Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant

Transcription

1 Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant Independent Audit of Compliance with Development Consent and Environment Protection Licence Cristal Mining Australia Pty Ltd JANUARY 2017 TELFORD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES

2 Contents 1 Introduction Background Operations Approvals history Audit Details Audit Scope Activity audited Period covered by the audit Exclusions from the Audit Scope Audit Method Audit criteria Compliance assessment criteria Auditor Stakeholder involvement Site meetings and inspections Cristal personnel Interviewed Documentation reviewed Limitations Audit Findings Comments Made by Stakeholder Contacts Compliance with Consent and EPL Conditions Actions Taken to Address the 2013 Audit Findings Discussion and Conclusions... 9 Appendices A. Actions taken to address non-compliance findings of the 2013 independent audit B. Completed audit checklists TELFORD Page ii

3 Document Control Revision Date Details Signature Draft 14 Jan 2017 For review by Cristal Final 24 Jan 2017 For issue to Cristal TELFORD Page iii

4 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Operations Cristal Mining Australia Pty Ltd (Cristal) operates the Minerals Separation Plant (MSP) at Pinnacles Road, Broken Hill, New South Wales. The MSP is used to process heavy mineral concentrates produced at the Ginkgo and Snapper mines, also owned by Cristal. The concentrates are transported to the MSP by dedicated B-triple trucks. Delivered concentrates are held in the Mag 1 and 2, and non-mag receiving areas at the MSP prior to processing at the site. Two mineral concentrate processing streams are in place at the MSP; a non-magnetic concentrate separation circuit (wet plant), and a magnetic concentrate separation circuit (dry plant). The finished concentrates, leucoxene, secondary ilmenite, and non-magnetic concentrate are transported by rail to South Australia for further processing. Waste materials from the two MSP process streams are back-loaded to Ginkgo Mine Approvals history Development consent Original consent May 2002: The NSW Minister for Planning approved development application DA under s 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on 27 May The approved Stage 1 of the development, which was production of non-magnetic (rutile-rich and zircon-rich) mineral concentrate, leucoxene and some secondary unroasted ilmenite. The staged development comprised: Stage 1 production of a non-magnetic (rutile-rich and zircon-rich) concentrate product, leucoxene and some secondary un-roasted ilmenite; Stage 2 addition of an ilmenite circuit to the MSP to enable production of roasted ilmenite and sulphate ilmenite; and Stage 3 addition of rutile and zircon circuits to the MSP to enable separate production of rutile and zircon. Stage 1 was commissioned in 2006; Stage 2 in September Mod. 1 (Fuel source modification, Feb 2006): The original consent was modified on 4 February 2006 to allow the inclusion of a new leucoxene separation circuit, modification of fuel type from LPG to black and brown coal in Stages 2 and 3, revision of the site layout, back-loading of mineral waste for disposal at the Ginkgo Mine. Mod. 2 (Expansion of mineral processing capabilities, Jul 2007): The consent was modified on 17 July 2007 to increase the capacity to accommodate heavy mineral concentrates from the new Snapper Mine, and to add rutile, zircon circuits prior to the addition of an ilmenite circuit to the MSP. The life of the plant was extended to 19 years (that is, to 2025). TELFORD Page 1

5 Mod. 3 (Murray Darling Basin operations modification, October 2014): The consent was modified on 20 October 2014 to increase the capacity of the MSP to process mineral concentrate from the Atlas-Campaspe mine, and to use LNG as an alternative to LPG. The life of the plant was extended to 26 years (that is, to 31 December 2032). The consolidated consent for the MSP incorporating the requirements of the three modifications was used for the audit. Environment protection licence The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage issued Environment Protection Licence to Bemax Resources Limited on 2 May The licence has been amended on various occasions; the licence version date 15 December 2015 being used for the audit. Note that on 1 October 2012 the name of the company owning and operating the MSP was changed from Bemax Resources Limited to Cristal Mining Australia Pty Ltd. TELFORD Page 2

6 2 Audit Details 2.1 Audit Scope Activity audited The audit assessed compliance of operations conducted by Cristal at the Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant with requirement of the development consent condition 4.1(a). In accordance with this condition, the audit included compliance with the Environment Protection Licence for the MSP (licence no ) Period covered by the audit Condition 4.1(a) requires an independent audit of the environmental performance of the development to be conducted within two years of the latest consent modification. As the consent was most recently modified in October 2014, the period of time covered by this audit is from 20 October 2014 to the date of the site inspection (23 November 2016). Production rates were assessed for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years, with the 2016 production rate determined by adding the projected November and December production figures to that for January to October figure Exclusions from the Audit Scope The scope of the audit was limited to the activities conducted within the MSP at Broken Hill. Independent site sampling or monitoring was not conducted as part of the audit. 2.2 Audit Method Audit criteria The audit considered compliance of operations at the premises with conditions specified in: The consent for development application , granted on 27 May 2002, and modified on 4 February 2006, 17 July 2007, and 20 October NSW EPA Environment Protection Licence 12314, licence version date 15 December Checklists itemising the requirements of the development consent and environment protection licence, prepared before the site visit, were completed during the audit. The checklists are provided in Appendix B. In addition to these primary audit criteria, an assessment was made of actions taken by Cristal to address non-compliance findings identified by Telford (TECS) during the November 2013 compliance audit Compliance assessment criteria Compliance assessment criteria used for this audit were: TELFORD Page 3

7 Non-compliant Opportunity for improvement Not applicable Not audited. findings denote that the requirements of the permit condition have been met. Non-compliant denotes that part or all of the permit condition requirements have not been met. An opportunity for improvement is a practice that could be modified to improve environmental performance or management and does not denote a non-compliance. Not applicable denotes that the permit condition is not relevant due to expiry of its requirement or if Cristal Mining has not conducted activities relevant to the condition during the audit period. Not audited applies to a condition that is sufficiently ambiguous in its wording or inclusion in the consent or licence that it has not been assessed for compliance Auditor The audit was conducted by Dr David Telford of Telford Pty Ltd. David is an EPA Victoria appointed environmental auditor of industrial facilities. Engagement of David Telford as the auditor was approved by the Director-General of NSW Department of Planning & Environment on 10 August Information presented in this audit report is subject to the limitations given in section 4 of this report Stakeholder involvement Prior to the site inspection, contact was made by with the following authority representatives: NSW Department of Planning & Environment Phillipa Duncan; NSW EPA Darren Wallett; NSW Division of Resources and Energy, Environmental Sustainability Unit Catherine Stokes; and NSW Office of Water Tim Baker. The representatives were invited to provide comment on elements of the MSP operations that they considered were of potential environmental concern and required particular attention during the audit Site meetings and inspections An opening meeting was held with the MSP Manager and the Environmental Superintendent on 22 November This was followed by an initial tour of the site provided by the MSP Manager in the company of the Environmental Superintendent. TELFORD Page 4

8 The MSP site and immediately adjoining land was inspected during the audit on 22 and 23 November A closing meeting was held with the MSP Manager, the Environmental Superintendent on 23 November The preliminary audit findings were described and discussed with those present Cristal personnel Interviewed Cristal personnel who participated in the audit were: Clayton Trengove MSP Manager; Andrew Schweitzer Environmental Superintendent; Linton Smith Production Manager; and Clinton Chilcott Laboratory Technician supporting the Radiation Safety Officer Documentation reviewed Documents reviewed during the environmental audit are listed below. Annual Return to EPA for Annual Return to EPA for Annual Return to EPA for Annual Environmental Management Report, Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant Annual Environmental Management Report, Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant Annual Environmental Management Report, Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant BOC Test Compliance Certificate, LNG tank pressure test Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant Tel Impact Study. Resource Strategies, November Broken Hill MSP Wind Study. Katestone, August Certificate of Plant Design Registration LNG tanks T18V800. NSW WorkCover, January Cristal Mining Australia Community Consultation Plan, November MSP Air Quality Management Plan, November MSP Annual Environmental Management Report MSP Annual Environmental Management Report MSP Annual Environmental Management Report MSP Cultural Heritage Management Plan, November MSP Effluent Management Environmental Management Plan, November MSP Noise Management Plan, November MSP Noise Mitigation Letter to Smith Residents. Cristal, 4 November MSP Operational Environment Management Plan, November TELFORD Page 5

9 MSP Radiation Monitoring spreadsheet, MSP Stack Emissions Jan Enviroscan, January MSP Stack Emissions Jan Enviroscan, January MSP Stack Emissions Jan Enviroscan, January MSP Waste Management Plan, November MSP Water Management Plan, November 2014 MSP Monthly monitoring reports; 2014, 2015, Murray Basins Operations Environmental Management Strategy, March Pollution Incident Response Management Plan, September Radiation Management Plan, August Request for noise monitoring suspension. Letter to Department of Planning & Environment. Cristal Mining, December Traffic Management Plan and Code of Conduct, September Limitations This report was prepared for Cristal Mining Australia Ltd [the Client] for the purpose of an environmental compliance audit required by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment consent for development application DA The contents of this report are based on information gathered during execution of the commission and on information provided by the Client. The conclusions presented in this report are conditional upon accurate and complete information being provided by the client. The representations (relevancy) of the information contained in this report are subject to, and conditional upon, site conditions, activities and personnel changes ( Factors ) as they occur from time to time. Accordingly, the report may need to be reviewed in light of the time that has elapsed since its release, and changes including but not limited to, the Factors outlined above. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be altered, amended, abbreviated or issued in part without prior approval by Telford. This report has been prepared by Telford for the sole use of the Client. No warranties, expressed or implied are offered to any parties other than the Client and NSW Department of Planning & Environment and no liabilities will be accepted for the use of this report by any third party. TELFORD Page 6

10 3 Audit Findings 3.1 Comments Made by Stakeholder Contacts Representatives of EPA and DPI who were contacted for the audit expressed their satisfaction with the manner in which Cristal was managing the environmental aspects of the operations. None of the representatives contacted identified any areas of concern. EPA mentioned that they had previously discussed with Cristal the adequacy of environmental dust control measures at the site. 3.2 Compliance with Consent and EPL Conditions During the audit, it was apparent that, notwithstanding the identified non-compliance and areas for improvement, operations were being conducted in a manner that minimised their impact on the environment. A discussion of the findings and conclusions of the audit are provided below in section 4. Table 1 Summary of audit findings Audit finding No of audit items 128 Non-compliant (NC) 1 Opportunity for improvement (OfI) 6 Non applicable () 56 Not audited (see conclusions) 1 Table 2 Summary of non-compliance identifier Condition Details NC-1 L5.2 Noise monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the EPL noise emission limits was not conducted during Table 3 Summary of opportunities for improvement Identifier Condition Details of opportunity for improvement OfI-1 DC 3.1 (b) Seek to have the monitoring point numbers in the Development Consent revised to be consistent with those in the Environment Protection Licence, which were changed by EPA in the December 2015 EPL revision. OfI-2a OfI-2b DC 3.6(a) EPL L5.1 DC 3.6B Clarify the intent of Condition 3.6(a) with Department of Planning & Environment and reconcile noise monitoring requirements with EPL condition L5. Complete negotiations with the Department of Planning & Environment to finalise requirements for noise monitoring at the Smith residence. OfI-3 DC 4.6 (bis) Discuss the variations in the radiation monitoring requirements in the different consent modifications with the Department of Planning & Environment and agree on an appropriate radioactivity monitoring program to be specified in the development consent. TELFORD Page 7

11 Identifier Condition Details of opportunity for improvement OfI-4 EPL L2.4 Have the air discharge monitoring consultant include the EPA discharge point number in the reports to facilitate checking results with the EPL requirements. OfI-5 EPL L5.2 Consult with EPA to include a suspension of noise monitoring requirement of the licence consistent with that finalised for the development consent. OfI-6 EPL L5.2 Amend MSP Noise Management Plan to reflect revised development consent and EPL noise monitoring requirements. 3.3 Actions Taken to Address the 2013 Audit Findings The environmental compliance audit of December 2013 identified 1 item of non-compliance with the development consent conditions and the EPL. Cristal developed an action plan in the form of a table to identify the actions to be taken for each non-compliance and the time frame for each of those actions. Three opportunities for improvement were also identified during the audit. Details of actions taken by Cristal to address these matters are described in Appendix A. TELFORD Page 8

12 4 Discussion and Conclusions Operation of the Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant by Cristal is being conducted in accordance with all Development Consent conditions, and all but one of the Environment Protection Licence conditions. Development consent and environmental protection licence conditions pertaining to radiation and noise monitoring require specific attention to clarify their intent and consistency. Department of Planning & Environment development consent requirements for radiation monitoring have been modified in the last two revisions of the consent without the department having advised Cristal of the change, or colour coding the changes in development consents in accordance with standard practice. Cristal noticed the change in the penultimate (July 2007) modification, however, did not notice the change in the most recent (October 2014) modification. Cristal consequently continued implementing the radiation monitoring program designed to meet the 2007 modification. Given that the change was neither requested by Cristal nor brought to the attention of Cristal by the department, compliance with this condition was not audited. The text of these two versions of the condition is reproduced in the checklist in Appendix B of this report. A recommendation for Cristal to seek confirmation by the department of its specific requirements for radiation monitoring, has been included as an opportunity for improvement (OfI-3) in this audit. In accordance with a suggestion by the Department of Planning & Environment, Cristal has suspended noise monitoring at the nearby Smith residence, replacing it with an agreement with the residence owner to respond to any noise complaints made to Cristal by the owner. During conversations with the owner of the Smith residence, the owner indicated to Cristal that he has no concerns about noise emission from the MSP and would rather noise monitoring adjacent to his property be discontinued. An additional paragraph to this extent has been added to condition 3.6 of the development consent stating that these criteria do not apply if the Applicant has an agreement with the relevant landowner to exceed the noise criteria, and the Applicant has advised the Department in writing of the terms of this agreement. Cristal has interpreted this amendment, within the context of previous correspondence with the department, as permitting suspension of the noise monitoring. Independent interpretation of the amendment may conclude that it permits MSP noise emissions to exceed the specified noise levels, however, Cristal is required to continue the noise monitoring at the residence. A recommendation for clarification of the intent of this condition with the Department of Planning & Environment, and a resultant revision of the EPL has been included as an opportunity for improvement (OfI-2-a & b) in this audit. The EPA environmental protection licence, however, has not been amended to reflect these changes in the noise monitoring requirements of the development consent. As Cristal did not conduct noise monitoring during 2016 in light of the development consent changes, there is a non-compliance with the EPL noise monitoring requirement. Recommendations made in the 2013 independent environmental audit have been addressed by Cristal. TELFORD Page 9

13 Appendix A Actions taken to address findings of 2013 audit TELFORD Page 10

14 Summary of actions taken to address non-compliant findings from TECS 2013 audit report. Details for each of the actions taken are provided in the relevant sections of the checksheet in Appendix B. Table A1: Non-compliance finding Control Condition Details Actions taken Dev. consent 5.3(b) The six-monthly public newsletter is not being published in accordance with the approved Community Consultation Plan. Since the previous audit, Cristal has published their public newsletter on: October 2013, September 2014, March 2015, September 2015, April 2016, and September This condition has since been removed from the development consent. Cristal Mining, however, proposes to continue producing the six-monthly newsletter, but will distribute it by , rather than by post. Table A2: Opportunities for improvement Control Condition Details Actions taken Dev. consent 1.3(a) Implement a program to meet all consultation requirements of the approved Community Consultation Plan, in particular publication of the six-monthly public newsletter. The Community Consultation Plan was amended in November 2014 to reflect the changes in the development consent. This included the removal of the requirement for publication of the six-monthly newsletter by deletion of consent condition 5.3. Dev. consent 3.5(a) Continue to identify and implement engineering controls or operational practices to prevent wind-borne transport of concentrate from the MSP. Cristal is utilising weather prediction services provided by Katestone consultants to obtain high wind warnings. Samples of stockpiled minerals were taken to assess the dryness and wind speed needed to cause dust problems. Katestone provides daily week-long weather forecasts which include prediction of conditions with a potential to cause dust lift-off. Cristal now deploys a second water cart during the months of August to December, which are the windiest months of the year. The first water cart is deployed when winds reach 24 kph, and the second when winds reach 40 kph. The shift supervisor receives a text each morning with weather predictions that enable him to plan water cart deployment for the day. The stockpile was reconfigured to have long, straight windrows in accordance with recommendations of the Broken Hill MSP Wind Study (Katestone, September 2014). Dev. consent 5.1(b) Publish contact numbers on Cristal Mining website. Contact numbers for the MSP are published on the Cristal Mining website. TELFORD Page 11

15 Appendix B Completed Audit Checklists TELFORD Page 12

16 APPENDIX B: COMPLETED CHECKLISTS Compliance is recorded as: C NC Non-compliant OfI Opportunity for improvement Not applicable Consent for Development Application DA Consolidated December GENERAL 1.1 Adherence to terms of DA, EIS, SEE etc. 1.1 (a) (b) The Broken Hill Mineral Separation Plant (the Project) shall be carried out generally in accordance with various specified documents including: (viii) the modification application lodged with the Department on 11 November 2013 and accompanied by an Environmental Assessment entitled Murray Darling Basin Operations Modification, prepared by Resources Strategies Pty Ltd and dated November 2013; (ix) the Murray Darling Basin Operations Modification Response to Submissions lodged with the Department on 20 February 2014, prepared by Resource Strategies Pty Ltd and dated February The operations are being conducted in general accordance with the requirements of the specified documents. Specific exceptions are noted below and recorded as a Non-compliances or Opportunities for improvement. 1.2 Compliance The applicant shall comply with any reasonable requirement/s of the Secretary arising from the Department s assessment of: (a) any reports, strategies, plans, programs, reviews, audits or correspondence that are submitted in accordance with this consent; (b) any reports, review or audits commissioned by the Department regarding compliance with this consent; and (c) the implementation of any actions or measures contained in these documents. Subsequent instructions for compliance with the Conditions have not been received from the Secretary. TELFORD Page 13

17 1.3 Obligation to prevent and minimise harm to the environment In addition to meeting the specific performance criteria established under this consent, the Applicant shall implement all reasonable and feasible measures to prevent and/or minimise any material harm to the environment that may result from the construction, operation, or decommissioning of the development. 1.4 Deleted 1.5 Processing operations (a) (b) Processing operations may take place on the premises until 31 December The Applicant shall not process more than 1,200,000 tonnes of mineral concentrate/heavy mineral concentrate per year at the premises. 1.6 Dispute resolution (d) (e) The Applicant shall endeavour to resolve any dispute arising out of the implementation of these Conditions. Should this not be possible 1.7 Structural adequacy The Applicant shall ensure that any new buildings and structures, and any alterations, or additions to existing buildings and structures, are constructed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the BCA. 2. DELETED 3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE 3.1 Air Quality The MSP is being operated in accordance with environmental regulatory requirements. The main potential issues are with dust emissions. Dust suppression controls have been implemented to minimise the potential for discharge of nuisance dust from the site (see 3.5(a) below). Operations are occurring within the permitted timeframe. The MSP is projected to process 619,812 tonnes of mineral concentrate during the reporting year. There have not been any disputes that have arisen from implementation of these Conditions. All building works have passed Council building permit requirements and inspections. (a) The following points referred to in the table are identified in this consent for the purposes of the monitoring and/or the setting of limits for discharges of pollutants to air from the point. [In summary, these are: EPA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 dust monitoring 5-13 emission monitoring of discharges to air.] Monitoring of discharge points specified by the consent is in place. NB: Point number 3 has been removed from the Environment Protection Licence as the new owner of the land on which the monitoring point was located does not want the dust deposition sampler to be located there. TELFORD Page 14

18 (b) For each monitoring/discharge point or utilisation area specified in the table/s below (by a point number), the concentration of a pollutant discharged at that point, or applied to that area, must not exceed the concentration limits specified for that pollutant in the table. To avoid any doubt, this condition does not authorise the discharge or emission of any other pollutants other than those specified in the tables. Points 6, 7, 8: solid particulates (mg/m 3 ), 100%ile limit = 100. Points 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: solid particulates (mg/m 3 ), 100%ile limit = 100. oxides of nitrogen (g/m 3 ), 100%ile limit = 0.35 OfI-1 Discharges from these points did not exceed the specified limits. Opportunity for improvement: Seek to have the monitoring point numbers in the Development Consent revised to be consistent with those in the Environment Protection Licence, which were changed by EPA in the December 2015 EPL revision. 3.2 Plant and Equipment Design Parameters (a) The design parameters for the discharge points specified in the table below must meet the requirements specified in the table. (b) All stacks shall be designed in accordance with good engineering practice in order to minimise the effects of stack tip downwash and building wake effects on ground level air pollutant concentrations. 3.3 Deleted 3.4 Alarms & measures Action previously audited (GHD, 202) and found to be compliant. (a) The Applicant must prepare and submit to the EPA for review, prior to the operation of the relevant baghouse or scrubber: i. details of devices, measures or alarms to be used to warn operators that a malfunction has occurred in bag house point numbers, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 (refer to Condition 3.1(b)); and ii. details of devices, measures or alarms to be used to warn operators that the point number 13 (refer to Condition 3.1(b)) scrubber has malfunctioned. (b) Prior to the commencement of the development the Applicant must have confirmation in writing from the EPA that the details submitted in compliance with Subclause (a) is acceptable to the EPA. Baghouses are monitored by SCADA and alarms raised if preset malfunction trigger levels are reached. Action completed. Previously audited (GHD 2012) and found compliant. TELFORD Page 15

19 (c) The Applicant must install devices, measures or alarms that are acceptable to the EPA that will warn operators that a malfunction has occurred in pollution controls connected to discharge points 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 (refer to Condition 3.1(b)). Action completed. Previously audited (GHD 2012) and found compliant. 3.5 Dust Suppression (a) Activities occurring in or on the Premises must be carried out in a manner that will minimise the generation, or emissions from the premises, of windblown or traffic generated dust. Due to the density of the mineral sand concentrates, wind borne nuisance dust is not generated at the facility. Some of the concentrate is carried along the ground towards downwind boundaries. This material is recovered two to three times a year by a vacuum truck. Only trace amounts of material were visible at the northern boundary. Dust from the hardstand area is controlled using spray from a water truck. A concrete bund wall has been installed around the rejects stockpile. This is also to be roofed. A new product storage shed is being constructed. Dust along the onsite railway siding is recovered by vacuum truck twice yearly. Cristal has raised an internal application for purchase of a vacuum system for use along the railway easement. (b) The Premises must be maintained in a condition, which minimises or prevents the emission of dust from the Premises. There was no visible evidence of windblown nuisance dust being generated during the audit. See control measures described for 3.5(a) above. TELFORD Page 16

20 3.6 Noise limits (a) The Applicant must ensure that noise associated with the project does not exceed the noise limits at surrounding residential premises detailed in the Table below. Location Day/Evening/Night (excluding temp. inv.) db(a) LAeq (15 minute) Day/Evening/Night with temperature inversion db(a) LAeq (15 minute) R3 - Smith All other residential premises Noise generated by the project is to be measured in accordance with the relevant requirements and exemptions (including certain meteorological conditions) of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Attachment 2 sets out the meteorological conditions under which these criteria apply, and the requirements for evaluating compliance with these criteria. However, these criteria do not apply if the Applicant has an agreement with the relevant landowner to exceed the noise criteria, and the Applicant has advised the Department in writing of the terms of this agreement. OfI-2a Cristal has entered into an agreement with the Smith family to suspend noise monitoring at that site and for a member of the family to contact Cristal if they have a problem with noise emissions from the site. Details of the agreement been forwarded to the Department of Planning & Environment in a letter dated 1 December Cristal understands the intent of this amendment (the final paragraph of this condition) is to permit Cristal to suspend noise monitoring at the surrounding residential premises. Independent reading of this condition suggests that the amendment permits MSP noise emissions to exceed the specified noise levels while continuing the noise monitoring. Condition L5 (Noise Limits) of the EPL required noise monitoring at the Smith residence to determine compliance with the specified noise limits. Opportunity for improvement: Clarify the intent of Condition 3.6(a) with Department of Planning & Environment and reconcile noise monitoring requirements with EPL condition L5. 3.6A Noise monitoring (a) The Applicant shall prepare a Noise Monitoring Program for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This program must be submitted to the Secretary by the end of March 2015, and must include a regular attended noise monitoring in accordance with Attachment 2 [Noise compliance assessment]. Cristal has prepared the MSP Noise Management Plan (November 2014) which specified annual attended and unattended noise monitoring at the Smith residence. A copy of this plan was approved by the Department of Planning & Environment in September TELFORD Page 17

21 3.6B Noise mitigation (a) Upon receiving a written request for noise mitigation measures from the owner of the property shown as R3 Smith in Attachment 3, the Applicant must arrange the commencement of the physical implementation of noise mitigation measures at the property. The Applicant must provide an offer for the implementation of noise mitigation measures within 3 months of receiving the written request. Cristal has not received a written request for noise mitigation measures from the owner of the Smith property. If the Applicant and the landowner cannot agree on measures to be implemented, or there is a dispute about the implementation of these measures, then either party may refer the matter to the Secretary for resolution. (b) By the end of November 2014, the Applicant shall notify in writing the owner of property R3 that they have the right to request the Applicant for noise mitigation measures to be installed at their residence at any stage during the project. On 4 November 20-14, the MSP Manager and the Environmental Superintendent met with the owners of the Smith residence (property R3) and hand delivered a letter providing details of the Cristal responsibilities under condition 3.6B of the development consent. 3.6C Operating noise conditions (a) All external auxiliary equipment to the processing circuits (i.e. external fans, pumps and screening external to the tables) identified as noise generating must be acoustically treated with cladding or be enclosed. The plant has been housed within an external skin. (b) The approved zircon, rutile and ilmenite kiln/roasted circuits must be constructed so as to be housed within a building. Plant not yet constructed. (c) Once mineral concentrate trains from the Atlas-Campaspe Mineral Sands Project are received at the MSP, any front end loader operating in the night time period must be fitted with a noise suppression kit. Not yet occurring. 3.6D Construction noise All construction work at or associated with the development must only be conducted between the following hours: (a) (b) 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Friday; and 8:00 am to 1:00 pm Saturdays There is no construction work occurring. TELFORD Page 18

22 3.7 Water management (a) Except as may be expressly provided by a licence under the POEO Act 1997 in relation of the development, section 120 of the POEO Act must be complied with in and in connection with the carrying out of the development. (b) The Applicant must lodge an application under Part 5 of the Water Act 1912, or if after the transitional period under the Water Management Act 2000 for the construction of monitoring or other bores proposed in the EIS which will or may penetrate an aquifer. Wastes or other pollutants are not discharged to waters. A groundwater monitoring bore (EPA identification number 15) has been installed (see condition 3.8(b). (c) Works for construction of bores must be completed within such period as specified by the NOW. The bore does not penetrate an aquifer. (d) NOW must be notified if a supply of useable water is obtained and the bores shall then be suitably lined and capped to the standard required by NOW. A production bore has not been installed. (e) Within 2 months after the works are completed, NOW must be provided with an accurate plan of the location of the works and be notified of the results of any water analysis and other details as specified in the approval. A production bore has not been installed. (f) Officers of NOW or other authorised persons must be allowed full and free access to the works for the purpose of inspection and testing. A production bore has not been installed. (g) Construction and operation of the proposed water supply pipeline must be undertaken in accordance with the Commons Management Act 1989 such that construction of the pipeline must not commence in the Willyama Common until a Management Plan for that Common provides for the pipeline and has been adopted by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Alternatively a different route acceptable to the Regional Director, Far West Region of NOW may be agreed upon. The water supply pipeline has been operational since the start of operations. 3.8 Discharges to Air and Water and Applications to Land (a) The following points referred to in the table are identified in this Consent for the purposes of the monitoring and/or the setting of limits for discharges of pollutants to water from the point. A groundwater monitoring bore (EPA identification number 15) has been installed. TELFORD Page 19

23 (b) The following utilisation areas referred to in the table below are identified in this Consent for the purposes of the monitoring and/or the setting of limits for any application of solids or liquids to the utilisation area. The site map shows the location of the bore, marked as 15. EPA ID No. Type of monitoring point Type of dx point Description of location 15 Groundwater quality monitoring. Groundwater monitoring to be identified by map provided by proponent with variation licence application. (c) Deleted. (d) To avoid any doubt, this Condition does not authorise the pollution of waters by any pollutant other than those specified in the table/s. Wastes or other pollutants are not discharged to waters. 3.9 Aboriginal Heritage Management (a) The Applicant shall prior to the commencement of construction, prepare an Aboriginal Cultural Management Plan to address Aboriginal cultural issues associated with the construction and operation of the MSP. The Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Secretary and in consultation with OEH and the relevant stakeholders, including where practicable the Broken Hill Local Aboriginal Land Council and Bakandji Native Title Claimants. The plan shall include items i) to viii). The current Cultural Heritage Management Plan prepared in October The DPI approved the plan in September DPI refers such plans to selected agencies for comment prior to approval. (b) Deleted. (c) The Aboriginal community is to be provided with the opportunity to collect artefacts from sites for which a Section 90 consent is to be obtained, Artefacts were collected by a local Aboriginal Land Council representative in the company of a qualified archaeologist. TELFORD Page 20

24 (d) If during the course of Construction or Operation, the Applicant becomes aware of any Aboriginal heritage and/or archaeological relics not previously identified, all work likely to affect the material shall cease immediately and the relevant authorities consulted about an appropriate course of action prior to recommencement of work. The relevant authorities may include OEH and the relevant local Aboriginal group(s). Any necessary permits or consents shall be obtained and complied with prior to recommencement of work in the relevant area. Phase 1 works previously audited (GHD 2012) and found compliant. (e) Monitoring The Applicant shall monitor the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the Aboriginal Cultural Management Plan [Condition 3.9(a)]. A summary of monitoring results shall be included in the AEMR. As there has not been an expansion of the footprint of the site, there has not been a need to conduct additional monitoring. A summary of monitoring results is included in the AEMRs Hazards and risk reduction (a) The Applicant shall store and handle all dangerous goods, as defined by the Australian Dangerous Goods Code, strictly in accordance with: i) all relevant Australian Standards; ii) a minimum bund volume requirement of 110% of the volume of the largest single stored volume within the bund; and Dangerous goods are stored in accordance with relevant standards. The two 80,000 litre LNG tanks were certified by WorkCover on 14 January Other than the LNG, bulk dangerous goods are not stored on site. iii) the EPA's Environment Protection Manual Technical Bulletin Bunding and Spill Management. In the event of an inconsistency between the requirements listed from i) to iii) above, the most stringent requirement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. TELFORD Page 21

25 3.11 Transport and Utilities (a) Deleted. (b) All works to be undertaken on public roads as agreed between the Applicant and the Broken Hill City Council shall be at the expense of the Applicant. This includes: Road upgrades as described in the Environmental Impact Statement and agreed between the Applicant and the Broken Hill City Council; Upgrade of intersections subject to increased traffic as identified in the Environmental Impact Statement and agreed between the Applicant and the Broken Hill City Council; All necessary lighting and signage associated with subclauses (i)-(ii) above. All necessary roadworks were completed prior to the 2014 audit. (c) The Applicant shall enter into an appropriate agreement with Broken Hill City Council regarding the construction of road upgrades and maintenance of the Pinnacles Road and Kanandah Road from the Mineral Sands Plant site to the Silver City Highway. Such an agreement will have regard to the type of haulage vehicles and relevant necessary upgrades and maintenance. The roadworks agreement entered into before the 2014 audit remains in place. (d) In addition to the above Conditions, the Applicant shall consult with the Western Region Development Committee regarding road upgrades and maintenance requirements All necessary roadworks were completed prior to the 2014 audit. (e) Submission of Engineering Plans for Roadworks Road and intersection designs are to be in accordance with the Roads and Maritime Service s Road Design Guide 1999 (or its latest version) and/or AUSTROADS - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice series and will have regard to the type of haulage vehicle employed for the Project. All necessary roadworks were completed prior to the 2014 audit. (f) Deleted. TELFORD Page 22

26 (g) Road Construction and Maintenance The Applicant shall enter into a Road Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Broken Hill City Council for the haulage route (along Pinnacles Road and Kanandah Road) from the Silver City Highway to the Mineral Separation Plant Site. The Agreement shall include a requirement for regular joint inspections at an interval agreed with Broken Hill City Council as relevant, following completion of road upgrade works. These inspections are to determine and assess whether maintenance is required. Where such maintenance is required and not carried out within an agreed period from the time of inspection, the Broken Hill City Council will be entitled to carry out such maintenance work at the Applicant s cost. The Agreement will be reviewed annually by both the Applicant and Broken Hill City Council and varied as required as a result of the annual review. Provision should be made within the agreement to deal with matters subject to dispute between the relevant parties. The roadworks agreement entered into before the 2014 audit remains in place Waste Management (a) If the waste is transported from the Premises, the Applicant must ensure that the waste is transported: to a place which has been licensed by the EPA to issue consignment authorisation numbers; to a place that can otherwise lawfully accept that class of waste. Mineral wastes are returned to the Ginkgo Mineral Sands Mine for licensed disposal (condition L2.7 of EPL 12264). (b) If the waste is transported from the premises, the Applicant must; obtain a consignment authorisation number from the consignee; complete an approved waste data form in relation to the consigned waste in accordance with the instructions on the form and to the extent required, and give a copy of the form to the person transporting the waste; ensure that the waste data form: is completed accurately, is retained for a period of not less than 4 years from the time the form was completed, and is made available for inspection by an authorised officer on request; Forms (triple carbonless) are completed for each waste consignment shipped from MSP to Ginkgo Mine. All requirements of this condition were met in the sample of completed forms examined. TELFORD Page 23

27 (c) Ensure, if the waste is of such an amount as to require the person transporting it to be licensed, that the person transporting the waste is licensed. Licensing of the transporter is not required for the type of waste being transported, as the specific activity is less than 100 Bq/g. (d) Application for a consignment authorisation number To obtain a consignment authorisation number as required by Subclause (b), the Applicant must apply in writing to the consignee. An application must include the following information: a statement identifying the classification of the waste in accordance with the requirements of the Waste Management Plan required by Condition 6.4(c)(vii); copies of all information used to classify the waste; an estimate of the amount of waste to which the application applies; whether the consignment will consist a single load or multiple loads; an estimate of the total period required for transportation of the consignment; and the date of dispatch of at least the first load in the consignment. Consignment authorisations are not required, as the waste being transported is not classified. (e) Once an application for a consignment authorisation number, as set out in Subclause (d) has been submitted, the Applicant must not submit an application for the same consignment to another consignee until notification is received concerning the outcome of the application. As above. (f) The Applicant must provide the consignee with written notification of the date of dispatch of each load of waste. As above. (g) The notification must be received by consignee no later than the date of arrival of the preceding load at the destination As above. (h) Notification of a final load in a consignment. Unless the movement of an entire consignment of waste occurs in a single load, by the time the final load in a consignment is accepted at the destination, the licensee must have informed the consignee in writing, that no further loads are to be dispatched under that consignment authorisation number. Note: The notifications referred to in Subclause (g) and (h) may be attached to the waste data form of the preceding load. As above. TELFORD Page 24

28 (i) Amendments to the nominated date(s) of dispatch. If the date of dispatch for a load of waste is changed, the Applicant must give written notification of this to the consignee and nominate a revised date of dispatch. As above. (j) A notification referred to in Subclause (i) must occur on or before the date of delivery as previously nominated. As above. (k) Cancellation of consignment authorisations If the Applicant determines that the delivery of a consignment of waste is to be discontinued for any reason, the consignee must be notified in writing before the nominated date of dispatch of the next expected load. As above. (l) Notification of delayed delivery by transporter If the Applicant receives written notification from a transporter who removed waste from the Premises specifying a revised date of delivery to the destination which is more than 7 days after the date of dispatch, the Applicant must note and record that date. As above. (m) Classification of controlled waste The Applicant must accurately identify the waste, in accordance with Condition 6.4(c)(vii), and determine if the waste is a controlled waste within the meaning of the NEPM. Mineral sand rejects waste from the MSP is not classified as a radioactive waste, as it has a specific activity of less than 100 Bq/g. (n) Application for a consignment authorisation If the waste is transported from the Premises to another participating State or Territory, the Applicant must comply with all Conditions attached to the consignment authorisation issued by an agency or a facility delegated by an agency in the destination State or Territory. The waste is not classified. (o) Waste movements If the waste is transported from the Premises to another participating State or Territory, the Applicant must ensure that the waste is transported to a place that can lawfully be used as a waste facility for that waste. The waste is not classified. TELFORD Page 25

29 (p) The Applicant must ensure that the waste transporter is licensed as required by the agency of each participating State or Territory through which the waste is transported. The waste is not classified. (q) The Applicant must: retain a copy of the waste transport certificate for the waste for a period of not less than 4 years from the time the form was completed, and make the copy of the waste transport certificate available for inspection by an authorised officer on request. The waste is not classified. Notification of delayed delivery by transporter (r) If the Applicant receives written notification from the transporter who removed waste from the Applicant s premises specifying a revised date of delivery to the destination which is more than 7 days after the date of dispatch, the Applicant must note and record that date. As above. (s) Waste Management The Applicant must not cause, permit or allow any waste generated outside the Premises to be received at the Premises for storage, treatment, processing, reprocessing or disposal or any waste generated at the Premises to be disposed of at the Premises, except as expressly permitted by a licence under the POEO Act Waste is not received at site from other premises. (t) This Condition only applies to the storage, treatment, processing, reprocessing or disposal of waste at the Premises if it requires an environment protection licence under the POEO Act Waste is not received at site from other premises. (u) Except as provided by any other Condition of this Consent, only the hazardous, industrial or group A waste listed below may be generated or stored at the Premises. See below. (v) The total tonnage of waste defined in Condition 3.12(u) of this Consent generated or stored at the premises must not exceed 300,000 tonnes per annum. Approximately 98,000 tonnes of waste were transported from the MSP to the licensed disposal point at the Ginkgo Mine. TELFORD Page 26