Australian Greens' additional comments
Cultural and heritage value
1.1
The Burrup Peninsula was assessed as meriting World Heritage listing in
the 1980s. But due to industry and state government reluctance progress has
stalled. Globally, smaller and arguably less significant rock art sites have
been afforded the protections of World Heritage listing. As such, it is a
failure that the rock art of the Burrup Peninsula has not been listed and
protected accordingly.
1.2
The Greens acknowledge the concerns expressed by the Murujuga Aboriginal
Corporation that it has not been consulted on World Heritage listing and that a
consensus view has not been formed as to whether it would support such a
listing. The Greens also note concerns that World Heritage listing may lead to
changes or a reduction in the ability for the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation
to manage the area.
1.3
The Greens acknowledge the vital work that the Murujuga Rangers
undertake in maintaining and protecting the Murujuga National Park from
physical destruction and vandalism, and that the rangers have not been afforded
appropriate legislative powers to undertake much needed enforcement activity
within the park. The Greens considers this to be an oversight by the Western
Australian Government.
Recommendation 1
1.4
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government immediately approach the Australian Government to seek the listing
of the Burrup Peninsula on Australia's Tentative World Heritage List, following
appropriate consultation with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation.
Recommendation 2
1.5
Australian Greens Senators recommend that following listing on the
Tentative World Heritage List, the Australian Government and the Western
Australian Government work together to nominate the Burrup Peninsula for World
Heritage listing.
Recommendation 3
1.6
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Murujuga Indigenous Ranger
program be given appropriate funding by both the Australian Government and the
Western Australian Government, and the Murujuga Rangers be granted the power to
undertake the same enforcement activities as state-employed rangers.
Industry and shipping
1.7
The Burrup Peninsula is the site of a number of significant industrial
complexes including a major iron ore port, liquefied natural gas production,
salt production, and Yara Pilbara's liquid ammonia plant and technical ammonium
nitrate facility (TANPF). These industries are sources of pollutants such as
sulphur dioxide, ammonium nitrate particles, nitrogen oxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide. These pollutants are known to have
negative consequences for human health, create environmental changes such as
algal growth, and create acid rain. Such consequences may have negative effects
on the cultural and environmental values of the Burrup Peninsula.
Shipping
1.8
The Port of Dampier is one of the busiest bulk ports in the world with
over 5,000 vessels per year entering and leaving the port within a few
kilometres of a number of important rock art sites. Bulk vessels utilise
high-sulphur content fuel and it is estimated that a single vessel releases
approximately 5,200 tonnes of sulphur dioxide in a year. These emissions are
highest during start-up and shut-down which occur at anchorage.
1.9
Sulphur dioxide when combined with moisture in the air forms sulphuric
acid and precipitates as acid rain or fog which is known to have severe effects
on stone buildings, rocks and rock art. The effects have been recognised in
Australia, with the New South Wales Government introducing a legislative
requirement for cruise ships to use low sulphur content fuel (or an approved
means of achieving the required emissions reduction) within the boundaries of
Sydney Harbour. This echoes the requirements for vessels operating in Emissions
Control Areas declared under Annex VI to IMO MARPOL 73/78 Convention
(Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships).
1.10
The Greens are of the view that given the known impact of sulphur
dioxide on rock art, and the high volume of traffic at the Dampier Port, the
rock art of the Burrup Peninsula should be afforded similar protections.
Recommendation 4
1.11
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government implement measures to ensure that ships entering and leaving the
Port of Dampier use low sulphur content fuel or an approved means of achieving
required emissions reductions. The maximum sulphur content of fuel utilised by
ships entering and leaving the port should be 0.10 per cent, as
required for Emissions Control Areas declared under Annex VI to IMO MARPOL
73/78 Convention.
Existing industry and the need for
baseline measurements
1.12
Evidence provided to the committee highlighted that concerns about the
impact of emissions from industrial activity on the Burrup Peninsula are not
new. Various researchers have identified that industry has discharged
significant amounts of acid-forming pollutants into the Burrup Peninsula
environment. Pollutants, including sulphur dioxide, have a deleterious effect
on desert patina, and rock art.
1.13
The work of Robert G. Bednarik, who has conducted decades of study on
the rock art of the Burrup Peninsula, was highlighted. In 2002, he predicted
that the current rate of emissions from existing industry on the Burrup
Peninsula will lead to the destruction of the petroglyphs by the second half of
the 21st century.
1.14
The Australian Heritage Council which commented on the expansion of
existing industry, new industrial development and associated infrastructure. It
stated that it had the potential to directly impact on large areas of the
Dampier Archipelago site and concluded that, given the scale of impact that
continued industrial development may have, the impact rating was 'Critical'.
1.15
It is apparent that there has been evidence of damage to the Burrup
Peninsula rock art for many years. This evidence has been ignored and
industrial development has continued to be approved.
1.16
Further, evidence suggested that the total emission load for existing
industries has not been adequately quantified and measured to determine
environmental and public health impacts of current emissions.
1.17
The Greens considers this an oversight by both the Western Australian
Government, and the Commonwealth Government.
Recommendation 5
1.18
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Commonwealth Government,
in conjunction with the Western Australian Government, establish measurements
of existing emissions as a matter of priority.
1.19
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government implement measures to ensure that the emission load on the Burrup
Peninsula is reduced.
Projected emissions from the TANPF
1.20
Submitters expressed concern that the projected increase in emissions
from the TANPF would contribute to the destruction of the rock art of the
Burrup Peninsula within a relatively short period of time. It was argued that
the expected acid load into the atmosphere from the TANPF would be at the
highest category of the international scale for environments susceptible to
acids.
1.21
Rock patina, or desert varnish is particularly susceptible to damage
from an increase in the presence of acids in the environment which dissolve
manganese and iron compounds. As desert varnish is destroyed it becomes lighter
in colour, and engraved surfaces are particularly vulnerable to such damage as
the desert varnish is thinner than on the non-engraved rock surface.
1.22
In addition, the TANPF is expected to emit 2.52 tonnes per year of
ammonium nitrate particles which are known to stimulate the growth of plants
and other organisms through the provision of nitrogen. These plants and
organisms include lichen, bacteria, fungi and adventitious bacteria which grow
on the surfaces of rocks. Such plants and organisms produce organic acids which
increase the acidity of rock surfaces and will lead to damage to the
petroglyphs. Further, the hyphae of growing fungi penetrate the soft weathering
rind below the desert varnish layer and break away the edges of petroglyph
engravings.
1.23
Increased nitrogen in the environment from existing industry has already
led to an increase in algal growth in the region's waterways, and future
emissions are also likely to lead to an increase in vegetation which would make
the area more susceptible to fires from lightning strikes.
1.24
Permitting any further environmental changes as a result of emissions
from the TANPF is unacceptable. The rock art, and the surrounding environment
should be protected from uncontrolled vegetation growth and any increase in the
acidity of the environment.
1.25
Airborne ammonium nitrate particles at PM10 size or smaller
are also known to have detrimental effects on the health of those who live,
visit and work in the area. Submitters argued that Yara Pilbara's proposed PM10
outputs exceed limits which are known to be toxic to humans. Further, the TANPF
is expected to emit 41 tonnes per year of carbon monoxide and that this too
poses a risk to human health, and the wellbeing of other living organisms in
the area.
1.26
Yara Pilbara responded to such concerns by noting that its emissions
modelling was assessed by the Western Australian Department of Environmental
Regulation during the TAN Plant Works Approval application, and its PM10
emissions were determined to be insignificant. Further, its carbon monoxide
emissions were assessed twice by the Western Australian Department of
Environmental Regulation and the Environmental Protection Authority Western
Australia. It was found that the worst-case predicted ground level carbon
monoxide concentrations from the operation of the TANPF were less than 0.2 per
cent of the National Environmental Protection Measure and Impact Statement for
Ambient Air Quality.
1.27
Professor Black recently provided the committee with a qualitative
opinion on the potential human health risks associated with emissions from Yara
Pilbara, which was undertaken by Adelaide University in February 2018. The
opinion noted the photographic evidence of a nitrogen dioxide cloud emanating
from the nitric acid plant and stated that for NO2 to be visible,
concentrations would be at least four-times the recommended health standards.
The opinion also noted records from the plant which show that the emission
rates of NO2 associated with a visible cloud were exceeded 76 times,
and were frequently for more than 15 minutes.
1.28
Professor John Black and Dr Ilona Box reviewed this opinion and
concluded that 'the emissions have produced gas concentrations in the vicinity
of the road to Hearson's Cove up to 23 times higher than stated in the
Australian health standard guidelines'.
1.29
The Greens acknowledge that relevant state authorities have assessed the
TANPF emissions. However, we consider that it is not a question of whether the
TANPF meets current emissions standards but whether those standards are
adequate to ensure the protection of one of the most significant collections of
rock art in the world, which are also central to the law and traditions of the
local Indigenous people. The Greens does not consider that this is the case.
1.30
The Greens believe that urgent action should be taken to eliminate
ammonium nitrate emissions. We considers that the most effective way of
achieving this outcome is for the Commonwealth to vary the conditions of
approval to impose a zero emissions requirement.
Recommendation 6
1.31
Australian Greens Senators recommend that given the significant impact
of ammonium nitrate and other acidic emissions on both the environment and
human health, the Australian Government vary the conditions of approval of the
Yara Pilbara TANPF to impose a zero acidic emissions requirement.
1.32
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government require all other industry and shipping on the Burrup Peninsula to
comply with zero acidic emissions standards within one year.
Appropriateness of location
1.33
Successive Western Australian governments have pursued a long-term
vision of transforming the Burrup Peninsula into the largest industrial
precinct in the southern hemisphere, attracting foreign investment and
royalties. As such, The Burrup Strategic Industrial Area (Burrup SIA) was
developed to provide an area for industry in close proximity to gas, port and
other key infrastructure.
1.34
However, submitters argued that an expansion of industry in the area to
include the TANPF will contribute to the destruction of cultural heritage, and
will contribute visual, audio and atmospheric pollution to what is an extremely
sensitive environment. The Greens notes that Yara Pilbara is also exploring a
number of other projects for the area such as a large scale renewable
ammonia/hydrogen project and a pilot project for the production of hydrogen
utilising the electrolysis of seawater and solar electricity.
1.35
The Maitland Strategic Industrial Area (Maitland SIA) located south of
Karratha has also been identified as a long-term strategic industrial
development capable of accommodating industries such as gas or petroleum
processing, power production and other downstream process such as urea, ammonia
and ammonium nitrate production.
1.36
The Greens are of the view that the TANPF would have been more
appropriately located on the Maitland SIA rather than the Burrup SIA. The
Greens acknowledge that there would be costs associated with relocating the
TANPF to the Maitland SIA, however it is of the view that such an option should
be explored given the critical importance of the protection of Aboriginal rock
art from damage caused by emissions from the TANPF.
1.37
The Greens are also of the view that the expansion and development of
the Burrup SIA should no longer be pursued by the Western Australian Government
given the potential for significant damage to the rock art. Instead, any future
industrial development should occur on the Maitland SIA.
1.38
In addition, the Western Australian Government should pursue the
development and promotion of a tourism industry that would provide important
long-term employment and economic activity whilst also acknowledging the
natural, cultural and heritage values of the area.
Recommendation 7
1.39
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the TANPF be relocated to the
Maitland SIA.
Recommendation 8
1.40
Australian Greens Senators recommend that no further industrial
development be approved for the Burrup Peninsula.
Recommendation 9
1.41
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government promote tourism to the Burrup Peninsula as a long-term employment
and economic opportunity.
Monitoring programs
1.42
Industry on the Burrup Peninsula is subject to regulation by both state
and Commonwealth legislative frameworks. As such, the TANPF was approved with a
number of conditions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). These conditions include the requirement
for an air monitoring program, and a spectral mineralogy program to be
implemented.
1.43
The committee received evidence which indicated major flaws in the work
undertaken by CSIRO on behalf of the Western Australian Government. This work
has been used to establish approval conditions for the TANPF, and by proponents
who argue that industry on the Burrup Peninsula has not resulted in damage to
the rock art collections.
1.44
This evidence included that:
- the 2007 fumigation studies conducted by CSIRO suffered poor
experiment design through an inadequate selection of rock samples, and
inadequate replication;
-
the 2008 air pollution study incorrectly used a study by Cinderby
et al to conclude that the critical load for the Burrup rocks would be
200 meq/m2/year;
-
the analysis of rock art monitoring conducted between 2004–2014
did not include adequate statistical analysis, and further the measurements
taken were unreliable due to the equipment used.
1.45
Professor John Black raised these concerns with both CSIRO and the
Western Australian Government and proposed improvements which could be made to
the work of CSIRO. As a result, in 2016 the Western Australian government
engaged an independent reviewer, Data Analysis Australia (DAA), to review the
CSIRO monitoring reports and the work of Professor Black. DAA found that:
- the statistical methods proposed by Professor Black represented a
substantial improvement in the effective monitoring of the rock art sites, and
the CSIRO reports demonstrated a number of inadequacies such as a lack of
statistical analysis; and
- there were significant problems with cross-calibration between
measuring instruments, inconsistent error-prone data management, and clear
errors in the CSIRO data. As such, the CSIRO data collected should be archived
and DAA concluded that it is not appropriate for regulators to make any
decisions based on that data.[1]
1.46
In 2017, DAA was again engaged to review the draft Burrup Peninsula
Aboriginal Petroglyphs: Colour Change & Spectral Mineralogy 2004–2016
CSIRO monitoring report. It found that four of its 2016 recommendations to
improve the monitoring program had not been implemented, one recommendation had
been partially implemented and one recommendation had been largely implemented.
DAA acknowledged that while the 2017 report demonstrated substantial efforts on
the part of CSIRO to improve the reporting of data collection and to present
better analysis, more needed to be done. It concluded that the CSIRO report was
unable to dispel reasonable concerns about the impact of industry on the rock
art.
1.47
As a result of the 2017 DAA review, CSIRO made a number of changes to
the Burrup Peninsula Aboriginal Petroglyphs: Colour Change & Spectral
Mineralogy 2004-2016 report. CSIRO noted that this final report supersedes
all previous results published by CSIRO for the monitoring program and that it
implemented all the recommendations of the 2016 and 2017 DAA reviews.
1.48
The Burrup Peninsula Aboriginal Petroglyphs: Colour Change &
Spectral Mineralogy 2004–2016 concluded that there has been a small but
statistically significant change to the rocks in some dimensions of colour.
However, the committee received evidence that this conclusion seeks to diminish
the value of these colour changes. It was argued that a colour change of
approximately 13 per cent over 13 years is a major change which should be of
concern in the preservation of rock art.
1.49
The Greens would particularly like to take the opportunity to thank
Professor John Black and his colleagues for undertaking such comprehensive
reviews of the CSIRO reports, and for continuing to raise their concerns with
both CSIRO and the Western Australian Government. It appears that without the
work of Professor Black, a number of issues would not have been identified.
1.50
Such work should not have to be undertaken by private citizens. There
should be a legislatively required monitoring program that is fit for purpose.
Professor Black's concerns should have been addressed by CSIRO when he first
raised them.
1.51
The Greens note that in September 2017, the Western Australian
Government released the Draft Burrup Rock Art Strategy which proposes to
develop a revised method for the collection and analysis of data that
incorporates the recommendations of the DAA review.
1.52
The Greens are of the view that the development and implementation of a
new monitoring program should be a priority for the Western Australian
Government.
1.53
The Greens also note that the Draft Strategy includes recommendations
for improvements to air quality monitoring, the development of microbiology
studies and pH monitoring, and new monitoring of other sources of pollutants.
Recommendation 10
1.54
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the incorrect use of
the Cinderby et al report in the Gillett 2008 air pollution study, and the
impact that this flawed report has had on the establishment of approval
conditions be noted; and recommend that CSIRO acknowledge that it has produced
fundamentally flawed assessments.
Recommendation 11
1.55
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government prioritise the development and implementation of a new, fully funded
independent monitoring program that meets all of the recommendations of the
Data Analysis Australia reviews.
Recommendation 12
1.56
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the proposals for further
monitoring included in the Draft Burrup Rock Art Strategy be implemented as
soon as possible.
Compliance with approval conditions
1.57
The committee received evidence that Yara Pilbara has had a number of
incidents of non-compliance with EPBC Act approval conditions. First, it failed
to self-refer the TANPF proposal for assessment under the EPBC Act, and it has
subsequently failed to comply with a number of its approval conditions.
1.58
The incidents of non-compliance with approval conditions include late
production of annual compliance reports and rock art monitoring reports. The
Department of the Environment and Energy (the department) told the committee
that it is working with Yara Pilbara to improve the capacity of Yara Pilbara to
comply with its approval conditions.
1.59
In September 2017, the department also issued a directed variation to
the approval for the TANPF in response to non-compliance. This variation
imposed new reporting requirements, new air quality monitoring and reporting
requirements, and established a requirement that the approval holder must
ensure that no measurable impacts from air pollution must occur within two
kilometres of the site, for the life of the approval.
1.60
It is clear that there have been incidents of non-compliance and the
Greens are of the view that such behaviour is unacceptable, particularly in an
environment where the consequences may be catastrophic to the irreplaceable
rock art collection. The Department of the Environment and Energy must ensure
that Yara Pilbara's compliance is improved.
Survey
1.61
Submitters also raised concern that under its approval conditions Yara
Pilbara should have engaged a heritage monitor to conduct a comprehensive
survey of all rock art sites in a two kilometre radius. However, Yara Pilbara
only monitors six petroglyph sites in its two kilometre radius and has not
conducted a survey to identify all the sites that exist in this area.
Submitters argued that this sample of sites is inadequate.
1.62
However, both Yara Pilbara and the Department of the Environment and
Energy asserted that the approval conditions only required the monitoring of
six sites and that there had been no instance of non-compliance in this regard.
1.63
The Greens accept the evidence that such a small sample is inadequate
and contends that Yara Pilbara should be required to engage a Heritage Monitor
to conduct a comprehensive survey to identify all rock art sites in the two
kilometre radius which may be affected by emissions.
Recommendation 13
1.64
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Australian Government vary
the approval conditions for the TANPF to require Yara Pilbara to engage a
Heritage Monitor to conduct a comprehensive survey to identify all rock art
sites in a two kilometre radius from the site.
Air quality monitoring
1.65
The committee also received evidence that Yara Pilbara has failed to
comply with air quality monitoring requirements as established by approval
conditions granted by the Western Australian Government.
1.66
In particular, submitters argued that Yara Pilbara compliance reports
demonstrate non-compliance with the requirement to measure PM10
particles, NH3, NOx, and SOx at five sites,
including three rock art sites. There are instances in the report where 'No
Data' is recorded, and measurements of negative amounts of PM10
particles which are arguably impossible.
1.67
Yara Pilbara acknowledged that there have been periods of time where its
air quality monitoring equipment has been unavailable due to breaking down or
maintenance work. Yara Pilbara also acknowledged that it has engaged an air
quality monitoring consultant to conduct a review of all its air quality
monitoring data and baseline data sets.
1.68
The Greens are concerned that Yara Pilbara has failed to comply with its
approval conditions to conduct adequate air quality monitoring and is
especially concerned that the Western Australian Government does not appear to
have taken any enforcement action to ensure such compliance.
Recommendation 14
1.69
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Western Australian
Government promptly review and assess Yara Pilbara's compliance with its
approval conditions, and take any necessary enforcement action.
Cumulative effects
1.70
The committee received evidence that under the EPBC Act, the ability for
the Minister or their delegate to consider cumulative effects when undertaking
an approval assessment is limited.
1.71
Submitters expressed concern that the cumulative effects of existing
industry on the Burrup Peninsula may not have been considered during the EPBC
approval process. Further, submitters argued that without the release of the
Minister's statement of reasons, it is unclear whether or to what extent the
cumulative effects are considered.
1.72
The Greens notes that the Department of the Environment and Energy and
Yara Pilbara provided evidence that the cumulative effects of existing industry
on the Burrup Peninsula were considered during the approval process for the
TANPF. The Department of the Environment and Energy also provided evidence that
any future approvals for development on the Burrup would also include a
consideration of the cumulative effects on matters of national significance.
1.73
Nevertheless the Greens are of the view that legislative certainty is
required and that the EPBC Act should explicitly require the Minister or their
delegate to consider cumulative effects when approving actions.
Recommendation 15
1.74
Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 be amended to require the Minister
or their delegate to consider the cumulative effects when approving decisions.
Senator
Peter Whish-Wilson
Chair
Senator for Western Australia
Senator Rachel Siewert
Senator for
Tasmania
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page