Notes 18 May 2016 Maules Creek CCC meeting at Mine site office- 2pm



Notes 18 May 2016 Maules Creek CCC meeting at Mine site office- 2pm.

observed that it was very noisy from external mine site noise- in meeting room and vibrating- thumping. (It was not like this the other two times (Aug 2015, Nov 2015.) Observers in seats off to side; along wall. Not allowed to sit at table or have access to any documents presented during meeting. No docs/correspondence read out loud.

2pm. Present Cath Collyer (Narrabri shire council)- replacing Lloyd Finlay who resigned), John Turner (independent chair), Carolyn Nancarrow (Community rep), Dr. Kerri Clarke (Enviro Rep), Lexi (WHC enviro officer), Peter Wilkinson (WHC), Scott Mitchell(WHC)- WHC Minute taker – WHC. Observers- Libby Laird, Pat Murphy, 1 child, Angela Felton (DoPE) and Nina… (DoPE)- (both arrived about 2.45.)

Apologies sought: None. JT ellicited whether Wayne Griffith (Aboriginal rep) had apologised- no he hadn’t apologised. CN apologised for Jason Davis.

KC Enters.

JT: Great. You make up our quorum – (JT visibly counting CN, CC and now KC).

JT: Declaring pecuniary interest. I receive a fee for chairing the meeting.

(No other pecuniary interests declared by anyone else).

JT: Minutes to be passed? (KC- hand up) No- Minutes for discussion. Kerri has q’s

Kerri: Need to clarify when to circulate. Would like them quicker than 3 weeks after meeting.

JT/P.Wil: Guidelines say to be published within 28 days. No guideline time line as to when to get to members.

JT: Minutes are typed, sent to me (JT) then sent to CCC- then put on web but are still not confirmed until passed at this/the next meeting. A request to company – P.Wil that minutes from company be sent expeditiously to members.

KC: details missing such as when the clearing took place – from mid-feb- April ends- clarification of time. pg 5 company report…? Also number of women employed- I had 48 from meeting. Minutes say 53. Why is this different?…

P.Wil: Numbers change…

KC But not in the minutes. I raise concerns about enviro-data being sent by post- and in my case to Sustainable Living Armidale. I didn’t get it. Our meeting date is later this month. I request for enviro-data to be sent via email. The reason we asked for them to be sent out before the meeting was to allow the community to provide feedback/questions at the meeting. [Didn’t have the environmental data to look at and annotate].

P.Wil: will “consider” putting enviro-data on email ahead of next meeting so issues can be canvassed. Might need advice on this.

KC: Concern with meeting last time. Discussion of “zone of affectation”. Was breach of confidentiality in this discussion- for eg. how a property has “no limits”. Personal negotiation details were discussed. Was inappropriate. JT should have stopped discussion ruled “out of order”.

JT: Noted.

CN: Discussion of gas monitors and how landholders wouldn’t allow the monitors – not actually true.

CN: Email- letter from Pat Murphy.

KC: Pwatson last meeting was talking about monitors and getting data from WHC monitors. discussion was of project monitor- for approval- how has the data compared to actual data since approval. Non-attendant raw noise data was requested and request granted. Kerri asked in the last meeting to have PW’s request minuted that it was said to be OK with WHC to supply this data to enable the community to analyse it and make a comparison. Ros Druce also wrote a letter- not accepted last time- as personal negotiation details in it. Letter to be represented this time- later. Ros’ letter referred to compliance monitoring and requesting data from the WHC monitors (noise and dust) located on private property ‘Wongalea’.

SM: EPL reporting- data is uploaded monthly.

Pwil: don’t recall saying we would give raw noise data.

KC: Referring to SM comment. We don’t want averaged data. Requested raw data.

PW/SM: is only for compliance monitoring.

JT: Are you required to give raw data?

SM: Attended data yes. Unattendant- no requirement to provide this under our approval- is only a management tool.

JT: Will SM voluntarily make the info available?

Pwil: We will consider it- but probably not- as not a requirement.

KC: P. Watson said last meeting- “if nothing to hide then what is problem?”

JT: Well, is no data today. Advise WHC to seek advice from DoPE- as to requirement.

SM: Is only a compliance tool.

KC: page 4. Peter- Can community have “gas” data- noise, blast general?

JT: Company can respond to this.

KC: Another minutes amendment- Craig Simmons said A346- said exploration on this property. I want the property name “Wollondilly” noted as this property in the minutes.

JT attempts to pass amendments to the minutes.

PW: asked if the proposed amended sections of the minutes could be read back.

JT: In summary what are they?

Minute keeper- oh… vegetation clearing note, women employees nos 53 or 48? Noise and dust real time- project modelling- how does it compare, blasting…

unsure how to write KC’s amendment to Peter W. request.

JT: Difficult with Peter W away. Don’t want to put words in your mouth Kerri… but important in getting minute amendment wording right.

KC: Oh.. “PW requested raw data from WHC monitors to the community, and how did it compare to predicted monitoring…”

JT: Putting PW minutes wording to vote- show of hands- 2 in favour of wording being amended. 2 against.

CC: I was not at last meeting- as only just took on NSC rep role replacing LF.

JT: Will send minute to Peter to have him confirm wording. Company to send minute amendment wording to Peter in letter. Minutes cannot be passed at this meeting. So no business can arise from minutes as not passed.

JT: Correspondence: Reading Info Listed on Powerpoint Screen: Chair update, Lloyd Finlay resignation notification, blast fume info session, CS response to letter from Mrs Heiler.

JT : Letter and phone call from CS to Mrs Heiler was made – (no detail given of content). Lloyd could have a conflict of interest to CC Committee so resigned. Take this time to say what an outstanding contribution LF has made to CCC. Thank him very much for efforts. CC is here instead. Sorry for not introducing. We see each other on so many different committees….

KC: Received blast management plan at Blast Fume info session. Due 20 May for comments.

P.Wil: Mine info: Last three months 361 employees, 370 as of today. 48 indigenous. 54 female. (approx. six categories with 5 columns- removed before could note down info. Screen now stuck on up coming meeting dates calendar while P.Wil talked.)

8-8.5 million tonne/ year production. Safety record good- no recordable injuries in March-May period.

Mining operator of Year award-

CC: Are you saying WHC won the award. Or WHC MCC specifically?

P.Wil: Yes Minerals’ Council Award- MCC won it at Parliament House last week.

(silence and “ohs” as info digested by reps –silence punctuated by vibrating building)

SM: monitoring- environmental award.

P.Wil: this is Scott Mitchell. Craig Simmons left for personal reasons. Relocated to Hunter. Looking to replace Craig.

JT: CN do you have anything?

CN: Yes. Why is there differences between what CCC was sent out and what is on website? e.g. exceedances in website data but not on CCC data. Both March 31 2016- exceedance, June 19 2015- exceedance on website but not on CCC data sheets.

SM: Additional low frequency details. Noise monitoring. Broner, not a recognised method of assessment. NM4- contribution 31-33. 5db modifying factor- 36 db, 38db at that particular location. We are in the process of purchasing that property…

KC: Which property is NM4?

SM: Well, don’t like to say….. private landholder confidentiality.

KC/CC/CN: Ellerslie.

SM: Low frequency, modifying factor (IMP?). Guideline in 1 MP… A lot of work done by DPE and EPA…

P.Wilk: Not a particularly validating way of assessing noise…WHC do not accept EPA noise monitoring is valid…. Reporting against this- looking at L weighted mining contribution… we don’t think it is as much as said…

JT: Caz?

CN: This represents significant breaches of worst case scenarios.

KC:”Wongalea”- has WHC monitors that were installed- not proper authority given to put monitors on property … however they are there and since 2014 owners have submitted requests for data monitors of noise and dust. This letter is being resubmitted this meeting as not accepted last time as said to contain confidential/legal information. Legal paragraphs have been removed by Ros Druce and am now resubmitting on her behalf.

Letter submitted for Ros Druce by KC.

JT: suggests “reading time”.

KC: “read out loud?”

JT: No. (Members read.) Observers and ?services can get off web later.

(Observers not allowed to hear contents or read letter. Letters to date have not been on web.)

JT: (to KC) What do you want?

KC: WHC to provide specific Wongalea data.

P.Wil: Take question on notice

JT: (To P.Wil) Seek advice from DPE?

P.Wil: Seek from appropriate people.

KC: Am submitting copy of EPA letter to Ros Druce. Letter analyses coal deposits on furniture. Is not outside acceptable levels, but concerned about depositional dust and coal dust in air, water tanks, roofs, surfaces. 15% is high as is through shade cloth on outdoor furniture. This is submitted to support why she wants raw data results.

CN: another community member on Maules Ck road has reported coal dust on their surfaces. Is on MC road. Wants to remain anonymous.

KC: How to mitigate dust?

JT: Noise:

CN: Appreciate receiving the prevailing wind direction data during attendant monitoring times. Will this continue?

SM: Yes data will be available in environmental data summary to CCC.

JT: Blasting:

SM: No exceedances during reporting period.

KC: Can we have wind direction added to all the monitoring areas: blasting, dust?

P.Wil: WHC will report back.

KC: Considering history it should be made available.

JT: Only need to report under statutory requirements. As a CCC we could make strong requests.

CN: Good faith.

KC: Could you add your data to Ozforecast website…. is a service to local Narrabri community about weather and conditions…

P.Wil: take on notice.

JT: Is out of discussion of CCC. PWil and KC to have a conversation in good faith. Decision is under operational not statutory matter.

KC: At Nov CCC you said you were renewing “blasting” contractor.

P.Wil: Still in process.

KC: In November meeting you said you were using the more expensive explosive that produced less fumes, will that continue.

P.Wil: Considering cost and product.

CC: Is it same contractor as Tarrawonga?

P.Wil: Not commenting. [N.B. Someone did say that the contractors were the same, but not sure which mine it was they referred to].

KC: Products used?

P.Wil: Not saying.

CN: Are they listed in blast management plan?

JT: Point of order. Is commercial in confidence information.

KC: What is used interim?

P.Wil: Doesn’t vary much.

KC: I think you told me in the November meeting so will look this up?

JT: Air: (agenda item)

S.M. “Dust depositional… all good” (not sure who said this.)

Nothing to say. (Observer comment- personally I am stunned because air quality has been visibly reduced over last three months and excessively diminished for last three days. But let’s face it- no residents who live in actual Maules Creek are on the CCC (PW who is a very good rep but absent at this meeting- lives in Therrabri). PM and myself are observers (and appreciate this opportunity) at this meeting and specifically instructed by JT by email not to speak, hand notes or speak through a third person during meeting- (in line with CCC guidelines?).

JT: Water: (agenda item)

P.Wil: Ground water, surface water, treading along the same path.

CC: With dry conditions, do you have enough water?

P.Wil: Yes. We have onsite dams.

CC: Are they full?

P.Wil: We fill them from the river.

CC: You had an allocation 6-8 weeks ago. Still enough?

P.Wil: We will be filling up very shortly from river.

CC: Keepit Dam is very low.

P.Wil: State Water decision. We have high security water. We make request and Keepit Dam apply whatever rules they have.

JT: Community complaints: (agenda item)

Table is shown on powerpoint. Air, noise…. up for a couple of minutes- but too quick to record number. Reported as greatly decreased number of complaints compared to 2015.

CC; Source of complaints?

P.Wil/SM: These are the calls we get to WHC hotline.

CC: Oh. Does this not include EPA complaints. These complaints not recorded. Not like other CCC’s I’ve been on.

P.Wil: EPA tell us about some. Not all.

S.M/ P.Wil… inaudible discussion- unclear at observer seats how many they are including in figures, unclear to CCC members too, moves on quickly.

J.T: General Business: Kerri?

KC: Security- intimidation and stalking many km away from mine, sample of mine-type rope with reflectors used to dangerously rope off North Loop road. Tabling some security photos and maps- complaints asked to be passed on from local residents.

P.Wil: Which company are the photos of?

KC: I don’t know company names.

P.Wil: Is clear on vehicles…. very distinct.

KC: Driving up Black Mountain Ck road. 20 kms from mine site. Which company would do this surveillance?

P.Wil: What evidence?

KC: not sure of company names, but I have pictures with numbered vehicles from two firms – which is MCC security. Should I bring it up at the Triple CCC meeting tomorrow because all the mines will be present and involves Boggabri mine as well?

JT: Would be a waste of time today if not responsibility of this MC mine. So yes would be best. Anything else KC? I have pictures to identify companies.

PWil: You can show me after the meeting.

JT: Cath?

CC: Blast Management Drafted- handed out two weeks ago here at Blast Management Meeting with some community and council reps present. (observer note; is referring to a private, invitation meeting of which CCC members were included- held at MC mine site office). How many weeks for comment?

SM: Well we have three plans out that we would have liked comments back by 16 May. But date has come and gone.

P.Wil/Sm?: 3 weeks for comment.

SM: Biodiversity Management Plan- draft Comments due.

CN: Have had it for 2.5 weeks.

CC: Biodiversity management plan Draft (waves thick (200 page + bound colour copy of BMP draft). I would need 2 weeks to review it.

Process clarified by p.Wil/SM or JT- (not sure which). Goes from here to DoPE. Can put submission through DoPE- they send it to us and we/MCC review/consider it.

KC: Offsets are an issue. Community needs three weeks.

JT: CCC already agreed to 2 weeks. This is consensus committee. Don’t want to be voting on everything. 2 weeks.

p.Wil: Will come back to you – tomorrow over issue with 3 week extra time for feedback.

JT: That’s noted.

KC: Lloyd Finlay asks How much consultation done with community?

P.Wil: This is the community consultation.

KC: 2 offset properties that don’t have agreements but are listed as offsets in draft BMP. So will they be told that they have three weeks or maybe two weeks to give feedback?

P.Wil: have arranged to drop copies off to one of those people tomorrow.

CC: So no other community consultation required beyond CCC?

P.Wil: Yes.

J.T: Yes, is statutory requirement.

C.N: Lloyd Finlay letter tabled about BMP… (not read out or copy supplied to observers)

P.Wil: We are taking letter on notice. Due consideration will go to LF letter.

JT: Next meeting:

JT: CCC Draft meeting guidelines: Lexi has something to say.

Lexi (WHC enviro officer): Addressing JT and DoPE observers. “WHC only works from approved documents. We do not work from draft guidelines in any of our operations. Therefore we only go by CCC approved guidelines- not drafts.”

JT: As chair I can ask observer, Angela Felton DoPE would you like to comment?

AF:…. (can’t remember what she said…)

JT: Anything else ….KC?

KC: Make up of CCC membership. No Aboriginal rep. had attended CCC meetings since appointment to the role in November. Another community rep has not attended Nov, Mar, or today meeting. Isn’t the responsibility of Chair (JT) to keep on top of CCC attendance?

JT: P.Wil/J.T: Was hard to get someone as Aboriginal rep. Can’t force people to come.

KC: When will the vacant community rep position (resigned position prior to Nov 15) be advertised? Need new members.

PWil: won’t be advertised. Statutory obligation is 3 community members – we have 3.

KC: No Jason Davis (Boggabri community rep) (JD). Missed more than 4 meetings in a row. Rod Woolford resigned back in October. Not replaced. Only CN from community present today. Not enough representation considering this is WHC only form of community consultation.

JT: CCC only requires 3 community members. Says up to 5. don’t have to have five.

KC: JD missed 4 straight.

CN: JD Was at Aug meeting.

JT: Will review attendance. Will contact people and remind them of their obligations. (To P.Wil. “will need to ensure members”).

CC: 3-5 community members is obligation and what happens if more people aren’t available. You had better advertise in preparation.

P.Wil: Will take this on notice.

KC: Want it minuted that the full number of community reps should be appointed considering the meeting is the only form of community consultation undertaken by WHC.

meeting closed- approx. 3.35pm.