2016-02-01
Senator LUDLAM: I have a couple of questions about the investigation into the leach tank failure at Ranger, and then a couple about rehabilitation in the area of the Ranger mine. If you can just quickly bring us up to date about the leach tank failure incident that occurred in December 2013. There is actually still no concrete information on the nature of the incident or specific details on the response by government to that. Can you tell us if you know where the NT government's report or investigation into that accident is up to.
Mr Tayler: The Northern Territory government report remains with their legal counsel. They are unable to release that report until they have determined whether that would advance to a prosecution. At this stage the report is not publicly available.
Senator LUDLAM: So there is nothing stopping them holding onto that for years, is there?
Mr Tayler: That is correct.
Senator LUDLAM: Is there are a statute of limitations on prosecuting ERA?
Mr Tayler: There is under the Northern Territory legislation, but I do not know the number of years off the top of my head. I could take that on notice.
Senator LUDLAM: Yes, if you could. Does the OSS have a copy? Are you in receipt of it?
Mr Tayler: No.
Senator LUDLAM: So you are in the dark, the public is in the dark and the local Aboriginal community is in the dark, and the NT government could sit on this forever if they choose to.
Mr Tayler: As you said, there is a statute of limitations. I would have to get back to you on the exact time frame.
Senator LUDLAM: Can you just jump to where you started—the reason that you think it is with the legal counsel. Just backtrack to the initial comment that you made. What is your understanding of why the NT government is holding onto that study?
Mr Tayler: It was the NT government that advised me that the report is with their legal counsel for review. That is a standard step in most organisations. If you are moving towards potential prosecution you need to provide the report to your legal counsel for review. The advice of the Northern Territory government to me is that that is where that report currently is.
Senator LUDLAM: The focus of the government's investigation was understandably on process safety. What is in place now in terms of ongoing monitoring and reporting of ERA's move to process safety? I think there are half a dozen of those leach tanks on site. How confident are you that ERA has actually taken steps to prevent such an incident from happening again?
Mr Tayler: The Northern Territory government is using an external expert contractor to work with ERA to develop their process safety management system. We have been involved in that process. ERA have made good progress towards improving their process safety culture and process safety systems. We are provided with the reports from the consultant after his quarterly site visits to ERA. The Supervising Scientist also has released a report into the environmental effects of that leach tank failure. ERA have been conducting additional groundwater monitoring and other things since the incident occurred to ensure that there are no off-site impacts.
Dr Wright: That was Supervising Scientist Report 207, which was released on 28 August 2014.
Senator LUDLAM: A lot of the heavy lifting was done by the NT government and its investigators. It is a very large and important body of work that still is not in the public domain.
Mr Tayler: That is correct. The Supervising Scientist report focused on the potential for off-site impacts, whereas the Northern Territory government's report looked at the cause of the failure and the mechanism of the failure.
Senator LUDLAM: What do you think are the best channels for the public to find out the outcome of that investigation?
Dr de Brouwer: That would be a matter for taking up with the Northern Territory government, Senator.
Senator LUDLAM: It has been nearly 2½ years since the incident. This might be more appropriate through you, Senator Birmingham: have you taken any steps to ask the NT government to expedite the release of that investigation?
Senator Birmingham: I will have to take that on notice.
Senator LUDLAM: I understand an investigation of this nature would take a while to conduct, but I do not feel it is appropriate that 2½ years after the event we are still waiting on the basic story of what occurred. Senator Birmingham, could you take that on notice and advise us whether you propose to take any steps to have that document—or even a redacted copy of it that has been scrubbed, I do not mind—put into the public domain. Moving to rehab, where are the OSS and ERA up to in defining closure criteria for the Ranger mine, because it really looks as though time is running out on the operation.
Dr Wright: Defining closure criteria is an ongoing process. ERA provided the Supervising Scientist with an initial draft report in August last year, and we have reviewed that and provided comments back to ERA. ERA have been allocating additional resources, including engaging groundwater modellers in the US—a company called INTERA—to undertake required research. So it is underway and some closure criteria will need to be set earlier than others—because closure is an ongoing process it is appropriate to put in indicators and milestones. There is time to do this in a robust manner and we are working through closure criteria working groups with ERA to develop the closure criteria. The Supervising Scientist is also in the process of undertaking a formal review of all the research that it has undertaken to date, and prospectively, to ensure that we know of any gaps and we can fill those in an appropriate time frame.
Senator LUDLAM: Just to be clear: a draft set of closure criteria from ERA has been submitted to the OSS? Did you say it was last August?
Dr Wright: It was August, and it was to OSS and other key stakeholders, because closure criteria need to be developed in conjunction with a range of stakeholders—the Indigenous communities, land councils et cetera have a say over the future use of the area and the shape of the final landform. So there are a number of entities who need to have a look at the closure criteria. It is a joint endeavour, although at the end of the day they belong to ERA and they need to be signed off by both the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth industry minister, with the advice of the Supervising Scientist.
Senator LUDLAM: Is the Supervising Scientist's advice determinative? If you put a block on it, does that stop the show, or are you just there as advisers?
Dr Wright: The Supervising Scientist, through a range of legal instruments that exist under not only Commonwealth legislation but NT legislation, does have considerable sway over the nature of closure criteria. And not just of criteria—more that the object of closure criteria is to provide for a process where there can be completion and sign-off between the regulating body and ERA, so they can exit from the site of the end of the day.
Senator LUDLAM: The regulating body being the NTG in this case, or being your office—the OSS?
Dr Wright: Currently the powers reside with the Northern Territory and also the industry minister, but, as I said, under various pieces of legislation the sign-off as to whether the criteria have been met—not only the development of the criteria—is on the advice of the Supervising Scientist.
Senator LUDLAM: I presume the eventual closure criteria, once they have been completed, will be put into the public domain. There is no reason why they would stay secret, is there?
Mr Tayler: That would probably be a matter for the minister for industry. He will be the final approver of those closure criteria, so it would be up to the industry minister to choose whether to release those or not.
Senator LUDLAM: The federal minister?
Mr Tayler: Yes, the federal industry minister.
Senator LUDLAM: Do you have a working time line of when that process will be complete? I understand when you say that it is iterative and it bounces back and forth, but, to within the nearest month, when will the closure criteria be signed off? Dr Charker: ERA regularly reviews its closure plan and closure criteria, so it is an iterative process and they do have a time line. It is quite a complex document because there are so many different dimensions of closure, all of which have different time frames. The best practice guides that are issued by industry do require that.
Senator LUDLAM: How about to the nearest month?
Dr Wright: The closure plan is regularly reviewed, and that is the case here.
Senator LUDLAM: I asked you specifically when you anticipate that process will be concluded.
Dr Wright: I could not give you an answer at this stage. As I said, we provided comments on the draft report in August and we are waiting for an update and that may indeed have changes to the time frame for finalising closure criteria.
Senator LUDLAM: In what ways are the Mirrar traditional owners, individually or through their representative body the Gundjeihimi Aboriginal Corporation, involved in the process of establishing closure criteria?
Mr Tayler: The Mirrar through the Gundjeihimi Aboriginal Corporation are represented on the Ranger mine site technical committee, which oversees the closure process. Their representative on the closure criteria working group, which reports to the mine site technical committee—
Senator LUDLAM: Who convenes the working group?
Mr Tayler: ERA. They are represented on the technical working groups that are actually developing the specific criteria, and there is a specific working group that deals with cultural issues and trying to bring traditional Indigenous knowledge into modern science. They are looking at that interface as well. I guess the views of the Mirrar have been embedded throughout the entire process.
Senator LUDLAM: Can you confirm for us that ERA's application under the EPBC Act for approval of operations at Ranger that the expansion which was afoot has actually been formally withdrawn? Is that for the regulatory branch?
Mr Tayler: You would do better to talk to the Environmental Standards division about that.
Senator LUDLAM: They are coming on a little later. Do you know whether it has been withdrawn?
Mr Tayler: My understanding is that it has not been formally withdrawn.
Senator LUDLAM: Hasn't?
Mr Tayler: No.
Senator LUDLAM: That is my understanding as well. All right, I will talk to your colleagues a little later. Finally, on securities held in relation to the rehab, I understand that these are held in the name of the department of industry but the issuing of the securities by the banks is subject to the banks assessing ERA's solvency. Can you step through, or if this is not within your remit, can you tell me where I should take these questions? How can we be confident that ERA actually has the ability to fund the full rehabilitation process?
Mr Tayler: I could not comment on the nature of the security bond. You would need to address those questions to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. I can talk you through the process of establishing the bond, if that is helpful.
Senator LUDLAM: The process of what, sorry?
Mr Tayler: Of establishing the bond.
Senator LUDLAM: Go ahead.
Mr Tayler: The bond is based on an annually updated plan of rehabilitation, which is provided by ERA. The Supervising Scientist does not have expertise in costs. We review the plan for scientific veracity and to make sure that it does not miss anything essentially. Once we have accepted the plan is being achievable and reasonable, it is then passed to the department of industry, which employs an independent expert quantity surveyor to assess the costing associated with that plan. All we do is advise on the likely environmental suitability and the scientific veracity of the plan. The costing is all done by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Senator LUDLAM: Okay, I will follow them up a little bit later in the session. I might have missed this in your opening statement: is the Supervising Scientist himself not available for this session? Dr Wright: I am the Supervising Scientist.
Senator LUDLAM: Congratulations. I was not aware that you had changed roles.