WWF-Australia Level 1, 17 Burnett Lane Brisbane QLD 4000 Postal: same as above Tel: +61 7 3003 1480 Fax: +61 7 3229 4431 [email protected] @WWF_Australia wwf.org.au

ABN 57 001 594 074

Committee Secretary

Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Email: [email protected]

06 June 2014

Dear Secretary,

Submission: Inquiry into the adequacy of the Australian and Queensland Governments’ efforts to stop the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef

WWF-Australia and the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) have already provided a substantial joint submission addressing all of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.

WWF has also commissioned a report “Queensland Nickel Yabulu Refinery – Risks to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area” which has been authored by an independent expert.

WWF now wishes to present the attached report as a separate submission addressing the following ToR:

(c) Management of non-agricultural activities within reef catchments impacting on the reef, including legacy mines, current mining activities and practices, residential and tourism developments, and industrial operations including Yabulu.

We hope this report will assist the Committee in its Inquiry.

Yours Sincerely,

Richard Leck

WWF Australia National Manager – Marine Conservation and Sustainable Development

QUEENSLAND NICKEL YABULU REFINERY RISKS TO THE GREAT BARRIER REEF WORLD HERITAGE AREA

A review of available information

Prepared by Dr Glen Holmes

6 June 2014

CONTENTS At a glance ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 The North Queensland Conservation Council FOI Request ...... 2 Refinery process ...... 3 Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) ...... 4 Environmental Permits ...... 5 Commonwealth ...... 5 GBRMPA ...... 5 State ...... 6 National Pollutant Inventory...... 7 Environmental Assessment and Management (EA&M) Program ...... 9 Water Quality Standards ...... 9 Communications with GBRMPA and SEWPaC ...... 10 Conclusion ...... 11 References ...... 12 Freedom of Information Release Documents ...... 13 Appendix A - QNPL Process Overview ...... 14

AT A GLANCE

 QNPL have a long history of poor water quality management at the Yabulu refinery with the capacity of the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) being problematic for at least the last 10 years  The TSF contains high levels of ammonia and metals including chromium, copper, lead and mercury  QNPL have discharged wastewater from the TSF without authorisation in 2009 and twice in 2011  The second 2011 discharge was equivalent to 18-22% of the nitrogen released from the entire Burdekin catchment. Based on this one release, QNPL has the capacity to completely undo all the gains achieved by Reef Plan and Reef Rescue  QNPL have requested permission to release wastewater into the GBRWHA on at least four other occasions in 2004, 2009, 2011 and 2012  The unauthorised releases have not been included in the mandatory reporting the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI)  Reporting to the NPI is inconsistent, questioning the reliability of the data  Regulators have been inadequate at enforcing environmental licence conditions  The temporary environment program (TEP) approved by the Qld government allows the release of ammonia at concentrations more than 50 times the recommended concentrations  New DA criteria recently issued provide QNPL with a mechanism to bypass GBRMPA permitting and exceed water quality guideline trigger values by more than an order of magnitude

Page 1

INTRODUCTION Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QNPL) is the operator of the Palmer Nickel and Cobalt Refinery (QNPL 2013). The refinery, located at Yabulu, about 25km north of Townsville, has been in operation since 1974 and produces nickel and cobalt products from imported laterite ores via leaching in an ammonium carbonate liquor. The waste streams from this process contain high levels of ammonia and other metals, are stored on-site in a tailings storage facility (TSF) (QNPL 2013). Concern was raised in the media 2012 regarding the stability of the TSF following requests from QNPL to partially drain the TSF into Halifax Bay within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA).

This report has been prepared to assess the level of risk to the GBRWHA posed by the operations of the Yabulu refinery based on publically available information only. No correspondence has been entered into with QNPL or state or Commonwealth government agencies regarding the operations of the refinery. A Freedom of Information request was made to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) by the North Queensland Conservation Council (NQCC) and the information released under this request has been made available for inclusion in this report.

A separate report compiled by an independent science panel was completed in December 2012 but has not been made available.

THE NORTH QUEENSLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL FOI REQUEST NQCC submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request to the GBRMPA for:

All correspondence (incoming or outgoing) from 1 June 2012 between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and

 the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC)  the Queensland Government; and  Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QNPL)

The request collated 181 documents and those deemed to be within the scope of the request and not exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 were released. Many were email communications with very little technical information. The remainder contained documents that concerned relations between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments. Other information pertaining to QNPL has not (at the time of writing) been released pending an appeal by QNPL on the decision to release them. It is assumed that these disputed documents contain the bulk of any technical data concerning the TSF.

Information contained in the FOI is referenced as FOI #(document number).

Page 2

1 REFINERY PROCESS The QNPL refining process takes imported ores from mines in New Caledonia, Indonesia and the Philippines. The ores vary slightly in composition depending on the source mine. Moisture content varies from 30-40% based on the source mine and weather at the various bulk handling facilities (Fittock 2007). The typical composition of the feed ore at the refinery is shown in Table 1 (Fittock 2007).

TABLE 1: TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF ORES IMPORTED TO THE YABULU REFINERY

Moisture Chemical composition (% w/w dry basis) (% wet wt) Ni Co Fe Si Mg Mn Cu Zn Ca Al Cr S 35 1.6 0.15 37 7.2 5.2 0.8 0.01 0.05 0.1 2.1 1.2 0.2

The feed ore is initially dried and then ground to a fine powder, mixed with fuel oil and reduced at high temperature to reactive metals. The ore is then cooled and leached in ammonium carbonate solution to dissolve the nickel and cobalt into amines. These are then separated out by progressively washing in ammonia solution. The waste materials are then sent to the onsite TSF and the nickel is separated from cobalt by ammoniacal solvent extraction and precipitated by boiling off ammonia. A simplified process flow diagram is shown in Appendix A.

In 2001, approval was granted by the Commonwealth for the Yabulu expansion project (YEP), to double the production capacity of the plant to 76,000 tonnes/yr of nickel and 3,500 tonnes/yr of cobalt (see below for permit details). In 2007, the YEP was completed allowing the refinery to additionally process ore from BHP Billiton’s Ravensthorpe mine in Western Australia. The YEP was decommissioned in January 2009 and production rates have not varied significantly since 2008 (FOI#121).

Production rates identified in the QNPL Operating Plan (Sept 2012) (as noted in FOI doc 121) are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2: QNPL NICKEL PRODUCTION

Financial Year Tonnes of products 2008 30,000 2009* 35,000 2010 32,000 2011 30,000 2012 39,500 * 2009 represents 1 July 2008 to 1 January 2009 when plant was shut down

1 The refining process description has been summarised from Fittock (2007) and QNPL web site (www.qni.com.au)

Page 3

TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY (TSF) Waste slurry (about 60% solids) containing the reduced ore tailings and high levels of ammonia and carbon dioxide is passed through stills to remove ammonia and CO2 before being sent to the TSF. The TSF is a series of ponds holding approximately 5000 ML2 to the north of the Yabulu refinery, separated from Halifax Bay by a 1 km wide coastal strip. Approximately, 4,500 ML of tailings liquor and 1.9 million tonnes of solids are sent to the TSF annually based on 2003 production levels of approximately 27,000 tonnes (Connor et al. 2003).

Historically, excess wastewater from the TSF would be discharged via a pipeline 1.8km into adjacent Halifax Bay in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency conditions (Connor et al. 2003). Although a common occurrence in the 1970's and 80's, ocean discharge of the refinery wastewater ceased in 1990 with the commissioning of the TSF. However, ocean discharge resumed again following Cyclone Justin in 1997 with 12 ML/day a common occurrence (Connor et al. 2003). Since 2004 however, the refinery has required a permit from the GBRMPA to discharge via the pipeline (www.gbrmpa.gov.au). QNPL had a valid permit to maintain and then decommission the pipeline until June 2013 but this permit did not allow for the discharging of wastewater from the TSF (or any other part of the facility) (see below for details).

Prior to the most recent request, QNPL have requested permission to discharge via the ocean disposal pipeline on several occasions in 2004, 2009 and 2010 (FOI #123). On each of these occasions permission was not granted. Unauthorised releases occurred in 2009 and 2011. In each of these cases the GBRMPA cited QNPL but did not prosecute (FOI #123). The unauthorised discharges in 2011 occurred in February and again in March-April 2011 (FOI #104). The March-April release contained 516 tonnes of nitrogen according to FOI #10. The 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement cites the later 2011 release as being "759 megalitres of polluted water, which added an estimated 425 tonnes of nitrogen to inshore Great Barrier Reef waters" (Johnson et al. 2013). This equates to an ammonia concentration of approximately 500 mg/L3, more than 500 times the ANZECC water quality guideline criteria (Table 6). Historical ocean discharges from the refinery typically contained 700 mg/L ammonia (QNI 2002). Nitrogen concentrations within the TSF are more than 150 times the allowable concentration for release into the Marine Park (based on sewage permit levels (FOI#123)). These numbers are equivalent to 18-22% of the estimated annual load of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) from the Burdekin catchment based on the 2009 baseline pollutant loads report (Kroon et al. 2010).4 This suggests that QNPL discharging into the GBRWHA has the capacity to negate gains made by the Reef Rescue and Reef Plan programs. The third report card under the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan reported an 8% reduction in nitrogen from the 2009 baseline for the Burdekin NRM region (Qld Gov. 2013). The single release from the QNPL facility in 2011 not only negates this improvement but sets it back a further 10%.

The exact composition of waters potentially released from the TSF is not publically available. However, it is known that it contains high levels of ammonia, nickel, cobalt and other metals (Connor

2 Equivalent to approximately 2000 Olympic pools in volume 3 Assuming all nitrogen is present as ammonia 4 The difference in reported amounts is probably due to a misunderstanding as 516 tonnes of ammonia equates to 425 tonnes of nitrogen.

Page 4

et al. 2003). Other potentially hazardous substances within the TSF can be gleaned from National Pollutant Inventory reporting (see Table 5 below).

In 2000, QNPL commissioned a reverse osmosis (RO) water regeneration plant to recycle some of the water from the TSF (Fittock 2007). The RO plant has a capacity of 12 ML/day and its installation was intended in part to remove the need for any further ocean disposal of wastewater (Fittock 2007). This has however, evidently not been the case based on the requests and unauthorised releases made by QNPL (FOI#123).

The 2012 crisis with the TSF is reported in the media as being the result of a "big wet season"5. However, it is interesting to note that the production rates for the 2012 financial year were also 25% higher than the average of the previous 4 years (Table 2) generating approximately 1 thousand extra mega litres of wastewater sent to the TSF.

On 5 June 2012, QNPL again informed GBRMPA that it would be releasing from the TSF for 3 days from that day (FOI #9). It is unknown if any such released occurred but little or no time for assessment of the validity of the release was afforded the GBRMPA, the responsible management agency.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS

6 COMMONWEALTH QNPL currently have approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for the expansion of the refinery (YEP) to a production level of 76,000 tonnes/yr of nickel and 3,500 tonnes/yr of cobalt. This permit is valid until 2031. The permit did allow for some ocean disposal of wastewater during the commissioning phase of the refinery expansion. However, this condition expired on 17 October 2007. This permit specifies that the wastewater management strategy must ensure that the spill risk from evaporation ponds does not exceed "1% Annual Exceedance Probability or there being insufficient freeboard to meet the allowance for wave action generated by a 1 in 100 year Average Recurrence Interval wind".

Although the permit issued under the EPBC Act was for the YEP, it remains valid even though the YEP was decommissioned in 2009 (FOI #121).

GBRMPA7 QNPL had until June 2013 two permits from the GBRMPA in association with the Yabulu refinery. Permit #G11/33310.1 was valid from 17 Jan 2012 to 30 June 2013 for the existence of the ocean

5 Reported in The Australian 28 June 2012 6 information from www.environment.gov.au 7 information from www.gbrmpa.gov.au

Page 5

disposal pipeline including maintaining, decommissioning and removing. This permit did not allow for any discharge from the pipeline.

The only other permit held by QNPL is to conduct a research program for the environmental monitoring of the inputs to Halifax and Cleveland Bays (permit # G12/34944.1, valid from 30 March 2012 to 30 March 2015).

STATE QNPL operate under a Queensland Development Authority (DA). However, the conditions associated with this Authority are not publically available.

On 8 January 2013, QNPL lodged an application for a Transitional Environment Program (TEP) Water to help QNPL achieve compliance with the conditions of its DA (#NR0404). The TEP was approved by the Queensland Dept. of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) on 11 January and remains in force until 2 December 2013. QNPL must report on the successful compliance with the TEP by 16 December 2013. Specifically, the TEP aims to achieve compliance with DA condition 1C6 which states:

"The risk of spill from the dams specified in schedule 1C - Table 1, measured at 1 May and 1 November, must be less than 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) including sufficient freeboard to meet the allowance for wave generation in a 1 in 100 year annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) wind."

The TEP proposes that QNPL use a combination of hard engineering solutions to the TSF in combination with an improved stormwater management system that will prevent "clean" stormwater from being diverted to the TSF. Currently, Condition 1D6 requires that all stormwater from the plant are be diverted to the TSF and QNPL believe that this condition is contributing to the ongoing capacity problem of the TSF (FOI #174).

The TEP also proposes a Receiving Environmental Monitoring Program (water) although not required under the current DA. This appears to be an odd proposition as QNPL had been undertaking an Environmental Assessment and Management Program since June 1997 (Connor et al. 2003). It is however unclear if this program was maintained after the refinery was sold by BHP Billiton in 2009. QNPL have also held a permit from the GBRMPA to undertake environmental monitoring since March 2012.

The TEP allows for an increase in the concentration of ammonia that can be released in to the environment. The refinery DA permits releases of ammonia up to 2ppm (2 mg/L) while the approved TEP allows for concentrations up to 25 mg/L (FOI #174). The current ANZECC water quality criteria for ammonia in slightly-moderately disturbed systems in estuarine or marine waters is 0.9 mg/L and a review referenced in the TEP by Batley and Simpson (2009) recommended a criteria of 0.46 mg/L (see Water Quality Standards below). In defence of their argument for the higher emission concentration value, QNPL argue that the environment that they wish to release into (including the GBRWHA) "should be considered to at least be "moderately disturbed" if not "heavily impacted"" due to the historic discharges of the refinery (FOI #174).

Page 6

The ABC reported on Dec 3 that QNPL had not completely complied with the conditions of this amended DA (ABC online Dec 3 2013). In a subsequent report, a QNPL representative stated that "The Department of the Environment in Queensland has just issued another licence for us to continue operating ....." (ABC online Dec 5 2013). This new DA was issued by the Queensland Government on 19 November 2013 (Permit number EPPR00940913) and stipulates (in Section C) specific criteria for contaminant releases to waters. Table 3 compares the listed objectives with the default ANZECC trigger values (refer to Water Quality Standards section, ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000).

TABLE 3: RECEIVING WATERS OBJECTIVES LISTED IN CURRENT DA FOR QNPL

New DA levels (µg/L) ANZECC Guideline levels (See Table 6) (slightly–moderately disturbed systems) Pollutant Objective (Annual Compliance Limit Freshwater (µg/L) Marine (µg/L) 50th percentile) Ammonia 1,700 18,000 A 900 C 910 C Chromium (III) 27 B 90 B ID 27.4 Cobalt 14 B 150 B ID 1 Lead 12 B 35 A 3.4 4.4 Nickel 70 B 560 B 11 7 Notes A: Values to be reviewed subject to findings of Receiving Environment Monitoring Program B: Numbers based on ANZECC (2000) C: Figure may not protect key test species from chronic toxicity

Each of the contaminants listed in Table 3 are above the default criteria under the ANZECC guidelines. The compliance limits for chromium, cobalt and nickel are each set at the least stringent level under the ANZECC guidelines (80% species protection) which assumes that the receiving environment is both highly disturbed, and that stakeholders agree that this protection level is appropriate (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000). Off record discussions with the GBRMPA and the local government indicate that no engagement on this issue was made. The compliance level for lead (35 µg/L) is almost three times higher than any ANZECC trigger level, while the ammonia compliance limit is more than 10 times higher. In addition, the criteria set for both ammonia nickel at both the objective and compliance limits is identified in the ANZECC guidelines that it may not protect key test species from acute toxicity (and chronic) (objective level) or chronic toxicity (Compliance limit).

The new DA also identifies two new designated release points from the TSF (Alick Creek mouth and Blind Creek mouth) in addition to the existing Halifax Bay pipeline. These new release points effectively allows QNPL to release waters from the TSF without the need to seek approval from the GBRMPA.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT INVENTORY QNPL, as with all other heavy industry, reports annually to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). The NPI collates all releases to air, land and water of any of the 92 listed substances (NPI 2013). In 2011 and 2012, QNPL reported on the releases of 31 substances to the environment with the majority of these being released to the atmosphere. Releases to water are defined as discharges to (NPI 1999):

 Surface waters (eg. lakes, rivers, dams, and estuaries);  Coastal or marine waters; and

Page 7

 Stormwater.

The reported releases to water by QNPL since 2008-09 are summarised in Table 4. All releases to water reported are based on direct measurements.

TABLE 4: ANNUAL RELEASES TO WATER REPORTED TO THE NPI BY QNPL SINCE 2008 (IN KG)

NPI Reportable Substance 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Ammonia (total) 9295 ND 9360 4722 Arsenic & compounds ND ND 0.3 0.203 Beryllium & compounds ND ND 0.3 0.203 Cadmium & compounds ND ND 0.03 0.041 Chromium (III) compounds ND ND 2.4 3.87 Cobalt & compounds ND ND 4.8 5.26 Copper & compounds ND ND 0.6 1.015 Lead & compounds ND ND 0.3 0.203 Manganese & compounds ND ND 586.2 1223 Mercury & compounds ND ND 0.03 0.02 Nickel & compounds ND ND 98.4 57.69 Zinc and compounds ND ND 3 5.65 ND indicates no data reported

The NPI also reports on transfers to the TSF and these quantities are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5: ANNUAL TRANSFER OF NPI REPORTABLE SUBSTANCES TO THE ON-SITE TSF (IN KG)

NPI Reportable Substance 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Ammonia (total) 1,147,329 1,530,445 1,441,653 189,689 Antimony & compounds ND ND 213,065 103,696 Arsenic & compounds 1,633 11,533 13,144 ND Beryllium & compounds 181 1,278 3,353 ND Boron & compounds 181,396 1,281,047 435 ND Cadmium & compounds 181 1,282 453 ND Chromium (III) compounds 7,618,628 12,565 13,897 15,289,439 Cobalt & compounds 1,648,889 11,658,355 2,274 904,612 Copper & compounds 54,600 386,042 3,309,124 52,390 Fluoride compounds ND 253,671 303,174 118,659 Lead & compounds 4,354 30,778 45,097 40,127 Manganese & compounds 12,171,666 86,007,937 8,140,571 3,998,976 Mercury & compounds ND 641 22 11 Nickel & compounds 7,691,187 54,379,285 9,064,753 4,456,868 Zinc and compounds 277,536 1,962,392 1,069,927 512,199 Calculation Methods measurements mass balance mass balance mass balance ND indicates no data reported

Immediately noticeable in the data reported in Table 4 and Table 5 is the high degree of variability in the levels reported between years. The levels of the various substances being transferred to the TSF vary by as much as a factor of over 5000 (compare cobalt in 2009-10 to 2010-11). While there may be variations in the composition of feed ore or occasional changes with the refinery (such as a unit failure), it is difficult to understand the high levels of variability given that the overall production rates are similar (refer to Table 2).

Of more concern is the lack of reporting of amounts of various substances released to waters. For example, in the 2011-12 financial year, 12 substances were reported as being released to waters

Page 8

whereas in 2009-10 no releases were reported. As previously stated, QNPL are known to have released wastewater from the TSF on several occasions between 2009 and 2011. The most recent release being reported as between 425 and 516 tonnes of nitrogen (equivalent to 516 - 626 tonnes of ammonia)8 (FOI #10 and Johnson et al. 2013). It appears that these releases have not been reported to the NPI as the total ammonia released in 2010-11 is reported as 9.36 tonnes (Table 4).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT (EA&M) PROGRAM An EA&M program was managed by external consultants Lloyd Consulting from 1997-2009 (Lloyd 2013). Initially, the objectives of the program were to inform management such that appropriate remedial and management practices could be implemented in the refinery buffer zone (immediately surrounding the refinery). The program was subsequently expanded to include the marine and infrastructure zones (Connor et al. 2003). The study concluded that "despite ocean discharge practices, no appreciable impact on ecosystem health measures can be determined" but that the coastal ecosystem had been impacted through changes in local hydrology.

Despite these conclusions, the data presented in the study showed that concentrations of nickel, chromium, cadmium and arsenic were above comparison study values (all other metals were within comparison ranges). The study also found that elevated levels of nutrients and metals were found within 800m of the ocean discharge point and that the macroalgae in the vicinity of the ocean discharge point and mangroves within the refinery buffer zone were influenced by refinery emissions (Connor et al. 2003).

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Within coastal Queensland there are potentially three water quality guideline criteria that should be applied: ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines (2000); Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (DERM 2009); and the GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines (GBRMPA 2010). Currently there are no guideline criteria for the Yabulu area under the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines or relevant criteria under the GBRMPA Water Quality Guidelines, thus the ANZECC (2000) criteria apply (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000). The ANZECC guidelines provide a default criteria based on slightly-moderately disturbed systems, usually based on 95% species protection. Lower levels of protection may be applied in certain circumstances such as in highly disturbed systems where stakeholders agree that a lower level is appropriate (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000).

Batley and Simpson (2009) undertook a review of the standards for ammonia in estuarine and marine systems through increasing the number of data points used in deriving criteria from 21 to 59. When considering all the additional data, they recommended decreasing the criteria from 910 to 460 µg/L for slightly-moderately disturbed systems. These values are well below the allowed concentration of 25mg/L (25,000 µg/L) under the TEP.

8 The difference in reported amounts is probably due to a misunderstanding as 516 tonnes of ammonia equates to 425 tonnes of nitrogen.

Page 9

Three of the dominant contaminants released to waters (Table 4, ammonia, nickel and cobalt are all likely to be well above the ANZECC criteria for marine waters based on the low trigger values. This however, cannot be confirmed as the concentrations within the TSF are unknown. Disposal of TSF wastewaters is also likely to trigger exceedences in other metals such Cr(III) due to the quantities transferred to the TSF.

TABLE 6: WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR POLLUTANTS RELEASED BY QNPL

ANZECC Pollutant (slightly–moderately disturbed systems) Freshwater (µg/L) Marine (µg/L) Ammonia 900* 910* Antimony ID ID 13 (as AsIII) ID Arsenic 24 (as As V) Beryllium ID ID Boron 370* ID Cadmium 0.2 0.7 Chromium (III) ID 27.4 Cobalt ID 1 Copper 1.4 1.3 Fluoride ND ND Lead 3.4 4.4 Manganese 1900* ID Mercury 0.06 0.1 Nickel 11 7 Zinc 8* 15* ID: Insufficient data to derive trigger value ND: No data *: Figure may not protect key test species from chronic toxicity **: Values represent trigger levels for slightly–moderately disturbed systems

COMMUNICATIONS WITH GBRMPA AND SEWPAC Documents released under the FOI request by NQCC reveal several relevant facts and opinions:

 Dam safety (engineering) and spill risk modelling reports exist but have not been made available  QNPL commission annual dam safety reviews  GBRMPA was aware of unpermitted discharges via the ocean outfall in 2009 and 2011 and cited but did not prosecute QNPL  GBRMPA's opinion is that QNPL has a history of poor water management and the Queensland Government has been ineffective at proactively regulating or enforcing water management plans  QNPL has been challenging both state and federal approvals and in August 2012 informed GBRMPA they would not enter into further correspondence and threatened a compensation claim of $6.4b if GBRMPA intended to exert authority over the company  On 25 June 2012 QNPL was instructed by DEHP to develop a corrective action plan to reduce tailings dam spill risk  GBRMPA's opinion is that the (draft) corrective action plan did not provide much new information/ ideas other than ocean outfall

Page 10

 Alternative options have been presented to QNPL previously to address the TSF issue but none have been taken up  GBRMPA produced an assessment report in March 2011 on the impacts of releases from the TSF

CONCLUSION QNPL have a long history of issues with the TSF and on several occasions have released contaminated wastewater into the GBRWHA without authorisation. These unauthorised releases also appear to have remained unreported in the NPI. Such actions by QNPL detract from the company’s environmental credibility and may be contributing to the opinion by the GBRMPA that QNPL refinery has poor wastewater management.

While the precise concentrations of contaminants within the TSF are currently unavailable, the contaminants known to be in the system (from for example NPI reporting) suggest that these ponds do represent a significant threat (if released) to the ecology of Halifax Bay (within the GBRWHA) and the coastal area adjacent the Yabulu refinery. Acute toxicity effects aside, the unauthorised release in March-April 2011 equated to approximately 20% of the total nitrogen load released from the Burdekin catchment annually, the single largest source if inorganic nitrogen input to the GBR. This single release was more than twice the size of the reported gains achieved under the Reef Rescue and Reef Plan programs and its significance cannot be ignored given the link between nitrogen loads to the GBR and outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns seastars (COTS) (Fabricius et al. 2010) . The 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement identifies nitrogen pollution from the Burdekin (where the refinery is located) and Wet Tropics NRM regions as the greatest risk to coral reefs of the GBRWHA (Brodie et al., 2013).

The capacity problems with the TSF have been ongoing since ocean disposal was forced to be resumed in 1997. The many of constituents of the TSF will have detrimental impacts within the GBRWHA based on the ANZECC water quality criteria (Table 6) and it is concerning that the TEP was approved with ammonia (the dominant contaminant) release concentrations more than 50 times the recommended criteria. With the refinery holding approval until 2031 under the EPBC Act to double its production capacity, the issue of the TSF capacity to minimise spill risk will continue unless significant reforms are made.

Page 11

REFERENCES ANZECC, ARMCANZ, 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, vol. 1. The Guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Batley, G.E., Simpson, S.L., 2009. Development of guidelines for ammonia in estuarine and marine water systems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 1472-1476.

Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Furnas, M., Maynard, J.A., Collier, C., Lewis, S., Warne, M., Fabricius, K.E., Devlin, M., McKenzie, L., Yorkston, H., Randall, L., Bennett, J., Brando, V.E., 2013. Chapter 3. Relative risks to the Great Barrier Reef from degraded water quality, 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Connor, R., Milsom, J., Melzer, A., Butler, B., Faithful, J., Dennison, W., Lloyd, T. and Swain, G. 2003. Ecosystem-based Assessment and Management of Marine and Estuarine Systems at the Queensland Nickel Yabulu Refinery, Townsville. Protecting the Values of Rivers, Wetlands and the Reef 2nd National Conference on Aquatic Environments: Sustaining our Aquatic Environments - Implementing Solutions. , 20 - 23 November 2001, Townsville, QLD, Australia.

DERM, 2009. Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, Version 3. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.

Fittock, J.E. 2007. Nickel and Cobalt Refining by QNI Pty Ltd, Yabulu, Qld. "Mawby" - AUSIMM Monograph 19 Volume. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Fabricius, K. E., K. Okaji, and G. De’ath. 2010. Three lines of evidence to link outbreaks of the crown- of-thorns seastar Acanthaster planci to the release of larval food limitation. Coral Reefs 29:593-605.

GBRMPA, 2010. Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2010. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Johnson, J., Maynard, J., Devlin, M., Wilkinson, S., Anthony, K., Yorkston, H. Heron, S., Puotinen, M. and van Hooidonk, R. 2013. Scientific Consensus Statement 2013 - Chapter 2: Resilience of Great Barrier Reef ecosystems and drivers of change. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, State of Queensland.

Kroon, F.J., Kuhnert, K., Henderson, B., Henderson, A., Turner, R., Huggins, R., Wilkinson, S., Abbott, B., Brodie, J., Joo, M., 2010. Baseline pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef., CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report, p. 41.

Lloyd 2013. Lloyd Consulting website. (http://www.lloydconsulting.com.au/queensland-nickel- eam.html) Accessed 1 October 2013.

NPI 1999. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Nickel Concentrating, Smelting and Refining. National Pollutant Inventory, Environment Australia.

Page 12

NPI 2013. National Pollutant Inventory database. (www.npi.gov.au) . Australian Government. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Accessed 17 September 2013.

Qld Gov. 2013. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan) Report Card 2011. Queensland Government

(http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/report-card-2011.aspx)

QNI 2002. QNI Yabulu Refinery - Integrated Water and Ecological Management within a Certified Management System. Presentation to the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, Noumea 2002.

QNPL 2013 - Queensland Nickel website (www.qni.com.au)

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION RELEASE DOCUMENTS

FOI# Pages Date Author Description 9 2 6/6/12 Richard Quincey Email to Rebecca Williams DERM. RE: GBRMPA QNPL Briefing Note 10 3 6/6/12 Jesse Low DERM Email to Richard Quincey GBRMPA. RE: QNPL 2011 briefing note 104 10 24/10/12 Rachael Reese Email to Nick Wheen, DSWEPaC RE GBRMPA Yabulu update 121 3 30/11/12 Drew Mclean Email to Rachael Reese GBRMPA. RE: DSEWPaC QNPL EPBC approval quesitons 123 4 4/12/12 Shane Gaddes Email to Andrew Skeat GBRMPA. RE: DSEWPaC Minister Brief 174 21 16/1/13 Ingrid Formiatti Email to Rachel Reese GBRMPA RE: QNPL DEHP status and TEP

Page 13

APPENDIX A - QNPL PROCESS OVERVIEW

FIGURE 1: SIMPLIFIED QNPL PROCESS DIAGRAM (SOURCE QNPL)

Page 14