{an 0' Western Ausualia em Water and Envnonmenlaa Regulation 1 Port Hedland Dust Program interdepartmental Working Group Agenda Date: 4 November 2019 Time: 9.00 11.00 Venue: May Holman Building, 189 Royal Street, East Perth Att en DWER: Christine Hass (CH), Clarne Green (CG), Peter Taylor (PT) DOH: DPLH: PDC: Apologies? item a Subject Notes? 1. Introductions Introductions and welcome declared a potential con?ict of interest as a relative works for BHP's Corporate Affairs team. It was noted that the two do not discuss matters relating to the endorsed Port Hedland Dust Taskforce recommendations and each agency?s role in addressing these recommendations. 2. Port Hedland Dust Discussion on timing of the takeover of the air quality network DWER Program summary and project timeline will have the MOU put forward to industry this year and hoping to have an agreement within a few months/beginning 2020. The A0. network does not satisfy Australian Standards although data can still be useful. The network does not need to be retrofitted immediately. DWER may consider offering raw data to public to avoid further requests but this is for discussion with the lnter?depa rtmental Working Group (lDWG/the Group) and approval from the Senior Of?cers Group (506). There was discussion that the monitoring network may need to be aligned with different planning zones Improvement Scheme) so that it reflects the areas of impact. There was discussion that the A0 network may not have this ability in its current form and that longer term data would be required to make such determinations. Members noted that the A0. network was first implemented for the Health Risk Assessment and that monitors are in the location that is representative of the population. It was noted that future discussions may need to consider implementing High Volume Air Samplers (HiVols) to measure metals e.g. Cr(Vl) to allow ongoing oversight. It was generally agreed that the future A0. network should monitor NOX, 50x, PM2.5 at some location/s and PM10 at all locations. .. Peanut-Pm Ware: and Envrronmemat Remnehon ?Jam: Governme .=Western Australia 2 It was noted that'there is a community expectation that when DWER takes control of the AC1 network that DWER will be responsible for acting on exceedances. Further that the broader Port Hedland community does not have a thorough understanding of how data is used or the extent of monitoring in Port Hedland and that further engagement will be beneficial. DWER discussed with the Group the potential for perceived con?ict of interest around the choice of consultant to develop industry Best Practice Guidelines (the Guidelines). The peer review method using a second consultant was proposed as a mechanism to resolve this. 3. Terms of Reference Discussion or Terms of Reference Membership Core membership of the was discussed and it is was noted that there is preference for the core members to remain consistent. However, there is ?exibility to rotate representatives where members are unavailable. Fre?guengg It was agreed that the frequency of meetings should align with the 506 meeting frequency, which is currently It was noted that there is significant work expected to be handed down to the group from the 506. Meeting frequencies can be revised at a later date upon agreement with group members. The next meeting should be set for after?.? submits. conclusions following stakeholder engagement. Location The Group agreed that meeting locations could be rotated through the various offices (1 William, 140 William, Atrium, Joondalup). Scope The Group sought to further clarify the relationship between the 506 and the It was noted that: - The forms a sub?committee to the $06 and performs a support role in the development of technical information and proposed approaches. The Group has been established for members to inform each other of their agency?s work to avoid conflicting messages and actions with other departments. - The will deal with the nuts and bolts e.g. how to approach problems encountered and potential conflicts in interagency policies. The will generate ideas and propose solutions, which can then be provided to the $06 for their consideration. Members suggested that this aspect could be more clearly reflected in the (mm?mam The Group should send all correspondence through CG primarily, copying in I. CG will have a coordinating role in the Group. DWER noted that the group should redirect public correspondence relating to the performance of the and $06 to infoag?ldwerwagovau. DWER will be responsible for coordinating inputs but each final response will need to be approved by $06. ACTION: Group to provide feedback by close of business 29 November to ?nalise the Terms of Reference {closed - for ?nalising at the next meeting). Discussions and outcomes of the Senior Officers Group meeting I provided a summary of the discussions held at the 50G meeting held 30 October 2019. The Group provided commentary around each point and collectively considered how it would affect their agency's approach to implementing Taskforce recommendations. Buy-back scheme and Taskforce recommendations The buy-back scheme gives residential land owners the option to leave the West End (west of Taplin St at this stage). it is not a compulsory scheme and there is no driver for this to be compulsory. DWER noted that from a regulatory perspective, it needs to regulate to the air quality criterion of Mpg/m3 on the basis of Department of Health advice. If there were to be reduced numbers of people as a result of the buy? back scheme, the health criteria would still need to be applied so long as residents remain. DWER noted that the buy-back scheme may disincentivise industry from Spending money on dust controls required through its implementation of Best Practice Guidelines. The Group considered what a sensitive receptor and what the air quality criterion should apply to. The and Department of Planning Lands and Heritage were meeting to discuss this further following this IDWG meeting. A resolution would need to be shared and agreed upon by the 506. DWER noted that it was difficult to determine success of the project given external sources of dust and future port expansion. It is not possible to know what the dust levels will be in 5 years time. There is a potential for the problem to be pushed east of Ta plin Street at the end of ?ve years and that this needs to be considered. if there is an increase in dust from current levels, there may be health impacts that impact more Port Hedland residents. ?74! GOVEan-iffri' Western Australia Cieoa=tment Water and Environmental Reguiasion Much of the West End is above the heaith?criterion. MG noted that the 2016 Port Hedland Health Risk Assessment (HRA) states that there is a risk to health when PM 10 concentrations continue to be aboVe this level. it was also noted that if there are people residing there, the criterion applies. noted that a review of the HRA is not planned at this time but it would not be apprOpriate for the air quality criterion to be increased based on a reduced residential population. Removing people from areas that are not meeting criterion will mean that the focus wOuld shift to areas where residents remain. It was requested that members provide supporting evidence of where the air quality criterion can be met to determine where the planning approach should focus. members discussed if it were possible to produce a map showing where most impacted locations based on information from the AQ network. DWER noted that it is predictable where the areas will be generally Le. closest to port operations, but defining exact boundaries is nOt possible with current information. it was raised that the IDWG needs to provide input on where monitors are required to inform DWER's determination of the ?nal AQ network. Community and industry views will also be considered. Members acknowledged that there was continued belief from the community that the air quality criterion applies to east of Taplin Street and east. it was agreed that further engagement would be required and that the FAQs provided would assist. lnteragency community engagement The Group discussed the bene?t of developing some key messages to share, noting that the 506 has requested this to be developed. it was resolved that DWER would take a lead role in this with ?nal approvai to come from the SOS. has some FAQs put together with DJTSI but this would require updating. DPLH members noted that they are not at the stage of community engagement yet because the proposed improvement Scheme has not been made public. it was expected that engagement in the near future will be limited with the buy-back scheme and other agency engagement activity in Port Hedland. PM mentioned that they would require input from EPA Services for some planning matters that may interact with the marine environment e.g. turtles. DWER is conducting an engagement session in Port Hedland 21 November. The engagement session will focus on informing the community on Best Practice Guidelines and air quality but also to seek input on how they would like to receive information on air quality data. There is also an online engagement survey that goes live 6 November 2019 to canvas community concerns relating to the Port Hedland Dust Program. bevernmerw 9" Western Australia {Jepamnenlat Water and Environmental Regulation ACTION: DWER to provide audit summary and how changes may impact the data. ACTION: DPLH to provide feedback on what is a sensitive land use, providing a list. DPLH to work with DOH on what these de?nitions should be and provide justi?cation. 5. Draft FAQs There was insufficient time to discuss the draft FAQs. Comment on the FAQs to be provided out of session prior to DWER conducting its community engagement event. ACTION: IDWG to provide feedback to DWER on the FAQs by close of business, Friday 15 November (closed - comments provided by DOH) 6. Questions and wrap- up Next meeting: 28 January at 1 Adelaide Tce, East Perth (DJTSI offices)