Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 2668

❓ A WA parliamentary question scrutinising the EPA's report on Yara Pilbara Nitrates' impact on Murujuga rock art, focusing on scientific omissions, enforceability, and emission standards. The Minister's response outlines ongoing consultations and limitations in current monitoring requirements.

AnsweredQoN 2668Legislative Council

Asked

19 November 2019

Member

Hon Robin Chapple

Portfolio

Environment

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Ministerial Statement 870, and the related Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) report No. 1648, and I ask: (a) was the EPA report 1648 in essence, a review of Ministerial Statement 870 requested by the Minister under s.46 of the Environmental Protection Act (1986) ; (b) how, or why, did the report come to omit previous scientific literature demonstrating the negative relationship between acidic/low pH emissions and the stripping of manganese and ferrous species from the patina present on the Murujuga lithographs; (c) in a similar vein, why was the relationship between rock surface pH and industrial emissions omitted from the report discussed in (b); (d) does the Minister consider all recommendations of the report to be genuinely enforceable: (i) if no to (d), why not; (ii) if no to (d), by what measures does the Minister propose to enforce these recommendations; and (iii) if yes to (d), does the Minster intend to implement all recommendations, as written; (e) under what circumstances did the report come to be designated as ineligible for appeal; (f) given that 'best practice' for chemical and fertiliser plants were developed in Europe, without any consideration of the impacts on rock art in a North West Australian climate, why were these standards of best practice recommended by EPA; (g) does the Minister consider these standards of best practice, as discussed in (f), to be the best standards employable, given that Yara claim they can autonomously reduce sulphur dioxide emissions to zero parts per million, and nitrogen oxides by 99 percent for shipping and 98 percent for industrial plants: (i) if yes to (g), will the Minister provide a rationale; and (ii) if no to (g), will the Minister provide a rationale; (h) does Yara have any obligation to realise these figures described in (g), if they already possess the required selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology; (i) has this SCR technology been installed on all the emission stacks of the Yara TANPF, and their fertiliser plant; (j) what is the concentration (in mg/m) of NOx, from the TANPF nitric acid stack (A2), prior to entering the SCR technology; (k) what is the concentration (in mg/m) of NOx emmitted or lost, during processing, via this SCR technology; (l) would the Minister please give this difference between (j) and (k) as a percentage change; (m) what is the current throughput (reactant mass/time) for SCR technology, utilised by Yara TANPF; and (n) are the concentrations of aerosolised chemical species at the site and its air-shed less than or greater than 103 mg/m3 for NOx and 196 mg/m3 limits: (i) if yes to (n), is the Minister aware that this figure is in excess of that stipulated by the plant's current licence L7997-2002-11f?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

5 December 2019

Responded by

Minister for Environment

Response time

10 days

(a)-(i) I requested the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to inquire into and report on the matter of changing implementation Condition 5-1: Air Quality in Ministerial Statement 870 for the Yara Pilbara Nitrates Pty Ltd Technical Ammonium Nitrate Production Facility on the Burrup Peninsula, to protect rock art. On 13 September 2019, the EPA completed its inquiry and provided me with a report including recommendations for potential changes to Ministerial Statement 870. I have now commenced consultation with other decision-making Ministers and will make the final decision regarding amending Ministerial Statement 870 in due course.
(j) – (l) The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) advises that the Environmental Protection Act 1986 Licence L7997-2002-11 does not require monitoring of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) within the process. Measurement of NO X is only required from the nitric acid plant stack after the application of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. The concentration of NO X from the nitric acid plant prior to entering the SCR technology is therefore unknown.
(m) DWER advises that Licence L7997-2002-11 does not require monitoring of throughput. The licence requires continuous monitoring of the emission flow rate from the nitric acid plant stack.
(n) DWER advises that Licence L7997-2002-11 does not require monitoring of ambient ground level concentrations (GLCs) of NO X and nitrous oxides (N 2 O). Monitoring of ambient ammonia (NH 3 ) GLCs was included as a condition of licence when L7997-2002-11 was amended on 29 June 2018, and has therefore only occurred since this time. The 2019 ambient monitoring data is not due to be submitted until the end of March 2020.
(i)Not applicable.

View on Parliament of WA