Independent Review of Reporting Procedures for the Sa Uranium Mining Industry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF REPORTING PROCEDURES FOR THE SA URANIUM MINING INDUSTRY Hedley Bachmann August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT ........................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................ 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW................................................................................. 2 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 8 REVIEW OF CURRENT INCIDENT REPORTING PROCEDURES................................................................ 10 THE SEVERITY OF THE CONSEQUENCES AN INCIDENT MAY HAVE ON THE PUBLIC, EMPLOYEES AND ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................................................................... 10 MECHANISMS FOR KEEPING THE COMMONWEALTH INFORMED.................................................................................... 13 THE CONCEPT OF ‘ONE WINDOW INTO GOVERNMENT’ TO SIMPLIFY REPORTING FOR MINE OPERATIONS .................. 14 TRANSPARENCY IN THE EFFECTIVE DISCLOSURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS TO HELP THE COMMUNITY MORE FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HAZARDS AND ASSOCIATED RISKS ........................................................................ 15 CONSISTENCY OF REPORTING OBLIGATIONS AND INCIDENT ASSESSMENTS BETWEEN OPERATIONS............................ 15 DETERMINE WHETHER THE CURRENT MECHANISM FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SUCH INCIDENTS IS APPROPRIATE, AND IF NOT RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS. ................................................................... 16 BEST PRACTICE INCIDENT REPORTING IN THE INDUSTRY ............................................................................................. 17 REPORT ON THE PROCESSES IN PLACE PRIOR TO JANUARY 2002 SPILL AT BEVERLEY AND IN PARTICULAR THE EFFECT OF ANY MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO REPORTING.............................................................. 18 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Recommendations of the Report I recommend the government adopt the following measures: 1. A register of incidents should be kept at each mine site. Incident registers should be available to the regulatory agencies as required and made available for perusal at the three- monthly ISL Radiation Review Committee meetings held between mine management and Government regulatory agencies. 2. In order to allow the release of information about incidents which may cause, or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm or risks to the public or employees, the Government should revise and appropriately amend the secrecy/confidentiality etc. clauses in the legislation referred to in Appendix B. Information on individual persons should not be disclosed. 3. The incident reporting requirements as set out in Appendix D should be adopted. If legislative change occurs which affect the reporting requirements, they will need to be further reviewed having regard to any legislative change made. 4. The Chief Inspector of Mines should be required to forward a copy of any incident report form received to Environment Australia and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. 5. Current reporting arrangements should be varied to ensure that all agencies are informed at the same time. I recommend that required incidents be reported to the three agencies by facsimile or email. 6. An incident reporting form (see Appendix E) should be adopted by all regulatory agencies involved in the regulation of mining and milling of uranium ore. 7. If the Mining Act and the Radiation Protection & Control Act continue to apply, public notification should be made of those incidents which cause or threaten to cause, serious or material environmental harm through the Minister for Mineral Resource Development or the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources. 8. A protocol should be put in place such that, when a significant incident arises, a lead agency and a lead Minister are identified (as has been done in the area of water contamination involving the Department of Human Services and S.A. Water). 1 Introduction On the 6th of May 2002 Cabinet approved a recommendation of the Minister for Mineral Resources Development for an independent review of the reporting procedures in the South Australian uranium mining industry. Current mining operations for uranium include one at Olympic Dam, owned and operated by the Western Mining Corporation, where uranium ore is produced from the underground mine through a process of grinding, flotation, leaching and solvent extraction. There is also the Beverley Uranium Mine, owned and operated by Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd., which extracts uranium using the in-situ leaching (ISL) method of mining. In addition, Southern Cross Resources Pty. Limited has recently obtained a mining lease at the Honeymoon site and is expected to carry out mining operations using the in-situ leaching method in the not too distant future. The decision for the independent review followed a series of unplanned spills at the mines; 62,000 litres of uranium bearing fluids at the Beverley mine in January 2002 and 420,000 litres of uranium bearing copper concentrate slurry at Olympic Dam in December 2001. The decision for the review was also timely because the current procedures for reporting spills at ISL uranium mining operations were put in place during the Beverley Uranium Mine field trials and needed to be reviewed now that commercial production had commenced. The independent review was assisted by a specialist support group nominated from the following agencies:- The Environment Protection Authority; Manager, Pollution Avoidance Branch, Peter Dolan, Scientist, Radiation Protection Branch, Andrew Johnston, The Office of Mines and Energy Resources; Program Manager, Resource Development, Sam Walker The Workplace Service Unit; Acting Assistant Director (Compliance), Bill Loizides. At the time of the establishment of the Review, the Radiation Protection Branch was in the Department of Human Services. Early in the review period it was transferred to the Environment Protection Agency. Terms of Reference for Independent Review The terms of reference of The Review require me to produce a report that:- 1. reviews the current incident reporting procedures associated with uranium mining and related activities in South Australia to Government and, where appropriate, recommend suggested changes to these procedures. The review of incident reporting procedures should consider the following issues: • The severity of the consequences an incident may have on the public, employees and the environment; 2 • Transparency in the effective disclosure of environmental incidents to help the community more fully understand the hazards and associated risks; • Mechanisms for keeping the Commonwealth informed; • The concept of “one window into Government” to simplify reporting for mine operations; • Consistency of reporting obligations and incident assessments between operations; and • Best practice incident reporting in the industry. 2. determines whether the current mechanism for public notification of such incidents is appropriate, and if not, recommend alternative mechanisms; and 3. reports on the processes in place prior to the January 2002 spill at Beverley and in particular the effect of any Ministerial correspondence related to reporting. Legislative Framework 1. To commence The Review it was necessary for me to examine and understand the legislative and regulatory framework which governed and regulated the mining of uranium in South Australia. This examination revealed that the following Acts and their accompanying Regulations applied: Mining Act 1971 Mines & Works Inspection Act 1920 Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 Environmental Protection Act 1993 Occupational Health Safety & Welfare Act 1995 Dangerous Substance Act 1979 Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 2. The Mining Act, committed to the Minister for Mineral Resources Development and administered through the Office of Minerals and Energy Resources, contains provisions for granting of mining leases and includes special provisions attached to mining of radioactive minerals. Section 10 provides that no person shall carry out mining operations for the recovery of any radioactive mineral unless he is the holder of a mining lease or retention lease, upon which the Minister has endorsed an authorisation to carry out mining operations for that purpose. Each of the uranium mining operators has been granted a lease by the Minister. The mining lease, which is quite detailed in its terms, requires compliance with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation and the preparation of an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan to be approved by the Minister. The lessee is required to conduct operations, monitor parameters and report activity in accordance with the strategies and time frames set out in the approved plan. Provision is made in the Act for the lodgement of a Rehabilitation