Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee
Meeting 27
Meeting Summary
29 – 30November 2011
ARRTC27 Meeting SummaryPage 1 of 39
Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee
Meeting 27, 29-30 November 2011
Agenda
Day 1 - 29 November 2011
1 Preliminary Session (A/Chair)
1.1 Welcome and Introductions
1.1.1 New members
1.1.2 ARRTC nomination of new Chairperson
1.2 Apologies and Observers
1.3 Correspondence
1.4 Conflict of Interest Declarations
1.5 Governance
2 ARRTC26 Outcomes (A/Chair)
2.1 ARRTC26 - Summary Record
2.2 ARRTC26 - Business Arising
3 Key Knowledge Needs (Review/Update)
4 Activity Updates (Members)
4.1 Department of Resources (Mr Ball)
4.2 Northern Land Council (Dr Smith)
4.3 Uranium Equities Ltd (Nabarlek) (Ms Paulka)
4.4 Parks Operations and Tourism Branch (SouthAlligatorValley) (Mr Balding)
4.5 Supervising Scientist (including Monitoring) (Mr Hughes)
5 Science underpinning regulatory decisions (DoR)
5.1 MTC Minutes
Day 2 - 30 November 2011
6 Research Activities
6.1 Supervising Scientist Division
6.1.1 Summary of 2010-11 eriss research against ARRTC KKNs (Dr Jones)
- Aquatic Ecosystem Protection (Dr Humphrey)
- Physico-Chemical Processes (Dr Erskine)
- Ecotoxicology (Dr van Dam)
- Environmental Radioactivity (Dr Bollhöfer)
- Spatial Sciences and Data Integration (Dr Bartolo)
6.2 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd
6.2.1 ERA operational status (Dr Sinclair)
6.2.2 Integrated process water, tailings and closure pre-feasibility study (Dr Sinclair)
6.2.3 Science underpinning water management strategies/ introduction to OPSIM (Dr Frick)
6.2.4 Groundwater Update (Mr Toll)
6.2.5 Gulungul Creek Review (Dr leGras)
6.2.6 Trial landform Update (MsGellert)
6.2.7Land Application Area Rehabilitation (Dr Lu)
6.2.8Water Monitoring Program (Ms Jacobsen)
6.3 Other stakeholder research activities
6.3.1 Environment NGO Update (Dr Mudd)
7 SSD Communication and Knowledge Management
7.1 SSD Knowledge Management activities
7.2 SSD Publications since ARRTC26
8 Other Business
9 Next Meeting
ARRTC27 - Attendance
MembersMs Jane Coram / Independent Scientific Member
Prof Paul Boon / Independent Scientific Member
Dr Simon Barry / Independent Scientific Member
Prof David Mulligan / Independent Scientific Member
Mr Andrew Johnston / Independent Scientific Member
Prof Colin Woodroffe / Independent Scientific Member
Dr Gavin Mudd / Environment NGO stakeholder member
Mr Alan Hughes / Supervising Scientist Division (SSD)
Mr Russell Ball / NT Department of Resources (DoR)
Ms Sharon Paulka / Uranium Equities Limited (UEL)
Dr Howard Smith / Northern Land Council (NLC)
Dr GregSinclair / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Ms Anna Morgan / Parks Australia Division
Presenters/Observers
Mr Michael Welch / NT Department of Resources (DoR)
Mr Peter Waggitt / NT Department of Resources (DoR)
Mr Geoff Kyle / Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC)
Dr Matt Daws / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Ms Shelly Iles / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Dr Ping Lu / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Dr Peter Anderson / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Dr Frank Harris / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Mr Nathaniel Toll / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Ms Nicole Jacobsen / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Ms Cherie Gellert / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Dr Louise Frick / Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)
Mr Adam Thompson / Northern Land Council (NLC)
Dr David Jones / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (eriss)
Dr Andreas Bollhöfer / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist(eriss)
Dr Chris Humphrey / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist(eriss)
Dr Renée Bartolo / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist(eriss)
Dr Mike Saynor / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist(eriss)
Dr Wayne Erskine / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist(eriss)
Dr Rick van Dam / Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist(eriss)
Mr Greg Balding / Parks Australia Division
Ms Imogen Edmunds / South Australian EPA
Mr Graeme Palmer / South Australian EPA
Other SSD staff
Secretariat
Mr Scott Parker / Office of the Supervising Scientist
ARRTC27 Meeting SummaryPage 1 of 39
1 Preliminary Session - Chair
1.1 Welcome and Introductions
Mr Hughes welcomed members and observers to the meeting and provided a safety briefing. He advised that as the current Acting Chair, Dr Stauber, was unable to attend the meeting, the committee protocols required members to nominate another member to act as Chair. Dr Barry indicated he would be prepared to act as Chair and his nomination was seconded by Dr Mudd. There being no other nominees, Dr Barry was elected acting Chair for this meeting.Dr Barry invited members and observers to introduce themselves.
Mr Hughes noted that as all vacancies on the Committee have been filled, theappointment of the new ARRTC chairperson needs to be resolved. He advised that, under current ARRTC membership arrangements, the independent Chair position was appointed by the Minister on the basis of advice from the Supervising Scientist. He noted that the ARRTC Chair had historicallybeen selected from the Independent Scientific Members. It was agreed that the matter would be discussed later in meeting.
1.2 Apologies and Observers
Dr Barry noted the following apologies and observerspresent at the start of the meeting:
Apologies
Dr Jenny Stauber 29-30 November 2011
Ms Anna Morgan29 November 2011 (AM); 30 November 2011
Observers
Mr Geoff KyleGAC (permanent observer)
Ms Imogen Edmunds South Australian EPA
Mr Graeme Palmer South Australian EPA
Staff from Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and the Supervising Scientist Division.
1.3 Correspondence
Dr Barry noted the following correspondence.
Outgoing- Letter from Acting Chair to the Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Sustainability, Environment,, Water, Population and Communities regarding outcomes of ARRTC26 (undated, received 11 July 2011).
Incoming-Letter from Minister Burketo Acting Chairregarding ARRTC26 outcomes. (undated, received 19 September 2011)
Dr Barry noted the Minister’s comments regarding the need for a highly precautionary approach to water management at Ranger. Prof Woodroffe indicated he would be interested to hear ERA’s views on what this means at some point.
1.4 Conflict of Interest Declarations
Dr Barry called for conflict-of-interest declarations. Ms Coram advised that as an employee of Geoscience Australia she is periodically requested to provide technical advice on groundwater issues at Ranger and would advise if and when potential conflict of interest issues arise.
1.5 Governance
Mr Parker noted that a draft ARRTC Terms of Appointment document for members had been tabled and discussed a number of meetings ago but was not finalised. He advised that following the recent release of the Department’s Governance policy there is a need to review and update the current ARRTC membership arrangements to ensure they are compliant. He noted the policyapplies to all departmental committees including statutory Committees such as ARRTC, and deals with issues such as the terms and conditions which apply to appointments, operating protocols and reporting requirements. Mr Parker advised that under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, the terms and conditions which apply to the appointment of members to ARRTC are determined by the Minister. He also noted that the current terms and conditions had not changed since the reconstituted ARRTC was established.
Mr Parker advised that, while not all of the requirements set out in the Department policy apply to ARRTC, the key changes being considered included:
- members signing a Terms of Engagement (ToE) document setting out the terms and conditions of their appointment and incorporating a non-disclosure agreement, a bibliographic consent form and relevant administrative arrangements; and
- instituting fixed term appointmentsfor ARRTC members (proposed term of four years from the date of signing the ToE) with members being able to be reappointed by the Minister (subject to conditions).
Mr Parker noted that the proposed changes would need to be approved by the Minister. He asked that members note the rationale for the proposed changes and that further details will be circulated out-of-session for theirconsideration and concurrence.
ARRTC27-1: ARRTC noted the need to review and update current governance arrangements for the Committee and agreed to consider proposed changes and associated documentation out-of-session.
2 ARRTC26 Outcomes (Chair)
2.1 ARRTC26 - Summary Record
The draft ARRTC26 Meeting Summary was accepted and approved as tabled.
ARRTC27-2: The ARRTC26 minutes were approved without amendment.
ARRTC27 Meeting SummaryPage 1 of 39
2.2 ARRTC26 - Business Arising
No. / Action/Outcomes / StatusARRTC26-1 / The ARRTC25 minutes were approved without amendment. / Complete
ARRTC26-2 / Secretariat to recirculate revised ARRTC Terms of Appointment to members for comment and finalisation out-of-session. / Agenda Item 1.5
ARRTC26-3 / Mr Ball to identify the relevant report referred to in ARRTC24 4.1 and circulate to members out-of-session / Update Required.
Mr Ball advised a search of all of DoR’s systems failed to find this report and therefore proposed that this action be deleted.Dr Mudd agreed if the report doesn’t exist then no further action is required.
ARRTC26-4 / ERA to provide a report on progress in compilation of groundwater monitoring data, including radionuclides to ARRTC27 / Agenda Item 6.2.5
ARRTC26-5 / ARRTC members to review the draft Conceptual Models report and provide comments to the Secretariat in two months / Complete
ARRTC26-6 / ARRTC agreed the 2008-10 ARRTC KKNs should be updated as and when required out-of-session / Complete
ARRTC26-7 / ARRTC agreed SSD should consider developing a groundwater model for Nabarlek as a case study and this should be included in the ARRTC KKNs / Update Required.
Mr Hughes advised that SSD does not currently have a groundwater specialist on staff to undertake this task. Ms Paulka advised that she has an updated groundwater report and will talk to it later this meeting. Dr Jones advised there are two issues at Nabarlek: (1) the potential groundwater plume from the Pit and (2) using Nabarlek as a case study analogue for Ranger.Dr Barry asked if Mr Hughes was stating that SSD is not in a position to develop a groundwater model at this point. Mr Hughes advised that SSD did not consider that it was appropriate to commission development of a model at this time given that UEL is still actively undertaking exploration activities on the site, and is in the process ofupdating the groundwater quality data records and groundwater quality monitoring program, but that SSDbut would reconsider this at later date. Dr Barry asked about including the need for the groundwater model in the KKNs. Mr Hughes agreed that the need for groundwater model could be included in the KKNs.
Dr Mudd noted that Rum Jungle has some similarities with Nabarlek (viz. Dysons pit that was backfilled with tailings, and capped)and asked if Rum Jungle could be used as a case study for Ranger. Mr Hughes advised the Rum Jungle rehabilitation activities are different because they arebeing done under aNational Partnership Agreement (NPA) by the NT Government which has engaged various consultants to do the work. Dr Mudd asked if SSD’s role was limited to providing expert technical advice to the project and Mr Hughes advised that currently he and Dr Jones are members of the Technical Steering Committee for the NPA.He noted however that SSD may have a more active role in future. Dr Jones noted that SSD did undertake a project toupdate the groundwater monitoring data for the site prior to the advent of the NPA, but that subsequent GW-related work is now being undertaken by a consultant engaged under the NPA procurement process. Mr Hughes advised that SSD had provided the GW data for use by the consultant but had not undertaken any model development. Dr Mudd suggested a groundwater model for Nabarlek was still worth doing.
ARRTC26-8 / ARRTC requested that Parks Australia Division provide further details on the monitoring budget and data analyses proposed for the SAV rehabilitation site / Agenda Item 4.4
ARRTC26-9 / ARRTC proposed that SSD consider applying the CAESAR model to Nabarlek using available data / Update Required.
Dr Jones advised that,at the time this activity was first proposed by ARRTC,SSD didn’t have a suitable resolution DEM for the site. He noted that SSD will soon be in receipt of a LiDAR DEM of Nabarlek (acquisition of LIDAR data in late 2011) and needs to consider if this work should be done now or later. Dr Mudd noted this action arose from the advice last meeting that radioactive material was being eroded from the radiologically anomalous area (RAA) on the site and suggested that ARRTC should accord a high priority to this work. Dr Barry noted this issue will come up again in discussionson Nabarlek during the meeting. Dr Jones noted that modelling activities will be discussed but not specifically related to Nabarlek. He suggested the work needs to be prioritised in terms of the KKNs. Mr Hughes advised that unless ARRTC considers this work a priority, SSD probably wouldn’t do it given that the RAA will soon be remediated.
Prof Woodroffe suggested that the action should be retained on the work planbut agreed it may not be priority at this stage. Dr Jones advised that while SSD will havea DEM, the different land surface types would still need to be mapped and characterised to provide input to the landform evolution model. Mr Hughes noted this wasn’t a simple process.
Prof Mulligan askedwhat value there would be in doing this at Nabarlek. Mr Hughes replied that the Pit at Nabarlek was backfilled in 1995 and as the site has been subject to 16 years of erosion,now could be a good time to look at the movement of material off the area. Prof Mulligan asked if there is a baseline surface which could be used as the starting point for a model. Mr Waggitt advised that two surface surveys of the pit area had been done previously by SSD which would provide an “as constructed” surface for the backfilled pit. Prof Woodroffe notedthat this could be a good dataset to use to validate the predictive capability of the CAESAR model. Prof Mulligan commentedthat in his opinion this work wasn’t a priority at this stage.
ARRTC26-10 / ARRTC requested that SSD provide a report on the results of the pre-mining radiological condition project to next meeting / Agenda Item 6.1.2
ARRTC26-11 / ARRTC commended Dr Jones on his presentation on the SSD current and proposed research programs / Complete
ARRTC26-12 / ARRTC requested that Parks Australia Division provide a copy of the Climate Change Report released by the Department of Climate Change which examined potential impacts on KNP / Complete. See link:
ARRTC26-13 / ARRTC requested that ERA provide a presentation to next meeting on water management including the risk context, threats to the environment and a written report on the science that has underpinned decisions and addressing likelihood and consequences of a range of scenarios. / Agenda Items 6.2.5 – 6.2.8
ARRTC26-14 / ARRTC commended ERA staff on the quality of their presentations and thanked ERA for providing the opportunity for ARRTC to visit Ranger. / Complete
ARRTC26-15 / ARRTC requested the Secretariat to circulate details on the two new independent scientific members once they have been appointed by Minister / Complete
ARRTC27 Meeting SummaryPage 1 of 39
3 Key Knowledge Needs (KKN)- Review/Update
Dr Barry noted that assessing the priority, appropriateness and quality of current and proposed scientific research by SSD, ERA and others against the KKNs is a key element of ARRTC’s role. Mr Hughes advised the first iteration of the KKNs was reviewed in 2007 which resulted in the current version (2008 – 2010). He noted that ARRTC agreed at the last meeting to update the KKNs on a rolling basis as existing knowledge gaps are addressed and new knowledge gaps arise. Mr Hughes noted ERA has structured its report and presentations this meeting against KKNs, in the context of the totality of projects being done by both ERISS and ERA.
Dr Jones suggested the key issuesareto determine if additional KKNs are in fact needed and whether the current suite of projects is adequately addressing the existing KKNs. Dr Barry asked if this required a more formal approach to how ARRTC reviews the KKNs and their component projects each meeting. He noted the approach ERA has taken for compiling its report to this meeting was excellent. Mr Hughes noted that ARRTC hasn’t agreed on the approach required but agreed the form of the report produced by ERA provides a useful framework for assessing progress against addressing the requirements for each KKN.Dr Sinclair advised ERA had adopted this approach for this meeting to clearly identify the current and future knowledge needs associated with the next phase of major work ERA is about to commence (e.g. Pit#1 closure and planning process water treatment, tailings containment and broader closure strategies). He noted the KKNs arewritten at a high level and ERA needs to have a much better strategic awareness of how and when each KKN needs to be addressed.
Dr Mudd agreed that the KKNs should be reviewed each meeting and updated where required to reflect the current knowledge. He noted for example that the wording of the Koongarra section (5.4)still states there should be some baseline work done on Koongarra,although the site is about to be incorporated into Kakadu National Park. Dr Jones noted in this context Koongarra was initially being considered as a pre-mining analogue for Ranger but, for technical reasonsthe site is not suitable for this purpose. Prof Mulligan suggested the way that ERA and eriss were reporting their respective research activities against the KKNs was very useful and should continue. Mr Hughes suggested that any proposed changes to KKNs benotified in advance of each meeting so ARRTC can consider if this is warranted. He noted that ARRTC members may also propose their own changes to the KKNs.