Application form: Works Approval / Licence / Renewal / Amendment / Registration Part V, Division 3, Environmental Protection Act 1986 Environmental Protection Regulations 1987
Part 1: Application type INSTRUCTIONS: • Completion of this form is a statutory requirement under section 54(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (EP Act) for works approval applications; section 57(1)(a) for licence applications; section 59B(1)(a) for applications for an amendment; and under regulation 5B(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 (WA) (EP Regulations) for applications for registration of premises. • The instructions set out in this application form are general in nature. • A reference to ‘you’ in these instructions is a reference to the applicant. • The information provided to you by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) in relation to making applications does not constitute legal advice. DWER recommends that you obtain independent legal advice. • Applicants seeking further information relating to requirements under the EP Act and/or EP Regulations are directed to the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office website (www.legislation.wa.gov.au). Schedule 1 of the EP Regulations contains the categories of prescribed premises. • For prescribed premises where activities fall within more than one category, ALL applicable categories must be identified. This applies for existing prescribed premises seeking renewal or amendment, as well as new prescribed premises. • The application form must be completed with all relevant information attached. Attachments can be combined and submitted as one or more consolidated documents if desired, provided it is clear which section of the application form the information / attachments relate to. Where attachments are submitted separately, avoid duplicating information. Ensure that any cross-references between the application form and the supporting document(s) are accurate. • If an application form has been submitted which is incomplete or materially incorrect, the Chief Executive Officer of DWER (CEO) will decline to deal with the application and advise the applicant accordingly. • On completing this application form, please submit it to DWER in line with the instructions in Part 14 of the form.
1.1 This is an application for: Works approval [Select one option only. Your application may be returned if multiple options are Licence selected.] Existing registration number(s): [ ] under Part V, Division 3 of the EP Act. Existing works approval number(s): [ ]
Please see the: Renewal • Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide Existing licence number: [ ] to Licensing; and Amendment • Procedure: Prescribed premises Number of the existing licence or works approval to be works approvals and licences amended: [ ] for more information to assist in understanding DWER’s regulatory regime Registration (works approval already obtained) for prescribed premises. Existing works approval number(s): [ ]
1.2 For a works approval amendment or licence amendment, are there less than 90 business Yes days until the expiry of the existing works approval or licence? Only active instruments can be amended. Applications to amend a works approval or licence must be made 90 business days or more prior to the existing works approval or licence expiring to ensure there is adequate time to assess the amendment.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 1
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 1: Application type
1.3 This application is for the following categories of prescribed premises:
All activities that meet the definition of a prescribed premises as set out in Schedule 1 of the EP Regulations have been specified above (tick, if yes).
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 2
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Completion Matrix The matrix below explains what sections are required to be completed for different types of applications. New application / Application form section Renewal Amendment registration
Part 1: Application type ● ● ●
Part 2: Applicant details ● ● ●
Part 3: Premises details ● ● Δ
Part 4: Proposed activities ● ● ●
Part 5: Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessment If required. If required. If required.
Part 6: Other DWER approvals ● ● ●
Part 7: Other approvals and consultation ● ● ●
Part 8: Applicant history ● ● Δ
Part 9: Emissions, discharges, and waste ● ● Δ
Part 10: Siting and location ● ● Δ
Part 11: Submission of any other relevant information ● ● If required.
Part 12: Proposed fee calculation ● ● ●
Part 13: Commercially sensitive or confidential ● ● ● information
Part 14: Submission of application ● ● ●
Part 15: Declaration and signature ● ● ●
Attachment 1A: Proof of occupier status ● ● N/A
Attachment 1B: ASIC company extract ● ● N/A
Attachment 1C: Authorisation to act as a representative If required. If required. If required. of the occupier
Attachment 2: Premises map/s ● ● Δ
Attachment 3A: Environmental commissioning plan If required. N/A If required
Attachment 3B: Proposed activities ● ● Δ
Attachment 3C: Map of area proposed to be cleared ● ● ● (only applicable if clearing is proposed)
Attachment 3D: Additional information for clearing If required. If required. If required. assessment
Attachment 4: Biodiversity surveys (only applicable if ● ● ● biodiversity surveys included in application)
Attachment 5: Other approvals and consultation ● ● Δ documentation
Attachment 6A: Emissions and discharges If required. If required. If required.
Attachment 6B: Waste acceptance If required. If required. If required.
Attachment 7: Siting and location ● ● Δ
Attachment 8: Additional information submitted If required. If required. If required.
Attachment 9: Proposed fee calculation ● ● ●
Attachment 10: Request for exemption from publication If required. If required. If required.
Key: ● Must be submitted. Δ To the extent changed / required in relation to the amendment. N/A Not required with application, but may be requested subsequently depending on DWER records. “If required” Sections for applicants to determine.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 3
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 2: Applicant details
INSTRUCTIONS: • The applicant (the occupier of the premises) must be an individual(s), a company, body corporate, or public authority, but not a partnership, trust, or joint-venture name. Applications made by or on behalf of business names or unincorporated associations will not be accepted. • If applying as an individual, your full legal name must be inserted. • If applying as a company, body corporate, or public authority, the full legal entity name must be inserted. • Australian Company Number's (ACN) must be provided for all companies or body corporates. • DWER prefers to send all correspondence electronically via email. We request that you consent to receiving all correspondence relating to instruments and notices under Part V of the EP Act (Part V documents) electronically via email, by indicating your consent in Section 2.3. • Companies or body corporates making an application must nominate an authorised representative from within their organisation. Proof of authorisation will be required. • Details of a contact person must be provided for DWER enquiries in relation to your application. This contact person can be a consultant if authorised to represent the applicant. Written evidence of this authorisation must be provided. • Details of the occupier of the premises must be provided. One of the options must be selected and if you have been asked to specify, please provide details. For example, if ‘lease holder’ has been selected, please specify the type of lease (for example, pastoral lease, mining lease, or general lease) and provide a copy of the lease document(s). Note that contracts for sale of land will not be sufficient evidence of occupancy status.
2.1 Applicant name/s (full legal name/s): The proposed holder of the works approval, licence or registration. ACN (if applicable): 2.2 Trading as (if applicable):
2.3 Authorised representative details: Name The person authorised to receive correspondence and Part V documents on behalf Position of the applicant under the EP Act.
Where ‘yes’ is selected, all Telephone correspondence will be sent to you via email, to the email address provided in this
section. Email Where ‘no’ has been selected, Part V documents will be posted to you in hard Yes No copy to the postal / business I consent to all written correspondence between myself (the address specified in section applicant) and DWER, regarding the subject of this 2.4, below. Other general application, being exclusively via email, using the email correspondence may still be address I have provided above. sent to you via email. 2.4 Registered office address, as registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC): This must be a physical address to which a Part V document may be delivered.
2.5 Postal address for all other - correspondence: If different from section 2.4.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 4
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 2: Applicant details
2.6 Contact person details for Name - DWER enquiries relating to the application (if different from the authorised Position representative): For example, could be a Organisation consultant or a site based employee Address
Telephone
2.7 Occupier status: Registered proprietor on certificate of title. Occupier is defined in section 3 of the EP Act and Lease holder (please specify, including date of expiry of lease). includes a person in occupation or control of the Mining Lease (ML) 4SA is granted to Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd premises, or occupying a pursuant to the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963 different part of the premises (WA). whether or not that person is the owner. Please refer to Section 3 Premises Details of the Attached Part V Note: if a lease holder, the Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020). applicant must be the holder of an executed lease, not Public authority that has care, control, or management of the land. just an agreement to lease. Other evidence of legal occupation or control (please specify – for example, joint venture operating entity, contract, letter of operational control, or other legal document or evidence of legal occupation).
Attachments N/A Yes 2.8 Attachment 1A: Proof of Copies of certificate of title, lease or other instruments occupier status evidencing proof of occupier status, including the expiry date or confirmation that there is no expiry date, have been provided and labelled as Attachment 1A. 2.9 Attachment 1B: ASIC A current company information extract (not the company company extract information summary) purchased from the ASIC website(s) for all new applications / registrations has been provided and labelled as Attachment 1B. 2.10 Attachment 1C: A copy of the documentation authorising the applicant to Authorisation to act as act on the occupier’s behalf as their authorised representative of the agent/representative has been provided and labelled as occupier Attachment 1C.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 5
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 3: Premises details
3.1 Premises description (whole or part to The proposed South East Prongs Waste Fines Storage be specified): Facility (SEP WFSF) will be located within the SEP pit at Include the land description (volume and the Tom Price mine on ML4SA, held by Hamersley Iron folio number, lot, or location number/s); Pty Ltd. Crown lease or reserve number; pastoral lease number; or mining tenement number Please refer to Section 3.0 Premises Details of the (as appropriate), of all properties, as shown Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April on title details registered with Landgate. 2020). Premises street address Include the suburb. Premises name (if applicable):
3.2 Local Government Authority area: City, Town, or Shire. 3.3 GPS (latitude and longitude) coordinates: Please refer to Section 3.0 Premises Details of the GPS coordinates determined using the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April GDA 1994 (Geographic latitude / longitude) 2020). coordinate system and datum must be provided for all points around the proposed premises boundary, where the entirety of the cadastre (land parcel) or mining tenements are not used as the premises boundary. Attachments N/A Yes 3.4 Attachment 2: You must provide as an attachment to this application form, labelled Premises map(s) Attachment 2, either: 1. an aerial photograph, map, and site plan of sufficient scale showing the proposed prescribed premises boundary or 2. where available, a suitable portable digital storage device of the proposed prescribed premises boundary, map, and site plan as an ESRI shapefile with the following properties: • Geometry type: Polygon Shape • Coordinate system: GDA 1994 (Geographic latitude / longitude) • Datum: GDA 1994 (Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994). You must also provide a map or maps of the prescribed premises, clearly identifying and labelling: • layout of key infrastructure and buildings, clearly labelled; • the premises boundary (where the premises boundary does not align with the entirety of the cadastral boundary, identify the Lot Number for which the premises is part of); • emission and discharge points (with precise GPS coordinates where available); • monitoring points (with precise GPS coordinates where available); • sensitive receptors and land uses; and • all areas proposed to be cleared (if applicable). Maps must contain a north arrow, clearly marking the area in which the activities are carried out. The map or maps must be of reasonable clarity and have a visible scale.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 6
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 4: Proposed activities INSTRUCTIONS: • You must provide a description and the scope, size and scale of all prescribed activities of Schedule 1 to the EP Regulations including the maximum production or design capacity of each prescribed activity. • If applying for a works approval or licence amendment involving the construction of new infrastructure, you must provide information on infrastructure to be constructed and how long construction is expected to take. You must confirm if commissioning is to occur and how long it will take. • If applying for a works approval or licence amendment not involving the construction of new infrastructure, provide details of the proposed amendment. • You must identify all emission sources on the premises map/s. • You must also provide information on activities which directly relate to the prescribed premises category which have, or are likely to result in, an emission or discharge. • If clearing activities are proposed provide a description and details. If a relevant exemption under Schedule 6 of the EP Act or regulation 5 of the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (WA) (Clearing Regulations) may apply, provide details. • Note that in some cases, DWER may require that the clearing components of a works approval or licence (or amendment) application be submitted separately through the clearing permit application process. Refer to the Procedure: Prescribed premises works approvals and licences for further guidance. • Please note that the requested information is critical to DWER’s understanding of the proposed activities. The more accurate, specific, and complete the information provided in the application, the less uncertainty that DWER may identify in the application, therefore facilitating completion of the assessment in a more efficient and timely manner. 4.1 Prescribed premises infrastructure and equipment In Table 4.1 (below), provide a list of all items of infrastructure and equipment within the boundary of the prescribed premises relevant to this application, and include the following details for each: • relevant categories (if known) – the categories of prescribed premises (as listed under Schedule 1 of the EP Regulations) that relate to that infrastructure or equipment; • site plan reference – the location of that infrastructure or equipment (with reference to the site plan map or maps provided above in section 3.4 and labelled as Attachment 2 – e.g. use GPS coordinates or a clear description such as “labelled as [label on premises map] on Map A”); • is it critical containment infrastructure (CCI)? – indicate if the identified infrastructure or equipment would be categorised as CCI. Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing for further information on CCI; and • is environmental commissioning required? – indicate if environmental commissioning is intended to be undertaken for that item of infrastructure or equipment. Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing for further information on environmental commissioning. Add additional rows to Table 4.1 (below) as required. Table 4.1: Infrastructure and equipment
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 7
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 4: Proposed activities Relevant CCI? Environmental Site plan Infrastructure and equipment categories (mark commissioning? reference (if known) if yes) (mark if yes) 1. Tailings deposition system, consisting 5 Please of: refer to • a New Tailings Line Figure 6-1 • three Droppers (spigots) of the Attached • Thickener (existing) Part V 2. Tailings storage (SEP pit) Supporting 3. Decant and treatment system, Document consisting of: (RTIO, April • New Decant Pump 2020). • Decant Line • Buffer Tank • AWTP (existing) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
4.2 Detailed description of proposed activities: You must provide details of proposed activities relevant to this application within the boundary of the prescribed premises, identifying: • scope, size, and scale of the project, including details as to production or design capacity (and/or frequency, if applicable); • key infrastructure and equipment; • description of processes or operations (a process flow chart may be included as an attachment); • emission / discharge points; • locations of waste storage or disposal; and • activities occurring during construction, environmental commissioning, and operation (if applicable). If assessment and imposition of conditions to allow environmental commissioning to be undertaken are requested, please provide an environmental commissioning plan as Attachment 3A (see 4.11 below). Additional information relating to the proposed activities may be included in Attachment 3B (see 4.12 below). Construction activities (if applicable):
Please refer to Section 6.2 Construction Phase of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020).
Environmental commissioning activities (if applicable): Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing for further guidance.
Please refer to Section 6.3 Environmental Commissioning of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020).
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 8
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 4: Proposed activities Time limited operations activities (if applicable): Different elements of the premises may require time limited operations to commence at different times. In these circumstances, please specify the infrastructure and/or equipment for which time limited operations authorisation is being applied for. If time limited operations are expected to differ from future licensed operations, specify how and why this would be the case. Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing for further guidance. Please refer to Section 6.4 Time Limited Operations and 4.5 Operations of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020).
Operations activities (for a licence): Please refer to 6.5 Operations of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020).
4.3 Estimated operating period of the project / premises (e.g. based on Approximately 20 years, until estimated infrastructure life): 2041. 4.4 Approximately 3 months from Proposed date(s) for commencement of works (if applicable): August 2020. 4.5 Proposed date(s) for conclusion of works construction (if November 2020 applicable): This date should coincide with the submission to DWER of an Environmental Compliance Report(s) and/or a Critical Containment Infrastructure Report(s) as required. Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing. 4.6 Proposed date(s) for environmental commissioning of works (if Approximately two months, applicable): from November 2020 until Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing. January 2021. 4.7 Proposed date/s for commencement of time limited operations Approximately three months, under works approval (if applicable): from January to March 2021. Refer to the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing. 4.8 Maximum production or design capacity for each category applied Category 5 – 35 Million m3 for (based on infrastructure operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a (over 20 years) equalling week): approximately 620 000 tonnes Provide figures for all categories listed in section 1.2. per annum Units of measurement must be the same as the units of measurement associated with the relevant category as identified in Schedule 1 of the EP Regulations. 4.9 Estimated / actual throughput for each category applied for: 620 000 tonnes per annum Provide figures for all categories listed in section 1.2. Units of measurement must be the same as the units of measurement associated with the relevant category as identified in Schedule 1 of the EP Regulations. Attachments N/A Yes 4.10 Attachment 2: Emission/discharge points are clearly labelled on the map/s Premises map required for Part 3.4 (Attachment 2).
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 9
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 4: Proposed activities 4.11 Attachment 3A: If applying to construct works or install equipment, and Environmental environmental commissioning of the works or equipment is commissioning plan planned, an environmental commissioning plan has been included in Attachment 3A. The environmental commissioning plan is expected to include, at minimum, identification of: • the sequence of commissioning activities to be undertaken, including details on whether they will be done in stages; • a summary of the timeframes associated with the identified sequence of commissioning activities; • the inputs and outputs that will be used in the commissioning process; (Please refer to 6.3 • the emissions and/or discharges expected to occur of the during commissioning; Attached • the emissions and/or discharges that will be Part V Supporting monitored and/or confirmed to establish or test a Document steady-state operation (e.g. identifying emissions (RTIO, surrogates, etc.), including a detailed emissions April monitoring program for the measurement of those 2020). emissions and/or discharges; • the controls (including management actions) that will be put in place to address the expected emissions and/or discharges; • any contingency plans for if emissions exceedances or unplanned emissions and/or discharges occur; and • how any of the above would differ from standard operations once commissioning is complete. Note that DWER will not include conditions on a granted instrument that authorise environmental commissioning activities where it is not satisfied that the risks associated with environmental commissioning can be adequately addressed. 4.12 Attachment 3B: Additional information relating to the proposed activities has Proposed activities been included in Attachment 3B (if required). Clearing activities 4.13 to 4.19 are only required if the application includes clearing of native vegetation. 4.13 Proposed clearing area (hectares and/or number of individual Any clearing will be authorised trees to be removed): via existing approvals. No additional approval for clearing will be sought for this Proposal. 4.14 Details of any relevant exemptions: Refer to DWER’s A guide to the exemptions and regulations for clearing native vegetation. 4.15 Proposed method of clearing:
4.16 Period within which clearing is proposed to be undertaken: For example, May 2020 – June 2020. 4.17 Purpose of clearing:
Clearing activities – Attachments N/A Yes
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 10
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 4: Proposed activities 4.18 Attachment 3C: You must provide: Map of area an aerial photograph or map of sufficient scale showing the proposed to be proposed clearing area and prescribed premises boundary cleared OR if you have the facilities, a suitable portable digital storage device of the area proposed to be cleared as an ESRI shapefile with the following properties: • Geometry type: Polygon Shape • Coordinate system: GDA 1994 (Geographic latitude/longitude) • Datum: GDA 1994 (Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994). 4.19 Attachment 3D: Additional information to assist in the assessment of the clearing Additional proposal may be attached to this application (for example, reports information for on salinity, fauna or flora studies or other environmental reports clearing conducted for the site). assessment
Part 5: Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessments (IBSA) INSTRUCTIONS: • Biodiversity surveys submitted to support this application must meet the requirements of the EPA’s Instructions for the preparation of data packages for the Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessments (IBSA). • If these requirements are not met, DWER will decline to deal with the application. Attachments N/A Yes 5.1 Attachment 4: All biodiversity surveys submitted with this application meet the Biodiversity requirements of the EPA’s Instructions for the preparation of data surveys packages for the Index of Biodiversity Surveys for Assessments (IBSA).
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 11
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 6: Other DWER approvals INSTRUCTIONS: • If you have applied, or intend to apply, for other approvals within DWER that may be relevant to this application, you must provide relevant details. • If you have referred, or intend to refer, your proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), you must provide the requested details. Pre-application scoping 6.1 Have you had any pre-application / pre- No referral / scoping meetings with DWER regarding any planned applications? Yes – provide details: Please refer to 4 Stakeholder and Community Consultation of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020). Environmental impact assessment (Part IV of the EP Act) 6.2 Have you referred or do you intend to Yes (referred) – reference (if known): [ ] refer the proposal to the EPA? Section 37B(1) of the EP Act defines a ‘significant Yes – intend to refer (proposal is a ‘significant proposal’) proposal’ as “a proposal likely, if implemented, to have a significant effect on the environment”. Yes – intend to refer (proposal will require a section 45C If DWER considers that the proposal in this amendment to the current Ministerial Statement): application is likely to constitute a ‘significant MS [ ] proposal’, DWER is required under section 38(5) of the EP Act to refer the proposal to the EPA for assessment under Part IV, if such a referral has No – a valid Ministerial Statement applies: MS [ ] not already been made. If a relevant Ministerial Statement already exists, No – not a ‘significant proposal’ please provide the MS number in the space provided.
Clearing of native vegetation (Part V Division 2 of the EP Act and Country Area Water Supply Act 1947) 6.3 Have you applied or do you intend to Yes – clearing application reference (if known): [ ] apply for a native vegetation clearing permit? No – this application includes clearing (please complete In accordance with the Guideline: Industry questions 4.13 to 4.19) Regulation Guide to Licensing and Procedure: Native vegetation clearing permits, where clearing No – a valid permit applies: CPS 5795 of native vegetation is of an exempt kind under the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (WA), or is being No – exemption applies (explain why): [ ] assessed by a relevant authority which would lead to an exemption under Schedule 6 of the EP Act, No – permit not required the clearing will not be assessed by DWER or be subject to any additional controls by DWER. If the proposed clearing action is to be assessed in accordance with, or under, an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) accredited process, such as the assessment bilateral agreement, Form Annex C7 – Assessment bilateral agreement must be completed and attached to your clearing permit application.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 12
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 6: Other DWER approvals 6.4 Have you applied or do you intend to Yes – application reference (if known): [ ] apply for a Country Area Water Supply Act 1947 licence? No – a valid licence applies: [ ] If a clearing exemption applies in a Country Area Water Supply Act 1947 (CAWS Act) controlled No – licence not required catchment, or if compensation has previously been paid to retain the subject vegetation, a CAWS Act clearing licence is required. If yes, contact the relevant DWER regional office for a Form 1 Application for licence. Map of CAWS Act controlled catchments
Water licences and permits (Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914)
6.5 Have you applied, or do you intend to Yes –application reference (if known): [ ] apply for: 1. a licence or amendment to a licence No – a valid licence / permit applies: [Refer to to take water (surface water or GWL107418(18) ] groundwater); or 2. a licence to construct wells (including No – licence / permit not required bores and soaks); or 3. a permit or amendment to a permit to interfere with the bed and banks of a watercourse? For further guidance on water licences and permits under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, refer to the Procedure: Water licences and permits.
Part 7: Other approvals and consultation
INSTRUCTIONS: • Please provide copies of all relevant documentation indicated below, including any conditions, exclusions, or expiry dates. • “Major Project” means: A State Development Project, where the lead agency is the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation (including projects to which a State Agreement applies); or A Level 2 or 3 proposal, as defined in the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Lead Agency Framework. N/A No Yes 7.1 Is the proposal a Major Project? 7.2 Is the proposal subject to a State Agreement Act?
If yes, specify which Act: Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963.
7.3 Has the proposal been allocated to a “Lead Agency” (as defined in the Lead Agency Framework)?
If yes, specify Lead Agency contact details:
7.4 Has the proposal been referred and/or assessed under the EPBC Act (Commonwealth)? If yes, please specify referral, assessment and/or approval number:
7.5 Has the proposal obtained all relevant planning approvals?
If planning approval is necessary but has not been obtained, please provide details indicating why:
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 13
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 7: Other approvals and consultation
If planning approval is not necessary, please provide details indicating why:
7.6 For renewals or amendment applications, are the relevant planning approvals still valid (that is, not expired)? 7.7 Has the proposal obtained all other necessary statutory approvals (not including any other DWER approvals identified in Part 6 of this application)? If no, please provide details of approvals already obtained, outstanding approvals, and expected dates for obtaining these outstanding approvals:
N/A No Yes 7.8 Has consultation been undertaken with parties considered to have a direct interest in the proposal (that is, interested parties or persons who are considered to be directly affected by the proposal)? DWER will give consideration to submissions from interested parties or persons in accordance with the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing. Attachments N/A Yes 7.9 Attachment 5: Other Details of other approvals specified in Part 7 of this approvals and application, including copies of relevant decisions and any consultation consultation undertaken with direct interest stakeholders documentation have been provided and labelled Attachment 5.
Part 8: Applicant history Note: • Under this section, DWER will undertake an internal due diligence of the applicant’s fitness and competency based on DWER’s compliance records. • If you wish to provide additional information for DWER to consider in making this assessment, you may provide that information as a separate attachment (see Part 11). N/A No Yes 8.1 If the applicant is an individual, has the applicant previously held, or do they currently hold, a licence or works approval under Part V of the EP Act? 8.2 If the applicant is a corporation, has any director of that corporation previously held, or do they currently hold, a licence or works approval under Part V of the EP Act? 8.3 If yes to 8.1 or 8.2 above, specify the name of company and/or licence or works approval number:
Existing Licence L4762/1972 is held by Hamersley Iron Pty Limited.
8.4 If the applicant is an individual, has the applicant ever been convicted, or paid a penalty, for an offence under a provision of the EP Act, its subsidiary legislation, or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.5 If the applicant is a corporation, has any director of that corporation ever been convicted, or paid a penalty, for an offence under a provision of the EP Act, its subsidiary legislation, or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.6 If the applicant is a corporation, has any person concerned in the management of the corporation, as referred to in section 118 of the EP Act, ever been convicted of, or paid a penalty, for an offence under a provision of the EP Act, its subsidiary legislation, or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia?
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 14
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 8: Applicant history 8.7 If the applicant is a corporation, has any director of that corporation ever been a director of another corporation that has been convicted, or paid a penalty, for an offence under a provision of the EP Act, its subsidiary legislation, or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.8 With regards to the questions posed in 8.4 to 8.7 above, have any legal proceedings been commenced, whether convicted or not, against the applicant for an offence under a provision of the EP Act, its subsidiary legislation, or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.9 Has the applicant had a licence or other authority suspended or revoked due to a breach of conditions or an offence under the EP Act or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.10 If the applicant is a corporation, has any director of that corporation ever had a licence or other authority suspended or revoked due to a breach of conditions or an offence under the EP Act or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.11 If the applicant is a corporation, has any director of that corporation ever been a director of another corporation that has ever had a licence or other authorisation suspended or revoked due to a breach of conditions or an offence under the EP Act or similar environmental protection or health-related legislation in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia? 8.12 If yes to any of 8.4 to 8.11 above, you must provide details of any charges, convictions, penalties paid for an offence, and/or licences or other authorisations suspended or revoked:
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 15
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 9: Emissions, discharges, and waste
INSTRUCTIONS: • Please see Guidance Statement: Risk Assessments and provide all information relating to emission sources, pathways and receptors relevant to the application. • You must provide details on sources of emissions (for example, kiln stack, baghouses or discharge pipelines) including fugitive emissions (for example, noise, dust or odour), types of emissions (physical, chemical, or biological), and volumes, concentrations and durations of emissions. • The potential for emissions should be considered for all stages of the proposal (where relevant), including during construction, commissioning and operation of the premises. No Yes
9.1 Are there potential emissions or discharges arising from the proposed activities?
If yes, identify all potential emissions and discharges arising from the proposed activities and complete Table 9.1: Emissions and discharges (below). Gaseous and particulate emissions (e.g. Dust (e.g. from equipment, unsealed roads emissions from stacks, chimneys or baghouses) and/or stockpiles, etc.) Wastewater discharges (e.g. treated sewage, Waste and leachate (e.g. emissions through wash water, or process water discharged to lands seepage, leaks and spills of waste from storage, or waters) process and handling areas, etc.) Noise (e.g. from machinery operations and/or Odour (e.g. from wastes accepted at putrescible vehicle operations) landfills, storage or processing of waste or other odorous materials, etc.) Contaminated or potentially contaminated Electromagnetic radiation 1 stormwater (e.g. stormwater with the potential to come into contact with chemicals or waste materials, etc.) Other (please specify): [ ]
1 Note that for electromagnetic radiation, copies/details of other relevant approvals (such as from the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety or the Radiological Council) must be provided where applicable. Details of any pollution control equipment or waste treatment system, including any control mechanisms used to ensure proper operation of this equipment, must be included in the proposed controls column of the ‘Emissions and discharges table’ below. Details of management measures employed to control emissions should also be included. Please provide / attach any relevant documents (e.g. management plans, etc.). Additional rows may be added as required and/or further information may be included as an attachment (see section 9.3). Table 9.1: Emissions and discharges Source of Emission or Volume and Proposed controls Location (on emission or discharge type frequency site layout plan discharge – see 3.4) Please refer to 7 Risk Identification and Assessment and 8 Emissions, Management and 1. Controls of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020). 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 16
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 9: Emissions, discharges, and waste No Yes 9.2 Waste-related activities at the premises 2 Answer “yes” or “no” for the following questions and complete Table 9.2 (below).
(a) Is waste accepted at the premises?
(b) Is waste produced on the premises?
(c) Is waste processed on the premises?
(d) Is waste stored on the premises?
(e) Is waste buried on the premises?
(f) Is waste recycled on the premises?
Is any of the waste listed in Table 9.2 (below) also considered a ‘dangerous good’ for the purposes of the Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Non- (g) Explosives) Regulations 2007? 3
Specify, if yes:
Solid waste types must be described with reference to Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (as amended from time to time) and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004 (Controlled Waste Regulations). Liquid waste types must be described with reference to the Controlled Waste Regulations. For further guidance on the definition of waste, refer to Fact Sheet: Assessing whether material is waste. Detail must be provided on storage type (for example, hardstand and containment infrastructure), capacity, likely storage volumes, and containment features (for example, lining and bunding). 2 Please provide copies / details of any other relevant approvals (e.g. from the Department of Health) must be provided where applicable. 3 Wastes derived from the storage, handling, and use of dangerous goods may be considered hazardous and may need to be handled with the same precautions. Please refer to the following link for more information: https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Dangerous- Goods/DGS_IS_OverviewOfStorageAndHandlingRegulations.pdf Additional rows may be added as required and/or further information may be included as an attachment (see section 9.4). Table 9.2 Waste types Waste type Quantity (e.g. Waste activity Monitoring (if Location tonnes, litres, infrastructure applicable) (on site cubic metres) (including layout plan specifications) – see 3.4) 1. 2. 3.
Attachments N/A Yes 9.3 Attachment 6A: Emissions If required, further information for Part 9.1 has been and discharges (if required) included as an attachment labelled Attachment 6A. 9.4 Attachment 6B: Waste If required, further information for Part 9.2 has been acceptance (if required) included as an attachment labelled Attachment 6B.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 17
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 10: Siting and location 10.1 Sensitive land uses Please refer to 3.3 Siting and What is/are the distance(s) to the nearest sensitive land use(s)? Location of the Attached Part V A sensitive land use is a residence or other land use which may Supporting Document (RTIO, April be affected by an emission or discharge associated with the 2020). proposed activities. 10.2 Nearby environmentally sensitive receptors and aspects Identify in Table 10.2 (below): • all instances of environmentally sensitive receptors that are known or suspected to be present within, or within close proximity to, the proposed prescribed premises boundary; • the nature of the sensitive receptors (e.g. type of Threatened Ecological Community, species for threatened flora or fauna, etc.); • their actual or approximate known distance and direction from the premises boundary (at the closest point/s); and • if applicable, what measures have been or will be taken to ensure that sensitive receptors are not adversely impacted by any emissions or discharges from the premises. Refer to the Guidance Statement: Environmental Siting for further guidance. Table 10.2: Nearby environmentally sensitive receptors and aspects Type / Description Distance + Proposed controls to prevent or classification direction to mitigate adverse impacts (if premises applicable) boundary Please refer to 3.3 Siting and Location, 7 Risk Identification and Assessment and 8 Emissions, Management and Controls of the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020). Environmentally Sensitive Areas 1
Threatened Ecological Communities Threatened and/or priority fauna
Threatened and/or priority flora
Aboriginal and other heritage sites 2 Public drinking water source areas 3 Rivers, lakes, oceans, and other bodies of surface water, etc. Acid sulfate soils
Other
1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas are as declared under the Environmental Protection (Environmentally Sensitive) Notice 2005. Refer to DWER’s website (“Environmentally Sensitive Areas”) for further information. 2 Refer to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage website for further information about Aboriginal heritage and other heritage sites. 3 Refer to Water Quality Protection Note No.25: Land use compatibility tables for public drinking water source areas for further information. 10.3 Environmental siting context details Provide further information including details on topography, climate, geology, soil type, hydrology, and hydrogeology at the premises.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 18
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 10: Siting and location Please refer to 3.3 Environmental Siting Context (RTIO, April 2020).
Attachments N/A Yes 10.4 Attachment 7: Siting You must provide details and a map describing the siting and and location location of the premises, including identification of distances to sensitive land uses and/or any specified ecosystems.
Part 11: Submission of any other relevant information Attachments No Yes 11.1 Attachment 8: Applicants seeking to submit further information may include Additional information information labelled Attachment 8. If submitting multiple submitted additional attachments, label them 8A, 8B, etc. Where supplementary documentation is submitted, please specify the name of documents below.
List title of supplementary document/s attached: Works Approval Supporting Documentation - Tom Price Iron Ore Mine – L4762/1972
Part 12: Proposed fee calculation INSTRUCTIONS: Please calculate the relevant prescribed fee using the relevant online fee calculator linked below when completing this section. • Licence: www.der.wa.gov.au/LicenceFeeCalculator • Works approval: www.der.wa.gov.au/WorksApprovalFeeCalculator • Amendment: www.der.wa.gov.au/AmendmentFeeCalculator Different fee units apply for different fee components. Fee units may also have different amounts depending on the period in which the calculation is made. Once DWER has confirmed that the application submitted meets the relevant requirements of the EP Act, you will be issued an invoice with instructions for paying your application fee. Further information on fees can be found in the Fact Sheet: Industry Regulation fees, available from DWER’s website. 12.1 Only the relevant fee calculations are to be completed Section 12.3 for works approval applications as follows: Section 12.4 for licence or renewal applications [mark the box to indicate sections completed] Section 12.5 for registration applications Section 12.6 for amendment applications Section 12.7 for applications requiring clearing of native vegetation 12.2 All information and data used for the calculation of proposed fees has been provided in accordance with section 12.8. 12.3 Proposed works approval fee Proposed works approval fee (see Schedule 3 of the EP Regulations) Fees relate to the cost of the works, including all capital costs (inclusive of GST) associated with the construction and establishment of the works proposed under the works approval application. This includes, for example, costs associated with earth works, hard stands, drainage, plant hire, equipment, processing plant, relocation of equipment and labour hire. Costs exclude: - the cost of land; - the cost of buildings to be used for purposes unrelated to the purposes in respect of which the premises are, or will become, prescribed premises; costs for buildings unrelated to the prescribed premises activity or activities; and - consultancy fees relating to the works. Fee component Proposed fee
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 19
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 12: Proposed fee calculation Cost of works. For calculations please refer to Section 11 Construction Phase of $24 563.00 the Attached Part V Supporting Document (RTIO, April 2020). 12.4 Proposed licence fee (new licences and licence renewals) Detailed licence fee calculations Part 1 Premises component (see regulation 5D and Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EP Regulations) The production or design capacity should be the maximum capacity of the premises. For most categories the production or design capacity refers to an annual rate. The figure should be based on 24 hour operation for 365 days, unless there is another regulatory approval or technical reason that restricts operation. The premises component fee applies to the category in Part 1, Schedule 4 incurring the higher or highest amount of fee units in accordance with regulation 5D(2) of the EP Regulations. List all categories (insert additional rows as required). Use only the higher or highest amount of fee units to determine the Part 1 fee component. Category Production or design capacity Fee units
Using the higher or highest amount of fee units, Part 1 component subtotal $ Part 2 Waste (see regulation 5D(1a)(b) and Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the EP Regulations) If your premises includes one or more of the following categories specify any applicable Part 2 waste amounts. Do not include Part 3 waste components of these discharges in the below sections. Categories: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 44, 46, 53, 54A, 70, 80, or 85B Part 2 waste means waste consisting of – (a) tailings; or (b) bitterns; or (c) water to allow mining of ore; or (d) flyash; or (e) waste water from a desalination plant. If the premises does not fall into one of the categories listed above, or there are no applicable Part 2 waste amounts, the sub total for this section will be $0. Insert additional rows as required. Sum all Part 2 waste fees to determine the sub total. Discharge quantity (tonnes/year) Fee units
Part 2 component subtotal $ Part 3 Waste – Discharges to air, onto land, into waters (see Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the EP Regulations) Choose the appropriate location of the discharge and enter the discharge amount(s) in the units specified in the EP Regulations. This should be the amount of waste expected to be discharged over the next 12 months, expressed in the units and averaging period applicable for that waste kind (for example, g/minute or kg/day). Amounts can be measured, calculated, or estimated and can be based on data acquired over the previous 12 months, but should be based on the maximum premises capacity and not the forecast operating hours. Where there are discharges, all prescribed waste types must be considered in the fee calculation. If a specified waste type is not present in the discharge, this must be justified using an appropriate emission estimation technique (for example, sampling data, industry sector guidance notes, National Pollution Inventory guides and emission factors).
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 20
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Discharges to air
Discharge rate Discharge rate Discharges to air Discharges to air (g/min) (g/min) Carbon monoxide Nickel Oxides of nitrogen Vanadium Sulphur oxides Zinc Particulates (Total PM) Vinyl chloride Volatile organic compounds Hydrogen sulphide Inorganic fluoride Benzene Pesticides Carbon oxysulphide Aluminium Carbon disulphide Arsenic Acrylates Chromium Beryllium Cobalt Cadmium Copper Mercury Lead TDI (toluene-2, 4-di-iso-cyanate) Manganese MDI (diphenyl-methane di-iso-cyanate) Molybdenum Other waste Part 3 component subtotal $ Discharges onto land or into waters Discharge rate 1. Liquid waste that can potentially deprive (a) biochemical oxygen demand (in receiving waters of oxygen (for each the absence of chemical oxygen kilogram discharged per day) — demand limit) (b) chemical oxygen demand (in the absence of total organic carbon limit) (c) total organic carbon 2. Bio-stimulants (for each kilogram discharged (a) phosphorus per day) — (b) total nitrogen
3. Liquid waste that physically alters the (a) total suspended solids (for each characteristics of naturally occurring kilogram discharged per day) waters — (b) surfactants (for each kilogram discharged per day) (c) colour alteration (for each platinum cobalt unit of colour above the ambient colour of the waters in each megalitre discharged per day) (d) temperature alteration (for each 1°C above the ambient temperature of the waters in each megalitre discharged per day) — (i) in the sea south of the Tropic of Capricorn (ii) in other waters
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 21
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
4. Waste that can potentially accumulate in the (a) aluminium environment or living tissue (for each kilogram discharged per day) — (b) arsenic (c) cadmium (d) chromium (e) cobalt (f) copper (g) lead (h) mercury (i) molybdenum (j) nickel (k) vanadium (l) zinc (m) pesticides (n) fish tainting wastes (o) manganese 5. E. coli bacteria as indicator species (in each (a) 1,000 to 5,000 organisms per 100 megalitre discharged per day) — ml (b) 5,000 to 20,000 organisms per 100 ml (c) more than 20,000 organisms per 100 ml 6. Other waste (per kilogram discharged per (a) oil and grease day) — (b) total dissolved solids (c) fluoride (d) iron (e) total residual chlorine (f) other Part 3 component subtotal $ Summary – Proposed licence fee Part 1 Component Part 2 Component Part 3 Component Total proposed licence fees: $
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 22
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
12.5 Prescribed fee for registration A fee of 24 units applies for an application for registration of premises, unless the occupier of the premises holds a licence in respect of the premises, in (Tick to acknowledge) accordance with regulation 5B(2)(c) of the EP Regulations. 12.6 Works approval amendment or licence amendment fee Proposed works approval amendment or licence amendment fee (see Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EP Regulations). The fee prescribed for an application for an amendment to a works approval or licence is calculated in accordance with regulation 5BB(1)(a) of the EP Regulations: • for a single category of prescribed premises to which the works approval or licence relates, by using the fee unit number corresponding to the prescribed premises category and relevant production or design capacity threshold in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EP Regulations. • for multiple categories of prescribed premises to which the works approval or licence relates, by using the highest fee unit number corresponding to the prescribed premises categories and production design or capacity threshold in Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EP Regulations. The relevant fee unit under Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EP Regulations for calculating the application form amendment fee is to be determined by reference to the actual production or design capacity reported for the preceding year’s annual licence fee. If an annual licence fee has not previously been paid or is not applicable as is the case for works approvals, the fee unit for an application for amendment is to be determined by reference to the production or design capacity currently prescribed in the licence or works approval. Fee Units Proposed fee $ 12.7 Prescribed fee for clearing permit In accordance with the Guideline: Industry Regulation Guide to Licensing and Procedure: Native vegetation clearing permits, where an application for clearing of native vegetation is made as part of an application for a works approval or licence, DWER may elect to either jointly or separately determine the clearing component of the application. Where DWER separately determines the clearing component of an application, the application will be deemed to be an application for a clearing (Tick to acknowledge) permit under section 51E of the EP Act. Note: If a clearing permit application has been separately submitted and accepted by DWER, a refund for the clearing permit application will not be provided where DWER determines to address clearing requirements as part of a related works approval application. 12.8 Information and data used to calculate proposed fees The detailed calculations of fee components, including all information and data used for the calculations are to be provided as attachments to this application, labelled as Attachment 9, with an appropriate suffix (for example 9A, 9B etc.). Please specify the relevant attachment number in the space/s provided below. Proposed fee for works approval Attachment No. Details for cost of works Proposed fee for licence Attachment No. Part 1: Premises Part 2: Waste types Part 3: Discharges to air, onto land, into waters
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 23
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 13: Commercially sensitive or confidential information NOTE: Information submitted as part of this application will be made publicly available. If you wish to submit commercially sensitive or confidential information, please identify the information in Attachment 10, and include a written statement of reasons why you request each item of information be kept confidential. Information submitted later in the application process may also be made publicly available at DWER’s discretion. For any commercially sensitive or confidential information, please follow the same process as described above. DWER will take reasonable steps to protect genuinely confidential or commercially sensitive information. Please note in particular that all submitted information may be the subject of an application for release under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. All information which you would propose to be exempt from public disclosure has been Attached N/A separately placed in a redacted version of the application form and its supporting documentation. Note that this is in addition to the unredacted version(s) provided to DWER for its assessment. Grounds for claiming exemption in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 must be specified in Attachment 10 (located at the end of this form).
Part 14: Submission of application Check one of the boxes below to nominate how you will submit your application. Files larger than 50MB cannot be received via email by DWER. Files larger than 50MB can be sent via File Transfer. Alternatively, email DWER to make other arrangements. A full, signed, electronic copy of the application form including all attachments has been submitted via email to [email protected]; OR A signed, electronic copy of the application form has been submitted via email to [email protected] and attachments have been submitted via File Transfer, or electronically by other means as arranged with DWER; OR A full, signed hard copy has been sent to: APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS Department of Water and Environmental Regulation Locked Bag 10 Joondalup DC WA 6919
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 24
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Part 15: Declaration and signature General I/We confirm and acknowledge that: • the information contained in this application is true and correct and I/we acknowledge that knowingly providing information which is false or misleading in a material particular constitutes an offence under section 112 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) and may incur a penalty of up to $50,000; • I/We have legal authority to sign on behalf of the applicant (where authorisation provided); • I/We have not altered the requirements and instructions set out in this application form; • I/We have provided a valid email address in Part 2.3 for receipt of correspondence electronically via email from DWER in relation to this application; • I/We acknowledge that successful delivery to my/our server constitutes receipt of correspondence sent electronically via email from DWER in relation to this application; and • I/We have provided a valid postal and/or business address in Part 2.4 for the service of all Part V documents.
Publication I/We confirm and acknowledge: • this application (including all attachments apart from the sections identified in Attachment 10) is a public document and may be published; • biodiversity surveys provided in accordance with Part 5 will be published and used, for the purposes of the IBSA project, in accordance with your declaration made in the Metadata and Licensing Statement; • all necessary consents for the publication of information have been obtained from third parties; • information considered exempt from public disclosure has been noted by redaction of a separately provided copy of the completed application form and its supporting documentation (in accordance with Part 13), with reasons as to why the information should be exempt in accordance with the grounds specified in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) being provided in Attachment 10; • subsequent information provided in relation to this application will be a public document and may be published unless written notice has been given to DWER by the applicant, at the time the information is provided, claiming that the information is considered exempt from public disclosure; and • the decision to not publish information will be at the discretion of the CEO of DWER and will be made consistently with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA).
Signature Date
Please note the letter of Authority for Part V Name submissions will be provided when available as per discussions with the RTIO/DWER management team. Position
Signature Date
Name
Position
NOTE: This form may be signed: • if the applicant is an individual, by the individual; • if the applicant is a corporation, by: the common seal being affixed in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); or two directors; or a director and a company secretary; or if a proprietary company has a sole director who is also the sole company secretary, by that director; and • by a person with legal authority to sign on behalf of the applicant.
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 25
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 26
IR-F09 v12.0 Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
ATTACHMENT 10 – Confidential or commercially sensitive information
Request for exemption from publication
Information which you consider should not be published, on the grounds of a relevant exemption found in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), must be specified in this Attachment. Add additional rows as required. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IF GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION ARE DETERMINED TO BE ACCEPTABLE Section of Grounds for this form: claiming exemption: Section of Grounds for this form: claiming exemption: Section of Grounds for this form: claiming exemption:
______Full Name
______Signature Date
Application form: works approval, licence, renewal, amendment, or registration (v12, February 2020) 27
IR-F09 v12.0 Works Approval Supporting Documentation
Tom Price Iron Ore Mine – L4762/1972
April 2020
RTIO-HSE-0342707 RTIO-HSE-0342707
Disclaimer and Limitation This report has been prepared by Rio Tinto Iron Ore (Rio Tinto), on behalf of Hamersley Iron Pty Limited, specifically for the Tom Price Iron Ore Mine. Neither the report nor its contents may be referred to without the express approval of Rio Tinto, unless the report has been released for referral and assessment of proposals.
Document Status
Approved for Issue Rev Author Reviewer/s Date To Whom Date
S.Savage, Carly Nixon R.Birdthistle, Department of Water A Jaclyn R.Green, April 2020 and Environmental April 2020 Ennis-John C.LazoSkold, Regulation C.Latham RTIO-HSE-0342707
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Licensee Information ...... 8 1.1 Occupier Details ...... 8
2 Introduction ...... 8
3 Premises Details ...... 1 3.1 Prescribed Activity Overview ...... 1 3.2 Legal Land Description ...... 1 3.3 Location and Siting ...... 1 3.4 Topography ...... 6 3.5 Geology and Soils ...... 6 3.6 Water Resources ...... 9 3.7 Biological ...... 12 3.8 Aboriginal Heritage ...... 18
4 Stakeholder and Community Consultation ...... 18 4.1 Regulator Consultation ...... 18 4.2 Community Consultation ...... 19 4.3 Traditional Owners ...... 19
5 Prescribed Premises Category ...... 20 5.1 Current Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Part V Licence) ...... 20 5.2 Other Approvals / Licences / Permits ...... 20
6 Proposal Description ...... 22 6.1 Category 5: In-Pit Waste Fines Storage Facility Overview ...... 22 6.2 Construction Phase ...... 23 6.3 Environmental Commissioning ...... 23 6.4 Time Limited Operations ...... 23 6.5 Operations ...... 24 6.6 Detailed design ...... 24 6.7 SEP WFSF Operating Procedures Management and Monitoring ...... 29
7 Risk Identification and Assessment ...... 33
8 Emissions, Management and Controls ...... 38 8.1 Groundwater Discharges ...... 38 8.2 Dust Emissions ...... 42 8.3 Noise Emissions ...... 42 8.4 Light Emissions ...... 43 8.5 Hydrocarbons ...... 43 8.6 Solid / Liquid Wastes ...... 44
iii RTIO-HSE-0327096
8.7 Vegetation, Flora and Fauna ...... 44
9 Rehabilitation and Closure ...... 45
10 Summary of Controls ...... 47
11 Project Costs ...... 49
References ...... 50
Appendices ...... 52
TABLES Table 3-1 Indicative coordinates of the proposed SEP WFSF ...... 1 Table 3-2 Nearby environmentally sensitive receptors and aspect ...... 1 Table 3-4: Vegetation communities of the Tom Price region ...... 13 Table 3-5: Habitats of the Tom Price region ...... 17 Table 5-1 Proposed Prescribed Premise category details under Works Approval ...... 20 Table 6-1: Proposed waste fines water quality monitoring schedule ...... 30 Table 7-1: Risk Rating Matrix ...... 33 Table 7-2: Consequence Matrix ...... 33 Table 7-3: Likelihood Matrix ...... 34 Table 7-4: Risk Assessment ...... 35 Table 8-1 Modelled groundwater quality during deposition and post deposition (KCB 2020) ...... 40 Table 10-1 Summary of controls ...... 47
FIGURES Figure 2-1 Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline Regional Location Map ...... 10 Figure 3-1 Indicative location of proposed SEP WFSF within the Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Prescribed Premise boundary ...... 1 Figure 3-2 Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Tenure and Land use surrounding the proposed SEP WFSF ...... 1 Figure 3-3: Indicative layout of proposed SEP WFSF within the Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine (KCB, 2020) ...... 3 Figure 3-4: Project Location and Siting - Sensitive Receptors – Ecology...... 4 Figure 3-5: Project Location and Siting - Sensitive Receptors -Surface Water and Groundwater ...... 5 Figure 3-6: Lower sequences of the Hamersley Group in the SEP pit (KCB 2020) ...... 7 Figure 3-7 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model of the SEP pit (KCB 2020) (red; orebody aquifer, white; depressurisation bores)...... 11 Figure 6-1 General Arrangement of Infrastructure for Waste fines Delivery and Decant (Tom Price mine coordinate grid shown) (KCB, 2020) ...... 22
4 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 6-2 SEP WFSF Modelled Storage Levels Year 2021 ...... 27 Figure 6-3: SEP WFSF Modelled Storage Levels Year 2042 ...... 28 Figure 6-4: Groundwater monitoring locations ...... 32 Figure 8-1: Modelled water level of the SEP pit (KCB 2020) (end deposition simulated 31/12/2041) ...... 39 Figure 8-2: Modelled pH of the SEP pit (KCB 2020) (end deposition simulated 31/12/2041) ...... 39
5 RTIO-HSE-0327096
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document
Abbreviations
AER Annual Environmental Report AMD Acid mine drainage ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council AWTP Acid water treatment plant BGL Below ground level CCIR Critical Containment Infrastructure Report CPS Clearing Permit DMIRS Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety DoH Department of Health DRF Declared Rare Flora DWER Department of Water and Environmental Regulation EPA Environmental Protection Authority EPAS EPA Services EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986 EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 GWL Groundwater Licence HSEC Health, Safety, Environment and Communities and Social IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement KCB Klohn Crippen Berger LIC Local Implementation Committee Mining Act Mining Act 1978 ML State Agreement Mineral Lease MCS Mount Mc Rae Shale P Priority PAF Potentially acid forming PEC Priority Ecological Community PDWSA Public Drinking Water Source Area PIL3 Pilbara Bioregion RiWI Act Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 RT Rio Tinto SCARD Spontaneous Combustion and Acid Rock Drainage SEP South East Prongs
6 RTIO-HSE-0327096
TEC Threatened Ecological Community TSF Tailings storage facility WC Act Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 WFSF Waste fines storage facility
7 RTIO-HSE-0327096
1 Licensee Information
1.1 Occupier Details
The occupier (the Licensee) of the land subject to this Works Approval application is:
Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd L 22, Central Park 152-158 St Georges Terrace Perth, WA, 6000 ACN: 107 210 248
The contact person for the Works Approval application is:
Rebecca Evans Advisor – Government Approvals Rio Tinto 152-158 St Georges Terrace Perth, WA, 6000 Mobile: 0436 663 354 Email : [email protected]
2 Introduction
This Works Approval application seeks approval for the construction and operation of an in- pit Waste Fines Storage Facility (WFSF) within the existing, exhausted South East Prongs (SEP) Pit at the Tom Price Iron Ore Mine (Tom Price mine), located approximately 1.5 kilometres (km) south of the town of Tom Price in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Figure 2-1). The proposed SEP WFSF will be located within the SEP pit at the Tom Price mine on ML4SA.
Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd (PICS, the Licensee) proposes to deposit waste fines produced from wet processing of ore from Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline to a new in-pit WFSF in the previously mined SEP pit at the Tom Price mine. The SEP WFSF will be totally contained within the previously mined SEP pit, no confining embankments are proposed as the remnant pit walls will form the perimeter of the storage areas.
Recent mine planning estimates that up to 1.6 million tonnes of waste fines will be produced by the Tom Price processing facilities annually, resulting in approximately 30.65 million tonnes of waste fines. The exhausted SEP pit has capacity to permanently store all waste fines produced for the life of wet processing to 2041 and beyond if production increases.
It is proposed that waste fines will be deposited at the eastern end of the SEP pit, which will result in a beach forming where the waste fines are deposited and a pond of waste fines water developing at the western end of the pit. During operation, this excess water will be decanted and recycled back to the processing plant.
8 RTIO-HSE-0327096
This project has a number of benefits for both operations and closure, including; • Reducing ex-pit waste fines storage requirements. • Preventing additional footprint being impacted by further ex-pit waste fines storage. • Working towards closure of the pit by reducing the pit void volume and adding material to the pit void to improve the geotechnical stability of the pit wall. • Preventing the formation of a permanent post-closure pit lake • Improving the quality of water captured and contained temporarily in the pit through:
o Controlling the source of acid runoff by significantly covering the pit walls, including covering a substantial portion of the Mount Mc Rae Shale (MCS) Reactive (hot) exposure with waste fines.
o Improving SEP water quality by using excess acid buffering capacity in the waste fines to offset low pH SEP pit wall runoff.
o Increasing the pH of the pit water body lessens the potential for mobilisation of metals. A number of studies and reports have been completed to support this application, the findings of which have been included in this Supporting Document. The documents: • SEP TSF Design Report (KCB, 2019a) • Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document (KCB, 2020) (see Appendix A). • Water Simulation Modelling (KCB, 2019b)
9 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 2-1 Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline Regional Location Map
10 RTIO-HSE-0342707
3 Premises Details
3.1 Prescribed Activity Overview
The Tom Price Iron Ore Mine (Tom Price mine), located approximately 1.5 kilometres (km) south of the town of Tom Price in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Figure 3-1), became operational in 1966 and is the largest and oldest of the Hamersley Iron operations in Western Australia. The Tom Price mine includes open cut above and below water table mining of iron ore, ore processing in central processing facilities at approximately 35 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa), and associated infrastructure including the rail network which transports processed ore to port facilities located at Dampier.
The existing processing facilities at the Tom Price mine were constructed in the mid 1970’s for the beneficiation of low grade ore. The beneficiation process generates fines, which are currently thickened and pumped to an existing ex‐pit tailings storage facility (TSF) 2A for permanent storage. However, the existing TSF2A is approaching exhaustion and the new SEP WFSF is required.
3.2 Legal Land Description
The Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Prescribed Premises are primarily located on State Agreement Mineral Lease (ML) 4SA, granted under the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963 (WA). The Premises also extend onto other tenure (General Purpose Leases and Miscellaneous Licences) that have been granted under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act). The proposed SEP WFSF will be located within the SEP pit at the Tom Price mine on ML4SA.
The Tom Price mine is located on unallocated crown land. There is no pastoral activity in the immediate vicinity of the mine, with the nearest pastoral station leases being Rocklea Station (N050372) and Hamersley Station (N050438), approximately 10 km north and 20 km north- west respectively from the proposed SEP WFSF. Both pastoral leases are held by Hamersley Iron, primarily for pastoral purposes. Hamersley Station covers an area of approximately 2,665 km² between Tom Price and Pannawonica. Rocklea Station covers an area of approximately 3,598 km² between Tom Price and Paraburdoo. Figure 3-2 identifies the regional land tenure, including native title.
The Prescribed Premise boundary also intersects Special Lease I144501, held by Hamersley Iron for the purpose of ‘drawing of water’; the Hardey River borefield and pipeline, located between Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline, provides water to the Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline mining operations.
1 RTIO-HSE-0342707
Figure 3-1 Indicative location of proposed SEP WFSF within the Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Prescribed Premise boundary
1 RTIO-HSE-0342707
Figure 3-2 Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Tenure and Land use surrounding the proposed SEP WFSF
1 RTIO-HSE-0342707
3.3 Location and Siting
The Licensee operates the Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine under Licence L4762/1972/14 which includes Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline, granted under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act).
The proposed SEP WFSF will be located within the SEP pit at the Tom Price mine within the existing Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Prescribed Premise boundary (L4762/1972/14). The indicative coordinates of the SEP WFSF are provided in Error! Reference source not found., with the proposed layout shown in Figure 3-3
Table 3-1 Indicative coordinates of the proposed SEP WFSF
Corner North 579426.525 7482174.216
East 580325.018 7481880.427
South 580011.215 7481427.261
West 579080.116 7481917.707
All coordinates are provided using map projection MGA 94 Zone 50
3.3.1 Sensitive Land Uses
There are no sensitive receptors that are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed SEP WFSF. Table 3-2 summarises the nearby environmentally sensitive receptors and proposed controls to prevent or mitigate any potential adverse impacts are detailed in Section 8. Receptors identified in Table 3-2 are shown in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5.
Table 3-2 Nearby environmentally sensitive receptors and aspect
Classification Description and Distance from Prescribed Premises
Environmentally No Parks and Wildlife Services Conservation Reserves or other Managed Areas are Sensitive Areas located within or near the Premises. The nearest Reserve, the Karijini National Park is located approximately 7.9 km east of the Premises and approximately 12 km east of the proposed SEP WFSF.
Threatened No Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) are located within or near the Ecological Premises. Communities The nearest TEC, the “Themeda” Grasslands on cracking clays (Hamersley Station, Pilbara)”, is located approximately 14.5 km north of the Premises.
Threatened and/or The nearest Eucalyptus victrix communities to the proposed WFSF have been priority flora recorded more than 3 km from the existing pit. The nearest Priority flora records to the proposed WFSF, Indigofera ixocarpa (P2), Sida sp. Barlee Range (P3), Eremophila magnifica subsp. magnifica (P4) and Lepidium catapycnon (P4) have been recorded more than 450 m from the existing pit.
Threatened and/or Evidence of the Western Pebble-mound Mouse (P4) have been recorded in ‘low hills’ priority fauna habitat, located more than 3.2 km from the existing pit. As such, the proposed facility is not expected to have any impact on any habitats (including habitats considered to be of elevated conservation significance), alter the conservation status or threaten the continued existence of any Priority fauna species at a local or regional scale.
1 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Classification Description and Distance from Prescribed Premises
Aboriginal and other There are no heritage sites are located within the existing SEP pit. heritage sites
Public Drinking Water Drinking water borefields are located more than 10 km from the potential impact site Source Area (ERM 2016). (PDWSA) The Paraburdoo Drinking Water Reserve covers part of the Tom Price mine near the SEP pit. RTIO considers deposition of waste fines into SEP to present no risk to the Paraburdoo drinking water supply given the changed hydrological regimes brought about by mining at Tom Price, the distance to drainage lines connecting to the Paraburdoo water supply catchment areas, and the improved environmental outcomes associated with this facility.
Rivers, lakes, oceans No permanent naturally occurring surface water bodies are located within 3 km of the and other bodies of potential impact site (ERM 2016). surface water, etc. No geomorphic wetlands are located within or near the Premises. Sensitive Receptors. Existing land uses within and surrounding the existing Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Prescribed Premise boundary include mineral exploration, mining and pastoral activities (Hamersley and Rocklea Pastoral Stations). The nearest premises are the residents of the township of Tom Price, located approximately 700 m to the north of the Prescribed Premise boundary and approximately 7.2 km north north-east of the proposed SEP WFSF (Figure 2-1). Tom Price is a remote iron ore mining town built in the 1960s to house the residential workforce for the Tom Price mining operations but was not a gazetted townsite until 1985. At the 2016 census, the township of Tom Price had a population of 2,956 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016).
2 RTIO-HSE-0342707
Figure 3-3: Indicative layout of proposed SEP WFSF within the Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine (KCB, 2020)
3 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 3-4: Project Location and Siting - Sensitive Receptors – Ecology 4 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 3-5: Project Location and Siting - Sensitive Receptors -Surface Water and Groundwater
5 RTIO-HSE-0327096
3.4 Topography
Greater Tom Price is characterised by rugged mountainous ranges and prominent scarps dissected by series of spectacular rocky gorges, gullies and plateaux (expansive elevated plains and wide, alluvial valley floors) with local ephemeral drainage lines between hills, which are generally well defined due to the incised nature of the topography.
The Department of Agriculture produced mapping of the state which broadly describes Land Systems (Rangelands) by recurring patterns of geological and ecological features across regional landscapes. The Tom Price region intersects six Land Systems mapped in the Regional Inventory of the Pilbara Rangelands (Van Vreeswyk et al. 2004):
• Newman: Rugged jaspilite plateaux, ridges and mountains supporting hard spinifex grasslands;
• Platform: Dissected slopes and raised plains supporting hard spinifex grasslands;
• Boolgeeda: Stony lower slopes and plains at the base of hill systems supporting hard and soft Spinifex grasslands and Mulga shrublands;
• Rocklea: Basalt hills, plateaux, lower slopes and stony plains supporting hard spinifex and occasionally soft spinifex grasslands with scattered shrubs;
• Robe: Low plateaux and mesas supporting soft spinifex and occasionally hard spinifex grasslands; and
• McKay: Hills, ridges, plateaux remnants and breakaways of meta-sedimentary and sedimentary rocks supporting hard spinifex grasslands.
These Land Systems are not unique on a local or regional scale. Given that the proposed in- pit deposition of waste fines will be within the existing, exhausted SEP pit, the local topography has already been extensively altered.
3.5 Geology and Soils
3.5.1 Geology
The Pilbara is situated in the south-eastern comer of the Archaean Pilbara Craton. The craton is overlain by the iron-ore-bearing sedimentary rocks of the Fortescue and Hamersley Basins. The Hamersley Basin is divided into three stratigraphic groups: the Hamersley Group, which hosts all of the banded iron formation derived iron ore deposits of the Hamersley Basin, is underlain by the Fortescue Group and overlain by the Turee Creek Group. The Hamersley Group, which hosts all of the banded iron formation derived iron ore deposits of the Hamersley Basin, is underlain by the Fortescue Group and overlain by the Turee Creek Group.
The main structural feature of the Greater Tom Price region is the regional north‐west to south‐ east trending Turner Syncline. Mineralisation at Greater Tom Price is associated with the Brockman Iron Formation of the Hamersley Group, and is typical of Banded Iron Formation derived deposits that occur throughout the Pilbara.
6 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Tom Price
Iron ore deposits at the Tom Price mine, including the SEP pit, are located along the southern limb of the Turner Syncline. The Syncline is intercepted by several faults and dykes and is significantly folded with secondary synclines parallel to the main structure.
Mineralisation at Tom Price is associated with the Marra Mamba Iron Formation or the Joffre and Dales Gorge Members of the Brockman Iron Formation. The SEP pit targets the mineralised Dales Gorge Member of the Brockman Iron Formation. The Dales Gorge Member extends to 250 m below natural ground surface at the SEP pit. The mineralised Dales Gorge Member is bounded by relatively impermeable Mount McRae Shale on either side and overlies the Mount McRae Shale and Mount Sylvia Formation.
A stratigraphic classification for the SEP pit is summarised in Figure 3-6.
Yandicoogina Shale Member (approx. 60 m)
Joffre Member (approx. 360 m) Brockman Iron Formation (500‐620 m) Whaleback Shale Member (approx. 50 m)
Dales Gorge Member (approx. 150 m) Mount McRae Shale Median Chert (approx. 50 m) Mount Sylvia Formation
(approx. 30 m)
Bee Gorge Member (approx. 160 m) Wittenoom Formation Paraburdoo Member (approx. 150 m) (150‐350 m) West Angela Member
Mount Newman Member (approx. 60 m) Marra Mamba Iron Formation MacLeod Member (approx. 35 m) (20‐230 m) Nammuldi Member (approx. 135 m) Figure 3-6: Lower sequences of the Hamersley Group in the SEP pit (KCB 2020)
3.5.2 Soils
Topsoil is recognised as an important factor in achieving high quality rehabilitation results. However, topsoil is often a limited resource in the Pilbara with topsoil recovery often being restricted due to the nature and terrain of the landscape.
Rio Tinto has well established management strategies to manage rehabilitation material at its Pilbara operations. Rehabilitation material has been, and will continue to be, managed via Soil Resource Management Procedures to ensure rehabilitation material removed by clearing is collected and managed such that it is available for future rehabilitation programs. Where practical, a minimum of 200 mm of topsoil is collected when new areas are cleared. An inventory of rehabilitation material is maintained.
7 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Characterisation of soils provides an indication of soil properties and the potential for vegetation establishment, growth and landform stability. Soils within the Premises are typical of the soils within the Greater Tom Price and Pilbara region, characterised by hills and dissected plateaux of stony and gravelly soils interspersed with stony valley plains on sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Hamersley Basin (as mapped at a scale of 1:1,000,000 by Tille (2006)). Depth varies from very shallow (<0.1 m) to deep (>1.0 m). Shallower soils are typically found on the ridges and slopes. Deeper soils are typically found on the lower slopes and stony plains. Occasional areas of bare rock occur throughout the region. Alluvial, rocky sand occurs along minor ephemeral drainage lines.
Given that the proposed in-pit deposition of waste fines will be within the existing, exhausted SEP pit, soils have already been extensively cleared.
3.5.3 Material Characterisation
Exposure of potentially acid forming (PAF) materials, if encountered and not appropriately managed, can potentially cause Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). Rio Tinto has undertaken an extensive program of geochemical testing over several years to understand the potential for acidification and/or metalliferous drainage to occur as a result of exposing various waste rock types common to mining operations in the Pilbara.
The most significant geochemical risk is associated with sulfides, such as pyrite (FeS2), which can form sulfuric acid when exposed to oxygen and water. Pyrite is found in the Mount McRae Shale. The SEP pit contains significant exposures of Mount McRae Shale. Weathering of this material is the main source of AMD. Acidic water from the pit walls (including the Mount McRae Shale exposures), is collected in the SEP pit and treated via an AWTP, which neutralises the water through addition of lime. Treated water is added to the waste fines from the process plant and sent to the existing tailings storage facility TSF2A for permanent storage of waste fines. Excess water is recycled back to the Tom Price processing plant (or other site uses).
Proposed waste fines deposition to the SEP WFSF will significantly cover the SEP pit walls, including covering a substantial portion of the Mount McRae Shale exposures with waste fines, which will reduce the generation of AMD. Decant water collected from the SEP WFSF will also be treated, it will be collected pumps located at the western extent of the pit and treated through the AWTP. It will then be recycled back to the processing plant.
The potential for impact to local and regional groundwater is continually monitored via an extensive network of groundwater monitoring bores. Potential AMD impact has been observed in bores that are screened in the Dales Gorge member (which represents the superficial ore body aquifer) however, bores that are screened in the underlying Mount Sylvia and Wittenoom Formation (which represent the underlying artesian aquifer) show no AMD impact. Groundwater quality is discussed further in sections 3.6.
Rio Tinto has well established management strategies to manage PAF materials at its Pilbara operations. PAF materials, if encountered, are appropriately managed via existing management strategies specified in the Rio Tinto Iron Ore (WA) Mineral Waste Management Plan, and the Spontaneous Combustion and ARD (SCARD) Management Plan to ensure waste material is adequately geochemically characterised, and PAF material is appropriately managed. The SCARD Management Plan includes:
8 RTIO-HSE-0327096
• identification of PAF material distribution and character;
• minimising the exposure and mining of PAF material to the extent possible;
• identification and special handling of PAF material that must be mined;
• encapsulation of PAF material inside inert waste rock dumps to limit water contact and allow the dumps to be revegetated, or placement of PAF material below the water table in backfilled open pits to limit oxygen contact; and
• monitoring and corrective actions (when necessary). The results of monitoring are reported annually in operational annual environmental reports.
3.6 Water Resources
3.6.1 Hydrology
The Tom Price mine is situated at the confluence of three catchment areas: Hardey River; Turee Creek; and Seven Mile Creek (Figure 3-5) which are all major tributaries of the Ashburton River. The SEP pit is located within the Seven Mile Creek sub‐catchment. All surface water flows in the SEP pit catchment are captured by the pit.
The headwaters of the Hardey River rise from the mountain ranges of Mount Reeder Nicholls, Mount Samson and Mount Tom Price. A large proportion of the Tom Price mine is located within the upper watershed of the Hardey River regional catchment. Prior to mining, this area would drain south into the Hardey River that travels in a west and southwesterly direction and joins with the Ashburton River at Hardey Junction; approximately 210 km downstream of the Tom Price mine. Infrastructure supporting the Tom Price mine, including the Tom Price town, is located within this catchment.
The upper Seven Mile Creek catchment drains to the south from Tom Price mine to Paraburdoo via Bellary Creek where it merges with Seven Mile Creek immediately downstream of the Paraburdoo Township. Seven Mile Creek continues its path downstream and discharges into the Ashburton River at Deolan Pool. As with the Hardey River catchment, the mine pits are now largely internally draining within the Seven Mile catchment. Mining has significantly altered the local surface water catchments. Most surface water now reports to the pit voids and there will be no significant surface water flow lines post closure. It is estimated that the Tom Price mine has reduced the total Seven Mile regional catchment by <0.2%.
A small part of the Tom Price mine is located in the western extent of the Turee Creek regional catchment. Turee Creek headwaters rise from the high relief areas of the Hamersley Range where the Creek drains through the southern portion of the Karijini National Park. It continues its path downstream onto more gently sloping areas before discharging into the Ashburton River. The North East Prong Extension and Marra Mamba East and the future McKenna’s Reef Pits are located in this catchment disturbing approximately <0.01% of the total catchment.
No significant wetlands or surface water bodies, such as permanent pools or waterholes, have been identified in the vicinity of the Tom Price mine. There are no named creeks or rivers
9 RTIO-HSE-0327096
located within the Tom Price operating area. The mine site and mine infrastructure do not encompass or cross any significant floodplains.
No significant named watercourses intersect the SEP pit. The Hardey River is located more than 2 km to the north-west and Bellary Creek is located more than 5.5 km to the south west of the existing SEP pit at their nearest points. Given that the proposed facility will be located within the existing SEP pit, local ephemeral creek flows and natural overland flows have already been interrupted. As such, no significant impacts to natural surface water flows are expected.
3.6.2 Hydrogeology
The regional aquifer within the Greater Tom Price area is associated with the dolomite of the Wittenoom Formation, often hydraulically connected to the overlying Tertiary detritals (alluvial / colluvial sediments), bound to the north by a ridge of the Marra Mamba Iron Formation and the south by a ridge of the Brockman Iron Formation.
Local orebody aquifers are associated with the Brockman Iron Formation and the Marra Mamba Iron Formation which are disconnected from the regional Wittenoom Formation and confined by geological structures such as faults, folds, swarms of dolerite dykes and low permeability geological units; Mount McRae Shale, Mount Sylvia Formation, Yandicoogina Shale and unmineralised BIF. However, areas where the shales are intensely fractured and / or mineralised provide pathways for groundwater flow.
SEP pit
There are three main aquifers identified within the SEP pit; the local Dales Gorge Member Orebody Aquifer (predominately removed by mining), the confined artesian Bruno’s Band Aquifer which exists between the low permeability Mount McRae Shale and Mount Sylvia Formation and the regional Wittenoom Dolomite Aquifer. These are fractured systems, groundwater within these aquifers is associated with secondary permeability and porosity, developed through structural dislocation, folding and weathering, and more recently, by mining induced fracturing through blasting and unloading.
Geological structures such as dolerite dykes and geological units; the Jeerinah Formation, Mount McRae Shale, the Mount Sylvia Formation and Whaleback Shale compartmentalise groundwater flows.
The Wittenoom Formation is present approximately 100 m behind the SEP pit walls. The Paraburdoo Member (and locally, the Bee Gorge Member) of the Wittenoom Formation form the regional aquifer. The West Angelas Member of the Wittenoom Formation forms a barrier to groundwater flow where the shale is undisturbed however, areas where the shales are intensely fractured and / or mineralised can provide pathways for groundwater flow.
As a result of the plunging synclinal structure, the SEP pit walls intersect the Mount McRae Shale. The local Dales Gorge Member Orebody Aquifer is hydraulically isolated from the underlying Bruno’s Band and the regional Wittenoom Formation by the Mount McRae Shale, restricting groundwater from the Wittenoom Dolomite Aquifer flowing in to the pit (except through artesian bores in the base of the pit which intersect the orebody aquifer and the
10 RTIO-HSE-0327096
underlying Bruno’s Band and Wittenoom Formation, enhancing connectivity between these hydrogeological units).
A simplified conceptual hydrogeological model of the SEP pit is shown in Figure 3-7.Significant faulting results in a complex geology and hydrogeology.
Figure 3-7 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model of the SEP pit (KCB 2020) (red; orebody aquifer, white; depressurisation bores) Pre-mining groundwater level in the SEP pit is estimated to have been 674 mRL. Groundwater abstraction for dewatering purposes commenced in the SEP pit in 1994 and has altered pre‐ mining groundwater level and flow, reversing local groundwater gradients with flow direction towards the SEP dewatering borefield. Monitoring indicates current groundwater levels of approximately 600 mRL within the SEP pit and 690 mRL outside the pit (beyond the Mount McRae Shale).
The current understanding of groundwater levels suggests that, if groundwater at the SEP pit recovers to its pre-mining level after closure, then hydraulic gradients and groundwater flow will be directed towards the SEP pit from surrounding aquifers (groundwater sink).
3.6.3 Groundwater Quality
An extensive network of groundwater monitoring bores have been recording water quality at the SEP pit since 2003. There are presently no groundwater users in the immediate vicinity of the SEP pit. Three sets of water quality guidelines are used to place the current groundwater quality into context.
• DOH (2014) guidelines for non-potable use are appropriate for SEP pit water that is used on-site for processing and dust control.
• ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality are appropriate for the use of water for livestock watering; and
11 RTIO-HSE-0327096
• ANZECC (2000) guidelines for freshwater ecosystems (95% species protection) are appropriate for any seepage, or for groundwater recharge.
Monitoring indicates that the current SEP groundwater quality generally meets water quality guidelines except for the following exceedances.
• With some exceptions (in shale and orebody aquifers), sulphate concentrations generally remain below both the DoH (2014) guidelines for non‐potable use and ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality.
• Zinc concentrations are below both the DoH (2014) guidelines for non‐potable use and ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality but consistently above the ANZECC (2000) guidelines for fresh water ecosystems (95% species protection).
• Selenium concentrations (where reported above limits of detection), are generally below ANZECC (2000) guidelines for fresh water ecosystems (95% species protection), although some exceedances were reported between 2012 and 2015.
Monitoring also indicated that the SEP has also been contaminated by AMD. Additional information is provided in section 1.2.4 Hydrology of KCB (2020).
3.7 Biological
Greater Tom Price is located within the Pilbara Bioregion (PIL3) recognised under the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA). The Pilbara Bioregion has several subregions including the Hamersley, Fortescue, Chichester and Roebourne subregions. Greater Tom Price is located within the Hamersley subregion, characterised by mountainous Proterozoic sedimentary ranges and prominent scarps dissected by series of spectacular rocky gorges and gullies with Eucalyptus leucophloia over Triodia hummock grasses and plateaux (expansive elevated plains and wide, alluvial valley floors) with Mulga (Acacia aneura) low woodland over bunch grasses (Kendrick 2001). No landscapes identified as high biodiversity occur in the Greater Tom Price region.
3.7.1 Vegetation and Flora
The Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline mines are located within the Fortescue Botanical District of the Eremaean Botanical Province as defined by Beard (1975), near the centre of the Hamersley Plateau. The vegetation of this Province is typically described as being occasional Eucalypt species (Eucalyptus leucophloia) over Mulga (Acacia aneura) / Acacia sp. shrublands over Triodia sp. hummock grasslands (Beard 1975, 1990). This vegetation is typical of arid landscapes.
Vegetation and Flora surveys have been undertaken across the Tom Price area since 1990, covering an area in excess of 9,500 ha. Surveys have been undertaken across the Western Turner Syncline area since 2005, covering an area in excess of 35,000 ha. The combined coverage of these surveys has enabled a detailed understanding of the existing vegetation and a considerable reference for the distribution of species (including Priority flora) in the Greater Tom Price region.
No Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) or Priority Ecological Communities (PECs) have been recorded within the Greater Tom Price region. The nearest TEC, the “Themeda
12 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Grasslands on cracking clays (Hamersley Station, Pilbara)”, is located approximately 14.5 km to the north of the proposed Premises. This TEC is found on cracking clay plains characterised by grassland of perennial Themeda spp. (kangaroo grass) and annual herbs and grasses. No vegetation associations with these characteristics were described in the Tom Price region.
Some vegetation communities which represent ‘ecosystems at risk’ (Kendrick 2003) are known to occur within the Tom Price region; ‘Lower slope’ and ‘valley floor’ Mulga communities and ‘riparian Eucalypts along major ephemeral watercourses’ (particularly those containing phreatophytic species, Eucalyptus victrix that rely on access to groundwater in order satisfy at least some proportion of their environmental water requirements) are considered to be of elevated local conservation significance, however, all occur relatively extensively throughout the Hamersley subregion.
Tom Price
Vegetation within the Tom Price region has also already been extensively cleared for the existing operations. A total of 46 vegetation communities have been recorded across six major landforms within the Tom Price region. A description for each community is provided in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Vegetation communities of the Tom Price region
Landform Description
G1 Dodonaea petiolaris and D.pachyneura shrubland over Themeda triandra and Eriachne mucronata tussock grassland over scattered Rhodanthe margarethae herbs on steep slopes and at the base of breakaways (DpeDpTHtERIm).
G2 Acacia aptaneura and A.pruinocarpa shrubland over Santalum lanceolatum shrubland over Eriachne mucronata and Aristida obscura tussock grassland in the base of gorges Gorges, gullies and and gullies and on very steep slopes (AapApSAlERImARo). steep slopes G3 Corymbia hamersleyana woodland over Acacia hamersleyensis shrubland over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland in gullies and on steep slopes (ChAhTb).
G4 Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia woodland over scattered E.gamophylla mallees over Triodia epactia hummock grassland in gullies and on steep slopes of high rocky hills (ElEgTe).
H1 Eucalyptus gamophylla, E.kingsmillii subsp. kingsmillii and E.repullulans mallee over Acacia hamersleyensis and Petalostylis labicheoides shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland over Eriachne mucronata tussock grassland on high rocky hill tops (EgEkAhPlTwERm).
H2 Eucalyptus leucophloia and Acacia pruinocarpa woodland over mixed Acacia spp. scrub over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on hill tops (ElAp(s)Tw).
H3 Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia woodland over Acacia bivenosa and Ridges and hill tops A.maitlandii shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on hill tops and upper slopes (ElAbAmTw).
H4 Corymbia hamersleyana, Eucalyptus kingsmillii subsp. kingsmillii and E.gamophylla mallee over Acacia hamersleyensis shrubland over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland on upper slopes of high rocky hills (ChEkEgAhTb).
H5 Scattered Corymbia hamersleyana and Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over Acacia hamersleyensis and A.maitlandii shrubland over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland on high rocky hill slopes (ChElAhAmTb).
13 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Landform Description
H6 Scattered Hakea chordophylla shrubs over Acacia arida shrubland over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland on upper slopes of high rocky hills (HcAarTb).
H7 Scattered Corymbia hamersleyana and Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over scattered Acacia bivenosa A.inaequilatera and Petalostylis labicheoides shrubs to scrub over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland over scattered Themeda triandra tussock grasses on hill tops and slopes (ChElAbTwTHt)
H8 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia trees over scattered E.gamophylla mallees over Acacia hamersleyensis and A.bivenosa shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on hill tops (ElEgAhAbTw)
H9 Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia woodland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on high ridges and hill tops (ElTw)
S1 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over E.repullulans mallee over scattered Acacia bivenosa shrubs over scattered Triodia wiseana hummock grassland over scattered Eriachne mucronata tussock grasses on shale slopes (ElErAbTwERIm).
Hill slopes S2 Acacia xiphophylla and A.aneura shrubland over Triodia brizoides and T.pungens hummock grassland on hill slopes (AaAxTbTp).
S3 Acacia citrinoviridis and A.aneura var. aneura woodland over A.maitlandii, Petalostylis labischeoides and A.kempeana heath over A.spondylophylla shrubland over Triodia wiseana and T.pungens hummock grassland on hill slopes (AcAaAmPlAkAspTwTp).
S4 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over Acacia bivenosa and Stylobasium spathulatum shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland over Enneapogon spp. tussock grassland on hill slopes (ElAbSTsTwENspp). Hill slopes S5 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over Acacia pruinocarpa and A.marramamba shrubland over Triodia epactia hummock grassland on hill slopes (ElApAmaTp).
L1 Acacia citrinoviridis, Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia and Corymbia ferriticola subsp. ferriticola forest over Dodonaea viscosa and A.maitlandii shrubland over Triodia epactia hummock grassland on low hills (AcElCfDvAmTe).
L2 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees to woodland occasionally over scattered E.repullulans mallees occasionally over Acacia bivenosa and Petalostylis labischeoides shrubland over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland on rocky low hills (ElTb).
L3 Acacia aptaneura woodland over scattered Senna artemisioides subsp. artemisioides and Eremophila cuneifolia shrubs over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland over Eriachne mucronata and Sporobolus australasicus tussock grassland on low hills (AapSaaERcTwERmSPa).
Low hills L4 Acacia aneura, A.rhodophloia and A.pruinocarpa scrub over scattered Scaevola acacioides and Dodonaea pachyneura shrubs over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland over scattered Eriachne mucronata tussock grasses on low hills (AaaArApTbERIm).
L5 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over scattered E.gamophylla mallees over Petalostylis labischioides, Hakea chordophylla and Acacia hamersleyensis shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on low rocky hills (ElEgPlHcAhTw).
L6 Corymbia hamersleyana and Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia woodland over Triodia epactia and T.wiseana hummock grassland on low hills (ChElTeTw).
L7 Scattered Eucalyptus gamophylla mallees over Acacia exilis, A.pruinocarpa and A.hamersleyensis shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on low rocky hills (EgAeApAhTw).
14 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Landform Description
L8 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over scattered Acacia pruinocarpa, A.exilis and A.bivenosa shrubs over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on low hills (ElApAeAbTw).
L9 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees to woodland over E.gamophylla and E.repullulans mallee over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on low hills (ElEgErTw).
P1 Eucalyptus leucophloia and Acacia pruinocarpa woodland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland on terraced plains (ElApTw).
P2 Acacia aptaneura, A.pruinocarpa and A.ayersiana shrubland to woodland over scattered Triodia wiseana hummock grasses (rehabilitated community) on rocky plains (AapApAayTw).
P3 Eucalyptus repullulans mallee over Acacia aptaneura, A.colei var. colei and Plains A.pruinocarpa shrubland over Triodia wiseana and T.melvillei hummock grassland on rocky plains (ErAapAcoApTwTm).
P4 Acacia aptaneura scrub over Rhagodia eremaea shrubland over Chrysopogon fallax and *Cenchrus ciliaris tussock grassland on alluvial plains (AapReCHRfCc).
P5 Acacia xiphophylla shrubland over Triodia longiceps hummock grassland on rocky plains (AxTl).
P6 Acacia pruinocarpa and A.aptaneura shrubland over Dipteracanthus australasicus subsp. australasicus shrubland over scattered Triodia longiceps hummock grassland over Aristida ingrata, Themeda triandra and Sporobolus australasicus tussock grassland on alluvial plains (ApAapDIaTlARin).
P7 Acacia aptaneura, A.ayersiana and A.pruinocarpa shrubland to woodland over Plains scattered A.ayersiana and A.kempeana shrubs over Triodia melvillei hummock grassland on low hills (AapAayApAkTm).
P8 Scattered Acacia synchronicia and A.bivenosa shrubs over Triodia longiceps hummock grassland over Aristida latifolia and Themeda triandra tussock grassland (rehabilitated community) on rocky plains (AsAbTlARlTHt).
D1 Scattered Eucalyptus gamophylla mallees over Acacia atkinsiana scrub over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland over Themeda triandra tussock grassland on minor creeks (EgAatTwTHt).
D2 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over Petalostylis labicheoides, Gossypium robinsonii and Acacia citrinoviridis scrub over Themeda triandra and Eriachne mucronata tussock grassland on minor creeks (ElPlGrAcTHtERIm).
D3 Scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia trees over Acacia ayersiana, A.pruinocarpa and A.citrinoviridis shrubland over Triodia wiseana and T.epactia hummock grassland on minor creeks (ElAayApAcTwTe). Minor creeks D4 Eucalyptus lucasii, E. leucophloia subsp. leucophloia and E.kingsmillii subsp. kingsmillii mallee over Triodia longiceps hummock grassland over Aristida inaequiglumis and Themeda triandra tussock grassland on minor creeks (EluElEkTlARiTHt).
D5 Eucalyptus victrix open woodland over scattered E.xerothermica trees over Acacia citrinoviridis shrubland over Themeda triandra and *Cenchrus ciliaris tussock grassland on minor creeks (EvExAcTHtCEc).
D6 Eucalyptus xerothermica and E.leucophloia subsp. leucophloia woodland over Acacia tumida var. pilbarensis, A.maitlandii and Stylobasium spathulatum shrubland over scattered Triodia wiseana and T.angusta hummock grasses over *Cenchrus ciliaris and Themeda triandra tussock grassland on minor creeks (ExAtTwCEc).
Impacted areas I1 Completely cleared (CD)
15 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Landform Description
I2 *Leucaena leucocephala woodland over *Cenchrus ciliaris tussock grassland on plains in previously cleared areas (*Ll*Cc).
I3 *Tamarix aphylla shrubland to forest on cracking clay of tailings dam (TAa).
I4 Typha domingensis sedgeland on cracking clay of tailings dam (TYd).
I5 Degraded Acacia aptaneura, A.ayersiana, A.pruinocarpa and Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia shrubland to woodland over Triodia melvillei hummock grassland over *Cenchrus ciliaris tussock grassland on rocky plains and low rocky hills (D'AapAayApElTmCc).
Three of these represent communities considered to be of elevated local conservation significance, deemed to be ecosystems at risk (Kendrick 2003); ‘lower slope’ and ‘valley floor’ Mulga (represented by nine vegetation communities occurring on lower slopes and plains in the south of the region) and ‘riparian Eucalypts along major ephemeral creeks’ (not represented by any of the vegetation communities however, some minor creeks are characterised by the facultative phreatophyte, Eucalyptus victrix and are considered locally significant). Communities of elevated conservation significant present in the Tom Price region are well represented in the Hamersley Range.
No flora listed under the under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), or gazetted as Threatened (formerly Declared Rare Flora (DRF)) under the Western Australian Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) have been recorded or are expected to occur within the Tom Price region however, 17 Priority (P) flora species have been recorded (Rio Tinto Priority flora database):
• two P1 species: Eucalyptus lucens and Sida sp. Hamersley Range;
• one P2 species: Indigofera ixocarpa;
• five P3 species: Amaranthus centralis, Dampiera anonyma, Geijera salicifolia, Olearia mucronata and Sida sp. Barlee Range; and
• four P4 species: Acacia bromilowiana, Eremophila magnifica subsp. magnifica Goodenia nuda and Lepidium catapycnon.
All of the Priority flora species recorded are well represented in the Greater Tom Price region and throughout the Pilbara bioregion, any disturbance to individuals is not expected to alter the conservation status or representation or threaten the continued existence of any Priority flora species at a local or regional level.
SEP pit
The proposed in-pit deposition of waste fines will be located within pre-disturbed areas. No clearing will be required to support the proposal. The nearest Eucalyptus victrix communities are more than 3 km from the existing pit. The nearest Priority flora records, Indigofera ixocarpa (P2), Sida sp. Barlee Range (P3), Eremophila magnifica subsp. magnifica (P4) and Lepidium catapycnon (P4) have been recorded more than 450 m from the existing pit. As such, the proposed facility is not expected to have any impact on any vegetation communities (including communities considered to be of elevated conservation significance), alter the conservation
16 RTIO-HSE-0327096
status or threaten the continued existence of any Priority flora species at a local or regional scale.
3.7.2 Fauna
Terrestrial fauna surveys have been undertaken in the Tom Price area since 1990. Fauna surveys have been undertaken in the Western Turner Syncline area since 2009 covering an area of approximately 27,000 ha. The combined coverage of these surveys has enabled a detailed understanding of the existing fauna habitats and a considerable reference for the distribution of species in the Greater Tom Price region.
Tom Price
Five fauna habitats have been recorded within the Tom Price region. A description for each habitat is provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Habitats of the Tom Price region
Habitat Description
Gullies and steep Gullies and steep slopes supporting scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia trees over Acacia slopes aptaneua, A.pruinocarpa shrubland over open tussock grassland.
Hillcrests and slopes atop hills supporting scattered Corymbia hamersleyana, Eucalyptus Hill crests and slopes leucophloia trees over Acacia hamersleyensis, A.maitlandii shrubland over Triodia brizoides hummock grassland.
Low undulating hills supporting scattered Eucalyptus leucophloia trees over scattered Low hills E.gamophylla (Mallee) over shrubland over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland.
Stony plains supporting Acacia aptaneura, A.ayersiana, A.pruinocarpa woodlands / Stony plains shrublands over Triodia melvillei hummock grasslands.
Small tributaries in hill slopes supporting scattered Corymbia hamersleyana, Eucalyptus Minor creeks victrix and/or E.leucophloia trees over Acacia ayersiana, A.pruinocarpa and A.citrinoviridis shrubland over hummock grassland.
All of the fauna habitats present in the Tom Price region are typical, widespread and well represented in the Hamersley Range. Two of the habitats recorded; ‘gullies’ and ‘minor creeks’ are considered to be of higher local conservation significance. These habitats provide shelter, foraging and dispersal opportunities for Threatened and Priority species recorded or assessed as likely to occur within the Tom Price region.
Five species of elevated conservation significance, listed under the EPBC Act and / or the BC Act have been recorded during surveys of the Greater Tom Price region: the Pilbara Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus barroni), listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC and Schedule 3 under the WC Act; the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia) and the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas), both listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Schedule 3 under the WC Act; the Lined Soil-crevice Skink (Notoscincus butleri) and the Western Pebble-mound Mouse (Pseudomys chapmani), both listed as Priority 4 under the WC Act.
Two of these species have been recorded in the Tom Price region; calls of the Ghost Bat (Vulnerable) have been recorded in ‘gullies and steep slopes’ and secondary evidence of the Western Pebble-mound Mouse (P4) have been recorded in ‘hill slopes’ and ‘low hills’. An
17 RTIO-HSE-0327096 opportunistic record of a Pilbara Olive Python (Vulnerable) has also been recorded in ‘gullies and steep rocky slopes’ habitat adjacent to the Tom Price mine.
SEP pit
The proposed in-pit deposition of waste fines will be located within pre-disturbed areas. No clearing will be required to support the proposal. The nearest Priority fauna records, evidence of the Western Pebble-mound Mouse (P4) have been recorded in ‘low hills’ habitat, located more than 3.2 km from the existing pit. As such, the proposed facility is not expected to have any impact on any habitats (including habitats considered to be of elevated conservation significance), alter the conservation status or threaten the continued existence of any Priority fauna species at a local or regional scale.
3.8 Aboriginal Heritage
Extensive archaeological and ethnographic surveys carried out to date in and around the Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline region indicate that there are a number of heritage sites and features of cultural significance in the region, including rock shelters, scar trees, artefact scatters, petroglyphs and gnamma holes.
The Licensee is committed to avoiding sites of ethnographic and / or archaeological significance to Traditional Owners wherever possible at its Pilbara operations. Approval under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 will be requested where disturbance to sites cannot be avoided. Cultural material contained within those sites which cannot be avoided will be managed in accordance with the approval conditions set by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and in consultation with the Traditional Owners.
No heritage sites will be impacted during the construction or operation of the SEP TSF and associated infrastructure.
4 Stakeholder and Community Consultation
4.1 Regulator Consultation
Rio Tinto meets with the DWER regularly to provide an overview of upcoming proposals and provided DWER with updates on this proposal in October 2018 and March, September and December 2019. It was agreed during the September 2019 meeting that a Works Approval (this application) followed by amendments to existing Licence L4762/1972 were appropriate for the proposed works.
The Licensee also facilitated a technical workshop on 31 October 2018. Rio Tinto and Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) provided a detailed overview of the proposal, including the detailed design for the proposed facility, the modelling undertaken to understand the potential risks of the proposal and the proposed management. Representatives from the following government agencies attended the workshop:
• Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) – Environment Branch;
• Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) – Resource Safety;
18 RTIO-HSE-0327096
• DWER – Environmental Regulation; and
• DWER – Contaminated Sites Branch.
4.2 Community Consultation
The Licensee has a long-term commitment to working with Pilbara communities and recognises that local communities have a direct interest in their activities. The Licensee has sought to keep relevant stakeholders up-to-date with the mining activities at Tom Price. Community consultation will continue to be undertaken to keep relevant communities up-to- date throughout the operations and during closure of the Tom Price mine.
The construction and operation of the proposed SEP WFSF is not expected to affect any communities and therefore no specific community consultation has been undertaken.
4.3 Traditional Owners
The Eastern Guruma People and the Yinhawangka People are the traditional custodians of the land within which the Tom Price, Western Turner Syncline Section 10 and B1 deposits (Eastern Guruma People) and Section 17 deposit (Yinhawangka People) are located.
The Licensee has Commercial Agreements as well as Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA) with both groups that include an established consultation framework for ongoing engagement on relevant aspects of the operations. The Eastern Guruma ILUA was registered with the National Native Title Tribunal on 23 June 2008. The Yinhawangka ILUA was registered with the National Native Title Tribunal on 5 July 2013. These comprehensive Agreements set obligations for processes such as land access, tenure acquisition, heritage management, environmental management, mining benefit payments, and reporting, consultation and communication between the parties.
The identification and management of cultural heritage is in accordance with the heritage protocols within the Agreements and ILUA as well as the principles and practices outlined within Rio Tinto’s Communities and Social Performance Guidelines and the Rio Tinto’s Cultural Heritage Group Procedure.
The Licensee also regularly consults with Traditional Owners on the protection and management of cultural heritage sites within their country. Issues relevant to the Eastern Guruma and Yinhawangka People are discussed at biannual Local Implementation Committee (LIC) meetings.
19 RTIO-HSE-0327096
5 Prescribed Premises Category
5.1 Current Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Part V Licence)
The Tom Price and Western Turner Syncline mines have been assessed as ‘Prescribed Premises’, as defined by Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 (as amended). The Licensee currently holds Part V Operating Licence L4762/1972/14 for the Greater Tom Price Iron Ore Mine Prescribed Premises.
Category 5, for the existing Tom Price mine processing facilities (which have a design capacity to treat up to 40,000,000 tonnes per annual period) is an existing prescribed activity already assessed and approved via Licence L4762/1972. No changes to the existing Category 5 design capacity are proposed. However, construction and operation of additional processing (waste fines storage) facilities are proposed to be assessed via this Works Approval application to sustain production at 40 Mtpa.
This Works Approval application includes the proposed category and design capacity shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 Proposed Prescribed Premise category details under Works Approval
Category Category Description Category Premises Production or Number Design Capacity 5 Processing or beneficiation of 50,000 tonnes or more per year 40,000,000 tonnes per annual metallic or non-metallic ore period
Amendments to the existing Licence L4762/1972 will be sought for the ongoing operation of the proposed WFSF, following construction and commissioning under the Works Approval. No changes to the categories and design capacities in the existing Licence are required.
5.2 Other Approvals / Licences / Permits
5.2.1 Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Part IV)
Development of the Tom Price mine was approved under the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963 and operations commenced in 1966, prior to the establishment of the EP Act. As such, no environmental approvals under Part IV of the EP Act or specific environmental conditions (other than those under the Agreement Act) have been applied to the Tom Price mine since operations commenced.
The environmental impacts of the proposed deposition of waste fines to the SEP WFSF (the subject of this Works Approval application) are not considered to require assessment under Part IV of the EP Act, as they are not so significant as to warrant the setting of specific environmental conditions and/or can be managed by other decision-making authority approval processes.
5.2.1 Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Part V Clearing)
Since operations at the Tom Price mine commenced in 1966, prior to the establishment of the EP Act and EPBC Act, land clearing for mining, waste dumps, stockpiles, processing
20 RTIO-HSE-0327096 infrastructure, access roads and rehabilitation at Tom Price was originally approved via Notices of Intent and subsequently, via Permits to Clear Native Vegetation, granted by the DMIRS under Section 51E of the EP Act.
Most notably, existing Clearing Permit (CPS) 5795 allows for clearing of up to 824 hectares (ha) on ML4SA (Tom Price), General Purpose Lease 3SA, Miscellaneous Licences L47/209 and L47/136 for the purposes of ‘mineral exploration, mineral production and associated activities’. Clearing will continue to be managed via CPS 5795, and any amendments as required.
5.2.2 State Agreement, Tenure and Mining Act 1978
The Tom Price mine, Tom Price town, Tom Price to Dampier railway and the mining component of the Western Turner Syncline Project are located on ML4SA, granted in 1965 subject to the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963 (WA).
The proposed SEP WFSF will be located on ML4SA and as such, the construction and operation of the proposed SEP WFSF will be subject to the provisions on the Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1963.
5.2.3 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914
PICS hold a 5C licence to take up to 11 000 000 kL water under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RIWI) for multiple mine related purposes including: • Dewatering for mining purposes. • Dust suppression for earthworks and construction purposes • Earthworks and construction purposes
5.2.4 Contaminated Sites Act 2003
Following, voluntary notification, the Licensee received a Notice of Classification for the Tom Price mine in 2015 from the DWER (formerly the Department of Environmental Regulation, DER), issued under Section 15 of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. The site was classified as ‘possibly contaminated – investigation required’ due to the hydrogeochemical properties associated with the interaction of PAF mineral wastes, MCS exposures in wall rock, pit lakes, and groundwater at the Tom Price mine.
Following the classification, an extensive program of AMD and hydrogeological characterisation was undertaken in the classified area and a comprehensive AMD management plan was developed and implemented. The SEP WFSF is located within the Shirt of Ashburton, no approval are required for the proposed works.
21 RTIO-HSE-0327096
6 Proposal Description
6.1 Category 5: In-Pit Waste Fines Storage Facility Overview
The project includes the pumping waste fines to the SEP WFSF. Pumping is planned to commence in 2021 and will continue for and continue to 2041 (design life), with additional capacity available if production increases. Deposition will take place from a series of droppers (spigots) at the eastern end of the SEP pit. This will require the construction of approximately 3 500 m pipe and related infrastructure. The pipeline route has been selected to run along existing roads where possible.
Provided below is a summary of the required infrastructure and equipment for the proposed SEP WFSF, this is also indicated on Figure 6-1: • Waste fines deposition system, consisting of: o a New Waste fines Line o series of droppers (spigots) o Thickener (existing) • Waste fines storage (SEP pit) • Decant and treatment system, consisting of: o New Decant Pump o Decant Line o Buffer Tank o AWTP (existing)
Figure 6-1 General Arrangement of Infrastructure for Waste fines Delivery and Decant (Tom Price mine coordinate grid shown) (KCB, 2020)
22 RTIO-HSE-0327096
6.2 Construction Phase
Construction of the proposed SEP WFSF is proposed to commence in January 2021 and continue until August 2021. It will require a workforce of approximately 30 people.
As part of the construction phases, no embankments will be required, construction works will be limited to the following:
• Installation of waste fines delivery pipelines at the western rim
• Installation of a decant pump unit at the eastern rim.
The route selection and pipeline design were based on a risk assessment, considering damage to the pipeline, impact on operations, and risk to personnel. The final location of the pipelines and decant pump are on previously disturbed areas and do not require the clearing of any native vegetation.
Anticipated emissions will be minimal and will be related to the installation of pipelines and associated infrastructure. The risk assessment provided in Table 7-4 provides additional detail on emissions and controls.
When construction is completed, a compliance document detailing compliance with commitments made in Works Approval application will be submitted to the Department.
6.3 Environmental Commissioning
Commissioning will commence following the completion of construction, approximately August 2021, and submission of the compliance document. It is expected that it will take two months. The Licensee seeks to undertake commissioning under the Works Approval. Given the low risk to environmental receptors of depositing waste fines in-pit from both a containment (i.e. no embankments being constructed, transfer pipelines not in sensitive areas) and seepage perspective, a Critical Containment Infrastructure Report (CCIR) is not expected to be required prior to commissioning commencing.
The potential for emission and the controls in place for the commissioning phase are the same for Time Limited Operations and Operations and are detailed below in Sections 6.4, 6.5 and Appendix A.
6.4 Time Limited Operations
It is requested that time limited operation be undertaken under the Works Approval, to allow for the assessment and determination of a Licence Amendment application. Conditions are proposed to be included in the Works Approval to regulate the proposed tailing deposition during the time limited operational phase. The conditions of the Works Approval are proposed to be transferred, as appropriate, into the Licence. Transition to operation under Licence conditions will commence once a Licence Amendment is issued (approximately mid 2021).
Pumping rates and proposed emissions are the same as operations and are detailed below in section 6.5
23 RTIO-HSE-0327096
6.5 Operations
Deposition of waste fines within the SEP pit is proposed to commence approximately March 2021 and will continue for the life of wet processing operations. It is anticipated that the SEP WFSF will have a life of approximately 20 years.
The modelling undertaken by KCB (2019b) has indicated that the SEP pit has approximately 35 million cubic meters (m3) of storage between RL 570 and RL 715. The rate of rise will initially be rapid with the waste fines top surface rising to RL 590 in the first year, levelling off to reach RL 675 by end of 2041. This will cover approximately 85% of the exposure of the MCS Reactive (hot) shale. Modelling indicates that decant water will pond at the western end of the SEP pit as soon as deposition commences, and excess water will be decanted and recycled back to the process plant.
Anticipated emissions related to operation of the facility was assessed as part of the KCB (2020) report provided in Attachment A.
6.6 Detailed design
6.6.1 Overview
KCB completed the design of the proposed facility following an assessment of waste fines disposal options. The use of the SEP as an in-pit WFSF was the preferred option. The indicative location and layout of the proposed SEP WFSF is shown on Figure 6-1. The design objectives included the following: • Permanent and secure containment of all solid waste fines material; • Continual removal and reuse of free water from the facility; • Reduced environmental impact; and • Ease of operation.
A summary of the proposed SEP WFSF is provided below: • SEP pit is a Life of Mine waste fines storage facility, classified as a: o Significant facility according to the ANCOLD (2012) guidelines o Category 2 facility according to the DMP (2013) Code of Practice. • No significant changes to the pit are required for the use of the SEP as an in-pit WFSF. Therefore, no embankments to be constructed. • Waste fines will be deposited from the eastern end of the pit via a delivery pipeline from the processing plant. A beach will form where the waste fines are deposited, with a decant pond forming at the opposite end of the pit. • Decant at a rate of at least 45 L/s will be required to manage the water level in the SEP pit during waste fines deposition. After treatment through the AWTP, water will be re- used in the fixed plant. • The decant pond water quality will be approximately pH 8 during waste fines deposition, with concentrations of contaminants of potential concern generally below ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality and DoH (2014) guidelines for non-potable use. • SEP pit walls have exposures of Potentially Acid-Forming (PAF) materials (location classified under CS Act). Approximately 85% of the MCS Reactive (hot) lithology will
24 RTIO-HSE-0327096
be covered by the waste fines providing environmental benefits during operations and for closure. • Modelling predicts no permanent pit-lake at closure with the presence of an ephemeral pond during each wet season.
The detailed design of the proposed SEP WFSF is included within the Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document (Appendix A) and a summary of the key design studies and findings is provided below in Sections 6.6.2Error! Reference source not found. to 6.6.6.
6.6.2 Pit wall stability analysis
Stability modelling was completed for the SEP pit as a WFSF to assess the possibilities of pit wall failures with potential to lead to the loss of waste fines containment. The results indicated that a pit wall failure in excess of 3.0 Mm³ of material into the deposited waste fines would be required to generate a displacement wave within the waste fines with potential to overtop the edge of the SEP pit at the lowest crest level of 723 mRL. The potential for a failure of the required magnitude to displace waste fines from the pit is considered highly unlikely. The SEP pit has been in operation since the 1960’s without any slope failures of, or close to, the magnitude that would be required to displace the waste fines.
While such large‐scale instability of the SEP pit slope is unlikely, small-scale failures (typically single bench) associated with localised conditions such as fractures or bedding (which are often difficult to detect) have occurred during mining and are also likely to occur during deposition of waste fines.
Rio Tinto has well established management strategies to manage slope instability at its Pilbara operations, including minimum bench widths and catch berms. Operational controls to mitigate the risk of small scale failures during mining of the SEP pit are likely to remain effective during waste fines deposition. The deposition of waste fines into the SEP pit is expected to improve the long‐term stability of the pit walls.
6.6.3 Waste fines deposition
Waste fines will initially be deposited from a series of spigots at the eastern end of the SEP pit (Figure 6-1). A beach will form where the waste fines are deposited. A pond will form at the opposite, western end of the pit as soon as deposition commences. Figures showing the deposition modelling from, one year after commencement and in 2042, the end of deposition is shown in Figure 6 2 and Figure 6 3.
Further information on the waste fines properties (in terms of geotechnical and geochemical characteristics) is provided in KCB (2020), section 2.1.
6.6.4 Water balance
The results of the groundwater and water balance modelling indicate that a pit lake will form above the waste fines during deposition, with modelled pit lake water elevations of around 680 mRL predicted by the end of deposition (dependant on the decant rates during operation). After waste fines deposition, the pond water level declines to a modelled elevation of 676 mRL.
25 RTIO-HSE-0327096
With a pit crest level of 723 mRL, the facility will contain inflows from a 1:100 year AEP rainfall event, whilst maintaining freeboard adequate to store the 1:100 year 72-hour rainfall event. The modelling predicts that a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event will not overtop the facility post-closure.
6.6.4.1 Acid Water Treatment Plant
The AWTP has been in regular use onsite since 2012 to treat AMD from the SEP pit sumps. It is proposed to use the plant to also treat the decant water collected from SEP WFSF which will be affected from acid runoff from the pit walls.
During SEP WFSF operation, water will be decanted from the SEP pit via pumps located at the western extent of the pit and treated through the AWTP. It will then be recycled back to the processing plant at the thickener.
Decanting of the pond will commence once the pond water level rises to the inlet level of the decant pumps, estimated six months after deposition starts.
6.6.5 Water quality analysis
Water quality modelling was completed to understand the potential risks to the environment as a result of the proposed deposition of waste fines to the in-pit waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit. Modelling indicates that the quality of water within the SEP pit is likely to be neutral during deposition. The modelled water quality generally meets DOH (2014) guidelines for non-potable use and ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality, with the exception of chlorine, sulphate and selenium concentrations.
The quality of water within the pit and surrounding (local and regional) groundwater will be monitored and compared to criteria specified in proposed conditions of amended Licence L4762/1972, subject to approval.
An ephemeral water body will form post deposition that can be described as accumulating for a brief period during the wet season. It is modelled to be low volume with a depth of 1 to 2 meters, saline and have a low pH due to runoff.
26 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 6-2 SEP WFSF Modelled Storage Levels Year 2021
27 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 6-3: SEP WFSF Modelled Storage Levels Year 2042
28 RTIO-HSE-0327096
6.6.6 Seepage analysis
Seepage modelling has been conducted to understand the potential for, and extent of, seepage emanating to groundwater as a result of the proposed deposition of waste fines to the in-pit waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit.
Modelling indicates that the pit will act as a groundwater sink. The modelled pond water level by the end of deposition (680 mRL) and after deposition (676 mRL) is expected to remain below the groundwater elevation surrounding the pit (690 mRL). The pit is also surrounded by the confining Mount McRae Shale which significantly limits groundwater movement. As such, any seepage from the pit to surrounding aquifers is expected to be negligible and post-closure seepage from the tailings is expected to be minor.
Water levels within the pit and the depth to surrounding (local and regional) groundwater will be monitored to identify if seepage occurs.
6.6.7 Closure
RTIO will develop a detailed closure design prior to the end of waste fines deposition. Generally, the SEP WFSF will work towards closure by: • Preventing the formation of a permanent post-closure pit lake; • Significantly covering the pit walls, including covering a substantial portion of the MCS Reactive (hot) exposure with waste fines; and • Reducing the pit void volume and adding material to the pit void to improve the geotechnical stability of the pit wall. Post deposition, the residual water body will be localised and ephemeral, accumulating water for a brief period over the deepest waste fines (over the current Western Sump) during the wet season before drying up during the dry season. The water body is modelled to be low volume with a depth of 1 to 2 meters, saline and have a low pH due to runoff.
6.7 SEP WFSF Operating Procedures Management and Monitoring
An Operating and Maintenance Manual (OMM) is under development and will be completed prior to commissioning the facility. The OMM will be consistent with the DMP (2013) Code of Practice and will incorporate the items listed below:
• A waste fines deposition plan.
• A water management plan which will include decant pond and seepage management.
• Instrumentation and monitoring procedures.
• An emergency action plan.
These plans will be amended if necessary, to include any requirements of the proposed amended Licence L4762/1972.
Key operating measures proposed by KCB (2020) include:
29 RTIO-HSE-0327096
• Recovery of decant water from the SEP pit at a rate of 45 L/s to 60 L/s during deposition to prevent overtopping;
• Routine inspection to monitor waste fines and supernatant water levels;
• Operation of the AWTP during deposition to treat decant water from the SEP;
• Filling of waste fines to 670 mRL or higher to cover exposed potentially acid-generating lithologies (in the preferred scenario more than 85% of the hot Mount McRae Shale is covered by waste fines);
• Monitoring of pore pressures within the pit wall during and post-deposition to confirm the assumptions used in the stability modelling remain valid; and
• Monitoring as per the proposed monitoring schedule (Table 6-1) during and post- deposition to assess water quality, identify potential seepage, compare with baseline conditions, compare with model predictions and ensure that the proposed deposition of waste fines to the in-pit waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit does not result in significant decline in groundwater quality. The results of monitoring will be compared against background water quality, taking into consideration the ANZECC (2000) Guidelines for Livestock Drinking Water Quality and non-potable use guidelines.
Table 6-1: Proposed waste fines water quality monitoring schedule
Monitoring Location Monitoring parameter Target Frequency
TBD Decant pond level during and after None specified Monthly waste fines deposition1
TBD Decant pond quality during and after None specified Quarterly waste fines deposition: pH (pH units)1 Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) 1
Alkalinity (HCO3) (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) Nitrate as N, Nitrite as N, Reactive P (mg/L) Major Ions (mg/L): Br, Ca, Cl, Fl, K, Mg, Na and SO4 Metals / metalloids (mg/L)2: Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg (dissolved), Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, Ti, V and Zn
Monitoring bores Depth to groundwater around WFSF1 None specified Six-month intervals located around the pit perimeter (Figure 6-4) HM18SEP0001, HM18SEP0002, MB18SEP0001, MB18SEP0002, GR17SEP0001, GR17SEP0002, GR17SEP0003.
30 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Monitoring Location Monitoring parameter Target Frequency
Monitoring bores Groundwater quality around WFSF None specified Six-month intervals located around the pit during and after waste fines deposition: perimeter (Figure 6-4) pH (pH units)1 MB12SEP04, Alkalinity (HCO3) (mg/L) MB10SEP01, Major Ions (mg/L): Ca, Cl, Fl, K, Mg, Na Comparison against PZ07SEP03. and SO4 ANZECC (2000) Metals / metalloids (mg/L)2: Al, As, Cd, Guidelines for Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, and Zn Livestock Drinking Water, taking into consideration background water quality.
Note 1: In-field non NATA analysis
Note 2: Site specific triggers are not required given the risk rating for the facility and the absence of sensitive environmental receptors.
31 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 6-4: Groundwater monitoring locations
32 RTIO-HSE-0327096
7 Risk Identification and Assessment
A risk assessment has been prepared to identify the potential emissions from the proposed activities and the potential sources, pathways and receptors of those emissions, and proposed controls to manage potential emissions to determine a risk rating. The risk assessment has been based on the DWER Guidance Statement: Risk Assessments (released by the then named Department of Environmental Regulation in 2017) and the Rio Tinto risk assessment process, based on the following risk rating matrix (Table 7-1):
Table 7-1: Risk Rating Matrix
Consequence Likelihood Slight Minor Moderate Major Severe Almost Certain Medium High High Extreme Extreme Likely Medium Medium High High Extreme Possible Low Medium Medium High Extreme Unlikely Low Medium Medium Medium High Rare Low Low Medium Medium High
Risk = consequence x likelihood The following criteria (DWER 2017) are used to determine the consequence and likelihood of a risk event occurring (Table 7-2 and Table 7-3).
Table 7-2: Consequence Matrix
Consequence Consequence description
Environment Health
On-site impacts: catastrophic Loss of life Off-site impacts (local scale): high level Adverse health effects: high level or ongoing Off-site impacts (wider scale): mid level Severe medical treatment Mid to long term or permanent impact to an Local scale impacts: permanent loss of area of high conservation value or special amenity significance
On-site impacts: high level Adverse health effects: mid level or frequent Off-site impacts (local scale): mid level medical treatment Major Off-site impacts (wider scale): low level Local scale impacts: high level impact to Short term impact to an area of high amenity conservation value or special significance
On-site impacts: mid level Adverse health effects: low level or occasional medical treatment Moderate Off-site impacts local scale: low level Local scale impacts: mid level impact to Off-site impacts wider scale: minimal amenity
On-site impacts: low level Local scale impacts: low level impact to Minor Off-site impacts (local scale): minimal amenity Off-site impacts (wider scale): not detectable
Local scale impacts: minimal impacts to Slight On-site impacts: minimal amenity
33 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Table 7-3: Likelihood Matrix
Likelihood Likelihood description
Almost certain The risk event is expected to occur in most circumstances.
Likely The risk event will probably occur in most circumstances.
Possible The risk event could occur at some time.
Unlikely The risk event will probably not occur in most circumstances.
Rare The risk event may only occur in exceptional circumstances.
The potential emissions, sources, pathways and receptors that have been identified for the construction, commissioning and operation of the proposed WWTP are outlined in Table 7-4. This table also identifies the potential impacts, proposed controls and associated risk ratings. A detailed risk assessment will be undertaken for any activity which has been identified as having a ‘Medium’ risk rating or higher (Section 8). Detailed risk assessment includes:
• A description of the potential emissions, sources, pathways and receptors.
• Any controls that have been identified for the risk event.
• An assessment of the consequence and likelihood.
• Risk rating.
34 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Table 7-4: Risk Assessment
Potential Detailed Assessment Source Pathway Potential Receptors Potential Impacts Proposed Controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Rating Emissions Required? Category 5: Construction of Dust Air: windborne particulate Residential: Health and amenity: Dust will be managed via the requirements of the Minor Rare Low Risk pathway is low, detailed In-pit Waste waste fines (dust) emissions generated None, the nearest receptors Given the distance to the Works Approval, Part V Licence L4762/1972 and assessment is not required. Fines Storage storage facility during construction activities are the residents of the nearest receptor, impacts to standard operating procedures, including: However, further detail on Facility including clearing, windblown township of Tom Price, public health or amenity from - Clearing will be managed to ensure that areas are controls provided in Section 8.2 dust from cleared areas and located more than 7 km from nuisance dust are expected only cleared as required and rehabilitation of vehicle movements on the proposed SEP WFSF. to be limited. cleared areas is implemented as construction is unsealed surfaces. completed; and Terrestrial ecosystems: Declining health of vegetation - Dust suppression will be implemented (including Vegetation, including including reduced ability for use of water trucks, control of vehicle movements vegetation communities of photosynthesis due to dust / restricted speeds). elevated conservation deposition / smothering: significance within and Given that native vegetation Standard management procedures are expected to adjacent to the Premises. is expected to be reasonably effectively mitigate the risk of dust emissions during tolerant to dust deposition, construction. and as such, dust is expected to have a negligible impact on vegetation health. Terrestrial ecosystems: Dust may impact habitats Native fauna which represent shelter, foraging and dispersal habitats for native fauna: Given the distance from potential dust sources, dust is expected to have a negligible impact on native fauna. Noise Air: windborne noise Residential: Health and amenity: Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 Minor Rare Low Risk pathway is low, detailed emissions generated during None, the nearest receptors Given the distance to the and standard operating procedures are expected to assessment is not required. construction activities. are the residents of the nearest receptor, impacts to effectively mitigate the risk of noise during However, further detail on township of Tom Price, public health or amenity from construction. Specific controls are not proposed. controls provided in Section 8.3 located more than 7 km from noise are expected to be the proposed SEP WFSF. limited. Terrestrial ecosystems: Noise may disrupt nocturnal Nocturnal native fauna foraging behaviour: Noise is expected to be limited at night when nocturnal native fauna are expected to be foraging and as such, noise is expected to have a negligible impact on native fauna. Light Air: light spill generated Residential: Health and amenity: Standard operating procedures are expected to Minor Rare Low Risk pathway is low, detailed during construction activities. None, the nearest receptors Given the distance to the effectively mitigate the risk of light spill during assessment is not required. are the residents of the nearest receptor, impacts to construction. Specific controls are not proposed. However, further detail on township of Tom Price, public health or amenity from controls provided in Section 8.3 located more than 7 km from light spill are expected to be the proposed SEP WFSF. limited. Terrestrial ecosystems: Light may disrupt nocturnal Nocturnal native fauna foraging behaviour: Light spill is expected to be limited at night when nocturnal native fauna are expected to be foraging and as such, light is expected to have a negligible impact on native fauna. Potential Detailed Assessment Source Pathway Potential Receptors Potential Impacts Proposed Controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Rating Emissions Required? Category 5: Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbon spill causing Land Soil contamination. Hydrocarbons will be managed via relevant Minor Rare Low Risk pathway is low, detailed In-pit Waste soil contamination legislation (including Australian Standard AS 1940- assessment is not required.
35 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Potential Detailed Assessment Source Pathway Potential Receptors Potential Impacts Proposed Controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Rating Emissions Required? Fines Storage Construction of Seepage of hydrocarbon spill Groundwater of beneficial Groundwater contamination 2004: Storage and handling of flammable and However, further detail on Facility waste fines to groundwater causing use (livestock watering). (and declining health of any combustible liquids), the requirements of the Works controls provided in Section 8.5. storage facility contamination groundwater dependent Approval, Part V Licence L4762/1972 and standard vegetation): operating procedures, including: Terrestrial ecosystems - Fuel storage tanks will be designed and (vegetation communities Given the vertical distance to constructed to AS 1940-2004: The storage and dependant on groundwater): the groundwater, any hydrocarbon spills are not handling of flammable and combustible liquids; None, groundwater expected to seep to - Management structures (bunding / secondary dependent vegetation is not groundwater (or affect any containment) will be installed at all hydrocarbon represented however, some associated terrestrial storage and refuelling facilities to ensure any spills minor creeks, characterised ecosystems). are contained; and by the facultative phreatophyte, Eucalyptus - Spill response will be provided. victrix (community D5) are Standard hydrocarbon management procedures are considered locally significant. expected to effectively mitigate the risk of The nearest D5 community is hydrocarbon spills during construction more than 3 km from the proposed SEP WFSF. Migration of hydrocarbon spill Surface waters: Surface water contamination to surface water causing None, the nearest receptors (and declining health of any contamination are Turee Creek (more than riparian vegetation): 2 km from the proposed SEP Given the distance to the WFSF) and Bellary Creek nearest receptors, any (more than 6 km from the hydrocarbon spills are not proposed SEP WFSF). expected to migrate to surface waters (or affect any Terrestrial ecosystems associated terrestrial (riparian vegetation): ecosystems). None, ‘riparian Eucalypts along major creeks’ are not represented however, some minor creeks, characterised by the facultative phreatophyte, Eucalyptus victrix (community D5) are considered locally significant. The nearest D5 community is more than 3 km from the proposed SEP WFSF. Migration of hydrocarbon spill The Paraburdoo Water Drinking water supply to Public Drinking Water Reserve PDWSA intersects contamination: Source Area (PDWSA) the proposed SEP WFSF. The SEP pit represents no The SEP pit is hydraulically risk to the Paraburdoo Water isolated from the Paraburdoo Reserve PDWSA. Water Reserve PDWSA catchment. Wastes General wastes generated Residential: Health and amenity: General wastes will be managed via the Minor Rare Low Risk pathway is low, detailed during construction activities None, the nearest receptors Given the distance to the requirements of the Works Approval, Part V Licence assessment is not required. are the residents of the nearest receptor, impacts to L4762/1972 and standard operating procedures However, further detail on township of Tom Price, public health or amenity from including: controls provided in Section 8.6 located more than 7 km from general wastes are expected - Sufficient recycling and general waste collection the proposed SEP WFSF. to be limited. areas will be established and labelled with the relevant waste type to facilitate the management Terrestrial ecosystems: Local increase in feral fauna of waste; Native fauna. (scavengers attracted to putrescible wastes) could - Recyclable materials will be separated from other result in predation and waste and recycled wherever possible; and replacement of native fauna. - Non-recyclable materials will be disposed of at an approved landfill facility. Standard waste management procedures are expected to effectively mitigate the risk of general wastes during construction.
36 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Potential Detailed Assessment Source Pathway Potential Receptors Potential Impacts Proposed Controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Rating Emissions Required? Category 5: Operation of The detailed risk assessment for the operation of the in-pit waste fines storage facility is included within the Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document, attached as Table 6-4, Appendix A to this document In-pit Waste waste fines Fines Storage storage Facility facility
37 RTIO-HSE-0327096
8 Emissions, Management and Controls
The Licensee operates under an integrated Health, Safety, Environment and Communities and Social (HSEC) Management System which includes processes, procedures and plans that ensure environmental controls are developed for key environmental risks, legal compliance is maintained and continuous improvement is achieved through a formal review process.
Subject to approval, the construction, commissioning and operation of the proposed SEP WFSF will be in accordance with the requirements of the HSEC Management System, the Works Approval and Licence L4762/1972 (and any amendments, as required).
8.1 Groundwater Discharges
8.1.1 Description of risk event/s
During operation, waste fines are proposed to be deposited within the existing, exhausted SEP pit. The detailed risk assessment for the operation of the facility is included within the Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document, (Refer Appendix 1, Table 6-4) and summarised below. No contaminated discharges to the environment are expected during construction.
The results of the groundwater and water balance modelling indicate that a decant pond will form above the waste fines during deposition, with modelled pit lake water elevations of around 680 mRL predicted by the end of deposition (dependant on the decant rates during operation). After waste fines deposition, the water level declines to a modelled elevation of 676 mRL. Owing to evaporation rates exceeding rainfall in the Pilbara, excess water in the pit after waste fines deposition will eventually dry up. However, modelling suggests that rainfall will result in a small ephemeral pond forming in the SEP pit during the wet season(s) (pond depth is generally less than 1 m), however, this pond will evaporate during the subsequent dry season.
Treatment of water at the AWTP during operations results in generally neutral pH in the pit water body. Lower pH values are expected as a seasonal response to flushing of acidity from MCS exposures. After waste fines deposition, most of the MCS exposures are covered by the waste fines however, pH declines as residual alkalinity is consumed by AMD runoff from residual MCS exposures in the pit walls. As per the operations period, the modelling will be validated and updated once deposition commences and monitoring data becomes available and when conditions change.
Water quality modelling indicates that the quality of water in the SEP decant pond will generally be neutral to moderately alkaline (approximately pH 8) throughout deposition, provided the alkalinity of waste fines water at the Thickener Underflow is maintained at 180 mg/L as CaCO3. Alkaline conditions significantly reduce the solubility of metals (e.g. Zinc, lead and nickel). Therefore, the metal mass in the tailings-water system is overwhelmingly present in the solidphase, rather than in solution, and dissolved metal concentrations are low. However, some metals (e.g. Aluminium) and metalloids (e.g. Arsenic and selenium) are more soluble under alkaline conditions. The geochemical modelling considered this potential mobility in predicting likely pit water quality with the results shown in
38 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Figure 8-1,
Figure 8-2 and Table 8-1.
The modelled post-closure water qualities generally meet the DoH (2014) guidelines for non- potable use and ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality, with the exception of chlorine, sulphate and selenium concentrations. Modelled sulphate concentrations remain below guideline values during waste fines deposition, expected to be due to dilution from the tailings water however, concentrations are subject to seasonal variation due to sulphate flushed from MCS exposures during the wet season. Post-deposition, there is a steady increase in sulphate concentration above guideline values due to evaporative concentration in the low volume ephemeral pond. Other elements are expected to follow similar behaviour.
Water balance modelling indicates that the pit will act as a groundwater sink. The pre-mining groundwater level (674 mRL) is lower than the current groundwater elevation surrounding the pit (690 mRL). The modelled pond water level by the end of deposition (680 mRL) and after deposition (676 mRL) is expected to remain below the surrounding groundwater elevation. The pit is also surrounded by the confining MCS which significantly limits groundwater movement. As such, any seepage from the pit to surrounding aquifers is expected to be negligible.
Water elevation
Water Elevation WB-R1-02 Top of tailings 680
679
678
677
676
675 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048
Figure 8-1: Modelled water level of the SEP pit (KCB 2020) (end deposition simulated 31/12/2041)
pH
pH WQ-R1-02-02 Livestock Non-potable Start End 10deposition deposition 9 8 7 6 5 pH 4 3 2 1 0 2019 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098 2108 2118
Figure 8-2: Modelled pH of the SEP pit (KCB 2020) (end deposition simulated 31/12/2041)
39 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Table 8-1 Modelled groundwater quality during deposition and post deposition (KCB 2020)
ANZECC (2000) DoH (2014) Deposition Post-Deposition Parameter (mg/L) Livestock drinking Non-potable use (modelled median) (modelled median) water quality
pH - - 8.06 7.38
Alkalinity (HCO3) - - 50 10
Aluminium (Al) 5 0.2 2.25 0.02
Arsenic (As) 0.5 0.1 0.000004 0.0001
Boron (B) - 40 0.25 2.15
Barium (Ba) - 20 0.009 0.004
Calcium (Ca) - - 85 481
Cadmium (Cd) 0.01 0.02 0.000002 0.0001
Chlorine (Cl) - 250 205 609
Cobalt (Co) 1 - 0.005 0.127
Chromium (Cr) 1 - 0.001 0.004
Copper (Cu) 0.4 20 0.0001 0.0001
Fluorine (F) - 15 0.07 0.48
Iron (Fe) - 0.3 0.00005 0.0001
Potassium (K) - - 21 267
Magnesium (Mg) - - 111 760
Manganese (Mn) - 5 0.000001 0.00004
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.15 0.5 0.0007 0.07
Nitrogen (N) 400 500 0.00003 0.03
Sodium (Na) - - 158 477
Nickel (Ni) 1 0.2 0.002 0.05
Phosphorus (P) - - 0.001 0.004
Lead (Pb) 0.1 0.1 0.00000004 0.0000003
Sulphate (S) 1,000 1,000 705 4,699
Antimony (Sb) - - 0.0002 0.03
Selenium (Se) 0.02 0.1 0.01 0.29
Silicon (Si) - - 3.26 133
Strontium (Sr) - - 0.31 1.19
Uranium (U) - 0.17 0.001 0.04
Zinc (Zn) 20 3 0.001 0.01
Shaded exceeds DoH (2014) guidelines for non-potable use Bold exceeds ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality
40 RTIO-HSE-0327096
8.1.2 Proposed environmental controls
Proposed controls to manage discharges to the environment from the proposed deposition of waste fines within the existing, exhausted SEP pit are outlined within the Tom Price SEP in- pit TSF Part V Supporting Document, attached as Appendix 1 to this document.
In summary:
• Decant water will be recovered from the SEP pit at a rate of 45 L/s to 60 L/s during deposition;
• The AWTP will be operated to treat decant water from the SEP pit during deposition;
• Filling of waste fines to 670 mRL or higher to cover exposed potentially acid-forming lithologies (in the preferred scenario more than 85% of the hot Mount McRae Shale is covered by waste fines);
• Monitoring will be undertaken during and post-deposition to assess water quality, identify potential seepage, compare with baseline conditions, compare with model predictions and ensure that the proposed deposition of waste fines to the in-pit waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit does not result in significant decline in groundwater quality.
Appropriate design, management, inspection and preventative maintenance are expected to effectively mitigate the risk of discharges to the environment as a result of the proposed deposition of waste fines within the SEP WFSF.
8.1.3 Residual risk to environment
The residual risk of seepage to groundwater as a result of the deposition of waste fines to the in-pit waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit is considered low.
Subject to approval, the implementation of this proposal will result in an enhanced environmental outcomes (relative to other closure options):
• The SEP pit has 35 million m³ of storage capacity (sufficient to store expected waste fines for the life of the mine), reducing ex-pit storage requirements;
• Waste fines are expected to be deposited from 570 mRL (the base of the pit), rising 105 vertical metres to 675 mRL (final waste fines surface) by end of 2041, improving the geotechnical stability of the pit walls;
• The volume of waste fines currently expected to be deposited is not sufficient to cover all Mount McRae Shale exposures, however, significantly reducing the area of exposures will favourably modify pit water quality;
• Excess acid buffering capacity in the waste fines (added through the AWTP) will offset acidity from runoff, further improving pit water quality. Modelling suggests that pit water pH is expected to remain in the neutral range years after deposition, consumption of excess alkalinity results in a drop below pH 6.5 150 years after deposition;
• Groundwater quality generally meets the DoH (2014) guidelines for non-potable use and ANZECC (2000) guidelines for livestock drinking water quality.
41 RTIO-HSE-0327096
8.2 Dust Emissions
An increase in local dust emissions is expected from the proposed facility (including clearing, windblown dust from cleared areas and vehicle movements on unsealed surfaces).
Fine dust lift off from the waste fines surface in windy conditions is not expected to be significant. Little dust emanates from the existing TSF2A, given that the physical composition of the waste fines is not expected to change, the potential for windblown dust from the waste fines surface is also not expected to change. The waste fines surface elevation is also lower than the pit crest and as such, any windblown dust is expected to be retained within the pit.
Dust emissions have the potential to adversely affect public health and amenity at dust sensitive receptors however, the proposed facility is remote from communities and other dust sensitive receptors. The residents of the township of Tom Price are the nearest receptors, located more than 7 km from the proposed facility and as such, impacts from nuisance dust on the town residents are expected to be limited. The risk to public health and amenity is therefore considered low.
Dust emissions also have the potential to result in declining health of vegetation including reduced ability for photosynthesis due to dust deposition / smothering however, native vegetation is expected to be reasonably tolerant to dust deposition and as such, dust is expected to have a negligible impact on vegetation health.
Native fauna are also potentially sensitive receptors to dust however, dust is not expected to impact habitats which represent shelter, foraging and dispersal habitats for Threatened and Priority species given the relative distance from potential dust sources and as such, dust is expected to have a negligible impact on native fauna.
Rio Tinto has well established strategies for the management of dust at its Pilbara operations. Dust emissions will continue to be managed via the requirements of existing Licence L4762/1972 and standard operating procedures, including:
• Clearing will be managed to ensure that areas are only cleared as required and rehabilitation of cleared areas is implemented as construction is completed.
• Dust suppression will be implemented (including the use of water trucks, control of vehicle movements / restricted speeds). Appropriate design, management, inspection and maintenance of the proposed facility is expected to mitigate the risk of dust emissions.
8.3 Noise Emissions
An increase in local noise emissions is expected from the proposed facility, which has the potential to affect public health and amenity at noise sensitive receptors however, the proposed facility is remote from communities and other noise sensitive receptors. The residents of the township of Tom Price are the nearest receptors, located more than 7 km from the proposed facility and as such, potential impacts from noise on the town residents are expected to be limited. The risk to public health and amenity is therefore considered low.
42 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Native fauna are also potentially sensitive receptors to noise, noise from the proposed facility may disturb nocturnal foraging behaviour however, noise is expected to be limited at night when nocturnal native fauna are expected to be foraging. The risk to native fauna is therefore considered negligible.
Rio Tinto has well established strategies for the management of noise at its Pilbara operations to ensure noise levels are within acceptable criteria (‘assigned levels’ for occupied premises under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997) to protect the health and amenity of nearby premises. Specific controls are not proposed.
8.4 Light Emissions
Light spill from the proposed facility has the potential to affect public health and amenity however, the facility is remote from communities and other sensitive receptors. The residents of the township of Tom Price are the nearest receptors, located more than 7 km from the proposed facility and as such, potential impacts from light on the town residents are expected to be limited. The risk to public health and amenity is therefore considered low.
Nocturnal native fauna are also potentially sensitive receptors to light, light spill from the proposed facility may disturb nocturnal foraging behaviour (attracting invertebrates which are a food source for many species) however, light spill is expected to be limited at night when nocturnal native fauna are expected to be foraging. The risk to native fauna is therefore considered negligible.
Rio Tinto has well established strategies for the management of light at its Pilbara operations to protect the health and amenity of nearby premises. Specific controls are not proposed.
8.5 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon spills have the potential to cause soil contamination, seepage to groundwater or migration to surface waters however, spills are expected to be limited owing to the management of fuel storage facilities.
The nearest surface waters are Turee Creek, more than 2 km from the proposed facility, and Bellary Creek, more than 6 km from the proposed facility. Groundwater dependent vegetation is not represented however, some minor creeks, characterised by the facultative phreatophyte, Eucalyptus victrix (community D5) are considered locally significant. The nearest D5 community is more than 3 km from the proposed facility. Given the distance to the nearest receptors, any hydrocarbon spills are not expected to migrate to surface water or affect any associated terrestrial ecosystems. The risk to soil, groundwater and surface water (and any associated ecosystems) is therefore considered low.
Rio Tinto has well established strategies for the management of hydrocarbons at its Pilbara operations. Any hydrocarbons will continue to be managed via relevant legislation (including Australian Standard AS1940 - Storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids), the requirements of Licence L4762/1972 and standard operating procedures, including:
• Fuel storage tanks will be designed and constructed to AS 1940-2004: The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids;
43 RTIO-HSE-0327096
• Management structures (bunding / secondary containment) will be installed at all hydrocarbon storage and refuelling facilities to ensure any spills are contained;
• Regular inspection and preventative maintenance of hydrocarbon storage and refuelling facilities and management structures will be undertaken; and
• Spill response will be provided. Appropriate design, management (including provision of management structures / bunding to ensure any spills are contained and provision of spill response), inspection and maintenance are expected to effectively mitigate the risk of hydrocarbon spills.
8.6 Solid / Liquid Wastes
General wastes generated from the proposed facility are expected to be limited. General wastes, if inappropriately managed, have the potential increase windblown litter which has the potential to affect public health and amenity however, the proposed facility is remote from communities and other sensitive receptors. The residents of the township of Tom Price are the nearest receptors, located more than 7 km from the proposed facility and as such, potential impacts from general wastes on the town residents are expected to be limited. The risk to public health and amenity is therefore considered low.
Scavenging fauna are also potentially attracted to putrescible wastes. A local increase in feral fauna could result in predation and replacement of native fauna species. However, the risk to native fauna is considered negligible.
Rio Tinto has well established strategies for the management of general wastes at its Pilbara operations. Any general wastes generated during construction or operation of the proposed facility will be disposed of at an existing licenced landfill facility (if appropriate) in accordance with the existing requirements of Licence L4762/1972 and standard operating procedures including:
• Sufficient recycling and general waste collection areas will be established and labelled with the relevant waste type to facilitate the management of waste;
• Recyclable materials will be separated from other waste and recycled wherever possible; and
• Non-recyclable materials will be disposed of at a licenced landfill facility.
Appropriate design, management, inspection and maintenance of proposed facilities is expected to mitigate the risk of wastes during construction and operation.
8.7 Vegetation, Flora and Fauna
Three of the vegetation communities recorded in the Tom Price region represent communities considered to be of elevated local conservation significance, deemed to be ecosystems at risk (Kendrick 2003); ‘lower slope’ and ‘valley floor’ Mulga (represented by nine vegetation communities occurring on lower slopes and plains in the south of the region) and ‘riparian Eucalypts along major ephemeral creeks’ (not represented by any of the vegetation communities however, some minor creeks are characterised by the facultative phreatophyte,
44 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Eucalyptus victrix and are considered locally significant). Seventeen Priority flora species have also been recorded within the Tom Price region. The proposed SEP WFSF will be located within pre-disturbed areas. No clearing will be required. The nearest Eucalyptus victrix communities to the proposed WFSF have been recorded more than 3 km from the existing pit. The nearest Priority flora records to the proposed WFSF, Indigofera ixocarpa (P2), Sida sp. Barlee Range (P3), Eremophila magnifica subsp. magnifica (P4) and Lepidium catapycnon (P4) have been recorded more than 450 m from the existing pit. As such, the proposed facility is not expected to have any impact on any vegetation communities (including communities considered to be of elevated conservation significance), alter the conservation status or threaten the continued existence of any Priority flora species at a local or regional scale.
Two of the habitats recorded within the Tom Price region are considered to be of higher local conservation significance; ‘gullies’ and ‘minor creeks’. These habitats provide shelter, foraging and dispersal opportunities for Threatened and Priority species.
Two species of elevated conservation significance have also been recorded in the Tom Price region; calls of the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas, listed as ‘Vulnerable’) have been recorded in ‘gullies and steep slopes’ and secondary evidence of the Western Pebble-mound Mouse (Pseudomys chapmani, listed as Priority 4) have been recorded in ‘hill slopes’ and ‘low hills’. An opportunistic record of a Pilbara Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus barroni, listed as ‘Vulnerable’) has also been recorded in ‘gullies and steep rocky slopes’ habitat adjacent to Tom Price.
The proposed SEP WFSF will be located within pre-disturbed areas. No clearing will be required. The nearest Priority fauna records to the proposed WFSF, evidence of the Western Pebble-mound Mouse (P4) have been recorded in ‘low hills’ habitat, located more than 3.2 km from the existing pit. As such, the proposed facility is not expected to have any impact on any habitats (including habitats considered to be of elevated conservation significance), alter the conservation status or threaten the continued existence of any Priority fauna species at a local or regional scale.
9 Rehabilitation and Closure
Closure plans document the most up to date closure knowledge base for the operation, outline the objectives that need to be met upon closure, set out the strategies to achieve the closure objectives and the criteria that will be used to assess the success of closure.
The Tom Price Closure Plan was last updated in March 2019. This closure plan followed the format and content requirements for mine closure plans as recommended in the DMIRS (formerly the Department of mines and Petroleum (DMP)) / EPA Guidelines for preparing mine closure plans (2015). The Closure Plan will continue to be refined as the site approaches closure to ensure that the objectives to which it is working towards remain relevant and aligned to stakeholder expectations, and to revise its strategies and plans where appropriate to achieve improved closure outcomes.
Closure of the SEP WFSF has been included in the Tom Price Closure Plan to ensure that, on completion of the required operations, the following closure objectives are met:
45 RTIO-HSE-0327096
• Final landform is stable and considers ecological and hydrological factors;
• Public safety hazards have been managed;
• Contamination risks are compatible with the post-mining land use/s; and • Infrastructure has been appropriately managed.
46 RTIO-HSE-0327096
10 Summary of Controls
A summary of the controls discussed in sections 7 and 8 above is provided in Table 10-1 Table 10-1 Summary of controls
Key Emissions Potential Impacts Proposed Project Specific Controls Section
Groundwater Seepage as a result of the deposition of waste fines to the in-pit Decant water will be recovered from the pit during deposition; 6.4 waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit impacting Discharges The Acid Water Treatment Plant will be operated to treat decant water from the SEP pit surrounding local and regional groundwater quality. during deposition; Filling of waste fines to 670 mRL or higher will significantly reduce the area of exposed potentially acid-generating lithologies; and Monitoring will be undertaken during and post-deposition to assess water quality, identify potential seepage, compare with baseline conditions, compare with model predictions and ensure that the proposed deposition of waste fines to the in-pit waste fines storage facility within the SEP pit does not result in significant decline in groundwater quality.
Other potential impacts and proposed environmental controls are included within the Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document, attached as Appendix 1 to this document
Dust An increase in local dust emissions is expected from clearing, Clearing will be managed to ensure that areas are only cleared as required and 6.1 windblown dust from cleared areas and vehicle movements on rehabilitation of cleared areas is implemented as construction is completed; and unsealed surfaces. Dust suppression will be implemented (including the use of water trucks, control of Dust emissions have the potential to adversely affect public vehicle movements / restricted speeds). health and amenity at dust sensitive receptors.
Dust emissions have the potential to result in declining health of vegetation including reduced ability for photosynthesis due to dust deposition / smothering.
Dust emissions have the potential to impact habitats which represent shelter, foraging and dispersal habitats for native fauna.
Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbon spills have the potential to cause soil Hydrocarbons will be managed as required by Australian Standard AS1940 - Storage 6.5 contamination, seepage to groundwater or migration to surface and handling of flammable and combustible liquids;
waters. Management structures (bunding / secondary containment) will be installed at all hydrocarbon storage and refuelling facilities to ensure any spills are contained; Regular inspection and preventative maintenance of hydrocarbon storage and refuelling facilities and management structures will be undertaken; and Spill response will be provided.
47 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Key Emissions Potential Impacts Proposed Project Specific Controls Section
Wastes General wastes, if inappropriately managed, have the potential Sufficient recycling and general waste collection areas will be established and labelled 6.6 increase windblown litter which has the potential to affect public with the relevant waste type to facilitate the management of waste; health and amenity Recyclable materials will be separated from other waste and recycled wherever possible; and Scavenging fauna are potentially attracted to putrescible wastes. A local increase in feral fauna could result in predation and Non-recyclable materials will be disposed of at a licenced landfill facility. replacement of native fauna.
48 RTIO-HSE-0327096
11 Project Costs
The following information has been provided to support the works approval fee calculation: • The total cost of construction of the pipework and associated infrastructure is $21 Million. • Category – Processing or beneficiation of metallic or non-metallic ore (5) – More than 500 000 but not more than 5 000 000 tonnes per year. • Total construction costs – More than $20 000 000 but not more than $21 000 000 • Works Approval Fee $24 563.00
49 RTIO-HSE-0327096
References
ANCOLD, 2012. Guidelines on Tailings Dams: Planning, Design, Construction, Operation and Closure, Australian National Committee on Large Dams, May 2012.
ANZECC 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Volume 1. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. October 2000.
Aquaterra, 2001, Central Pilbara Groundwater Study: for Water and Rivers Commission (unpublished)
Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy, 2017. Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA), Version 7. http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/ibra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016. http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/ UCL515031
Beard, J.S., 1975a. Pilbara Explanatory Notes and Map Sheet, 1:1,000,000 Series, Vegetation Survey of Western Australia, University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands.
Beard, J.S., 1975b. Vegetation Survey of Western Australia, 1:100,000 Vegetation Series Mapsheet 5 – Pilbara.
Beard, J.S., 1990. Plant Life of Western Australia, Kangaroo Press
Bettenay, E., Churchward, H.M. and McArthur, W.M. 1966. Atlas of Australian soils. Sheet 6, Meekatharra, Hamersley Range area, Scale 1:2 000 000. CSIRO Publishing.
Biota Environmental Sciences (Biota), 2007. Tom Price Airport Desktop Review and SRE Fauna Survey, unpublished report prepared for Pilbara Iron, November 2007.
Department of Health (DoH) 2014. Contaminated Sites Ground and Surface Water Chemical Screening Guidelines. Western Australia Department of Health
Environmental Geochemistry International (EGi) 2001. Geochemical Assessment of Tom Price Mine Rock (Memorandum).
Environmental Geochemistry International (EGi) 2006. Mount Tom Price Operations, WA. Leach Column Testing of Mt McRae Shale Final Report, Report No. 3805/668, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, August 2006.
Environmental Geochemistry International (EGi) 2012. Tom Price South East Prongs (SEP) Geochemical and Column Leach Testing of Mount McRae Shale 12-Month Report, Report No. 3805/988, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, February 2012.
50 RTIO-HSE-0327096
ENV Australia (2013). Tom Price Life of Mine Flora, Vegetation and Fauna Assessment, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, January 2013.
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) 2016. Tom Price AMD Review and Hydrogeological Risk Assessment Bridging Report, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, April 2016.
GHD 2016. Feasibility Study Report for the Tom Price SEP Tailings, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, October 2016.
Keith Lindbeck and Associates (KLA), 2007. Vegetation Survey and Land Clearing Information for Proposed Mining Areas – East, West and Central Pits – Tom Price Minesite, unpublished report prepared for Pilbara Iron, July 2007.
Kendrick, P., 2003, Pilbara 3 (PIL3 – Hamersley Subregion) in J. E. May and N. L. McKenzie, editors. A Biodiversity Ausit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Subregions. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.
Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) 2019a. Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Design Report RevE, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, September 2019.
Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) 2019b. Water Simulation Modelling Report t RevB, unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, November 2019.
Klohn Crippen Berger (KCB) 2020. Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document, RevC unpublished report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, Rev 4, January 2020.
Rio Tinto 2014. Tom Price AMD Risk Assessment, Report 11124–13 ver 1.0, unpublished report prepared by Rio Tinto Iron Ore, February 2014
Rio Tinto Rare and Priority Flora Database. Internal database and GIS system maintained by internal botanists for all recorded locations of rare and priority flora species found during vegetation surveys.
Van Vreeswyk A.M.E., Payne A.L., Leighton K.A. and Hennig P. (2004). An inventory and condition survey of the Pilbara region, Western Australia. Technical Bulletin 92, December 2004. Department of Agriculture, South Perth, Western Australia.
51 RTIO-HSE-0327096
Appendices
Appendix A: Tom Price SEP in-pit TSF Part V Supporting Document (KCB 2020)
52