exemptions from the Environmental Protection Act (1993) are of particular concern. The exclusion of this Act means that the Olympic Dam mine is not subject to the same environmental regulatory framework as other industrial projects in South Australia, and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which administers the Act, is excluded from its monitoring role. BHP’s environmental performance is instead the responsibility of the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, who, based on BHP’s own reports, has full discretion to approve or reject programmes for the management and rehabilitation of the environment, without any obligation to consult with other agencies. Given the Ministers role in promoting mining in SA, this arguably amounts to a conflict of interest.
Re: ROXBY DOWNS INDENTURE ACT
Dear
The Roxby Downs Indenture Act is currently the subject of negotiations between the SA Government and BHB Billiton, owner of the Olympic Dam copper/uranium mine. We expect that in the near future amendments will beintroduced into parliament extending the operation of the Act to the proposed Olympic Dam expansion.
Friends of the Earth is concerned that indefensible legal privileges in the Indenture Act will be retained in the context of the proposed mine expansion, including exemptions and overrides from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act1988, the Environmental Protection Act 1993, the Freedom of Information Act 1991, and the Natural Resources Act 2004.
There has as yet been no indication from the SA Government or BHP Billiton that it accepts that these legal exemptions are indefensible and must be repealed. Nor has there been an acknowledgement from the SA Government that the Indenture Act undermines the binding Labor Party commitment to apply the “strictest environmental standards” to uranium mining.
In this regard, exemptions from the Environmental Protection Act (1993) are of particular concern. The exclusion of this Act means that the Olympic Dam mine is not subject to the same environmental regulatory framework as other industrial projects in South Australia, and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which administers the Act, is excluded from its monitoring role. BHP’s environmental performance is instead the responsibility of the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, who, based on BHP’s own reports, has full discretion to approve or reject programmes for the management and rehabilitation of the environment, without any obligation to consult with other agencies. Given the Ministers role in promoting mining in SA, this arguably amounts to a conflict of interest.
Uranium mines pose the greatest environmental risk of all industrial projects, in that where environmental harm occurs, the effects may last tens of thousands of years. This consideration, accompanied by the scale of theproposed expansion, which has the potential for much greater environmental risk than the existing operation, makes legal accountability even more important. Noting the Legislative Council’s concern regarding the waste management practices of the proposed expansion, recorded in the motion passed on the 29th July 2011
“[calling] on the State Government to ensure that all waste management practices for the proposed Olympic Dam Expansion, including the management of surplus ore and tailings, meet or exceed world’s best practice,” I refer you to chapter 12 of the Draft and Supplementary Environmental Impact Statements for the expansion. Sections 12.4.2 and 12.6.2 of the Draft EIS in particular acknowledge that seepage from the Tailings Storage Facility will affect groundwater quality. Notably, the groundwater is predicted to contain elevated levels of Uranium (p. 366 Draft EIS, p. 283 Supplementary EIS), further highlighting the importance of independent environmental monitoring and a rigorous environmental regulatory framework. Rather than burying the tailings in the pit after the mines closure, BHP propose to allow them to continue seeping into the aquifer, acknowledging that the impactmay last up to 10,000 years.
Friends of the Earth asks you to use your voice as an SA Parliamentarian to ensure that the legal exemptions and overrides contained in the Roxby Downs Indenture Act are repealed, and that they are not extended to apply to the proposed expansion, allowing BHP Billiton to be subject to the same laws as other corporations operating in SA.
A summary of the problems with the Indenture Act is overleaf along with references to more detailed literature.
I would be pleased to discuss these issues with you or to provide further information.
Yours sincerely,
Nectaria Calan
Anti-nuclear campaigner
Friends of the Earth Adelaide
0432 388 665
blackwallaby@gmail.com
