Environment Protection Act 1970 Second Information … · 4.1 Understanding the Baseline Environment 10 ... a Notice to Supply Further Information under section 22 of the Environment

Produced for Environment Protection Authority Victoria

Wednesday 6 April 2016 Balmoral Hall

Environment Protection Act 1970 Second Information Session

Application WA1001971 for the Douglas Mine

Applicant: Iluka Resources Limited

Limitations of Use

This report has been prepared as a summary of information tabled and questions asked at the Second Information Session held on 6 April 2016, as part of EPA Victoria’s assessment of Works Approval Application WA 1001971.

Whilst considerable effort has been made to ensure that the report accurately reflects the discussions held at the session, no responsibility or liability can be taken for errors or omissions, or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

Jennifer Lilburn Director Kismet Forward Session Facilitator and report author (with Angela Hawdon) 12 April 2016

Acronyms used in this document

ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

Code NSDRW Near Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste as in ARPANSA technical report 141 ‘Scientific Basis for the Near Surface Disposal of Bulk Radioactive Wastes’ (2005)

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

EES Environmental Earth Scientists (consultants)

EPA Environment Protection Authority Victoria

ERR Earth Resources Regulation, part of the Department of Economic Development, Transport, Jobs and the Resources

IAEA codes International Atomic Energy Association codes

Iluka Iluka Resources Ltd

KLG Kanagulk Landcare Group

MSP [Hamilton] Mineral Separation Plant

The photo on the front cover shows Richard Hook presenting at the Second Information Session.

3 Iluka Resources Application for Douglas Mine Site Second Information Session Kismet Forward April 2016

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and background ......................................................................................... 4

1.1 Summary of the Application 4

1.2 Purpose of the Second Information Session 4

1.3 Attendees 5

1.4 Information Session Format 5

2. Works Approval and Planning Permit Application Update ............................................ 7

2.1 EPA Works Approval Update 7

2.2 Planning Permit Application Update 7

2.3 Independent Desktop Review Update 8

3. Section 22 & Amended Section 22 Request for Further Information – Presentation 1 9

4. Further Information Submission Iluka – Pres 2 ............................................................ 10

4.1 Understanding the Baseline Environment 10

4.2 Defining the Potential Impact 11

4.3 Demonstrating Environmental Best Practice 12

5. Thematic panel discussion ............................................................................................ 14

5.1 Understanding the Baseline Environment 14

5.2 Defining the potential impact: 17

5.3 Demonstrating environmental best practice 19

5.4 Additional questions 20

5.5 Next Steps 22

Appendix A Session Agenda ................................................................................................ 24


1. Introduction and background

1.1 Summary of the Application

Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) received a Works Approval application from Iluka Resources Ltd on 23 June 2015. Iluka proposes to dispose an estimated 2,200,000 tonnes of waste by-products in Pit 23 of its Douglas Mine site over the next 15 to 20 years.

The waste will be predominantly by-products and used filter bags from its Hamilton Mineral Separation Plant (MSP) as well as concrete and steel from other Victorian Iluka mine sites (which have ceased or are in the process of ceasing mining operations), that is contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM). The waste by-products, including NORM wastes, would be covered with a 5m thick cap (clean fill). Radioactive waste is regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under a Radiation Management Licence1.

The Works Approval application coincided with a planning permit application to Horsham Rural City Council (HRCC). The applications were jointly advertised in the Herald Sun, Wimmera Mail Times and Hamilton Spectator newspapers on Wednesday, 8 July 2015. An information session was held on 23 July 2015, providing opportunities for community discussion with representatives from EPA, HRCC, DHHS, Earth Resources Regulation (ERR) and Iluka.

Twenty-four submissions were received during the consultation period (8 to EPA and 16 to HRCC). These submissions formed the basis for discussion at the Section 20B conference in August 2015, which was summarised in the 20B Conference Report.

Following the section 20B Conference the EPA assessed the information provided to date, including consultations, formal submissions and the 20B conference report and issued Iluka a Notice to Supply Further Information under section 22 of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (the ‘Act’).

1.2 Purpose of the Second Information Session

The second Information Session ran over 3 hours on Wednesday 6 April 2016 in the Balmoral Hall. The purpose of the information session was to present the further information provided by Iluka Resources regarding the works approval and planning permit applications. The session enabled:

EPA to present a summary update on the works approval application and assessment process including the requirement for additional information;

HRCC to provide a short update on the planning permit application;

1 http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-approvals/public-participation/featured-

applications/iluka-douglas-mine-site


EPA to introduce to the community the Independent Desktop Reviewers advising EPA and HRCC;

Iluka to explain the information provided in response to the Notice to Supply Further Information

The community to ask questions relevant to the further information supplied by Iluka.

Chaired by independent facilitator Jen Lilburn, the key output of the Information session is this report summarising discussions that took place.

1.3 Attendees

The conference was advertised on the EPA website and invitations were sent to all people who had lodged a submission to either EPA or HRCC, attended the Joint Information Session on the Iluka proposals and application process on 23 July and/or attended the section 20B Conference on 25 August.

The Information session was attended by approximately 44 people (excluding EPA staff and the facilitator) comprising:

17 Community members

11 Council representatives

6 DEDJTR and DHHS representatives

4 Iluka Resources representatives

4 Consultants

1 Journalist

1.4 Information Session Format

The conference was opened by Jen Lilburn who ran through the format for the meeting. A copy of the agenda is provided in Appendix A.

An addition to the formal agenda, Danny Suster (Earth Resources Policy and Program Manager) took the opportunity to update the local community on the Mining Warden’s response to the Minister’s question regarding the KLG request for an inquiry.

The formal agenda began when Tim Faragher (EPA) briefly outlined the Works approval process and Adam Moar (HRCC) outlined the Council planning permit process.

The appointment and selection of the Independent Desktop Reviewers was introduced by Tim Faragher, before Phil Mulvey of Environmental Earth Sciences (the Independent Desktop Reviewers) outlined his and his organisation’s relevant expertise and experience, and their objectives.

This was followed by Richard Hook describing the EPA’s Notice to Supply Further Information.


A presentation was delivered by Iluka on the information provided in response to the Notice to Supply Further Information. Community participants were encouraged to write questions arising during the presentations.

Following a meal break a panel was convened to answer the questions that had been submitted. This was undertaken in three sessions based on the themes of Baseline Environment; Defining the Potential Impacts and Demonstrating Environmental Best Practice.

Prior to concluding the session, participants were given a final opportunity to raise questions and to evaluate the session. Richard Hook explained the process ahead and Tim Faragher invited further submission to the process and then brought it to a close.


2. Works Approval and Planning Permit Application Update

2.1 EPA Works Approval Update

Tim Faragher from EPA’s Development Assessment Unit addressed the audience on the formal process flow for a Works Approval and where this session fits in the process2.

The initial Iluka application was received by EPA in July 2015 and is available on the EPA website3. An information session was held in July 2015 and a section 20B Conference was convened in August 2015; a conference report is published on the EPA website4. After assessing the submissions and the 20B Conference report, EPA issued a Notice to Supply Further information under section 22 of the Act.

Some information was received from Iluka and the EPA amended for the Notice to Supply Further Information and received all the required information a week prior to this information session. This additional information is now open for further consultation for 21 days, closing 13 April.

2.2 Planning Permit Application Update

Adam Moar of HRCC provided a brief update on the planning permit process. The determination of the planning permit will be made by HRCC. Council has received funding from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to assist the planning assessment and the Council has appointed AECOM (external consultant) to undertake the assessment that will form part of the recommendations to the Council. Council will also take into consideration the information provided in the application, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Planning Scheme, the submissions received, comments from referral authorities and the independent desk top review. The report is expected to be with Council for determination in early June 2016.

Question from community participant: The timing for the consultation on the further information is 21 days, closing on 13 April. It does not take Easter or school holidays into consideration and is too short given that large amount of information provided. Can the consultation time be extended?

Tim Faragher (EPA): While it is understood that 21 days is not a long time, it is the provision allowed in the Act and there is no room for extension.

2 See http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-approvals/public-participation/featured-applications/iluka-

douglas-mine-site/~/media/218052C897DF4A12BD59816B63B7FFD0.pdf 3 http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-approvals/public-participation/featured-applications/iluka-douglas-

mine-site 4 http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-approvals/public-participation/featured-applications/iluka-douglas-

mine-site/~/media/AB7CD3876A7B424C89E4A341DC5F5C1C.pdf


Adam Maar (HRCC): Council can take submissions right up until the decision but has used the 13 April date to focus their assessment and write up by their external consultant. This assessment is restricted to the planning scheme issues only.

2.3 Independent Desktop Review Update

Tim Faragher (EPA) explained that due to the high level of interest in the project and the inherent complexity of the issues, the EPA and Council commissioned independent expert advice. Following a selection process the consulting firm Environmental Earth Sciences (EES) was appointed as the Independent Desktop Reviewer for the project. The desk top review is designed to assist EPA assess the application, particularly regarding issues associated with hydrological modelling. The findings of the review will be considered in both the EPA’s works approval process and the HRCC’s Planning Permit process. The report prepared by EES will be included as an appendix in the EPA Works Approval Assessment report and will be publicly available.

Tim Faragher introduced Phil Mulvey from Enviromental Earth Sciences.

Phil Mulvey detailed his background with a Bachelor of Agricultural Science with a Major in Soil Science and a Masters in Hydrogeology. His colleague Mark Stuckey has the same qualifications. Environmental Earth Sciences has worked in soil science and its interaction with ground water throughout Australia with both applicants and objectors. Phil detailed his experience working in mine waste and low level radioactive waste projects as an independent assessor. In undertaking the review Phil and Mark visited the site and inspected the bores.


3. Section 22 & Amended Section 22 Notice to Supply Further Information – Presentation 1

Richard Hook (EPA) briefly explained the process since the section 20B Conference. The EPA received the section 20B Conference report in September 2015, which included recommendations and concerns raised by the community. This together with information from other stakeholders such as Department of Health and Human Services, Catchment Management Authorities, advice from the Independent Desktop Reviewer [EES] and other EPA specialists was consolidated and formed the basis for the information requirement known as a section 22 notice5 issued to Iluka in September 2015. The purpose of this was to enable EPA to make a robust and transparent decision on the application.

Iluka and EPA had a number of further discussions to clarify what information was required and following this an amended Notice to Supply Further Information was issued on 11 February 2016. EPA subsequently received the information required from Iluka.

In the disseminated information the details of the Notice to Supply Further Information and the ‘Iluka information provided’ has been set out side by side to allow for transparency. They have been categorised into three themes:

Understanding the baseline environment

Defining potential impact and

Demonstrating environmental best practice

In some cases the information required by the September section 22 Notice was withdrawn and an Amended section 22 Notice issued in the February, taking account of information that had been provided and the results of technical discussions between Iluka, EPA and Environmental Earth Sciences which identified alternative solutions to providing the further information or address the concerns of EPA and Environmental Earth Sciences . For example, EPA initially requested further ground water bores be installed to demonstrate that the groundwater will not migrate from Pit 23 to Glenelg River. This was subsequently amended to request provision of the purpose and objectives of a groundwater monitoring and management plan to confirm the accuracy of the modelling and provide an early warning system of any future issues which will address the concerns.

Question: If you are going to do monitoring after approval, if there is a problem occurring how are you going to respond once you’ve dumped the waste?

Response Phil Mulvey: We have strong surety over ground water flow direction, and there are contingency plans if the mine monitoring shows a difference from the conceptual model – i.e. if the flow is faster or changes direction, there are plans in place to address those issues. At this point in time we have high degree of confidence that the information we have is satisfactory to understand the ground water system. The bores required will confirm our understanding.

5 http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-approvals/public-participation/featured-applications/iluka-douglas-

mine-site/~/media/E288330AF2CE4F88B4886ED58586C585.pdf


Question: This still raises concerns as in 2008 ground water modelling undertaken by SKM re freshwater dam and tailings storage facility estimated particular flows that were exceeded and yet nothing further was done. It must have escaped from the mine, nothing was done and now the result is increased pH in the freshwater dam.

Response (Phil Mulvey): pH is not a sensitive parameter as it is a reflection of the storage substrate not pollution alone. The pH will be easily neutralised as it moves through the soil. The issue of the increase in flow and the ground water mound that developed quicker than predicted is an issue and we have asked for further information on the models to clarify these issues.

4. Further Information Submission Iluka – Pres 2

Colin Burns (Project Manager Iluka) ran through the information provided to the section 22 notices. Further detail is provided in Iluka’s presentation (see http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-approvals/public-participation/featured-applications/iluka-douglas-mine-site#Info).

4.1 Understanding the Baseline Environment

1) EPA required digital copies of all data and all reports. This has been provided.

2) Groundwater baseline –EPA required an audit of bores. This was undertaken and they were found to be in adequate condition.

3) An additional round of bore monitoring was required. This was undertaken (34 bores plus three new bores at White Lake) with a full suite of chemistry data. Jacobs (consultants) assessed the data. They concluded that there was no difference in predicted flow paths from Pit 23, the results were sufficient to be used as a baseline and the ground water chemistry at Pit 23 is not markedly different from anywhere else on the site. So with this information we now have an adequate groundwater baseline.

4) EPA required validation of monitoring groundwater flow path with more bores to confirm the model. The suggestion was that groundwater may reach the Glenelg River. A study was undertaken of required groundwater levels to cause a flow to the river. This together with the verification of the previous the data have improved our confidence in “no flow prediction” to the Glenelg River.

5) EPA required information on the hydrogeological model parameters and suggested that a pumping test should confirm the model parameters. The consultants reviewed the original methods to determine the parameter values and the feasibility of a pumping test. The consultants found the original methods plus the 12 years of data to refine the parameters was a better method than a pumping test. In addition, the aquifer characteristics are unfavourable for a pumping test and it would not improve the confidence of the model as it is located at one site only.

6) Requirement for a geomorphological assessment to test validity of the erosion rates estimated in the radiological study. Iluka commissioned the geomorphological study which identified the area as a depositional zones, tested the top soil and sub soil characteristics and included land evolution modelling. It concluded that the erosion rate


would be 0.024 mm per year compared to the modelled rate of 0.5 mm per year. Hence the original was conservative.

7) EPA sought a review of the hydrogeological flow model, but given the new information collected and the verification of the existing model it was deemed unnecessary to review the model.

4.2 Defining the Potential Impact

1) EPA required further information on uncertainties in solute transport modelling parameters and long term impacts. Iluka investigated sensitivity of solute transport modelling to parameter values and the long term solute transport model was developed. It was realised that the information gap was the lack of a quantitative estimate of impacts on groundwater quality, so further work was completed on:

a) Development of an in-pit dissolution model.

b) Leach testing to provide major ion solubility for input to in-pit dissolution model.

c) Solute transport modelling using output from in-pit dissolution model as source concentration.

2) EPA wanted quantitative prediction of impact on groundwater quality. Conclusions from the Solute Transport Modelling predicts minimal impact on groundwater quality due to

a) U-238 is the only radionuclide predicted to reach White Lake and the activity concentration at discharge to White Lake will be less than 0.001 Bq/L.

b) Salinity at White Lake will not be affected.

c) Increases in radionuclide activity concentrations beyond the SEPP limit are restricted to the site.

d) TDS concentrations in groundwater will increase but not to an extent that will affect the beneficial uses of the groundwater.

Confidence in the prediction of minimal impact on groundwater quality increased

3) Outline of the Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan was required. Description of the proposed Groundwater Monitoring and Management Program was provided including policy, philosophy and objectives; bores included, measurement/sampling frequency, measurements and analyses suites; framework for assessment and action; hydrogeological model upgrades and use of model to anticipate impacts; data management and reporting; and annual program review. The proposed program will provide the protection required.

4) Request for principles of proposed Surface Water Management Plan. Description of the proposed Surface Water Management Program was provided including: objectives and goals; responsibilities; management facilities and system; monitoring program; trigger points; water balance modelling; reporting and feedback; and plan review. Plan implementation will provide protection of surface waters.

5) Requirement for principles and outline of decommissioning plan. Description of the proposed decommissioning/rehabilitation plan provided largely as per the applications but with the following additions: more detailed plan and cross-sections of final landform; landform stability – geomorphological assessment; species list from EVC


benchmark; links to surface water and groundwater management including monitoring; frequency of vegetation and landscape function analysis; radiation monitoring; stakeholder consultation; and review of plan. Plan implementation will enable desired end use.

6) Requirement to establish Decommissioning/Rehabilitation Standards; suggestion that Leading Practice Handbooks may be relevant. Leading Practice Handbooks were reviewed to identify standards. Reviews show: The Leading Practice Handbooks include an inherent recognition of the need to develop site specific standards; contain information on a range of techniques without specification of circumstances in which particular techniques should be applied; The proposal applies the principles described in the handbooks. Proposal for site specific standards established by regulatory authorities (as is the case under MRSDA) is appropriate.

4.3 Demonstrating Environmental Best Practice

1) Requirement to establish Best Practice from ARPANSA Codes of Practice, Leading Practice Handbooks or EPA Policy and Guidelines. Reviews of ARPANSA Codes of Practice, Leading Practice Handbooks and EPA Policy and Guidelines to identify standards completed. Reviews show:

ARPANSA “Mining Code” is the only relevant code and proposal must be compliant with that code;

the Leading Practice Handbooks provide information on a range of techniques without specification of circumstances in which particular techniques should be applied; and

EPA Policy and Guidelines relate to different circumstance due to characteristics of by-products.

Concluded that mineral sands industry best practice is not described in the codes, handbooks, policy or guidelines

2) Requirement to compare proposal with practice in minerals sands industry to determine if proposal is Best Practice. TZ Minerals International Pty Ltd (TZMI) was commissioned to provide a review of current Best Practice in the mineral sands industry worldwide and assess the proposal against that practice. TZMI provided a review of practices at numerous operations and found that:

Best Practice is situational rather than universal;

the operations reviewed are representative of Best Practice in their specific environments; and

the by-product disposal methodology proposed meets the criteria for mineral sands industry Best Practice.

Concluded that the methods for by-product disposal proposed are mineral sands industry best practice

3) Requirement to demonstrate that proposed containment measures are appropriate. Review of potential discharges shows seepage to groundwater is the only discharge that could require additional containment measures. Possible additional containment


measures identified to include reduction in infiltration by capping and reduction in seepage by lining of the pit. Comparison made between predicted affect on groundwater of proposal with that with additional containment measures. Results of comparison show: limiting infiltration rate (capping) or a liner without leachate recovery would not reduce the effect on groundwater; limiting infiltration rate and installing a liner with leachate recovery would decrease the effect on groundwater but would not reduce the impact on its beneficial uses; and the benefit gained by capping and a liner is small and would not justify the additional cost.

Concluded that proposed containment measures are appropriate.

4) Request for site selection option study referred to in applications. Report on Options Study comparing Pit 23 at Douglas with existing licensed facility, Echo mine void, new facility and operating mines provided. Results of Option Study show: there is no alternative existing facility licensed to accept by-products; the Echo mine void has insufficient capacity; Pit 23 at Douglas is the best option from an environmental viewpoint.

5) Request for assessment of the risk of unacceptable increased in off-site impacts. Review of potential off-site impacts provided. Review shows risks of unacceptable increases in off-site impacts on the following are negligible: air quality; acoustic environment; surface water; groundwater; and human health due to radiation.

6) Demonstrate that final cap design is appropriate including measures to reduce infiltration, prevent vertical fissures and cracks, minimise alpha and gamma radiation, minimise erosion and ensure stability of final landform. Detailed plan and cross-section of final landform provided. Explanation that reduction in infiltration not required in the short term and provided by vegetation in the longer term; and risks from fissures/cracks, alpha and gamma radiation are negligible. Reference to erosion minimisation measures detailed in the applications and prediction from landform evolution modelling of low erosion rate. Explanation that landform stability is not threatened by tree roots and plan to minimise risk of gully erosion by final shaping of landform based on results of additional landform evolution modelling.

Concluded that final landform and capping proposed are appropriate


5. Thematic panel discussion

The Panel introduced themselves to the audience:

Tim Faragher, Manager Development Assessments (EPA Victoria)

Colin Burns, Project Manager (Iluka Resources)

Greg Hoxley, Principal Hydrogeologist (Jacobs)

Richard Hook, Project Manager Development Assessments, leading the assessment of the Works Approval application (EPA Victoria)

Phil Mulvey, Senior Principal Soil Groundwater Waste (Environmental Earth Sciences)

Marcus Little, Principal Environmental Specialist and Radiation Safety Officer (Iluka Resources)

Hamish Little, Rehabilitation Operations Manager (Iluka Resources)

Questions submitted by participants were sorted and answered under the three categories set out in the EPA’s request for further information, with additional questions raised that did not relate to the further information considered as ‘Other’. Responses are summarised and (where possible) attributed to the relevant panel member.

5.1 Understanding the Baseline Environment

1. Given that Pit 23 does not hold water, how many bores would need to be drilled surrounding the pit and what type of monitoring regime would the EPA be happy with?

Phil Mulvey: I can’t say what will make the EPA happy. The base of the pit determines its permeability. How quickly the water drains from the pit depends on how quickly the water in front of it gets away. For example, in 2012 when the water table rose due to good rains, even though there was permeable material there was still water ponding on the beach sands or in Pit 23. If you have a lowerinfiltration rate than precipitation or if you have the water table expressing itself at the surface, then you will have water ponding. Pit 23 sits on permeable material but not excessively and it has absorption capacity for a number of contaminants but it will appear to have water free draining from it most of the time.

The number of bores required is to achieve two things: to demonstrate that the conceptual model is valid; and to demonstrate that the null hypothesis is not occurring.

Richard Hook: We can’t give a definitive answer at this time but if the proposal goes ahead, the Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan and further discussions will determine the appropriate number to ensure detection of contaminants.

2. There would have been no leaching from the Pit for the last 2 years at least, as we have not had any run off at all in that time and yet in 2010-11 when Pit 19 overflowed (and Iluka was unable to contain the overflow) the water from Pit 23 disappeared without any need for pumping. If the water from Pit 23 will take 500 to 1000 years to reach White


Lake it should take a long, long time to drain out of the pit. I fail to see any convincing evidence that anybody knows where the water from Pit 23 actually disappears to.

Phil Mulvey: I can understand community concern that the data set from 2001 was a limited number of bores. The data sample of 2014 was a more comprehensive data set. Those bores together with the 2001 bores were recently sampled both for standing water and water chemistry which gave a far better understanding than what we have ever had. It confirms the mine’s hydrological model and that their model holds up.

The second thing is the rate at which the water gets away. This is controlled by the permeability of the underlying, semi-confined aquifer that results in the water getting away. The water might appear to be getting away by draining from the pit but this is not the point of control.

Greg Hoxley: Supplementary information now provides information on groundwater levels and ground water chemistry in a more comprehensive way that had never been done before. I refer people to this data set that tells as a lot about how the system is operating.

Now we have looked at all the data and done the analysis we don’t see an impact a long way from the pit. Based on the information we have, the groundwater is behaving as we expect it to and the further data we have collected confirms this.

3. Audit showed sufficient number of bores. This has been carried out in one of the driest periods on record – does this affect results?

Phil Mulvey: We haven’t resolved the number of bores that will be in place but we have sufficient surety in the data collected to confirm the model and we expect that additional bores will further confirm this in the areas that have a little uncertainty.

Greg Hoxley: The model covers a range of rainfall events and periods and the measurements aren’t all in a low rainfall period. We are comfortable that we have a good understanding of this.

4. Groundwater characteristics before Pit 23 was used as a waste pit i.e. prior to 2010. Water quality after this decision is made mid 2016 i.e. 4 years later, meanwhile the water characteristics have changed and are not baseline conditions. Will these changes be allowed?

Greg Hoxley: This is directly addressed by the ground water chemistry baseline report in the additional information. We were looking for any difference in the bores in the immediate vicinity of Pit 23 compared to other bores in similar situations away from Pit 23. We cannot see a significant difference between these bores and other bores that we expect are not affected. This is consistent with the modelling that said even if there is an effect we would not expect it to have reached those bores yet. So our view is that those bores are not impacted by the activities in the pit yet and so represent the baseline conditions at those sites. The future monitoring will be determining if it stays that way.

Phil Mulvey: There are some bores that are showing changes, not from Pit 23, but there are changes at Pit 22 and Pit 19; showing changes from other areas. This should give some comfort that we are able to detect changes. The bores at Pit 23 are monitoring three different ground water regimes, so there are high variabilities in salinity because they are


measuring water from a different geology that is naturally saline. Please be aware of this if you are looking at the data. We have crossed checked this with the geology and with the region to show this is not regionally significant.

5. Model for groundwater flows is average for the mine site. There is variation of a factor of 10 groundwater flows to the west/northwest of Pit 23 has not been tested. What is the chance that it is 10-100 times different to the model?

Greg Hoxley: Modelling enables us to look at changes if the parameter values were changed. The key thing here is hydraulic conductivity: the rate that water will move through the sediments. Part of the sensitivity testing asked what if this was higher or lower than the current parameter and how would the resulting water levels that the model predicts compare to what we see in the field. When changed by this value by a significant amount we are unable to match the groundwater heads in the model to the ones we observe to the same degree that we do when we have the calibrated value (ie the final value). The calibration process in the model gives some confidence that we have the appropriate parameter values for that ground.

Phil Mulvey: We agree in principle. Fortunately, the area between Pit 23, White Lake and the Glenelg River comes up very well on the model with standing water levels with what would be reasonably predicted permeability levels. To get the standing water levels in some of the peripheral areas in the model would require permeability to be two orders of magnitude higher than it is in the centre. Hence we recommend it should be continuously calibrated for the outer areas. But in the centre, which is the area of concern, we agree there is a good match.

What software do you use for the model?

Greg Hoxley: ModFlow

6. How now when you have been asked for further new testing and different tests than done before and revised modelling can you compare to what has not been done in past where can a comparison be done?

Greg Hoxley: The initial submission used professional specialist opinion based on the information we had to describe the system we had been studying. The further information process asked us to document our thinking and to further document and measure the system and the result is that this has confirmed our original understanding.

The EPA is also looking at this and they have asked for other independent advice to assess that the understanding is reasonable.

Tim Faragher: Weight of evidence is important. As a regulator you must ask that all assumptions be justified and for each measurement to have all calculations so you can be sure you know how you [Iluka and their team] came up with the number. Without that weight of evidence, the EPA could not concur with what has been put forward.

Richard Hook: We have asked that the principles of the groundwater management and monitoring plan to be provided at this time. The idea of this plan is that the EPA will have a further mechanism to monitor what will happen with groundwater in the future and that


will have the monitoring and review requirements. If that monitoring identifies issues it will have occurred at an early enough stage that appropriate mechanisms can be brought into play before the issues become of serious concern.

7. How does putting in more bores stop the process of presenting Iluka’s application for a change of status for Pit 23

Richard Hook: Technical discussions with Iluka explored what was the rationale for asking for more bores. There wasn’t sufficient information on the groundwater flows and chemistry, so how do we get that information: ask Iluka to do more groundwater monitoring which they have. Secondly, the groundwater management and monitoring plan will give comfort that early warning systems would be in place.

8. Ground water monitoring: Will it be more or less (in number, frequency) than the existing procedure for the existing mine?

Colin Burns: The further information package includes Iluka’s view on the groundwater management and monitoring plan, which details these items including number of bores and frequency of monitoring – that’s Iluka’s view and we await the EPA’s judgement of that. The proposal is that it is more intensive than what has occurred. Specifically there will be 2 additional bores, 5 bores around Pit 22 and 23 and 3 bores in the predicted pathway and 3 bores as a baseline. Sampling on a monthly basis for the Pit 23 site, 6 monthly in the flow pathway and annually for the baseline.

Phil Mulvey: The monitoring will be more intense and it will be sampled more frequently.

5.2 Defining the potential impact:

9. Tell me then when you say it will take years to reach White Lake:

a. how do you know the time length?

Greg Hoxley: Using the model and the knowledge of the rate that the water moves and the flow path, we can calculate how long a particular parcel of water will take to move. We can also undertake calculations for different contaminants based on how they interact with the water and soils in the ground. As we understand the groundwater levels and shape and pressure levels we make calculations using the transport models and flow models that have been calibrated to how the system has behaved over the past 10 years. This is application of well proven techniques.

b. Why if it is still going to get there don’t you shift the pit as a recommendation?

Greg Hoxley: From a hydrogeological perspective if you move the location you may change the travel time but it will still move into the groundwater; the question is where will it go. We have answered that for Pit 23. We’ve predicted what the effect of that is, and it is up to someone else to determine if that is acceptable or not.

Colin Burns: There are no other pits on the site anymore

Marcus Little: Uranium 238 is the only radionuclide with the potential to move from Pit 23 to White Lake and at 0.001 Bq/L it is negligible.


c. What about the Glenelg River, underground water table and other closer water resources?

Greg Hoxley: The question about the Glenelg River was laid out in the further information. We are convinced that the flow path and the flow regime ensures that it is not feasible for contamination of the river to occur.

Phil Mulvey: Freshwater Dam will remain, and is hydraulically upgradient from Pit 23 and even if Pit 23 was on the divide it would be forced towards White Lake by infiltrating water from Freshwater Dam. So the water from Pit 23 is not likely to head in any other direction.

10. Solute transfer model e.g. Ra226 shown as a pulse taking 190+ years to reach sensitive site ¬2km; Ra 226 will not be a pulse it will slowly increase over time as the daughter decay: SKM 2004 shows an increase in GW Flows in 6 years for a similar distance.

Phil Mulvey: This question addresses radioactive decay and solubility constants transfer. Ra226 is in the uranium decay chain. I can see why the community is concerned. But only so much of any substance can be dissolved in water and once the solubility constant is reached it doesn’t matter how much solid you have it would not increase the concentration in the water. Radium is already present in background environmental levels, these are low and safe. The issue is the decay to Uranium which is more soluble than radium. Monazite is not broken down at the mine/MSP, so what is being returned to the pit is the same stuff that is under every farm in the district, with variable concentrations. We are not detailing with an increased slug at all but with a concentration potentially increasing over time in White Lake (which is a hypersaline sink). Because of this sink we have asked that the concentrations in White Lake be modelled.

Marcus Little: When thinking about how radium might be produced through the breakdown of uranium we need to consider the half-life of uranium which is multi-billions of years so the growth of radium will be very very slow.

Tim Faragher: DHHS is the primary regulator of radiation so will rely heavily on their input and advice of the independent reviewer.

11. Colin Burns ‘We can’t imagine a 5m crack.’ Did Iluka just dismiss this without considering it?

Colin Burns: No not just dismissed. The angle of repose is such that a 5 m crack will be 15m wide at the top. This does not happen at the site.

Hamish Little: Landform evolution modelling confirms this. Taking into account the rainfall, slopes, soil chemistry, etc show you want will happen with erosion and soil swelling and this analysis has been undertaken for this site and shows no issues. It is dry and very solid it doesn’t swell at all so it is consolidated and when placed it will stay.

In the past we’ve seen slumping large enough to hide a ute in, seen them repaired and seen slumping repeated?

Hamish Little: They were very different substrates with high clay content and moisture content compared to this which is virtually sand.


12. Other sites: Echo void is much bigger than Pit 23 so why is it dismissed? Echo bores did not respond to 2011 wet therefore minimal risk of leachate leaving the site

Colin Burns: Echo Pit is not big enough once you include the 5 m cap.

13. As there are no containments how can they be adequate? What do you measure this on?

Colin Burns: We identified the effect on the groundwater environment with the proposed containments (i.e. no cap, lining) and then we looked at what would happen to the environment if we did cap and line. The result is that we see no practical difference, so what we proposed is appropriate.

Phil Mulvey: We have looked at this in the past to access another sand mine. If you have a very good cap it is almost as effective as a cap and liner. But at this site there is no difference in the impacts on the beneficial users between having a cap or not having a cap.

With the cap, I understand there will be 8 tonnes of gypsum placed on the rehab sites – is it the coagulation effect of gypsum?

Hamish Little: The bulk of the rehab in the final land use for that area will be native vegetation, which will have totally different parameters to that previously undertaken which has been for agricultural use hence the use of gypsum.

What is the effectiveness of the cap in hundreds of years?

Phil Mulvey: We asked for a site-specific long-term (1,000 to 100,000 years) geomorphological assessment be undertaken. This has been done and it shows that 5m is more than conservative for a 100,000 year model.

What kind of rainfall do you set in your models? We have seen 22-23 inches of rainfall in a normal year plus 30 + inches have been known. Has this been taken into consideration?

Greg Hoxley: We looked at the variable parameters through a sensitivity analysis plus the model period included the 2011 wet summer and winter rains. The actual figures have been included in the model. The model was then calibrated based on the observed conditions. The longer term averages are more important for groundwater rather than individual events.

Marcus Little: The mining operation placed more pressure on the groundwater system (i.e. 8ML of water pumped from the Pit 23) than the rainfall.

5.3 Demonstrating environmental best practice

14. How can you have best practice when there has been no prior risk assessments done with what you are doing? France and Brazil will not touch this disposal.

Colin Burns: I challenge the proposition of the question that no risk assessments have been done as this entire process is a risk assessment. All the information has been tested and is provided in the application. The way we established what is best practice was to ask TZMI


to look at what is done elsewhere in the world and it is their view that we are proposing is best practice.

Who is TZMI to be making judgements about best practices?

Colin Burns: TZMI is a consultant company that specialises in minerals sands industry. They have a lot of information about the industry and its practices. The report is in confidence given that the information is commercially sensitive.

Tim Faragher: Iluka has presented their view of why their proposal is best practice and we together with the Independent Desktop Reviewer will assess it.

5.4 Additional questions

15. You talk of stakeholder consultation what about community consultation?

Colin Burns: The community are stakeholders

16. Why has rehabilitation not been in accordance with previous contractual regulations originally and now you do your own thing?

Richard Hook: That is a question for the Mining Warden’s process, but not part of the Works Approval.

17. ‘ARPANSA’ comment why, now you say your accountable (in past it flickers to abiding, not abiding and limited abiding) which is not being accountable to guidelines. Why is this the behaviour you take, when ARPANSA guidelines are clear?

Colin Burns: We always have had a requirement to abide by ARPANSA guidelines and always have.

Noel Cleaves, DHHS: That’s been a constant licence condition placed on the mine

Do you pick and choose from the ARPANSA guidelines and the mining code?

Noel Cleaves, DHHS: The relevant part of the guideline (mining) is applied.

18. Why is Iluka waste referred to as ‘by-product’ rather than radioactive waste (public interest)

Colin Burns: We call it that because it is a by-product from the processing of the minerals separation plant. Yes it is radioactive.

19. Best practice, best back into a used mine pit. Was it accessed with 30 x the quantity being placed in just one pit?

Marcus Little: Is it best to go back to the pit, with the concentration being greater once processed? The answer is Yes; this was assessed as part of the TZMI report.

20. Why can’t radioactive waste go back to where it came from?

Colin Burns: Because there would be a greater adverse impact on the environment if you took it back to the Nullarbor. The risk of road travel back to the Nullarbor 1000+ kms, for


example. At the disposal site potential impacts would be the same. The options study addresses this particularly and can be found in the application and further information.

But the IAEA international standard says it should be placed back where it naturally occurred at non elevated concentrated levels?

Phil Mulvey: You are both right. The monazite comes from the same geomorphological basin which just happens to have a state boundary so it is being placed back where it came from (in a sense). While the concentrations are slightly elevated, it is not significantly greater than can be found elsewhere in the basin. This complies with the international standard as it is being returned to the basin from which it came from. There are other environmental matters that need to be taken into consideration here also.

Comment: If Iluka believes they are doing the best thing for the environment that’s crap because the best thing they could do would be process it at the mine and return it to the mine.

21. Where is the second engineer report for Pit 19 when you had to change the cap?

Hamish Little: This question is not relevant to this works approval process, happy to discuss at the next ERC, we have not been asked to re-engineer cap on Pit 19.

Question referred to ERC.

22. Council/DHHS regarding the planning permits and radiation future monitoring under ARPANSA guidelines, who ensures this is adhered to? An example is Pit 19.

Noel Cleaves, DHHS: DHHS will be there into the future and even if not approved we will be there. Currently licence conditions require radiation management plans and monitoring every six months. These will be required into the future.

23. These sessions are not about agreeing but coming to the TRUTH and acting on it.

24. How many samples and their size (gms) were tested for radiation to obtain the material characteristics of the main waste streams?

Marcus Little: For each of the various by product steams two 5 litre buckets from each stream were collected and sent away to ANSTO for analysis. That was significantly more than was required for them to do their analysis. Given that this is an industrial process, streams are fairly consistent in their characteristics. It was a composite sample collected over about a week.

25. Regards to offsite impacts, I understand there will be tens of thousands of cubic meters going to the pit. This will mean an increase in truck movements; these are massive trucks travelling through at least 20 kms of school bus routes and two towns on roads not built to take this traffic.

Hamish Little: The specific details of this are provided in the application and the report and the application. Since mining has ceased there has been a decreased of about 80% of truck movements.

Question: Is this part of Council’s concerns?


John Martin, HRCC: Yes, road maintenance will be assessed in the planning application.

Hamish Little: there are clear guidelines regarding trucks and requirements for this to be tracked using GPS etc, all this information is provided in the additional information.

26. Would it be worth putting some tracers in the pit and testing groundwater flow model with that?

Phil Mulvey: It is worth testing the model with tracers.. The problem with using traces is that they degrade and can be a contaminates themselves (green or purple water is not very attractive) . It is no longer popular to use traces now, as models are better and we can also use radioactive decay to trace water source and age. The calibration of the model with real data gives better outcomes than traces.

27. Concerned with the model that a lot of the testing has been in the last 10 years and it doesn’t incorporate the past 50 – 80 years and the great seasonal changes that are happening. How long does it go before it becomes a huge problem that your model hasn’t seen? And does your model incorporate after the future when to rehab it with trees, what is going to happen with the roots go down deep and we have fires staring and local people come into fight the fires. I have real concerns with your model.

Greg Hoxley: I hear your concern. We use the model to look at a range of different conditions. Suggest you look at the information provided on the model. The risk assessment as part of the original application undertook an explicit assessment of what if it was worse, what if it was greater or less, how would that affect the risks. The documentation has a very clear statement of what we think the conditions are and the risks of the project if this is higher or lower. We are saying that we think this risk is acceptable.

Phil Mulvey: Reality checking on anything a scientist or engineer does is expected. The model is a four dimensional model (3-D plus time). We also run a straight linear model, and a two dimensional model; and checked gradient and solubility. We used these checks to see that the 3-D model held up.l We then sent the model to one of the top two or three modelers in the country, Dr Frans Kalf, to run his eye over the model. It had a high degree of checking.

5.5 Next Steps

Jen Lilburn thanked all the panel speakers and meeting participants. Richard Hook reiterated the importance of any further feedback and the deadline for submissions. He requested that no personal information be included in submissions as the redaction prior to publishing on line is a time consuming process. The EPA encourages further community submissions.

A decision on the works approval is expected in May; when this occurs notifications will be made together with the assessment report and the independent reviewers report will be provided to submitters.


Appendix A Session Agenda

Documents

Environment Protection Act 1970 Second Information … · 4.1 Understanding the Baseline Environment 10 ... a Notice to Supply Further Information under section 22 of the Environment