This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/19/tiwi-islands-port-project-needs-no-environmental-risk-assessment-epa

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tiwi Islands port project needs no environmental risk assessment – EPA Tiwi Islands port project needs no environmental risk assessment – EPA
(about 1 hour later)
The controversial Port Melville development on the Tiwi Islands does not need environmental risk assessment, the Northern Territory environmental regulator has concluded.The controversial Port Melville development on the Tiwi Islands does not need environmental risk assessment, the Northern Territory environmental regulator has concluded.
Publishing its findings due to the “high level of interest” in the port 122km north of Darwin, the NT Environment Protection Authority (EPA) said it had identified a number of concerns with the port’s operation but was satisfied risks could be managed.Publishing its findings due to the “high level of interest” in the port 122km north of Darwin, the NT Environment Protection Authority (EPA) said it had identified a number of concerns with the port’s operation but was satisfied risks could be managed.
But the environmental defenders office said the decision was “extraordinary” and the recommendations were unenforceable.
The construction of Singaporean developer AusGroup’s $130m deep sea port development sparked outrage in May when it was revealed the project had gone ahead without any environmental impact assessment despite it being in an area of ecological “national significance” on the Tiwi Islands.The construction of Singaporean developer AusGroup’s $130m deep sea port development sparked outrage in May when it was revealed the project had gone ahead without any environmental impact assessment despite it being in an area of ecological “national significance” on the Tiwi Islands.
Related: Tiwi Islands port developer ordered to have project environmentally assessedRelated: Tiwi Islands port developer ordered to have project environmentally assessed
The $130m development – a Tiwi woodchip export facility also touted as a hub for the oil and gas industry – includes a 36-hectare area plus a wharf in waters 12 metres deep, 150-bed accommodation, a 30m-litre tank farm for fuel storage and distribution, customs station and wastewater treatment plant.The $130m development – a Tiwi woodchip export facility also touted as a hub for the oil and gas industry – includes a 36-hectare area plus a wharf in waters 12 metres deep, 150-bed accommodation, a 30m-litre tank farm for fuel storage and distribution, customs station and wastewater treatment plant.
Dr Bill Freeland, chairman of the NT EPA, said at the time his organisation was “unimpressed” but was hamstrung by legislation which allowed a company to ignore a request for information on a proposed project.Dr Bill Freeland, chairman of the NT EPA, said at the time his organisation was “unimpressed” but was hamstrung by legislation which allowed a company to ignore a request for information on a proposed project.
However, on Monday the EPA said it had now considered the environmental risks and Port Melville did not require any further assessment.However, on Monday the EPA said it had now considered the environmental risks and Port Melville did not require any further assessment.
“The NT EPA considers that Port Melville can be managed in a manner that avoids significant environmental impacts provided that the commitments and safeguards detailed in the [notice of intent], additional information, and OEMP, and the recommendations provided here are implemented and are subject to monitoring, auditing and review,” it said.“The NT EPA considers that Port Melville can be managed in a manner that avoids significant environmental impacts provided that the commitments and safeguards detailed in the [notice of intent], additional information, and OEMP, and the recommendations provided here are implemented and are subject to monitoring, auditing and review,” it said.
The EPA consulted with NT government advisory bodies and examined information provided by AusGroup and the federal Department of Environment in making its assessment.The EPA consulted with NT government advisory bodies and examined information provided by AusGroup and the federal Department of Environment in making its assessment.
It identified several potential environmental impacts, including interference with marine life and threatened species, poor waste and water management, construction activities on sites of significant heritage, and water extraction from a spring which currently supplies a local community.It identified several potential environmental impacts, including interference with marine life and threatened species, poor waste and water management, construction activities on sites of significant heritage, and water extraction from a spring which currently supplies a local community.
Ausgroup cited its own modelling, which found predicted groundwater drawdown would not have a “measurable impact” on the spring, which currently supplies water to the community of Pirlangimpi. The EPA recommended monthly groundwater monitoring data be provided to the government and water corporation.Ausgroup cited its own modelling, which found predicted groundwater drawdown would not have a “measurable impact” on the spring, which currently supplies water to the community of Pirlangimpi. The EPA recommended monthly groundwater monitoring data be provided to the government and water corporation.
The EPA made several recommendations to address the issues listed, which the company said it would comply with.
Also among the concerns was that the port operator’s documents and plans for managing diesel spills – there was one this year – “are not fit for purpose in their current form and would be difficult to implement in the event of an emergency.”Also among the concerns was that the port operator’s documents and plans for managing diesel spills – there was one this year – “are not fit for purpose in their current form and would be difficult to implement in the event of an emergency.”
The EPA made several recommendations to address the issues listed, which the company said it would comply with, but these are essentially unenforceable according to David Morris, principal lawyer at the NT environmental defenders office.
“Unless the actual development itself changes it really can’t go back for another type assessment,” Morris told Guardian Australia.
He said the EPA had no power to ensure the recommendations from its “pretty thin” statement of reasons were carried out.
“There is a massive amount of reliance on the operators, and we’ve found in the NT time and time again we shouldn’t trust operators to do the right thing,” he said.
“There’s no disincentive for doing the wrong thing and no incentive for doing the right thing.”
Morris also said by not initiating an environmental impact assessment the EPA had cut the public off having a say on the project.
Related: Deep sea port reportedly built on Tiwi Islands with no obvious official approvalRelated: Deep sea port reportedly built on Tiwi Islands with no obvious official approval
When concerns over the port’s lack of approval were first raised in May the Northern Territory government scrambled to explain the apparent oversight, with one minister claiming “loopholes” in legislation had allowed it to go ahead, and the chief minister suggesting Port Melville was not in fact a port and thus not subject to relevant assessments.When concerns over the port’s lack of approval were first raised in May the Northern Territory government scrambled to explain the apparent oversight, with one minister claiming “loopholes” in legislation had allowed it to go ahead, and the chief minister suggesting Port Melville was not in fact a port and thus not subject to relevant assessments.
The federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, ordered an urgent investigation into why the project was not referred to his department, and advised the operator to refer it for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.The federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, ordered an urgent investigation into why the project was not referred to his department, and advised the operator to refer it for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
The federal investigation is still ongoing and the minister will make his referral decision “shortly,” ABC radio was told. Hunt said the assessment and approval processes by state and federal bodies were “quite separate”.The federal investigation is still ongoing and the minister will make his referral decision “shortly,” ABC radio was told. Hunt said the assessment and approval processes by state and federal bodies were “quite separate”.
AusGroup managing director Gerard Hutchinson said: “This is a welcome development and we are committed to carefully consider the environmentally sensitive location of Port Melville and the potential impacts that any work may have on the island. In consultation with the Tiwi people, we will ensure the port complies with any environmental policies and work to mitigate any environmental risks.”AusGroup managing director Gerard Hutchinson said: “This is a welcome development and we are committed to carefully consider the environmentally sensitive location of Port Melville and the potential impacts that any work may have on the island. In consultation with the Tiwi people, we will ensure the port complies with any environmental policies and work to mitigate any environmental risks.”
Both the federal and Northern Territory environment ministers have been contacted for comment.Both the federal and Northern Territory environment ministers have been contacted for comment.