Three major industry bodies have appealed to the Western Australian government to reconsider the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision to reject a coal mine at Margaret River.
Three major industry bodies have appealed to the Western Australian government to reconsider the Environmental Protection Authority’s decision to reject a coal mine at Margaret River.
The states peak business lobby group, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies have lodged appeals over the EPA decision, citing concerns about the process that found the Vasse coal project proposed by LD Operations environmentally unacceptable.
The three appeals are among five that the state’s Appeals Convenor had received late this afternoon. LD, an unlisted mine operator that provides services to BHP Billiton and Whitehaven Coal, is also an appellant.
LD wants to start up its first owner-operated coal mine.
WA's Environmental Protection Authority decided in March that the proposal would not proceed to a full public environmental review.
The EPA said in a report that the project would place risks on aquifers and there were "significant environmental issues, including the social surround of the Margaret River region", an internationally renowned wine growing and tourism area.
CCI issued a statement which said its appeal on this matter is not based on whether the project should proceed or not, but whether the EPA’s assessment of this application has been conducted in an open, transparent and fair manner.
“While CCI acknowledges that there has been a public campaign against the project, that should not have any bearing on the EPA's ability to make an independent and objective ruling on the environmental aspects of the proposal,” the industry group said.
“After reviewing the process that led to the EPA’s assessment of the project, CCI is concerned that there appears to have been a lack of transparency and proper consultation between the project proponent and the EPA.
“This has the potential to undermine confidence in the integrity of the State’s environmental approval process.
“Business and industry needs to be assured that discussions and decisions on important developments across the State are undertaken in a transparent and consistent manner.
“CCI is also concerned that the ruling could lead to the premature rejection of any future applications to undertake development in the region.”
AMEC CEO Simon Bennison echoed those concerns stating that LD should have been given the opportunity to conduct a full Public Environmental Review process.
“This doesn’t seem to have gone down that path,” Mr Bennison said.
“We feel that procedural fairness, to that extent, has not been provided.
“Some of these proposals are turning into political footballs, the decisions are political decisions and not based on good scientific assessment.”
The CME confirmed it too had lodged an appeal on the grounds the report demonstrates a lack of process and procedural fairness.
"On behalf of industry, CME has some concerns at the apparent departure from the Administrative Procedures used in the assessment process, which were established to provide certainty to industry, government and the public," chief executive Reg Howard-Smith said.
"It is important for all proponents and parties that such processes are consistent and transparent, and that the EPA establishes an evidence base to support decisions impacting the commercial position of resource companies."
CME expressed concern the Report was devoid of adequate statement of reasons for the EPA's decision that the project is environmentally unacceptable, including noting advice provided to the EPA by the Department of Water that further investigation is required in order to determine whether or not the proposal could be managed.
CME claimed the EPA had taken a number of irrelevant considerations into account in making its decision, including giving weight to unsubstantiated statements of public opposition, making assertions as to the economic viability of the project and attempting to influence global energy policy issues.
Mr Howard-Smith said CME was also concerned by the broader industry consequences of this decision.
"Such a decision should be undertaken on a whole of government level and based on sound scientific data, which is clearly lacking in the report," he said.
A spate of EPA knockbacks was highlighted earlier this year by WA Business News.
Since the end of January it had recommended the environment minister reject Central West Coal’s mine to supply the proposed Coolimba power station, Hanson Construction Materials’ proposal to expand its quarry at Red Hill knocked back Bemax Resources’ proposed mineral sand mine at Happy Valley near Boyanup.
At the time, the EPA denied it had taken a tougher stance on project approvals after striking out the three mining-related developments in its only recommendations this year, suggesting the string of rejections was merely coincidence.
LD has asked WA Environment Minister Bill Marmion to direct the EPA to reassess the proposal more fully and more publicly through a public environmental review.
"The significance of the issues outlined in our appeal and the EPA's decision to pre-empt a full assessment without adequate evidence and their deviation from due process cannot be understated," LD managing director Peter Ross said.
