Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee Meeting 38 ...environment.gov.au/.../files/summary-sep-2012.docx · Web viewThe Chair (Prof Webb) recognised the Mirrar people as the Traditional

Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee

Meeting 38

Meeting Summary

6 September 2012

Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee Agenda – 38th Meeting

Agenda Item

Meeting Start 10001 Welcome2 Apologies and Observers3 Draft Minutes – ARRAC374 Actions Arising – ARRAC375 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Report

5.1 Independent Surface Water Review Update6 Supervising Scientist Report7 NT Department of Mines and Energy Report8 Member Reports

8.1 Australian Government - Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism8.2 Environment Centre NT8.3 Afmeco Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd / Areva Group

8.4 Northern Land Council8.5 Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation

8.6 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 8.7 NT Department of Health 8.8 Parks Australia 8.9 Cameco Australia Pty Ltd 8.10 NT Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport8.11 West Arnhem Shire Council8.12 Uranium Equities Ltd

9 Other Business9.1 Presentation – Simon Powell, Exploration Manager, UXA Resources Limited9.2 Presentation – Greg Duncan, Chief Operating Officer, Alligator Energy

10 Next MeetingMeeting Close 1500

ARRAC38 Meeting Summary Page 2 of 19

1 WelcomeThe Chair (Prof Webb) recognised the Mirrar people as the Traditional Owners of Kakadu (represented at the meeting by Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation) and welcomed attendees to the 38th meeting of the Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee. Prof Webb thanked ERA for arranging an informative tour of Ranger mine prior to the meeting. He noted the tour provided a valuable opportunity to see the status of various mine developments and suggested that this be made an annual event. Prof Webb noted apologies received from various NT government stakeholder members due to commitments associated with the recent change of government in the Northern Territory. Mr Waggitt advised the NT Department of Resources has been renamed the Department of Mines and Energy.

2 Apologies and AttendanceThe following apologies were noted.

Richard O’Brien Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety AgencyMichael Sheldrick Australian Government - Department of Resources, Energy and TourismNicole Hinton Australian Government - Department of Resources, Energy and TourismRussell Ball Northern Territory Government - Department of Mines and EnergyMatt Darcey Northern Territory Government - Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and SportEwan Gunn Northern Territory Government - Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and SportXavier Schobben Northern Territory Government - Department of HealthRussell Robinson Northern Territory Government - Department of HealthTodd Simms Energy Resources of Australia Pty LtdMelissa Taylor Uranium Equities LimitedGeoff Kyle Gundjeihmi Aboriginal CorporationAlister Trier Representing Office of the Administrator of the Northern Territory Gillian Jan Representing Office of the Administrator of the Northern Territory Peter Cochrane Parks AustraliaAnna Morgan Parks AustraliaAlan Hughes Supervising Scientist Division

The following resignations and ministerial appointments since last meeting were noted.

ResignationsDan Janney Energy Resources of Australia Ltd

Appointments (pending Ministerial approval)Tim Eckersley Energy Resources of Australia LtdJustin Tutty Environment Centre NTChris Dillon Cameco Australia Pty Ltd

AttendanceThe attendance of the following members and observers was noted.

Members/Deputy members OrganisationCharles Webb Independent ChairDamien Ewington Cameco Australia Pty LtdChris Dillon (nominee) Cameco Australia Pty LtdGreg Sinclair Energy Resources of Australia Pty LtdCat Beaton Environment Centre Northern TerritoryJustin Tutty (nominee) Environment Centre Northern TerritoryJustin O’Brien Gundjeihmi Aboriginal CorporationHoward Smith Northern Land CouncilAdam Thompson Northern Land CouncilJoe Potter Afmeco Mining and Exploration Pty Ltd (AREVA Group)Peter Johnston Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety AgencyPeter Waggitt Northern Territory Government - Department of Mines and EnergyRichard McAllister Supervising Scientist DivisionDavid Jones Supervising Scientist Division


Observers OrganisationSally Strohmayr Northern Territory Government - Department of ResourcesLauren Cooper Northern Territory Government - Department of ResourcesVirginia Leitch Aust Govt - Department Resources Energy and TourismSimon Powell UXA Resources LimitedKeith Tayler Supervising Scientist DivisionMichelle Bush Supervising Scientist DivisionAlly Frostick Supervising Scientist DivisionKrissy Kai-Nielsen Supervising Scientist DivisionRick van Dam Supervising Scientist DivisionJosh Bean Supervising Scientist DivisionMark Ellis Supervising Scientist DivisionSean Fagan Supervising Scientist DivisionLiam Curtis Supervising Scientist DivisionRob Thorn Supervising Scientist DivisionJames Matthews Supervising Scientist DivisionScott Parker Supervising Scientist Division (ARRAC Secretary)

3 Draft minutes – ARRAC37The draft ARRAC37 minutes were approved without change.

4 Actions arising – ARRAC37No. Action StatusARRAC37-1 Mr Waggitt to advise whether DME is looking at

using micro-purging techniques as part of ground water quality check monitoring

Mr Waggitt advised that NTDME uses an alternative technique to micro-purging involving slow pumping through a closed cell, monitoring to constant chemistry and then taking a sample. Mr Waggitt noted the slow rate of pumping is used to simulate natural recharge.

ARRAC37-2 Mr Simms to provide Mr Robinson with copy of the Ranger Radiation Monitoring Plan

Dr Sinclair to follow this item up.

ARRAC37-3 Mr Robinson to provide an update to next ARRAC meeting on the status of NT legislative amendments associated with the National Dose Register.

It was noted this information is provided in the NT DoH report for this meeting.

ARRAC38 Action 1: Dr Sinclair to confirm if Mr Robinson has been provided a copy of the Ranger Radiation Monitoring Plan.

5 ERA Reports

BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENTS – RANGER (DR SINCLAIR)Dr Sinclair provided a status report covering Ranger operations, developments and safety performance. Key points raised are summarised below.

Organisational structure - ERA is currently going through a management restructure. There are currently three General Managers covering Operations, Technical and Major Studies and External Relations.

Safety performance - ERA continues to maintain a strong focus on safety and in 2011 achieved its best performance on record with an All Injury Frequency Rate of 0.57. Four recordable injuries have occurred to date in 2012, with 3 Lost Time Injuries (a sprained wrist from an employee slipping in a shower; a strained


shoulder from an employee slipping on a step and a broken wrist from a drilling contractor using a breakout tool) and one medical treatment required (a laceration to the shin whilst stepping onto a drill rig).

People – ERA is a major employer in the West Arnhem region with approximately 600 full time employee positions (including 108 Indigenous employees) and a female participation rate of 21%. ERA currently employs 17 fulltime apprentices and five school based apprentices. A total of 193 employees have undertaken cultural awareness training over the last 12 months. ERA continues to make a significant contribution to the Jabiru community and the broader NT economy.

Progressive rehabilitation – this is a key focus for ERA going forwards with successful results from the trial landform being applied across the RPA and the Jabiluka lease. ERA is working closely with GAC to integrate traditional ecological knowledge into rehabilitation activities. Activities include replanting of disused tracks on the Ranger Project Area, installation of wicks in Pit#1 (about 80% complete) and rehabilitation of disused Land Application Areas.

Production outlook and key focus areas – ERA expects to produce 3,200 to 3,700 tonnes of uranium oxide in 2012. Production is expected to peak at the end of Pit#3 mining. Without new resources being identified the size of the operation will decline. Key areas of focus currently include completing mining in Pit#3 in 2012, demonstrating successful water treatment, commencing progressive rehabilitation of key sites on the RPA, transition from open pit to potential underground mining, reducing the operational footprint, further exploration and ensuring key stakeholders understand ERA’s role as the major social and economic driver in the Alligator Rivers Region. ERA expects to have the brine concentrator commissioned by Q3 2013. ERA recognises the continued support of TOs is critical to the success of their operations.

Operations -Full mining access in Pit#3 has been achieved ahead of schedule. The average grade of in-situ ore reserves is 0.19% (6,530t U3O8) applying a cut-off grade of 0.08%. From 2013 onwards, high grade ore will be processed before moving to lower grade ores from stockpiles. Stockpiles will be the source of feed to the mill from 2013 to 2016 with production post 2016 being dependent on the outcome of further studies on processing of low grade ore and the prevailing economic conditions. The mill and plant at Ranger are performing strongly and ERA is focused on maximising efficiency and minimising costs without compromising safety or the environment. Total of 5.2 million tonnes of material was mined YTD 2012 (a 24% increase on 2011) producing 1,244 tonnes of U3O8 (107% increase over 2011).

Exploration – Approximately 8000m (mainly in Anomaly 4, Anomaly 8 and south- east Ranger 3 Deeps) has been drilled since January 2012 and drilling commenced in areas north of Magela Creek in late June. A total of 22 drill holes have been grouted in the area of Ranger 3 Deeps. ERA is looking to finalise drilling at Anomaly 8 and Georgetown to allow drilling operations to move north to concentrate on Ranger 18E and Ranger 19 areas subject to regulatory approval.

MAJOR PROJECTS UPDATE

Brine concentrator – project is on schedule and budget. Site preparations are going well with successful completion of acid plant demolition and commencement of footings. All components are expected to arrive in the NT before Christmas 2012. The brine concentrator has a nominal capacity to treat 1.83 billion litres of water per year. It is expected the facility will be commissioned and fully operational in the second half of 2013.

Ranger 3 Deeps Exploration Decline – project is on schedule and budget. Following ground breaking in May, the box cut has been excavated and work is focusing on the steel arches in preparation for going underground before the wet season.

Prefeasibility study for Ranger 3 Deeps – The $57m Prefeasibility study for underground mining an estimated 34000 tonne resource has been approved. First phase involves exploration drilling additional 16000 m for


resource definition and a further 1100 m of underground development. Other components include construction of a ventilation shaft, selection of mining method, production rates and treatment method. ERA also needs to address all business and stakeholder issues and secure community and regulatory approvals. ERA will commence exploration drilling in Q1 2013 and resource drilling will follow. ERA anticipates seeking regulatory approval to mine in 2015 with underground production commencing later that year. It was noted these plans are subject to change.

Integrated Tailings Water Closure Strategy – A total of $23m is allocated to the pre feasibility study. It is important given the location of the mine that the process is done properly. This is an integrated approach looking at all classes of water. Current options include transferring tailings into Pit#3. ERA currently has inventory of 10 GL of process water. The three WTP are currently working well and are generating brine streams which will be processed through the brine concentrator before being injected into the bottom of Pit#3. It is important that the injection holes are placed accurately. Given the need to isolate the tailings for 10,000 years, modelling is ongoing to develop a sound understanding of the hydrogeology beneath the Pit. The brine injection process will require regulatory approval. The current Pit#3 rehabilitation design involves transferring tailings from the TSF to the Pit and covering with low grade ores and then clean rock followed by contouring and revegetation. It is expected the PFS will be completed by April 2013. The Closure Criteria Working Group is also looking at this.

Construction projectsRP6 – the bulk earthworks were completed in August 2012 and liner installation is 35% complete. Installation of the liner will be completed in mid to late October. A 500mm HDPE pipeline from RP6 to RP2 has been completed.

TSF to Pit#3 contingency transfer system – the contingency transfer system is designed to deal with a possible PMP rainfall event. A pumping system is being constructed with a 200ML/day transfer capacity. It is expected the project will be completed by late October 2012.

TSF raise – construction of the lift of the clay core to RL60.5m is 55% complete. The project should be completed by mid October. The top of the TSF crest will be 61m. Geophysics and magnetic surveys have been undertaken to provide information on the profile of materials in the TSF. This information will feed into seepage modelling. ERA is also mapping locations of large metallic objects.

Pit#1 wick installation – Wick installation commenced in June. Approximately 6500 wicks were installed as at 26 August with 7700 wicks expected to be installed by September. Wick depth varies from 18 to 39 metres. The water level in Pit#1 is being adjusted as required to support the installation process. Tailings characterisation and CPT testing has been completed to enable up-dated consolidation modelling. The Pit#1 consolidation model is being rerun based on new knowledge. Some resistance has been detected at about the 20m depth and it appears that the tailings are more compressed that first thought.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTERA is undertaking a project to remove redundant infrastructure from Ranger, Jabiluka and Djarr Djarr. A feral pig control program is proposed subject to GAC approval which will involve trialling of trapping and ground shooting. It was noted this is a regional issue. The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) application for Mine Valley Rehabilitation was submitted in June 2011 and is under assessment. This project is likely to be postponed until the 2013 dry season.

DISCUSSIONMs Beaton asked where the ore intercepted by the exploration drilling would be stored and if any thought has been given to modifying the design of the decline to avoid hitting mineralised ore. Dr Sinclair advised the exploration decline has been designed to avoid the main ore body. Mr Thompson asked if there is a plan to change the exploration decline and associated drilling program to avoid further interceptions of the resource. Dr Sinclair advised that ERA always suspected there could be further ore at depth. He noted there is no need


or plan to change the direction of the decline as this would require a further approval process. Mr Thompson asked how any high grade ore intercepted by the decline would be managed under the current approvals. Dr Sinclair restated that ERA is being careful to avoid intercepting the high grade ore body but, should this occur, the ore will be removed and stockpiled separately on site. He also noted that there are shielding and ventilation requirements associated with dealing with high grade ore underground.

Mr Waggitt asked about the possible reason for the resistance at 20m observed in relation to the installation of the wicks in Pit#1. Dr Sinclair advised that penetrometer data is being used to evaluate possible reasons for the resistance in some holes. Mr Waggitt asked if an approximate time period has been associated with the deposition at that depth and Dr Sinclair advised that ERA did use discharge lines around the time the tailings at that depth were deposited. Dr Jones wondered whether the resistance could be due to a sand lens.

Ms Beaton asked if there are other approvals required for the exploration decline. Dr Sinclair advised the current aim of the exploration drilling is to get internal approval to proceed with developing a proposal for underground mining. Ms Beaton asked when the internal approval would be sought and Dr Sinclair advised it was planned to do this in 2015 but noted this could change. Mr Tutty asked what the current approval for the decline actually covered. Dr Sinclair advised the current approval by the MTC was for 2km of exploration decline and that further discussions with stakeholders would be required if this needed to be extended. Ms Beaton asked if this would involve extending the decline from 2 km to 3 km. Dr Sinclair advised that extending the decline would require the construction of a ventilation shaft and further approval from the MTC.

Ms Beaton asked if ERA already has EPBC approval for the decline and Dr Sinclair advised that ERA does not require EPBC approval for exploration activities on the lease. Mr Tutty asked if the variation to the original proposal, in particular the possibility of having to take a bulk sample has already been agreed by SEWPaC and this is why ERA just needs to get MTC approval. Mr Tayler stressed that it is important to note that SEWPaC has not issued any approval for the current exploration activities other than providing advice to ERA that exploration activities do not generally trigger the EPBC assessment processes.

Ms Beaton asked why a bulk sample is actually required. Dr Sinclair advised that it is standard practice in developing mining proposals to take and process a bulk sample at some point to provide information on the chemical characteristics of the ore and associated implications in terms of ensuring the efficiency of the milling process and tailings. Ms Beaton asked why taking and processing a bulk sample would not in effect constitute mining and therefore trigger the EPBC Act requirements. Dr Sinclair advised that the bulk sample is a normal part of the exploration process and is not mining per se. He added that usually in the case of a green-field mining development, a pilot processing plant would be constructed to undertake these metallurgical tests as part of proving up the proposal but obviously ERA already has the Ranger mill to do this. He noted that the bulk sample would involve processing a relatively small amount of ore to produce a small amount of product which would be quarantined and stored separately. Ms Beaton noted this had not been included in the original ERA EPBC referral. Mr Tayler advised the original ERA referral included a statement that there may need to be an extension and the need for a bulk sample was raised in a general way. Mr Waggitt suggested members note that that the bulk sample may actually not be required and that ERA is still working this out. Dr Sinclair advised ERA is committed to keeping all stakeholders informed and will update the MTC and ARRTC once further details are available.

Mr O’Brien noted the bulk sample is relatively small and would not produce a commercially viable amount of product. Mr Waggitt noted the use of bulk samples in mining projects is not unusual as at some stage testing is required in order to optimise the proposed design parameters of the processing plant. He noted that any changes to the current exploration project would require regulatory approval from the MTC. Ms Beaton expressed concern that this constitutes a significant change in the original project specification. Mr O’Brien advised he didn’t think a bulk sample would have any adverse impact on the environment and that GAC does not have any concerns at this stage in relation to the approach ERA is proposing.


Mr Tutty noted there are formal approval processes that need to be followed and that the Environment Centre NT had previously raised its concerns in its detailed submission as part of the referral process. He advised the ECNT therefore is concerned this is a major variation to what was put forward in the original referral. Dr Sinclair advised that ERA has advice from SEWPaC that the current and proposed exploration works are consistent with the original referral. Mr Tutty asked which NT Government agencies were also privy to this information. Mr Waggitt advised that NT DME shares the view that this is just part of the normal mining development process, albeit in this case, enhanced by having a broader range of stakeholders involved.

Mr Tutty noted ARRAC is the only forum available for the general public to find out about what exploration activities being undertaken and planned by ERA at Ranger. Mr Waggitt reiterated that it is not uncommon to sanction bulk samples as part of mining developments and stressed the product produced is not able to be sold or traded but could be passed to third party. He added the current agreement is that the ore and product would not be sold or leave the site if underground mining was approved. Mr Tayler noted that ERA is acting under existing approval conditions and any changes to this will need to be submitted to the MTC for approval. He agreed that the bulk sample if required was unlikely to present any significant risk to the environment and is different to full scale underground mining.

Dr Sinclair advised the two key reasons why a bulk sample may be required are to tune the milling process and optimise the tailings stream. Dr Sinclair noted the geology at Ranger 3 Deeps involves an upper and lower mine sequence. The lower sequence contains more carbonate which has implications for processing (i.e. the amount of acid required) due to the rock chemistry so ERA is looking to get exploration drilling through both layers.

Mr Tutty asked when the MTC first considered the proposed variation. Dr Sinclair advised that ERA has not formally submitted any variations to the MTC for approval as yet. Ms Strohmayr advised that the issue was discussed by stakeholders at the last MTC meeting in August. Dr Sinclair advised the issue may also have been discussed at the last ARRTC meeting as well. Mr Tutty asked when the issue of the bulk sample had been discussed with SEWPaC and Dr Sinclair advised that ERA has had various discussions with SEWPaC officials as part of the normal process of keeping key stakeholders informed.

Mr Tayler noted the decision to refer an action under the EPBC rests with the proponent and most proponents would have informal discussions with relevant SEWPaC officials as part of determining whether they will refer a proposal. Dr Sinclair advised that a key requirement when going for internal company approvals for mine developments is the need to ensure sufficient funds are allocated for the various environmental studies required for regulatory approval. He noted that informal advice from regulatory agencies is therefore useful in ensuring this. Mr Tutty queried why the need for a bulk sample wasn’t identified when ERA referred the original proposal and Dr Sinclair advised the key reason was because ERA did not have the drilling results at that time which now indicate a need for a bulk sample.

WATER MANAGEMENT (MS ILES)Ms Iles provided a presentation on the results of ERA water quality monitoring during the reporting period. Key points raised are summarised below.

Magela CreekFilterable uranium – Levels downstream were higher than upstream as expected and remain well below the focus level.

Filterable manganese – Levels downstream were approximately the same or slightly higher than upstream with a number of instances where levels downstream exceeded the focus and action limits. However these limits only apply when flow is > 5 cumsec. Trigger values for Mn are based on upstream sites so it is expected that the focus level will be exceeded around 20% of the time. Mr O’Brien noted that both the upstream and downstream sites peaked and asked what may have caused this. Ms Iles suggested this could be due to


catchment inputs upstream. She noted that flow at the time of the peaks had dropped below 5 cumsecs and Mn levels in creek were naturally high due to lower dilution. She noted possible causal factors included the naturally high Mn levels in shallow groundwater and sands upstream. She also noted that the downstream site is usually higher during baseflow conditions but it could also have come from the mine site. Mr O’Brien suggested it would be very helpful to have the hydrograph shown on the graph. It was noted that this information is shown in the SSD report.

Turbidity – turbidity remained below the focus level most of season apart from some spikes early in the season, including one event where the upstream site was higher than the downstream site. These spikes were thought to be related to rainfall events.

pH – upper and lower focus, action and guideline levels for pH are set based on upstream reference sites. Another level of influence is that the levels are based on a historical dataset derived from laboratory pH values recorded in-situ. For most of the period, levels generally followed the same trend. There was one instance where there was a significant difference between upstream and downstream levels. Examination of other parameters around this point did not show any influence. The downstream level was on the guideline limit but was within statistical expectations.

EC – it was noted the data presented are from weekly grab samples. A spike of 41 µS/cm occurred at the downstream site in early December 2011 (close to the guideline of 43 µS/cm). This event was raised with stakeholders at the time. Continuous monitoring data for 5 different channels were reviewed to determine the source of the EC which was tracked back to Djalkmarra Irrigation Area. Ms Iles advised that the ERA water management team in trying to manage the area had released some permeate for dilution but this had pushed a plug of poor quality water into the creek. She advised that once this was detected the release was stopped. It was noted that for the rest of the season EC remained below or slightly above focus level.

Continuous EC – continuous monitoring data were presented for four downstream sites located in different channels. The west channel (mine side) has higher EC than the others. In December 2011, a spike exceeding the guideline (42 µS/cm over a 96 hr event) was detected. It was noted that this spike would be covered in the SSD presentation later this meeting. ERA advised that water releases from the mine site are managed using a water quality release model to determine what the likely downstream impact will be of any planned release. It was noted that EC levels remained lower for the rest of the season. A data gap occurred during April.

Gulungul CreekEC - Both upstream and downstream sites follow the same pattern with the downstream site being slightly higher than the upstream site until late in the season where this reverses.

Filtered U – Levels remained below trigger values.

Mg and Ca – The trace is similar to EC trends. Based on SSD work, a Mg level of around 3.5 mg/l is trigger value provided the Mg:Ca ratio remains below 9.

Progress against targetsPit#1 diversion work – ERA has undertaken earthworks to prevent rainfall run-off reporting to Pit#1 and reduce inputs to the process water circuit. This has resulted in diversion of 175 ML away from Pit#1. Most of this water came from the quarry sumps.

Process water diversions – Additional water which hasn’t been in contact with the process circuit has been diverted from the crusher plant and the WTP to RP2,. Target is 500ML/yr and 394 ML has been diverted to date.

RP1 seepage interception trench diversions 2012 – 776 ML of water has been diverted to date to RP2.


RP1 EC trend – In 2008 and 2009, EC levels went up to 1000 µS/cm heading into wet season with poor water quality. With the effect of the interception trench, the EC level in RP1 has improved. Dr Jones noted that in 2010 the EC reduction was also due in part to dilution with permeate.

Managed release water 2011-12 – A total of 1450 ML has been released from the mine site, mostly from the RP1 sluice, or by pumping to Coonjimba Billabong or to MG001 on Magela Creek. Releases have also occurred from culverts and the pumping station on the north side of Pit#3.

Current statusThe 2011-12 wet season was average in terms of rainfall. The TSF level as at 26 August 2012 was RL54.97m. The wet season MOL remains at RL56m and the dry season MOL is 57m. It is anticipated an application to raise this MOL will be submitted following finalisation of the TSF lift. Pit#1 water level was RL11.83m at 26 August 2012. The water level was raised recently to allow the wicking barge to be floated. The level of EC in RP1 is currently around 400 µS/cm or below, consistent with the Whole of Mine target. When water level in RP2 exceeds spillway level, will flow to Pit #3. Water Treatment Plants 1 and 2 were restarted on 31 August 2012 to maintain water levels in RP2. A total of 3.63GL of water has been treated this year to date.

TSF GROUNDWATER BORE (MR TOLL)Mr Toll provided a brief update on the TSF bore program.

Mr Toll advised that stage 1 of the program was completed in 2011 with 78 new groundwater bores installed. All groundwater bores were installed with micro-purge systems. All samples for metals are field filtered (0.45um filters). The current groundwater sampling program includes 78 new bores plus 23 existing bores. Results from the Q4 2011 and Q1 2012 sampling have been provided to the MTC. He advised that monitoring bore array Sed2B has picked up a plume north of the TSF and detected another hotspot. Bore Obn218d is also showing upward trending results. It was noted that work is ongoing to identify possible sources.

PROF BARRY HART - CHAIR OF THE INDEPENDENT SURFACE WATER REVIEW (ISWR) (BY PHONE)Prof Hart provided an overview of the ISWR project. The purpose of the project is to undertake an expert review of the surface water management and compliance system relating to the release of water from Ranger mine focusing on the concerns of the Mirrar people as represented by GAC. The project has a clear focus on being constructive. The project is following the approach taken by the recent groundwater review process. Prof Barry Hart has been engaged as independent chair and Prof Mark Taylor from Macquarie University has been engaged as the science adviser. The project is being overseen by a committee convened by ERA and GAC which includes representation from ERA (Dr Greg Sinclair; Ms Shelly Iles), SSD (Mr Alan Hughes; Dr David Jones), GAC (Mr Justin O’Brien; Mr Geoff Kyle) and NLC (Mr Adam Thompson).

The key aim of the project is to address issues of concern identified by the Mirrar over many years including those reported to the Senate Inquiry in 2003. Initially, the project has sought to identify and define the key issues of concern and to collate them. Out of this, four sets of terms of reference were defined and agreed by the Committee. These are: (1) surface water management and release, (2) existing monitoring practices and management responses (noting that high quality continuous monitoring systems are now in place and GAC/Mirrar want to make the best use of this information); (3) downstream monitoring (to look at broader environmental impact) and (4) integrity and reporting of data.

Contracts have been let for independent assessments under each of the four categories. Consultants have been asked to have discussions with key stakeholders at ERA, SSD and GAC and ensure that TOs are kept informed on progress. Once independent reviews have been received these will be reviewed by Prof Taylor and then by Prof Hart. Most of the reports are expected by mid-October 2012, with final reviews completed by end October/early November. The reports and outcomes of the reviews will be presented to the next meeting of the management committee later this year. Based on this a final report will be prepared together with a series of recommendations. A further meeting will be required to sign off on the final report and


recommendations which will be provided to ERA, GAC, the technical working group and implemented through normal processes.

Dr Jones noted that DME was invited to participate in the project but declined due to concerns over potential conflict of interest. It was noted however that any recommendations will need to be approved by the MTC. Prof Hart acknowledged the independent working group doesn’t have a formal role in relation to the regulatory process, but it is interested in ensuring regulatory decisions are based on the best available scientific evidence.

Mr O’Brien advised he wouldn’t preclude a special presentation for the new NT Government as well. Mr Waggitt suggested it may be appropriate for NT DME to have observer status to look at the data but there is a need to ensure this doesn’t raise any concerns regarding potential conflict of interest with its regulatory responsibilities. Dr Sinclair suggested that, subject to the views of the independent committee, ARRTC would also be provided a full presentation on the outcomes of the project. Mr O’Brien noted ARRAC would be updated on progress and the outcomes from the project. Prof Hart advised that further information on the project can be provided if any ARRAC members are interested.

6 SUPERVISING SCIENTIST DIVISION REPORT

SUPERVISION AND ASSESSMENT (MR TAYLER)Mr Tayler provided a presentation on supervision and assessment activities carried out during the reporting period. Audit and inspection activities during the period April 2012 to August 2012 included environmental audits of Ranger, Jabiluka and the Cameco King River site, and a number of regular periodic inspections (RPI) of Ranger, Jabiluka and the South Alligator Valley. Activities scheduled for September 2012 include an audit of UXA and Alligator Energy sites. Key finding of these activities are summarised below.

Ranger – RPIs were conducted in April (TSF, controlled vehicle access and hydrocarbon storage areas), June (exploration decline box cut, Pit#1 wick installation, exploration), July (exploration decline box cut, Pit#1 wick installation, RP5, RP6, TSF wall raise) and August (exploration decline box cut, RP5, RP6, TSF wall raise, tailings corridor). The Ranger Environmental Audit was held in May and focused on 122 commitments taken from the Ranger Authorisation and various management plans. A Category-1 finding related to controlled vehicle movements from the audit conducted in 2011 was closed out and there were 6 conditional findings related to the land classification system, the currency of the Land Use Zoning and Land Use Planning Management Plan, the frequency of management reviews of the ESH management system, implementation of actions in the Fauna Management Plan, the chemical storage system and internal auditing of hazardous chemical management.

Jabiluka – The audit was conducted at the same time as Ranger and focused on 22 commitments from the Jabiluka Authorisation. Findings included a Category-2 non-conformance related to the late submission of the Jabiluka Annual Amended Plan of Rehabilitation. A RPI was conducted in August and covered the IWMP, hardstand, access track and non-mineralised stockpile area. Generally, there was little to report but as ERA may propose to remove the pond, SSD will look to step up inspections.

South Alligator Valley - the El Sherana Airstrip Containment was inspected in June. Key findings included the presence of erosion gullies to 0.5m on south-eastern and south-western sides of the containment, the need for vegetation clearing away from monitoring stations and that the revegetation is progressing well.

West Arnhem Exploration Audits – the Cameco Exploration Audit was held in August and focused on compliance with components of the Mining Management Plan. King River Camp and Aungularli prospect drilling were inspected. There were a few minor findings and a report is currently being finalised.

Discussion


Prof Johnston asked if drains could be installed at El Sherana to assist with mitigating the risk of further erosion gullies over the longer term. Mr Tayler noted this had been raised with Parks but their preference is to re-contour the capping and use bark and rock mulch. Peter Johnston suggested the key point is that something is being done. Mr McAllister noted that using more rock content should assist given the friability of the topsoil at the site.

SUPERVISING SCIENTIST DIVISION - Mg TRIGGER (DR VAN DAM)Dr van Dam provided a presentation on the process used to develop the Mg trigger value curve. Dr van Dam noted the commencement of continuous monitoring has provided information on the temporal variance in EC levels in Magela Creek and shown spikes can occur that exceed the guideline limit of 43 µS/cm. The biological significance of these spikes was investigated further. This involved looking at historical continuous monitoring data and undertaking eco-toxicological assessments of the effect of various Mg pulse durations on six key freshwater species across a number of trophic levels. Test methods involved measuring responses (growth, reproduction, survival) of the test species to pulses (4, 8, 24 hour and continuous) over a three to six day period. Responses are generally seen as short term indicators of long term effect. Test organisms were exposed and then placed in clean water and their recovery was observed. Based on the results for Mg in mg/l for each species, for each exposure duration, it was shown that most test species could withstand short duration pulses but that effect increased with exposure. Given the strong EC-Mg relationship, these data were used to establish the relationship between pulse duration exposure and effects to derive a trigger value for any given pulse duration. This work will be published shortly. The model will be used by SSD during the 2012-13 wet season to aid interpretation of continuous EC data.

DiscussionMr O’Brien asked about the relationships between exposure, toxicity and acceptable impact. Dr van Dam advised the trigger value represents the exposure level under which the organism will not be impacted and provides for 99% species protection. Mr Tayler noted the trigger value is based on observable rather than lethal effect.

SUPERVISING SCIENTIST DIVISION MONITORING (MS FROSTICK)Ms Frostick provided a presentation on the results of SSD biological, chemical and radiological monitoring activities during the reporting period. Current monitoring activities include: continuous data collection in Magela Creek (EC, event auto-sampling, flow), Gulungul Creek (EC, event auto-sampling, water level) and Ngarradj (EC, event auto-sampling); QA/QC water chemistry grab sampling in Magela and Gulungul Creeks and at Ngarradj; field toxicity in Magela and Gulungul Creeks (in situ monitoring of snail egg production); and community studies of invertebrates and fish (channel and shallow billabongs). It was noted the 2011-12 wet season rainfall was average.

MAGELA CREEK

Water quality results - Results were generally similar to the previous wet season. An EC peak of 54 µS/cm was recorded in April, which exceeded the chronic exposure limit for a period of 7.2 hours. The peak magnitude was considerably lower than the derived Ecotox EC Pulse Limit (213 µS/cm) which provides confidence that the environment remained protected.

Continuous EC and grab samples - One of the high EC samples recorded by DME was due to sampling from the side of the bank, as opposed to. the pontoon located in the mixing zone. Both the upstream and downstream sites remained low. There was good correlation between SSD and ERA continuous monitoring results.

Uranium - During EC peaks, total and filterable U concentrations remained well below limits.

Mn - One result in late 2011 was just above the Mn guideline (total sample) but due to low flow the guideline was not applicable. Results for the rest of the season were below limits.

Mg - Mg concentrations generally followed EC trends.


Sulfate - Results were below limits.

Radium-226 - Results from event-based and routine sampling. Results prior to 2009 are from routine grab sampling only. As in previous years, results indicate that Radium in Magela Creek is due primarily to natural background sources.

In-situ monitoring of snails in Magela and Gulungul Creeks – there was no increasing trend observed in either Magela or Gulungul Creeks during the year.

Macro-invertebrate monitoring – Results indicate a high degree of stability and similarity. The change in Gulungul Creek was caused by an increase in the number of macro-invertebrates adapted to high flow conditions at the upstream site.

Fish monitoring – A range of fluctuations in downstream populations was observed. Analysis has shown a negative relationship between abundance and rainfall. Pop-netting provides a valuable opportunity for stakeholder engagement. Generally minimal differences observed between reference and impacted sites with changes appearing area wide. Only notable differences were due to increased vegetation density reducing the number of fish observed.

GULUNGUL CREEKThe last wet season was relatively quiet. A number of EC peaks were recorded particularly at the upstream sites. There was generally good correlation between upstream and downstream sites. The uranium peak at the upstream site was well below the limit. Generally low concentrations of sulfate recorded particularly at the upstream site. Sulfate levels were highest when EC was elevated.

NGARRADJResults for EC were generally consistent with previous wet seasons.

ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING Radon Decay Product – A number of spikes were recorded but results generally consistent with seasonal trends. The baseline was lower than normally seen in the dry season when results are typically higher.

Long Lived Alpha Activity – Results generally consistent with previous years and seasonal trends (higher during dry season due to effects of dust).

DiscussionDr Sinclair asked if the results for Long Lived Alpha Activity were mainly related to dust or burning. Ms Frostick advised the results were mainly dust related. Mr Tutty asked if a grab sample is taken upstream as well as downstream when a peak of Radium is detected in Magela Creek. Ms Frostick advised that system lag needs to be taken into account, so SSD adopts a conservative approach by using a median value of all upstream results over the last decade. Mr Tutty asked why more recent results (e.g. from last season) aren’t used instead. Mr Tayler advised it is better to use longer term datasets as this provides a more representative sample. Ms Frostick advised that regardless of what values are used, the Radium present in the system is from natural background sources and is not environmentally significant.

7 NT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND ENERGY (MS STROHMAYR)Ms Strohmayr provided a presentation covering NT DME regulatory activities during the period March - June 2012. Key points raised are summarised below.

Minesite Technical Committee (MTC) meetings - There were two meetings of the Ranger and Jabiluka MTC during the reporting period.

Authorisation Variations - The Ranger MTC in June agreed the final wording for the amendment of the Ranger Authorisation to accommodate a revised Maximum Operating Level of RL55.6m for the TSF. This is based on estimates of Probable Maximum Precipitation from the Bureau of Meteorology (2011).The change in


authorisation has been endorsed by the Commonwealth Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism and submitted to the new NT Minister for approval. There were no changes proposed to the current Jabiluka and Nabarlek Authorisations.

Ranger developments – rainfall at Ranger was around average. Main events at Ranger included commencement of construction of Ranger 3 Deeps box cut, wick installation in Pit #1, RP6, the TSF lift and the commencement of the brine concentrator project.

Proposals and approvals – Key proposals and approvals for Ranger included proposed design for the TSF lift, RP6 (approved May 2012), the site revegetation plan: track in southern RPA (approved July 2012) and phase 2 of the 2012 ERA Exploration Program (approved August 2012). There were no proposals or approvals for Nabarlek or Jabiluka during the period.

Environmental incidents – it was noted that further details on incidents are provided in an Appendix to the DME statutory monitoring report for this meeting. There were 22 environmental incidents and 1 safety incident reported for Ranger and none for Nabarlek and Jabiluka during the period.

Statutory reporting compliance – ERA submitted the Quarterly Water Quality Data Submission and the Annual Radiation and Atmospheric Monitoring Interpretive Report for Ranger, and Jabiluka Annual Amended Plan of Rehabilitation #15. UEL also submitted the Nabarlek 2012 Mining Management Plan.

Ranger groundwater check monitoring – The DME groundwater monitoring program comprises 21 bores including 4 statutory (Authorisation) and 17 operational. Sampling is conducted in the wet and dry season. DME check monitoring was conducted in March and May 2012 (RN23939, RN23562). DME usually include results of monitoring statutory bores but as none of these were sampled during the reporting period, Ms Strohmayr presented data on four bores in vicinity of TSF - RN23556 (shallow, Gulungul/TSF), RN23568 (shallow, Gulungul/TSF), RN23562 (shallow, Gulungul/TSF) and OB116D (deep, TSF).

Ranger Bore RN23556 – Gulungul/TSF is a 5.1m deep bore located approximately 360m north-west of the TSF wall. The bore was sampled by both DME and ERA during the reporting period (March 2012) with samples collected consecutively for both organisations. The variation between sampling events and data sets for U is not unexpected, given the relatively low concentrations of the analyte at this site. Generally good conformance between data sets, except for EC (DME about 25% higher than ERA) and U (DME substantially higher than ERA, although noting that concentrations are relatively low). The stable EC values and low analyte concentrations would suggest that to date, the water quality in the shallow aquifer at this site has not been influenced by the TSF.

Ranger Bore RN23568 – Gulungul/TSF is a 5m deep bore located approximately 400m south-west of the TSF wall. This bore was sampled by both DME and ERA during the reporting period (March 2012) with samples collected within a six day period for both organisations. There was good conformance between ERA and DME data for the March sampling period. Recent reporting periods indicate pH is increasing from low levels back to historical levels. The low pH, high EC and increased concentrations of analytes (especially Mg and SO4) likely indicate that an influence from the TSF has occurred within the shallow aquifer and this may be seasonally affected. In response to MTC concerns, ERA submitted a report in June 2012 (Sediment Contamination and Groundwater Quality in the Gulungul Tributaries) which suggested the elevated water quality parameters in the bore may be a result of solute transport via surface runoff rather than TSF seepage. ERA is putting strategies in place to mitigate this.

Ranger Bore RN 23562 Pit 3/Magela Creek is a 5.9m deep bore located 700m west of the TSF wall. This bore was sampled by both DME and ERA during the reporting period with samples collected by DME on 8 March 2012 and by ERA on 27 June 2012. Degradation of water quality in this bore was first observed by DME in March 2010, with increases in EC, Mn, U, Mg and SO4 and a decreasing trend in pH. During this reporting period, EC recorded by ERA was lower than previous reporting periods although not within levels pre April


2007. DME and ERA pH data show good conformance while concentrations of U and Mn were substantially higher for the DME sampling in March than ERA’s in June.

Ranger Bore – OB116D is a 20 m deep bore located approximately 400m to the south-west of the tailings dam, adjacent to OB116S. This bore was sampled by both DME and ERA in March 2012 on the same day. There is generally good conformance for pH and Mn but not for Mg.

Jabiluka Groundwater check monitoring - Monitoring program includes 6 bores including 3 which are statutory (Authorisation). DME monitoring was conducted in May 2012 with DME and ERA sampling consecutively on the same day or within one day.Jabiluka Bore JDGB4S – is 16.2m deep bore located approximately 200m to the east of the Jabiluka fenced area, adjacent to the Swift Creek central tributary. During the reporting period, the bore was sampled by ERA and DME on 3 and 4 May 2012 respectively. Historically both EC and pH has been variable with EC for DME consistently 20% higher than ERA data. There is good conformance for Mg, SO4 and Mn during reporting period but not for U with DME recording substantially lower concentrations.

Jabiluka Bore JDGB4D is a 55.6m deep bore located approximately 200m to the east of the Jabiluka fenced area, adjacent to JDGB4S and the Swift Creek central tributary. During the reporting period, the bore was sampled by ERA and DME on 3 May 2012. As with the adjacent shallow bore, ERA data for this bore shows relatively stable EC with DME data showing a slightly higher range. This is good conformity in pH results between DME and ERA and reasonable conformity for Mn and U.

Jabiluka Bore JDGB7 is a 10m deep bore located approximately 50m to the south west of the water management pond, within the Jabiluka fenced area. During the reporting period, the bore was sampled by ERA and DME on 3 and 4 May 2012 respectively. Values for pH and EC are seasonally variable for this shallow bore. There is strong conformance between DME and ERA data for the reporting period with relatively low values

Ms Strohmayr advised that there is generally reasonable conformity between DME and ERA groundwater and surface water data. She noted it has been recommended that groundwater be sampled within a 1-2 day window by DME and ERA to ensure effective check monitoring is achieved. It was noted that water quality issues with shallow Gulungul TSF bores appear to be related to previous run-off from the TSF walls. Early monitoring results are indicating retention of surface water runoff is improving shallow bore water quality.

DiscussionDr Jones asked when sampling is due next and Ms Strohmayr advised the next sampling is due for September 2012. Mr Tutty advised he had some questions in relation to the incidents reported for Ranger. He noted that incidents reported included a venting of ammonia during maintenance causing an alarm, the incorrect fitting of a potable water hose, the presence of slurry in a skip and discovery of slightly radioactive material in a work shed. He asked Dr Sinclair how these incidents related to the measures undertaken in response to previous incidents. Dr Sinclair advised that during maintenance some ammonia was vented which had triggered the alarm so this had been reported as an incident. He noted the incorrect fitting of the potable water hose did not involve any connection with the process water circuit. Dr Sinclair advised that in response to these incidents ERA has updated all induction process for work supervisors and contractors.

Mr Tutty asked how the potable water fitting incident could reoccur given ERA’s undertakings following the previous potable water incident included the requirement for different coloured and physically different connectors for process and potable water connectors. Mr Tutty also asked how the incident involving the slightly radioactive material in a work shed related to previous incidents of a similar nature. Dr Sinclair advised he would take this on notice and report back to next meeting. Mr Tutty also noted that ECNT was previously provided details on incidents prior to each meeting and asked why this was not still occurring. It was noted that information on incidents reported by ERA is included as an attachment in the DME report for this meeting.


ARRAC38 Action 2: ERA to report back to ARRAC on the relevance of recent incidents (e.g. the incorrect fitting of a potable water hose and discovery of slightly radioactive material in work shed) to ERA’s undertakings in response to past incidents of a similar nature.

8 Stakeholder Reports

8.1 DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES, ENERGY AND TOURISM (MS LEITCH)Ms Leitch provided a brief update report on behalf of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. It was noted that work is continuing under the various Uranium Council Working Groups. The Guide to Safe Transport of Uranium Oxide Concentrate and the Indigenous Engagement Working Group Uranium Facts factsheets have been published, and the development of an international and domestic transport strategy is continuing. The Uranium Council Sustainability Working Group sponsored workshops in Melbourne and Perth on the Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment (ERICA) tool. The joint DRET-ARPANSA Non-human Biota Project should be completed shortly. The Uranium Council has moved to holding annual meetings. It was noted that further detail on the National Dose Register is provided in the ARPANSA status report tabled this meeting.

8.2 ENVIRONMENT CENTRE NORTHERN TERRITORY (MS BEATON)Nothing to report.

8.3 AFMECO MINING AND EXPLORATION PTY LTD / AREVA GROUP (MR POTTER)Mr Potter advised that the meeting of Traditional Owners in April 2012 decided to lease the Koongarra Project Area to the Commonwealth Government for inclusion in Kakadu National Park and this decision was subsequently ratified by a full meeting of the Northern Land Council in May 2012. Mr O’Brien asked if this is the end of the matter as far as AREVA is concerned and Mr Potter advised that AREVA was still considering its options regarding the decision. It was noted that the decision also needs to be approved by the relevant Commonwealth Ministers with responsibility for the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 and the Atomic Energy Act 1953.

8.4 NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL (MR THOMPSON)Nothing to report.

8.5 GUNDJEIHMI ABORIGINAL CORPORATION (MR O’BRIEN)Nothing to report.

8.6 AUSTRALIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AND NUCLEAR SAFETY AGENCY (PROF JOHNSTON)Professor Johnston noted that following the finalisation of amendments to the NT Radiation Protection Act, ERA had commenced uploading occupational radiological exposure data to the National Dose Register. It was noted that further detail is provided in the NT Department of Health report tabled at this meeting.

8.7 NT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHThe NT Department of Health tabled a report on the recent amendments of the NT Radiation Protection Act 2004 to allow the transmission of occupational radiation exposure information from Ranger Mine to the Australia National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR). The first transfer of 2010 data has been completed and transfer of 2011 and 2012 data is expected to occur as soon as possible.

8.8 PARKS AUSTRALIAParks Australia tabled a status report on South Alligator Valley rehabilitation and monitoring works. It was noted that a consultant has been engaged to complete pre and post wet season groundwater monitoring and reporting, commencing in 2012 and a contract for monitoring the containment cover is expected to be finalised in the near future. Acceptable Limits guidelines are being developed with support from SSD and


should be finalised by October 2012. An as-constructed report has now been received from the consultant. A new licence for radioactive waste disposal facility has been received which replaces the previous decommissioning licence. ARPANSA is expected to undertake a site visit prior to the onset of the wet season. Work is continuing on erosion control and management at the site and planned rehabilitation on minor erosion gullies should be complete by October 2012.

8.9 CAMECO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (MR EWINGTON)Mr Ewington presented the Cameco Australia status report. Key points are outlined below.

Safety, Health and Environment - Safety performance has improved compared to last year with the All Injury Frequency Rate (per 200,000 hrs) sitting at 10.3 in July 2012 (versus 15.13 for 2011 and 22.65 in 2010). Cameco exploration was awarded a safety award in July 2012. Environmental incidents for the reporting period included a minor contained waste oil spill, a small uncontained oil leak and drill pad/trail clearing outside of current MMP authorisation. All safety, radiation and environmental procedures and processes continue to be progressively reviewed and updated.

King River Camp and the Cameco exploration projects were audited (27 and 28 August) with a number of observations but no major non-conformances detected. Cameco is collecting scrap metals, batteries, aluminium cans, plastics and oils and transporting offsite for recycling. The landfill has been fenced to prevent feral pig access. No waste is being sent to landfill on-site and general waste is either incinerated or transported off-site for disposal. Water used for core cutting is being recycled.

Cultural and Heritage management - Work Clearance meetings for all projects occurred between March and June, and a heritage survey was conducted in June. Cameco has provided cross-cultural training for all employees and contractors.

Exploration – Northwest Arnhemland – 2012 - Drilling operations commenced in early July 2012 and, as at the end of August, a total of 6000 m has been drilled in 17 diamond drill holes at King River, Wellington Range, Beatrice and Mt Howship. Ground-based magnetic and gravity surveys and airborne EM survey have also been conducted. Exploration is expected to continue until mid to late October 2012 with drilling at Wellington Range and King River, and further airborne magnetic and radiometric surveys.

Rehabilitation – monitoring of post drilling rehabilitation works has been underway for 2-3 years at the Wellington Range Project.

8.10 NT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT, THE ARTS AND SPORT Nil to report.

8.11 WEST ARNHEM SHIRE COUNCILNil to report.

8.12 URANIUM EQUITIES LTDUranium Equities Ltd tabled a report on the status of exploration activities. Key points are outlined below.

Nabarlek ML - UEL has not undertaken any exploration activities this year on the Nabarlek mining lease. Some monitoring of on-site water quality has been undertaken by a consultant. UEL is currently developing a weeds database for the site and planting and weed spraying requirements for the next wet season are being determined. The Rehabilitation Plan for the plant infrastructure is nearing finalisation and the rehabilitation plan for the Radiological Anomalous Area is still in draft form and under review. The draft discussion paper on the assessment of vegetation development, including revegetation Closure Criteria is being reviewed and redrafted.


Headwaters project - The postponed RC drilling program from 2011 was undertaken and completed in July 2012. No further exploration activities are planned for 2012.

9 Other Business

9.1 PRESENTATION – SIMON POWELL, EXPLORATION MANAGER, UXA RESOURCES LIMITEDMr Powell provided an overview of the management structure and exploration activities of UXA Resources Ltd in the Alligator Rivers Region. UXA Resources Limited is currently undertaking exploration in three areas of interest north of Nabarlek. Drilling in Area 1 in 2011 resulted in some early success. Further line clearing and drilling is proposed in Areas 1, 2 and 3 in 2012. The MMP for the project has been approved by NT DME. On-ground heritage surveys and associated mapping of areas of cultural significance has also been done. It was noted that there is scope for UXA Resources Limited and Alligator Energy to be appointed to ARRAC in the future.

9.2 PRESENTATION – GREG DUNCAN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ALLIGATOR ENERGYThis presentation was postponed given Mr Duncan’s absence.

10 Next meetingIt was agreed the next meeting of ARRAC would be held in Darwin in March or April 2013. The Secretary will contact members regrading their availability. The meeting concluded at 3.00pm.

Mr Scott ParkerARRAC Secretary6 September 2012


ARRAC38 – ActionsNo. Action ResponsibilityARRAC38:1 ERA to confirm Mr Robinson has been provided a copy of the Ranger Radiation

Monitoring Plan.ERA

ARRAC38:2 ERA to report back to ARRAC on the relevance of recent incidents (e.g. the incorrect fitting of a potable water hose and discovery of slightly radioactive material in work shed) to ERA’s undertakings in response to past incidents of a similar nature.

ERA


Documents

Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee Meeting 38 ...environment.gov.au/.../files/summary-sep-2012.docx · Web viewThe Chair (Prof Webb) recognised the Mirrar people as the Traditional