meeting summary - alligator rivers region advisory ... · alligator rivers region advisory...

Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee

Meeting 43

Meeting Summary

21 April 2015

ARRAC43 Meeting Summary of 13

Agenda

Agenda Item

Meeting Start 0930

1 Welcome

2 Apologies/Observers

3 ARRAC42 Meeting Summary and Actions

4 Governance/Appointments

5 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Report

6 Supervising Scientist Report

7 NT Department of Mines and Energy Report

8 Member Reports

8.1 Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation

8.2 Northern Land Council

8.3 Environment Centre NT

8.4 Cameco Australia Pty Ltd

8.5 NT Environment Protection Authority

8.6 NT Department of Health

8.7 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

8.8 Australian Government - Department of Industry and Science

8.9 Australian Government - Parks Australia

8.10 Uranium Equities Ltd

8.11 Afmeco Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd / Areva Group

9 Other Business

10 Next Meeting

Meeting Close 1500


1 WELCOME The Chair welcomed members and observers to the meeting. Mr McAllister provided a facilities and safety briefing.

2 APOLOGIES AND ATTENDANCE Apologies from the following members were noted. Members Position Organisation

Joe Potter Member AREVA

Sally Barnes Member Australian Government – Parks Australia

Lauren Mellor Member Environment Centre NT

Justin O’Brien Member Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation

Xavier Schobben Member Northern Territory Government – Department of Health

The attendance of the following members and observers was noted.

Members/Deputy members

Organisation

Charles Webb Independent Chairperson

Damien Ewington Cameco Australia Pty Ltd

Tim Eckersley Energy Resources of Australia Ltd

Rick Tinker (nominee) Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (by phone)

Adam Thompson Northern Land Council

Russell Robinson Northern Territory Government – Department of Health

Bill Freeland Northern Territory Government – Environment Protection Authority

Phil Hausler(nominee) Northern Territory Government - Department of Mines and Energy

Ron Kelly(nominee) Representing the Administrator of the NT

Michael Sheldrick Australian Government - Department of Industry and Science

Richard McAllister Supervising Scientist

Observers Organisation

Melanie Impey Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation

Francess Perrett Northern Territory Government - Department of Mines and Energy

Michael Bethune Northern Territory Government - Department of Mines and Energy

Brooke Cawood Northern Territory Government - Department of Mines and Energy

Sharon Paulka Energy Resources of Australia Ltd

Keith Tayler Supervising Scientist

Ally Sinclair Supervising Scientist

John Miller Supervising Scientist

Kate Turner Supervising Scientist

Rene Bartolo Supervising Scientist

Andrew Harford Supervising Scientist

Chris Humphrey Supervising Scientist

Lucy Lytton Supervising Scientist

ARRAC Secretariat

Scott Parker Supervising Scientist

3 DRAFT ARRAC42 MEETING SUMMARY AND ACTIONS ARISING The draft ARRAC42 meeting summary was approved as tabled.


The status of the following ARRAC42 actions was noted. Action Status

ARRAC41: 2 Mr Simms to provide Mr Robinson the report provided to regulatory agencies regarding the higher than usual radiation dose recorded for ERA workers (Carried over from ARRAC42).

Follow up out of session

ARRAC42:1 Secretary to seek ARRTC view on further requirements for uranium and sediment transport from onsite wetlands.(from ARRAC41-3)

To be raised at next ARRTC meeting

ARRAC42:2 Mr Waggitt to discuss the cause of elevated solutes in GCT2 at MTC. Completed

ARRAC42:3 Secretariat to coordinate selection of next meeting date in consultation with members

Completed

4 GOVERNANCE/APPOINTMENTS (Mr Parker)

Mr Parker advised that appointments to ARRAC are on hold as departmental committee arrangements are currently subject to consideration in the Budget context.

5 ERA REPORT (Mr Eckersley)

Mr Eckersley acknowledged the Mirrar as the Traditional Owners of the land on which Ranger is located and provided the ERA update report. Key points are summarised below.

Safety, People and Diversity – In response to a poor safety performance in 2014, ERA instituted a Safety Improvement Program in October 2014 which is focused on health/safety leadership and critical risk management. ERA has not recorded any reportable injuries on site since the program commenced (190 days) which represents a record safety performance for ERA in recent history. ERA continues to be a major employer in West Arnhem region although overall staff numbers have reduced as a result of the restructuring of mining operations following the completion of the Pit 3 initial backfill. Staff reductions have reduced the number of apprentices, school-based and indigenous traineeships and affected gender balance. ERA has initiated a pre-employment program to develop the skills of potential employees in the local community as ERA will need to increase staffing levels if the Ranger 3 Deeps project proceeds.

Operations – 2014 was a difficult year for ERA with 1165 t of U3O8 produced. ERA had to go to the spot market to meet its supply obligations. Production recommenced in 2014 following the shut down as a result of the leach tank failure and ERA is moving to full production with the production guidance for 2015 being 1,600 tonnes to 2,200 tonnes. ERA has made good progress on Pit 3 civil works and Pit 1 rehabilitation. A total of 844 ML of distillate was produced by the Brine Concentrator in 2014. There has also been good progress with tailings and brine management processes. Despite the tough operating environment, ERA finished in a good financial position with a cash position of $293 million as at 31 December 2014 and no debt. ERA invested $57 million in rehabilitation in 2014.

Process safety – Following the leach tank incident, ERA instigated a process safety improvement plan for delivery over the period June 2014 – June 2016 covering policy and procedures, process safety management, plant integrity assessment and associated learnings. The aim is to demonstrably improve process safety management and culture on site. ERA has undertaken a certification process for tanks and is focused on completing actions to improve process safety in the areas of describing critical controls (to be competed June 2015); improving critical control monitoring plans (to be completed June 2015) and process safety leadership/expertise. ERA has identified 11 process safety hazards at Ranger mine although some are not strictly process safety related. ERA expects to see an increase in the types of incidents being captured in the short term but this is expected to reduce over time as the process takes effect.

Water management – The lower than average rainfall year at Ranger (on track to be the lowest for 10 years) has put ERA in a good position regarding water management on site. Given this, ERA shut down pond water treatment in February 2015. The level in the TSF has started to decline due to transfers from the TSF to Pit 3 due to design requirements. There were also direct transfers of process water from the mill to Pit 3. While performance of the Brine Concentrator has been affected due to scaling, ERA is starting to get improvement in the effectiveness of the plant and process chemistry is now under control. There has been some problems


with power generation and ERA has instigated an improvement program to secure the required energy for the plant going forward. Current pond water inventory is 1031 ML (423ML in RP2 and 608ML in RP6). Process water is held in the TSF (current level of 57.24m with MOL of 57.9m), Pit 3 (at -91.27m) and Pit 1 (current level at 9.22m with MOL of 14m).

Gulungul Creek EC – ERA maintains a number of water quality monitoring points in Gulungul Creek and in associated tributaries. Following a number of EC spikes in Gulungul Creek, an internal review identified that there is high EC water within the shallow groundwater in the catchment and that Gulungul Creek Tributary 2 (GCT2) is the main source. A surface collection sump was installed in 2010 which has proved to be ineffective. Test pits were dug south of the TSF which detected higher EC water extending laterally to 300m. An interception trench was installed by ERA which has been effective in reducing high EC waters flowing to Gulungul Creek. Investigations during 2014-15 showed that elevated EC events have occurred following either large rainfall events or sustained periods of rainfall. The interception system has captured a significant volume (47 ML) of poor quality water and stopped it from reaching Gulungul Creek. The level of EC in Gulungul Creek is very low compared to various NT drinking water sources and is approximately equivalent to Darwin drinking water. Uranium concentrations are not elevated and all data indicate that downstream ecological communities remain protected. ERA will be undertaking further investigations during the dry season using geophysics staff to confirm the transport mode for EC in Gulungul Creek (e.g. determine if fractures are involved) and review geophysics and historical geological information. Other work will look at shallow groundwater, alluvial and weathered zone profiling to determine EC and hydraulic conductivity. ERA has also commissioned a review of the GCT2 catchment by an independent hydrogeologist (Dr Tamie Weaver – ERM) to interpret historical data and provide an evidence-based assessment of flow paths. A GCT2 Conceptual Site Model will also be constructed to facilitate an effective remedial solution(s) which will be implemented prior to next wet season.

Rehabilitation Status – ERA has made significant progress with rehabilitation activities across the site. In Pit 1, works included rock preload to aid consolidation and a laterite capping has commenced to enable the Pit to be managed as pond water catchment. Pit 1 is currently being used for both pond and process water storage. In 2017, work will commence to bulk fill Pit 1 followed by landform shaping and rehabilitation. Mining in Pit 3 ceased in 2012. Backfilling and related civil works in Pit 3 have continued and the Pit has been converted to enable tailings deposition. There is currently 5m of process water in Pit 3. Rehabilitation at Jabiluka has progressed well with 6000 plants on the site.

Tailings and brine management – Tailings and brine management are the key to successful rehabilitation of the minesite. The tailings dredge is scheduled to arrive at site by Q2 2015 and is currently undergoing QA/QC work prior to its proposed launch in early June. Brine injection pipe work is under construction and the tailings transfer infrastructure is being finalised.

Ranger 3 Deeps – The Exploration Decline and Prefeasibility Study drilling program was finalised on time and budget in late 2014 and the decline is currently under care and maintenance. The ERA Board requested some further technical work before reconsidering the project. The public comment period on the Ranger 3 Deeps draft Environmental Impact Statement closed in late 2014 and a total of 18 submissions were received. A supplementary report addressing comments is being drafted and should be released in a few weeks. ERA is looking for regulatory approval in July/August this year with delivery of first development ore scheduled for 2016.

DISCUSSION – Ms Impey asked whether the comparison between EC levels in Gulungul Creek and Darwin drinking water was based on water quality limits or just average levels. Mr Eckersley advised that the comparison was based on average EC levels detected in Darwin drinking water supplies.

6 SUPERVISING SCIENTIST REPORT

The ARRAC43 Supervision and Assessment report was presented. Key points are summarised below.


INSPECTIONS AND AUDITS (Mr Miller)

Mr Miller advised that audit and inspection activities by the Supervising Scientist in the period September 2014 to April 2015 included 7 RPIs at Ranger, 2 RPIs for Jabiluka, and audits at Nabarlek (UEL and West Arnhem Joint Venture), King River Camp (Cameco) and Myra Camp (Alligator Energy). During this period, Supervising Scientist staff and relevant stakeholders also visited various former sites in the South Alligator region. Key issues for Ranger RPIs included water management, weeds and follow up on actions arising from the leach tank failure including process safety related matters. Issues for Jabiluka RPIs included progress in rehabilitation of the IWMP and fire impacts at Djarr Djarr. The results of the 2014 Environmental Audit at Ranger included 4 category-two non-conformances and 22 conditional findings (mainly due to rollout of new system components). Most findings have been closed out. The next Audit at Ranger is scheduled for June this year. The environmental audit at Jabiluka focused on the IWMP removal and resulted in 1 category-two non-conformance and 5 conditional findings. Further survey work will be required for bore rehabilitation which will be the focus for the next audit.

Incident reporting – In the period August 2014 to February 2015, there were a total of 7 reported incidents, with the majority of these being hydrocarbon spills on the RPA. Of the 22 reported incidents during 2014, 15 of these were hydrocarbon spills on the RPA. It is proposed that the incident descriptors be modified in the future to provide more detail about the type of hydrocarbon involved and the areas affected. Most spills on the RPA are minor in nature with only 2 exceeding 50 litres. The results of an analysis of incidents over the past 5 years show that there has been a trend reduction in the numbers of incidents. This could be due to ERA improving its environmental performance but this can’t be confirmed from the data. Ms Paulka noted that, in the future, ERA will report incidents depending on where they occur and only for Category 1 incidents and above.

Current incident investigation activities – Current Supervising Scientist investigation activities include tracking implementation of follow up actions arising from the Leach Tank Incident, provision of advice on controls and mitigation measures associated with the exceedance of the discharge limits from the PDP and Calciner Stacks and investigations into the recent EC exceedances in Gulungul Creek.

West Arnhem Exploration Audits – The audit of Myra Camp (Alligator Energy) was conducted 22-23 September 2014 and focused on commitments from the approved 2014 MMP. The audit resulted in 6 Observations. The audit of the King River camp (Cameco) was conducted 13-14 October 2014 and focused on commitments from the 2014 Arnhem Project MMP. Results included 1 Category-2 Non-Conformance: the maintenance of radiation clearance records, 2 Conditional findings downgraded to Acceptable and 7 Observations. The audit of Nabarlek (UEL) was conducted on 10 September 2015 and focused on commitments from the 2014 West Arnhem Joint Venture MMP. Results included 3 conditional findings (provision of fire extinguishers in the camp; replacement of a lock on the sample store and calibration of radiation monitoring equipment) and 9 Observations. It was noted that the break-in at the site prior to the audit was reflected in some of the audit findings.

DISCUSSION –Prof Webb suggested it may be useful for comparative purposes to provide ARRAC with information on how audit results (in terms of numbers of category 1 and 2 etc) compare with audit results from other mine and exploration sites across the NT. Mr Tayler noted that Supervising Scientist would not have access to the audit results for other mines in the NT and this information may be commercial in confidence. He noted any NT wide comparison would need to be done by DME as they hold the information. Prof Webb asked how ARRAC might gain a higher level of confidence around the outcomes of the current audit activity. He also asked how ARRAC should be responding to audit findings, especially in relation to instances of clear non-conformance with statutory requirements. Mr Tayler suggested that ARRAC could perhaps focus on the timeliness and adequacy of operators’ responses to identified non-conformances. He suggested that Supervising Scientist could provide future ARRAC meetings with details on the expected timeframes for closing out any reported non-conformances. Mr Miller suggested the proposed additional information to be provided on the incident data could also be adopted for reporting audit findings.

MONITORING


Ms Sinclair presented water quality and biological monitoring results for Magela Creek, Gulungul Creek and Swift Creek for the reporting period. Key points are summarized below.

Magela Creek

EC levels in Magela Creek had remained below levels of concern. There were a few peaks (only two approached action level) and there were no exceedances. There were a few peaks in turbidity over guideline levels related to usual upstream movements of sediments. All uranium results were well below focus level. The downstream results are being examined in connection with the current investigation into the Gulungul Creek EC events. Mg levels were at or below focus levels. Mg levels increased up to action levels just downstream of the Magela Creek - Gulungul Creek confluence (reflecting the influence of Gulungul Creek) but Mg levels reduced to focus levels downstream at Mudginberri. As usual, sulfate levels tracked EC levels. There was a spike in sulfate in early February 2015 where Mg level remained low. Further assessment indicated that the sulfate was associated with Na not Mg. It is thought this may be due to mobilisation of thenardite (Na2SO4) from sulfidic soils in the wetlands of the Georgetown and Coonjimba catchments. Radium levels were typically low and full results for the 2014-15 wet season will be provided next meeting.

Gulungul Creek

A number of EC peaks at the downstream monitoring site in Gulungul Creek were detected and thought to be due to inputs from GCT2. Turbidly levels were similar to those in Magela Creek with the upstream monitoring site showing the influence of sediment movements in the catchment. Several high EC events occurred in March 2015 at the downstream monitoring site. The first event on 15 March involved EC peaking at 113 μS/cm and remained above the Magela Creek 72 hour chronic EC exposure Limit of 42 μS/cm for a period of 129 hours. Mg levels closely tracked EC as expected during the event. Sulfate levels reduced moving downstream due to dilution resulting from inputs of sulfate deficient water from Baralil Creek. During the second event on 24 March, EC levels at the downstream monitoring site peaked at 79 μS/cm and remained above the EC limit for a period of approximately 68 hours. While the EC at the Gulungul Creek downstream monitoring site did not exceed the Magela Creek chronic EC exposure Limit (above 42 μS/cm for more than 72 hours), it did exceed the magnesium/EC Pulse Exposure Limit of 44 μS/cm. Uranium levels generally remained below focus levels indicating that uranium is being strongly attenuated in the system.

Ngarradj (Swift Creek)

EC levels in Ngarradj were elevated at the start of the wet season but decreased as the wet season progressed. EC levels have started to rise again as the creek moves into recessional flow. Turbidity levels were similar to previous years with the exception of a single event in February following a large rainfall event.

Biological monitoring

In-situ toxicity testing using snails was undertaken in Magela Creek and Gulungul Creek. Results to date show no significant difference between results this year compared to previous years. There were less snail tests in Magela Creek this year due to the additional tests conducted in Gulungul Creek associated with the EC exceedance events. In Gulungul Creek, there was no statistical difference observed between the mid stream and downstream sites. It was expected there may be some effect due to the high EC levels but no statistical difference was observed. Supervising Scientist also conducted direct toxicity tests in the laboratory using GCT2 water on a number of different species and little effect was observed, except at highest EC levels. This is due to the ameliorative effect of the high Ca levels in reducing Mg toxicity. A minor effect on snails was observed around the 1000 – 2000 μS/cm EC level. Supervising Scientist will continue monitoring in Gulungul Creek and will compile a report detailing the findings of this monitoring work. Macroinvertebrate monitoring results were similar to previous years with only a slight difference in dissimilarity values. Results of shallow billabong fish community studies were similar to previous years. Further work on macroinvertebrates and mussel bioaccumulation will be done at the end of the wet season

Atmospheric radiation monitoring Supervising Scientist undertakes routine monitoring of Average Radon Progeny Potential Alpha Energy Concentration (PAEC) and Long Lived Alpha Activity (LLAA) at Jabiru and Mudginberri. As usual, Radon levels


were higher during the dry season due to dryer soils increasing radon emanation rates. Radiation exposure data for 2014 will be presented to next ARRAC meeting.

DISCUSSION – Dr Webb noted that, looking at the results presented for differences in snail egg production, the difference measured in the last Gulungul test appeared to represent a very significant deviation from zero. Dr Humphrey noted that, as described at ARRAC41, both the data presented and statistical test of change are based on the results of an entire season, not individual toxicity monitoring tests. Assessment of individual test results is based on comparison of results to improved knowledge of egg laying responses in relation to EC and water temperature. Mr McAllister noted the testing is seeking to detect a trend over time. Mr Thompson asked if the toxicity tests undertaken by Supervising Scientist were based on a chronic (greater than 72 hours) or peak exposure. Dr Harford advised that water was taken from GCT2 and this was diluted with Gulungul Creek water in the laboratory to mimic the dilution effects seen in-situ. He noted that there were no observed effects at EC levels which were observed in the creek.

7 NT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND ENERGY REPORT (Mr Bethune)

Mr Bethune provided an update report on behalf of NTDME for the period 1 August 2014 to March 2015. Key points are summarised below.

Mining Technical Committees (MTC) - There are three mining leases in the Alligator Rivers Region: Ranger, Jabiluka, and Nabarlek; only Ranger is operational with Jabiluka and Nabarlek both undergoing rehabilitation activities. Ranger and Jabiluka sites are operated by Energy Resources Australia and Uranium Equities Limited operates Nabarlek. The Ranger and Jabiluka Minesite Technical Committees met 3 times during the reporting period and the Nabarlek MTC did not meet.

Current authorisations – In November 2014, a new Ranger Authorisation was issued to incorporate the Ranger Mine Water Quality Objectives developed by the Supervising Scientist. As these objectives are revised as greater scientific understanding of the site is developed, the change to the Authorisation does not specify the objectives in the Authorisation but rather requires compliance with them. This allows more frequent updates without the requirement to change the Authorisation itself. No changes have been made to the Jabiluka and Nabarlek Authorisations. However, the Jabiluka Authorisation requires amendment to reflect changes to the water monitoring regime and reporting requirements for the site.

Proposals and approvals – The R3D Exploration Decline 2013 Water Report provided results and discussion on water quality data collected during monitoring carried out for the R3D Exploration Decline Water Management Plan. The Pit 1 Surface Water Catchment document notified the MTC of ERA’s intent to manage Pit 1’s surface water based on water quality and report Pit 1’s surface water to the pond water system. The R3D Phase 2 Ventilation Amendment addressed the need to improve ventilation properties at R3Deeps prior to extending the decline. The R3D Radiation Management Plan identified all radiological risks associated with R3Deeps and outlined appropriate management strategies. An Environmental Management Plan for the Anomaly 5 Exploration Drilling program was also submitted. There were no reports submitted for Jabiluka and Nabarlek.

Incidents – There were 7 environmental incidents reported to the MTC during the reporting period. All incidents occurred at Ranger and most incidents related to small volumes of fuel and other liquid spills. DME continued its investigation in relation to the failure of Leach Tank 1 at Ranger that occurred in December 2013. No incidents were reported for Jabiluka or Nabarlek.

Statutory reporting – All statutory reports for Ranger and Jabiluka were submitted by the due date. There were no reports for Nabarlek.

Minesite Developments – Key developments at Ranger included the transfer of tailings from the mill to Pit 3, the construction of the TSF dredge ramp and associated facilities, the conversion of Pit 1 to a pond water catchment and associated laterite capping, the completion of the Gulungul Creek Tributary 2 Seepage Interception Trench and the construction associated with the Ranger 3 Deeps project. Revegetation and erosion controls continue at Jabiluka mine site, Djarr Djarr Village, and Nabarlek.


Surface water quality check monitoring – DME undertakes water quality check monitoring at all mining leases in the Alligator Rivers Region to assess the adequacy of monitoring data being supplied by the operator and potential changes to water quality as a result of mining operations. This work is carried out by the Environmental Monitoring Unit of the DME. DME conducted no surface water monitoring at Ranger and Jabiluka during the reporting period due to staff shortages. Nabarlek surface water monitoring was not scheduled during the reporting period.

Groundwater quality check monitoring –DME carries out check monitoring on 16 bores at Ranger: four statutory and 12 non-statutory. DME conducted groundwater monitoring in September 2014. There was a significant period of time between DME and ERA sampling with the shortest period of time between sampling the same bore being 41 days. This is problematic as best practice check monitoring requires that bores be sampled no longer than 1 or 2 days apart. The ongoing lack of coordination between ERA and DME in relation to bore sampling is an issue of significant concern.

A total of 8 bores were monitored in 2014, however only monitoring data for the following four statutory monitoring bores were presented: RN23931-DEEP (Coonjimba), RN22930 (Corridor Creek/Magela Irrigation), RN21030-DEEP (Gulungul/TSF) and RN23010 (Magela Creek/Pit 3/Magela Irrigation). For this meeting DME also presented box and whisper plots to assist in the comparison between ERA and DME results.

RN23931-DEEP (Coonjimba) – there was generally mixed conformance between ERA and DME results, with the sulfate and magnesium results showing good conformance and the results for manganese and uranium being significantly different.

RN22930 (Corridor Creek/Magela Irrigation) – there was generally good conformance between ERA and DME results with uranium showing the greatest difference.

RN21030-DEEP (Gulungul/TSF) – there was generally good conformance in terms of trend between ERA and DME results although the values are significantly different. Uranium results indicate the greatest difference while Mg conformance was better.

RN23010 (Magela Creek/Pit 3/Magela Irrigation) – there was generally good conformance in terms of trend while the values are not closely aligned.

No groundwater results were presented for Jabiluka or Nabarlek this meeting. Mr Bethune noted this is the first time that DME has presented comparisons of data from DME and ERA beyond the standard time series plots. He suggested that, while a number of datasets are significantly different from each other, the majority would appear to be comparable. It was noted that due to the long period of time between sampling, changes in groundwater chemistry may be contributing to the different results. While the sampling approach by ERA and DME appears similar, further field observation is required to determine whether this is in fact the case. It was noted that greater coordination between the parties is required to ensure DME check monitoring occurs at the same time as ERA routine sampling. In addition to this work, DME suggested that further statistical analysis beyond the box and whisker plots would be useful.

DISCUSSION – Mr Tayler disagreed with the statements by DME and stated he thought DME check monitoring has been generally effective. He noted that check monitoring is never going to get concordance between ERA and DME results and the only issue of concern for ARRAC should be whether there are any major differences or significant trends in the data. Mr Tayler suggested if the results are all in the same order of magnitude then he would be comfortable with that. Mr Tayler therefore queried the level of effort being applied to this issue and whether this is actually warranted. Prof Webb stated he has a different view to Mr Tayler and suggested a reliable, effective, scientifically credible groundwater check monitoring program is essential for providing the required level of assurance to ARRAC and other stakeholders. He asked why focus levels are not shown on the groundwater results and Mr Bethune noted these only apply to surface water quality.

Prof Webb expressed concerns that the issue of non-conformance between ERA and DME groundwater results has been raised at ARRAC over many years and has still not been addressed by ERA or DME. He suggested this raises real doubts about the scientific validity of the whole check monitoring program. Ms Sinclair suggested the significant non-conformance in relation to uranium results may be related to redox and difference in pumping strategies between ERA and DME. Mr Bethune suggested the outliers in the uranium


results may be due to sampling errors. Prof Webb noted this but stressed the key issue should be the scientific validity of the monitoring program. Mr Bethune noted that staff turnover is also an issue and may be why previous recommendations haven’t been followed up.

Prof Webb stated he was seeking a greater sense of confidence that all is well when looking at the current variability in the results. Mr McAllister noted there will always be differences in results when not sampling at the same time. Dr Lytton suggested the observed variability could also be due to some of the bores being open across more than one aquifer leading to fluctuations in water levels and changes in water quality due to the different geochemistry of these different aquifers at the time of sampling. Mr Thompson asked if DME staffing problems were being addressed and Mr Bethune advised that some recruitment had occurred but staffing was still an issue. Ms Perrett noted that staffing can be unpredictable with high turnover. Mr Thompson asked why staff turnover was high and Ms Perrett indicated this was due to issues with attracting and retaining appropriately qualified staff in the NT.

Mr Robinson advised he thought the quality of the charts presented this meeting were better than those provided previously by DME. He asked why the Ranger authorisation had been revoked and Mr Bethune advised the authorisation have been revoked in order for the new Authorisation to be issued. Mr Miller asked what DME plans to do between now and next ARRAC regarding check monitoring. Mr Bethune advised DME would be looking to improve the level of coordination with ERA and is considering whether to have a NT mining officer with ERA staff when sampling. Mr Tayler suggested that DME look to clarify the underlying rationale and objectives of the check monitoring program and think about the level of concordance actually required. Prof Webb suggested perhaps having a few examples of where ERA and DME sampled at the same time. Dr Lytton suggested DME also consider taking blanks and spiked samples to increase the level of confidence in the sampling program. Mr Eckersley noted there is also an issue regarding the chain of custody for samples. He suggested that one option may be to move to a higher level of assurance and trust between parties so that ERA sampling results can be relied on on their own, removing any need for check monitoring.

Mr Robinson asked why ERA and DME couldn’t just split the sample from each bore, include a few spiked samples and then ERA and DME undertake their respective analyses. This would indicate whether problem lies at the laboratory end. Mr Bethune noted that it’s not just the laboratory component as the respective sampling methodologies are also important. Mr Robinson indicated that at least this would rule out one of potential contributing factors. Ms Paulka noted that sampling on the same day or even similar timeframe is actually very difficult due to the sampling methodology requirement for the bore to remain untouched for a certain period prior to sampling and other factors. Prof Webb noted coordinated sampling between ERA and DME would resolve a lot of the problems and remained unconvinced why this couldn’t be done. Ms Turner noted that a proper validation process using blanks and spiked samples would be very useful in determining the error for ERA and DME results. Mr Bethune agreed this would be a useful next step.

Prof Webb commended DME on the new approach for presenting results but stressed the need to improve the level of scientific veracity of the check monitoring framework. Mr Eckersley suggested ERA would be prepared to provide some resourcing if this is a key limiting factor in resolving the problem. Mr Bethune noted the current issues relate more to staffing issues. It was noted that DME and ERA are already coordinating in relation to surface water monitoring and Ms Perrett and Ms Paulka would discuss groundwater monitoring issues further out of session. Prof Webb suggested DME also re-examine the objectives for the current check monitoring program and possible options for improving the veracity and scientific validity of the monitoring results presented to ARRAC.

ARRAC43: 1 - DME and ERA to discuss options for improving the coordination of Ranger groundwater check monitoring activities to provide greater assurance regarding the scientific validity and veracity of the data presented to ARRAC.


8 MEMBER REPORTS

8.1 GUNDJEIHMI ABORIGINAL CORPORATION (Ms Impey)

Ms Impey advised that GAC is looking for ERA to provide stronger reassurance to stakeholders regarding the security of future funding for rehabilitation of Ranger. GAC recognises the recent EC exceedances in Gulungul do not pose any immediate threat to the environment, but remains deeply concerned that the source of the EC has not yet been identified. GAC is generally pleased with ERA’s responses to date and welcomes the reengagement of Dr Weaver. GAC would like to see a steering committee established to oversee Dr Weavers work and to participate in this forum. Ms Impey noted the increased emphasis on groundwater issues at Ranger, and the appointment of Dr Weaver, underscores the need for ERA to have a senior hydrogeologist on staff.

8.2 NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL (Mr Thompson)

Mr Thompson advised NLC has nothing to report.

8.3 ENVIRONMENT CENTRE NORTHERN TERRITORY (Ms Mellor)

No representative.

8.4 CAMECO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Mr Ewington)

Mr Ewington provided an update report on behalf of Cameco Australia Ltd. Key points are summarised below.

Cameco had no safety incidents last year but did have an uncontrolled burn event at the King River Camp. This event provided a good learning experience for all stakeholders in that part of the world regarding fire response and encouraged some good discussion between Cameco, NLC and relevant Ranger staff. There was a relatively short drill season in 2014 and a larger program is proposed for 2015 involving broader gravity surveys in the area and air core, RC and diamond drilling. Cameco will also be following up on audit findings. Mr Ewington acknowledged the ongoing assistance of regulatory bodies in assisting Cameco improve its environmental performance.

DISCUSSION – Mr Robinson asked why Cameco had replaced the radioactive store. Mr Ewington advised the previous radioactive store (which was a shipping container with a timber floor) had suffered significant damage as a result of the uncontrolled fire so this had been replaced with another shipping container to store cores and other radioactive items.

8.5 NT ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY (Dr Freeland)

Nothing to report.

8.6 NT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Mr Robinson)

Mr Robinson noted the NT Department of Health has been advised of the successful transfer of radiation dose records to the Australian National Dose Register for both the third and fourth quarters of 2014. The transfer notice for the first quarter of 2015 is due in May.

8.7 AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AGENCY (Dr Tinker)

ARPANSA submitted a report covering Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) activities and initiatives relevant to uranium mining since September 2014. Key points include:

Radiation Protection Series – the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (December 2014) has been published. Public consultation has been completed for the Safety Guide for Radiation Protection of the Environment (expected to be published in 2015) and the Draft Amendment to the National Directory for Radiation Protection Disposal of Radioactive Material. Papers currently under review include the Safety Guide for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (2008 Edition), the Safety guide for Approval Process for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials (2012) and the Code of Practice for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations as Applied to Workers (expected to be published in 2015). ARPANSA has also produced regulatory guides and technical reports.


ARPANSA has also sponsored workshops on the Protection of the Environment and the ERICA Tool and the Australian National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR). The report also notes that ARPANSA has assessed that the impact on the health of people and the environment in Australia from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident is negligible. ARPANSA continues to keep the situation under review.

Dr Tinker also advised that ARPANSA has also released, for public comment by June this year, a new IAEA draft general framework for environmental assessment which will be of relevance to environmental impact assessment of uranium mining activities. He also noted the ANRDR now holds the records of workers for all uranium mines including Honeymoon. The Register contains the up to five years of data for approximately 33000 workers. In July 2014, the ANRDR published trends in radiation doses received by workers in its first newsletter, ANRDR in Review which is available on the ARPANSA website.

DISCUSSION - Mr Robinson asked what the 5 years of data held in the National Radiation Dose Register covers and Dr Tinker advised the Register holds workers records from 2010 to 2015.

8.8 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE (Mr Sheldrick)

Nothing to report.

8.9 PARKS AUSTRALIA (Ms Morgan)

Parks Australia tabled a report covering the status of the South Alligator Valley Rehabilitation Project. Monitoring of the South Alligator Valley Containment facility has continued in accordance with the approved environmental monitoring program developed in 2010 in consultation with the Supervising Scientist and approved by ARPANSA. Annual data monitoring and analysis is scheduled for May 2015 in preparation for submission of the report to ARPANSA in June 2015. Trevlyn Radiation and Environment Pty Ltd completed the pre-wet season groundwater monitoring in December 2014. A report was received in February 2015 indicating the levels of analytes have not increased and are within pre-containment measurements, and recommending further monitoring to establish firm trends. Post-wet season groundwater monitoring is scheduled for May 2015.

The containment area was impacted by a late dry season fire in November 2014. A survey of the site to assess the impact of the fire on vegetation is being completed and a site specific fire management plan is being developed by KNP staff. Wet season works to the site have involved the installation of a chemical fire break around the site perimeter and weed control. Initial post wet season assessment of the site indicates that the containment cap is stabilising with no new erosion gullies identified. Further minor water management works on the cap are planned for the dry season. Parks Australia has formally asked NLC to assist with TO consultations to confirm they are satisfied with the rehabilitation process in June 2015. KNP has also approached Supervising Scientist to assist with long term monitoring of the containment and negotiations are continuing. Mr Thompson noted the recruitment process for a Parks Management officer position within the NLC is ongoing.

8.10 URANIUM EQUITIES LTD (Mr Merrillees)

Mr Merrillees advised he had nothing substantive to report since last ARRAC. He noted there has been no exploration activity this year to date but some weed mapping and spraying in February-March. The 2015 UEL field season has been developed but is subject to financing. He noted a possible new target has been identified underneath the former pit. The Mine Management Plan is due by May 2015.

DISCUSSION - Mr Thompson asked if UEL had any further information regarding any developments in the Radiological Anomalous Area (RAA). Mr Merrillees advised that in December 2012, Supervising Scientist had raised a number of questions regarding the closure of the RAA and the matter had been discussed at the MTC in December 2014. UEL has engaged an independent group to provide advice on the RAA and over next week UEL will be discussing with stakeholders to see if proposal will meet closure implications. Looking to characterise the RAA and come up with engineering solution and to address questions raised by the Supervising Scientist. Within the next 6 weeks, UEL is expecting to get an estimate of costs and how this might be funded.


10.11 AFMECO MINING AND EXPLORATION PTY LTD / AREVA GROUP (MR POTTER)

Apology - Nothing to report.

11 OTHER BUSINESS

Prof Webb thanked members and observers for their contribution to the meeting and the ARRAC Secretariat for arranging the meeting. Prof Webb noted he continues to be impressed by quality of presentations and agenda papers provided for each meeting.

12 NEXT MEETING

It was noted the next meeting of ARRAC would be held in Jabiru in September and the Secretariat will contact members to find a suitable date. The meeting concluded at 12.30 pm.

ARRAC Secretariat 21 April 2015

Action Responsibility

ARRAC43: 1 DME and ERA to discuss options for improving the coordination of Ranger groundwater check monitoring activities to provide greater assurance regarding the scientific validity and veracity of the data presented to ARRAC

DME and ERA

meeting summary - alligator rivers region advisory ... · alligator rivers region advisory...

Documents