1

Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee

Meeting 36

10 - 11 August 2016

Record of meeting Darwin, NT

This document is a summary record of the scientific information presented to, and the discussion and actions arising from, the 36th meeting of the Alligator Rivers Region Technical

Committee. ARRTC meeting summaries are used to inform planning and prioritisation of scientific research activities.

2

ARRTC

Dr Simon Barry Chair, Independent scientific member

Ms Jane Coram Independent scientific member

Prof Paul Boon Independent scientific member

Prof David Mulligan Independent scientific member

Dr Jenny Stauber Independent scientific member

Mr Andrew Johnston Independent scientific member

Dr Gavin Mudd Environment NGO stakeholder member (day 2 by phone)

Mr Adam Thompson Northern Land Council

Mr Matt Whitfort A/g Supervising Scientist

Apologies

Dr Geoff Pickup Consulting Geomorphology

Mr Geoff Bailey Parks Australia Division

Mr Tim Eckersley Energy Resources of Australia Limited

Presenters and observers

Ms Shelly Iles Energy Resources of Australia Limited

Ms Sharon Paulka Energy Resources of Australia Limited (presenter)

Mr Ben McTavish Energy Resources of Australia Limited

Ms Berlinda Bowler Supervising Scientist, Secretariat and Support

Ms Kate Dixon Supervising Scientist, Secretariat and Support

Mr Keith Tayler Supervising Scientist Branch

Ms Kate Turner Supervising Scientist Branch

Dr Chris Humphrey Supervising Scientist Branch (presenter)

Mr Gavin Otto NT Department of Mines and Energy

Ms Brooke Cawood NT Department of Mines and Energy (day 1)

Ms Sally Strohmayr NT Department of Mines and Energy (day 2)

Dr Andrew Harford Supervising Scientist Branch (presenter)

Dr Mike Saynor Supervising Scientist Branch (presenter)

Dr Renee Bartolo Supervising Scientist Branch (presenter)

Mr John Lowry Supervising Scientist Branch

Mr Peter Baker Supervising Scientist Branch (day 2)

Dr Che Doering Supervising Scientist Branch (presenter)

Ms Ceiwen Pease Supervising Scientist Branch

Dr Melanie Trenfield Supervising Scientist Branch

Ms Lisa Chandler Supervising Scientist Branch

Ms Claire Costello Supervising Scientist Branch

Mr James Boyden Supervising Scientist Branch

Mr Adrian Costar Supervising Scientist Branch

3

4

ACRONYMS

ARRTC Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee, the Committee

DME Department of Mines and Energy, Northern Territory

DEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia

EPARR Act Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978

ERISS Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist

GAC Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation

KKN Key Knowledge Needs

OWS Office of Water Science, Department of the Environment and Energy

SSB Supervising Scientist Branch, Department of the Environment and Energy

Pre-meeting discussion – members only The Chair welcomed the members. The process around consideration and endorsement of the ERISS research program was discussed. The Committee asked for a full, integrated package of documents on the research program for consideration well in advance of meetings, with projects cross-referenced to their respective KKN. A clearer record of endorsement or otherwise of projects would be obtained at Committee meetings. Previously endorsed research would not need to be re-endorsed unless that project was subject to significant change. New projects would be presented, discussed and considered for endorsement by the Committee. The Committee questioned the lack of reference to groundwater research in ERISS’s forward research program, but it was also noted ERA was conducting groundwater research and would be presenting on groundwater later in the meeting. ARRTC requested brief summaries of all new SSB projects at Agenda item 5 where endorsement would be considered (see below). 1. Preliminary session

The meeting commenced at 9.25 am.

1.1 Welcome and Opening Remarks The Chair, Dr Simon Barry, welcomed members of the Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee (ARRTC) to the meeting. 1.2 Acknowledgement of Country The Chair acknowledged and paid respect to the Larrakia people, the traditional owners, past and present, on whose country this meeting took place. 1.2 Attendance, apologies and observers As recorded above.

5

1.3 Correspondence The Committee noted the action taken (Chair’s letter to the Minister following ARRTC35) and status of correspondence (no other incoming or outgoing) to 10 August 2016. 1.4 Conflict of Interest Declarations Dr Mudd noted he was undertaking consultancy work for the GAC. Dr Stauber noted CSIRO is assisting with a uranium sediment project. 1.5 Governance SSB updated the Committee on the ARRTC governance review which is nearing completion. It is expected the Committee will be advised of proposed new governance arrangements following consideration of same by the Minister for the Environment and Energy. 1.6 Publications An updated publications list will be available at the ARRTC37 November 2016 meeting. 2. ARRTC35 Outcomes 2.1 ARRTC35 - Summary record (for endorsement) Summary record of ARRTC35 was endorsed as provided, with minor edits. 2.2 ARRTC35 - Actions arising (for information) Actions noted as complete were removed. Outstanding actions were updated. 3. Supervising scientist and ERA overviews 3.1 Supervising Scientist Mr Tayler provided an update on SSB activities. SSB is implementing a restructure and prioritisation of activities to better align with statutory functions, having consideration to resources and the proposed work program. The structure comprises: research (ERISS), combined supervision and monitoring team, and a new public assurance and advice team. The Branch has sourced additional expertise from the Office of Water Science (OWS) within the Department and elsewhere (South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Geoscience Australia, and external consultants) in the fields of geoscience, hydrogeology and ecology. Annual planning days will continue, with the addition of quarterly reviews, with update reports available through the process. SSB focus remains on rehabilitation of Ranger and is about to commence the development of rehabilitation standards for Ranger. The Supervising Scientist’s rehabilitation will provide quantitative measures against which the regulatory authorities can judge achievement of the

6

rehabilitation objectives provided in the Environmental Requirements. These standards, being developed in accordance with s5c of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, will provide the basis for the advice of the Supervising Scientist to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia as required under clause 9 of the Environmental Requirements.

Additionally, the rehabilitation standards will provide a summary of all relevant information utilised in their development, and provide an entry point to the body of scientific literature which underpins them. This is designed to provide confidence to key stakeholders and the interested public that the rehabilitation of Ranger is based upon robust, transparent and peer reviewed science.

Preliminary drafts are expected to be available in late 2016. SSB have produced Revised Ranger Mine Water Quality Objectives for Magela Creek and Gulungul Creek, updating the 2004 framework. The framework has been expanded to include water quality objectives for both Magela and Gulungul Creeks, and incorporates continuous monitoring methods in combination with event-based sampling. Trigger values have been revised based upon additional information obtained by research conducted since 2004. Acknowledgment and thanks were paid to the many people working on the KKNs and other products. 3.2 Energy Resources of Australia Limited Associated presentation: 3.2 ERA Operations and closure update for ARRTC36, August 2016. Ms Paulka provided an update on Ranger operations and closure. Health and safety: There were no reportable injuries year to date 2016. Health and safety initiatives are focused on delivering the Process Safety Improvement Plan and implementation of the Critical Risk Management Program. Offsite environmental protection: Magela Creek and Gulungul Creek water quality was reported on for continuous electrical conductivity, magnesium, manganese, ammonia, radium and uranium. The status of Ranger 3 Deeps was reported as remaining in care and maintenance. Rehabilitation overview: Rehabilitation is progressing and remains on track. Pit 1 is in active rehabilitation, although approval for bulk backfill is delayed awaiting consideration of conceptual and numerical modelling by MTC members. A technical Ranger Groundwater Workshop hosted by SSB to occur later in September 2016 will consider this. Tailings transfer from Tailings Storage Facility to Pit 3 is underway and expected to take ~6 years to complete. Brine from Brine Concentrator injection to Pit 3 has commenced and is continuing. The proposed Pit 3 backfill process was described. The expected final landform (slope, height) was described.

7

ARRTC were interested to know how varying groundwater levels under the final landform might affect vegetation. Water movement sensitivity analysis and Intera modelling (presented at item 4) were briefly discussed. ARRTC noted it will consider the issue in more detail, and it was further noted the matter will be considered at the forthcoming Ranger Groundwater Workshop in September 2016. ARRTC were also interested to review how all the different threads of research, including closure criteria, relate. Closure criteria progress: The Closure Criteria Technical Working groups continue to meet. ERA is in the process of updating the Ranger Rehabilitation Plan, including closure criteria based on information from stakeholders since 2008. The plan is expected to be distributed to stakeholders by the end of 2016. ACTION 36-1: ERA to provide the Committee at ARRTC37 (November 2016) a 3D print model of the proposed final landform, if ready, and a presentation of the environmental closure criteria relevant to the landform model. ACTION 36-2: SSB to also provide the Committee at ARRTC37 a model/diagram that will assist with conceptualising underground interactions. The purpose of providing the models is to help the Committee to integrate and relate the different threads of research, including the closure criteria, to better inform an understanding of closure planning, closure strategy, and assessments of cumulative impacts. ACTION 36-3: SSB to provide the Committee at ARRTC37 a synopsis of the Ranger Groundwater Workshop. 4. ERA research progress (focus on groundwater) (for information) Associated presentation: 4. Ranger Conceptual Model, August 2016 Ms Paulka presented the Ranger Conceptual Model, delivered by Intera in July 2016. The report was made available to ARRTC via the Govdex site ahead of the meeting. ARRTC was interested in:

Landform peak loadings, and whether these could be translated into concentrations.

Radionuclide transport and how these are estimated (e.g. reactive transport modelling, concentration/load of magnesium into creek or area of concern, then source term magnesium concentration ratio). ERA noted concentrations include overland flow inputs.

How to account for separate sources of radionuclides from solute and landform runoff well into the future: i.e. how the model takes this into account.

How surface runoff pathways and loads are accounted for.

ARRTC acknowledged the model as a substantial piece of work.

ARRTC recommended that it should be ensured that radionuclides in suspended sediment are considered in predicted radionuclide activity concentrations in surface waters.

8

OWS are reviewing the conceptual site model, with three subset reviews being conducted:

David Jones reviewing the geochemical information provided by ERA/Intera for Pits 1 and 3;

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia reviewing the solute egress modelling for Pit 1; and

Hugh Middlemis reviewing the compaction modelling for Pit 1.

The Committee supported a robust review process.

Dr Mudd raised concerns regarding potential misrepresentation of permeability issues, and assumptions made around quality of water under the Tailings Storage Facility. ACTION 36-4: SSB to present a consolidation of the reviews of the Ranger Conceptual Model to ARRTC in 2017. ACTION 36-5: ERA to present to ARRTC the surface water model. This will assist the Committee to assess potential implications of radionuclide concentrations available to biota. 5. ERISS research proposed 2016-17 program (for endorsement) Associated 5. Proposed SSB research and monitoring program, August 2016 presentations: 5. Surface and groundwater ecology of Magela Creek sand channel, August 2016 5. Cumulative risk assessment, August 2016 5. Trial landform update, August 2016 5. Magnesium water quality standards and macroinvertebrate field studies Dr Humphrey presented an update on ERISS monitoring activities, and the proposed forward research program. Overview of the 2015-16 wet season monitoring for Magela and Gulungul Creeks (surface water continuous monitoring) showed the relevant water quality objectives were met. Water quality in Gulungul Creek showed ongoing impact from GCT2, which is still carrying contamination from the shallow aquifer system. An overview of the key amendments to the Revised Ranger Mine Water Quality Objectives for Magela Creek and Gulungul Creek was provided. An update on the biological monitoring program was provided. In situ toxicity for the 2015-16 wet season found no significant difference to previous years’ results. Bioaccumulation in freshwater mussel values were consistent with previous years. No impairment was reported to macroinvertebrate communities. Analysis of fish community surveys is yet to be completed. The 2016-17 proposed research program and a description of the planning and prioritisation process was presented. SSB’s ongoing involvement in, and contribution of knowledge to, thematic technical groups for the Closure Criteria Working Group was noted. Proposed new project: A review of the risks associated with nutrient input from the rehabilitated mine site.

9

This project was identified as a priority through the KKN process. The project aims to assess additional annual load limits. SSB is proposing to review the need for closure criteria for nutrient inputs, following receipt and analysis of information yet to be provided by ERA. The project is expected to compare predicted with current limits and determine potential impact. The project will need to take into account any broad-scale use of fertilizer. All guideline values for ammonia are based on toxicity, not nitrification. (Andrew Harford). The Committee endorsed the project. Proposed new project: Effects of pH on ammonia toxicity to local species. The need for this project was identified through the prioritisation process. Hydra is the target genus due to their sensitivities. USEPA algorithms to be applied – but are proving problematic, so alternative algorithms are being trialled. The aim is to develop a standard for billabongs. The Chair noted the use of USEPA algorithms may be a more consistent approach, assuming they can be validated and framed to the identified need. (Andrew Harford). The Committee endorsed the project. Proposed new project: Establishing updated/new site specific relationships between suspended sediment and turbidity to enable use of turbidity as a surrogate for suspended sediment. This project extends on work from the 1980s proposing to establish a surrogate for suspended sediment. Landform evolution model puts out suspended sediment, not turbidity, hence it will be more efficient to use the surrogate. (Mike Saynor). The Committee endorsed the project. Proposed new project: Determine particle sizes for different surface types. This project aims to identify definitive particle size ranges and includes consolidation of historical data. Potential model recalibration may impact on project duration. There are nine particle sizes in the model: what range do those sizes cover and what best replicates the landform. (Mike Saynor). The Committee endorsed the project – but noted it may be over resourced. ACTION 36-6: For the proposed project ‘Determine particle sizes for different surface types’, SSB to review the 10 week project duration (over resourcing) and report on same in October 2016 as part of the quarterly reporting process. Proposed new project: Cumulative risk assessment for Ranger rehabilitation and closure. The need for this project arose from ARRTC concerns about cumulative impacts, regarded as an overarching KKN, and used to identify and prioritise research needs. It was noted project terminology, scope and methodology, i.e. to measure multiple stressors from multiple sources, may need to be refined and this will occur in the coming weeks. The Committee raised concerns with applying the bioregional assessment methodology in its entirety: this was noted by SSB who assured the Committee the project will apply the most appropriate tools. Refined project scope will be presented to ARRTC37 for review. (Renee Bartolo).

10

The Committee endorsed the project. Project update: Trial landform and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Bedload yield from the trial landform is decreasing exponentially since construction was completed in 2009, and factors other than rainfall are at play. Plot 2 was found to have markedly less vegetation than plots 1, 3 and 4 (yet to be tested for significance) and most bedload is coming from plot 2 erosion. Burning was found to cause increased erosion. Regarding suspended sediment versus turbidity relationship, SSB is working to obtain a concentration level. Recommendations for the trial landform include measuring hydrology and bedload on less ground-vegetated plots for the next few wet seasons, and finalise the suspended sediment/turbidity relationship. Micasense false colour composites of trial landform were shown for pre (17 May 2016) and post (28 July 2016) fire event. Assessment of pre and post canopy cover and ground cover regeneration is to be assessed. (Mike Saynor). ARRTC were interested to know:

How plant taxa can be identified to species using multi-spectral analysis: i.e. how grasses and weeds, including grass weeds species be differentiated. SSB noted hyperspectral 10 cm resolution data can be obtained and research has been done allowing certain species to be distinguished. Native grasses are likely to need more spectral analysis and species-specific signatures.

How data from the trial landform are able to be scaled up to site scale. SSB noted validation of CAESAR with three input parameters (particle size, Digital Elevation Model and rainfall), and parameters can be readily scaled up from trial landform to site scales allowing a prediction of total bedload for site scale to be obtained. This topic will be investigated further by ARRTC at a future meeting.

Project update: Dose rate to non-human biota. This project follows national and international best practice – demonstrated through dose assessment and comparison to internationally derived and acknowledged benchmarks (of potential radiological risk to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems from the final landform). Results of terrestrial non-human biota were presented at ARRTC35 2015, and are now published:

Doering, C. And Bollhöfer, A. (2016). A soil radiological quality guideline value for wildlife-based protection in uranium mine rehabilitation. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 151:522-529.

The next phase assesses aquatic non-human biota (with ERICA Tool using site specific information where it is available, or otherwise generic), in the form a desktop analysis. The aim of project is to derive concentration-to-dose scaling factors (radiological assessment of freshwater ecosystems downstream of Ranger mine). The project is outsourced to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, and the final report is due by end 2016. Dose will be compared to a benchmark, which is essentially based on the endpoint of reproduction. Surface water concentrations from modelling will be applied and other factors taken into account – for example, uptake ingested by organism internally from sediment runoff. Scaling factors can be multiplied with future predicted radiation levels in water, to derive a dose

11

rate. Downstream predictions in water include sediment runoff from final landform as well as surface water, groundwater. ARRTC were interested to know:

How radionuclides in sediment runoff are accounted for in dose models. SSB noted aquatic intake of radionuclides is typically 90% from ingestion and 10% from water column.

How aquatic biota that digests terrestrial biota (i.e. terrestrial food sources) are taken into account.

Whether the cumulative risk assessment be framed in the context of this work, and to what extent the Ranger Conceptual Model will take sediment (surface runoff) into account.

Project update: Magnesium water quality standards, including field effects studies Andrew Harford & Chris Humphrey A history of assessment and toxicity testing was provided and findings presented of the Gulungul Creek Tributary 2 (GCT2 – groundwater source) site. An update of the 2015 study previously presented to the Committee, examines the impacts of increased magnesium on macroinvertebrate communities discounting other potential contributing factors i.e. building a case for magnesium effects. ARRTC were provided with an update on mesocosm work by McCullough (2006 – not published) to measure sensitivity of zooplankton and phytoplankton to magnesium. Acclimation and tolerance as a possible mechanism for ‘evolution’ in Ranger water bodies was explored. It was hypothesised that a slow build-up of salts over time results in tolerance, which in turn leads to inconsistency in findings in taxa responses across sites. Predicted future magnesium exposures were presented. An analysis of on-site water quality (ground and surface waters and pit and wholes of site modelling) is in progress. Knowledge gaps presented included the unknown effect of magnesium on any groundwater fauna present in the area and whether magnesium toxicity is ameliorated by environmental factors not already tested. Project update: Surface and groundwater ecology of Magela Creek sand channel This project is assessing the risks to Magela Creek sand channel from magnesium sulfate contamination including predicted solute egress from rehabilitated Pit 3. Gaps in environmental and ecological knowledge include quality and flow rate of waters, sub-surface fauna, ecological connectivity, ecological impacts of magnesium and identifying key ecological processes occurring in subsurface waters. Studies to fill knowledge needs include: (i) Environmental and ecological characteristics of Magela Creek sandbed (pilot then full project); (ii) the significance of ecological connectivity of Magela Creek and the ecological effects of increased solute concentrations; (iii) ecological functions of the subsurface ecosystems of sandbed streams; and (iv) sensitivity of groundwater fauna and flora to magnesium sulfate. (Chris Humphrey). ARRTC noted and were interested in:

The application of metagenomic techniques as a way to measure biodiversity.

12

The potential role of nutrients, the role of organic matter in the magnesium sulfate reduction process, and the fate of the sulfate.

Whether nitrate and ammonium could be measured in sediments to help inform biochemical makeup.

Committee noted its support for this project. 6. Stakeholder reports (for information) 6.1 Uranium Equities Limited Not present, no report provided. 6.2 Environment NGOs – Dr Gavin Mudd Dr Mudd noted he was leaving Monash University for a position at RMIT next year. Dr Mudd noted concerns were being raised regarding levels of resourcing in both SSB and ERA and potential impacts to projects. Environmental NGOs expected good, explicit closure criteria and it was noted lessons could be learnt from the Nabarlek experience. Concerns were also being raised regarding resourcing at the Jabiru Field Station, in particular in regards to the extent of radiation monitoring in Jabiru. Dr Mudd noted Ranger 3 Deeps infrastructure remains an issue of concern to environmental NGOs who were seeking a commitment that infrastructure be closed and incorporated into the closure work for the rest of the mine over the next 5 – 10 years. It was Dr Mudd’s view that the Ranger 3 Deeps presents an unknown risk in relation to rehabilitation, given the area’s permeability. ERA noted the business had taken 3 Deeps into account and believes it does not impact upon the rehabilitation schedule. Regarding the Nabarlek groundwater review, Dr Mudd noted the data presented do not necessarily align with original assumptions made regarding groundwater and uranium tailings as evidenced by issues arising some 25 years later. It was Dr Mudd’s view that assumptions made back in time are demonstrating to be false – and that this is a significant issue that needs to be addressed and an important lesson to apply to Ranger. Refer to the Nabarlek Report FINAL: A preliminary review of collated groundwater data or the Nabarlek uranium mine 2016 (Department of the Environment). Dr Mudd noted SSB had ceased atmospheric monitoring at Jabiru. SSB reported it had already obtained 16 years worth of monitoring data, and the signature of the mine site was indistinguishable to the surrounding area. SSB acknowledged it provides community assurance; however, as no effects to human health were detectable, there is no scientific justification to continue monitoring. This was also the situation for Jabiluka. It was noted ERA continue offsite monitoring (dust and radon), and SSB scrutinise this. Dr Mudd raised a concern regarding the ability of the Jabiru Field Station to respond to a catastrophic event at Ranger. SSB noted it has its own formal response procedures for such an event. Responsibility for response may lay variously with ERA, DME, or SSB.

13

14

6.3 Department of Mines and Energy Agenda paper: Reports and proposals received during the ARRTC reporting period November 2015 – July 2016 and accompanying presentation. Mr Otto presented the update on regulatory activities in the Alligator Rivers Region report. Progress since ARRTC35 (November 2015) includes four Minesite Technical Committee meetings, seven Routine Periodic Inspections, annual Ranger audit in June 2016, a six-monthly Tailings Storage Facility inspection, one Closure Criteria Working Group meeting, five Closure Criteria Workshops, and two Process Safety Oversight visits. Site specific information:

Ranger: Seven incidents were reported – all spills (four water, two liquor and one solid scale material). Two investigations are underway into: (i) uranium stack emissions exceedences, and (ii) prescribed burn break through containment into Kakadu. The DME will focus on prompt assessment of ERA’s proposals with regards to the Ranger Conceptual Model and final tailings levels in Pits 1 and 3.

Jabiluka: Two Routine Periodic Inspections were undertaken, and maintenance, care and monitoring of revegetation is ongoing. Reports received were Jabiluka Interpretative Report, Annual Wet Season Report and Draft Restoration Criteria for Mineral Lease and Djarr Djarr.

Nabarlek: Exploration and assessment of the Radiological Anomalous Area is ongoing. Monitoring included a compliance audit of the Mining Management Plan. DME noted the release of the preliminary review of collated groundwater data report by the Department of the Environment.

Mr Otto provided an overview of uranium exploration in the Alligator Rivers Region. Mr Otto further noted DME have established the Mine Technology Group in collaboration with Charles Darwin University (project leader Professor Ken Evans). The group is multidisciplinary and addresses mine site technical issues relative to current mining operations and legacy mines. In addition the group conducts mine-related applied research.

6.4 Northern Land Council Mr Thompson noted consultation with the South Alligator Valley mines has been delayed due to resourcing constraints. 6.5 Parks Australia Not present, no report provided.

15

7. Key knowledge needs review 7.1 General overview of process and outcome (for information) Agenda papers: Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee Key Knowledge Needs, June 2016. Department of the Environment and accompanying presentation 5. Key Knowledge Needs Review, Overview of process and outcome. Dr Bartolo presented an overview of process and outcomes. Process for developing KKNs arose from risk assessment outcomes. ARRTC previously agreed on the scope for identifying KKNs, then identifying the KKNs themselves. KKNs were refined following ARRTC35. Structure of KKNs is that they are presented in summary tables according to phase of mining operations and decommissioning activities, and aligned with the Environmental Requirements and other regulatory frameworks, hence are mapped to align with management goals. A process will be established for periodic review of the KKNs. Reporting of the risk assessment and KKN identification work to date will be presented in two reports: (i) Risk Screening; and (ii) Analysis of risks assessment outcomes and identification of KKNs - sent out for external peer-review. 7.2 Members’ feedback and discussion (for comment/endorsement) ARRTC congratulated SSB on progress to date and on the transparency of, and rigorous approach to, the KKN development process. The Committee noted the development of the KKNs was a significant milestone. ERA’s role in the process was acknowledged. ARRTC:

Noted there is a need to treat areas of high uncertainty as high risk until certainty can be established, and raised concerns on how to approach matters of moderate risk, noting an ideal situation would be to reduce all risks to ‘low’. ARRTC further noted the research should be better integrated (surface water, groundwater, landform modelling) and needs to be put into context with all other research and modelling approaches.

Asked SSB to take into account similarity between, or overlap of, KKNs in the interests of streamlining (consolidating) them.

Raised concern to the extent to which risks, modelling and abatement activities could be scaled up to the magnitude of the size of the site both temporally and spatially, e.g. vegetation, and how this could be reflected or addressed in the KKNs. It was recognised this issue to be an explicit area of uncertainty and that this uncertainty at the full scale needs to be reduced as much as can be; preferably quantified and explicitly stated in final approval processes. SSB noted a broader scale approach will now be adopted and made explicit in assessment reports, and uncertainty will be able to be better quantified.

ARRTC requested the issue of scaling up to be implicit in the KKNs and made explicit in future risk assessment processes.

16

ACTION 36-7: ARRTC to provide advice on overlap and where KKNs could be combined, consolidated or refined by end August 2016. 8. Strategic review (members only) ARRTC discussed its mandated functions including provision of advice to the Minister, and its approach to risk, endorsement of KKNs, research projects and other matters, and a strategy for addressing KKNs.

Professor Boon raised a concern with the level of rigour applied to formulation of some KKNs – specifically in Chapter 6 (groundwater). SSB noted lack of expertise in the branch, reflecting its historical make-up, and that it was sourcing groundwater expertise from OWS, Geoscience Australia, and DEWNR. Regarding Committee processes, the following was agreed:

Where sought, a register of comments would be kept on: (i) ARRTC input/responses; and (ii) how input/responses are addressed by SSB. This would involve adding a column to the product feedback table. ARRTC will populate the required feedback form with comments which will also provide a formal record of who has considered which project, and ensure at least one member has considered any given project.

For routine matters, ARRTC confirmed two days preparation time was appropriate. Additional time required to consider papers would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

A forward agenda plan for meetings would be provided by SSB so members can gauge the nature of the material and the subsequent expected time commitment required to consider same. SSB will work with ERA so a more consolidated forward planning can be achieved.

If a Committee member meets face-to-face with a program leader out-of-session, a record of outcome would be kept.

Meeting papers will be provided to ARRTC one month before the meeting. Members have two weeks within which to provide feedback, including on which projects they would like presentations on.

Presentations are to be more theme based: a move away from separate ERISS/ERA style.

Agenda content finalised one week before the meeting.

ARRTC will be provided with the outcomes of SSB’s quarterly reporting review.

The May 2017 meeting will focus on forward planning and endorsement of projects. The November 2017 meeting will review.

Teleconferences can be arranged between meeting dates (around Jan-Feb and July-Aug), in concert with SSB quarterly reporting to discuss project status.

17

Regarding approach to risk assessment and work program to address risk, ARRTC:

Noted it was worth re-examining/reviewing expectant risks regularly.

Noted the dynamic nature of the KKNs as a living document that provides the strategic framework for forward reviewing and planning. It is expected the KKNs would evolve over time, and be expected to undergo formal review at some stage in the future.

Raised concern as to whether projects could address KKNs in the timeframe required, and how moderate to low risk matters would be addressed, noting current version of the KKNs address critical and high risk matters. SSB noted in response each KKN has a project, but not all projects are articulated in SSB’s 2016-17 schedule.

Regarding the addressing of moderate and low rated risks, ARRTC volunteered to review these risks for any matter of concern. SSB encouraged the Committee to provide any comments on the KKNs in track-changes.

Noted there may be options to collaborate with academia and students etc in the interests of addressing resourcing issues.

ACTION 36-8: SSB to provide to ARRTC with a report/compendium of the moderate risks from the ecological risk assessment, for the Committee’s further consideration and discussion. ACTION 36-9: ERA to provide at ARRTC37 (November 2016) a presentation on closure criteria as presented in the Closure Plan 9. Summary of meeting outcomes 9.1 Discussion on key outcomes and actions arising from meeting ARRTC36 actions reviewed and agreed to by ARRTC. 9.2 Matters for Chair’s report to Minister Matters for Chair’s post-meeting letter to the Minister were noted. 10. Other business 10.1 Next meeting dates ARRTC37: Darwin, 29-30 November 2016 ARRTC38: Darwin, 16-18 May 2017, including 1 day field trip ARRTC39: Darwin, 14-15 November 2017 The meeting closed 3.20 pm Thursday.