Eneabba Mineral Sands Mine ipl north Proposal

Yüklə 377,33 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
ölçüsü377,33 Kb.
1   2   3

If yes, please briefly describe. 


Electricity, natural gas and diesel fuel used by mining equipment are the main 

sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at Eneabba. The Iluka Eneabba 

operations currently have a shortfall of 12MW as the supply of additional electrical 

power from the Western Power Corporation (WPC) grid has been limited. No spare 

capacity will be available until power supply lines are upgraded in the Midwest 

region. As a result, a temporary on-site power generation system was constructed 

during 2011 utilizing gas fired reciprocating engines to supply the 12MW shortfall. 

Construction and commissioning work for the power station was undertaken under 

DEC Works Approval W5057/2011/1. The Proposal will utilise this temporary on-site 

power generation until the upgrade of the power supply lines are complete (date 

currently unknown). 


2.8.4  Have you done any modelling or analysis to demonstrate that air quality standards 

will be met, including consideration of cumulative impacts from other emission 




If yes, please briefly describe. 

Dry mining operations typically generate fugitive dust associated with mining, 

processing and transport activities.  

Dust monitoring is undertaken in accordance with DEC Licence 5646/8, on a 

continual basis at the Iluka Eneabba operation using both ambient particulate 

monitoring (PM


) and total suspended particulates (TSP) methods.



Particulate Dust Monitoring (PM


) is undertaken at the location of the ‘most 

sensitive receiver’ (the Eneabba townsite) to monitor respirable dust conditions.  A 

network of depositional dust gauges has also been deployed to monitor nuisance 

dust conditions along the property boundary and sensitive vegetation locations.


The ambient airborne dust concentration limit prescribed in the DEC licence 

continuous monitoring of dust levels over a 24 hour period with reporting required if 

levels excel 50ug/m


 within the period.  A total of 5 excursions above this limit are 

allowable under the licence in any one calendar year.   

Further details are provided in the Supporting Document. 


2.8.5  Will the proposal result in liquid effluent discharge? 



If yes, please briefly describe the nature, 

concentrations and receiving environment. 


2.8.6  If there is likely to be discharges to a watercourse or marine environment, has any 

analysis been done to demonstrate that the State Water Quality Management 

Strategy or other appropriate standards will be able to be met? 



If yes, please describe. 


2.8.7  Will the proposal produce or result in solid wastes? 




If yes, please briefly describe the nature, 

concentrations and disposal location/ method. 

Solid waste produced by the Proposal can be divided into process waste and 

tailings and non-process waste. 

Process waste is waste produced as a result of the mining process and includes the 



Green waste – where possible, vegetation will be mulched prior to clearing and 

utilised during the rehabilitation process. 


Overburden – non-mineralised waste will be stockpiled or directly returned to 

the mine void during mining. Stockpiled overburden will be returned to the mine 

void during the rehabilitation phase. 


Oversize - the wet concentration process requires all particles greater than 

approximately 2.4mm to be removed from the ore. All material greater than 

2.4mm will be removed in the screening process, in a number of stages. The 

oversize will be treated as overburden and returned to the mining void or 

utilised for dust suppression and road maintenance activities. 


Clay fines and sand tails - clay fines will be removed from the ore prior to wet 

concentrator processing by hydro-cyclones.  Sand tailings will be produced in 

the mine site wet-concentrator.  The sand tails fraction of the mining by-

products will be placed in the mined-out void. The clay/slime fraction will be co-

disposed with the remaining sand tails in an off-path tailings storage facility.  

Iluka maintains a detailed waste inventory of all waste disposal at Eneabba


and all 

waste disposal at the Iluka Eneabba operations is in accordance with DEC Licence 

5646/8.  Non-process waste is waste produced as a result of the day to day 

operations of the Proposal and includes the following: 


Hydrocarbon products – all waste oils will be collected by the contractor as part 

of Iluka’s waste management system. Hydrocarbon contaminated soil resulting 

from spills are treated in a bioremediation facility (‘landfarm’) on-site.  This is 

regulated through DEC Licence 5646/8. All other hydrocarbon-contaminated 

waste will be removed from site and disposed of according to DEC 



Structural waste – some structural waste will be generated from maintenance 

activities.  Inert waste is permitted to be disposed of at designated mine voids in 

accordance with DEC Licence 5646/8.  Scarp steel is recycled through a scrap 

metal merchant where possible. 


Domestic waste – rubbish generated on site such as food scraps, food 

wrappings and waste paper is collected and disposed of at the Eneabba Class 

II landfill facility (DEC Licence 6945/10).  



2.8.8  Will the proposal result in significant off-site noise emissions? 



If yes, please briefly describe. 


2.8.9 Will the development be subject to the Environmental Protection (Noise) 

Regulations 1997? 



If yes, has any analysis been carried out to 

demonstrate that the proposal will comply with 

the Regulations? 

Please attach the analysis. 

The Proposal involves mining of the northern section of the IPL North deposit which 

is located in close proximity to the Eneabba townsite. Mining of the northern portion 

of the Proposal area therefore has the greatest potential to impact on nearby 

residents. The primary noise emitters for the Proposal will be the fixed plant and 

mobile mining equipment.  

Further details are provided in the Supporting Document. 


2.8.10  Does the proposal have the potential to generate off-site, air quality impacts, dust, 

odour or another pollutant that may affect the amenity of residents and other 

“sensitive premises” such as schools and hospitals (proposals in this category may 

include intensive agriculture, aquaculture, marinas, mines and quarries etc.)? 



If yes, please describe and provide the distance 

to residences and other “sensitive premises”. 

Mining operations may give rise to dust emissions and carbon monoxide, 

particulate and nitrogen oxides emissions from standard diesel and petrol 

combustion engines.  The South Secondary Concentrator (SSC) generates 

emissions from two driers which are fuelled with natural gas, in two separate 

stacks.  Emissions are sampled quarterly by qualified consultants, with results 

reported annually in the Annual Environment Report (AER).  Contaminants include 

particulates, carbon dioxide, uranium and thorium, all of which are below guideline 

levels.  All fugitive and point source emissions to air are reported in the National 

Pollutant Inventory. 


2.8.11  If the proposal has a residential component or involves “sensitive premises”, is it 

located near a land use that may discharge a pollutant?  



Not Applicable 

If yes, please describe and provide the distance 

to the potential pollution source 


2.9  Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

2.9.1  Is this proposal likely to result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions (greater 

than 100 000 tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions)? 




If yes, please provide an estimate of the annual 

gross emissions in absolute and in carbon 

dioxide equivalent figures. 

Electricity, natural gas and diesel are the main sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions at Iluka’s Eneabba operations. Electricity is generally supplied from the 

WPC grid and used for powering of concentrators, field generators, groundwater 

production bores and for general use in the administration buildings and workshops. 

GHGs are directly emitted from the use of natural gas in the drying process at the 

SSC. Diesel fuel is used to run the heavy vehicle mining fleet, mobile pumps, 

generators and light vehicles.  

Due to the shortfall in the supply of additional electrical power from the WPC grid, it 

is envisaged that a temporary on-site power generation system will be required. 

There is currently an existing on-site power generations system utilizing gas fired 

reciprocation engines to supply the existing shortfall. It is expected that there will be 

an increase in increase in natural gas consumption until the electrical power 

shortfall is rectified with the upgrading of the WPC power grid. 


2.9.2  Further, if yes, please describe proposed measures to minimise emissions, and any 

sink enhancement actions proposed to offset emissions. 

Iluka has a range of management measures in place to optimise energy use and 

reduce GHG emissions.  Iluka maintains an annual inventory of GHG emissions and 

energy consumption in line with the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 

2007. Additionally, Iluka has participated in the Federal Government's Energy 

Efficiency Opportunities (EEO) programme since 1999, the purpose of which is to 

assess energy use and process efficiencies at operational sites, and to identify and 

implement opportunities to work in a more energy efficient manner. During the 

current EEO reporting cycle, 99.1% of Iluka’s total energy consumption was 

assessed, exceeding the requirements of the programme.   

During 2011, Iluka identified, implemented and pursued a range of energy efficiency 

projects that deliver gains in energy efficiency and performance. Overall, the energy 

efficiency opportunities that were operational during 2010 – 2011 equated to a 

reduction in energy usage of 0.76 petajoules or 8% of Iluka’s total energy 

consumption. Iluka remains focused on sustaining the gains from these energy 

efficiency opportunities and are committed to ensuring that energy efficiency 

remains embedded in its operations as part of its continuous improvement process. 


2.10 Contamination 

2.10.1  Has the property on which the proposal is to be located been used in the past for 

activities which may have caused soil or groundwater contamination? 




If yes, please describe. 

Mining has occurred at Eneabba since the 1970s and Iluka reported all known and 

suspected contaminated sites at its Eneabba operations in May 2007 to the DEC 

under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. Included in this submission were the 

completed Form 1’s, associated Certificates of Title and supporting reports.



Contaminated Site Status Report – Eneabba Operations was submitted to the DEC 

during August 2010 and provides a status update on the known and suspected 

contaminated sites, including the classification, investigations, monitoring and future 



2.10.2  Has any assessment been done for soil or groundwater contamination on the site? 



If yes, please describe. 

Groundwater monitoring is carried out for all the known or suspected contaminated 

sites in accordance with the Eneabba Groundwater Licence Operating Strategy 

(GLOS) as regulated by the Department of Water (DoW). Soil analysis at one of 

the known contaminated sites was carried out to determine the levels of 

hydrocarbon contamination.  Hydrocarbon impacted soils were excavated and 

transferred the site bioremediation facility, where all contaminated soil on-site is 

remediated in accordance with DEC licence conditions.  Details of soil and 

groundwater contamination assessments are discussed in the Contaminated Sites 

Status Report – Eneabba Operations as submitted to the DEC during 2010. 


2.10.3  Has the site been registered as a contaminated site under the Contaminated Sites 

Act 2003? (on finalisation of the CS Regulations and proclamation of the CS Act) 



If yes, please describe. 

The contaminated sites were reported in the Contaminated Sites Status Report – 

Eneabba Operations as submitted to the DEC during 2010.  

2.11 Social Surroundings 

2.11.1  Is the proposal on a property which contains or is near a site of Aboriginal 

ethnographic or archaeological significance that may be disturbed? 





If yes, please describe. 

Native Title 

The Proposal area falls within one registered native title claim namely, Amangu 

native title claimant group (WC04/2).   

Aboriginal heritage 

Archaeological and ethnographic surveys have been conducted on a number of 

Iluka Eneabba tenements (AM70/267, M70/821, M70/1039, E70/2634, M70/872, 

M70/879, M70/1039 and M70/1061).  

An archaeological survey of AM70/267 discovered one site comprising a small 

quarts artefact scatter bordering the northwest corner of the South Eneabba 

Wetland (McDonald et al., 1992) and has remained undisturbed due to the 

conservation of the wetland by Iluka. This site is not within the Proposal area. 

A search of the DIA Register of Aboriginal sites during March 2012 indicated that 

there are no registered sites within the Proposal area. 


Further details are provided in the Supporting Document. 


2.11.2  Is the proposal on a property which contains or is near a site of high public interest 

(e.g. a major recreation area or natural scenic feature)? 



If yes, please describe. 

Iluka will work continuously with the community of Eneabba regarding mining 

operations within the Proposal area. 


2.11.3  Will the proposal result in or require substantial transport of goods, which may 

affect the amenity of the local area? 



If yes, please describe. 






3.1  Principles of Environmental Protection 



Have you considered how your project gives attention to the following Principles, 

as set out in section 4A of the EP Act?  (For information on the Principles of 

Environmental Protection, please see EPA Position Statement No. 7, available on 

the EPA website) 


1. The precautionary principle. 



2. The principle of intergenerational equity. 




The principle of the conservation of biological 

diversity and ecological integrity. 



4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and 

incentive mechanisms. 



5.  The principle of waste minimisation. 



Further details are provided in the Supporting Document. 


3.1.2  Is the proposal consistent with the EPA’s Environmental Protection 

Bulletins/Position Statements and Environmental Assessment 

Guidelines/Guidance Statements (available on the EPA website)? 




The following EPA position and guidance statements are relevant to this Proposal 

and have been considered in this Referral and in the Supporting Document: 



EPA Position Statement No. 2: Environmental Protection of Native Vegetation  


EPA Position Statement No. 3: Terrestrial Biological Surveys  


EPA Position Statement No. 6: Towards Sustainability  


EPA Position Statement No. 7: Principles of Environmental Protection  

  EPA Position Statement No 8: Environmental Protection in Natural Resource 



EPA Position Statement No. 9: Environmental Offsets  


EPA Guidance Statement No. 6: Rehabilitation of Terrestrial Ecosystems  


EPA Draft Guidance Statement No. 8 – Environmental Noise. 


EPA Guidance Statement No. 10: Proposals Affecting Natural Areas  


EPA Guidance Statement No. 12: Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions 


EPA Guidance Statement No. 18: Prevention of Air Quality Impacts from Land 

Development Sites  


EPA Guidance Statement No 19: Environmental Offsets  

  EPA Guidance Statement No. 33: Environmental Guidance for Planning and 



EPA Guidance Statement No. 41: Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage  


EPA Guidance Statement No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for 

Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. 


  EPA Guidance Statement No. 55: Implementing Best Practice in proposals 

submitted to the environment impact assessment process.  


EPA Guidance Statement No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental 

Impact Assessment in Western Australia. 


EPA Draft Environmental Assessment Guidelines No. 1: Defining a Proposal 



3.2 Consultation 

3.2.1  Has public consultation taken place (such as with other government agencies, 

community groups or neighbours), or is it intended that consultation shall take 




If yes, please list those consulted and attach 

comments or summarise response on a 

separate sheet. 

Stakeholders in the immediate surrounds of the Proposal include residents, 

business owners in the town of Eneabba, people within the local shire, special 

interest groups (including research organisations), other mining proponents and 

Decision Making Authorities. 


Table 3 Key stakeholders 

Group Stakeholders 



Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, 

Population and Communities (SEWPAC) 

State government 

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) 

Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) 

Department of State Development (DSD) 

Department of Water (DoW) 

Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) 

Mineral Sands Agreement Rehabilitation Coordination 

Committee (MSARCC) 

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) 

Utilities Water 


Verve Energy 

QR National 

Local Government 

Shire of Carnamah 

City of Greater Geraldton 

Aboriginal groups 

Amangu (Yamatji Land and Sea Council) 


organisations (NGOs) 

Conservation Council of WA 

Wildflower Society of WA 


Eneabba town residents and nearby landholders 

Eneabba Progress Association 

Irwin Land Care Group 



Kings Park and Botanical Gardens Authority 

University of Western Australia 

Greening WA 

Murdoch University (Centre for Phytophthora Science and 



Iluka has consulted with the DEC, OEPA, DMP, DSD, DoW and Water Corporation 

regarding the Proposal.  Discussions points at these briefings have included, but not 

limited to, those summarised below: 


The Proposal and mine schedule. 


Additional approvals likely to be required under legislation. 

  The key environmental impacts associated with mining the IPL North deposit 

including impact to DRF and Priority flora, fauna, noise and dust within proximity 


to the Eneabba townsite, protection of the town water supply and rehabilitation 

of the disturbed areas. 


Iluka has also consulted with the Shire of Carnamah, Eneabba Progress 

Association and the Eneabba community regarding the Proposal. An information 

session was held at the Eneabba Recreation Centre on Monday, 14th May 2012 to 

discuss current and future mining at the Iluka Eneabba operations. In general, 

concerns raised included the increase of dust with regard to mining in the vicinity of 

the Eneabba townsite.      


Outcomes and response of stakeholders consulted prior to the submission of this 

Referral is detailed in the Supporting Document. 












































AECOM (2012) Eneabba East Mine: 2011 Annual Aquifer Review. Unpublished report 

prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 

Bamford Consulting Ecologists (2007a) Fauna Values of Proposed Future Mining Areas in 

the Eneabba Region. Unpublished report prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 

Bamford Consulting Ecologists (2007b) Survey for the Shield-backed Trapdoor Spider 

(Idiosoma nigrum) in Iluka lease areas at Eneabba. Unpublished report prepared for Iluka 

Resources Limited. 

Bamford Consulting Ecologists (2009) Fauna Investigations of Iluka’s Proposed Eneabba 

Future Mining Operations with a focus on IPL North and IPL South Deposits. Unpublished 

report prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 

Bancroft, W.J. and Bamford, M.J. (2006) Fauna Review – Eneabba. Unpublished report 

prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 

Department of Water (DOW) (2008) Eneabba Water Reserve Drinking Water Source 

Protection Plan – Eneabba Town Water Supply. Report 82, Water Resource Protection 

Series. Government of Western Australia. 

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2004) Guidance for the Assessment of 

Environmental Factors No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental 

Impact Assessment in Western Australia. 

Iluka Resources Limited (2012) Annual Environmental Report – Midwest Operations 2011.  

Johnstone, R.E. and Kirkby, T. (2009) Further Assessment of Signficiant Habitat for 

Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) in the Eneabba Region. Unpublished 

report prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 

McDonald, Hales & Associates (1992) Archaeological and ethnographic survey for 

Aboriginal sites – AMC Mineral Sands Project, Eneabba. 

Soil Water Consultants (SWC) (2009) Rehabilitation Review for the Eneabba Minesite. 

Unpublished report prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 

Woodman Environmental Consulting (2012) Eneabba: Summary report of Flora and 

Vegetation Studies 2001 to 2011.  Report prepared for Iluka Resources Limited. 



Yüklə 377,33 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2020
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə