Dear Senators, Contained within this email is the Submission on behalf of the & District Environmental Council Inc. (BDEC) The submitting person is Dr. Simon Perrin: Mining Spokesperson for BDEC. This submission is in 4 sections: i) The background of BDEC to establish our credentials for submitting comment. ii) The failure of the current structure around mining regulation and its interaction with the EPBC Act by way of an example in the Bendigo area. iii) BDEC would like to proffer a possible amendment to the Act, which may allow triaging of both Legacy and Active mine sites, to assess environmental risk. iv) The recommendation to abolish the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) and the replacement of current Australian Toxicology Standards with USEPA Standards. Redirect emphasis to enforcing compliance of such standards by companies and other regulatory bodies at a state or local government level. i) BDEC details(see next page):

1 of 18

Registration No A0017439S, (Incorporated 30/11/1988)

BDEC is a community based not for profit organization with a broad experience and depth of knowledge of environmental issues and the social problems surrounding these issues. BDEC's membership boasts a diverse background that has formulated many community based submissions for proposals that have significant community impact. Our membership includes tertiary qualifications and post tertiary qualifications in:

Environmental science Zoology Ecology Land development Biology Botany (particularly with regional focus) Physics Engineering Mathematics Medicine Law

Most of our members have lectured at a tertiary level on the above specialities. We have members who are currently employed or have been employed in environmental projects by:

* Local Councils (including ) * State governments * Environment * The former Land Conservation Council * UNESCO * many private environmental reports and also * 3 Local Field Naturalists / Ecologists with 30+ years experience

2 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure in environmental protection. It is BDEC's understanding the current onus is on the the reporting entity to lodge concerns that a breach of the Act exists by: a) establishing there is a prima facie risk posed to a nationally significant site; AND then! b) that the risk is imminent or has occurred; AND ! c) that risk being actively perpetrated by the site caretaker or another third party; AND ! d) that the pollution event has not been authorized by a State Government Authority. ! After all 4 criteria above have been met the Federal Department of the Environment can initiate protective, corrective or punitive responses under the EPBC Act. ! This may offer some protection to locations of national significance but leaves many other mining sites unregulated and actively polluting the broader environment.! The Woodvale example BDEC would like to illustrate this failure to the broader environment by the following case example close to Bendigo. The Woodvale Evaporation Ponds (WEP), 15 kms North West of Bendigo. A brief outline of the WEP problem is explained in the next 2 pages: 3 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure WOODVALE EVAPORATION PONDS In the little community of Woodvale (pop. 300) there is a paddock with 100+ Tonnes of Arsenic and an estimated 200,000 Tonnes of salt lying on a one square kilometer patch of “farmland”. These are the Woodvale Evaporation Ponds (W.E.P.) which hold 800 megalitres FLood Zone of water. The 100 Tonnes of the carcinogen Arsenic was concentrated on this site by deposition of vast quantities of Arsenic containing mine water from Bendigo. That water has been piped into this rural community over the past 30 years. Arsenic is America’s No.1 toxic hazard and is a known Carcinogen. By way of comparison Asbestos is ranked No 94 on this priority listing. These “Ponds” are known to leak into the Aquifer. (snake-like underground water body on the North side of Ponds) and are traversed by a flood zone on the South (see above diagram). Both the Aquifer and the flood plain are connected to the Murray Darling Basin and the Ramsar Wetlands of Northern Victoria via Myers Flat Creek. A Report commissioned by the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) titled “Water Tank and soil sampling Woodvale” was released in September 2015. That report revealed 42 of 53 (78%) domestic drinking water tanks, within 1 kilometer of these Ponds, contained some Arsenic. Of the 11 tanks containing no Arsenic, 10 had imported water. Woodvale is NOT a naturally high Arsenic area - the average subsoil Arsenic is 7mg/kg and is not readily soluble. Local natural Arsenic could not achieve Arsenic levels seen in some water tanks without mud exuding from taps. The Report also revealed an increase of 8mg/kg of Arsenic in the top soil surrounding these Ponds, compared to the subsoil concentrations. When extrapolated to the 1 km radius of the report area it appears 8 Tonnes of Arsenic has deposited over the surface soil, presumably by airborne spread. This is an unprecedented contamination event. No State Minister (Mining, Health or Environment) has yet responded to this site contamination report. Under the National Environment Protection Measurement (NEPM) Act these preliminary findings should trigger a Definitive Ecological Risk Assessment. Instead on the DELWP website we are offered “DHHS reviewed the final report and concluded that: “The testing found there were no rainwater tanks that had arsenic above the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines level. Soil tests at properties found no public health risk.”. When challenged with the above information the four primary regulators (EPA, Bendigo Council, Earth Resources Regulation and DHHS) have simply repeated the website mantra) despite legislative obligations to abide by the “Precautionary Principle”. Six of the 53 rainwater tanks tested had Arsenic levels of 3 micrograms per Litre. Current literature would suggest lifetime exposure to 3 micrograms/Litre of Arsenic in drinking water is associated with a 16% increase in urological cancers (Saint-Jacques et al, Environmental Health 2014, 13:44) and a 30% increase in Lung Cancers (Santelli et al PLOS ONE I doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138182, September 18, 2015). The ONLY plausible explanation for the contamination seen at Woodvale is airborne spread arising from the Ponds themselves. According to EPA Victoria Guide SEPP 1194 to "Air Quality" the intervention limit for Arsenic is 0.003 μg/m3 whilst the intervention level for Asbestos is 60 times higher at 0.2 μg/m3. Imagine the community distress if the equivalent of (8Tonnes times 60) 480 Tonnes of Asbestos had been allowed to drift over a community near you. This appears to be the level of contamination that has occurred at Woodvale. Please Turn Over for a Summary of the other health effects of Chronic Arsenic Exposure. 4 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure Other Health Effects of Arsenic These health effects appear to occur regardless of route of exposure (inhaled, water, food), are dose dependent, with carcinogenic effects delayed for 10 years after exposure. Peaking at 25 years. Yuan et al, Environ Health Perspect 114:1293–1296 (2006) (1mg/L As in drinking water) If exposed as child your chance of dying from; LUNG cancer risk before 50 years old is increased X 7. BRONCHIECTASIS (lung disease) before 50 yo risk is increased X 12.4, in utero risk is X 46 EMPHYSEMA before 50 yo risk increased X 2 CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE before 50 yo risk is increased X 2.7 in men, X1.3 in women KIDNEY cancer before 50 yo risk is increased X 3, if also exposed in utero X 7 Ferrecio et al, Health Population & Nutrition 24(2): 164–175 (2006) If exposed as child your chance of dying from BLADDER cancer before 50 yo risk is increased X 8 If exposed as child your chance of dying from LIVER cancer before 50 yo is risk is increased X 1.5 If exposed as child your chance of dying from SKIN cancer before 50 yo is risk increased X 3 The 2015 “Addendum to the toxicological Profile for Arsenic’ published by the USA Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences has added Hypertension in children and adults, Myocardial Infarction, Stroke as well as the prenatal exposure risks of congenital abnormalities (heart and neural tube defects) and premature cancers in offspring. Other effects of Arsenic exposure include impaired immunity, impaired neurological function and impaired intellectual development in children. Pearce et al (Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2012) demonstrated an association between areas of high soil Arsenic in the Goldfields region of Victoria and the incidence of the following cancers; Melanoma X1.3, Colon X1.2, Prostate Ca X1.3 and possibly Leukeamia X 1.3. There are now clear pathological pathways to explain Arsenic's ability to induce and enhance cancers (Wenzhen Yuan, Xiangkai Li et al, Advances in Understanding How Heavy Metal Pollution Triggers Gastric Cancer BioMed Research International Vol. 2016, Article ID 7825432). The risk of both Cancer and Death resulting from chronic Arsenic exposure is clearly dose dependent. One heaped teaspoon of the dry crust (or dust) from these WEP’s, somehow ingested via food, contaminated water tanks or inhaled as dust at Woodvale over an entire year will probably exceed the safe threshold (0.3ug/kg/day) determined from the above studies. Unlike nuclear waste, Arsenic is forever, it does not breakdown. The Woodvale Ponds site must be rendered harmless by the complete REMOVAL of the Arsenic to a safer location away from people and waterways connected to the Murray Darling Basin. Written by Dr. Simon Perrin on behalf of the Bendigo & District Environment Council Inc.

5 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure ii) The failure of the current structure around mining regulation and its interaction with the EPBC Act cont. The failure of the EPBC Act in its current form to impact on mine related contamination potentially allows that contamination to impact on the population in the immediate proximity and poses risks to downstream users, agriculture and wetland areas. The Act fails in its applicability to this Woodvale site. Section 3 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has 2 parts: the Objects of the Act and Mechanism to achieve those objectives. (1) The objects of this Act: (a) to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance; (b) to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources; (c) to promote the conservation of biodiversity and to provide for the protection and conservation of heritage; (d) to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous peoples; and ...... etc etc. (2) In order to achieve its objects, the Act: (a) recognises an appropriate role for the Commonwealth in relation to the environment by focussing Commonwealth involvement on matters of national environmental significance and on Commonwealth actions and Commonwealth areas; and (b) strengthens intergovernmental co-operation, and minimises duplication, through bilateral agreements; (c) provides for the intergovernmental accreditation of environmental assessment and approval processes and; (d) adopts an efficient and timely Commonwealth environmental assessment and approval process that will ensure activities that are likely to have significant impacts on the environment are properly assessed.

6 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure Were the Objects under the EPBC Act achieved at Woodvale? The short answer is they are not achieved and continue to fail. The long answer requires some examination of the history of the Woodvale Ponds particularly the Discharge License (Victorian EPA License EX219) to the Woodvale Site itself. The original EPA License was granted in August 1986 (License EX219 version.1). It approved the discharge of minewater to the Woodvale Site at 0.77 Megalitres/day (281Megalitres per annum) with a maximum of 2 milligrams/litre Arsenic and 7 grams/litre Salt. This is equivalent to 2 kilograms of Arsenic and 7 Tonnes of Salt per megalitre respectively. Expressed another way: 2 tonnes of Arsenic and 7,000 tonnes of salt were approved per gigalitre of minewater discharged. This site was probably accepting somewhere of the order of one gigalitre per year for most of its operational life. Quantities pumped between 1986 and 1998 were simply not documented or that documentation has been lost. There were were many documented exceedences of this discharge license after 1998 on the monthly analysis. BDEC suspects even then, those monthly analyses were manipulated, or selectively submitted to the Environmental Review Committee. There was no supervision of sampling or penalty for exceedance by the Regulators. If the original License Standards had remained intact there would be around 26.8 Tonnes of Arsenic and 59,000 Tonnes of Salt residing in these Ponds. However in September 1999 (9 months PRIOR to the EPBC Act Ascension) the EPA licensed an increase in the volume allowed to be discharged to the Woodvale Ponds from 0.77ML / day to 3.56 ML / day (approximately 1.300 gigalitres per annum) a fourfold increase in the amount of this known carcinogen (Arsenic) that could be delivered to these Ponds (ie 2.598 Tonnes per annum) along with a 4 fold increase in Salt load. This was done without public consultation, input or even post hoc notification. ! Twelve months prior to this increase at the 1998 EES process (which inexplicably and summarily excluded the examination of the Woodvale Ponds) several organisations, including BDEC, repeatedly demanded the presentation of a Water Balance Table for Woodvale. That request was dismissed by the EES Panel. That Panel subsequently examined water balance (not Arsenic or Salt balance) "in camera" after public submissions had closed and without notification that such an examination would proceed. ! 7 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure This was yet another denial of Due Process around the mobilization of a known carcinogen. We have evidence that communities and EES panels have been mislead on more than one occasion regarding this site.! BDEC will leave the Senate enquiry to surmise why this 1998 EES was conducted in such manner: suffice to say de-watering was absolutely pivotal to the underground mining process. There were very strong incentives for the mobilization of this carcinogen NOT to come under scrutiny. There have been 5 EES processes where this Woodvale site could have been discussed but bureaucratic and company manipulations effectively conspired to prevent such discussions occurring. Was this profound ignorance? Regulatory Capture? Collusion? or even a result of corrupt practices? The World Health Organisation declared Arsenic a carcinogen in 1979. At the 1996 EES Hearing even the Victoria's own Dept of Health and Community Services acknowledged Arsenic was a carcinogen but the community was stymied from expanding the analysis on Arsenic mobilization at that as well as future EES's. Yet that 1996 DHS submission was the ONLY mention at any EES of Arsenic's terrible downside outside BDEC's own submissions.! Even after Royal Ascent, the EPBC Act in July 2000 clearly failed to offer any protection from such vast quantities of mobilised carcinogen. The failure to meet Section 3.1 (b) and (d) and 3.2 (c) which "provides for the intergovernmental accreditation of environmental assessment and approval processes" and finally 3.2(d) which "adopts an efficient and timely Commonwealth environmental assessment and approval process that will ensure activities that are likely to have significant impacts on the environment are properly assessed" did indeed leave the Woodvale community exposed to a massive contamination event and a site that may take one hundred million dollars to restore before any health implications or downstream environmental implications play out. All in all, a fairly impressive failure to protect the populated area of Woodvale despite the fact this site has the potential to impact on downstream users and environments including Ramsar Wetlands eg. Kerang Lakes. The Act may not have been intended to protect Woodvale, but this will be but one of many examples put before your Committee of this Act's failure to protect areas in and around other mining sites.

8 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure The legal "bar" set in this legislation would appear too high to protect even nationally iconic places let alone prevent the accumulation of 100 Tonnes of carcinogen in a populated area. At least 50 of those 100 Tonnes of Arsenic at WEP were deposited AFTER this Act had become law. The Act contains wonderful words but is of little or no value. What is the purpose of law if it is unable to prevent accumulation of one hundred tonnes of human carcinogen at a populated location and then fails to detect, or prevent, offsite movement of that carcinogen? On July 24, 2000 (8 days AFTER royal ascension of the EPBC Act) the EPA license EX219/10 was discharged. Responsibility for WEP was handed to the Dept. Sustainability & Environment (DSE). Under a hastily revised Mine's Dept Work Plan, WEP discharge volume was left unchanged but the Arsenic concentration that could be discharged was increased from 2mg/L to 13.1 mg/L (a sixfold increase!) . This translated to the licensing of 16 Tonnes of Arsenic per annum to this Woodvale site located in a flood zone, above an aquifer, in populated area adjacent the Whipstick National Park. Again this license variation was without public disclosure, discussion or even post hoc notification despite EPBC Act and NEPM both being operational at this time. The question must be asked; Was the timing of this increase in minewater discharge designed to actually avoid scrutiny under the EPBC Act. Did the EPA and the Mining Company and the Mines department collude believing they might come under scrutiny of this Act? The EPBC Act may have inadvertently resulted in increased discharge Woodvale by virtue of its own existence and associated lack of compliance capability. Clearly it failed the objectives and mechanism of Section 3 to the detriment of the community in health, environment and eventual cost of reparation.! ! If the mining companies had used their full discretion of Discharge to this site (still zoned farm land under the Council Planning Scheme) 160 Tonnes of Arsenic and 200,000 Tonnes of salt could lie in this paddock. The exact amounts of toxins on this site have never been audited. How does a Department "License" and "Regulate" a known carcinogen over 30 years and not once attempt to audit the resultant toxic load. This regulatory limit of 160 tonnes was not achieved because of pure physical (mechanical) limitations and not as a result of any conspicuous regulatory control. ! There are many other "inexplicable" regulator and mining company actions casting a long shadow over this Woodvale site; they will not detailed, again for brevity.

9 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure The most recent example is failure by Earth and Energy Regulation Victoria to address emails regarding how this site is classified following BDEC's notification of data suggesting offsite migration of Arsenic is occurring. Silence appears the favoured "modis operandi" within this State Government's mining portfolio. BDEC requested in writing access to the Woodvale file MAL 38 and MIN 5364 in order to attempt an estimate of the salt and Arsenic load at this site. We wished to use the file analysis to provide as accurate information as possible to the Senate Enquiry. Such estimates are beyond the capability and inclination of this Government Department and its Ministers. Access was denied to BDEC under the secrecy provisions of the Victorian MRSD Act Secction 119, viz; 119 Secrecy (1) This section applies to a person who has at anytime— (a) exercised a power or discharged a function under this Act or the regulations; or (b) been employed for the purposes of, or in connection with, the administration of this Act. (2) A person to whom this section applies must not divulge or communicate to any person or publish any information obtained by him or her from a licensee in the course of his or her official duties unless the divulgence, communication or publication is made— (a) with the written consent of the licensee or the Minister; or (b) in connection with the administration of this Act; or Apparently this "secrecy" provision exceeds the public interest in 100 tonnes of Carcinogen lying in an open paddock. Cleverly, there has been no written refusal for this access. Merely a telephone transmission that access will not be granted. The actual files are located in Bendigo so logistics was not an issue. The mining operation is no longer viable so Commercial in Confidence is a mute consideration. Concealment of information regarding 100 Tonnes of carcinogen appears the sole motive for this refusal. BDEC has long argued for some form of judicial enquiry to overcome this Department "shyness" and to elucidate exactly how such concentrations of carcinogens were ever "allowed" to occur and to further quantify the contamination at Woodvale and across other regions of the Victorian Gold-fields. The community has estimated the cost to remove the 200,000 Tonnes of Prescribed Solid Waste (Victorian EPA classification) Category A & B from Woodvale is of the order of $100 million in transport and disposal costs. This is an order of magnitude above the current site rehabilitation bond. Without accurate information, only gained by access to the files held by Earth Resources Regulation Victoria, we cannot be more precise.

10 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure Who was monitoring this situation? Who was "responsible" for monitoring the Woodvale situation? We are given some directive in the following letter to Mr. Helps. When he informs the Commonwealth Department of Environment of potential issues he is directed to the State Environment Protection Authority. The State EPA was one of the primary regulators who actively participated in the creation and deterioration of this toxic site. Today the Victorian EPA still fails to act on prima facie evidence that airborne Arsenic is leaving this site. For brevity, I will not detail that evidence in this submission.

11 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy

Contact Officer: Our reference: INC12394 Telephone: Email: [email protected]

Mr Andrew Helps Hg Recoveries Pty Ltd Level 13, 350 Collins Street VIC 3000

Dear Mr Helps

Thank you for your correspondence of 16 February 2017 to Mr Matt Cahill, First Assistant Secretary of the Environment Protection Group, Department of the Environment regarding potential contamination at Woodvale Ponds near Bendigo; and the subdivision at Devon Meadows, Victoria. Mr Cahill has passed your correspondence to me for reply.

The Australian Government's responsibilities focus on the protection of matters of national environmental significance which are defined under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Matters of national environmental significance include wetlands of international importance, nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities, and listed migratory species, among others.

The general responsibility for land use planning and approvals rests with state and local governments. Only actions which are likely to have a significant impact on matters protected under the Act require assessment and approval by the Australian Government.

The issues you raise in relation to Woodvale Ponds fall are best dealt with in the first instance by the Victorian Environment Protection Authority who can be contacted on 1300 372 842.

I note your concerns regarding the residential development at Devon Meadows. Compliance officers from the Department will look into the matter to determine whether the subdivision is being managed in manner that is consistent with national environmental law.

Thank you for writing on these matters.

Yours sincerely

Monica Collins Assistant Secretary Compliance and Enforcement Branch Department of the Environment and Energy /(; March 2017

GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 • Telephone 02 6274 1111 • www.environment.gov.au 12 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure WOODVALE EVAPORATION PONDS TIMELINE TO ASSIST ENQUIRY! Relevant DSDBI files Part 1 -> 2000 MAL 38 Part2 -> 2000 -> Min 5364 1979 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declares Arsenic a carcinogen with susceptible organs skin and lung. 1980 World Health Organisation accepts IARC recommendation 1985 Western Mining Corporation (WMC) purchased160 hectares at Woodvale 1986 Council gives planning permission for Woodvale Evaporation Ponds (WEP). 1987 IARC adds Liver and Bladder and Prostate to susceptible Arsenic induced Cancers 1988 WMC Bendigo Gold Environmental Effects Statement (EES). WEP was excluded from examination in that EES document see Section 3, page 7. “Where specific Aspects of the proposal are adequately covered by other approvals (for example EPA Works Approval) the Amendments seek to avoid unnecessary duplication of detailed controls and conditions. WMC had applied AND received an Amendment to EPA license in Feb 1988, 3 months prior to the actual Panel Hearing.” At the actual Hearing WMC misrepresented the amount of Arsenic present in various lines of reef by (? accidently) swapping data. This “swapping” reduced the average concentration of Arsenic from 8mgLitre to 5mg/Litre. Without this “adjustment” WMC had no chance of mathematically working within EPA’s Arsenic discharge guidelines of 2mg/Litre. The issue of mobilizing and concentrating a human carcinogen is not raised by Western Mining Corporation, the EPA, Department of Health or Dept. of Mines or any other Regulators. One Bendigo & District Environment Council member attempted to raise a concern (Mr. Alf Hooley). He was not granted leave to present because Woodvale Evaporation Ponds were already licensed by the EPA. The Planning amendment L1 to be adopted by the 4 participating Councils after that EES was NOT adopted by the Marong Council. Marong was the overriding Responsible Authority for the Woodvale Pond component of the L1 Amendment. The EES panel recommendation for Woodvale went far beyond the presented EES documents and discussions appear to have been conducted “in camera” between the Panel, Western Mining and the Mine’s Department with no input allowed from community. No mentIon is made in the Panel Report to the Planning Minister regarding the presence of a carcinogen. This EES has been used at every subsequent EES to thwart discussion of the Woodvale Site...... “because it was discussed at the 1988 EES”. WOODVALE EVAPORATION PONDS (WEP) TIMELINE TO ASSIST SENATE ENQUIRY . 1989 Another EES is submitted by a local consortium who also excluded WEP from scrutiny / assessment as Planning Permission and Discharge License were apparently already in existence.

13 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure Woodvale Timeline cont.! March 1991 Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development receives a report “Arsenic in the Environment” which notifies the then Mines Department that Arsenic is a human Carcinogen. 1991-95 Mining lease changes hands several times. Unknown (unmonitored) amount of mine dewatering to Woodvale occurred during this period. 1996 Williams United EES (Eaglehawk). Again WEP excluded from scrutiny. During the Consultative Committtee phase of that EES a letter was sent to the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Mining from the Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM) requesting WEP be included in the EES process. Request was denied. 1997 During the Williams United Hearings around 24 July 1997 it was revealed that approximately 3 tonnes of Arsenic and 9,000 tonnes of Salt would be sent to the WEP’s as a consequence of dewatering and similar amounts would be necessary if the Deborah project proceeded. The EPA recommended a Salt and Arsenic Management Plan be drawn up and WEP be examined at any future EES. On July 30, 1997 at this same EES proceedings the Department of Human Services acknowledged Arsenic was a known carcinogen in humans but failed to make recommendations other than suggesting dust emissions be kept to a minimum. DHS submitted “Generally, there is considerable data about the toxicity of arsenic to people, animals and plants (terrestrial and aquatic). While arsenic can be toxic to people in large doses, in smaller doses taken over a long period of time it can be associated with cancers (skin and some internal organs).It has also been associated with damage to blood vessels and some internal organs.” October 1997 The Consultative Committee of the 1998 Deborah EES convened. A letter was sent by Ms. Shelley Cohn (BDEC) to Mr. Peter Wilkinson (EES coordinator, Dept. of Planning) requesting WEP and New Moon be included in the 1998 Deborah EES “process” as was suggested 6 months earlier at the Williams United EES by the EPA. This request was denied. 1998 Panel Hearing itself acknowledges WEP as an issue of concern raised by the community especially following representations by BDEC, however it refuses to allow scrutiny because it is dealt through planning and EPA licensing processes. May’98 Panel Report completed. June 1998 Minister Hon. Pat McNamara releases report with Ministerial Response. Page 122 of that report states; “The Panel is satisfied that any changes to these existing operations will be properly examined and considered by the appropriate authorities - the EPA in the case of Woodvale and the City of Greater Bendigo in the case of New Moon”. When the Panel eventually requested a Water Balance Table for the Project, the volume of mine water to be discharged to Woodvale was clearly above that permitted in license EX219. However only the Bendigo Council and NRE were given the opportunity to respond to the Water Balance Table presented. Arsenic was not discussed. 14 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure Woodvale Timeline cont.! 1999 July EPBC Act passes through Senate 1999 September EPA license EX 219 amended to allow increase in flows to WEP from 0.77 megalitres per day to 3.56 megalitres per day. 2000 July 16 The Commonwealth EPBC Act is Proclaimed July 24 EPA license EX219/10 was discharged. Responsibility for WEP handed to DSE. Under a new DSE Work Plan for WEP the Arsenic concentration allowed for discharge increases from 2mg/L to 13.1 mg/L. This significant change in land use and impact was not recorded in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Minutes and if mentioned but not minuted the significance of such a change was clearly not emphasised. Several infringement notices were issued during 2000 by local mining inspectors for breeches of conditions (pond leakage) at WEP. The Melbourne office (?Minister’s office) instructed local Mine’s Inspectors NOT to proceed with prosecution. This could have the effect of suggesting to local Mining Inspectors just “how” they should approach their task of regulation. During 2000 problems arose at Woodvale with too much water. Water containing 8 mg per Liter sprayed into the air to “enhance” evaporation. The mist created was allowed to drift over Woodvale. Yes, you read correctly. The resultant mist containing 8 milligrams per Litre of Arsenic, a known carcinogen, was allowed to drift over nearby occupied residences. 2004 Supplementary EES is performed to expand the mine to the south of Carsharlton. Page 116 of the Panel report’s; “A number of submissions presented information relating to the performance of the evaporation ponds at Woodvale ponds and the potential for leachate to contaminate local waterways. It appears this Panel had been led to believe that 1.7 megalitres had been approved in the 1998 Panel hearing. As seen above, the 1998 EES Hearing did not publicly examine that volume of discharge despite multiple community requests to do so. The 2004 Panel was also being advised that EX 219 was still active. That Panel simply failed to notice the contradictory Water Balance Tables submitted by the proponent compared to the EPA Licence. The Responsible Authorities also failed to correct the Panel’s misconception. Consultants for the Mining Company (SKJM) submitted to the the EES Panel that Woodvale and the examination of the extra water load created by this mine extension was “outside the scope of the EES”. This was not challenged by Panel members NOR the Regulating Authorities. This was the fifth(!) occasion where scrutiny of WEP was denied to the public. That lack of scrutiny has allowed the accumulation of 100 Tonnes of Arsenic and 200,000Tonnes of Salt at this site. As an aside each major political party bear equal culpability for the failure to oversee the Responsible Authorities behaviours under their administrations. This ends the relevant timeline. The many Regulatory failures beyond 2004 are not presented. 15 of 18 ii) BDEC would like to submit that the EPBC Act has been an abject failure Summary!

BDEC believes an overriding environmental body is required that can adjudicate when there is prima facie evidence that Regulatory Failure is occurring at mine sites, particularly if that failure has the potential risk of contaminating waterways. Waterway contamination or the potential for such contamination would seem an almost constant feature of mining contamination. The risk of dust and smelting discharges tend to vary in a site specific manner and may not be as useful as an indicator of contamination. Assessing the potential for any waterway contamination as an initial key indicator of significant risk for mining related contamination would appear a simple modification to expand and enhance the ecological protection lacking in the current EPBC Act.! iii) BDEC WOULD OFFER THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTION to resolve this apparent regulatory impotence in the face of actual or anticipatable environmental harm - The "water trigger"as outlined Section 24D EPBC Act (2013 amendment) "Requirement for approval of developments with a significant impact on water resources" be amended to include any current, or past, mining sites and that each mine site is assessed as to its potential to contaminate any waterway downstream. Potential risk to the beneficial use of such downstream water should serve as the yardstick to invoke examination under the Act. The Legislation should be drafted to shift the emphasis onto the mine site caretaker whether state owned or privately managed to establish the absence of such risk to any waterway under the Act. Such emphasis should not automatically be applicable to Native Title Landholders, who may not have primary oversight capability. Such exclusion would prevent malevolent "transfer of risk" by Mining Companies to unsuspecting, under-resourced remote communities.

16 of 18 iv) Finally, any Act is only as good as its ability to deliver compliance with its Articles of Legislation. This may require the amalgamation of Department of Environment with the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) with a focus shift to managing compliance within the extended legislation. The "Efficiency Dividend" of such amalgamation could be achieved by the current standard setting role of NEPC being replaced by the simple adoption of USEPA regulatory standards for toxic substances AND USEPA processes of site assesment. The adoption of USEPA standards should free up an entire Department to concentrate on adherence to those standards. The events described here occurring around both EES hearings and in day to day regulation could only have occurred if the Regulators charged with protecting the Community and the Environment had seemingly no interest in assessing the actual risks faced by areas surrounding mine sites. This lacksidasical (negligent) approaches to regulation is seen across the Goldfields of Victoria in particular Woodvale, Stawell and Costerfield. For Costerfield the Issues have been documented here see; http://costerfieldantimonyissues.blogspot.com.au/p/costerfield-antimony-issues- homepage.html BDEC believes the Stawell contamination issues will be presented in a separate submission. Costerfield appear to have struggled to pool resources to lodge a submission. I hope the committee will examine the above website in lieu of that inability. BDEC will end this submission with a question. How do communities of low socio-economic status without access to Legal Services address the recurring failure of Due Process by Regulators who have NO desire to correct that failure? This failure has occurred despite the known health risks of such exposure to carcinogens and other toxins; at Woodvale (Arsenic), at Stawell (Arsenic & Cyanide) and at Costerfield (Aerosolised Lead and Antimony).

17 of 18 This completes BDEC's submission. Yours Sincerely Postscript; Whilst every attempt has been made to minimise typographical errors some will have undoubtably slipped through. We request permission to correct those should they become apparent. Like many community submissions to this enquiry, BDEC is a self funded, not for profit, completely voluntary community organisation with all expenses paid from after-tax membership fees. We have no access to pro- bono or tax deductible secretarial or stationary services .

18 of 18