CMOC-Northparkes Mines Independent Audit Report May 2018 · 2019. 4. 9. · Mines’,...

Independent Environmental Audit CMOC – Northparkes Mines PARKES NSW Project Approval 11_0060 (MOD 3) May 2018

Prepared for

NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment Report Version: Final

CMOC – Northparkes Mines Independent Environmental Audit Report – May 2018 Page 2 of 129

Document Control Project No. 20194

Report Type: Independent Environmental Audit

Report Title: CMOC – Northparkes Mines Independent Audit Report

Audit Team: John Hanrahan B.Eng (Chem.) – Lead Auditor Adam Jones BEc/LLB, BComm – Audit Team Member Kurt Hammerschmid B.App.Sc. (Chem), M.Sc. – Draft Audit Report Reviewer

Name Signed Date

Approved John Hanrahan

30 July 2018

Prepared for: Company

Chase Dingle Community, Environment & Farms Superintendent

CMOC – Northparkes Mines PO Box 995 PARKES NSW 2870

Document Status Revision Date Description

Draft Report 12 June 2018 Draft Report for client review

Second Draft Report 27 June 2018 Draft Report incorporating client review feedback, for client to include responses in Table 2

Final Report 29 June 2018 Final Report including client responses in Table 2

Final Report (reissued) 30 July 2018

Final Report (reissued) with the addition of Appendices 3 and 4 and two paragraphs on page 6 (referring to Appendices 3 and 4) in response to Department of Planning and Environment’s request for additional information

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of 3E Environmental Engineering & Energy’s Client and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between 3E Environmental Engineering & Energy and its Client. 3E Environmental Engineering & Energy accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any issue of reliance on this report by a third party.


Independent Environmental Audit – Scope and Limitations The scope of this Independent Environmental Audit was limited to reviewing how the Proponent (CMOC Mining Pty Ltd) trading as CMOC – Northparkes Mines (a joint venture between China Molybdenum Co., Ltd (CMOC) (80%) and the Sumitomo Group (20%)) is maintaining environmental compliance against applicable conditions specified in:

• Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 (issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) on 16 July 2014 as Project Approval 11_0600, and modified in June 2015, April 2016 and September 2017);

• Environment Protection Licence No. 4784 (issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) on 13 October 2000, licence version date 18 December 2017); and

• Mining Lease Nos. 1247, 1367, 1641 and 1743 (granted by the NSW Minister for Resources). The audit period for this May 2018 audit is from 31 March 2015 (the day after the previous audit report of 30 March 2015) to 11 May 2018 (the last day of the on-site component of this audit). In this audit report unless otherwise indicated, a reference to ‘CMOC – Northparkes Mines’, ‘Northparkes Mines’, ‘Northparkes’ or ‘NPM’ is a reference to the Proponent. This Independent Environmental Audit was conducted by a) direct verification of compliance against relevant conditions in the field (except underground operations) and b) “sampling” a range of the documents, records and data associated with development and operations of the Northparkes Mines near Parkes in western New South Wales. The nature of sampling during any form of Environmental Audit is such that it may not necessarily identify everything that the project/operation is, or is not doing, in relation to an individual condition or specific environmental requirement. This independent environmental audit and associated audit report was commissioned by CMOC – Northparkes Mines (on behalf of the joint venture) to directly meet Condition 9, Schedule 6 of Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice indicated in this report. Note that it may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or for other uses. The content of this report applies only to matters which were available to and/or evident to the auditor at the time of this May 2018 Independent Environmental Audit and within the scope of the audit. The status of environmental compliance can change in a limited time, which may be important if the report is used after any protracted delay. The content of this report is based on the observations made during field inspections (excluding underground operations) and the associated documents and records reviewed, that were provided by CMOC – Northparkes Mines during the audit. Field inspection sites were selected by the auditors to ensure that a representative sample of field activities could be inspected/audited against relevant Project Approval conditions, EPL conditions and Mining Lease conditions. Field inspections were completed at various locations and infrastructure associated with the Project (as listed in the Project Approval), with the exception of conducting a formal underground inspection. No analytical samples were collected during this audit to verify any former or current monitoring programs in place or data collected. This report does not, and does not purport to, give legal advice on the actual or potential liabilities of the operation, or draw conclusions as to whether any particular circumstances constitute a breach of relevant legislation. Only qualified legal practitioners who are retained to provide legal advice can provide this advice.


CMOC – Northparkes Mines Independent Environmental Audit – Details

Project Audited: Northparkes Mines, approximately 27km northwest of Parkes, New South Wales

Dates of on-site component of the Independent Environmental Audit:

8 May 2018 to 11 May 2018 (4 days)

Audit Contacts: Chase Dingle – Community, Environment & Farms Superintendent

Nathan Jones – Senior Environmental Advisor

Audit Team: John Hanrahan B.Eng. (Chem), MIEAust, MAusIMM Senior Environmental Engineer 3E Environmental Engineering & Energy PO Box 1893, Armidale, NSW 2350 Lead Auditor

Adam Jones BEc/LLB, BComm Lawyer Suite 503, 9-13 Bronte Road, Bondi Junction, NSW 2022 Audit Team Member

Kurt Hammerschmid B.App.Sc. (Chem), M.Sc. Principal Environmental Auditor Integrated Environmental Systems Pty Ltd 47 Albion Avenue, Paddington NSW 2021 Draft Audit Report Review

Scope of the Audit: The scope of the audit was to conduct an independent environmental audit and provide a subsequent report of findings as required by Condition 9, Schedule 6 of Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 as issued by the NSW Department of Planning & Environment in September 2017 to CMOC Mining Pty Ltd.

The audit period for this audit was from 31 March 2015 (the day after the previous audit report of 30 March 2015) to 11 May 2018 (the last day of the on-site component of this audit).

Personnel interviewed during this May 2018 Audit:

Chase Dingle – Community, Environment & Farms Superintendent

Nathan Jones – Senior Environmental Advisor

Donna Shaw – Environmental Officer

Stacey Kelly – Manager People, Safety & Environment

Michael Thomas – Environmental Officer

Todd Skinner – Operational Training Coordinator

Rob Cunningham – Manager Mining Operations

Kirk McGinnes – Fixed Plant Maintenance Superintendent

Jacques Labuschagne – Finance Director

Andrew Wotton – Business Effectiveness Superintendent

Thomas Trott – Production Superintendent

Timothy Bell – Processing and Tailings Specialist

Roslyn Dalton – Manager Ore Processing

Hubert Lehman – Manager Asset Management

Frederik Muller – Technical Services Superintendent

Nathan Welsh – Mobile Maintenance and Improvement Superintendent

Angus Wylie – Manager Life of Mine and Exploration


Geoff Smart – Senior Exploration Geologist

Jonathon Hoye – Senior Geologist Ore Body Knowledge

Ray Taylor – UG Technician – Ops A Crew

Fraser Todd – UG Technician – Ops B Crew

Brendan George – UG Control Room – Sandvik (contractor)

Field locations inspected during this May 2018 Audit (underground operations were not inspected):

Ore Processing facilities

Tailings Storage Facilities

Selected surge ponds and sediment dams (Caloola Ponds were not inspected)

Process Water Dam

Selected groundwater bores

Weather station

Maintenance and workshop areas

Ore Processing control room

Underground control room (on surface)

Concentrate shed

Hydrocarbon storage shed

Reagent (PAX) storage shed and mixing/storage area

Boundary of Pine Donkey Orchid area at the E48 subsidence zone

Goonumbla Rail Siding

Store Warehouse

Site boundary

Dust monitoring station at “Hubberstone”

Bioremediation pads

McClintocks Lane and Bogan Road/McClintocks Lane intersection

Light vehicle refuelling areas

Underground and Processing plant scrap/laydown areas

Batch plant


Executive Summary

Overview

This Independent Environmental Audit of the CMOC Mining Pty Ltd Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 was conducted on-site at Northparkes Mines, approximately 27km northwest of Parkes, New South Wales. The Auditors attended the Northparkes Mines site from 8 May 2018 to 11 May 2018. Underground operations were not inspected. This Independent Environmental Audit included:

• all relevant conditions specified within the Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3, Environment Protection Licence (EPL) No. 4784 and Mining Lease Nos. 1247, 1367, 1641 and 1743; and

• the sighting of available representative examples of environmental and operational documentation, records, and monitoring data provided by Northparkes Mines, relating to the design, development and ongoing operation of Northparkes Mines.

This Independent Environmental Audit did not directly audit any “additional” environmental or regulatory requirements that were not directly included as existing conditions within the Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3, EPL No. 4784 or Mining Lease Nos. 1247, 1367, 1641 or 1743.

Context

This Independent Environmental Audit is intended to satisfy Conditions 9 and 10 in Schedule 6 of the Project Approval.

This Independent Environmental Audit essentially targeted and audited completed work and field practices associated with the Project since the previous independent environmental compliance audit by Telford Environmental Consulting Services (report dated 30 March 2015). The audit period for this audit is 31 March 2015 to 11 May 2018.

This Independent Environmental Audit is the second submission of an independent environmental audit report from CMOC – Northparkes Mines to the DPE under Project Approval 11_0060.

The Secretary of the DPE endorsed the appointment of the audit team by letter of 26 March 2018. The DPE letter is reproduced in Appendix 1 of this audit report.

Consultation letters were sent to the applicable regulatory authorities and the Community Consultative Committee on 16 April 2018. The consultation letters and responses received are reproduced in Appendix 2 of this audit report.

A summary of actions taken by CMOC – Northparkes Mines in response to the previous independent audit in March 2015 is presented in Appendix 3 of this audit report. The information in Appendix 3 was provided by CMOC – Northparkes Mines and does not form part of this May 2018 audit.

A summary of reportable incidents and complaints received during the audit period is presented in Appendix 4 of this audit report. The information in Appendix 4 was provided by CMOC – Northparkes Mines and does not form part of this May 2018 audit.

Overall Findings

The overall findings of this Independent Environmental Audit of CMOC – Northparkes Mines in May 2018 are as follows:

• A total of 150 conditions across the Project Approval, EPL and Mining Leases were audited. As recorded in Table 1 of this audit report, this audit identified 109 ‘compliant’ findings, 7 ‘not verified’ findings, 6 ‘non-compliant’ findings (consisting of 6 ‘low’ risk level, 0 ‘medium’ risk level, 0 ‘high’ risk level), 12 ‘administrative non-compliance’ findings, 11 ‘not triggered’ findings, and 5 ‘notes’.

• Northparkes Mines’ level of compliance with the applicable conditions (i.e. all conditions except those which were ‘not triggered’) in each instrument was as follows:

o Northparkes was compliant with 51 of the 66 applicable Project Approval conditions; o Northparkes was compliant with 27 of the 41 applicable EPL conditions; o Northparkes was compliant with 31 of the 32 applicable Mining Leases conditions.


• No extensive systematic (i.e. widespread) issues of environmental concern were observed during field inspections conducted during this May 2018 audit.

• This audit report includes 73 observations. Observations are provided for Northparkes Mines’ consideration to improve levels of compliance and enable continuous improvement to be demonstrated in statutory compliance, environmental management and environmental practices across the operation.

Specific Findings

The non-compliances identified during this May 2018 audit are set out below (some of these non-compliances are more fully described in Table 2 of this audit report).

Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3

• Schedule 2 – Condition 8 – Surrender of Consents – Administrative non-compliance – Project Approval PA06_0026 was surrendered on 30 April 2018. NPM did not obtain the Secretary’s agreement beyond 31 July 2015 to surrender Project Approval PA06_0026.

• Schedule 3 – Condition 23 – Water – Water Management Plan – Administrative non-compliance – The Water Management Plan inclusive of the Site Water Balance, Surface Water Management Plan and Groundwater Management Plan does not satisfy various requirements of this condition.

• Schedule 3 – Condition 27 – Biodiversity – Security of Offsets – Administrative non-compliance – A Conservation Agreement between the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) and CMOC Mining Services Pty Limited for the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Site was not signed within the time permitted under this condition.

• Schedule 3 – Condition 28 – Biodiversity – Conservation Bonds – Administrative non-compliance – The agreed Conservation Bond was not lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment within the time permitted under this condition.

• Schedule 3 – Condition 29 – Biodiversity – Biodiversity Management Plan – Administrative non-compliance – In relation to paragraph (g) of this condition, the Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (BOMP) does not specify who is responsible for reviewing the BOMP.

• Schedule 3 – Condition 41 – Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation Management Plan – Non-compliant (low risk) – The Rehabilitation Management Plan does not comply with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this condition.

• Schedule 6 – Condition 3 – Environmental Management – Management Plan Requirements – Administrative non-compliance – The Environmental Management Plans do not comply with paragraphs (a), (e) and (f) of this condition.

• Schedule 6 – Condition 5 – Environmental Management – Revision of Strategies, Plans and Programs – Administrative non-compliance – The Groundwater Management Plan (version no. 2 of 3 October 2016, Doc ID no. 3-9795) is not within its required review period (review date was 10 October 2017).

• Schedule 6 – Condition 11 – Access to Information – Administrative non-compliance – Although the 30 March 2015 audit report is on NPM’s website, there is no NPM response to the recommendations in Table 6 of that audit report.

Environment Protection Licence 4784 as at 18 December 2017

• Operating Conditions – Activities must be carried out in a competent manner – Condition O1.1 – Non-compliant (low risk) – During the audit period two incidents were reported to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), with the second incident (Eastern Surge Dam overflow on 4 April 2017) resulting in a formal warning letter from the EPA for a breach of this condition.

• Operating Conditions – Maintenance of Plant and Equipment – Condition O2.1 – Non-compliant (low risk) – During the audit period two incidents were reported to the EPA, with the second incident (Eastern Surge Dam overflow on 4 April 2017) resulting in a formal warning letter from the EPA for a breach of this condition.


• Operating Conditions – Dust – Condition O3.1 – Non-compliant (low risk) – During the audit period four ‘dust’ incidents were reported to the EPA, with these incidents resulting in a formal warning letter from the EPA for a breach of this condition.

• Monitoring and Recording Conditions – Monitoring records – Condition M1.3 – Administrative non-compliance – Identification of the person who collected the sample was not recorded on the field sheet and not recorded in places in the electronic copy.

• Monitoring and Recording Conditions – Requirement to monitor concentration of pollutants discharged – Condition M2.1 – Non-compliant (low risk) – It is considered that the current groundwater sampling method employed by NPM is not obtaining a representative sample.

• Monitoring and Recording Conditions – Requirement to monitor concentration of pollutants discharged – Condition M2.2 – Non-compliant (low risk) – It is considered that the current groundwater sampling method employed by NPM is not obtaining a representative sample.

• Reporting Conditions – Annual Return Documents – Condition R1.5 – Administrative non-compliance – NPM did not submit (i.e. supply) the Annual Returns prepared during the audit period to the EPA via eConnect EPA or by registered post.

• Pollution Studies and Reduction Programs – Review of Surface Water Management Plan – Condition U1.3 – Administrative non-compliance – GHD’s report was completed on 3 May 2018 and was submitted by NPM to the Dubbo EPA office on 4 May 2018, which was not within the time permitted under this condition.

• Pollution Studies and Reduction Programs – Review of Dust Management Plan – Condition U2.2 – Administrative non-compliance – The Pacific Environment report (dated 29 March 2018) was submitted by NPM to the Dubbo EPA office on 29 March 2018, which was not within the time permitted under this condition.

Mining Lease Nos. 1247, 1367, 1641 and 1743

• No non-compliances against the conditions of these Mining Leases were identified during this May 2018 audit.

Observations

Selected observations from this May 2018 audit are reproduced below (some of these observations are more fully described in Table 2 of this audit report). NPM is encouraged to review all observations in Table 2 of this audit report. • Observation No. 4 – The 2017 AEMR indicates there were significant periods of no apparent

monitoring data for PM10 (section 6.3.2.1) and TSP (section 6.3.2.2) at the various monitoring locations. NPM should implement suitable preventative measures to help avoid any significant periods of no monitoring data in the future.

• Observation No. 21 – NPM could review the locations of the depositional dust gauges to better reflect particulate matter emissions generated by the Project and avoid the influence of agricultural activities on surrounding land.

• Observation No. 23 – The water balances reported in the AEMRs were observed to be unclear or incomplete. NPM should review water supply and demand calculations and the presentation of the results of those calculations in future AEMRs.

• Observation No. 47 – NPM could consider revising Table 16 in section 6.7.2 of future AEMRs to show ‘year on year’ trends in waste ‘per unit tonne of concentrate production’, which could assist readers to understand the operation’s waste management performance notwithstanding variations in total ore milled/concentrate production.

• Observation No. 53 – NPM should revise the current version of its Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) at the earliest opportunity and review the correct application of document control.

• Observation No. 58 – NPM could consider making an Environment Team controlled water truck/cart available for dust suppression on site as an alternative to the Projects Team controlled water truck, which may not always be available as and when needed.

• Observation No. 72 – NPM should review the legal status of the Occupation Permit (No. HD48307). As defined in condition 1 of the Occupation Permit, “Northparkes Mines” does not include any future owner of the Project.


Compliance Assessment Criteria The compliance status for each condition of the Project Approval, EPL and Mining Leases was assessed in accordance with the following criteria in section 4.1 of the NSW Government’s Independent Audit Guideline (Post-approval requirements for State significant developments October 2015). Assessment Criteria

Compliant Where the auditor has collected sufficient verifiable evidence to demonstrate that the intent and all elements of the requirement of the regulatory approval have been complied with within the scope of the audit.

Not verified Where the auditor has not been able to collect sufficient verifiable evidence to demonstrate that the intent and all elements of the requirement of the regulatory approval have been complied with within the scope of the audit. In the absence of sufficient verification the auditor may in some instances be able to verify by other means (visual inspection, personal communication, etc.) that a requirement has been met. In such a situation, the requirement should still be assessed as not verified. However, the auditor could note in the report that they have no reasons to believe that the operation is non-compliant with that requirement.

Non-compliant Where the auditor has collected sufficient verifiable evidence to demonstrate that the intent of one or more specific elements of the regulatory approval have not been complied with within the scope of the audit.

Administrative non-compliance A technical non-compliance with a regulatory approval that would not impact on performance and that is considered minor in nature (e.g. report submitted but not on the due date, failed monitor or late monitoring session). This would not apply to performance-related aspects (e.g. exceedance of a noise limit) or where a requirement had not been met at all (e.g. noise management plan not prepared and submitted for approval).

Not triggered A regulatory approval requirement has an activation or timing trigger that had not been met at the time of the audit inspection, therefore a determination of compliance could not be made.

Observation Observations are recorded where the audit identified issues of concern which do not strictly relate to the scope of the audit or assessment of compliance. Further observations are considered to be indicators of potential non-compliances or areas where performance may be improved.

Note A statement or fact, where no assessment of compliance is required.

Risk levels for Assessed Non-Compliances Risk levels for assessed non-compliances were identified in accordance with the following risk levels in section 4.1 of the NSW Government’s Independent Audit Guideline (Post-approval requirements for State significant developments October 2015). Risk level Colour

code Description

High Non-compliance with potential for significant environmental consequences, regardless of the likelihood of occurrence

Medium Non-compliance with: • potential for serious environmental consequences, but is unlikely to

occur; or • potential for moderate environmental consequences, but is likely to

occur

Low Non-compliance with: • potential for moderate environmental consequences, but is unlikely

to occur; or • potential for low environmental consequences, but is likely to occur

Administrative non-compliance Only to be applied where the non-compliance does not result in any risk of environmental harm (e.g. submitting a report to government later than required under approval conditions)

CMOC – Northparkes Mines Independent Environmental Audit Report – May 2018

Page 10 of 129

Summary of Compliance Status Table 1 below summarises the findings identified in this May 2018 audit against the Project Approval conditions, EPL conditions and Mining Leases conditions.

Table 1: Summary Status of CMOC – Northparkes Mines for the May 2018 Audit

Condition Compliant Not verified Non-compliant Risk level

High Medium Low

Administrative non-compliance

Not triggered (as at May 2018)

Note Observation

Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 Schedule 2 – Administrative Conditions (14 conditions)

11 - - - - 1 - 2 4

Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 Schedule 3 – Environmental Conditions (41 conditions)

32 3 - - 1 4 1 - 47

Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 (there is no Schedule 4) Schedule 5 – Additional Procedures (4 conditions)

3 - - - - - 1 - 1

Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 Schedule 6 – Environmental Management, Reporting and Auditing (11 conditions)

5 1 - - - 3 2 - 3

Environment Protection Licence No. 4784 (44 conditions)

27 2 - - 5 4 3 3 13

Mining Lease No. 1247 (9 conditions) 8 - - - - - 1 - 2

Mining Lease No. 1367 (9 conditions) 8 - - - - - 1 - 1

Mining Lease No. 1641 (9 conditions) 7 1 - - - - 1 - 2

Mining Lease No. 1743 (9 conditions) 8 - - - - - 1 - -

Total (150 Conditions) 109 7 - - 6 12 11 5 73


Page 11 of 129

Details of Compliance Status Table 2 below provides detailed information regarding the findings identified in this May 2018 audit against the Project Approval conditions, EPL conditions and Mining Leases conditions. Observations are provided for Northparkes Mines’ consideration to improve levels of compliance and enable continuous improvement to be demonstrated in statutory compliance, environmental management and environmental practices across the operation. ‘Auditor’s Notes’ in Table 2 are for the relevant authority’s consideration.

Table 2: Detailed Status of CMOC – Northparkes Mines for the May 2018 Audit

Project Approval 11_0060 (MOD 3) Schedule 2 – Administrative Conditions

Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response

Schedule 2 – Condition 1 – Obligation to minimise harm to the Environment

In addition to meeting the specific performance criteria established under this approval, the Proponent shall implement all reasonable and feasible measures to prevent and/or minimise any material harm to the environment that may result from the construction, operation or rehabilitation of the project.

Compliant

Observation

The Lead Auditor considers that as at May 2018, NPM has implemented all reasonable and feasible measures to prevent and/or minimise any material harm to the environment that may result from the construction, operation or rehabilitation of the Project.

CMOC Mining Pty Ltd (trading as CMOC – Northparkes Mines) is certified to Environmental Management System Standard ISO 14001:2015 (certificate number 214659-2017-AE-AUS-JAS-ANZ) for the period 2 February 2018 to 28 February 2020 (initial certification date was 2 December 2004) for all activities agreed with the accredited certification body.

It was stated that in the audit period (31 March 2015 to 11 May 2018) NPM’s focus has been on improving management systems, product stewardship and its understanding of the life cycle of the project.

NPM uses an Environmental Aspects and Impacts Register (Excel spreadsheet, version 3, revised October 2017) to identify environmental risks across NPM’s operational departments.

Observation No. 1 – This condition requires NPM to regularly consider measures that are or may be required to prevent and/or minimise any material harm to the environment. Measures which may not have been regarded as feasible in the past (e.g. due to excessive cost, or uncertain reliability) may become feasible in the future due to improvements in technology. For example, NPM could consider installing monitoring equipment (e.g. dust monitors) with a real-time alert system to enable NPM to rapidly respond to recorded air quality exceedances.

1. Noted.


Page 12 of 129



Schedule 2 – Condition 2 – Terms of Approval

The Proponent must carry out the project:

(a) generally in accordance with the EA and the statement of commitments; and

(b) in accordance with the conditions of this approval.

Notes: • The general layout of the project is shown in Appendix 2; and • The statement of commitments is reproduced in Appendix 3.

[Auditor’s Note: Green type in the Project Approval conditions represents the September 2017 modification.]

Compliant The Lead Auditor considers that as at May 2018, NPM is carrying out the Project generally in accordance with the Environmental Assessment and the statement of commitments, and in accordance with the conditions of the Project Approval, subject to the non-compliance findings in this audit report.

NPM has developed suitable Management Plans and procedures to assist it in carrying out the Project in accordance with this condition.

An example of a suitable Management Plan is NPM’s Pollution Incident Response Management Plan (version no. 7.0 of November 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3546), which includes provisions relating to: • Hazards and Risk Management (section 4.3) including SQRA

(Semi Quantitative Risk Assessment) Critical Risks (section 4.3.1) and identification of critical risks with environmental implications (e.g. chemical incident); and

• Pre-emptive actions to be taken (section 5) including: o Inductions; o Safety Management Plans; o Standard Operating Procedures ; o Risk frame work and assessment tools – SQRA; o Hazard Identification tools – Pre Task Hazard Assessment

(PTHA) and JHA; o Regular inspections, monitoring and auditing of site

environmental controls; o Spill containment kits on site; o Water carts utilised as necessary; o Emergency response equipment – emergency response

vehicles, trucks and gear; o Emergency response team; o Training – Spill Response, etc.; and o Risk frameworks.

An example of a suitable NPM procedure is an Excel spreadsheet titled “Copy of Task Calendar” for the period of July 2017 to June 2018, which lists various environmental tasks including Management Plan review dates, monitoring dates, monitoring equipment calibration dates, meetings with neighbours, and environment inductions.


Page 13 of 129




If there is any inconsistency between the above documents, the most recent document shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. However, the conditions of this approval shall prevail to the extent of any inconsistency.

Note Interpretative condition.


The Proponent shall comply with any reasonable requirement/s of the Secretary arising from the Department’s assessment of:

(a) any strategies, plans, programs, reviews, audits, reports or correspondence that are submitted by the Proponent in accordance with this approval; and

(b) the implementation of any actions or measures contained in these documents.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

Examples of requests from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) were sighted.

For example, a letter dated 17 April 2018 from the DPE in relation to the Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR) for January 2017 to December 2017 (as required in condition 4 of Schedule 6 of the Project Approval) stated (in part):

“Further, you are advised to ensure the website is up to date and contains all relevant documents and information as required under Schedule 6 Condition 11.”

As at May 2018 NPM’s website contained a comprehensive list of Environmental Management Plans in accordance with condition 11 of Schedule 6 of the Project Approval.

Other examples of NPM’s response to DPE assessments are evident in some Management Plans, where revisions to the plans incorporate feedback from the DPE and other authorities. For example: • section 3.1 of NPM’s Water Management Plan (version no. 8 of

May 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3756) reproduces requests from the DPE and NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in relation to aspects of the Plan and NPM’s responses to those requests; and

• section 3.2 of NPM’s Environmental Noise Management Plan (version no. 12 of October 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3718) reproduces requests from the DPE in relation to aspects of the Plan and NPM’s responses to those requests.

Observation No. 2 – NPM could consider maintaining a register of regulatory authority requests and NPM’s response and close out of those requests. For example, the Task Calendar (refer to condition 2 of this Schedule) could include tasks arising from DPE requests.

Observation No. 3 – NPM could consider expanding the Task

2 All regulatory actions are logged in the case management system and checked off as completed.

3. NPM has developed a management plan commitments schedule that is reviewed and updated following review of management plans.


Page 14 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Calendar with additional information (e.g. additional tabs in the spreadsheet) to cross-reference scheduled tasks to the underlying regulatory requirement. For example, the monthly dates for Depositional Dust Monitoring could be cross-referenced to the Noise Management Plan under condition 3 of Schedule 5 of the Project Approval. This additional information could then be a prompt to revise tasks when the underlying regulatory requirements change.

Schedule 2 – Condition 5 – Limits on Approval – Mining Operations

The Proponent may carry out mining operations on the site until 31 December 2032. Note: Under this approval, the Proponent is required to rehabilitate the site and perform additional undertakings to the satisfaction of both the Secretary and NSW Trade & Investment. Consequently, this approval will continue to apply in all other respects other than the right to conduct mining operations until the rehabilitation of the site and these additional undertakings have been carried out satisfactorily.

Compliant At the time of this May 2018 audit NPM’s current approved Mining Operations Plan (MOP) is Version 1.1 dated 23 June 2016. The current MOP commenced on 1 January 2015 and will end on 1 January 2020.

Section 2.1.2 of the MOP states: “The approved mine life at Northparkes is currently 31 December 2032.”

Schedule 2 – Condition 6 – Limits on Approval – Ore Processing

The Proponent shall not process more than 8.5 million tonnes of ore on site in any calendar year.

Compliant According to “Sitewide Reconciliation Report Preliminary Summaries”, NPM processed (milled) the following amounts of ore was processed (milled) on site: • in calendar year 2015 a total of 6.035 million tonnes • in calendar year 2016 a total of 6.073 million tonnes; • in calendar year 2017 a total of 6.510 million tonnes; and • in 2018 to the end of April, a total of 2.163 million tonnes.

Schedule 2 – Condition 7 – Limits on Approval – Ore Concentrate Transport

The Proponent shall ensure that all ore concentrate produced on site is transported to the Goonumbla Rail Siding via truck haulage on Bogan Road.

Compliant Service provider, Western Freight Management Pty Limited (contract no. SC201625 dated 14 September 2016), transports all concentrate produced on site via truck haulage (road train). Travelling from the site, the road train uses McClintocks Lane to the intersection with Bogan Road, and then heads south along Bogan Road for 6 kilometres to the Goonumbla Rail Siding. The return trip is via the same route.

It was stated that a Global Positioning System (GPS) is fitted on the road train to monitor the movement of the road train between the


Page 15 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response NPM site and the Goonumbla Rail Siding.

Photo 1 Containers of concentrate awaiting loading at Goonumbla Rail Siding

Schedule 2 – Condition 8 – Surrender of Consents

Within 12 months of the date of this approval, or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary, the Proponent shall surrender the existing project approval PA06_0026 and development consent DA11092 in accordance with Section 104A of the EP&A Act. This requirement does not extend to the surrender of the Forbes Water Pipeline Development Consent DA2009/0057.

Note: This requirement does not extend to the surrender of construction and occupation certificates for existing and proposed building works under Part 4A of the EP&A Act. Surrender of a consent or approval should not be understood as implying that works legally constructed under a valid consent or approval can no longer be legally maintained or used.


NPM’s letter dated 30 April 2018 to the Secretary of the DPE (signed by a Director of CMOC Mining Pty Ltd) surrendered Project Approval PA06_0026.

In relation to Development Consent DA11092, a letter dated 7 September 2015 from Parkes Shire Council to NPM confirmed that NPM had notified Council of the voluntary surrender of DA11092 on 30 July 2015 (being one day before NPM’s requested due date of 31 July 2015 in its letter of 29 June 2015 to the DPE) and that the surrender of the consent would take effect on 7 September 2015.

Administrative non-compliance – Project Approval PA06_0026 was surrendered on 30 April 2018. NPM did not obtain the Secretary’s agreement beyond 31 July 2015 to surrender Project Approval PA06_0026.

Noted.

Schedule 2 – Condition 9 – Surrender of Consents

Prior to the surrender of these consents, the conditions of this approval (including any notes) shall prevail to the extent of any inconsistency with the conditions of these consents.



Page 16 of 129



Schedule 2 – Condition 10 – Structural Adequacy

The Proponent shall ensure that all new buildings and structures, and any alterations or additions to existing buildings and structures, are constructed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the BCA.

Notes: • Under Part 4A of the EP&A Act, the Proponent is required to

obtain construction and occupation certificates (where applicable) for the proposed building works;

• Part 8 of the EP&A Regulation sets out the requirements for the certification of the project.

Compliant It was stated that no new buildings or structures were constructed on site during the audit period except the new hydrocarbon storage shed (a portal design steel frame and steel clad ‘class 8’ building). The hydrocarbon storage shed was ‘exempt development’ under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (clause 10).

The design of the hydrocarbon storage shed (as detailed in drawing WSS1633360) was reviewed by Taberco Engineering. By letter of 31 October 2016, Taberco stated:

“The design has been done in accordance with the NCC:2016, AS/NZS 4600:2005, AS/NZS 1170.1:2002, AS/NZS 1170.2:2011, AS 4055:2012, AS 4100:1998, AS 2870:2011 and AS 3600:2009.”

It was stated that no alterations or additions to existing buildings and structures on site which may have required regulatory approval occurred during the audit period.

Photo 2 Hydrocarbon storage shed for temporary storage of waste

hydrocarbon products

Schedule 2 – Condition 11 – Demolition

The Proponent shall ensure that all demolition work is carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures, or its latest version.

Compliant It was stated that no demolition work occurred on site during the audit period.


Page 17 of 129



Schedule 2 – Condition 12 – Protection of Public Infrastructure

Unless the Proponent and the applicable authority agree otherwise, the Proponent shall: (a) repair, or pay the full costs associated with repairing,

any public infrastructure that is damaged by the project; and

(b) relocate, or pay the full costs associated with relocating, any public infrastructure that needs to be relocated as a result of the project.

Note: This condition does not apply to any damage to public infrastructure subject to compensation payable under the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961, or to damage to roads caused as a result of general road usage.

Compliant It was stated that: • NPM was not aware of any public infrastructure being damaged

by the project during the audit period; and • there has been no relocation of public infrastructure (other than

the specified access roads under the Project Approval) as a result of the project during the audit period.

NPM’s ‘NED’ incident reporting system allows the location of incidents (including any off-site damage to public infrastructure) to be recorded. A screenshot of the ‘create new incident’ NED system template was observed to allow the recording of off-site incidents.

Schedule 2 – Condition 13 – Operation of Plant and Equipment

The Proponent shall ensure that all the plant and equipment used on site is: (a) maintained in a proper and efficient condition; and (b) operated in a proper and efficient manner.

Compliant

Observation

As at 30 April 2018 the number of employees at NPM was 313 and the number of contractor personnel was 406.

In relation to paragraph (a) of this condition: • Maintenance scheduling was observed to be well organised.

Spreadsheets were sighted of current (May 2018) maintenance schedules for light vehicles and mobile equipment.

• A planned site outage calendar for 2018 was also sighted, which details scheduled maintenance of plant and equipment including a 48 hour site power outage in the week beginning 30 April 2018.

In relation to paragraph (b) of this condition: • Training and induction programs were observed to be

comprehensive and well managed. The General Site Induction (Environment) consists of a 24 slide PowerPoint presentation (including 8 assessment questions) and covers the basic environmental legislative framework, and the highest most significant environmental risks involving: water, air quality, waste and hydrocarbon management, land management and rehabilitation, biodiversity and threatened species management, and heritage.

• A sample of completed assessments used at NPM were sighted (including NPM employees and contractor personnel) for the

4. Noted.


Page 18 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response General Induction (17 April 2018 x 2), a Hydrocarbon Spill and Storage Quiz (13 April 2018), a Hydrocarbon and Chemical Management and Spill Response Quiz (4 May 2017), a Basic Environmental Awareness Quiz (12 February 2018).

Observation No. 4 – The 2017 AEMR indicates there were significant periods of no apparent monitoring data for PM10 (section 6.3.2.1) and TSP (section 6.3.2.2) at the various monitoring locations. The longest period with no apparent monitoring data was from about 2 July 2017 to about 10 October 2017 for PM10 at ‘Hillview’. (The dates in the Figure 12 graph in the 2017 AEMR are unclear.) NPM should implement suitable preventative measures to help avoid any significant periods of no monitoring data in the future.

Schedule 2 – Condition 14 – Staged Submission of Strategies, Plans or Programs

With the approval of the Secretary, the Proponent may submit any strategy, plan or program required by this approval on a progressive basis.

Notes: • While any strategy, plan or program may be submitted on a

progressive basis, the Proponent will need to ensure that the existing operations on site are covered by suitable strategies, plans or programs at all times; and

• If the submission of any strategy, plan or program is to be staged, then the relevant strategy, plan or program must clearly describe the specific stage to which the strategy, plan or program applies, the relationship of this stage to any future stages, and the trigger for updating the strategy, plan or program.

Compliant During the audit period NPM has not sought to submit any strategy, plan or program to the Secretary of DPE on a progressive (staged) basis.


Page 19 of 129

Project Approval 11_0060 (MOD 3) Schedule 3 – Environmental Conditions


Schedule 3 – Condition 1 – Noise – Noise Criteria

The Proponent shall ensure that the noise generated by the project does not exceed the criteria in Table 1 at any residence on privately-owned land. Table 1: Noise impact assessment criteria dB(A)

Note: To interpret the land referred to in Table 1, see the applicable figures in Appendix 4.

Operational noise generated by the project is to be measured in accordance with the relevant requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. Appendix 5 sets out the meteorological conditions under which these criteria apply, and the requirements for evaluating compliance with these criteria.

However, these criteria do not apply if the Proponent has an agreement with the owner/s of the relevant residence or land to generate higher noise levels, and the Proponent has advised the Department in writing of the terms of this agreement.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

It was stated that NPM has not received any noise complaints during the audit period.

Service provider, ESP – Environmental & Safety Professionals, conducts environmental noise assessments as part of NPM’s regular noise monitoring program. The most recent attended noise monitoring was conducted by ESP on selected dates in December 2017 (in company with NPM’s Senior Environmental Advisor) and unattended noise monitoring at the ‘Hillview’, ‘Hubberstone’, ‘Milpose’ and ‘Lone Pine’ noise monitoring locations.

ESP prepared an ‘Environmental Noise Monitoring Quarter 4, 2017’ report on 8 January 2018 (job no. J37589). As noted in the report, ESP used a calibrated ‘Rion NL-52’ sound level meter and conducted measurements in accordance with AS1055.1-1997 Acoustics – Description and measurement of environmental noise – General procedures.

The ESP report concluded (in section 6): “Attended noise monitoring results indicate noise emissions from the mine site comply with the development consent criteria. Weather conditions overall were not favourable for noise monitoring; however, measurements indicate compliance at all locations during conforming conditions.”

It was stated that NPM has an agreement (not sighted) in place with the owners of the ‘Avondale’ property for that property not to be occupied for the life of the mine. Hence, ‘Avondale’ is not used as a noise monitoring location despite being indicated as a noise monitoring location in Appendix 4 of the Project Approval.

Observation No. 5 – In referring to “the project” (as distinct from the mine) this condition also applies to the Goonumbla Rail Siding. NPM’s Noise Environmental Management Plan could be updated to refer to the Goonumbla Rail Siding and if required, implement a suitable noise monitoring program at the closest residences on privately-owned land around the Rail Siding.

Observation No. 6 – It became evident during this May 2018 audit that it was difficult for NPM environmental personnel to interrogate the ‘NED’ incident reporting system. NPM could consider reviewing access permissions for the NED system.

5. Noted.

6. Noted.


Page 20 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Auditor’s Note – The NSW Industrial Noise Policy referred to in this condition was replaced in October 2017 by the NSW Noise Policy for Industry.

Schedule 3 – Condition 2 – Noise – Construction Noise

The Proponent shall only carry out the construction works associated with the upgrade of McClintocks Lane, the construction of the McClintocks Lane access road and the upgrade of the intersection of McClintocks Lane and Bogan Road during the day.

Compliant

Observation

At the time of this May 2018 audit all works associated with the upgrade of McClintocks Lane, the construction of the McClintocks Lane access road and the upgrade of the intersection of McClintocks Lane and Bogan Road, had been completed.

The works were carried out by service provider, Form Roe Pour Pty Limited, under contract number SC201459 with a commencement date of 16 February 2015 (New Site Access Road).

NPM prepared an environment management plan for Construction of new Site access road (Project number P170022, Contract number SC201459, document number P1700224-PLN-0032-2 dated 29 April 2015). Section 4.17(b)(i) of the plan stated:

“(i) the Service Provider must restrict its performance of the Services in the field (including on the Site, where applicable) during the following times only: (1) for Mondays to Fridays, 7:00am to 6:00pm; and (2) for Saturdays, 8:00am to 1:00pm;”

Section 1.1 of the plan defined “Site” as: “Site means:

(i) the Company’s real property, which is deemed to include the Company’s mining leases and exploration leases;

(ii) McClintocks Lane; (iii) Bogan Road northwardly and southwardly of the intersection

of McClintocks Lane for approximately 1km in each direction; and

(iv) the intersection of McClintocks Lane and Bogan Road.”

Observation No. 7 – Section 4.17(b)(xi) of the environmental management plan (P1700224-PLN-0032-2 dated 29 April 2015) allows the Service Provider to perform Services outside the permitted hours in sub-paragraph (i) with NPM’s written approval. Although there is no evidence to suggest that sub-paragraph (xi) was used in this construction project, NPM should consider the wording of similar

7. Noted.


Page 21 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response sub-paragraphs in environmental management plans for future construction projects to ensure any requests for performing Services outside pre-defined hours will comply with any limits on hours that are specified in a Project Approval condition.

Schedule 3 – Condition 3 – Noise – Construction Noise

During construction of the works referred to in condition 2 of schedule 3, the noise criteria in Table 1 do not apply to the residences located in the vicinity of the works. The Proponent shall implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise construction noise impacts on the residences in the vicinity of these works.

Note: The measures to be implemented to minimise construction noise impacts shall be detailed in the Noise Management Plan required in condition 5 of schedule 4.

Compliant It was stated that NPM did not receive any complaints about noise during the construction works referred to in condition 2 of this Schedule.

There was evidence that NPM considered the requirement in this condition to implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise construction noise impacts on the residences in the vicinity of the works.

Section 4.17(a) of the environmental management plan referred to in condition 2 of this Schedule states:

“(a) The Service Provider must implement: (i) all reasonable and feasible measures and controls (non-

respectively); (ii) best management work practices; and (iii) any other strategies,

to eliminate, suppress, minimise, mitigate and/or otherwise control its noise and impacts arising from noise as a result of the performance of the Services.”

Section 4.17(b) of the environmental management plan then sets out various Noise Management Plan noise control measures (including limits on provision of Services (sub-paragraph (i)) and “appropriate equipment used for the required tasks in terms of power requirements” (sub-paragraph (v)).

Schedule 3 – Condition 4 – Noise – Operating Conditions

The Proponent shall:

(a) implement best management practice to minimise the construction, operational and road noise of the project;

(b) operate a comprehensive noise management system that uses a combination of predictive meteorological

Compliant

Observation

Observation

NPM has an Environmental Noise Management Plan (version no. 12 of October 2017). The Noise Management Plan (NMP) addresses the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (d) of this condition.

Implementation of the NMP includes the following measures: • NPM has prepared a noise monitoring schedule for 2018 within

an ‘Environment Monitoring and Measuring Schedule’ (Excel spreadsheet);

8. Noted.

9. Noted.


Page 22 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response forecasting and real-time noise monitoring data to guide the day to day planning, and the implementation of both proactive and reactive noise mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of this approval;

(c) minimise the noise impacts of the project during meteorological conditions when the noise limits in this approval do not apply (see Appendix 5); and

(d) carry out regular monitoring to determine whether the project is complying with the relevant conditions of this approval,

to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

• A “Copy of Task Calendar” for the period of July 2017 to June 2018 lists various environmental tasks including attended noise monitoring dates, monitoring equipment calibration dates and review of the NMP.

• NPM prepares a ‘Weekly Meteorological Assessment for the Risk of Airborne Dust Being Generated from Mine Lease’ using external data (an assessment for the week beginning 30 April 2018 was sighted). It was stated that this weekly assessment is relevant to this condition because high risk for dust is also high risk for noise.

• It was stated that the NPM Community, Environment & Farms Superintendent or an Environment Team member would communicate weather warnings to operational personnel by email and/or SMS alerts as required.

Observation No. 8 – NPM could consider linking or consolidating the ‘Environment Monitoring and Measuring Schedule’ and the ‘Copy of Task Calendar’ to create a single source of information regarding environmental monitoring requirements.

Observation No. 9 – NPM could consider automating the email/SMS weather assessment alert thereby eliminating the risk of an alert not being sent out due to unavailability of relevant personnel.

Schedule 3 – Condition 5 – Noise – Noise Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Noise Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. The plan must: (a) be prepared in consultation with the EPA, and submitted

to the Secretary for approval prior to the commencement of construction;

(b) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure compliance with the noise criteria and operating conditions in this approval;

(c) describe the proposed noise management system in detail; and

(d) include a monitoring program that:

Compliant

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

NPM’s Environmental Noise Management Plan (version no. 12 of October 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3718) is within its required review period (next review date is 1 October 2018).

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is implementing the Environmental Noise Management Plan (NMP). Refer to comments for condition 4 in this Schedule for examples of implementation of the NMP.

In relation to the paragraphs of this condition:

(a) The NMP was prepared in consultation with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Email correspondence from NPM to the EPA is attached as Appendix 1 to the NMP. There is evidence that the NMP was submitted to the Secretary of the DPE prior to the commencement of construction by the inclusion of comments from regulators (including the DPE) in

10-13: NPM will consider these observations during the next review of the NMP.


Page 23 of 129



• evaluates and reports on: - the effectiveness of the noise management system; - compliance against the noise criteria in this approval; and - compliance against the noise operating conditions;

• includes a program to calibrate and validate the real-time noise monitoring results with the attended monitoring results over time (so the real-time noise monitoring program can be used as a better indicator of compliance with the noise criteria in this approval and trigger for further attended monitoring); and

• defines what constitutes a noise incident, and includes a protocol for identifying and notifying the Department and relevant stakeholders of any noise incidents.

section 3.2 of the NMP. The DPE Secretary’s nominee approved the NMP by letter dated 27 April 2016.

(b) Section 6 of the NMP identifies three main strategies to identify reasonable and feasible noise control/mitigation strategies and sets out operational control measures (in section 6.1) for these main strategies. The three main strategies are: • Controlling noise at the source; • Controlling the transmission of noise; and • Controlling noise at the receiver.

Observation No. 10 – The reference in section 6 of the NMP to noise control/mitigation “strategies” should instead refer to noise control/mitigation “measures”.

(c) Section 6.1 of the NMP generally describes the noise management system as using a combination of predictive meteorological forecasting and real-time noise monitoring, and the implementation of proactive and reactive noise mitigation measures.

(d) Sections 6.1 and 7 of the NMP include a program of regular noise monitoring of site operations. The noise monitoring program: • evaluates and reports on:

- the effectiveness of the noise management system (section 7);

- compliance against the noise criteria in this approval (section 7.3.1); and

- compliance against the noise operating conditions (section 7).

• includes a program to calibrate and validate the real-time noise monitoring results with the attended monitoring results over time (so the real-time noise monitoring program can be used as a better indicator of compliance with the noise criteria in this approval and trigger for further attended monitoring) (section 7.1); and

• defines what constitutes a noise incident and includes a protocol for identifying and notifying the Department and relevant stakeholders of any noise incidents (sections 5.5, 7.3.1 and 8).


Page 24 of 129



Observation No. 11 – The next revision of the NMP should standardise the definition of what constitutes a ‘noise incident’ as variously referred to in sections 5.5, 7.3.1 and 8. Only section 7.3.1 refers to “repeat readings”.

Observation No. 12 – The next revision of the NMP could consolidate the overlapping content in sections 5.5, 7.3.1 and 8 regarding reporting of incidents.

Observation No. 13 – The next revision of the NMP should refer to the NSW Noise Policy for Industry, which replaced the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (2000) in October 2017.

Schedule 3 – Condition 6 – Blasting – Blasting Criteria

The Proponent shall ensure that blasting on site does not cause exceedences of the criteria in Table 2. Table 2: Blasting criteria

However, these criteria do not apply if the Proponent has a written agreement with the relevant owner to exceed these criteria, and has advised the Department in writing of the terms of this agreement.

Compliant Auditor’s Note – The ‘blasting’ conditions of this Schedule (conditions 6 to 13 inclusive) are interpreted by NPM as referring to open cut pit (i.e. surface) blasting only (as was the case in the 2015 audit report), due to the wording of condition 9. The DPE should consider the scope of these conditions (i.e. surface only, or surface and underground) in the DPE’s next revision of the Project Approval.

Despite the above interpretation, NPM prepared a Vibration Report relating to the undertaking of a vibration assessment (monitoring) at the residence of the “Adavale” property (Avadale Lane, Goonumbla) located approximately 3 kilometres from the mine site, between 22 July 2017 and 9 September 2017. The results of the monitoring over this 7 week period were stated as follows:

“During the seven week monitoring program there was only one exceedance of the Project Approval limit (5mm/s) that occurred on Sunday the 6/8/17 at 8.00am with a reading of 11.86mm/s. The only underground mine blasting for that day occurred at 6.30am suggesting that the vibration recorded wasn’t attributable to the mine. The majority of the vibration monitoring results were around the 0.17-0.18mm/s with a consistent anomaly up to 0.2 at 5.06am most mornings.”

NPM does not have a written agreement with any owner of land or public infrastructure to exceed the criteria in Table 2.


Page 25 of 129



Schedule 3 – Condition 7 – Blasting – Blasting Hours

The Proponent shall only carry out blasting on site between 9 am and 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive. No blasting is allowed on Sundays, public holidays, or at any other time without the written approval of the Secretary.

Compliant

Observation

Auditor’s Note – The compliance finding for this condition assumes this condition refers to surface blasting only.

Section 4.3 of NPM’s Blast Management Plan (version no. 3 of October 2017) refers to this condition in the context of “blasting in open cuts on site”.

It was stated that no surface blasting occurred on site during the audit period. Section 2.3.3 of NPM’s current approved Mining Operations Plan (1 January 2015 to 1 January 2020) states:

“No open cut operations are scheduled to be undertaken during the MOP period”.

Observation No. 14 – To cover the possibility that the DPE may interpret this condition as applying to both surface and underground blasting, NPM should consider obtaining written approval from the DPE Secretary to carry out underground blasting without limitation as to hours and days.

14. This will be addressed as part of the Modification 4 application to PA11_0060.

Schedule 3 – Condition 8 – Blasting – Blasting Frequency

The Proponent shall only carry out 1 blast per day on site.

This condition does not apply to blasts that generate ground vibration of 0.5 mm/s or less at any residence on privately-owned land, or blasts required to ensure the safety of the mine or its workers. Note: For the purposes of this condition, a blast refers to a single blast event, which may involve a number of individual blasts fired in quick succession in a discrete area of the mine.

Compliant Refer to comments regarding the Vibration Report in condition 6 of this Schedule.

Schedule 3 – Condition 9 – Blasting – Property Inspections

If the Proponent receives a written request from the owner of any privately-owned land within 2 kilometres of any approved open cut mining pit on site for a property inspection to establish the baseline condition of any buildings and/or structures on his/her land, or to have a previous property inspection updated, then within 2 months

Compliant During the audit period NPM has not received a written request under this condition.

Notwithstanding the absence of requests under this condition in the audit period, in 2017 (before the vibration monitoring referred to in condition 6 of this Schedule occurred) NPM commissioned Cooke + Roe Structural Engineers (job no. 34354) to prepare a Dilapidation Report on the “Avadale” property located approximately 3 kilometres from the mine site. The Summary of the June 2017 Report noted (for


Page 26 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response of receiving this request the Proponent shall:

(a) commission a suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, whose appointment is acceptable to both parties to:

• establish the baseline condition of any buildings and other structures on the land, or update the previous property inspection report; and

• identify measures that should be implemented to minimise the potential blasting impacts of the project on these buildings and/or structures; and

(b) give the landowner a copy of the new or updated property inspection report.

If there is a dispute over the selection of the suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, or the Proponent or the landowner disagrees with the findings of the property inspection report, either party may refer the matter to the Secretary for resolution.

the inspection of 24 May 2017): “Generally the dwelling inspected was found to be in fair structural condition. Minor movement of the structure is evident at a number of locations throughout the building which has resulted in cracking in cornicing, ceilings and masonry walls. The damage that was observed throughout the building is most likely the result of foundation movement of the underlying clay soils.”

Schedule 3 – Condition 10 – Blasting – Property Investigations

If the owner of any privately-owned land claims that buildings and/or structures on his/her land have been damaged as a result of blasting on the site, then within 2 months of receiving this claim the Proponent shall:

(a) commission a suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, whose appointment is acceptable to both parties to investigate the claim; and

(b) give the landowner a copy of the property investigation report.

If this independent property investigation confirms the landowner’s claim, and both parties agree with these findings, then the Proponent shall repair the damage to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

If there is a dispute over the selection of the suitably qualified, experienced and independent person, or the

Compliant It was stated that during the audit period NPM has not received a claim from the owner of any privately-owned land that buildings and/or structures on his/her land have been damaged as a result of blasting on the site.


Page 27 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Proponent or the landowner disagrees with the findings of the independent property investigation, then either party may refer the matter to the Secretary for resolution.

Schedule 3 – Condition 11 – Blasting – Operating Conditions


(a) implement best management practice to:

• protect the safety of people and livestock in the surrounding area;

• protect public or private infrastructure/property in the surrounding area from any damage; and

• minimise the dust and fume emissions of any blasting; and

(b) operate a suitable system to enable the public to get up-to-date information on the proposed blasting schedule on site,


Compliant

Observation

Auditor’s Note – The compliance finding for this condition assumes this condition refers to surface blasting only.

Section 4 of NPM’s Blast Management Plan (version no. 3 of October 2017) generally addresses the requirements in paragraph (a) of this condition.

Implementation measures in the Blast Management Plan (BMP) for surface blasting were not applicable during the audit period because no open cut mining has occurred or is scheduled to be undertaken during the current MOP (1 January 2015 to 1 January 2020).

In relation to paragraph (b) of this condition, section 4.6 of the BMP refers to NPM holding bi-annual neighbour meetings and sending text message notifications for predicted disturbances.

Observation No. 15 – NPM could revise its website to include a statement that there will be no surface blasting on site during the current MOP. If and when surface blasting resumes, the NPM website could include proposed blasting schedules.

15. Noted.

Schedule 3 – Condition 12 – Blasting – Operating Conditions

The Proponent shall not undertake blasting on site within 500 metres of:

(a) any public road;

(b) any land outside the site not owned by the Proponent,

unless the Proponent has:

• demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the blasting can be carried out closer to the infrastructure or land without compromising the safety of people or livestock or damaging the infrastructure and/or other buildings and structures; and

Compliant Auditor’s Note – The compliance finding for this condition assumes this condition refers to surface blasting only.

No open cut mining is scheduled to be undertaken during the current MOP (1 January 2015 to 1 January 2020).

Section 4.5 of the Blast Management Plan describes specific measures (including a written agreement with Parkes Shire Council, temporary road closures, notification of road closures, flyrock removal and road maintenance) that NPM would carry out prior to undertaking any blasting within 500 metres of a public road.


Page 28 of 129



• updated the Blast Management Plan to include the specific measures that would be implemented while blasting is being carried out within 500 metres of the infrastructure or land; or

• a written agreement with the relevant infrastructure owner or landowner to allow blasting to be carried out closer to the infrastructure or land, and the Proponent has advised the Department in writing of the terms of this agreement.

Schedule 3 – Condition 13 – Blasting – Blast Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Blast Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This plan must:

(a) be prepared in consultation with the EPA, and submitted to the Secretary for approval prior to conducting any blasting on site;

(b) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure compliance with the blast criteria and operating conditions of this approval;

(c) propose and justify any alternative ground vibration limits for public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site (if relevant); and

(d) include a monitoring program for evaluating and reporting on compliance with the blasting criteria and operating conditions of this approval.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

Observation

NPM’s Blast Management Plan (version no. 3 of October 2017, Doc ID no. 3-8448) is within its required review period (next review date is 1 October 2018).

Section 1 of the Blast Management Plan (BMP) limits the scope of the BMP to all open cut mining activities undertaken by NPM. No open cut mining occurred during the audit period. No open cut mining is scheduled to be undertaken during the remaining period of the current Mining Operations Plan (which expires on 1 January 2020).


(a) The DPE Secretary’s nominee approved the BMP by letter dated 19 January 2016.

Observation No. 16 – Although paragraph (a) of this condition does not require a written record of consultation, NPM should consider obtaining a written record of consultation with the EPA in future substantive revisions of the BMP and annexing a copy of the written record to the revised version.

(b) Section 4 of the BMP describes various measures (including temporary road closures and risk assessments) that would be implemented to ensure compliance with the blast criteria and operating conditions of the approval.

Observation No. 17 – Table 2 in section 4.2 of the BMP is missing the 0% allowable exceedance in for “all public infrastructure” as printed in condition 6 of this Schedule.

(c) The BMP does not propose any alternative ground vibration limits for public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site.

16. Noted.

17. NPM will consider this observation during the next review of the BMP.

18. Noted.


Page 29 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (d) Section 6 of the BMP includes a monitoring program for

evaluating and reporting on compliance with the blasting criteria and operating conditions of the approval.

Observation No. 18 – Notwithstanding the scope of the BMP being limited to open cut mining activities, the third paragraph in section 4.1 of the BMP refers to underground blasts.

Schedule 3 – Condition 14 – Air Quality – Air Quality Criteria

The Proponent shall ensure that all reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures are employed so that particulate matter emissions generated by the project do not cause exceedances of the criteria listed in Tables 3, 4 and 5 at any residence on privately-owned land. Table 3: Long term impact assessment criteria for particulate matter

Table 4: Short term impact assessment criterion for particulate matter

Table 5: Long term impact assessment criteria for deposited dust

Notes to Tables 3-5: a Total impact (i.e. incremental increase in concentrations due to the development plus background concentrations due to all other sources); b Incremental impact (i.e. incremental increase in concentrations due to the development on its own); c Deposited dust is to be assessed as insoluble solids as defined by Standards Australia, AS/NZS 3580.10.1:2003: Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air - Determination of Particulate Matter - Deposited Matter - Gravimetric Method; and

Compliant

Observation

Observation

Observation

NPM has an Air Quality Management Plan (version no. 15 of April 2018).

Section 6 of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) describes various control measures for air quality management. For example: • NPM has a private agreement (not sighted) in place with the

owners of the nearby “Avondale” property for the property to remain unoccupied over the life of the mine; and

• NPM’s Environment Team obtains weekly predictive weather forecasts to identify conditions (e.g. high winds) which may result in modifications to work programs.

It was stated that there have been no air quality complaints attributable to the Project during the audit period.

As at May 2018 the following monitors are in use: • 3 PM10 monitors (Beta, continuous); • 3 TSP monitors (high volume 24 hour period every 6 days); and • 11 depositional dust gauges.

Data from the PM10 monitors is analysed by NPM on a weekly basis.

Filter papers in the TSP monitors are sent monthly for external analysis by NATA accredited service provider, ALS.

It was stated during the on-site component of this May 2018 audit that NPM intends to review the AQMP, including a technical review of the number and locations of the monitors and gauges.

Observation No. 19 – Notwithstanding the private agreement in place with the owners of “Avondale”, the wording of the condition does not refer to ‘occupied’ residence (compare with the wording in condition 15 of this Schedule). NPM could request the DPE to amend the wording of this condition to refer to ‘occupied’ residence.

19-21: Noted.


Page 30 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response d Excludes extraordinary events such as bushfires, prescribed burning, dust storms, fire incidents or any other activity agreed by the Secretary.

Observation No. 20 – During the on-site component of this May 2018 audit it was stated that the AQMP inaccurately describes the PM10 and TSP monitors. NPM should rectify this inaccuracy in the next revision of the AQMP.

Observation No. 21 – NPM could review the locations of the depositional dust gauges to better reflect particulate matter emissions generated by the Project and avoid the influence of agricultural activities on surrounding land.

Photo 3 Dust monitoring station at ‘Hubberstone’ including depositional dust

gauge, PM10 and TSP monitors (note the adjacent tilled land)

Photo 4 Depositional dust monitor (TDSW) located in the south-west corner

of the site, adjacent to farming land


Page 31 of 129



Schedule 3 – Condition 15 – Air Quality – Mine-owned Land

The Proponent shall ensure that all reasonable and feasible avoidance and mitigation measures are employed so that particulate matter emissions generated by the project do not cause exceedances of the criteria listed in Tables 3, 4 and 5 at any occupied residence on mine-owned land unless:

(a) the tenant has been notified of any health risks associated with such exceedances in accordance with the notification requirements under schedule 5 of this approval;

(b) the tenant of any land owned by the Proponent can terminate their tenancy agreement without penalty at any time, subject to giving reasonable notice;

(c) air mitigation measures such as air filters, a first flush roof water drainage system and/or air conditioning) are installed at the residence, if requested by the tenant;

(d) air quality monitoring is regularly undertaken to inform the tenant of the actual particulate emissions at the residence; and

(e) data from this monitoring is presented to the tenant in an appropriate format for a medical practitioner to assist the tenant in making informed decisions on the health risks associated with occupying the property,



There was no occupied residence on mine-owned land during the audit period.

Schedule 3 – Condition 16 – Air Quality – Operating Conditions


(a) implement best management practice to minimise the off-site odour, fume and dust emissions of the project;

(b) implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the release of greenhouse gas emissions from

Compliant Practices implemented by NPM to comply with the paragraphs of this condition include: • regular maintenance of fixed plant and mobile equipment; • no on-site landfill facility exists (all non-mineral waste is

transported off-site by using skip bins); • the concentrate transport road train utilises a wash bay at the

completion of loading, and the load container is covered; • no diesel generators are permanently utilised on site;


Page 32 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response the site;

(c) minimise any visible off-site air pollution generated by the project;

(d) minimise the surface disturbance of the site;

(e) operate a air quality management system that uses a combination of predictive meteorological forecasting and real-time air quality monitoring data to guide the day to day planning of mining operations and the implementation of both proactive and reactive air quality mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of this approval; and

(f) minimise the air quality impacts of the project during adverse meteorological conditions and extraordinary events (see Note d above under Table 5);


• water sprays are used on surface conveyors and the secondary crusher;

• the waste rock dump was expanded over a former laydown area instead of over undisturbed land.

Section 8.4 of the 2017 Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR) notes that seeding has been identified as a successful dust mitigation strategy to reduce dust lift off from TSFs through vegetation cover provided by various introduced vegetation species (annual and perennial). NPM stated that it will undertake further seeding trials in 2018 on the Rosedale TSF and TSF2.

In relation to dust emissions, also refer to comments for EPL condition O3.1.

Photo 5 Concentrate transport road train wash bay

Schedule 3 – Condition 17 – Air Quality – Air Quality Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Air Quality Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This plan must:

(a) be prepared in consultation with the EPA, and submitted to the Secretary for approval by 30 June 2014;

(b) describe the measures that would be implemented to

Compliant

Observation

NPM’s Air Quality Management Plan (version no. 15 of April 2018, Doc ID no. 3-3714) is within its required review period (next review date in the document header is noted as 1 October 2018).

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Refer to comments for condition 16 of this Schedule for examples of implementation of the AQMP.


22. Noted.


Page 33 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response ensure compliance with the relevant air quality criteria and operating conditions of this approval:

(c) describe the air quality management system;

(d) include an air quality monitoring program that:

• adequately supports the air quality management system;

• evaluates and reports on the: - the effectiveness of the air quality management

system; - compliance with the air quality criteria; - compliance with the air quality operating

conditions; and • defines what constitutes an air quality incident, and

includes a protocol for identifying and notifying the Department and relevant stakeholders of any air quality incidents.

(a) The DPE Secretary’s nominee approved the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) by letter dated 27 April 2016. Appendix 1 to the AQMP reproduces a record of consultation with the EPA (circa August 2014).

(b) The AQMP describes measures to be implemented to ensure compliance with the relevant air quality criteria and operating conditions of the Project Approval (section 6 – control measures, section 7 – monitoring, and section 8 – data analysis).

(c) Section 6.1 of the AQMP generally describes the air quality management system as using a combination of predictive meteorological forecasting and real-time weather monitoring data to guide the day to day planning of construction and mining operations, and the implementation of both proactive and reactive air quality mitigation measures.

(d) Sections 6.1 and 7 of the AQMP include a program of regular air quality monitoring of site operations. The air quality monitoring program: • adequately supports the air quality management system

(monitoring is required to be conducted for the air quality criteria in condition 14 of this Schedule);

• evaluates and reports on: - the effectiveness of the air quality management system

(section 7); - compliance against the air quality criteria (section 8); and - compliance against the air quality operating conditions

(section 8). • defines what constitutes an air quality incident, and includes a

protocol for identifying and notifying the Department and relevant stakeholders of any air quality incidents (sections 8 and 9).

Observation No. 22 – The Revision Summary page of the AQMP includes version no. 15 prepared in April 2018, but the document header and next review date have not been updated.

Schedule 3 – Condition 18 – Meteorological Monitoring

For the life of the project, the Proponent shall ensure that there is a meteorological station in the vicinity of the site

Compliant During the audit period NPM maintained an automatic meteorological station (model number CR800, serial number 20425) on Mining Lease No. 1367.


Page 34 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response that:

(a) complies with the requirements in the Approved Methods for Sampling of Air Pollutants in New South Wales guideline; and

(b) is capable of continuous real-time measurement of stability class in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, unless a suitable alternative is approved by the Secretary following consultation with the EPA.

A calibration certificate for the meteorological station, issued by ALS Hydrographics (Penrith, NSW) and dated 21 September 2017 was sighted.

Section 7.2 (‘Real Time Meteorological Monitoring’) of NPM’s Air Quality Management Plan states:

“The weather monitoring station NPM [sic] is sited as required in “Approved Methods for Sampling of Air Pollutants in New South Wales”, which complies with AS 2923 – 1987 – Guide for Measurement of Horizontal Wind for Air Quality Applications. The meteorological station complies with AS 2923 – 1987 on all respects. The 10m tower located on relatively flat terrain and is at least ten times the height of obstructions, and away from those obstructions, as per Section 8.3 of AS 2923 – 1987.”

Auditor’s Note – The NSW Industrial Noise Policy as referred to in this condition was replaced by the NSW Noise Policy for Industry in October 2017.

Photo 6 Meteorological station on ML 1367

Schedule 3 – Condition 19 – Water – Water Supply

The Proponent shall ensure that it has sufficient water for all stages of the project, and if necessary, adjust the scale of operations on site to match its available water supply. Note: Under the Water Act 1912 and/or the Water Management Act 2000, the Applicant is required to obtain the necessary water licences for the project.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

The two main supplies of water to the project include collected rainfall/runoff and external raw water supplies. The main water losses applicable to the project are evaporation and retention in tailings storages.

A review of the water licensing Statement of Approvals (NSW DPI-Water) provided by NPM demonstrates that (as at 24 January 2018) NPM holds two works approvals (70CA613802 and 70CA613702) for

23-24: Noted.


Page 35 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response groundwater bores with an approved Specified Purpose conditioned as “Mining”.

Water Access Licenses (WALs) held by NPM listing the two approved works as nominated works include: • WAL No. 32004: 1600 units; • WAL No. 32120: 1050 units.

Assuming a basis of 1 ML/unit, NPM holds total groundwater allocations of 2650 ML/annum for external raw water supply for Mining purposes. NPM also holds several WALs for Irrigation purposes.

NPM stated that external water is also supplied to the project by Parkes Shire Council (PSC) under an agreement between NPM and PSC. However, a copy of the agreement was not provided by NPM during this May 2018 audit and therefore the supply capacity and conditions of that agreement could not be verified.

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is attempting to align concentrate production with the available water supply. Engineering consultants, GHD, provided NPM with a “Water Balance Assessment” (dated 15 December 2017) with the stated purpose of the Assessment being “to validate the site water balance model and estimate average external raw water supply requirements to allow operations to continue during periods of below average rainfall” (section 1).

Observation No. 23 – The water balances reported in the AEMRs were observed to be unclear or incomplete. For example, Table 24 in the 2017 AEMR does not balance and data is absent. Section 3.8 of the 2015 AEMR refers to a total water use of 6684 ML, but Table 10 indicates a total water use of 6521 ML. NPM should review water supply and demand calculations and the presentation of the results of those calculations in future AEMRs.

Observation No. 24 – Section 7.1.1 of the 2017 AEMR states: “In accordance with the Approval, CMOC maintains a Surface Water Balance (SWB) for effective management of water resources. The SWB details water use, water demand and water management, as well as the sources and security of water supply, including contingency for future reporting periods. The SWB will be revised in


Page 36 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response 2018 in order to better reflect modifications to the mine plan.” NPM should consider revising this statement to instead refer to the Site Water Balance.

Schedule 3 – Condition 20 – Water – Compensatory Water Supply

The Proponent shall provide a compensatory water supply to any landowner of privately owned land whose water supply is adversely and directly impacted (other than an impact that is negligible) as a result of the project, in consultation with DPI Water, and to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

The extent of adverse impact on water supply must be investigated in accordance with the procedures outlined in Condition 4 of Schedule 5. The compensatory water supply measures must provide an alternative long-term supply of water that is equivalent to the loss attributable to the project. Equivalent water supply should be provided (at least on an interim basis) within 24 hours of the loss being identified, unless otherwise agreed with the landowner.

If the Proponent and the landowner cannot agree on the measures to be implemented, or there is a dispute about the implementation of these measures, then either party may refer the matter to the Secretary for resolution.

If the Proponent is unable to provide an alternative long-term supply of water, then the Proponent shall provide alternative compensation to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

Compliant It was stated that during the audit period NPM was not notified of any adverse and direct impact (other than an impact that is negligible) on the water supply to any landowner of privately owned land. Hence, NPM was not required to provide a compensatory water supply during the audit period.

Schedule 3 – Condition 21 – Water – Water Pollution

Unless an EPL authorises otherwise, the Proponent shall comply with Section 120 of the POEO Act.

Compliant NPM’s environmental personnel confirmed their awareness and understanding of this condition and the meaning of section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Table 1 in section 3 of NPM’s Water Management Plan acknowledges this condition.


Page 37 of 129



Schedule 3 – Condition 22 – Water – Water Management Performance Measures

The Proponent shall comply with the performance measures in Table 6 to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

Table 6: Water Management Performance Measures

Not verified

Observation

Observation

Several of the required performance measures for the water management features in Table 6 of this condition are included in the 2017 AEMR and NPM’s Water Management Plan (and in particular, the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) within the Water Management Plan) as follows:

Water management – General

Section 7.3 of the 2017 AEMR states (in part): “The volume of freshwater imported to site decreased (1808 ML in 2014, 1913 ML in 2015, 2221 ML in 2016 and 1926 ML in 2017) from the previous reporting period. All water imported to site was from two groundwater licence allocations owned by CMOC or through a commercial arrangement with Parkes Shire Council. No allocations of CMOC’s river water was imported to site in the reporting period...”.

Construction and operation of linear infrastructure (including Goonumbla Creek road crossing)

Section 7.1.1 of the 2017 AEMR states that erosion and sediment control is guided by the Water Management Plan and Surface Water Management Plan, and is consistent with the ‘Blue Book’ – Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction, Volume 1 (2004) and Managing Urban Stormwater, Volume 2E: Mines and Quarries (DECC, 2008).

According to section 8.2.6 of the SWMP, the six crossing structures along Goonumbla Creek (which allow vehicles and conveyors to pass over the watercourse corridor) are multiple unit, wide span designs with a shallow structure height to allow flooding to pass through in a safe and controlled manner.

Clean water management system

The clean water management system at NPM includes farm dams and watercourses. According to section 8.1 of the SWMP, one aspect of clear water management on site is the diversion of clean catchments away from areas of disturbance.

Dirty water management system

The dirty water management system includes settlement ponds.

25. Northparkes manage the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in accordance with Australian Standard 1940:2017.

26. Northparkes manage the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in accordance with Australian Standard 1940:2017.


Page 38 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Table 11 in Section 13.1.2 of the SWMP indicates the settlement ponds were assessed against the 90th percentile 5 day duration rainfall event.

Contaminated water management system

The contaminated water management system includes all aspects of ore processing, and retention ponds.

Section 7.1.1 of the 2017 AEMR states: “A critical component of the water management system is to maintain zero discharge of contaminated water into the surrounding environment.”

Chemical and hydrocarbon storage

Section 6.7.3 of the 2017 AEMR provides details of the Bioremediation Area established in 2017 for the treatment of hydrocarbon-laden material from the Surge Dam 1 and 2 clean-out.

Section 8.2 of the SWMP states that chemicals and hydrocarbons will be stored in bunded areas in accordance the relevant Australian Standards.

Not verified – At the time of this May 2018 audit NPM could not provide written evidence of the following water management performance measures in Table 6 for the operation’s existing water management features: • the second and third points of the ‘Construction and operation of

linear infrastructure (including Goonumbla Creek road crossing’ feature;

• the first point of the ‘Clean Water Management System’ feature; and

• the second and third points of the ‘Contaminated Water Management System’ feature.

Observation No. 25 – At the time of the audit, an IBC of Sodium Hypochlorite was observed to have been unloaded in a non-bunded area in the stores area. NPM should review procedures for temporary storage of hazardous materials.

Observation No. 26 – NPM should consider storing waste oil presently stored in open IBCs in waste metal area for underground


Page 39 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response waste in the covered dedicated hydrocarbon storage shed to avoid contamination with rain water and centralise storage of all hydrocarbon waste.

Photo 7 Self-bunded contractor's fuel storage on site

Photo 8 Bunded bulk hydrocarbon storage on site

Schedule 3 – Condition 23 – Water – Water Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Water Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This plan must:

(a) be prepared in consultation with DPI Water and the EPA, by suitably qualified and experienced persons whose appointment has been approved by the Secretary;

(b) be submitted to the Secretary for approval prior by 30 June 2014;

(c) in addition to the standard requirements for management plans (see Condition 3 of schedule 6), this plan must include a:


(in 3 parts)

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

NPM’s Water Management Plan (version no. 8.0 of May 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3756) is within its required review period (next review date is 30 May 2018).

For ease of reference, comments for this condition are separated into ‘Content of the Water Management Plan’ and ‘Implementation of the Water Management Plan’.

Content of the Water Management Plan

The Water Management Plan (WMP) includes a Site Water Balance, Surface Water Management Plan and Groundwater Management Plan as Appendices to the WMP.


(a) There was no evidence during this May 2018 audit that the DPE has indicated any dissatisfaction with the WMP. Section 3.1 of

Non-compliance: NPM will undertake a scheduled review of management plans and update as required to meet requirements of this condition.

27. NPM will delete this commitment at the next review, as all regulator feedback is included in tables 2 & 3 of the WMP.

28. Complete.

29. Noted.


Page 40 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (i) Site Water Balance that:

• includes details of: - sources and security of water supply,

including contingency planning for future reporting periods;

- water use and management on site; - reporting procedures, including the

preparation of a site water balance for each calendar year;

• describes the measures that would be implemented to minimise clean water use on site;

(ii) Surface Water Management Plan, that includes: • detailed baseline data on water flows and

quality in the waterbodies that could be affected by the project;

• a detailed description of the water management system on site;

• detailed plans, including design objectives and performance criteria, for the: - tailings storage facilities; - final voids (see the Rehabilitation

Objectives in Table 8); • detailed performance criteria for the following,

including trigger levels for investigating any potentially adverse impacts associated with the project: - the water management systems (clean,

dirty and contaminated); - downstream surface water quality; - downstream flooding impacts; and - stream and riparian vegetation health for

Bogan River, Tenandra Creek, Goonumbla Creek and Cookopie Creek;

• a program to monitor and report on: - the effectiveness of the water

management systems (clean, dirty and contaminated);

- surface water flows and quality, stream and riparian vegetation health in the

Observation

the WMP sets out comments from the DPE and the EPA, and NPM’s responses to those comments.

Observation No. 27 – Section 3.1 of the WMP notes: “Comments regarding previous submissions and reviews of the WMP can be found in the archived versions of previously approved WMP.” To facilitate access to previously made comments from regulators, in the next revision of the WMP NPM could either insert hyperlinks to relevant previous versions of the WMP or add an Appendix to the WMP which contains all historical comments from regulators.

(b) The first version of the WMP prepared under this Project Approval appears to be version no. 2.0 of September 2014, which refers to GHD as being the author of that version. In relation to the 30 June 2014 deadline, as noted in the 2015 audit report:

“Approval by the specified date could not be achieved, as the project itself was not approved until July 2014.”

Paragraph (c) – Site Water Balance:

(i) The WMP includes a Site Water Balance in Appendix E. The Site Water Balance was prepared by service provider, GHD, and is dated August 2014 (document reference 22/17289). In relation to the following points in paragraph (c)(i), the Site Water Balance: • includes details of:

- sources and security of water supply (section 2.2); - water use and management on site (section 2.4);

• describes the measures that would be implemented to minimise clean water use on site (section 2.2.3).

Administrative non-compliance (part 1) – The Site Water Balance does not include: • contingency planning for future reporting periods; • reporting procedures, including the preparation of a site water

balance for each calendar year.

Observation No. 28 – The published (NPM website) version of the WMP is does not include the Site Water Balance (Appendix E). NPM should ensure the published version includes all Appendices in the formally approved version of the WMP.

30. NPM deems the republishing of background data as not appropriate.

31. NPM will consider this during the next review of the GWMP.

32. NPM deems the republishing of background data as not appropriate.

33. NPM will consider this during the next review of the WMP.

34. Completed.

35. Noted.


Page 41 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response watercourses that could be affected by the project; and

- downstream flooding impacts; • reporting procedures for the results of the

monitoring program; and • a plan to respond to any exceedances of the

performance criteria, and mitigate any adverse surface water impacts of the project;

(iii) Groundwater Management Plan, that includes: • detailed baseline data on groundwater levels,

yield and quality in the region and privately-owned groundwater bores that could be affected by the project;

• groundwater assessment criteria, including trigger levels for investigating any potentially adverse groundwater impacts;

• a program to monitor and report on: - groundwater inflows to the block cave,

sub-level cave and open cut mining operations;

- the seepage/leachate from water storages, emplacement and final voids;

- background changes in groundwater yield/quality against mine-induced changes;

- impacts of the project on: - regional and local (including alluvial)

aquifers; - groundwater supply of potentially

affected landowners; and - riparian vegetation;

- a program to validate the groundwater model for the project, and comparison of monitoring results with modelled predictions; and

• a plan to respond to any exceedances of the groundwater assessment criteria.

[Auditor’s Note: Blue type represents the June 2015 modification.]

Observation No. 29 – NPM consider replacing Figures 3-5 (Section 6) of the WMP with Figure 5-1 of the GHD Site Water Balance report to better reflect the site water balance (i.e. with approximate volumes included). Table 5-1 of the same report could be described in the WMP as the template to be used in the AEMR for reporting of the annual site water balance.

Paragraph (c) – Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP):

(ii) The WMP includes a Surface Water Management Plan in Appendix F. NPM’s Surface Water Management Plan (version no. 3 of May 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3713) is within its required review period (next review date is 30 May 2018). In relation to the following points in paragraph (c)(ii), the SWMP/WMP includes: • a detailed description of the water management system on

site (section 8 of the SWMP); • trigger levels for investigating any potentially adverse

impacts associated with the project (see Appendix C of the WMP for the trigger levels referenced in section 10.3 of the SWMP): - the water management systems (clean, dirty and

contaminated); - downstream surface water quality; - downstream flooding impacts ; and - stream and riparian vegetation health for Bogan River,

Tenandra Creek, Goonumbla Creek and Cookopie Creek;

• a program (in section 8.7 of the WMP and section 10 of the SWMP) to monitor and report on: - the effectiveness of the water management systems

(clean, dirty and contaminated) (section 8.6 of the WMP); and

- surface water flows and quality, stream and riparian vegetation health in the watercourses that could be affected by the project (section 10.2 of the SWMP);

• reporting procedures for the results of the monitoring program (section 10.4 of the SWMP);

• a plan to respond to any exceedances of the performance criteria (section 10.1 and Appendix A of the WMP), and


Page 42 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response mitigate any adverse surface water impacts of the project (section 11 of the SWMP).

Administrative non-compliance (part 2) – The SWMP/WMP does not include: • detailed baseline data on water flows and quality in the

waterbodies that could be affected by the project (section 7 of the SWMP contains some baseline data on water quality (pH, electrical conductivity, total suspended solids and copper), but there is no data on water flows);

• detailed plans, including design objectives and performance criteria, for the: - tailings storage facilities; - final voids;

• detailed performance criteria, other than trigger levels, for: - the water management systems (clean, dirty and

contaminated); - downstream surface water quality; - downstream flooding impacts ; and - stream and riparian vegetation health for Bogan River,

Tenandra Creek, Goonumbla Creek and Cookopie Creek; • a program to monitor and report on downstream flooding

impacts.

Observation No. 30 – The SWMP refers to surface water baseline data being contained in the Northparkes Step Change Project (Umwelt, 2013) Appendix 11. NPM could include the more detailed baseline data in an Appendix to the SWMP.

Paragraph (c) – Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP):

(iii) The WMP includes a Groundwater Management Plan in Appendix G. NPM’s Groundwater Management Plan (version no. 2 of 3 October 2016, Doc ID no. 3-9795) is not within its required review period (review date was 10 October 2017). In relation to the following points in paragraph (c)(iii), the GWMP/WMP includes: • groundwater assessment criteria, including trigger levels for

investigating any potentially adverse groundwater impacts (see Appendix D of the WMP for the trigger levels referenced in section 9.1 of the GWMP);


Page 43 of 129



• a program (in section 9.1 of the WMP and section 10 of the GWMP) to monitor and report on: - groundwater inflows to the block cave and open cut

mining operations (section 10.2 of the GWMP); - the seepage/leachate from water storages,

emplacement and final voids (section 8 of the GWMP); - impacts of the project on:

- regional and local (including alluvial) aquifers (section 10 of the GWMP);

- groundwater supply of potentially affected landowners (section 10.3 of the WMP); and

- riparian vegetation (section 8.4 of the WMP); • a plan to respond to any exceedances of the groundwater

assessment criteria (section 10.2 and Appendix B of the WMP).

Administrative non-compliance (part 3) – The GWMP/WMP does not include: • detailed baseline data on groundwater levels, yield and quality in

the region and privately-owned groundwater bores that could be affected by the project (section 6 of the GWMP provides some baseline data regarding pH, TDS, and spatial and temporal variations in water quality across the Northparkes site near the ore bodies);

• a program to monitor and report on groundwater inflows to the sub-level cave mining operations;

• a program to monitor and report on background changes in groundwater yield/quality against mine-induced changes;

• a program to validate the groundwater model for the project, and comparison of monitoring results with modelled predictions.

Observation No. 31 – The GWMP should be revised to include NPM’s sub-level cave mining operations, for consistency with the June 2015 modification of the Project Approval.

Observation No. 32 – The GWMP refers to more information regarding groundwater background data being contained in the Northparkes Step Change Project (Umwelt, 2013) Appendix 10. NPM could include the detailed background data in an Appendix to the GWMP.


Page 44 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Observation No. 33 – Overlapping content exists in the WMP, SWMP and GWMP. NPM could consider whether the WMP should be revised to become a single integrated document which includes Site Water Balance, Surface Water and Groundwater chapters.

Observation No. 34 – NPM should amend the header in the GWMP to use the Doc ID no. 3-9795 noted on the first page.

Implementation of the Water Management Plan

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is implementing the WMP. Examples of implementation of the WMP include: • NPM’s use of ‘water course monitoring inspection (after rainfall)

field sheets’ (completed field sheets of 4 December 2017 for watercourses WC01, WC02, WC04, WC5, WC06, WC7, WC11, WC12, WC13, and WC14 were sighted); and

• NPM engaged SRK Consulting to review water quality trigger values under this condition and prepare a report; “Water Quality Trigger Levels for Surface and Groundwater – Northparkes Mine” (September 2016, SRK project number NTH001).

Observation No. 35 – Section 7 of the September 2016 SRK report includes various preliminary recommendations. NPM could track its progress towards adopting any or all of these recommendations.

Schedule 3 – Condition 24 – Biodiversity – Pine Donkey Orchid

The Proponent shall actively manage and maintain the populations of Pine Donkey Orchid located to the north of the project area (near Adavale Lane) and near the E48 subsidence zone.

Note: The locations of the Pine Donkey Orchid populations are shown on the figure in Appendix 6.

Compliant

Observation

NPM’s Species Management Plan for the Pine Donkey Orchid (version no. 1 of 22 September 2015, Doc ID no. 3-8610) is within its required review period (according to section 9, the Species Management Plan will be reviewed every three years).

NPM prepared the Species Management Plan in response to a request from the OEH arising from its review of the then draft Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (BOMP).

The Species Management Plan was observed to be comprehensive and includes species information (section 3), performance indicators (section 4) and monitoring (section 8).

Pine Donkey Orchid survey reports were completed as follows: • Spring 2015 (service provider, DnA Environmental with the

assistance of a NPM Environment Advisor);

36. Northparkes will consider this observation during the next review of the SMP.


Page 45 of 129



• Spring 2016 (service provider, Niche Environment and Heritage, and a NPM Environment Advisor; and

• Spring 2017 (DnA Environmental with the assistance of a NPM Environment Advisor).

The auditors observed part of the fenced boundary of the Pine Donkey Orchid Area at the E48 subsidence zone. During this May 2018 audit no visible specimens of the Pine Donkey Orchid were observed at the E48 subsidence zone.

Photo 9 Part of fenced Pine Donkey Orchid Area at E48 subsidence zone

Observation No. 36 – References in the Species Management Plan to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 should be reviewed and updated to instead refer to the current Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Schedule 3 – Condition 25 – Biodiversity – Biodiversity Offsets

The Proponent shall implement the biodiversity offset strategies summarised in Table 7 below, shown conceptually in Figures 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix 7 and detailed in the table at Appendix 7, to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

Compliant NPM’s Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (version no. 4 of 24 November 2016) covers the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site, the Limestone National Forest Offset site and the Estcourt Tailings Storage Facility Offset site.

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is implementing the requirements of the biodiversity offset strategies. For example, in relation to the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site, NPM environmental personnel conduct biannual (twice yearly) inspections of the site. The Summary section of the April 2016 inspection report noted items for attention including: weed control measures; potential rabbit burrows; identification of a threatened bird species (superb parrot); and repair of the gate and fence at the entry of the site.

Biodiversity monitoring activities (as noted in section 6.6.1 of the 2017


Page 46 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Table 7: Summary of the Biodiversity Offsets

Notes: • The Limestone National Forest Biodiversity Offset area is

marked in blue and labelled “Addition To Limestone National Forest” in Figure 1 of Appendix 7.

• The Estcourt Tailings Storage Facility Biodiversity Offset area is marked with bold black line in Figure 2 of Appendix 7.

• The Kokoda Biodiversity Offset area is marked with red line in Figure 3 of Appendix 7.

AEMR) include: • rehabilitation monitoring for both the mine site and the offset

areas; • flora and fauna monitoring at the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Site;

and • annual Pine Donkey Orchid population monitoring survey.

Schedule 3 – Condition 26 – Biodiversity – Biodiversity Offsets

The Proponent shall ensure that the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset provides suitable habitat for all the threatened fauna species confirmed and identified as being present in the disturbance areas.

Note: The threatened fauna species confirmed and identified as being present in the disturbance areas are listed in Appendix 8.

Compliant NPM’s Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (version no. 4 of 24 November 2016) contains measures that NPM will implement to ensure the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset area provides suitable habitat to assist in the protection of threatened fauna species. These measures include: • pest and kangaroo management (baiting control programs for

foxes and rabbits) in section 5.5.1; • habitat augmentation measures (use of nest boxes, fallen timber)

in section 5.71; and


Page 47 of 129



• bushfire management (Bush Fire Management Plan for the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Site) in section 5.13.

It was stated that during the audit period (notwithstanding that the Conservation Agreement only became effective on 9 February 2018 – refer to condition 27 of this Schedule), NPM has taken the following measures to help ensure the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site provides suitable habitat to assist in the protection of threatened fauna species: • bird surveys have been undertaken (e.g. GHD “Kokoda 2017 bird

surveys report” of January 2018); • the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site is fully fenced (with one

access gate) and a fence upgrading program is in place to help exclude kangaroos;

• there is no infrastructure in the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site; • access tracks (primarily for fire-fighting vehicles) are unsealed; • weed control is occasionally performed by a neighbour outside

the northern boundary of the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site; • rabbit (pest) control is intended to be investigated in consultation

with the OEH and Orange Local Land Services.

Schedule 3 – Condition 27 – Biodiversity – Security of Offsets

By the 30 June 2015, unless the Secretary agrees otherwise, the Proponent shall make suitable arrangements to protect the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset in perpetuity in consultation with OEH and to the satisfaction of the Secretary.


Administrative non-compliance – A Conservation Agreement between the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) and CMOC Mining Services Pty Limited for the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Site was signed by both parties and became effective on execution by the Minister’s delegate (refer to clause 17 of the Agreement) on 9 February 2018.

This delay in executing the Conservation Agreement had not been agreed to by the Secretary of the DPE.

Noted.

Schedule 3 – Condition 28 – Biodiversity – Conservation Bonds

By 30 June 2015, unless otherwise agreed by the Secretary, the Proponent shall lodge a Conservation Bond with the Department to ensure that the biodiversity offset strategies are implemented in accordance with the performance and completion criteria of the Biodiversity Management Plan (refer to Condition 29 below). The sum of the bond shall be


Observation

Section 8 of the BOMP describes the Conservation Bond estimate as having been prepared in accordance with relevant guidelines and accepted practice.

A Westpac bank guarantee (Alias No. 932100100000017) enclosed with a Westpac letter dated 26 May 2016 to the DPE for the amount of the agreed Conservation Board ($276,081.67) was sighted.

Administrative non-compliance – By letter of 3 September 2015,

Non-compliance: Noted.

37. Noted.


Page 48 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response determined by: (a) calculating the full cost of implementing the biodiversity

offset strategy (other than land acquisition costs); and (b) employing a suitably qualified quantity surveyor to verify

the calculated costs, to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

If the biodiversity offset strategies are completed generally in accordance with the completion criteria in the Biodiversity Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary will release the bond.

If the biodiversity offset strategies are not completed generally in accordance with the completion criteria in the Biodiversity Management Plan, the Secretary will call in all, or part of, the conservation bond, and arrange for the satisfactory completion of the relevant works.

Notes: • This condition does not apply to the Limestone National Forest

Offset; • Existing bonds which have been paid for the Estcourt Tailings

Storage Facility Biodiversity Offset remain current and are satisfactory to fulfil the requirements of this condition;

• Alternative funding arrangements for long-term management of the Biodiversity Offsets, such as provision of capital and management funding as agreed by OEH as part of a Biobanking Agreement or transfer to conservation reserve estate can be used to reduce the liability of the conservation and biodiversity bond, and

• The sum of the bond may be reviewed in conjunction with any revision to the Biodiversity Offsets.

the DPE advised NPM: “The Department notes that although payment of the bond was required by 30 June 2015, it did not receive your letter requesting an extension until 2 July 2015. The Department regards this as non-compliance with the condition and has referred the matter to the compliance team for investigation.”

Observation No. 37 – The administrative non-compliance with this condition was caused by the DPE’s late receipt of NPM’s original extension request. NPM could consider reviewing due dates for the submission of future requests to the DPE to ensure a request is submitted at least a couple of business days before the due date, to allow sufficient time for the request to be recorded as ‘received’.

Schedule 3 – Condition 29 – Biodiversity – Biodiversity Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Biodiversity Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This plan must:

(a) be prepared in consultation with OEH, and submitted to the Secretary for approval prior to the commencement


Observation

Observation

Observation

NPM’s Biodiversity Offset Management Plan (version no. 4 of 24 November 2016, Doc ID no. 3-8623) is within its required review period (next review date is 31 December 2019).

The Biodiversity Management Plan (BOMP) covers the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site (in the body of the plan), and is stated to include the Limestone National Forest Offset Area Revegetation Plan (in Appendix 1 – not sighted) and the Vegetation Management Plan

Non-compliance: NPM will undertake a scheduled review of the management plan and update as required to comply with this condition.

38. NPM will update the


Page 49 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response of any development on site;

(b) describe the short, medium, and long term measures that would be implemented to:

• manage the remnant vegetation and fauna habitat on the biodiversity offset sites;

• restore the derived native grassland component of the Grey Box Grassy Woodland EEC community within the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset to woodland community;

• implement the biodiversity offset strategies; and • integrate the implementation of the biodiversity

offset strategies to the greatest extent practicable with the rehabilitation of the site (where relevant);

(c) include detailed performance and completion criteria for evaluating the performance of the biodiversity offset strategies, and triggering remedial action (if necessary);

(d) include a detailed description of the measures that would be implemented for:

• enhancing the quality of existing vegetation and fauna habitat in the biodiversity offset areas, including the derived native grassland component of the Grey Box Grassy Woodland EEC community within the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset;

• creating native vegetation and fauna habitat in the biodiversity offset areas and rehabilitation area through focusing on assisted natural regeneration, targeted vegetation establishment and the introduction of naturally scarce fauna habitat features (where necessary);

• managing and maintaining the populations of Pine Donkey Orchid located to the north of the project area (near Adavale Lane) and near the E48 subsidence zone (refer to Appendix 6);

• collecting and propagating seed; • managing any potential conflicts between the

proposed enhancement works in the biodiversity offset areas and any Aboriginal heritage values

(for the Estcourt Offset area) (in Appendix 2 – not sighted).

Refer to comments for condition 25 of this Schedule for examples of implementation of the BOMP.


(a) Section 1.4 and Appendix 4 of the BOMP provide details of consultation with the OEH and DPE.

(b) Section 3 (biodiversity management targets), section 4 (monitoring program) and section 5 (management strategies, monitoring actions, performance and completion criteria) of the BOMP describe the short, medium and long term measures referred to in this paragraph.

(c) Section 5 of the BOMP includes detailed performance and completion criteria on matters including exclusion of stock (Table 5.1), fencing and signage (Table 5.2), Offset site in-perpetuity conservation (Table 5.4), and regeneration of derived native grasslands (Table 5.12).

(d) The BOMP includes a detailed description of the measures that would be implemented for the points noted in this paragraph of the condition. For example, section 5.7 of the BOMP includes a detailed description of the following measures to be implemented for regeneration of the derived native grasslands (DNG): • stock removal; • weed monitoring; • weed control; • pest fauna management; • implementation of trial techniques including crash grazing,

slashing or controlled burning.

(e) Section 4 of the BOMP provides details of an Offset Monitoring Program for the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset site with biannual (twice yearly) inspections by NPM environmental personnel and includes (in section 4.4) key components such as “observe and document any weed and pest fauna infestations requiring management” and “assess the progress of natural regeneration with the DNG areas”.

(f) Section 6.4 of the BOMP identifies potential risks and describes

online version of the BOMP to include all appendices.

39. Noted.

40. Noted.


Page 50 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (both cultural and archaeological) in these areas;

• managing salinity; • controlling weeds and feral pests; • controlling erosion; • managing grazing and agriculture on site; • controlling access; and • bushfire management;

(e) include a seasonally-based program to monitor and report on the effectiveness of these measures, and progress against the detailed performance and completion criteria;

(f) identify the potential risks to the successful implementation of the biodiversity offsets, and include a description of the contingency measures that would be implemented to mitigate against these risks; and

(g) include details of who would be responsible for monitoring, reviewing, and implementing the plan.

recommended corrective actions (which the auditors regard as contingency measures for the purpose of this paragraph).

(g) Section 1.5 of the BOMP specifies roles and responsibilities among levels of NPM personnel for monitoring and implementing the BOMP.

Administrative non-compliance – In relation to paragraph (g) of this condition, the BOMP does not specify who is responsible for reviewing the BOMP.

Observation No. 38 – The published (NPM website) version of the BOMP does not include the relevant documents in Appendices 1 (Limestone National Forest Offset Area Revegetation Plan), 2 (Vegetation Management Plan (for the Estcourt Offset area)), 3 (Species Management Plan for the Pine Donkey Orchid), and 5 (Bush Fire Management Plan for the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Site). NPM should ensure the published version of the BOMP includes these documents in Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Observation No. 39 – The next review date for the Biodiversity Offset Management Plan should be brought forward from 31 December 2019 (in the header of the BOMP) to not later than 24 November 2019, for consistency with the three year review period in section 6.2 of the BOMP.

Observation No. 40 – References in the Biodiversity Offset Management Plan to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 should be reviewed and updated to instead refer to the current Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Schedule 3 – Condition 30 – Heritage – Protection of Aboriginal Sites

The Proponent shall ensure that the project does not cause any direct or indirect impact on the Aboriginal sites located outside the approved disturbance area of the project unless otherwise authorised under this approval or the NP&W Act.

Compliant NPM identifies and assesses potential environmental impacts (including impacts on heritage sites) associated with land disturbance prior to ground disturbance, vegetation removal and earthworks commencing, through the use of a Site Disturbance Permit Procedure.

NPM’s Site Disturbance Permit Procedure (version no. 8 of 18 August 2016, Doc ID no. 309174) is within its required review period (next review date is 30 June 2019).

The Site Disturbance Permit (SDP) Procedure is cross-referenced to NPM’s Heritage Management Plan (as referred to in condition 31 of


Page 51 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response this Schedule).

The SDP Procedure contains 14 steps from initial determination that a project will require land disturbance through to a final SDP compliance inspection (section 5). Step 6 of the 14 steps refers to the provision of a heritage flow sheet to assist the Project Coordinator to determine whether an Aboriginal representative will be required for the proposed works. The Environment representative coordinates the processing, approval and distribution of the SDP (section 3).

NPM’s SDP Register, including 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date, were sighted. In 2018 to date, ‘exploration drilling’ formed the majority of projects recorded in the SDP Register.

Schedule 3 – Condition 31 – Heritage – Heritage Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Heritage Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This plan must:

(a) be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced persons whose appointment has been endorsed by the Secretary;

(b) be prepared in consultation with OEH and the Aboriginal stakeholders (in relation to the management of Aboriginal heritage values);

(c) be submitted to the Secretary for approval prior to construction, unless the Secretary agrees otherwise;

(d) include the a description of the measures that would be implemented for:

• managing the discovery of human remains or previously unidentified heritage items on site; and

• ensuring any workers on site receive suitable heritage inductions prior to carrying out any development on site, and that suitable records are kept of these inductions;

(e) include the following for the management of Aboriginal

Compliant

Observation

NPM’s Heritage Management Plan (version no. 5 of October 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3993) is within its required review period (next review date is October 2018).

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is implementing the Heritage Management Plan (HMP). An example of implementation of the HMP is NPM’s use of the Site Disturbance Permit Procedure as referred to in the comments for condition 30 of this Schedule.


(a) The DPE Secretary’s nominee approved the HMP by letter dated 19 January 2016.

(b) Section 6 of the HMP provides details of consultation with the OEH and Aboriginal stakeholders in preparation of the HMP.

(c) Version no. 1 of the HMP was prepared in August 2014, soon after this Project Approval which was originally issued on 16 July 2014. The first issue date of the HMP was February 2003.

(d) Section 10 of the HMP includes a description of the measures that would be implemented for: • managing the discovery of human remains or previously

unidentified heritage items on site; and • ensuring any workers on site receive suitable heritage

inductions prior to carrying out any development on site, and that suitable records are kept of these inductions.

41. Noted.


Page 52 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Heritage:

• a description of the measures that would be implemented for: - protecting, monitoring and/or managing

(including any proposed archaeological investigations and/or salvage measures) the heritage items identified on site;

- managing the discovery of previously unidentified Aboriginal items on site;

- conserving the sites outside the surface disturbance area;

- maintaining and managing reasonable access for Aboriginal stakeholders to heritage items on site;

- ongoing consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders in the conservation and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage on site; and

• a strategy for the storage of any heritage items salvaged on site, both during the project and in the long term;

(f) include a detailed plan for the implementation of the mitigation and management measures outlined for the heritage items identified on site including archival recording, historical research and archaeological assessment prior to any disturbance.

(e) The HMP includes the following for the management of Aboriginal heritage: • a description of the measures that would be implemented

for: - protecting, monitoring and/or managing (including any

proposed archaeological investigations and/or salvage measures) the heritage items identified on site (sections 7 and 8) ;

- managing the discovery of previously unidentified Aboriginal items on site (sections 8.3, 10.2 and 10.4);

- conserving the sites outside the surface disturbance area (section 10.4);

- maintaining and managing reasonable access for Aboriginal stakeholders to heritage items on site (section 10.3);

- ongoing consultation with the Aboriginal stakeholders in the conservation and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage on site (sections 10.3 and 10.5); and

• a strategy for the storage of any heritage items salvaged on site, both during the project and in the long term.

(f) Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the HMP include a detailed plan for the implementation of the mitigation and management measures outlined for the heritage items identified on site including archival recording, historical research and archaeological assessment prior to any disturbance.

Observation No. 41 – Section 10.5 of the HMP could be revised to specify conditions (e.g. procedures relating to non-urgent and urgent access) under which Aboriginal stakeholders can access heritage items on site.

Schedule 3 – Condition 32 – Transport – Best Endeavours to Minimise Mine Traffic on Minor Routes

The Proponent shall use its best endeavours to ensure that as much mine-related traffic as possible, particularly heavy vehicles, uses the Newell Highway and Bogan Road to get to and from the mine.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

The most direct vehicle access to the site is via Bogan Road and McClintocks Lane. The only vehicle access control point to the site is via McClintocks Lane.

NPM has prepared a “Map and Information on Access to Site” document which includes driving directions to the site via the Newell Highway and Bogan Road.

Observation No. 42 – NPM could send periodic emails to contractors

42. NPM deem these additional measures as not necessary, as the only approved B-double access to site is via the Newell Highway and Bogan Road.


Page 53 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (e.g. JR Richards and Western Freight Management) regarding use of the Newell Highway and Bogan Road, or include this requirement in contract documents.

Observation No. 43 – NPM’s website could be revised to include the relevant driving directions material in the “Map and Information on Access to Site”.

43. Noted.

Schedule 3 – Condition 33 – Transport – McClintocks Lane Site Access

The Proponent shall design, construct, and maintain the site access intersection at Bogan Road and McClintocks Lane to Austroad standards and to the satisfaction of Council.

Compliant Service provider, Geolyse, prepared a Detailed Design Report dated February 2015 (reference P1700224-005) on the Access Road Upgrade to Northparkes Mines. Section 5 of the Geolyse Report states (in part):

“The intersection of Bogan Road and McClintocks Lane will be upgraded to include the following facilities in accordance with the appropriate requirements of the AUSTROADS Guide to Road Design Part 4A Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections:”.

NPM prepared a Traffic Management Plan (the current ‘revision 3’ is dated 29 April 2015, contract number SC201459, document number P1700224-PLN-0031-3) for the new site access road and access control facility (as defined in the ‘Works’) as part of, ”an integrated suite of management plans to be applied in the development of the Works”. The Traffic Management Plan was approved by Parkes Shire Council on 29 April 2015 (letter dated 29 April 2015 from Council).

The Traffic Management Plan addresses (among other works) the design and construction of the site access intersection at Bogan Road and McClintocks Lane.

Maintenance of the site access intersection is carried out by Parkes Shire Council. NPM provides Council with funds as required for this purpose (Council tax invoice of 21 April 2015 for purchase order # 2000202418 was sighted).


Page 54 of 129



Photo 10 Bogan Road/McClintocks Lane intersection

Schedule 3 – Condition 34 – Transport – McClintocks Lane Site Access

The Proponent shall design the site access road crossing over Goonumbla Creek in consultation with DPI Water and to the satisfaction of Council.

Not verified The McClintocks Lane site access road works including the road crossing over Goonumbla Creek was approved by Parkes Shire Council on 29 April 2015 (CC 201466).

Not verified – NPM was unable to provide evidence of consultation with the then NSW Office of Water (now DPI Water) regarding the design of the site access road crossing over Goonumbla Creek.

Photo 11 McClintocks Lane crossing over Goonumbla Creek

Schedule 3 – Condition 35 – Visual – Additional Visual Impact Mitigation

Upon receiving a written request from the owner of any residence on privately-owned land which has, or would have, significant direct views of the mining operations and infrastructure on site during the project, the Proponent shall

Compliant It was stated that NPM did not receive any written request under this condition during the audit period.


Page 55 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response implement additional visual impact mitigation measures (such as landscaping treatments or vegetation screens) to reduce the visibility of these mining operations and infrastructure from the residences on their properties.

These mitigation measures must be reasonable and feasible, and must be implemented within a reasonable timeframe.

If the Proponent and the owner cannot agree on the measures to be implemented, or there is a dispute about the implementation of these measures, then either party may refer the matter to the Secretary for resolution.

Notes: • The additional visual impact mitigation measures must

be aimed at reducing the visibility of the mining operations on site from significantly affected residences, and do not require measures to reduce the visibility of the mining operations from other locations on the affected properties.

• The additional visual impact mitigation measures do not necessarily have to include the implementation of measures on the affected property itself (i.e. the additional measures could involve the implementation of measures outside the affected property boundary that provide an effective reduction in visual impacts).

Schedule 3 – Condition 36 – Visual – Operating Conditions


(a) implement best management practice to minimise the visual and off-site lighting impacts of the project;

(b) ensure no fixed outdoor lights shine above the horizontal;

(c) ensure no in-pit mobile lighting rigs shine above the pit wall and other mobile lighting rigs do not shine above the horizontal;

Not verified

Observation

During their site attendances in May 2018 the auditors did not observe any adverse off-site visual or lighting impacts from the site.

As stated in section 8.3.3 of the 2017 AEMR, in the next reporting period (i.e. 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018) NPM intends to plant an additional 5,000 trees to continue the development of local wildlife corridors. A secondary (but unstated) positive effect of additional tree planting could be the minimisation of off-site lighting impacts.

Not verified – NPM was unable to provide documentary evidence during this May 2018 audit that its operations comply with the paragraphs of this condition.

44. NPM deem our current controls (including periodic inspections and Zero Harm Operations Walks) as sufficient.


Page 56 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (d) ensure that all external lighting associated with the

project complies with Australian Standard AS4282 (INT) 1997 – Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting or its latest version;

(e) provide for the establishment of trees and shrubs and/or the construction of mounding to minimise visual and lighting impacts on the Proponent’s land adjoining public roads with views of the site;

(f) ensure that the visual appearance of all buildings, structures, facilities or works (including paint colours and specifications) is aimed at blending as far as possible with the surrounding landscape,


Observation No. 44 – NPM could consider engaging a suitably qualified consultant to prepare a report on NPM’s compliance with this condition. NPM could retain the consultant’s report and a record of any action taken in response to the report, as evidence of compliance with this condition.

Photo 12 Trees planted by NPM alongside McClintocks Lane

Schedule 3 – Condition 37 – Bushfire Management


(a) ensure that the project is suitably equipped to respond to any fires on site; and

(b) assist the RFS and emergency services as much as practicable if there is a fire in the vicinity of the site.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

NPM has one designated fire truck on site, parked within 50 metres of ‘Copper House’ (administration building). In addition, there are fire extinguishers on light vehicles and heavy vehicles, and hose reels near buildings.

It was stated that the Rural Fire Service and Emergency Services are on NPM’s telephone contact list.

It was stated that NPM’s Emergency Response Team is trained in responding to fires. A designated NPM Emergency Response Officer is on call 24 hours a day.

NPM’s Site Risk Register (Version 3.0 of January 2016) recognises the fire risks of ‘Thermal/Fire/Explosion’ (Surface and Underground Fire sub-types for Fixed Plant and Mobile Plant), and ‘Climatic/Natural Events’ (Bushfire/Wildfire/Grassfire). A separate Underground Fire Risk Register (Doc ID no. UGM-REG-1580) also exists.

A Surface Fire Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment (SQRA) Bowtie and an Underground Fire SQRA Bowtie (both dated 5 May 2014) were sighted, and a ‘Critical Controls for Underground Fire’ PowerPoint presentation (undated) was sighted.

45. The scope of the BOMP, only applies to the Kokoda Offset property.

46. Northparkes believe the current ERMP satisfies this observation.


Page 57 of 129



Photos 13 and 14 Fire-fighting equipment on site

Observation No. 45 – The scope of NPM’s Bush Fire Management Plan for the Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Site (version no. 0 of 14 July 2016, Doc ID no. 3-8924) could be revised and expanded to include the mining leases and the Goonumbla Rail Siding.

Observation No. 46 – NPM could consider whether the Emergency Response Plan (Doc ID no. 3-8619) (not sighted) could be adapted to meet the requirements of this condition for general fire-fighting responses.

Auditor’s Note – Although the heading of this condition refers to Bushfire Management, the condition is not limited to bushfires.

Schedule 3 – Condition 38 – Waste


(a) implement all reasonable and feasible measures to minimise the waste (including waste rock) generated by the project;

(b) ensure that the waste generated by the project is appropriately stored, handled and disposed of; and

(c) monitor and report on effectiveness of the waste minimisation and management measures in the Annual Review.

Compliant

Observation

Observation

NPM’s Non-Mineral Waste Management Plan (version no. 14 of November 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3719) is within its required review period (next review date is 16 November 2019).

The purpose of the Non-Mineral Waste Management Plan (section 2) is to ensure NPM manages non-mineral waste in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this condition. Table 2 in section 6 of the Plan specifies a range of management measures for non-mineral waste including: • training through general inductions; • waste inventory information with procedures for handling and

disposing of various types of waste; • clearly identified waste storage and containment areas; • tracking of waste disposal quantities; • a Hydrocarbon and Spill Response Plan for waste spillage and

contamination from environmentally hazardous wastes; • reporting of contamination from poor (i.e. incorrect) waste

47. Noted.

48. Noted.


Page 58 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response segregation;

• recording of the transport of hazardous, industrial or ‘Group A’ classes of waste;

• on-site waste facility inspections; • internal compliance audits; and • offsite waste facility audits.

NPM has engaged JR & EG Richards (NSW) Pty Limited (JR Richards) since mid-2016 (under contract no. SC201604) to manage site waste disposal (excluding mineral waste). Table 2 of the contract specifies “Critical Key Performance Indicators” including “compliance with NPM incident reporting procedures”.


(a) JR Richards handles and disposes of all non-mineral waste; and reports monthly to NPM including categorisation of waste.

In relation to mineral waste (i.e. waste rock), section 4.2.3 of the 2017 AEMR describes waste rock being placed on the Life 1 Mullock Dump (14,004 tonnes placed in calendar year 2017). The 2017 AEMR also notes that waste rock dumps were inspected during 2017.

Photos 15, 16 and 17 Segregation, storage and transport of non-mineral

waste

(b) During field inspections the auditors observed that non-mineral waste was being appropriately stored, handled and transported off site. There are segregated areas for the temporary storage of scrap steel, hydrocarbons and batteries. Some waste tyres are re-used on site for purposes such as makeshift barriers at intersections. Section 6.7.1 of the 2017 AEMR describes waste management measures employed on site including the operation of a bioremediation area to manage contaminated waste


Page 59 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response materials (with additional detail in section 6.7.3).

Photos 18 and 19 Segregation and storage of non-mineral waste

(c) Section 6.7.2 of the 2017 AEMR comments on NPM’s environmental performance in relation to waste management. Table 16 in section 6.7.2 of the 2017 AEMR identifies waste disposal streams.

Observation No. 47 – NPM could consider revising Table 16 in section 6.7.2 of future AEMRs to show ‘year on year’ trends in waste ‘per unit tonne of concentrate production’, which could assist readers to understand the operation’s waste management performance notwithstanding variations in total ore milled/concentrate production.

Observation No. 48 – NPM could update the baseline year (2011) and non-mineral waste reduction target year (2015) in section 8 of the current version of the Non-Mineral Waste Management Plan.

Schedule 3 – Condition 39 – Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation Objectives

The Proponent shall rehabilitate the site to the satisfaction of NSW Trade & Investment. This rehabilitation must be generally consistent with the proposed rehabilitation strategy described in the EA (and depicted conceptually in the figures in Appendix 9), and comply with the objectives in Table 8.

Compliant Table 27 in the 2017 AEMR summarises the areas of disturbance and rehabilitation status for each domain on site as required in the Mining Operations Plan. Land which is under active rehabilitation decreased from 99 hectares in 2016 to 81 hectares in 2017, matched by an increase in total active disturbance from 1120.29 hectares in 2016 to 1138.29 hectares in 2017.


Page 60 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Table 8: Rehabilitation Objectives

Schedule 3 – Condition 40 – Rehabilitation – Progressive Rehabilitation

The Proponent shall rehabilitate the site progressively as soon as reasonably practicable following disturbance. All reasonable and feasible measures must be taken to minimise the total area exposed for dust generation at any time. Interim rehabilitation strategies shall be employed when areas prone to dust generation cannot be permanently rehabilitated. Note: It is accepted that some parts of the site that are progressively rehabilitated may be subject to further disturbance at some later stage of the project.

Compliant During the audit period rehabilitation activities on site have been limited to small areas of the site. Refer to comments for condition 39 of this Schedule.


Page 61 of 129



Schedule 3 – Condition 41 – Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation Management Plan

The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Rehabilitation Management Plan for the project to the satisfaction of NSW Trade & Investment. This plan must:

(a) be prepared in consultation with the Department, DPI Water, OEH, Council and the CCC;

(b) be submitted to NSW Trade & Investment for approval by 30 June 2014, unless the Secretary agrees otherwise;

(c) be prepared in accordance with any relevant NSW Trade & Investment guideline;

(d) describe how the rehabilitation of the site would be integrated with the implementation of the biodiversity offset strategies;

(e) include detailed performance and completion criteria for evaluating the performance of the rehabilitation of the site against the rehabilitation objectives in Table 8, and triggering remedial action (if necessary);

(f) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of this approval, and address all aspects of rehabilitation including mine closure, final landform, and final land use;

(g) include interim rehabilitation where necessary to minimise the area exposed for dust generation;

(h) include a program to monitor, independently audit and report on the effectiveness of the measures, and progress against the detailed performance and completion criteria; and

(i) build to the maximum extent practicable on the other management plans required under this approval.

Non-compliant

Observation

Observation

Observation

NPM’s Rehabilitation Management Plan (version no. 9 of October 2017, Doc ID no. 3-4001) is within its required review period (next review date is 7 October 2018).

During this May 2018 audit there was evidence that NPM is implementing the Rehabilitation Management Plan (RMP) to a limited extent given the small area on site which is available for rehabilitation. Examples of implementation of the RMP include: • buttressing of TSF1 (which was stated to be a temporary

rehabilitation area), with construction demobilising in May 2018; • fencing of subsidence zones; • construction of banks around the southern pits to prevent

inundation/erosion.

Also refer to comments for conditions 24, 25 and 29 of this Schedule for implementation of rehabilitation measures in relation to the Pine Donkey Orchid areas and the Biodiversity Offset areas.

Non-compliant (low risk) – The RMP does not comply with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this condition as follows:

(g) The RMP does not specifically refer to ‘interim rehabilitation’ even though some of NPM’s activities (such as the planting of barley on TSF2) could in substance be regarded as interim rehabilitation to minimise the area exposed for dust generation.

(h) The RMP does not define a program for independent audits.

In relation to the other paragraphs of this condition:

(a) There was no evidence during this May 2018 audit that the DPE has indicated any dissatisfaction with the RMP.

Observation No. 49 – NPM could engage in written consultation with the DPE, DPI Water, OEH, Council and CCC in the next substantive revision of the RMP and include a record of consultation in the RMP.

(b) The first version of the RMP prepared under this Project Approval appears to be version no. 8 of May 2014.

(c) Section 2.1 of the RMP states the RMP, “addresses the relevant components of conditions 39 – 41” of this Project Approval.


49. Noted.

50. Scheduling of rehabilitation is captured in the Mining Operations Plan (2016).

51. Noted.


Page 62 of 129



(d) The scope of the RMP includes integration of progressive rehabilitation conducted onsite with the surrounding NPM owned land (including surrounding farm land and offset sites) and “is managed with a view to enhancing the regional landscape and native habitat values”. Section 6 of the RMP includes completion criteria and indicators to monitor grassland rehabilitation (Table 7) and woodland rehabilitation (Table 8).

(e) Section 6 of the RMP includes performance and completion criteria.

(f) Section 7 of the RMP describes annual rehabilitation monitoring of existing remnant vegetation, agricultural land and temporary rehabilitated areas.

Observation No. 50 – NPM could improve certainty and accountability in the scheduling of rehabilitation programs by including criteria in the RMP regarding when a defined disturbance area (e.g. a TSF) which has not been used for a defined period becomes ready for ‘interim (i.e. temporary) rehabilitation’ and/or ‘final rehabilitation’.

Observation No. 51 – NPM should correct the ‘Error!’ messages in the List of Figures, Section 4.1, Section 7 and Table 9 of the RMP.

Page 63 of 129

Project Approval 11_0060 (MOD 3) Schedule 5 – Additional Procedures (there is no Schedule 4)


Schedule 5 – Condition 1 – Notification of Landowners/Tenants Within 1 month of this approval, the Proponent shall:

(a) notify in writing the owners of:

• any privately-owned land within 2 kilometres of the approved open cut mining pit/s that they are entitled to ask for an inspection to establish the baseline condition of any buildings or structures on their land, or to have a previous property inspection report updated;

• any residence on privately-owned land which has, or would have, significant direct views of the mining operations and infrastructure on site during the project, that they are entitled to visual impact mitigation measures to reduce the visibility of the mining operations and infrastructure from their residence;

(b) notify the tenants of any mine-owned land of their rights under this approval; and

(c) send a copy of the NSW Health fact sheet entitled “Mine Dust and You” (as may be updated from time to time) to the existing tenants of mine-owned land where the predictions in the EA identify that dust emissions generated by the project are likely to be greater than the relevant air quality criteria in schedule 3 at any time during the life of the project.

Compliant NPM has addressed the non-compliance identified in the 30 March 2015 audit report against paragraph (a) of this condition. In relation to the first and second points in paragraph (a), during the audit period NPM notified the following owners: • Edgar Orr (‘Oriel’, Wyatt Drive, Ulster Park) – by letter of

16 September 2015; and • Phill and Annette Moss (‘Hillview’, Bogan Road, Goonumbla) –

by letter of 7 September 2015.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this condition have not applied since the issuing of the Project Approval (on 16 July 2014) because there were no tenants on mine-owned land.

Schedule 5 – Condition 2 – Notification of Landowners/Tenants Prior to entering into any tenancy agreement for any land owned by the Proponent that is predicted to experience exceedances of the recommended dust and/or noise criteria, the Proponent shall:

(a) advise the prospective tenants of the potential health and amenity impacts associated with living on the land, and give them a copy of the NSW Health fact sheet


It was stated that NPM has not entered into any tenancy agreement for any NPM-owned land during the audit period.


Page 64 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response entitled “Mine Dust and You” (as may be updated from time to time); and

(b) advise the prospective tenants of the rights they would have under this approval,


Schedule 5 – Condition 3 – Notification of Landholders/Tenants As soon as practicable after obtaining monitoring results showing:

(a) an exceedance of any relevant criteria in schedule 3, the Proponent shall notify affected landowners in writing of the exceedance, and provide regular monitoring results to each affected landowner until the project is again complying with the relevant criteria; and

(b) an exceedance of the relevant air quality criteria in schedule 3, the Proponent shall send a copy of the NSW Health fact sheet entitled “Mine Dust and You” (as may be updated from time to time) to the affected tenants of the land (including the tenants of any mine-owned land).

Compliant

Observation

It was stated that during the audit period, no landowner was known to be affected by exceedances in relevant criteria in Schedule 3 (including noise, air quality, and water) which were generated by the Project (as distinct from being generated by other sources or meteorological conditions).

Monitoring results are published on the NPM website and are accessible to the public, including landowners in the region of the site.

The requirements of this condition are acknowledged by NPM in section 8.2 of the Noise Management Plan and section 9.3.4 of the Air Quality Management Plan.

Paragraph (b) of this condition did not apply during the audit period because there were no affected tenants (on mine-owned land or privately-owned land).

Observation No. 52 – NPM could revise the Water Management Plan to include the requirements in paragraph (a) of this condition, if specified exceedances occur in the future against relevant water quality criteria.

52. NPM is of the opinion that schedule 3 does not include any water quality criteria.

Schedule 5 – Condition 4 – Independent Review If an owner of privately-owned land considers the project to be exceeding the criteria in schedule 3, then he/she may ask the Secretary in writing for an independent review of the impacts of the project on his/her land.

If the Secretary is satisfied that an independent review is warranted, then within 2 months of the Secretary’s decision, the Proponent shall:

(a) commission a suitably qualified, experienced and independent expert, whose appointment has been

Compliant It was stated that NPM has not been notified of a request under this condition during the audit period.


Page 65 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response approved by the Secretary, to:

• consult with the landowner to determine his/her concerns;

• conduct monitoring to determine whether the project is complying with the relevant impact assessment criteria in schedule 3; and

• if the project is not complying with these criteria then identify the measures that could be implemented to ensure compliance with the relevant criteria; and

(b) give the Secretary and landowner a copy of the independent review.


Page 66 of 129

Project Approval 11_0060 (MOD 3) Schedule 6 – Environmental Management, Reporting and Auditing


Schedule 6 – Condition 1 – Environmental Management – Environmental Management Strategy The Proponent shall prepare and implement an Environmental Management Strategy for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This strategy must:

(a) be submitted to the Secretary for approval by 30 June 2014;

(b) provide the strategic framework for environmental management of the mine;

(c) identify the statutory approvals that apply to the mine;

(d) describe the role, responsibility, authority and accountability of all key personnel involved in the environmental management of the mine;

(e) describe the procedures that would be implemented to:

• keep the local community and relevant agencies informed about the operation and environmental performance of the mine;

• receive, handle, respond to, and record complaints; • resolve any disputes that may arise; • respond to any non-compliance; • respond to emergencies; and

(f) include:

• copies of any strategies, plans and programs approved under the conditions of this approval; and

• a clear plan depicting all the monitoring to be carried out in relation to the project.

Not verified

Observation

Not verified – The auditors obtained two ‘current’ versions of the Environmental Management Strategy (EMS). The auditors consider that having two versions of the EMS means it is not possible to verify NPM’s compliance with this condition. The two versions of the EMS are as follows:

• The first version of the EMS (which was provided to the auditors) is Doc ID no. 3-3544 of October 2017. The first version was last reviewed in October 2017 and includes revision dates of October 2016 and October 2017 which are not in the second version. Appendix C (NPM’s Health, Safety & Environment Policy) in the first version is dated 2 April 2017.

• The second version of the EMS (which is on the NPM website) is Doc ID no. 02-MP-SITE-005. The second version was last reviewed in October 2016 and includes revision dates of October 2015 and October 2016 which are not in the first version. Appendix C (NPM’s Health, Safety & Environment Policy) in the second version is dated 5 September 2014.

It is noted that the DPE Secretary’s nominee approved the EMS by letter dated 19 January 2016. During this May 2018 audit it could not be verified which version of the EMS the DPE approved.

Observation No. 53 – NPM should revise the current version of its Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) at the earliest opportunity and review the correct application of document control.

53. Doc ID no. 3-3544 of October 2017 is the approved version of the EMS and is on the Northparkes website.

Schedule 6 – Condition 2 – Environmental Management – Adaptive Management The Proponent shall assess and manage project-related risks to ensure that there are no exceedances of the criteria and/or performance measures in Schedules 3 & 4. [Auditor’s Note – There is no Schedule 4; construe as reference to Schedule 5.] Any exceedance of these criteria and/or

Compliant As referred to in the comments for condition 1 in Schedule 2 of the Project Approval, NPM maintains an Environmental Aspects and Impacts Register (Excel spreadsheet, version 3, revised October 2017) to identify and retain information about environmental risks across NPM’s operational departments.

For example, the Environmental Risk Register for NPM’s Ore Processing Department (within the Environmental Aspects and


Page 67 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response performance measures constitutes a breach of this approval and may be subject to penalty or offence provisions under the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation.

Where any exceedance of these criteria and/or performance measures has occurred, the Proponent must, at the earliest opportunity:

(a) take all reasonable and feasible steps to ensure that the exceedance ceases and does not recur;

(b) consider all reasonable and feasible options for remediation (where relevant) and submit a report to the Department describing those options and any preferred remediation measures or other course of action; and

(c) implement remediation measures as directed by the Secretary,


Impacts Register) identifies and ranks risks including environmental risks such as a discharge of material due to a Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) wall failure (row 25, OPD16, critical risk) which could contaminate surrounding land or water.

Evidence obtained during this May 2018 audit indicates that NPM reports exceedances of criteria generated by the Project (including the incidents referred to in the comments for EPL conditions O1.1 and O3.1) and has implemented reasonable and feasible responses (i.e. suitable corrective and preventative actions) to those exceedances.

In relation to paragraph (c) of this condition, it was stated that during the audit period NPM has received no requests from the Secretary which directed NPM to undertake remediation measures.

Schedule 6 – Condition 3 – Environmental Management – Management Plan Requirements The Proponent shall ensure that the management plans required under this approval are prepared in accordance with any relevant guidelines, and include:

(a) detailed baseline data;

(b) a description of:

• the relevant statutory requirements (including any relevant approval, licence or lease conditions);

• any relevant limits or performance measures/criteria;

• the specific performance indicators that are proposed to be used to judge the performance of, or guide the implementation of, the project or any management measures;

(c) a description of the measures that would be implemented to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, limits, or performance measures/criteria;


NPM’s Environmental Management Plans under this Project Approval generally satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (g) and (h) of this condition.

Administrative non-compliance – The Environmental Management Plans do not comply with paragraphs (a), (e) and (f) of this condition as follows: (a) The Plans generally do not include detailed baseline data. (e) Not all of the Plans include a contingency plan (or any reference

to a contingency plan) to manage any unpredicted impacts and their consequences (however section 6.4 of the BOMP includes “Potential Risks and Corrective Actions”).

(f) Not all of the Plans include information relating to programs to investigate and implement ways to improve the environmental performance of the project over time (however section 11 of the Air Quality Management Plan includes a reference to environmental performance, and section 13 of the Water Management Plan includes a reference to environmental performance).

NPM will undertake a scheduled review of the management plan and update as required to comply with this condition.


Page 68 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (d) a program to monitor and report on the:

• impacts and environmental performance of the project;

• effectiveness of any management measures (see c above);

(e) a contingency plan to manage any unpredicted impacts and their consequences;

(f) a program to investigate and implement ways to improve the environmental performance of the project over time;

(g) a protocol for managing and reporting any:

• incidents; • complaints; • non-compliances with statutory requirements; and • exceedances of the impact assessment criteria

and/or performance criteria; and

(h) a protocol for periodic review of the plan.

Schedule 6 – Condition 4 – Environmental Management – Annual Review By the end of March each year, or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary, the Proponent shall review the environmental performance of the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This review must:

(a) describe the development that was carried out in the previous calendar year, and the development that is proposed to be carried out over the next year;

(b) include a comprehensive review of the monitoring results and complaints records of the project over the previous calendar year, which includes a comparison of these results against the [sic]

• the relevant statutory requirements, limits or performance measures/criteria;

• the monitoring results of previous years; and

Compliant During the audit period NPM submitted AEMRs (Annual Environmental Management Reports) to the DPE as follows: • the 2015 AEMR was submitted on 2 March 2016; • the 2016 AEMR was received by the DPE on 6 March 2017; • the 2017 AEMR was submitted on 29 March 2018.

By letter to NPM dated 17 April 2018, the DPE stated it considered the submitted AEMR for the period January 2017 to December 2017 generally satisfied this condition.

Similarly, by letter dated 31 August 2017, the DPE stated it considered the submitted AEMR for the period January 2016 to December 2016 generally satisfied this condition.


Page 69 of 129



• the relevant predictions in the EA;

(c) identify any non-compliance over the last year, and describe what actions were (or are being) taken to ensure compliance;

(d) identify any trends in the monitoring data over the life of the project;

(e) identify any discrepancies between the predicted and actual impacts of the project, and analyse the potential cause of any significant discrepancies; and

(f) describe what measures will be implemented over the next year to improve the environmental performance of the project.

Schedule 6 – Condition 5 – Environmental Management – Revision of Strategies, Plans and Programs Within 3 months of:

(a) the submission of an annual review under condition 4 above;

(b) the submission of an incident report under condition 7 below;

(c) the submission of an audit under condition 9 below; or

(d) any modification to the conditions of this approval (unless the conditions require otherwise),

the Proponent shall review and, if necessary, revise the strategies, plans, and programs required under this approval to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Where this review leads to revisions in any such document, then within 4 weeks of the review the revised document must be submitted to the Secretary for approval. Note: This is to ensure the strategies, plans and programs are updated on a regular basis, and incorporate any recommended measures to improve the environmental performance of the project.


Observation

The current version of each NPM Environmental Management Plan viewed during this May 2018 audit was within its required review period with one exception.

Administrative non-compliance – The Groundwater Management Plan (version no. 2 of 3 October 2016, Doc ID no. 3-9795) is not within its required review period (review date was 10 October 2017).

Observation No. 54 – NPM could develop a procedure and establish formal processes in relation to paragraph (b) of this condition under which the submission of an incident report under Schedule 6, Condition 7 of the Project Approval would trigger a reminder to relevant personnel to review all environmental strategies, plans and program within 3 months.


54. NPM has updated the environmental incident investigation form to consider the review of all environmental strategies, plans and program post incident.


Page 70 of 129



Schedule 6 – Condition 6 – Environmental Management – Community Consultative Committee The Proponent shall operate a Community Consultative Committee (CCC) for the project to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This CCC must be operated in general accordance with the Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Community Consultative Committees for Mining Projects (Department of Planning, 2007, or its latest version).

Notes: • The CCC is an advisory committee. The Department and other

relevant agencies are responsible for ensuring that the Proponent complies with this approval; and

• The CCC should be comprised of an independent chair and appropriate representation from the Proponent, Council, recognised environmental groups and the local community.

Compliant

Observation

Community Consultative Committee (CCC) meetings are held twice a year. Minutes of CCC meetings from 1 April 2015 to 9 April 2018 are available on NPM’s website.

The latest version of the Guidelines referred to in this condition is the “Community Consultative Committee Guidelines – State Significant Projects” (November 2016).

The Minutes of the CCC meeting of 9 April 2018 recorded a reasonable level of detail relating to NPM’s activities (including the proposed Modification 4 application) and questions asked of and answered by NPM.

Observation No. 55 – In accordance with section 4.2 of the CCC Guidelines, NPM could arrange with the Independent Chair to introduce a standing ‘Declaration of pecuniary (i.e. monetary) or other interests’ item in the agenda of future CCC meetings.

55. Noted.

Schedule 6 – Condition 7 – Reporting – Incident Reporting The Proponent shall notify, immediately, the Secretary and any other relevant agencies of any incident. Within 7 days of the date of the incident, the Proponent shall provide the Secretary and any relevant agencies with a detailed report on the incident, and such further reports as may be requested.

Not verified Not verified – During this May 2018 audit NPM was unable to provide evidence of written notifications to the Secretary of the DPE within 7 days of the date on which an incident occurred, including the incidents referred to in conditions O1.1 and O3.1.

Schedule 6 – Condition 8 – Reporting – Regular Reporting The Proponent shall provide regular reporting on the environmental performance of the project on its website, in accordance with the reporting arrangements in any plans or programs approved under the conditions of this approval.

Compliant NPM’s Environmental Management Strategy and Environmental Management Plans specify the required environmental monitoring frequencies and reporting intervals.

As at May 2018 NPM’s website was observed to contain environmental monitoring records (the earliest dating back to Q1 2015) in relation to: • pollution monitoring data for EPA points 1 to 6 in condition P1.2

of EPL No. 4784 (most recent, Q1 2018); • 2017 Kokoda Biodiversity Offset Area Ecological Monitoring

Report (by DnA Environmental); • attended noise monitoring (most recent, Q4 2017 report, by


Page 71 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response ESP); and

• Environmental Monitoring Results Summary (most recent, Q4 2017) including air quality (section 2), water (section 3), and noise and vibration (section 4).

Schedule 6 – Condition 9 – Auditing – Independent Environmental Audit By the 31 March 2015, and every 3 years thereafter, unless the Secretary directs otherwise, the Proponent shall commission and pay the full cost of an Independent Environmental Audit of the project. This audit must:

(a) be conducted by a suitably qualified, experienced and independent team of experts whose appointment has been endorsed by the Secretary;

(b) include consultation with the relevant agencies;

(c) assess the environmental performance of the project and assess whether it is complying with the requirements in this approval, and any other relevant approvals, relevant EPL/s and/or Mining Lease (including any assessment, plan or program required under these approvals);

(d) review the adequacy of any approved strategy, plan or program required under the abovementioned approvals; and

(e) recommend measures or actions to improve the environmental performance of the project, and/or any strategy, plan or program required under these approvals.

Note: This audit team must be led by a suitably qualified auditor, and include experts any fields specified by the Secretary.

Compliant It was stated that the Secretary of the DPE has approved the timing of this May 2018 audit.

Paragraphs (a) to (e) of this condition have been noted by the auditors.


Page 72 of 129



Schedule 6 – Condition 10 – Auditing – Independent Environmental Audit Within 3 months of commissioning this audit, or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary, the Proponent shall submit a copy of the audit report to the Secretary, together with its response to any recommendations contained in the audit report.


NPM anticipates the final version of the audit report and NPM’s response to identified non-compliances will be submitted to the Secretary of the DPE within the required 3 month period.

Schedule 6 – Condition 11 – Access to Information The Proponent shall:

(a) make the following information publicly available on its website:

• the EA; • current statutory approvals for the project; • approved strategies, plans or programs required

under the conditions of this approval; • a comprehensive summary of the monitoring results

of the project, which have been reported in accordance with the various plans and programs approved under the conditions of this approval;

• a complaints register, which is to be updated on a monthly basis;

• minutes of CCC meetings; • the last five annual reviews; • any independent environmental audit, and the

Proponent’s response to the recommendations in any audit; and

• any other matter required by the Secretary; and

(b) keep this information up to date,



Administrative non-compliance – As at this May 2018 audit, NPM’s website contains the information required by this condition with the following exception: • Although the 30 March 2015 audit report is on NPM’s website,

there is no NPM response to the recommendations in Table 6 of that audit report.

It was noted that the EA and Project Approval are not directly linked on the NPM website. Instead, the website reader is taken to the NPM Project page on the DPE website, from which the EA and Project Approval can be accessed.

Each NPM Annual Environmental Management Report (the previous five AEMRs are on the NPM website) provides a comprehensive summary of the monitoring results during that reporting year.

Compliant. Website is now updated with required information under this condition.

Page 73 of 129

Environment Protection Licence No. 4784 as at 18 December 2017


1 Administrative Conditions

A1 What the licence authorises and regulates

A1.1 This licence authorises the carrying out of the scheduled activities listed below at the premises specified in A2. The activities are listed according to their scheduled activity classification, fee-based activity classification and the scale of the operation.

Unless otherwise further restricted by a condition of this licence, the scale at which the activity is carried out must not exceed the maximum scale specified in this condition.

Compliant According to “Sitewide Reconciliation Report Preliminary Summaries”, the on-site processed (milled) amounts of ore are as follows: • in calendar year 2015 a total of 6.035 million tonnes; • in calendar year 2016 a total of 6.073 million tonnes; • in calendar year 2017 a total of 6.510 million tonnes; and • in 2018 to the end of April, a total of 2.163 million tonnes.

According to the 2017 Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR), NPM produced 132,063 million tonnes of ‘saleable product’ in 2017 and 137,415 million tonnes of ‘saleable product’ in 2016.

Auditor’s Note – The maximum scale specified in this condition is expressed as a ‘greater than’ amount, which contradicts the words, “must not exceed”. It is also unclear whether “production” in the condition refers to the amount of ore processed in the plant or the amount of saleable product (i.e. concentrate).

A2 Premises or plant to which this licence applies

A2.1 The licence applies to the following premises:

Compliant

Observation

Other than the reference to Lot 2 DP 831119 this condition is accurate in so far as it relates to Mining Lease (ML) 1247.

This condition limits the scope of the EPL to ML 1247. A literal interpretation of this condition is potentially problematic because section 120 of the POEO Act would apply to the other mining leases. The EPL was first issued on 13 October 2000. It appears this condition has inadvertently not been updated with successive revisions of the EPL.

Observation No. 56 – NPM could request the EPA to update this condition to refer to all mining leases and applicable lots.

56. NPM will make this amendment during the next variation of the EPL.


Page 74 of 129



A3 Information supplied to the EPA

A3.1 Works and activities must be carried out in accordance with the proposal contained in the licence application, except as expressly provided by a condition of this licence.

In this condition the reference to "the licence application" includes a reference to:

a) the applications for any licences (including former pollution control approvals) which this licence replaces under the Protection of the Environment Operations (Savings and Transitional) Regulation 1998; and

b) the licence information form provided by the licensee to the EPA to assist the EPA in connection with the issuing of this licence.

Not verified

Observation

Not verified – NPM was unable to provide documents relating to the proposal contained in “the licence application”. The EPL was first issued on 13 October 2000, and the licence application was made by a previous owner of the Project.

Observation No. 57 – NPM could make enquiries with the EPA regarding whether it is possible to obtain copies of the licence application documents made by a previous owner of the Project.

57. NPM has already sent this request to the EPA.

2 Discharges to Air and Water and Applications to Land

P1 Location of monitoring/discharge points and areas

P1.1 The following utilisation areas referred to in the table below are identified in this licence for the purposes of the monitoring and/or the setting of limits for any application of solids or liquids to the utilisation area.

Compliant It was stated that the location descriptions in the table for condition P1.2 are accurate.

P1.2 The following points referred to in the table are identified in this licence for the purposes of the monitoring and/or the setting of limits for discharges of pollutants to water from the point.

Compliant It was stated that all monitoring points in the table to this condition are currently in use.


Page 75 of 129



Photo 20 Groundwater monitoring bore MB21 (EPA point 2)


Page 76 of 129



3 Limit Conditions

L1 Pollution of waters

L1.1 Except as may be expressly provided in any other condition of this licence, the licensee must comply with section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Compliant NPM’s environmental personnel confirmed their awareness and understanding of this condition and the meaning of section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Auditor’s Note – Section C of NPM’s Annual Return for 2016-2017 recorded two incidents (SP4 overflow and Eastern Surge Dam overflow) as breaches of EPL condition L1. In the preparation of this audit report these two incidents are recorded in EPL conditions O.1 and O.2 in accordance with the EPA’s formal warning letter of 2 August 2017 regarding the Eastern Surge Dam overflow.

L2 Waste

L2.1 The licensee must not cause, permit or allow any waste generated outside the premises to be received at the premises for storage, treatment, processing, reprocessing or disposal or any waste generated at the premises to be disposed of at the premises, except as expressly permitted by the licence.

Compliant It was stated that no waste generated outside the premises (i.e. the site) is received at the premises.

4 Operating Conditions

O1 Activities must be carried out in a competent manner

O1.1 Licensed activities must be carried out in a competent manner.

This includes:

a) the processing, handling, movement and storage of materials and substances used to carry out the activity; and

b) the treatment, storage, processing,

Non-compliant

NPM maintains a comprehensive environmental induction program for employees and contractors. The General Site Induction (Environment) consists of a 24 slide PowerPoint presentation (including 8 assessment questions) and covers the basic environmental legislative framework, and the most significant environmental risks involving: water, air quality, waste and hydrocarbon management, land management and rehabilitation, biodiversity and threatened species management, and heritage.

Noted. NPM has implemented all recommended actions.


Page 77 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response reprocessing, transport and disposal of waste generated by the activity.

Non-compliant (low risk) – During the audit period two incidents were reported to the EPA (see Auditor’s Note to EPL condition L1.1).

1. As noted in NPM’s Annual Return for 2016-2017 (page 21 of 43), on 24 March 2017 Sediment Pond SP4 (located between TSF1 and TSF2) overflowed during a heavy rainfall event and the sediment laden water discharged off the mining lease area. Appendix A to this Annual Return describes the incident (NPM incident no. 74010159 of 24 March 2017). This incident followed another overflow incident involving SP4 on 3 September 2016 (NPM incident no. 74009106).

Water samples from the 24 March 2017 incident were taken from locations at SP4, Adavale Lane (AD-1) and Water Course 1 (WC-1). All results (for pH, EC, TSS, TDS and metals) were within the trigger 1 level requirements, as per Appendix C – Surface Water Trigger Values in NPM’s Surface Water Management Plan.

NPM’s short term response to this incident was to install a diesel mobile pump from SP4 to Caloola PP260 and have a second smaller diesel pump available. The longer term response was to complete the infill project between TSF1 and TSF2, which “effectively closes off the drainage to SP4” (page 32 of 43). This infill project was completed on 22 October 2017.

2. As noted in NPM’s Annual Return for 2016-2017 (page 22 of 43), on 4 April 2017 the Eastern Surge Dam (which forms part of the underground dewatering system) overflowed when personnel had left a valve open to the Eastern Surge Dam at the end of the day shift on 3 April 2017 (in the belief there was sufficient freeboard for the Eastern Surge Dam not to overfill overnight) without communicating to the night shift personnel that the valve had been left open and the water levels should be monitored overnight. Appendix B to this Annual Return describes the incident (NPM incident no. 74010251 of 6 April 2017).

At 5:00 am on 4 April 2017 a small diesel pump which was already located at the Eastern Surge Dam was turned on to transfer water to the Western Surge Dam. At 9:00am on 4 April 2017 NPM further responded to the incident by switching the valve from the Eastern Surge Dam to the Western Surge Dam


Page 78 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response and requesting a bigger diesel pump to prevent any further overflow. It was estimated by NPM that 1 ML of water may have overflowed.

A water sample was taken on 4 April 2017 from the Eastern Surge Dam, and additional water samples were taken on 12 April 2017 from the drainage catchment, the adjacent creek and the culvert across the creek adjacent to monitoring site WC05. Sample results from 4 April 2017 indicated copper concentrations within a stage 2 trigger level for water courses, and TDS which was higher than stage 2 for sediment ponds but lower than stage 1 for retention ponds. There was no offsite release of water from this 4 April 2017 event.

NPM’s long term responses to this incident were: • to isolate and decommission the valve to the Eastern Surge

Dam, which means the valve cannot be turned on without physical unlocking; and

• to reduce miscommunication risks in future, NPM assigned management responsibility for all water infrastructure on site to the Ore Processing Department.

In relation to this second incident, on 2 August 2017 the EPA issued NPM with a formal warning letter (EPA Notice Number 1553297) for a breach of EPL conditions O.1 and O.2.

O2 Maintenance of plant and equipment

O2.1 All plant and equipment installed at the premises or used in connection with the licensed activity:

a) must be maintained in a proper and efficient condition; and

b) must be operated in a proper and efficient manner.

Non-compliant

NPM has a well-developed program for the maintenance of fixed plant (under the supervision of the Fixed Plant Maintenance Superintendent) and mobile equipment (under the supervision of the Mobile Maintenance and Improvement Superintendent). These positions report to NPM’s Manager – Asset Management.

Sample records of change maintenance orders no. 4645390 (replace blown tails poly section – 28 April 2018) and no. 4316636 (repair broken flange on tails line – 12 March 2018) were sighted.

NPM also has well-developed induction programs. It was stated that all employees and contractors must complete a general site induction before completing required area-specific inductions.

Noted. NPM has implemented all recommended actions.


Page 79 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Non-compliant (low risk) – Refer to non-compliance comments for condition O1.1.

O3 Dust

O3.1 The premises must be maintained in a condition which minimises or prevents the emission of dust from the premises.

Non-compliant

Observation

Observation

Observation

Observation

There was evidence during this May 2018 audit that NPM is implementing controls to maintain the premises (i.e. the site) in a condition which minimises or prevents the emission of dust from the premises.

Dust emission controls adopted by NPM and observed at the time of this May 2018 audit include: • roads within all operational areas have a speed limit of 30 km/h

or less. The haul road from the portal to the waste rock area is lined with water sprinklers;

• the majority of internal roads in the vicinity of the processing and administration areas are sealed;

• NPM stated that when needed, a suitable chemical dust suppressant is used at the Goonumbla Rail Siding;

• ore is conveyed to the ore stockpile via a covered conveyor equipped with water sprays (i.e. there is no haulage of ore on the surface);

• NPM stated that the rill towers are equipped with sprinklers (if needed). No dust was observed emanating from the ore stockpiles at the time of this May 2018 audit;

Photo 21 Rill towers and ore stockpiles

• the concentrate truck is washed via a truck/wheel wash prior to leaving site and the concentrate is transported in covered

Non-compliance: Noted.

58. Deemed not necessary under the current operations.

59. Concentrate is only periodically stored outside the concentrate shed to aid drying. NPM has sufficient controls in place to manage potential fugitive dust emissions.

60. NPM’s air quality monitoring results during the reporting period have shown no exceedance of air quality criteria at any privately owned residence.

Additionally, a recent independent review of our dust management by Pacific Environment, found that NPM have adequate procedures in place to manage dust generated at site.

NPM will continue to review their airborne dust performance and control methods as a


Page 80 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response containers; and

• the concentrate storage/loading area is sealed and a street sweeper is utilised for clean-up of the area after loading.

Photo 22 Minor fugitive dust emissions evident from vehicle movements

during concentrate loading

It was noted that a significant quantity of concentrate is stored externally (i.e. not stored in the concentrate shed), for additional storage capacity and drying.

Photo 23 External concentrate storage area

process of continual improvement.

61. Not practical or necessary due to the limited use of the outside stockpile area.


Page 81 of 129



Photo 24 Sprinkler system on haul road

Non-compliant (low risk) – During the audit period four ‘dust’ incidents were reported to the EPA.

1. As noted in NPM’s Annual Return for 2014-2015 (page 44 of 56), on 13 May 2015 two dust complaints were made to NPM by neighbours regarding dust blowing from the tailings dams, and a further dust complaint was made to NPM on 15 May 2015. After NPM notified the EPA by a telephone call on 13 May 2015 of the 13 May 2015 complaints, NPM initiated immediate action to open the Western tails line that evening to run tailings back onto the dam (TSF2). Various short term preventative strategies (grading of windbreaks and ripping of tailing area) and a long term strategy for TSF2 (including continuation of cover crop and maintaining windrows) were also implemented.

2. As noted in NPM’s Annual Return for 2015-2016 (page 29 of 72), an additional two dust incidents occurred on 17 September 2015 (self reported by NPM to the EPA) and 24 September 2015 (a complaint from a neighbouring property to the EPA, and also self reported by NPM to the EPA). NPM’s short term and long term responses are recorded in a NPM Memorandum (7 pages and Appendices) of 13 November 2015 to the EPA. Page 2 of the Memorandum states:

“The two September incidents on top of the May dust incident this year, has highlighted and elevated the priority and focus of dust management at the Northparkes minesite.”


Page 82 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response The Memorandum includes the following dust control strategies for TSF1:

• Straw bales on TSF1 to act as wind breaks will continue; • Ripping and sending of the entire surface area so it

forms uneven surface to reduce surface dust lift off; • Investigate further options with use of polymer; • Capital for Pre-feasibility study for Closure has been

approved for 2016.

The Memorandum includes the following dust control strategies for TSF2:

• Construction of wind rows along the eastern and western sides, which acts as wind breaks;

• Excavation and ripping of tailings surface; • A new sprinkler circuit; • Revegetation trails with cover crop (barley) on the

Northern end of the dam; • Extending the cover crop revegetation trials over the

entire dam (2016).

NPM also developed a Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) which was first issued on 6 November 2015 and now forms Table 15 in NPM’s Air Quality Management Plan. The TARP is implemented for any week which is rated as high risk (in accordance with the weekly weather assessment template in Table 14 in the Air Quality Management Plan) and has the possibility to cause harm to the environment or adverse impact to community.

In relation to these four ‘dust’ incidents (in points 1 and 2 above), on 21 October 2015 the EPA issued NPM with a formal warning letter (EPA Notice Number 1534427) for a breach of EPL condition O3.1.

The EPA issued correspondence by email of 12 May 2016 with further questions, to which NPM replied by letter of 23 June 2016 (reproduced in NPM’s Annual Return for 2015-2016, page 55 of 72).

No external complaints regarding dust emissions have been received by NPM since 2015.

Observation No. 58 – NPM could consider making an Environment Team controlled water truck/cart available for dust suppression on


Page 83 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response site as an alternative to the Projects Team controlled water truck, which may not always be available as and when needed.

Observation No. 59 – NPM could consider developing a documented procedure around use of the external concentrate stockpile (e.g. if and when to cover with tarpaulin under certain weather conditions). The external concentrate stockpile has been located next to the concentrate shed since at least 2006.

Observation No. 60 – NPM should formally evaluate the ongoing implementation and effectiveness of dust control strategies/measures, including the strategies identified in NPM’s Memorandum of 13 November 2015 and letter of 23 June 2016, and the control measures defined in section 6 of the Air Quality Management Plan. Despite the dust emission controls observed during this May 2018 audit, the auditors observed the following instances of fugitive dust being generated during their field inspection on 10 May 2018 (which had a recorded peak wind speed of 56km/h at 12:30pm): • dust clouds appeared to emanate from a TSF (not verified); and • visible dust was blown onto personnel standing in the

concentrate shed area during the loading of concentrate from the exposed concentrate stockpile (next to the shed) to the concentrate truck.

Observation No. 61 – If identified as being able to reduce fugitive dust, NPM could consider installing sprinklers along the sealed road alongside the concentrate shed to the concentrate stockpile.

Auditor’s Note – NPM’s Annual Return for 2015-2016 (refer to response to question c) on page 29 of 72, in relation to Section ‘C’) notes additional dust emission incidents occurred on 4 August 2015 and 16 December 2015. There does not appear to be any correspondence from the EPA arising from these additional incidents or any reference to these additional incidents in Appendix C of NPM’s Annual Return for 2015-2016.


Page 84 of 129



5 Monitoring and Recording Conditions

M1 Monitoring records

M1.1 The results of any monitoring required to be conducted by this licence or a load calculation protocol must be recorded and retained as set out in this condition.

Compliant Refer to comments for conditions M1.2 and M1.3.

M1.2 All records required to be kept by this licence must be:

a) in a legible form, or in a form that can readily be reduced to a legible form;

b) kept for at least 4 years after the monitoring or event to which they relate took place; and

c) produced in a legible form to any authorised officer of the EPA who asks to see them.

Compliant Sampling field sheets were viewed for two randomly selected quarterly periods, Q2 2015 and Q1 2018.

To assess NPM’s compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this condition, the auditors requested and sighted recorded results for the following NPM monitoring points:

• Q2 2015 monitoring results for pH at EPA point 1; and

• Q1 2018 monitoring results for copper at EPA point 4.

In relation to paragraph (c) of this condition, it was stated that during the audit period the EPA has not requested the production of any records required to be kept under the EPL.

M1.3 The following records must be kept in respect of any samples required to be collected for the purposes of this licence:

a) the date(s) on which the sample was taken;

b) the time(s) at which the sample was collected;

c) the point at which the sample was taken; and

d) the name of the person who collected the sample.


A selection of field monitoring sheets (groundwater, surface water and farm dam) were viewed for Q1 2018.

Administrative non-compliance – Identification of the person who collected the sample was not recorded on the field sheet and not recorded in places in the electronic copy.

It was stated that electronic logging of field data was introduced in late 2015.

Noted. Field sheets do include a section to be initialled by the sampling personnel.


Page 85 of 129



M2 Requirement to monitor concentration of pollutants discharged

M2.1 For each monitoring/discharge point or utilisation area specified below (by a point number), the licensee must monitor (by sampling and obtaining results by analysis) the concentration of each pollutant specified in Column 1. The licensee must use the sampling method, units of measure, and sample at the frequency, specified opposite in the other columns:

Non-compliant

NPM’s environmental monitoring records indicate the pollutants, units of measure, and frequency of sampling are conducted in accordance with the requirements of this condition.

Non-compliant (low risk) – It is considered that the current groundwater sampling method employed by NPM is not obtaining a representative sample.

Refer to comments for condition M2.2.

Non-compliance: The water sampling method employed at NPM has not been modified since 2014 which was found to be compliant in the previous independent environmental audit. NPM’s groundwater sampling method outlined in the GMP continues to satisfy this condition. NPM will update the work instruction accordingly.

NPM maintains that the groundwater monitoring during the reporting period incorporates representative samples.

M2.2 Water and/or Land Monitoring Requirements

POINT 1,2,3,4,5,6

Non-compliant

Observation

Observation

Non-compliant (low risk) – It is considered that the current groundwater sampling method employed by NPM is not obtaining a representative sample. The sampling method described in section 5.3 of NPM’s “Work Instruction – Water Monitoring” (version 3) does not describe any requirement for purging of the well prior to sampling. The current method described of “repeat sampling bore and recording samples for a minimum 3 times, once the results are showing continuity, take another sample from the bore” is not considered to be in accordance with Australian Standards.

There are two main methods of sampling that can be employed to obtain a representative groundwater sample. These are the bore purging method and the low flow sampling method. Both methods ensure a representative sample from the aquifer is obtained and avoids the risk of sampling from stagnant water held inside the bore casing.

Non-compliance: The water sampling method employed at NPM has not been modified since 2014 which was found to be compliant in the previous independent environmental audit. NPM’s groundwater sampling method outlined in the GMP continues to satisfy this condition. NPM will update the work instruction accordingly.


Page 86 of 129



Observation No. 62 – NPM should ensure groundwater sampling is conducted in accordance with the appropriate standard and all documentation describing the method is consistent. NPM’s Management Plan – Tailings Storage Facility (version no. 12 of 20 July 2016, Doc ID no. 3-9268) and Groundwater Management Plan (see below) describe methods which differ from the Work Instruction – Water Monitoring (see above).

(a) Management Plan – Tailings Storage Facility (section 8.4) “All water monitoring including sample collection, storage and transportation must be undertaken in accordance with the procedures outlined in AS/NZS 5667 – Water Quality – Sampling”.

(b) Groundwater Management Plan – Monitoring Methodology (section 10.1) As specified by DIPNR (2003), groundwater monitoring should be undertaken in general accordance with A Practical Guide to Groundwater Sampling (Jiwan and Gates, 1992), although it is recommended that low flow sampling techniques be used for purging and sampling (rather than bailers or submersible pumps) to minimise aquifer disturbance and reduce the volume of groundwater extracted during sampling.

Observation No. 63 – NPM uses Excel spreadsheets to record and retain environmental monitoring results. These spreadsheets are not in ‘read only’ form, which makes the spreadsheets potentially open to inadvertent or deliberate deletion or overriding. NPM could consider alternatives to Excel spreadsheets (e.g. cloud-based software or a commercially available relational database) to enhance data integrity and assist in preventing data loss.

NPM maintains that the groundwater monitoring during the reporting period incorporates representative samples.

62. NPM will revise the Work Instruction to reflect the relevant standard.

63. NPM is currently investigating software to enhance data integrity and prevent the potential for data loss.

M3 Testing methods – concentration limits

M3.1 Subject to any express provision to the contrary in this licence, monitoring for the concentration of a pollutant discharged to waters or applied to a utilisation area must be done in accordance with the Approved Methods Publication unless another method has been approved by the EPA in writing

Compliant It was noted that this condition’s reference to ‘monitoring’ includes both ‘sampling and obtaining results by analysis’ as referred to in condition M2.1.

NPM engages ALS in Sydney (a NATA accredited laboratory) to conduct water sample analyses. Information provided from ALS to NPM (via email of 30 May 2018) indicates that ALS currently uses


Page 87 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response before any tests are conducted. both USEPA and APHA Standard Methods for laboratory analysis,

which are in accordance with and exceed the analysis requirements specified in the NSW EPA’s ‘Approved Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Water Pollutants in New South Wales’ (March 2004).

M4 Recording of pollution complaints

M4.1 The licensee must keep a legible record of all complaints made to the licensee or any employee or agent of the licensee in relation to pollution arising from any activity to which this licence applies.

Compliant NPM’s ‘NED’ incident reporting system is used to record complaints made to NPM or any employee or agent of NPM in relation to pollution from any activity to which this EPL relates. Section 5 of NPM’s Incident Management Reporting Procedure (version no. 16 of 10 February 2016, Doc ID no. 3-3898) states:

“All incidents are to be reported to the area supervisor and entered in NED.”

A record of community complaints from NPM’s Complaints Register (an Excel spreadsheet) was sighted. The earliest recorded environmental complaint in the Complaints Register is dated 13 August 2014 (incident no. 74003909 relating to fugitive dust from Tailings Dam) and the most recent recorded environmental complaint is dated 24 September 2015 (incident no. 74006448 regarding a dust incident from TSFs).

M4.2 The record must include details of the following:

a) the date and time of the complaint;

b) the method by which the complaint was made;

c) any personal details of the complainant which were provided by the complainant or, if no such details were provided, a note to that effect;

d) the nature of the complaint;

e) the action taken by the licensee in relation to the complaint, including any follow-up contact with the complainant; and

f) if no action was taken by the licensee, the reasons why no action was taken.

Compliant

Observation

Section 1 of NPM’s Pollution Incident Response Management Plan (version no. 7.0 of November 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3546) addresses the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this condition.

A complaint record from NPM’s ‘NED’ incident reporting system was sighted for a TSF dust incident of 13 May 2015. The complaint was received via an unofficial Facebook page. The record satisfied the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this condition (paragraph (f) was not applicable in this incident).

Observation No. 64 – NPM could consider whether the incident numbers recorded in the Complaints Register could be hyperlinked to the original corresponding complaint record.

64. NPM currently implements a system that manages all appropriate and relevant data in relation to complaints.


Page 88 of 129



M4.3 The record of a complaint must be kept for at least 4 years after the complaint was made.

Compliant Complaint records (relating to environment) from NPM’s Complaints Register were sighted dating back to 13 August 2014.

M4.4 The record must be produced to any authorised officer of the EPA who asks to see them.

Compliant It was stated that during the audit period NPM has not received a request from the EPA for any record required to be retained in accordance with condition M4.1.

M5 Telephone complaints line

M5.1 The licensee must operate during its operating hours a telephone complaints line for the purpose of receiving any complaints from members of the public in relation to activities conducted at the premises or by the vehicle or mobile plant, unless otherwise specified in the licence.

Compliant NPM operates a ‘Community enquiries and complaints’ telephone line. Separate contact numbers are provided for Monday-Friday 7.30am – 4.30pm (Phone: +61 2 6861 3621) and Weekends and after hours (Phone: +61 2 6861 3167).

M5.2 The licensee must notify the public of the complaints line telephone number and the fact that it is a complaints line so that the impacted community knows how to make a complaint.

Compliant

Observation

The ‘Community enquiries and complaints’ line telephone number referred to in condition M5.2 is accessible on the NPM website by clicking the ‘Contact Us’ tab on the ‘Our Story’ page.

Observation No. 65 – NPM could consider making the complaints line telephone number directly available to the general public by non-electronic means (for example, the White Pages, in the printed version of the ‘Source’ Community newsletter, or by a printed notice outside the main entry to the Site) to enable members of the public without computer knowledge or access to readily locate this contact number.

65. The NPM complaints line telephone number will be included into the Source newsletter.

M5.3 The preceding two conditions do not apply until 3 months after: the date of the issue of this licence.


6 Reporting Conditions

R1 Annual return documents

R1.1 The licensee must complete and supply to the EPA an Annual Return in the approved form comprising:

Compliant

Observation

The Annual Return for EPL No. 4784 covers the reporting period from 30 May to 29 May in the next year.

The Annual Returns submitted by NPM to the EPA during the audit

66. Noted.


Page 89 of 129



1. a Statement of Compliance,

2. a Monitoring and Complaints Summary,

3. a Statement of Compliance – Licence Conditions,

4. a Statement of Compliance – Load based Fee,

5. a Statement of Compliance – Requirement to Prepare Pollution Incident Response Management Plan,

6. a Statement of Compliance – Requirement to Publish Pollution Monitoring Data; and

7. a Statement of Compliance – Environmental Management Systems and Practices.

At the end of each reporting period, the EPA will provide to the licensee a copy of the form that must be completed and returned to the EPA.

period were from: • 30 May 2014 to 29 May 2015 (2014-2015); • 30 May 2015 to 29 May 2016 (2015-2016); and • 30 May 2016 to 29 May 2017 (2016-2017).

Each of these Annual Returns was completed using the EPA’s approved form as applicable at the time.

It was noted that item 7 of this condition did not form part of the EPA’s approved form in 2014-2015.

Observation No. 66 – NPM should ensure the NPM ‘NED’ incident numbers for any reported non-compliance continue to be recorded in Section C of future Annual Returns to assist tracking and close-out of incidents. NPM’s 2016-2017 Annual Return included a record of NPM incident numbers for the incidents referred to in the comments for condition O1.1, but the previous 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Annual Returns did not contain references to NPM incident numbers.

R1.2 An Annual Return must be prepared in respect of each reporting period, except as provided below.

Compliant The Annual Returns submitted by NPM to the EPA during the audit period were from: • 30 May 2014 to 29 May 2015 (2014-2015); • 30 May 2015 to 29 May 2016 (2015-2016); and • 30 May 2016 to 29 May 2017 (2016-2017).

R1.3 Where this licence is transferred from the licensee to a new licensee:

a) the transferring licensee must prepare an Annual Return for the period commencing on the first day of the reporting period and ending on the date the application for the transfer of the licence to the new licensee is granted; and

b) the new licensee must prepare an Annual Return for the period commencing on the date the application for the transfer of the licence is granted and ending on the last day of the


This condition is not applicable until a transfer of the EPL occurs.


Page 90 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response reporting period.

R1.4 Where this licence is surrendered by the licensee or revoked by the EPA or Minister, the licensee must prepare an Annual Return in respect of the period commencing on the first day of the reporting period and ending on:

a) in relation to the surrender of a licence – the date when notice in writing of approval of the surrender is given; or

b) in relation to the revocation of the licence – the date from which notice revoking the licence operates.


This condition is not applicable until a surrender or revocation of the EPL occurs.

R1.5 The Annual Return for the reporting period must be supplied to the EPA via eConnect EPA or by registered post not later than 60 days after the end of each reporting period or in the case of a transferring licence not later than 60 days after the date the transfer was granted (the 'due date').


The due date for submission of NPM’s Annual Returns is 28 July each year (60 days after the end of each reporting period).

The submission dates for the Annual Returns prepared during the audit period were: • 20 July 2015 for the 2014-2015 Annual Return; • 28 July 2016 for the 2015-2016 Annual Return; and • 20 June 2017 for the 2016-2017 Annual Return.

Administrative non-compliance – NPM did not submit (i.e. supply) the Annual Returns (listed above) prepared during the audit period to the EPA via eConnect EPA or by registered post.

Noted.

R1.6 The licensee must retain a copy of the Annual Return supplied to the EPA for a period of at least 4 years after the Annual Return was due to be supplied to the EPA.

Compliant A copy of NPM’s 2013-2014 Annual Return (due on 28 July 2014) was sighted to verify effective retention of this information.

North Mining Limited (previous Project owner) submitted the preceding Annual Return for an amended reporting period of 30 May 2013 to December 2013 under a cover letter of 11 December 2013.

R1.7 Within the Annual Return, the Statements of Compliance must be certified and the Monitoring and Complaints Summary must be signed by:

a) the licence holder; or

Compliant In each of the Annual Returns prepared during the audit period (i.e. 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017) the ‘Signature and Certification’ section of the EPA approved form requires the signatories to declare that the information in the Monitoring and


Page 91 of 129



b) by a person approved in writing by the EPA to sign on behalf of the licence holder.

Note: The term “reporting period” is defined in the dictionary at the end of this licence. Do not complete the Annual Return until after the end of the reporting period.

Note: An application to transfer a licence must be made in the approved form for this purpose.

Complaints Summary in Section B is correct and not false or misleading in a material respect, and certify that the information in the Statement of Compliance (in the other sections of the form) and any pages attached to Section C is correct and not false or misleading in a material respect.

The signatories for each of these Annual Returns were two Directors of the licence holder (CMOC Mining Pty Ltd).

R2 Notification of environmental harm

R2.1 Notifications must be made by telephoning the Environment Line service on 131 555.

Compliant It was stated that NPM has used the Environment Line service for the verbal notification of incidents under the EPL.

Table 1 (Government notifications of incidents) in NPM’s Pollution Incident Response Management Plan (version no. 7.0 of November 2017, Doc ID no. 3-3546) lists the EPA Hotline number 131 555.

Section 7.2.2 of NPM’s Incident Management Procedure (version no. 16 of 10 February 2016, Doc ID no. 3-3898) lists the Environment Line number 131555 in the Contact Details for External Regulators.

R2.2 The licensee must provide written details of the notification to the EPA within 7 days of the date on which the incident occurred.

Note: The licensee or its employees must notify all relevant authorities of incidents causing or threatening material harm to the environment immediately after the person becomes aware of the incident in accordance with the requirements of Part 5.7 of the Act.

Not verified Section 1 of NPM’s Pollution Incident Response Management Plan states:

“written notification [under the Protection of the Environment Operations 1997] must be completed within 7 days of the incident occurring”.

Not verified – During this May 2018 audit NPM was unable to provide evidence of written notifications to the EPA within 7 days of the date on which an incident occurred, including the incidents referred to in conditions O1.1 and O3.1.

R3 Written report

R3.1 Where an authorised officer of the EPA suspects on reasonable grounds that:

a) where this licence applies to premises, an

Compliant It was stated that during the audit period the EPA has not made any request to NPM for a written report under this condition.


Page 92 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response event has occurred at the premises; or

b) where this licence applies to vehicles or mobile plant, an event has occurred in connection with the carrying out of the activities authorised by this licence,

and the event has caused, is causing or is likely to cause material harm to the environment (whether the harm occurs on or off premises to which the licence applies), the authorised officer may request a written report of the event.

R3.2 The licensee must make all reasonable inquiries in relation to the event and supply the report to the EPA within such time as may be specified in the request.

Compliant It was stated that during the audit period NPM has not had to prepare a report under this condition due to no request having been received under condition R3.1.

R3.3 The request may require a report which includes any or all of the following information:

a) the cause, time and duration of the event;

b) the type, volume and concentration of every pollutant discharged as a result of the event;

c) the name, address and business hours telephone number of employees or agents of the licensee, or a specified class of them, who witnessed the event;

d) the name, address and business hours telephone number of every other person (of whom the licensee is aware) who witnessed the event, unless the licensee has been unable to obtain that information after making reasonable effort;

e) action taken by the licensee in relation to the event, including any follow-up contact with any complainants;

Note This condition specifies the details of the report that the EPA may request.


Page 93 of 129



f) details of any measure taken or proposed to be taken to prevent or mitigate against a recurrence of such an event; and

g) any other relevant matters.

R3.4 The EPA may make a written request for further details in relation to any of the above matters if it is not satisfied with the report provided by the licensee. The licensee must provide such further details to the EPA within the time specified in the request.

Note This condition relates to further details that the EPA may request within the time specified in the request.

7 General Conditions

G1 Copy of licence kept at the premises or plant

G1.1 A copy of this licence must be kept at the premises to which the licence applies.

Compliant It was stated that a hard copy of the EPL is retained in the Community Environment & Farms Superintendent’s office.

A scanned copy of the EPL is retained in NPM’s computer records and a link to the EPL (on the EPA’s website) is available on NPM’s website.

G1.2 The licence must be produced to any authorised officer of the EPA who asks to see it.

Compliant NPM’s environmental personnel confirmed their awareness and understanding of this condition.

G1.3 The licence must be available for inspection by any employee or agent of the licensee working at the premises.

Compliant

Observation

A scanned copy of the EPL (including the variation of 18 December 2017) is retained in NPM’s computer records and a link to the EPL (on the EPA’s website) is available on NPM’s website.

Observation No. 67 – NPM could consider making a hard copy of the current version of the EPL (along with the Project Approval and Mining Leases) available for inspection by personnel in some suitable centralised work areas (if any) where computer or internet access is not readily available. If this occurs, NPM should consider identifying the location of these hard copies in a register to allow these to be withdrawn and replaced with updated copies as required.

67. Copies of all relevant Licences and the Approval are made available at the People Safety and Environmental (PSE) Department office.


Page 94 of 129



8 Pollution Studies and Reduction Programs

U1 Review of Surface Water Management Plan

U1.1 A comprehensive review is to be conducted by an appropriately qualified and experience person into all aspects of the surface water/stormwater management on the North Parkes mine site. This must address, but does not necessarily need to be limited to the following issues:

a. The capacity and adequacy of the current water management system as a whole including all current surface water management structures, that prevents pollution of land and ground water and offsite impacts from occurring;

b. The review must identify proposed upgrade works to ensure compliance against relevant guidance material mentioned below to ensure pollution of land and groundwater are prevented;

c. The review must identify any proposed changes to the water management system in relation to any current development application being considered with any consent authority;

d. The review must identify proposed timeframes for completion of all required upgrade works.

Note: The review must assess the adequacy of the surface water management system against the relevant guidance material referred below;

Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and construction Volume;

Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction 2E Mines and Quarries (DECC2008);

Compliant

Observation

NPM commissioned engineering consultants, GHD Pty Ltd, to conduct the review required by this condition.

GHD prepared a “Surface Water Storage Facility Assessment Report” (May 2018). According to section 1.3 of the GHD report (‘scope of work’), the objectives of the study were to: • Determine the existing capacity of the surface water storage

facilities on-site; • Determine if the existing surface water storages are sufficiently

sized based on their current contributing catchments; • Identify where storages are to be increased, and recommend

future developments; • Complete a climate change sensitivity analysis; and • Provide a report on findings of the assessment to NPM, and

provide recommendations for future upgrades.

These points above generally address the issues described in paragraphs a., b. and d. of this condition. In relation to paragraph c. of this condition, at the time of preparation of the May 2018 GHD report there were no proposed changes to NPM’s water management system in relation to any current development application being considered with any consent authority.

Section 3.3 of the May 2018 GHD report noted that the adequacy of sediment ponds was assessed against the guidance material where applicable, including: • Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 1; • Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction 2C

Unsealed Roads (DECC2008); and • Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction 2E Mines

and Quarries (DECC2008).

The May 2018 GHD report did not refer to Managing Urban Stormwater Soil and Construction: Volume 2A Installation of Services

68. Noted.


Page 95 of 129



Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Volume 2C unsealed roads (DECC 2008) for Erosion and Sediment control on unsealed roads available on the Environment Heritage stormwater website; and

Managing Urban Stormwater Soil and Construction: Volume 2A Installation of Services (DECC 2008) for erosion and sediment control during the installation of the water pipeline and any other reticulated services.

(DECC 2008). This guideline may not have been relevant to or included in GHD’s scope of work.

Observation No. 68 – The May 2018 GHD report does not refer to EPL condition U1.1 and the described ‘scope of work’ (in section 1.3 of the GHD report) does not clearly match the issues listed in paragraphs a. to d. of this condition. NPM should ensure that future external reports prepared in response to an EPL condition: • identify the condition which is the source of the report; • describe the scope of work consistent with the wording of the

condition; and • where particular guidance material is not relevant to the report,

include a statement to that effect.

U1.2 Upon completion of upgrade works the licensee must submit a report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person demonstrating compliance with the guidance material referred to above or providing recommendations for any required upgrade works to ensure compliance.


The ‘action plan’ referred to in NPM’s cover letter of 4 May 2018 to the May 2018 GHD report has not been triggered as at this May 2018 audit. The earliest due date in the action plan is 29 June 2018 for the survey of all ponds identified in the report as potentially undersized or marginal. It was stated that as at May 2018 this survey was progressing.

U1.3 The review of the Surface water management plan and report as referred to above must be completed no later than the COB 30 March 2018 and submitted to the Dubbo EPA office.


Administrative non-compliance – GHD’s report (Revision 2, Final) was completed on 3 May 2018 and was submitted by NPM to the Dubbo EPA office on 4 May 2018.

By letter of 26 February 2018 NPM requested the EPA to extend the timeframe for compliance with EPL condition U1.3 to COB 31 May 2018. The EPA did not respond with written acceptance of NPM’s request.

Auditor’s Note – The wording of condition U1.3 could be improved to make it clear that the plan and report must be ‘submitted’ to the EPA by a specific date, as distinct from ‘completed’.

Noted.

U2 Review of Dust Management Plan

U2.1 A comprehensive review is to be conducted by an appropriately qualified and experienced person into all aspects of dust management on the North Parkes Mine site. This must address, but does not

Compliant NPM commissioned service provider, Pacific Environment Pty Ltd, to conduct the review required by this condition.

Judith Cox (Certified Air Quality Professional) of Pacific Environment


Page 96 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response necessarily need to be limited to the following issues:

• proposed short and long term strategies and rehabilitation works to manage dust at the premises in a manner that prevents offsite impacts from occurring and preventative measures to prevent dust from occurring.

• procedures to ensure the licensee is prepared to manage a dust incident and prevent off site impacts.

• Site specific operating procedures that will be immediately implemented in the event of a dust incident occurring to manage the dust and prevent offsite impacts.

• include consideration of real time meteorological and dust monitoring and associated trigger action procedures, responses and/or stop work requirements;

• Training requirements for all relevant staff; and

• notification requirements for potentially affected neighbouring receptors and the EPA.

prepared a report, “Pollution Reduction Program U2 Review of Dust Management Plan” (dated 29 March 2018).

The auditors consider the March 2018 Pacific Environment report addressed the issues listed in this condition.

The author concluded in section 9 of the report that: “I have completed a review of all aspects of dust management at NPM and am satisfied that CMOC have adequate procedures in place to manage dust generated at site.”

U2.2 The review of the Dust management plan and report as referred to above must be completed no later than the COB 28 February 2018 and submitted to the Dubbo EPA office.


Administrative non-compliance – The Pacific Environment report (dated 29 March 2018) was submitted by NPM to the Dubbo EPA office on 29 March 2018.

By letter of 26 February 2018 NPM (the same letter as referred to in condition U3.1), NPM requested the EPA to extend the timeframe for compliance with EPL condition U2.2 to COB 29 March 2018. The EPA did not respond with written acceptance of NPM’s request.

Auditor’s Note – The wording of condition U2.2 could be improved to make it clear that the plan and report must be ‘submitted’ to the EPA by a specific date, as distinct from ‘completed’.

Noted.

Page 97 of 129

Mining Lease Number 1247


1. Notice to Landholders

(a) Within a period of three months from the date of renewal of this mining lease, the lease holder must serve on each landholder a notice in writing indicating that this mining lease has been renewed and whether the lease includes the surface. A plan identifying each landholder and individual land parcel subject to the lease area, and a description of the lease area must accompany the notice.

(b) If there are ten or more landholders, the lease holder may serve the notice by publication in a newspaper circulating in the region where the lease area is situated. The notice must indicate that this mining lease has been renewed; state whether the lease includes the surface and must contain a plan and description of the lease area. If a notice is made under condition 1(b), compliance with condition 1(a) is not required.

Compliant NPM owns all land defined in Mining Lease (ML) 1247.

ML 1247 was granted on 27 November 1991, transferred to NPM on 3 January 2014, and was renewed prior to the audit period until 26 November 2033.

No renewal or transfer of ML 1247 occurred during the audit period.

2. Rehabilitation

Any disturbance resulting from the activities carried out under this mining lease must be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Minister.


At the time of this May 2018 audit there are no completed rehabilitation areas in ML 1247.

It was stated that the following areas in ML 1247 are undergoing rehabilitation: • around the E22 waste rock dump; • southern and western sides of E26; • western and northern sides of Estcourt TSF; and • western and eastern sides of TSF2.

It was stated that the TSF1 embankment is being prepared for rehabilitation as referred to in Table 27 of the 2017 Annual Environmental Management Report (which includes the Annual Rehabilitation Report).


Page 98 of 129



3. Mining Operations Plan and Annual Rehabilitation Report

(a) The lease holder must comply with an approved Mining Operations Plan (MOP) in carrying out any significant surface disturbing activities, including mining operations, mining purposes and prospecting. The lease holder must apply to the Minister for approval of a MOP. An approved MOP must be in place prior to commencing any significant surface disturbing activities, including mining operations, mining purposes and prospecting.

(b) The MOP must identify the post mining land use and set out a detailed rehabilitation strategy which: (i) identifies areas that will be disturbed; (ii) details the staging of specific mining operations,

mining purposes and prospecting; (iii) identifies how the mine will be managed and

rehabilitated to achieve the post mining land use; (iv) identifies how mining operations, mining purposes

and prospecting will be carried out in order to prevent and or minimise harm to the environment; and

(v) reflects the conditions of approval under: • the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979; • the Protection of the Environment Operations

Act 1997; and • any other approvals relevant to the

development including the conditions of this mining lease.

(c) The MOP must be prepared in accordance with the ESG3: Mining Operations Plan (MOP) Guidelines September 2013 published on the Department’s website at www.resources.nsw.gov.au/environment

(d) The lease holder may apply to the Minister to amend an approved MOP at any time.

(e) It is not a breach of this condition if:

Compliant

Observation

At the time of this audit in May 2018 NPM’s current Mining Operations Plan (MOP) is Version 1.1 dated 23 June 2016.


(a) The current MOP commenced on 1 January 2015 and ends on 1 January 2020. The then Department of Industry (Resources & Energy) approved the MOP by letter of 7 July 2016.

(b) Sections 1.3 and 4 of the MOP identify the post mining land use. Section 4 of the MOP defines the detailed rehabilitation objectives. However other than on page 81 of the MOP, there are no specific details of a rehabilitation strategy.

Section 3.2.1 of the MOP deals with rehabilitation risks and defines control measures (management plans and procedures).

Observation No. 69 – To better align with paragraph (b) of this condition, section 4.3 of the MOP could be renamed from ‘Rehabilitation Objectives’ to ‘Rehabilitation Strategy’ and revised to incorporate:

• the ‘tree planting and rehabilitation’ section on page 81; and • the strategies (short, medium and long term management

measures) in section 5 of NPM’s Rehabilitation Management Plan.

(c) The second paragraph in Section 1 states: “This MOP has been developed in accordance with the ESG3: Mining Operations Plan (MOP) guidelines (NSW Trade & Investment 2013).”

(d) At the time of the audit in May 2018 NPM had not applied to the Minister to amend the MOP.

(e) This paragraph of the condition is noted.

(f) The Annual Rehabilitation Report required under this paragraph is the 2017 Annual Review. Section 8 of the Annual Review specifically deals with Land Management and Rehabilitation.

69. NPM will consider this observation during the next MOP review/development.

http://www.resources.nsw.gov.au/environment


Page 99 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (i) the operations which, but for this condition 3(e)

would be a breach of condition 3(a), were necessary to comply with a lawful order or direction given under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Mine Health and Safety Act 2004 / Coal Mine Health and Safety Act 2002 and Mine Health and Safety Regulation 2007 / Coal Mine Health and Safety Regulation 2006 or the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; and

(ii) the Minister had been notified in writing of the terms of the order or direction prior to the operations constituting the breach being carried out.

(f) The lease holder must prepare a Rehabilitation Report to the satisfaction of the Minister. The report must: (i) provide a detailed review of the progress of

rehabilitation against the performance measures and criteria established in the approved MOP;

(ii) be submitted annually on the grant anniversary date (or at such other times as agreed by the Minister); and

(iii) be prepared in accordance with any relevant annual reporting guidelines published on the Department’s website at www.resources.nsw.gov.au/environment.

Note: The Rehabilitation Report replaces the Annual Environmental Management Report.

4. Non-Compliance Reporting

(a) The lease holder must notify the Department upon becoming aware of any breaches of the conditions of this mining lease or breaches of the Mining Act or Regulations;

(b) Notifications under condition 4(a) must be provided in the form specified on the Department’s website within seven (7) days of the mining lease holder becoming aware of the breach.

Compliant This condition was introduced on 19 February 2018 (late in the audit period).

No breaches of the ML 1247 conditions or of the Mining Act or Regulations were recorded in the NPM’s incident reporting system (‘NED’) since the introduction of this condition on 19 February 2018.



Page 100 of 129



5. Environmental Incident Report

The lease holder must provide environmental incident notifications and reports to the Secretary no later than seven (7) days after those environmental incident notifications and reports are provided to the relevant authorities under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Definitions

Environmental incident notifications and reports means any notifications and reports required to be provided to relevant authorities under Part 5.7 or Part 5.7A of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Compliant

Observation

This condition was introduced on 19 February 2018 (late in the audit period).

A ‘NED’ system environmental incident list screenshot for the date range 18 January 2017 to 10 May 2018 indicated 6 non-notifiable environmental incidents. No notifiable environmental incidents were recorded during this date range.

Observation No. 70 – NPM’s Pollution Incident Response Management Plan (version 7) could be updated to add the Secretary of the DPE (DRG) as a notifiable regulatory authority (in Table 1, page 5).

70. NPM will consider this observation during the next review of the PIRMP.

6. Resource Recovery

The lease holder must optimise recovery of the minerals that are the subject of this mining lease to the extent economically feasible.

Compliant ML 1247 authorises NPM to mine for copper, gold and silver.

There was evidence that during the audit period NPM investigated the optimal recovery of minerals to the extent economically feasible. Various ‘resource’ reports commissioned by NPM or prepared by NPM in relation to domains within the site were sighted as follows: • H&S Consultants – E31/E31N Resource Estimates (draft report

dated February 2018); • Caveman Consulting – Northparkes E26 Lift 1 North

Pre-Feasibility Study Review (dated 25 May 2017); • William D. Rech, Consultant – CMOC-Northparkes Mine

Technical Review Report (dated January 15-18, 2018); and • NPM Resource Reserve Statement as at 31 December 2017

(dated 15 January 2018).

7. Single Security

The lease holder is required to provide and maintain a security deposit to secure funding for the fulfilment of obligations of all or any kind under the mining lease, including obligations of all or any kind under the mining

Compliant NPM provided evidence of payment of rent and a security levy of 1% by two part payments on 19 December 2017 and 20 December 2017 (in respect of DPE tax invoice no. 22027591 of 11 December 2017). The DPE tax invoice shows the amount of security for ML 1367 as


Page 101 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response lease that may arise in the future.

The amount of the security deposit to be provided as a single security has been assessed by the Minister at $17,840,000.

The leases covered by the single security include: Mining Lease No. 1247 (Act 1973) Mining Lease No. 1367 (Act 1992) Mining Lease No. 1641 (Act 1992)

$28,023,000.

8. Cooperation Agreement

The lease holder must make every reasonable attempt, and be able to demonstrate its attempts, to enter into a cooperation agreement with the holder(s) of any overlapping title(s). The cooperation agreement should address but not be limited to issues such as: • access arrangements • operational interaction procedures • dispute resolution • information exchange • well location • timing of drilling • potential resource extraction conflicts; and • rehabilitation issues.

Compliant There are no overlapping land titles on ML 1247.

9. Prescribed Dam

(a) Notwithstanding any Mining Operations Plan, the lease holder must not mine within any part of the lease area which is within the North Parkes Notification Area as defined around the North Parkes Tailings Dam, North Parkes Tailings Dam 2, North Parkes E27 Estcourt Tailings Dam and the proposed Rosedale Tailings Dam without the prior written approval of the Minister and subject to any conditions he may stipulate.

(b) Where the lease holder desires to mine within the

Compliant The Northparkes Notification Area covers the majority of ML 1247.

A plan signed by the NSW Dams Safety Committee on 6 November 2014 and the then NSW Department of Trade & Investment on 19 November 2014 (prior to the audit period) approved underground workings within the Northparkes Notification Area of ML 1247.

A plan signed by the NSW Dams Safety Committee on 23 November 2017 and the NSW Department of Planning and Environment on 24 November 2017 approved the installation of two new ventilation shafts within the Northparkes Notification Area of ML 1247 and


Page 102 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response notification area he must: (i) at least twelve (12) months before mining is to

commence or such lesser time as the Minister may permit, notify the Minister of the desire to do so. A plan of the mining system to be implemented must accompany the notice; and

(ii) provide such information as the Minister may direct.

(c) The Minister must not, except in the circumstances set out in sub-paragraph (ii), grant approval unless sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph has been complied with.

(i) This sub-paragraph is complied with if: (a) the Dams Safety Committee as constituted by

Section 7 of the Dams Safety Act 1978 and the owner of the dam have been notified in writing of the desire to mine referred in to paragraph (B).

(b) the notifications referred to in clause (a) are accompanied by a description or plan of the area to be mined.

(c) the Director-General has complied with any reasonable request made by the Dams Safety Committee or the owner of the dam for further information in connection with the mining proposal.

(d) the Dams Safety Committee has made its recommendations concerning the mining proposal or has informed the Minister in writing that it does not propose to make any such recommendations; and

(e) where the Dams Safety Committee has made recommendations the approval is in terms that are: (i) in accordance with those

recommendations; or (ii) where the Minister does not accept those

recommendations or any of them – in accordance with a determination under sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph.

ML 1367.


Page 103 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (ii) Where the Minister does not accept the

recommendations of the Dams Safety Committee or where the Dams Safety Committee has failed to make any recommendations and has not informed the Minister in writing that it does not propose to make any recommendations, the approval shall be in terms that are, in relation to matters dealing with the safety of the dam: (a) as determined by agreement between the

Minister and the Minister administering the Dams Safety Act 1978; or

(b) in the event of failure to reach such agreement – as determined by the Premier.

(d) The Minister, on notice from the Dams Safety Committee, may at any time or times: (i) cancel any approval given where a notice pursuant

to Section 18 of the Dams Safety Act 1978 is given. (ii) suspend for a period of time, alter, omit from or add

to any approval given or conditions imposed.

Page 104 of 129






Compliant NPM owns all land within Mining Lease (ML) 1367.

ML 1367 was granted on 21 March 1995, transferred to NPM on 3 January 2014, and was renewed prior to the audit period until 26 November 2029.


2. Rehabilitation



At the time of this May 2018 audit there are no rehabilitated areas in ML 1367. No rehabilitation has commenced in ML 1367.



(b) The MOP must identify the post mining land use and set out a detailed rehabilitation strategy which:

Compliant Refer to comments for condition 3 in ML 1247.


Page 105 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (i) identifies areas that will be disturbed; (ii) details the staging of specific mining operations,










(e) It is not a breach of this condition if: (i) the operations which, but for this condition 3(e)





Page 106 of 129












No breaches of the ML 1367 conditions or of the Mining Act or Regulations were recorded in the NPM’s incident reporting system (‘NED’) since 19 February 2018.



Definitions

Environmental incident notifications and reports means any notifications and reports required to be provided to relevant authorities under Part 5.7 or Part 5.7A of the




Page 107 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.



Compliant

Observation

ML 1367 authorises NPM to mine for copper and gold.

Refer to comments for condition 6 in ML 1247.

Observation No. 71 – Silver is not authorised to be mined under ML 1367. NPM could consider requesting the DPE (DRG) to revise ML 1367 to include silver, for consistency with other NPM mining leases.

71. Noted.

7. Single Security

The lease holder is required to provide and maintain a security deposit to secure funding for the fulfilment of obligations of all or any kind under the mining lease, including obligations of all or any kind under the mining lease that may arise in the future.




NPM provided evidence of payment of rent and a security levy of 1% on 11 April 2018 (in respect of DPE tax invoice no. 22029605 of 10 April 2018). The DPE tax invoice shows the amount of security for ML 1367 as $3,852,000.


The lease holder must make every reasonable attempt, and be able to demonstrate its attempts, to enter into a cooperation agreement with the holder(s) of any overlapping title(s). The cooperation agreement should address but not be limited to issues such as: • access arrangements • operational interaction procedures • dispute resolution

Compliant There are no overlapping land titles on ML 1367.


Page 108 of 129



• information exchange • well location • timing of drilling • potential resource extraction conflicts; and • rehabilitation issues.

9. Prescribed Dam

(a) Notwithstanding any Mining Operations Plan, the lease holder must not mine within any part of the lease area which is within the North Parkes Notification Area as defined around the North Parkes Tailings Dam, North Parkes Tailings Dam 2, North Parkes E27 Estcourt Tailings Dam and the proposed Rosedale Tailings Dam without the prior written approval of the Minister and subject to any conditions he may stipulate.

(b) Where the lease holder desires to mine within the notification area he must: (i) at least twelve (12) months before mining is to




(i) This sub-paragraph is complied with if: (a) the Dams Safety Committee as constituted by

Section 7 of the Dams Safety Act 1978 and the owner of the dam have been notified in writing of the desire to mine referred in to paragraph (B).

(b) the notifications referred to in clause (a) are accompanied by a description or plan of the area to be mined.

(c) the Director-General has complied with any

Compliant The Northparkes Notification Area covers the majority of ML 1367.

A plan signed by the NSW Dams Safety Committee on 23 November 2017 and the NSW Department of Planning and Environment on 24 November 2017 approved the installation of two new ventilation shafts within the Northparkes Notification Area of ML 1247 and ML 1367.


Page 109 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response reasonable request made by the Dams Safety Committee or the owner of the dam for further information in connection with the mining proposal.

(d) the Dams Safety Committee has made its recommendations concerning the mining proposal or has informed the Minister in writing that it does not propose to make any such recommendations; and

(e) where the Dams Safety Committee has made recommendations the approval is in terms that are: (i) in accordance with those

recommendations; or (ii) where the Minister does not accept those


(ii) Where the Minister does not accept the recommendations of the Dams Safety Committee or where the Dams Safety Committee has failed to make any recommendations and has not informed the Minister in writing that it does not propose to make any recommendations, the approval shall be in terms that are, in relation to matters dealing with the safety of the dam: (a) as determined by agreement between the


(b) in the event of failure to reach such agreement – as determined by the Premier.




Page 110 of 129






Compliant The Forestry Corporation of NSW owns all land within Mining Lease (ML) 1641.

ML 1641 was granted on 25 March 2010 and transferred to NPM on 3 January 2014, and will expire on 25 March 2031.


The 24.4 hectare portion of the Limestone National Forest required for NPM’s on-going operations was acquired through a Northparkes Land-Swap Limestone National Forest Agreement circa 2006 between the then NSW Minister for Primary Industries, North Mining Limited (previous Project owner), and the then Forestry Commission of New South Wales.

2. Rehabilitation






(b) The MOP must identify the post mining land use and set out a detailed rehabilitation strategy which:



Page 111 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (i) identifies areas that will be disturbed; (ii) details the staging of specific mining operations,















Page 112 of 129















Definitions

Environmental incident notifications and reports means any notifications and reports required to be provided to relevant authorities under Part 5.7 or Part 5.7A of the




Page 113 of 129





Compliant ML 1641 authorises NPM to mine for copper, gold and silver.


7. Single Security





NPM provided evidence of payment of rent and a security levy of 1% on 11 April 2018 (in respect of DPE tax invoice no. 22029629 of 10 April 2018). The DPE tax invoice shows the amount of security for ML 1641 as $139,000.


The lease holder must make every reasonable attempt, and be able to demonstrate its attempts, to enter into a cooperation agreement with the holder(s) of any overlapping title(s). The cooperation agreement should address but not be limited to issues such as: • access arrangements • operational interaction procedures • dispute resolution • information exchange • well location • timing of drilling • potential resource extraction conflicts; and

Compliant

Observation

An Occupation Permit (No. HD48307) between the then Forestry Commission of New South Wales and North Mining Limited (previous Project owner) commenced on 1 January 2009 and provides for an initial term of five years with four further terms of five years each (i.e. expiring on 31 December 2034).

Observation No. 72 – NPM should review the legal status of the Occupation Permit (No. HD48307). As defined in condition 1 of the Occupation Permit, “Northparkes Mines” does not include any future owner of the Project.

72. NPM has currently submitted an application for a new Occupation Permit which will be issued to the appropriate company title.


Page 114 of 129



• rehabilitation issues.

9. Parkes Radio Telescope

The lease holder must ensure that mining operations which will utilize methods which are likely to cause interference with Parkes Radio Telescope during its operational hours are conducted in co-operation and consent with the CSIRO.

Not verified

Observation

It was stated that no complaints have been received from the CSIRO Parkes Radio Telescope during the audit period.

There has not been any formal contact between NPM and the CSIRO during the audit period.

It was stated that radio communications on site are via a licensed frequency.

According to the NPM Geologists interviewed during this May 2018 audit, electro-magnetic radiation from the NPM site is the most likely risk of interference to the CSIRO Parkes Radio Telescope.

Not verified – NPM was unable to provide evidence of co-operation with and consent from the CSIRO in relation to mining methods which could cause interference with the Parkes Radio Telescope.

Observation No. 73 – NPM could consider contacting the CSIRO Parkes Radio Telescope facility and perhaps arrange a formal meeting (i.e. recorded in writing) if required to confirm existing and proposed mining methods are not of concern to that facility.

Auditor’s Note – The DPE (DRG) could consider this condition for potential inclusion in NPM’s other mining leases, and consider whether ML 1641 should also include a ‘Prescribed Dam’ condition.

73. Noted.

CMOC – Northparkes Mines Draft Environmental Audit Report – May 2018

Page 115 of 129




(a) Within a period of three months from the date of grant/renewal of this mining lease, the lease holder must serve on each landholder a notice in writing indicating that this mining lease has been granted/renewed and whether the lease includes the surface. A plan identifying each landholder and individual land parcel subject to the lease area, and a description of the lease area must accompany the notice.

(b) If there are ten or more landholders, the lease holder may serve the notice by publication in a newspaper circulating in the region where the lease area is situated. The notice must indicate that this mining lease has been granted/renewed; state whether the lease includes the surface and must contain a plan and description of the lease area. If a notice is made under condition 1(b), compliance with condition 1(a) is not required.

Compliant NPM owns all land within Mining Lease (ML) 1743 except the ‘slither’ of unformed Crown road (i.e. Crown land) which is owned by the State of New South Wales. The unformed Crown road is described in Appendix 1 of the Project Approval as being located between Lot 3 DP830291 and Lot 49 DE753998. The unformed Crown road is also ‘mapped’ in Appendix 4 of the Project Approval.

As at May 2018, NPM is in the process of purchasing this unformed Crown road (Purchase Reference #DPI W563265).

ML 1743 was granted on 1 September 2016 and will expire on 1 September 2037.

NPM notified the State of New South Wales of the grant of ML 1743 in accordance with paragraph (a) of this condition by letter of 6 October 2016 from service provider, Hetherington Exploration and Mining Title Services to the NSW Department of Industry – Lands. The heading of the letter states it was sent ‘by registered post’.


2. Rehabilitation







Page 116 of 129



(b) The MOP must identify the post mining land use and set out a detailed rehabilitation strategy which: (i) identifies areas that will be disturbed; (ii) details the staging of specific mining operations,








(c) The MOP must be prepared in accordance with the ESG3: Mining Operations Plan (MOP) Guidelines September 2013 published on the Department’s website at www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/rules-andforms/pgf/environmental-guidelines



would be a breach of condition 3(a), were necessary to comply with a lawful order or direction given under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013 and Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2014 or the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; and Work Health and Safety

http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/rules-andforms/pgf/environmental-guidelines

http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/rules-andforms/pgf/environmental-guidelines

Page 117 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response Regulation 2011





(iii) be prepared in accordance with any relevant annual reporting guidelines published on the Department’s website at www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/rules-and-forms/pgf/environmental-guidelines








The lease holder must provide environmental incident notifications and reports to the Secretary no later than seven (7) days after those environmental incident notifications and reports are provided to the relevant authorities under the


http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/miners-and-explorers/rules-and-forms/pgf/environmental-guidelines



Page 118 of 129



Definitions

Environmental incident notifications and reports means any notifications and reports required to be provided to relevant authorities under Part 5.7 or Part 5.7A of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.



Compliant The mining purpose of ML 1743 refers to: “All mining purposes for which development consent has been obtained as at the date of grant of this lease.”


7. Security


The amount of the security deposit to be provided as a single security has been assessed by the Minister at $10,000.

Compliant NPM provided evidence of payment of rent and a security levy of 1% on 11 October 2017 (in respect of DPE tax invoice no. 1083924 of 10 October 2017). The DPE tax invoice shows the amount of security for ML 1743 as $10,000.


The lease holder must make every reasonable attempt, and be able to demonstrate its attempts, to enter into a cooperation agreement with the holder(s) of any overlapping title(s). The cooperation agreement should address but not be limited to issues such as: • access arrangements • operational interaction procedures • dispute resolution • information exchange

Compliant As at May 2018 the State of New South Wales (as both the owner of the Crown road in ML 1743 and the lessor of ML 1743) has not requested NPM to enter into a cooperation agreement under this condition.

Page 119 of 129



• well location • timing of drilling • potential resource extraction conflicts; and • rehabilitation issues.

9. Prescribed Dam

(a) Notwithstanding any Mining Operations Plan, the lease holder must not mine within any part of the lease area which is within the notification areas of the Northparkes Tailings Dam, Northparkes Tailings Dam 2 and Northparkes Rosedale Tailings Dam, without the prior written approval of the Minister and subject to any conditions stipulated.

(b) Where the lease holder desires to mine within the notification area he or she must: (i) at least twelve (12) months before mining is to




This sub-paragraph is complied with if: (i) the Dams Safety Committee as constituted by

Section 7 of the Dams Safety Act 1978 and the owner of the dam have been notified in writing of the desire to mine referred in to paragraph (b).

(ii) the notifications referred to in clause (a) are accompanied by a description or plan of the area to be mined.

(iii) the Director-General has complied with any reasonable request made by the Dams Safety Committee or the owner of the dam for further information in connection with the mining proposal.

Compliant NPM has interpreted this condition as having the same wording as the corresponding conditions in ML 1247 and ML 1367 (see the Auditor’s Note below).

The Northparkes Notification Area covers the whole of ML 1743.

During the audit period NPM has not mined within the North Parkes Notification Area of ML 1743 and as at May 2018, has no intention to do so.

Auditor’s Note – The wording of this condition refers to “the notification areas” instead of the words: “the North Parkes Notification Area as defined around”, which are in the corresponding conditions for ML 1247 and ML 1367. The DPE (DRG) should rectify this wording inconsistency in the next revision of ML 1743 conditions.

Page 120 of 129


Condition Number and Requirement Status Supporting Evidence/Comments NPM Response (iv) the Dams Safety Committee has made its

recommendations concerning the mining proposal or has informed the Minister in writing that it does not propose to make any such recommendations; and

(v) where the Dams Safety Committee has made recommendations the approval is in terms that are: - in accordance with those recommendations; or - where the Minister does not accept those


(vi) Where the Minister does not accept the recommendations of the Dams Safety Committee or where the Dams Safety Committee has failed to make any recommendations and has not informed the Minister in writing that it does not propose to make any recommendations, the approval shall be in terms that are, in relation to matters dealing with the safety of the dam: - as determined by agreement between the


- in the event of failure to reach such agreement – as determined by the Premier.




Page 121 of 129

Appendix 1 – Endorsement of audit team In accordance with Condition 9(a) in Schedule 6 of the Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3, the Secretary of the DPE endorsed the appointment of the audit team for this May 2018 audit. The DPE letter of 26 March 2018 is reproduced below.

Page 122 of 129

Appendix 2 – Consultation letters and responses received In accordance with Condition 9(b) in Schedule 6 of the Project Approval 11_0060 MOD 3 and section 4.2 of the NSW Government’s Independent Audit Guideline (Post-approval requirements for State significant developments October 2015), consultation letters were sent to the relevant agencies and the Community Consultative Committee for the Project. These consultation letters and responses received are reproduced on the following pages.

Page 123 of 129

Page 124 of 129

Page 125 of 129

Page 126 of 129

Page 127 of 129

Page 128 of 129

Appendix 3 – Summary of actions taken by CMOC – Northparkes Mines in response to the previous independent environmental audit in March 2015

The following table (not audited) sets out actions taken by CMOC – Northparkes Mines in response to Non-Compliances (NC) and Opportunities for Improvement (OfI) identified in the previous independent environmental audit in March 2015 (audit report by Telford Environmental Consulting Services, dated 30 March 2015).

Identifier Condition Recommendation Priority Action Timeframes Progress

NC-1 PA Schedule 5 Condition 1

Write to the owners of privately-owned land within 2 kilometres of the approved open cut mining to inform them of their entitlements in accordance with the Project Approval.

High The letters have to be sent by Community and External Relation Team. Liaise with Justine.

30 April 2016 Complete


Apply to the Department for approval to notify the landowners by telephone rather than in writing. The conversations could

be logged in a telephone diary to retain a record of their outcome.

High Department will be notified and approval will be requested.



Update and maintain the environmental publications page on the NPM website to meet Project Approval requirements.

High Ensure all updated Management Plans are uploaded in Northparkes website under Reports and

Publications


OfI-1 EPL Condition M2.2

Reduce groundwater standing water level monitoring results to metres AHD.

Low TBC 2016 Complete

OfI-2 PA Schedule 3 Condition 2

Confirm understanding of statutory day time hours during which McClintocks Lane construction works may occur.

High Construction hours for the McClintocks Lane will be confirmed with the Projects Team and submitted to

relevant agencies.



Amend the Noise Management Plan to remove reference to preparation of a proposed Construction Noise Management

Plan.

Low Noise Management Plan will be amended to the changes requested and submitted to the relevant

government agencies.



Amend the Air Quality Management Plan to provide a correct timeframe for incident reporting requirements.

Low Air Quality Management Plan will be amended to the changes requested and submitted to the relevant




Consult with Department of Planning to confirm the specific requirements of the met station condition and meet the

requirements of the condition.

Medium Department of Planning will be contacted and will confirm the specific requirements in regards to the

met data.



Review and update the Non-Mineral Waste Management Plan.

Medium Non-Mineral Waste Management will be updated with the relevant changes and submitted.



Amend the Rehabilitation Management Plan to provide details on how to achieve public safety after mine closure.

Low Rehabilitation Management Plan will be amended to the changes requested and submitted to the relevant




Amend the Environmental Management Strategy to include the current version of the monitoring and measurement

schedule.

Medium Environmental Management Strategy will be amended to the changes requested and submitted to

the relevant government agencies.



Provide more regular reporting of NPM environmental performance results on the website. Ensure the current

version of environmental management plans are published on the website.

Medium Ensure updated management plans are published on NPM website.


Page 129 of 129

Appendix 4 – Summary of reportable incidents and complaints during the audit period (31 March 2015 to 11 May 2018)

During the audit period, six incidents were reported to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Two complaints were also made in relation to the off-site release of dust generated by the Project. The following tables (not audited) provide a summary of these incidents and complaints.

Year Description of Incident

2015 Incidents reported during the 2015 calendar year were the result of: • Tailings dust emitted off-site during high wind event, • Tailings line spill resulting from failed/faulty infrastructure, • Concentrate spill at rail siding, and • Works outside scope of site disturbance permit.

2016 Incidents reported during the 2016 calendar year were the result of: • Hydrocarbon spill outside bunded area, and • Dirty water discharge from site as a result of extreme rainfall event.

2017 Incidents reported during the 2017 calendar year were the result of: • Eastern surge dam overflow.

Year Description of Complaint

2015 Complaint from neighbouring resident regarding dust emitted from tailings facilities.

2017 RMS contacted Northparkes regarding the behaviour of an unconfirmed Northparkes employee on local roads.

Date post:	08-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times