CHAPTER 5 Protecting the Values of Kakadu: The Jabiluka Process 5.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process 5.2 Consultation and Decision Making 5.3 Permits 5.4 Environmental Monitoring 5.5 Mechanisms used by the Supervising Scientist to Protect the Environment 5.6 Cultural Heritage Places Protection: The Boiwek and Almudj Sites Conclusion 51 Protecting the Values of Kakadu: The Jabiluka Process CHAPTER FIVE: PROTECTING THE VALUES OF KAKADU—THE JABILUKA PROCESS The report of the UNESCO Mission claiming that the values of Kakadu were threatened did not account for the extensive environmental impact assessment process undertaken by the Australian government in relation to the proposal. Under Australian law binding measures have been imposed on the company to provide proper assessment to protect biological and social values within and outside the lease area. The measures imposed by the government will ensure that any potential impacts CHAPTER 5 on World Heritage values are monitored and assessed and where necessary remedied. Public consultation has been a key element of that process. Accordingly, there will be no impact on World Heritage values. The history of site assessment relating to Boiwek site is outlined. Any assessment of impact on World Heritage values needs to take into account the history of actions taken by the Australian Government to protect those values. Environmental Impact 5.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS Assessment • mandatory 5.1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment of Jabiluka • transparent The Jabiluka mineral lease is not and never has been part of the Magela Kakadu National Park. The proposals to mine and mill uranium ore at • comprehensive and exhaustive floodplain and Jabiluka have been subject to a transparent environmental impact the Jabiluka assessment process (EIA) under the Environment Protection (Impact of • protecting World outlier, Kakadu Proposals) Act 1974 (the EPIP Act). The assessment process has been Heritage values National Park (Michael Preece) 53 Protecting the Values of Kakadu: The Jabiluka Process comprehensive and exhaustive, carried out over a three year period, with wide public and expert input. Assessment was conducted jointly with the NT Government which separately evaluated the outcomes. The EIA process has adhered to the highest standards. Where any doubt has existed in relation to the Company’s proposals, stringent conditions have been applied, and/or unsatisfactory options rejected. Throughout the process, and articulated clearly in the Minister’s consideration, has been a careful CHAPTER 5 assessment of the potential threat to World Heritage values, and provision for the protection of these values. 5.1.2 The Ranger Mill Alternative The EIA Process Under ERA’s initial preferred option, the Ranger Mill Alternative (RMA), an underground mine was to be established at Jabiluka with the ore being • Environmental transported to the existing Ranger mine for milling, processing and Impact Statement tailings disposal (refer Figure 5). Under this proposal there would be no subject to public tailings dam on the Jabiluka site, visual effects would be minimised, and comment a policy of zero water release from the mine site would be implemented. • ensured protection The mining aspect of the RMA was covered by the 1982 Agreement of World Heritage and consent of the traditional owners, the Mirrar. Milling ore extracted values in Kakadu from the Jabiluka mine at Ranger would require additional consent • over 70 stringent from traditional owners. environmental ERA was directed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) conditions placed of the Jabiluka RMA proposal, in accordance with the Commonwealth’s on the Jabiluka Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 in 1996. The project to protect proposal was also subject to Northern Territory impact assessment Kakadu under the Environmental Assessment Act 1982. Guidelines for the EIS were made available for public comment for a period of four weeks. The Draft EIS prepared by ERA was released for almost 12 weeks for public comment. After this ERA was required to prepare a supplement Ranger Mill to the EIS which specifically addressed the issues raised during public review, including those raised by the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Alternative (RMA) Corporation, which strongly opposed the mine. The final EIS, which • underground mine took into account public comments, was submitted to the respective at Jabiluka Commonwealth and NT Environment Ministers. Thereafter the Department of the Environment and the NT Department of Lands, • ore to Ranger for Planning and Environment prepared assessment reports for milling, processing consideration by the respective Ministers. and tailings disposal: The Minister for the Environment examined the assessment report, and with particular attention to the protection of World Heritage values, – no tailings at proposed that more than 70 stringent conditions be met by ERA for the Jabiluka project to proceed. These conditions will ensure there is no impact on – no polluted World Heritage values. water at The Minister for Resources and Energy, endorsed the intent of the Jabiluka Minister’s recommendations, and took them into account in his advice – minimal visual to ERA. The Minister for Resources and Energy stated that ERA would effects at need to comply with the requirements before the Commonwealth Jabiluka government would consider issuing an export permit for uranium when the mine became fully operational, at that time expected to be around the year 2000. 54 Protecting the Values of Kakadu: The Jabiluka Process 5.1.3 The Jabiluka Mill Alternative—Public Environmental Report Under the terms of the 1991 transfer agreement ERA needs the approval of the Aboriginal owners to mill Jabiluka ore at Ranger. The senior traditional owner, (daughter of the senior traditional owner who was party to the 1982 agreement with the mining company) has not given her consent to this milling option. Therefore, in accordance with the Australian governments commitment to indigenous rights, under the CHAPTER 5 Land Rights Act, ERA sought environmental clearance for an alternative method to mill the ore and dispose tailings at the Jabiluka mine site (refer Figure 6), referred to as the Jabiluka Mill Alternative (JMA). The JMA is fully consistent with the consent of the Mirrar recorded in the 1982 Agreement. As a result a further assessment process, a Public Environment Report (PER), was required of the company by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments. Formal environmental assessment of the JMA proposal was carried out in 1998 by the Commonwealth Government, under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, and by the Northern Territory Government under the Environmental Assessment Act 1982. Guidelines for the PER were made available for public comment. The PER was released for public review in June 1998 for a period of four weeks. Environment Australia and the NT Department of Lands, Planning and Environment prepared Assessment Reports, taking account of public comments for consideration by their Ministers. The Gundjehmi Association (representing traditional owners) did not make a submission to the JMA PER and made comment in the media that they would not participate in the process. The Northern Land Council and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) made submissions to the JMA PER. The Gundjehmi Association had made submissions to the earlier RMA EIS, as did the NLC and Kakadu Board of Management. Jabiluka Mill Alternative ERA’s preferred option for the JMA as described in the PER (JMA) involved the mixing of tailings with a cement paste and the disposal of 50% of the tailings on site in purpose built pits, with • senior traditional owner the remainder deposited in mined-out underground workings. did not approve the RMA At the end of the statutory decision making period the • ERA developed an Environment Minister obtained an extension of three weeks to alternative to mill ore and make his decision. During this time the Minister sought an process tailings at Jabiluka independent review by scientists at the University of NSW of the (the JMA) proposed management of tailings. ERA Ltd also provided additional information at this time. • further environmental assessment—the Public The Minister for the Environment reported on the PER to the Environment Report Minister for Resources and Energy in August 1998. In making his decisions in relation to the mine and the milling options, the • additional environmental Minister also gave full consideration to the report of the Kakadu measures: Regional Social Impact Study and reports prepared by the – protection of values in Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on international nearby Kakadu safeguards and agreements governing the use of uranium. – effective Because of a number of scientific uncertainties relating to the communication with processing and disposal of tailings, the Environment Minister indigenous people recommended that more stringent measures be required than the company’s preferred option as indicated in the PER. – strict standards for environmental ERA was required to comply with an additional 15 management and site recommendations covering issues such as protection of World rehabilitation 56 View west (approx) of Jabiluka mine site taken from within the Lease boundary. Note that the ridge between the two outliers separates the mine site from the Oenpelli Road and the Magela floodplain beyond and blocks