Senator LUDLAM-My apologies for my absence a little earlier. Thanks for coming all the way down to Canberra this morning. Mr Hughes, I think we last spoke in October, so I would just like to pick up on some of the points that were raised at that time, particularly with regard to the feasibility study work for the expansion of the Ranger mine and other operations in that region. What is your understanding of the final closure point of the Ranger operation? Is it possible to pin down a particular date?Mr Hughes-I am the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. At the current time, Ranger operates on the Ranger Project Area, which is an authority issued under the Atomic Energy Act 1953. The authority currently has an expiry date of 2026. Operations may run under that authority until 2021, and that is followed by a rehabilitation period which goes to January 2026, I think.

Senator LUDLAM-My understanding was that the mine was initially scheduled to close potentially in 2008-09-going back a long time ago, when those agreements were signed. Now we are looking at mining perhaps taking place until 2020 or 2021. Has that impacted the time line for the rehabilitation by 2026-that time line becoming shorter?

Mr Hughes-The 2026 rehabilitation closure date is related to the 2021 end-of-mining date, so that was always considered in partnership. The two dates were always linked.

Senator LUDLAM-What happens in 2026? At that point does the ownership of that property revert to the Commonwealth or to the Northern Territory?

Mr Hughes-I believe that the mining company will need to be released from its obligations before they would cease to have any liabilities to work on that property.

Senator LUDLAM-Presumably your office would be involved, if you were not happy with the quality of the rehabilitation work, in an extension of that time line?

Mr Hughes-Yes, that is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-If necessary.

Mr Hughes-Yes, that is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-Last time we discussed a prefeasibility study on the expansion of the mine. At that time, which was I think mid-October 2008, was it not the case that that feasibility study was complete?

Mr Hughes-ERA currently have a number of feasibility studies, I understand, in which they are engaged. Specifically, one of the studies was to do with the potential expansion of the pit, and they have since taken that particular option off the board. There has been no submission made to date for an expansion program of the pit.

Senator LUDLAM-You said ‘a number of feasibility studies'. So you do not think it is clear that ERA intends to go ahead with open-cut mining outside the present extent of pit 3, for example?

Mr Hughes-There is nothing currently extant on extending the pit beyond the current approved outline.

Senator LUDLAM-That is the open cut; what about the construction of a heap-leaching plant?

Mr Hughes-The company has announced that it intends to submit a referral for the construction of a heap leach plant. At this stage, it has circulated a draft of that proposal to a number of stakeholders, but there has been no formal referral made to the government.

Senator LUDLAM-Does the same go for two plants: a radiometric sorting plant and a laterite beneficiation plant?
Mr Hughes-No, the radiometric sorting and the laterite beneficiation plants have both been approved by the NT regulator.

Senator LUDLAM-Okay, so those were referred and approved in there?

Mr Hughes-They were not judged to require an EPBC referral.

Senator LUDLAM-The pit 3 expansion would require a referral under EPBC?

Mr Hughes-That probably depends on the exact nature of that particular proposal, but we have not seen the proposal.
Senator LUDLAM-We will not know until we see it. What about the proposal for a second tailings dam?

Mr Hughes-That is part of the study that ERA is currently undertaking to do with the heap leach program.

Senator LUDLAM-My understanding is that they have approached the traditional owners of the area for cultural heritage clearance at the site; is that your understanding?

Mr Hughes-That is my understanding as well. As I say, they have had discussions with stakeholders about that proposal to go ahead with that work.

Senator LUDLAM-It is also clear-or there is certainly information in the public domain-that ERA has found ore in places on the lease that are not inside the current operating area: some on the north bank of the Magela, one just inside the lease and another just outside the lease at the foot of the Mount Brockman site. Can you give us the degree to which your office is feeding into the company's proposals to expand into these new areas?

Mr Hughes-Again, any intention of the miner to go outside to undertake any activity on those areas would be subject to the normal assessment process. It would require a referral before any mining activities. In the case of exploration on those areas that are within the lease, that is probably within the scope of their current approvals. What they need to do is just to seek specific authorisation from the NT government regulator to undertake those actual exploration activities in a proper and safe manner.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you just sketch out for us the role that your office plays in activities such as this? Mining operations are fairly dynamic affairs and they change and they grow. What is the role of your office, and where do you fit in the regulatory environment between the Commonwealth, the NT mines department and the company? At what point are you notified of companies' intentions to do certain things?

Mr Hughes-There is a formal notification process in the NT Mining Management Act. There is a section within that act that says that the NT must consult with the Commonwealth before it takes any approval action on a project that involves uranium or thorium. There are a number of agreements and memoranda of understanding between government parties which provide that the Supervising Scientist is that point of contact in the first instance. The NT government is restricted from making any approval in regard to Ranger, for example, without having consulted with us and sought our opinion of that approval.

Senator LUDLAM-But it would not be normal in that case for the mining company to come to your office before submitting an approval to the NT mines department? You are a kind of gatekeeper between the NT and the Commonwealth, as it were?

Mr Hughes-No, the way it actually works is that the NT chairs a group called the mine site technical committee, which is a group which has in it representatives of most of the principal stakeholders. On the mine site technical committee is a representative of the mining company, a representative of the NT regulator-that is, the NT mines division-the Northern Land Council and us, as well as a representative of the traditional owners who sits in as an observer. The normal process is that ERA provide a briefing to the mine site technical committee to give them a bit of a heads-up that they are proposing to undertake a certain activity or seek approval to undertake a certain activity. The mine site technical committee, having been aware of that, then is usually prepared and waiting to see the formal application so that they have a chance to do a proper assessment of it. We are one of the contributing parties to the assessment of that particular process.

Senator LUDLAM-Just getting back to the expansion of the open cut: it seems like there is quite a bit of information in the public domain but you seem a bit reluctant to put anything on the record from your office's point of view as to whether you are involved in or aware of the open-cut expansion.

Mr Hughes-No, ERA has specifically made a public release to the effect that it is not seeking, at this stage, to expand the open cut.

Senator LUDLAM-What about an expansion into underground operations at Ranger?

Mr Hughes-Yes, they have made an announcement that they are looking at the possibilities of going to an underground operation at Ranger. Again, we have not received any formal EPBC referral on that, but what we have been told at the mine site technical committee meeting level is-and there has been draft material circulated-to the extent that ERA are likely to propose to put in an underground adit to facilitate further drilling to assist them in determining whether or not it is feasible to undertake underground mining on the site.

Senator LUDLAM-So that is for evaluation at this stage. Your role, I suppose, is less operational and more about monitoring contamination and the integrity of the surrounding environment. Would it be normal for the mining company to come to the OSS before they had submitted proposals, for example, to the NT mines department?

Mr Hughes-No. Again, this is another case where it is referred or spoken about at the minesite technical committee meeting in the first instance prior to a submission of a proposal or an application to the regulator to undertake the work.

Senator LUDLAM-Are you at that table?

Mr Hughes-We are at that table.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you, that is helpful. In your role of monitoring the integrity of the surrounding environment, last time we were here we discussed a seepage plume that was travelling north from the tailings dam. I asked you about the kind of volume of water that was seeping out and you indicated it was tens of cubic metres or something like that. Do you recall that exchange?

Mr Hughes-I recall the discussion, yes.

Senator LUDLAM-The implication that I took away from that was that the total plume was only tens of cubic metres in volume. Is that what you meant or have I misinterpreted your words?

Mr Hughes-I do not recall the exact way the words were spoken. I would have suggested that the number is probably more than tens of metres, but it would be only tens of metres in a given period of time.

Senator LUDLAM-But is that a given period time over days, for example? Forgive me if I misinterpreted your words, but your tone did tend to minimise the accumulation of contaminated water seeping. I am just wondering if you can tell us in a bit more detail the rate of accumulation of contaminated water under that tailings dam.

Mr Hughes-ERA have undertaken a number of studies on the seepage rates from the tailings dam. The seepage into the groundwater goes into fractured rock aquifers, so it is quite difficult to know what the actual volume of material is in those fractured rock aquifers. But the company has undertaken a number of geophysical surveys over the years in the area. The water that seeps from the tailings dam has a reasonably high salt content, so it is detectable by these electrical surveys. I think we can be reasonably confident that the distribution of seepage waters from the tailings dam is limited to just a number of these fracture zones. I think last time we discussed it I said that there was an area probably to the south-west of the tailings dam and the main one to the north of the tailings dam, which is the one to which you are referring now.

Senator LUDLAM-That is right. So it is not seeping out evenly into sand; it is travelling differentially according to the geology through fractures?

Mr Hughes-That is correct.

Senator LUDLAM-Because the engineering assessment for the height of the dam walls indicates that the rate of seepage is more likely about a hundred cubic metres per day. Does that sound like a reasonable estimate?

Mr Hughes-That sounds about right.

Senator LUDLAM-ERA has acknowledged that the rehab plans mean the only way to remediate that plume is to pump the water out, treating the contaminated water and recovering it. Does that accord with your assessment?

Mr Hughes-That is probably the case, yes.

Senator LUDLAM-The water cannot stay there; that it is seeping into the environment and it will need to be removed before the mine site is returned to the public?

Mr Hughes-There will need to be further studies on the amount and distribution of that water when the tailings dam has been removed. Part of rehabilitation plan is that that entire tailings dam will be removed.

Senator LUDLAM-In October, you stated that the plume was ‘immediately adjacent to it'-you were referring to the tailings dam. I clarified that it was just at the foot of the dam, and you confirmed that that was the case. I am somewhat puzzled that you are now acknowledging that it is actually travelling some distance from the dam along geological faults.

Mr Hughes-Yes. As I said before, the geophysics that has been undertaken give a reasonably clear picture of that, and the main movement direction is to the north.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you confirm that the water quality of retention pond 1 and the Coonjimba Billabong have already been impacted by the seepage?

Mr Hughes-It is quite possible that the water quality of RP1, retention pond 1, has been impacted to a degree by seepage. But it also receives other inputs which do contain some levels of contaminant from the minesite itself which makes it difficult to detect whether it is seepage from the tailings dam or whether it is overland flow from material that is washed off rock stockpiles and water that has been through the wetland filtration system.

Senator LUDLAM-But presumably the chemical signature of water coming out from under the dam would be measurably different from contamination flows coming from elsewhere. Is that work that you are undertaking to establish whether there is a measurable flow of water from the dam?

Mr Hughes-Not currently. The water quality in retention pond 1 is actually pretty good.

Senator LUDLAM-Is that a scientific assessment? I guess my question is: are you directly measuring or are you interested in whether or not seepage water from under the dam has reached that retention pond?

Mr Hughes-I do not believe that any significant volume of water from the tailings dam has reached the retention pond through seepage.

Senator LUDLAM-But perhaps an insignificant volume; it sounds like it is still an open question.

Mr Hughes-Yes; there would be a minor amount going in there.

Senator LUDLAM-So it has probably reached there. What about the Coonjimba Billabong-are there measurable impacts?

Mr Hughes-Coonjimba Billabong is a receiving water body from retention pond 1. During the wet season retention pond 1 reaches a certain level and then it overflows into Coonjimba Billabong. So, whatever the water quality is in RP1, that can be the water quality in Coonjimba Billabong. Coonjimba Billabong is also subject to back-flushing from Magela Creek, so that at times it has water quality more like Magela Creek and at other times it has water quality more like retention pond 1. That can vary on an almost daily basis because of the back-flushing and level changes in the water bodies around the place.

Senator LUDLAM-All-right. I am not trying to verbal you; I am trying to go fairly carefully here, but what you are saying essentially is that if the water quality in retention pond 1 has been impacted by seepage from the dam then there is likely to be measurable impacts in the water bodies that it flows into from there, including the billabong?
Mr Hughes-The water quality of retention pond 1 fluctuates quite considerably through the year, depending on the time of the season. ERA has installed a control gate on the spillway there, which gives it some degree of ability to manage when that actually spills. The idea is to ensure that RP1 does not spill prematurely while Magela Creek is still not at a high flow level.

Senator LUDLAM-It is about dilution and not letting it go while the creek is low in the dry season?

Mr Hughes-That is right. It is managing it by quality.

Senator LUDLAM-I think last time we spoke you indicated that ERA was doing a groundwater study in that area and that you expected to receive a report from them. Is your office now in receipt of that report?

Mr Hughes-Yes, we have received that report. We have also received some other reports and we have asked some further questions of ERA on that.

Senator LUDLAM-Can you tell us anything about the reports? Firstly, are those reports in the public domain?

Mr Hughes-I doubt that the report is in the public domain.

Senator LUDLAM-Is that something you are able to check for the committee?

Mr Hughes-We could check that, yes.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. Within the limits of what you are able to tell us about the material in the report, what does it reveal about the state of the groundwater in the area?

Mr Hughes-It is consistent with what I told you before.

Senator LUDLAM-Do ERA try to estimate the total volume of contaminated water that is accumulated downstream of the dam?

Mr Hughes-The work that ERA has undertaken does try to look at the flux rate of the seepage plume from the tailings dam, which is I think what you are asking me.

Senator LUDLAM-Obviously, they are aware for how long it has been seeping, so there would be some way of estimating the total volume of water that is leaving the dam?

Mr Hughes-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-When the mine was established, was it the case that the tailings dam was meant to contain the water that was impounded there, or was it always intended that there would be this kind of seepage?

Mr Hughes-All tailings dams are intended to leak.

Senator LUDLAM-They are intended to leak. Lastly from me, we also discussed very briefly the government's proposed register of radiation dose exposure for workers in the industry. You indicated that that was not within the bailiwick of your office, but I am wondering whether OSS staff are routinely monitored for radiation dose exposure in the course of their work.

Mr Hughes-Yes.

Senator LUDLAM-They are? Is that something that is new or has that been the case?

Mr Hughes-Workers who are involved in potential exposure situations are monitored.

Senator LUDLAM-For how long has that been the case?

Mr Hughes-Forever as far I know.

Senator LUDLAM-Nothing new in terms of the recording of radiation doses; nothing new since we spoke in October?

Mr Hughes-No.

Senator LUDLAM-Lastly, do you have concerns about the performance of this operation? That is probably a little bit broad actually. In particular, since receiving the groundwater study that we were referring to just previously, has that raised any particular alarm bells for you since the last time we spoke?

Mr Hughes-Not overly so. We have some questions which we have put to ERA and asked ERA to provide further information. We understand that they intend to extend their monitoring program in the vicinity of the tailings dam. In the course of doing that, they will be able to collect more data and will have a better idea of what is actually occurring in that area. At this stage, I do not see any significant reason for concerns.

Senator LUDLAM-Are you assisting ERA in preparation for removing and treating that contaminated groundwater that is coming out from under the dam? How advanced are plans for cleaning up that contamination?

Mr Hughes-We are not specifically involved in any projects concerned with the cleaning up of the water which is beneath the tailings dam. At this stage it is probably premature to attempt to do any of that work ahead of decommissioning of the tailings dam.

Senator LUDLAM-Are we going to work out how to do that when the mine has closed? Is there no preliminary work to be done at all?

Mr Hughes-Yes, the monitoring work that I was talking about-extending the monitoring program and answering questions about flow rates and things like that around the dam that we have been looking into-are actually components of planning for that sort of work.

Senator LUDLAM-I could see how that could be very important, but whose responsibility is it to work out how to remove several hundred thousand tonnes of contaminated water from downstream of that dam? Is that entirely up to ERA or do you play some role in working out how that is to be achieved?

Mr Hughes-The responsibility for doing that belongs to ERA. Our responsibility is to ensure that it is done in an appropriate fashion.

Senator LUDLAM-Thank you. I have no other questions.

CHAIR-Thank you very much, Senator Ludlum. Thank you very much, Mr Hughes, for taking the time to come down and appear before the committee today; we appreciate it.

Mr Hughes-Thank you.