source and to confirm best practice in regard to emissions.



5.2.4. Proponent’s response Perdaman stated that the project will be a very small contributor (1-3%) of registered pollutants to the Collie airshed, because the majority of these pollutants will be captured by the project. Also, Perdaman considered that there will be no material impact on the airshed from the project. 5.2.5. Consideration The issue raised by this ground of appeal relates to the cumulative impact of air quality emissions in the Collie airshed. Air quality emissions have been considered under the EP Act for the proposed Bluewaters Phases III and IV and the refurbishment of Muja A and B. Similar to the Collie Urea Project, these proposals undertook air quality emissions modelling. The EPA identified air emissions as an environmental factor for all three proposals, which were appealed in relation to the cumulative impact on the Collie airshed. The Muja A and B is to be managed under Part V of the EP Act, and during the appeals investigation for Bluewaters Phases III and IV, the DEC advised that stack emissions from the generating plants can be adequately regulated under the requirements of Part V of the EP Act. Further, it is noted that the DEC recommended that air emission limits for the Collie Urea Project be addressed by the DEC through the works approval and licence requirements. From the information provided in respect to this ground of appeal, the identification by the EPA of air quality as a key environmental factor for the proposed Collie Urea Project is supported. It is also considered appropriate for emissions from the plant to be the subject of conditions which reflect best practice design and also take into account cumulative impacts from existing, proposed and future mining and industrial development in the Collie area. In this context, and noting that the EPA has recommended and the Minister for Environment determined that the Muja A and B proposal be managed by the DEC under Part V of the EP Act, it is considered appropriate for the detailed conditions applying to power stations and related industry in the Collie airshed be managed through the conditions of licence/works approval issued by the DEC. Through this mechanism, the DEC is able to consider cumulative impacts within the airshed and to apply consistent requirements to all licenced premises. Through this process, it is recommended the DEC consider advice provided to the EPA by the Department of Health for the Bluewaters Power Station proposal in relation to air quality within the Collie airshed and health risk assessment, including whether monitoring of emissions needs to include additional stack monitoring, consideration of particulates from existing and proposed mine sites, and a greater number of ground monitoring sites. In consideration of the environmental objectives identified by the EPA, and taking into account the information presented in the appeals, it is recommended that this ground of appeal be allowed to the extent that the proponent shall ensure emissions do not, in combination with other emitters in the Collie region, cause pollution, environmental harm or otherwise unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare or amenity of persons outside the proposal site. It is further recommended that emissions for air pollutants be controlled to levels reflecting best practice, and that the detailed conditions meeting this objective are determined by the DEC through conditions applying to works approvals and licences under Part V of the EP Act.



The precise wording of the Ministerial conditions is recommended to be determined through consultation with relevant decision making authorities under section 45 of the EP Act. Aside from the above changes, it is recommended the remaining components of the appeals be dismissed. 5.3. APPEAL GROUND 3: FAUNA HABITAT In Report 1358, the EPA’s environmental objectives for the vegetation and fauna habitat factor are:

� to protect Declared Rare and Priority Flora, and Specially Protected (Threatened) and Priority Fauna species and their habitats, consistent with provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, and the EPBC Act; and

� to maintain the abundance, species diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of flora, vegetation communities, and fauna at species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and the improvement in knowledge.

5.3.1. Appellants’ concerns Birds Australia and WWF contended that the impact on fauna habitat for the listed threatened species Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso), Baudin’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii), and Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) has not been adequately addressed by the proposed measures, and considered that the proposed clearing should not be approved. WWF also identified concerns relating to habitat for Chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii), and the maintenance of biodiversity. WWF’s key concerns related to the full and cumulative impacts, recommended conditions, and the EPA’s principles. In line with this, Birds Australia submitted that the EPA failed to meet its environmental objectives, particularly in relation to Specially Protected (Threatened) and Priority Fauna species and their habitats, and consideration of the precautionary principle. Full and cumulative impacts WWF contended that the full and cumulative impacts of this and related proposals require greater consideration and submitted that clearing of habitat for nationally or state listed threatened species should not be approved. In addition, WWF noted that whilst the description of the proposal relating to the key environmental factor ‘vegetation and fauna habitat’ identified approximately 47 hectares (ha) of vegetated area being cleared, the consideration of the principles in EPA Report 1358 identified that the proposal would result in the loss of approximately 100 ha of native vegetation and has the potential to affect biological diversity and ecological integrity. Therefore, WWF considered that the full impact of the proposal is unclear. WWF also noted that in combination with the Shotts Industrial Park and the expansion of the Muja South coal mine, the three proposals will result in the clearing of more than 1800 ha of native vegetation. Insufficient mitigation of the impacts to threatene d species WWF and Birds Australia considered that the clearing of hollow-bearing trees and replacement with artificial hollows, even at a ratio of six to one as recommended by the EPA, is not acceptable or satisfactory. Both appellants contended that the recommended



conditions relating to fauna habitat (conditions 5-1 and 5-2) are inadequate for compensating (or offsetting) the potential impacts. Further, Birds Australia submitted that the proponent’s proposed management plan is inadequate and vague. Birds Australia contended that the conditions are inadequate compensation for the loss of foraging and breeding habitat and, in particular, is concerned that:

� there is no requirement that the artificial hollows be installed by the proponent;

� maintenance of the artificial hollows is only required for the duration of the project;

� there is no requirement to locate the artificial hollows in suitable areas, and studies indicate Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos require adequate foraging habitat within a 12 km radius of nesting hollows;

� there is inadequate scientific data to determine whether displaced Threatened Species will nest in adjacent areas of vegetation (or in artificial hollows) after their nesting habitat has been cleared;

� current research indicates that artificial hollows will only be used by Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos in naturally vegetated areas where the birds already breed;

� if species-specific hollows are not used, they are vulnerable to invasion by non-target competitive species, such as galahs and feral bees; and

� the condition sets an erroneous and alarming precedent that artificial hollows are an ‘adequate’ offset for the destruction of nest-hollow bearing trees.

Similarly, WWF contended that the conditions do not require the proponent to mitigate or reduce the potential impacts, and only require compensation for the loss of an unspecified number of standing natural tree hollows. In addition, WWF questioned the benefits of artificial hollows and noted:

� from Goldingay and Stevens (2009) “that the potential value of artificial hollows should not be used to justify the removal of hollow-bearing trees”;

� that preliminary findings from an investigation by the DEC (unpublished) on the efficacy of installing artificial hollows, indicated that while Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos have been shown to use artificial hollows in some locations, very few of the more than 200 artificial hollows deployed specifically for their use across the State are actually in use by the species; and

� the draft Significant Impact Guidelines for three threatened Western Australian black cockatoos (in preparation DEWHA) identified that all trees currently used for nesting are important for the continued survival of the species because of the very limited number of suitable trees remaining and the very long time required for trees to produce hollows.

Furthermore, WWF and Birds Australia stated that the impact of the loss of foraging and resting habitat has not been considered. In particular, WWF noted from Saunders (1980, 1986) it is considered to be essential that breeding Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos have sufficient foraging resources within a 12-15 km radius of their nesting hollows to successfully rear their chick to fledging. More broadly, WWF noted that tree hollows are extremely important to the maintenance of biodiversity and, therefore, contended that the hollows are undoubtedly providing vitally important habitat to other fauna species in the area. Given the above, WWF and Birds Australia recommended that approval for the destruction of foraging, nesting, roosting or resting habitat, or removal of natural tree hollows is not granted.



Inadequate application of the EPA’s principles WWF submitted that the proposal be reconsidered in light of the following:

1. The precautionary principle requires the prevention of environmental degradation and, WWF contended that the EPA’s recommended conditions in Report 1358 do not significantly mitigate the impact that this proposal will have on the vegetation and fauna habitat of this region. In particular, WWF noted that the EPA report identified that the proposal has the potential to impact vegetation and fauna habitat and, therefore, monitoring and management measures should be implemented.

2. WWF contended that the EPA has not given sufficient regard to the principle of intergenerational equity, as the only consideration identified relates to the availability of coal. Also, it contended that the “health, diversity and productivity of the environment” will not be maintained or enhanced by the clearing of 47 ha of native vegetation.

3. In relation to the principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity, WWF noted that the EPA’s consideration of this principle identified that the proposal would result in the loss of approximately 100 ha of native vegetation and has the potential to affect biological diversity and ecological integrity. Therefore, WWF submitted that this principle has not been given sufficient consideration.

Birds Australia believed that the precautionary principle would require that the loss of habitat for the threatened species may not be adequately offset by the proposed measures and is likely to have a significant impact on the species concerned, as there is a net loss of habitat. Birds Australia contended that contents of and recommendations in Report 1358 do not apply the precautionary principle in relation to the potential impacts on the threatened species of black cockatoo, and stated that the EPA has:

� not given adequate consideration to the lack of reliable scientific data concerning the effects of the displacement, and the impact of irreversible loss of foraging and breeding habitat on the status of these threatened species;

� failed to take into account relevant considerations as a result of its failure to consult relevant organisations, and as a result has failed to have regard to available information concerning the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos and the impact the project may have on their status;

� failed to have regard to the fact that there will be a new loss of critical habitat for the black cockatoos in the short and mid-long term as it takes between 100 to 200 years for native trees to develop hollows big enough for use; and

� failed to take into account the cumulative effect on this development of previous development approvals, which involve the irreversible loss of foraging and breeding habitat.

Birds Australia also contended that the EPA’s assessment has taken into account an irrelevant consideration, namely that the DEWHA will be separately assessing the project and is expected to give attention to the loss of cockatoo habitat. As such, Birds Australia believed the Report 1358 is invalid. 5.3.2. EPA response The EPA acknowledged there is an inconsistency in Appendix 3 (page 7) of Report 1358. Section 3.1 of the EPA’s Report 1358 correctly details the clearing of vegetation associated with the proposal and the EPA advised that this section should be regarded as the correct reference to clearing. This section of the report is consistent with the key characteristics table included in the recommended Statement that the Proposal May be Implemented and therefore the recommended Statement does not require amendment.



The EPA noted that section 3.1 stated the proposed urea plant would occupy an area of approximately 100 ha within the 124 ha leased industrial site. Approximately 45% of the site is already cleared as a result of previous quarrying and farming. Of the currently vegetated area (that is, 67.5 ha), approximately 20 ha will be retained. This equates to approximately 47 ha of clearing. Appendix 3 of Report 1358 lists the loss of native vegetation as approximately 100 ha, which is the plant “footprint” within Shotts Industrial Park, rather than the area proposed to be cleared. Given the above clarification, the EPA recommended the inconsistency in Appendix 3 regarding the area, be noted. The EPA advised that individual proposals are considered on their merit. While the EPA acknowledged the cumulative impacts of broadscale clearing across the habitat of threatened cockatoo species, the EPA considered that the loss of vegetation within the proposed plant site associated with this proposal should be viewed in context. Given the regional context (where 60% of the original extent remain), and the large adjacent area of native forest, the EPA considered the loss of 47 ha of vegetation is unlikely to have a significant impact on cockatoo populations and individuals using the area and, therefore, is consistent with the EPA’s objectives and principles. In addition, the EPA considered that it is unlikely there will be a significant loss of nesting hollows. The EPA advised that the recommended conditions (5-1 and 5-2) requiring replacement of tree hollows with artificial nesting hollows represent a fall-back measure in the event that breeding trees should be identified during site clearing. The EPA considered that these conditions are adequate for this location. Accordingly, the EPA considered that the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objectives. In response to Birds Australia’s contention that EPA’s assessment has taken into account an irrelevant consideration and, therefore, the report is invalid; the EPA noted that section 44 of the EP Act requires the EPA to report to the Minister for Environment on the outcome of its assessment of a proposal. The report must set out:

� the key environmental factors identified in the course of the assessment; and

� the EPA’s recommendations as to whether or not the proposal may be implemented and, if the EPA recommends that implementation be allowed, the conditions and procedures to which implementation should be subject.

The EPA may include in the report any other information, advice and recommendations as it sees fit. The EPA stated that the inclusion of information and advice in the report related to the consideration of the proposal under other legislation, which the EPA considered does not therefore render the report invalid. 5.3.3. Proponent’s response Full and cumulative impacts Perdaman confirmed that the clearing plan (see Figure 5) identifies an area of 45.174 ha to be cleared (red shaded area), and an area of 21.286 ha to be retained (green shaded area). The existing cleared land is an area of 56.87 ha and, therefore, the total cleared area will be 102.04 ha.



Figure 5: Proposed clearing and remnant vegetation area (Source: GHD, LandCorp, May 2010)



Perdaman advised that the site was chosen because the vegetation is already heavily degraded as a result of previous farming and quarrying practices. In addition, it advised that the project has been planned to minimise further clearing requirements generally and where clearing cannot be avoided, to ensure that the higher quality vegetation is preserved wherever possible. As such, the clearing plan has been designed to ensure that the high quality vegetation to the north east of the site is left undisturbed and that a fauna corridor is maintained to the east and south of the site to enable fauna movement from the north to the south. In relation to the water pipeline and coal conveyor infrastructure corridors, Perdaman advised that the established routes will ensure the infrastructure is constructed in existing, previously cleared corridors. In addition, Perdaman advised that the infrastructure will be constructed above ground in preference to below ground to ensure fewer disturbances to vegetation. Regarding the required clearing approvals, Perdaman advised that LandCorp is responsible for the urea plant site, and Perdaman is responsible for the infrastructure corridors. Perdaman advised that both parties have committed to establishing preserved or rehabilitated land offsets in a ratio of at least 6:1 for every hectare cleared in addition to the nesting hollow offset. Insufficient mitigation of the impacts to threatene d species Perdaman advised that during the fauna and flora surveys of the plant site, very few suitably sized cockatoo nesting trees were identified. Perdaman stated that it will undertake the EPA recommended condition to establish, maintain and monitor six cockatoo artificial nesting boxes for every tree removed. In response to Birds Australia’s concerns, Perdaman also advised it is committed to placing approved hollows in suitable foraging areas and maintaining them for the 40 year life of the project. In addition, Perdaman noted that the DEWHA is currently evaluating a referral of this matter by LandCorp and will separately establish any additional conditions that may be required to ensure that provisions within the EPBC Act regarding the protection of threatened and endangered species are adequately addressed. Perdaman also advised it will include provisions within its clearing plan for recovery and relocation of any ground based material that offers nesting habitat, and Perdaman considered that these measures when combined with any additional requirements by the DEWHA will adequately address impacts to threatened species. Finally, Perdaman advised that a Flora Management Plan is yet to be developed and, that it is one of a range of management plans to be developed to the satisfaction of the DEC, in relation to submission of the project Works Approval application. Therefore, Perdaman considered Birds Australia’s claim that the Flora Management Plan is inadequate and vague, as being incorrect. 5.3.4. Consideration Under this appeal ground, it is noted that the LandCorp submitted a referral under the EPBC Act (referral 2009/5086, September 2009) for the clearing of the proposed Shotts Industrial Park, including the Collie Urea plant site. On 28 June 2010, DEWHA determined that the proposed action is a controlled action for listed threatened species and, therefore, the project will require assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. On 14 June 2010 LandCorp submitted an application for an area permit to clear 45.174 ha (CPS 3797/1) to the DEC, for the proposed Shotts Industrial Park. The DEC Native Vegetation Conservation Branch advised that on 28 June 2010 the applicant was notified that



the application was declined because LandCorp are not the owners or acting on behalf of the owners. In addition, the DEC advised the applicant that as the application related to the proposed Collie Urea Project currently subject to EPA assessment, if the Minister for Environment agrees to the implementation of the project, then all clearing undertaken in accordance with the Ministerial Statement is likely to be exempt from requiring a clearing permit, in accordance with clause 2 Schedule 6 of the EP Act (Clearing of Native Vegetation). EPA Report 1358 concluded that as the vegetation is well represented at a local scale and is not considered regionally significant, the highest value of the vegetation is fauna habitat. This ground of appeal is in respect to the potential impacts to habitat for threatened species, including black cockatoos and chuditch, and the maintenance of biodiversity. The EPA and Perdaman confirmed that the proposal includes the clearing of approximately 45 ha of native vegetation, and the total footprint will be approximately 100 ha, with approximately 20 ha of native vegetation being retained on the plant site. Perdaman commissioned a fauna assessment and flora and vegetation survey for the proposal (GHD, June 2009 and December 2009). The flora and vegetation survey noted suitable nesting trees, and considered the site and adjacent bushland would be used for foraging, particularly by the Baudin’s Black Cockatoo. The potential impacts identified include loss of habitat utilised by significant fauna, such as breeding and feeding habitat for cockatoo species, loss of linkages between areas of habitat, and introduction of weeds and pathogens. Under this appeal ground, WWF and Birds Australia contended that the proposed replacement with artificial hollows, even at a ratio of six to one, does not adequately address the potential impacts to threatened fauna habitat, as it does not consider black cockatoo foraging and resting habitat or habitat for chuditch. WWF specifically questioned the efficacy of artificial hollows compared with natural hollows, and recommended that approval for the destruction of natural tree hollows not be granted. In response to the appeals, Perdaman identified that it and LandCorp are committed to establishing preserved or rehabilitated land offsets in a ratio of at least 6:1 for every hectare cleared in addition to the nesting hollow offset. In addition, during the appeals investigation Perdaman advised that incorporated into its lease agreement with LandCorp are requirements to comply with EPBC Act conditions set by the DEWHA. Regarding mitigation measures for potential loss of chuditch habitat, Perdaman advised that a condition of its lease with LandCorp is that Perdaman is to formalise and provide evidence of an agreement with the DEC in relation to the Western Shield Program, within 3 months of commencement of the lease. The information provided by Perdaman during the appeals process indicated that it is committed to providing a minimum of $10,000 pa over 10 years to the Western Shield Program for Chuditch preservation, and that it is anticipated that the funding will target the Collie area. The Public Environmental Review outlined that a Fauna Management Plan (for the Collie Urea Plant) will be created as a part of the Environmental Management Plan, to maximise fauna survival during clearing and construction, include opportunities for habitat linkages with the State Forest, and include a clearing plan. The proposed monitoring outlined in the Public Environmental Review identified that prior to clearing, trees with nesting hollows will be checked for breeding cockatoos, and during the site clearing, fauna monitoring will be undertaken to remove and relocate any fauna identified in consultation with the DEC. It is noted that for this proposal, the EPA recommended similar conditions to those for the Bluewaters Power Station proposal (EPA Report 1349), requiring the installation of artificial hollows at a rate of 6 to 1. The native vegetation description and condition associated with the Collie Urea Project is different to that of the Bluewaters Power Station, and is considered to provide both nesting and foraging habitat for black cockatoos.



Overall, in recognition of the vegetation and habitat values associated with the Collie Urea proposal, it is recommended that the conditions be amended to the extent that the proponent be required to mitigate the potential impacts to nesting and foraging habitat for black cockatoos. This should include a requirement for the proponent, in consultation with the DEC, to restore vegetation at another site to replace the values of the vegetation to be cleared. Further, it is recommended that the conditions be amended in relation to monitoring to require the proponent to ensure a fauna specialist is present prior to clearing to identify fauna that is present and to arrange relocation consistent with approval from the DEC. It is also recommended that the monitoring requirement be clarified, with a monitoring program to be developed in consultation with the DEC. These changes are consistent with conditions applied to clearing proposals by the DEC under Part V of the EP Act. The precise wording of the Ministerial conditions is recommended to be determined through consultation with relevant decision making authorities under section 45 of the EP Act. Aside from the above changes, it is recommended that this ground of the appeals be dismissed. 5.4. APPEAL GROUND 4: WATER SUPPLY 5.4.1. Appellant’s concerns The Conservation Council stated that climate change will continue to undermine water security for Western Australia, and considered that this means an unreliable input into the Collie River System and, therefore, into Wellington Dam. In addition, the Conservation Council raised concerns in relation to the future water use in the Collie Basin, allocation of water from Wellington Dam, and the catchment limit being reached. The Conservation Council noted that with the allocations to this project, Verve and the Harvey Water Cooperative, there is no remaining water in the Wellington Dam as a buffer and with changing climatic regimes this may prove to be a problem in the future. The Conservation Council supported the requirement that no water be extracted from the Collie Basin. 5.4.2. EPA response The EPA noted advice from the Department of Water (DOW) that it approves in principle the supply of surface water from the Wellington Dam, rather than using groundwater supply from the Collie Basin. The EPA also noted that the proponent is preparing a Water Supply Strategy as required by the DOW to guide water management for the proposal. In regard to future applications for water, the EPA considered the DOW is the agency responsible for allocating water. 5.4.3. DOW advice The DOW advised it has no objections to the findings and recommendations of the report and acknowledged that if the proponent meets the commitments made, then the DOW is satisfied that any risk to the area’s water resources can be identified and managed.



In addition, the DOW acknowledged that the water supply option proposed can be regulated by the DOW using the licensing provisions of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. 5.4.4. Proponent’s response Perdaman stated that modelling has satisfied the agency that the allocations are sustainable. However, in the event that actual rainfall and runoff is less than currently modelled in the future, Perdaman noted that its licence allocation will be reduced by the DOW accordingly and Perdaman will have to source additional water from alternative sustainable sources outside the Collie Basin. 5.4.5. Consideration Under this appeal ground, the Conservation Council expressed concern that water use associated with the current proposal and other existing and planned proposals in the Collie area, and combined with climate change predictions, will impact on water availability within the Collie River catchment and Wellington Dam. Perdaman submitted as a part of the Public Environmental Review a Water Management Strategy (GHD July 2009). Consistent with the EPA’s response to this ground of appeal, the proponent identified in the Strategy that the DOW has, in principle, agreed to licence Perdaman to extract 12 GL per annum of water on the provision that Perdaman develops a water strategy that identifies and addresses a number of parameters (GHD July 2009). It is also noted that the DOW advised that any risk to the area’s water resources can be identified and managed if the proponent meets its commitments, and that the proposed water supply option can be regulated by the DOW using the licensing provisions of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. In this context, the EPA has properly considered the impacts of water supply of this proposal, and has reasonably determined that the DOW is able to manage potential environmental impacts in a manner which is satisfactory to the EPA. Therefore, it is recommended the appeal ground be dismissed. It is noted however, that pursuant to section 45(1) of the EP Act, the Minister for Water will be consulted as to whether or not the proposal should be implemented, and the conditions that should be applied to any approval. It is expected through this process, the Minister for Water will be able to formally advise as to whether specific conditions on water quality and abstraction are required. 6. COLLIE BASIN ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY The EPA advised in Report 1358 that due to the considerable development in the Collie area, it is considered there is a need for a “Collie Basin Environment Strategy” to address the following:

� a strategic review of environmental planning needs in the region;

� consideration of the implications of future mining and industrial proposals and associated infrastructure needs and water requirements on the environment of the Collie Basin; and

� issues of noise, air pollution, water management, ecological linkage and vegetation clearing.

It is noted that during the appeals process, both the Conservation Council and Perdaman supported the development of a Collie Basin Environment Strategy. The Conservation Council stated that this strategy should present a strategic view of the environmental planning



needs of the area and consider the cumulative environmental impacts on current, proposed, and future mining and industrial development, in particular pressures on the Collie Basin for water and air pollution in the airshed. On this matter, the Shire of Collie provided support for the development of a strategy, and has sought government support to establish a Collie Industry Council to assist in developing and managing such an environmental strategy. During the appeals process, the Chief Executive Officer of the Shire of Collie recommended that the Strategy address air quality and noise, but did not see it as duplicating water management processes in place through the DOW. Finally, it is noted that as a part of the appeals determination for Bluewaters Power Station Phases III and IV (Report 1349), the Minister requested that the DEC consider the EPA’s comments in the context of air quality within the Collie airshed, with a view to providing the Minister with guidance on the scope for a long term management strategy for the region. In undertaking this task, the DEC was requested to liaise with industry, local government, relevant agencies, and the conservation sector as to the level of support for this approach. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS For reasons outlined within this Report, it is recommended the appeals be allowed to the extent that:

Greenhouse gas emissions The conditions be amended to achieve the following outcomes:






3. The Program to be reviewed annually, and audited by an independent specialist every two years, with reports provided to the EPA and made available to the public.

Consistent with the EPA’s recommended condition 8-5, the Program should have effect until such time as the EPA determines that an emissions trading scheme is in place which applies to the proposal. Air quality The conditions be amended to include a requirement for the proponent to ensure emissions do not, in combination with other emitters in the Collie region, cause pollution, environmental harm or otherwise unreasonably interfere with the health, welfare or amenity of persons outside the proposal site.



It is further recommended that emissions for air pollutants be controlled to levels reflecting best practice, and that the detailed conditions meeting the EPA’s objective is determined by the DEC through conditions applying to works approvals and licences under Part V of the EP Act. Fauna habitat In relation to fauna habitat, it is recommended that condition 5 be amended to require the proponent to ensure:

� mitigation of the potential impacts to nesting and foraging habitat including through restoring vegetation offsite; and

� a fauna specialist is present prior to clearing to identify fauna that is present and to arrange relocation consistent with approval from the DEC.

It is also recommended that the monitoring requirement be clarified, with a monitoring program to be developed in consultation with the DEC. These changes are consistent with conditions applied to clearing proposals by the DEC under Part V of the EP Act.

It is otherwise recommended that the appeals be dismissed. The precise wording of the conditions associated with the above amendments are recommended to be considered through consultation with relevant decision making authorities under section 45 of the EP Act. Anthony Sutton APPEALS CONVENOR Prepared by: Alison Matheson, Senior Environmental Officer Jean-Pierre Clement, Deputy Appeals Convenor References:

CBMPG, 2009, Collie Basin Management and Planning Group Final Report, Ministers for Planning and Environment, May 2009

DEC, 2008, Air Quality Monitoring for Sulfur Dioxide in Collie, 2002-2006, Technical Report, DEC, October 2008

GHD, June 2009, Collie Urea Project Level 1 Fauna Assessment, Perdaman Industries, June 2009

GHD, July 2009a, Collie Urea Project: Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Management Plan, Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers, 30 July 2009

GHD, July 2009b, Report for Collie Urea Project: Water Management Strategy, Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers, July 2009

GHD, September 2009, Collie Urea Plant Public Environmental Review, Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers

GHD, November 2009, Report for Collie Urea Project: Air Quality Assessment, Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers, November 2009

GHD, December 2009, Report for Collie Urea Plant, Conveyor, Wastewater and Water Supply Pipeline Route: Flora and Vegetation Survey, Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers, December 2009

LandCorp, September 2009, EPBC Act Public Notices - Referrals: LandCorp/Commercial development/Collie/WA/Proposed land clearing for Shotts Industrial Park, 10 September 2009, Reference number: 2009/5086 http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/index.html (2/07/2010)



Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers, August 2009, EPBC Act Referral detail: Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers/Manufacturing/Collie/WA/Construction of urea production plant and supporting infrastructure, 31 August 2009, Reference number: 2009/5067, http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/index.html (2/07/2010)

Documents

REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENTsearch.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au/appeals/documents/062-064-10_A… · Collie Urea Project, Shire of Collie & Port of Bunbury Appeals Convenor’s