Ms O’CONNOR – This is about broad environmental regulation issues which the EPA is responsible for and what influence, if you like, industry has on regulatory decisions made by the Environment Protection Authority. If you want me to ask you questions about stadium fill or something like this in this output, I’m happy to do that too. If perhaps we could just do this. If there is a question on notice, I will go back to it in the other output. So the documents provided in the RTI documents, there’s no author. Are you able to tell the committee who wrote this draft?
Ms MURDOCH – I actually am unsure of what documentation you’re referring to.
Ms O’CONNOR – So were you – so the director of the EPA was at this meeting?
Ms MURDOCH – You’ve said 5 August.
Ms O’CONNOR – The document is RTI documents and the document is entitled Draft Environmental Monitoring of Florfenicol in Salmon Aquaculture Marine Sites.
Ms MURDOCH – Are we able to see it? If I can confer with Daryl next to me.
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the bundle that referred to in the RTI, and a lot is blacked out. This document’s not ringing any bells with you?
Ms MURDOCH – No. I’m just checking in case it might have been something they lodged with us which was – I’m not quite sure what document we’re talking about.
Ms O’CONNOR – How about I find the exact reference in the right to information documents. I’d be surprised – who’s the director of the EPA?
Ms MURDOCH – I am.
Ms O’CONNOR – That’s right, but I’d be surprised if you hadn’t –
Ms MURDOCH – Was this an NRE Tas RTI? Otherwise, I haven’t seen it. I’m EPA.
Ms O’CONNOR – Whether or not you’ve seen it I’m not sure is relevant, because you were at this meeting according to the RTI, and there was a document before you about environmental monitoring of florfenicol.
Ms MURDOCH – Honestly, I do not remember having a face‑to‑face meeting with John Whittington. I’m presuming it was a Teams meeting potentially, but I’m honestly – I’m presuming it was a florfenicol monitoring program that the industry put forward. My team saw that document. We had a look at it, as you will see, and I’m happy to answer when we get asked about what monitoring we’re doing. It might have helped inform, but I think what you can see is that we have gone well above what was put forward in that document.
Ms O’CONNOR – So you’re confirming that this document to which I refer –
Ms MURDOCH – I don’t know what document you’re referring to.
Ms O’CONNOR – The draft Environmental Monitoring of Florfenicol in Salmon Aquaculture Marine Sites document.
Ms MURDOCH – Is it a –
Ms O’CONNOR – It’s not in the RTI. It’s referred to in the RTI.
Ms MURDOCH – I don’t know, and I have not seen that RTI.
Ms THOMAS – Is it a state government document?
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, this is what I’m trying to establish, Bec, whether it was written by government or the EPA or put forward by Salmon Tasmania.
Ms MURDOCH – I’m happy to talk through, absolutely, our monitoring program that we have put in place, and that was only put in place in September, correct me if I’m wrong, Daryl.
Mr COOK – It may have been August, but after that date that you’re talking about. You’re talking about 5 August?
Ms MURDOCH – Yes. And we’re very happy to absolutely walk through our monitoring program and what’s being done and I’m also happy to answer that question, in regards to we are completely an independent, scientifically‑based organisation. I take that exceptionally seriously, as do all the staff in this room. It is absolutely a privilege to work for this organisation. We make all our decisions on robust science, and I am impartial, independent and that is the core of what the EPA is.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for that statement. The EPA’s website says that it has:
… developed a new florfenicol antibiotic residue monitoring schedule prepared through a review of scientific literature and support from public health services.
Ms MURDOCH -Yes.
Ms O’CONNOR -. Was there any influence at all from the industry on the development of this schedule, and did the EPA undertake an entirely independent literature review –
Ms MURDOCH – Yes.
Ms O’CONNOR – or did they rely on the one done by industry?
Ms MURDOCH – I’m really happy to answer this question because I’m pretty proud of how the team have done this work. So yes –
CHAIR – Are we doing this under 1.3 where it fits?
Ms MURDOCH – I know. I understand, Chair.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, we will get back to various questions about finfish regulations.
CHAIR – I’m just trying to make it easy for Hansard and for our reporting purposes, that’s all.
Ms MURDOCH – Yes. Industry had put forward some ideas and obviously we already have the oxytetracycline monitoring schedule as well. Our team looked at those and have come up with – and I’m actually happy to table the research that my team over 41 – documentation –
Ms O’CONNOR – That would be great.
Ms MURDOCH – I brought that with me because I thought this might come up. My team, in working with public health, developed a monitoring schedule, they reviewed 41 current literature on florfenicol, and I have to say they’re continuing to look at literature. I think public health only sent us one the other day so we’re constantly in this. I’m happy to table that bibliography to here.
We looked at that and compared, and I think it’s fair to say we have gone a lot stronger, and we can document where and how. For instance, the first sampling that has occurred is over 700 sites are being done under that sampling. There is extensive baseline and there is other extensive monitoring. If you would like me to go through the monitoring program, I’m happy to do that and go through exactly what we’re doing.
Ms O’CONNOR – I don’t know if we need a blow‑by‑blow of the monitoring program. I think it’d be great if you could table the literature review.
Ms MURDOCH – Absolutely.
Ms O’CONNOR – But a summary of the monitoring program would be helpful.
Ms MURDOCH – Do I steal your thunder, or would you like me to – Darryl?
Mr COOK – I’m happy to –
Ms MURDOCH – I’m happy to go through it. The summary, just so you know, is still pretty extensive because it goes through the baseline of what we’re doing there and then during treatment monitoring, and there are treatment sites, non‑treatment sites, control sites and reference sites. There is a lot.
CHAIR – Before you start that, could I just ask on that point, what interaction do you have with the Director of Public Health in this?
Ms MURDOCH – Yes.
Mr COOK – Yes. We communicated – the process that was outlined, that the director has already mentioned – Salmon Tasmania came to us initially with the intention to use florfenicol and that was 29 July, and they had proposed some monitoring, they had done some literature reviews, so we picked up from there. We did our own literature review, we made contact with the Director of Public Health and got input from them as well as our own review of the literature, and we significantly built on the schedule that was put to us by Salmon Tasmania. I can start to take you through some of that if you like.
CHAIR – Sure.
Mr COOK -All right. In chronological order, the first thing that happens is baseline sampling, so that sampling that’s undertaken before any florfenicol is put into the water, so we have water sampling. We have that at internal site within the lease, and we have it at external sites 35 metres from the boundary of the lease at three compliance sites. We then have reference sites which are some distance away from the lease ranging from 500 metres away to –
Ms MURDOCH – To 8.5 kilometres.
Mr COOK – Yes.
CHAIR – Based on water currents?
Mr COOK – They’re selected from our broadscale environmental monitoring program from within the region.
CHAIR – Sure.
Ms MURDOCH – There is actually really harsh conditions as well. Apart from what they have to do, like for that one for instance, it says samples must be taken at the edge of the [inaudible 5.40], the pen downstream of prevailing water currents, and the position must be reported at the time of collection. There’s a lot of science and methodology in this.
Mr COOK – Then we have sediment sampling sites. Again, we have internal sampling of all the stock pen bays within the lease. We have the external sites in it, the three compliance points 35 metres from the boundary of the lease and the reference sites again. We have the sediment sampling there.
Then we have an untreated lease at some distance away which is also a stocked lease, so sampling of pens at that lease for some stock pen bays and compliance points at that untreated lease.
Then we have what we call in fauna sampling which is looking at the invertebrate communities living in the sediment. We have all stock pen bays again of those leases. The three compliance points are 35 metres from the boundary and the same three reference sites. Then we have the untreated lease again for the in-fauna sampling and then we have sediment microbial sampling. This is to look at the microbial community that is in the sediment, again a similar thing. We have all the internal stocked pen bays within the treated leases. We have the three compliance sites, three reference sites and the untreated lease. A similar thing with the stock pen base, three stock pin bays and three compliance points. That’s an example of –
Ms MURDOCH – Baseline.
Mr COOK – For one of the companies and we would have a very similar thing to the other company.
The numbers may change slightly, the number of compliance points.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for that. I am trying to double check in terms of the monitoring that you’ve outlined here. What we have in the right to information is on the 5 August, the document sent by John Whittington to Jason Jacobi and Catherine Murdoch, which is the draft environmental monitoring of florfenicol in salmon aquaculture marine sites.
Mr COOK – That wouldn’t have had any of these baseline requirements.
Ms MURDOCH – We have added baseline requirements, so really happy to get that on the record, we are absolutely doing extensive baseline monitoring of any antibiotic treatment.
Ms O’CONNOR – OK and so if we held up the industry’s proposed monitoring program that they certainly would have hoped that you’d adopt –
Ms MURDOCH – Vastly different.
Ms O’CONNOR – and the one that the EPA has in place now. How far from pen sites is the monitoring extending to, given that there’s a three-kilometre impact exclusion of florfenicol.
Ms MURDOCH – It varies. We’ve just gone through the baseline – and as was said, those sites are reference sites for up to 508.5 kilometres from pens as well as within external. In the monitoring that happens then on day one, 714 and 21.
Mr COOK – Yes, after treatment.
Ms MURDOCH – Again, we had – after treatment – we have a collection of wild fish sampling, water sampling, in-fauna, microbial and sediments again at different ranging sites again. Some of those are within the pens. All the fish, to help inform the monitoring is, is at zones that public health have worked with us, which are 500 kilometre and three kilometres. We are really specific on those of where they have to be collected from. 24 fish, mixed samples and on which days and mid-treatment for those.
Then the water sampling is across all of those sites and the reference sites as well, some of them. We’ve just had another one that potentially sites are actually 9.1 kilometres from the side. In response to how this varies from what was put to us, I think you will find, there was no microbial, we have added in water quality, we’ve added in baseline. We’ve done far more extensive sampling than what was originally proposed and it’s extensive.
Mr COOK – You will find we have adopted what industry put forward, though, but we’ve just added a lot.
Ms MURDOCH – We have added a lot.
