cosmic boy ioheap™ facility bacterial heap leach licence ... · cosmic boy concentrator site –...

Cosmic Boy BioHeap™ Facility – Bacterial Heap Leach Process Works Approval Supporting Document Licence No.: L8041/1990/5 FORRESTANIA NICKEL PROJECT COSMIC BOY CONCENTRATOR SITE Prepared for: Department of Water and Environment Regulation

Revision 0 December 2019

This document details the specifications of a proposed heap leach circuit to be constructed and operated at the Cosmic Boy Concentrator site to improve the efficiency of the concentrate production process.

Executive Summary

Western Areas Ltd is proposing to add a Bacterial Heap Leach Facility to the existing Cosmic Boy Operations

at the company’s Cosmic Boy Concentrator site located within the Forrestania Nickel Operations located in

the Yilgarn and Phillip’s River Mineral Fields of Western Australia. Since 2010, mill rejects or scats have been

stockpiled within the apron of the Tailings Storage Facility located at the Cosmic Boy Concentrator site.

Currently there are 280,000 tonnes of scats at a bulk density of 2.11 tonnes per m3 within a stockpile

comprising a main load and smaller long pile. This equates to an approximate volume of 132,701 m3.

Ore from the Spotted Quoll and Flying Fox ore bodies enters the three-stage crushing circuit as the first stage

in exposing the sulphide mineral. A portion of the ore is resilient to crushing and is rejected from the circuit

as scats. The volume of scats generated varies depending on the ore feed to the comminution circuit. Ore

is present within the scats with an average nickel grade of approximately 1.5%.

It is proposed that the rejects from the mill and the stockpiled scats be treated using the BioHeap™ heap

leach process to generate a liquor stream rich in nickel. This stream would then be fed back to the existing

Bioleach Plant, also referred to as the Mill Recovery Enhancement Project which was previously approved

under W5839/2015/1 for nickel recovery.

A Works Approval from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) is required to

proceed with the Proposal. This document serves to support the DWER’s information requirements

regarding the Works Approval application. The objectives of this document are therefore to:

• Describe the current conditions on, and surrounding the Proposal area;

• Describe the proposed design and operations of the BioHeap™ Facility;

• Identify any potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposal; and

• Outline environmental engineering and management measures to ensure that all potential impacts

are managed to appropriate standards.

An Environmental Risk Assessment has been completed as part of this Supporting Document in line with the

DWER guidance document ‘Guidance Statement – Risk Assessments’ (DWER 2017) which provides guidance

on the Departments regulatory framework and the application of regulatory controls for works approvals

and licences granted under Part V, Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Environmental

Risk Assessment has considered the scope of construction and operational activities and their potential to

impact on environmental factors including:

• Ground disturbance;

• Weeds;

• Water;

• Flora, Fauna and Ecosystem;

• Dangerous good and Hazardous substances; and

• Atmospheric Pollution and Noise.

Based on the results of Environmental Risk Assessment which include existing and proposed controls to

minimise impacts to the environment it is considered that the Proposal is unlikely to cause a significant

impact to the environment.

Cosmic Boy BioHeap™ Facility – Works Approval Supporting Document iii

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

AHD Australian Height Datum

AHIS Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System

BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

BIF Banded iron formations

BioHeap™ Facility Bacterial Heap Leach Facility

CBC Cosmic Boy Concentrator

CBO Cosmic Boy Operations

CCIR Critical Containment Infrastructure Report

DBCA Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions

DWER Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EMS Environmental Management System

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EP Clearing

Regulations

Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004

EP Regulations Environmental Protection Regulations 1987

ERA Environmental Risk Assessment

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area

FEL Front-end loader

FGB Forrestania greenstone belt

FNO Forrestania Nickel Operations

GDP Ground Disturbance Permit

GWW Greater Western Woodlands

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

Cosmic Boy BioHeap™ Facility – Works Approval Supporting Document iv

IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia

Masl Metres above sea level

Mbgl Metres below ground level

MREP Mill Recovery Enhancement Project

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NES National Environmental Significance

OMA Outokumpu Mining Australia Pty Ltd

PLS Pregnant Liquor Solution

RL Reduced Level

ROM Run-of-mine

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TSF Tailings Storage Facility

UCL Unallocated Crown Land

WAL Western Areas Limited

Cosmic Boy Concentrator Site – Scats Heap Leach Facility Works Approval Supporting Document v

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Background Information ............................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Purpose of this document ........................................................................................................... 8

2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Land uses and zoning ................................................................................................................ 11

2.3 Existing facilities ....................................................................................................................... 11

2.4 Regional setting and topography .............................................................................................. 11

2.5 Hydrology and Hydrogeology .................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Geology ................................................................................................................................... 12

2.7 Soil characteristics .................................................................................................................... 12

2.8 Acid generating potential ......................................................................................................... 12

2.9 Vegetation, flora and fauna ...................................................................................................... 13

Fauna ....................................................................................................................................... 17

2.10 Heritage ................................................................................................................................... 17

2.11 Sensitive receptors ................................................................................................................... 17

3.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 Description and overview ......................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Proposed activities ................................................................................................................... 18

Feed Preparation Pad .............................................................................................................. 19

Heap Leach Pad ....................................................................................................................... 19

Heap Irrigation ......................................................................................................................... 20

Heap Aeration .......................................................................................................................... 20

Inoculum Tankage ................................................................................................................... 20

Acid Storage ............................................................................................................................. 20

MREP Requirements ................................................................................................................ 20

Power Supply ........................................................................................................................... 20

Controls and Communication .................................................................................................. 21

PLS Heating .............................................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Clearing activities ..................................................................................................................... 21

3.4 Water use ................................................................................................................................ 21

4.0 Project timing ...................................................................................................................................... 25

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 26

Cosmic Boy BioHeap™ Facility – Works Approval Supporting Document vi

5.1 Ground Disturbance ................................................................................................................. 26

Potential impact ...................................................................................................................... 26

Controls and management actions.......................................................................................... 26

5.2 Weeds ..................................................................................................................................... 26



5.3 Water ...................................................................................................................................... 27



5.4 Flora, Fauna & Ecosystem ......................................................................................................... 27



5.5 Dangerous goods and Hazardous substances ............................................................................ 28



5.6 Atmospheric Pollution and Noise .............................................................................................. 29



6.0 REFERENCES AND BILIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 31

Figures

Figure 1: Location of the Forrestania Nickel Operations (FNO) ....................................................................... 9

Figure 2: Proposal location of the BioHeap™ Facility ..................................................................................... 10

Figure 3: Environmental Attributes ................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 4: Proposed BioHeap™ Facility Layout (Coffey, 2019a) ....................................................................... 22

Figure 5: Proposed BioHeap™ Facility Sections and Details (Coffey, 2019b) ................................................. 23

Figure 6: Proposed BioHeap™ Facility Drainage Layout Plan (Coffey, 2019c) ................................................ 24

Tables

Table 1: Cosmic Boy Operations (CBO) discipline codes ................................................................................. 18

Table 2: Construction Phase timeframe (from approval). ............................................................................... 25

Table 3: Qualitative measures of consequence .............................................................................................. 37

Table 4: Qualitative Measures of Likelihood ................................................................................................... 38

Table 5: Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix ......................................................................................................... 38

Table 6: Risk Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 38

Table 7: Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) for the proposed BioHeap™ Facility. .................................... 39

Cosmic Boy BioHeap™ Facility – Works Approval Supporting Document vii

Appendices

Appendix 1: Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) – M77/399

Appendix 2: Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA)

Cosmic Boy BioHeap™ Facility – Works Approval Supporting Document 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Western Areas Ltd (WAL) is proposing to add a Bacterial Heap Leach Facility (BioHeap™ Facility; the Proposal)

to the existing Cosmic Boy Operations (CBO) at the company’s Cosmic Boy Concentrator (CBC) site located

within the Forrestania Nickel Operations (FNO) located in the Yilgarn and Phillip’s River Mineral Fields of

Western Australia (Figure 1). Since 2010, mill rejects or scats have been stockpiled within the apron of the

Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) located at the CBC site. Currently there are 280,000 tonnes of scats at a bulk

density of 2.11 tonnes per m3 within a stockpile comprising a main load and smaller long pile. This equates

to an approximate volume of 132,701 m3 (Figure 2).







Bioleach Plant, also referred to as the Mill Recovery Enhancement Project (MREP) which was previously

approved under W5839/2015/1 for nickel recovery.

1.1 Background Information

WAL is an Australian based nickel sulphide mineral exploration and development company. Its principal asset

is a 100% interest in the FNO located in the Yilgarn and Phillip’s River Mineral Fields of Western Australia.

The FNO area has been the subject of exploration activities since the 1960’s nickel boom, with Outokumpu

Mining Australia Pty Ltd (OMA) mining nickel at a number of project sites located there in the 1990’s. OMA

undertook decommissioning and rehabilitation of their FNO from 1999 to 2001. WAL acquired the project in

early 2002 reopening the Flying Fox Underground Operations in late 2004. Works commenced at the Spotted

Quoll open pit operations in October 2009 with underground mining commencing in 2011. Underground

mining continues at both operations.

Nickel bearing ore from both the Flying Fox and Spotted Quoll operations is processed at the CBC to produce

a nickel concentrate product. The nickel concentrate is transported in bulk to the BHP nickel smelter in

Kambalda or to the Esperance Port for delivery to buyers in China.

Mine dewatering and ore processing for the FNO site are licenced as Prescribed Premises under licence

L8041/1990/5.

1.2 Purpose of this document

A Works Approval from the Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) is required to proceed

with the Proposal. This document serves to support the DWER’s information requirements regarding the

Works Approval application. The objectives of this document are therefore to:

• Describe the current conditions on, and surrounding the Proposal area;

• Describe the proposed design and operations of the BioHeap™ Facility;

• Identify any potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposal; and

• Outline environmental engineering and management measures to ensure that all potential impacts

are managed to appropriate standards.


Figure 1: Location of the Forrestania Nickel Operations (FNO)


Figure 2: Proposal location of the BioHeap™ Facility


2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Location

The FNO are located approximately 450 km east of Perth, 160 km south of Southern Cross, and 80 km east

of Hyden, in the Shire of Kondinin (Figure 1). The exact location of the proposal site is approximately

32°34’48.043” (757524E) latitude and 119°44’36.166” (6391950N) longitude and has an elevation of

approximately 412 m Reduced Level (RL). Both the regional location and Proposal location and layout are

shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.

2.2 Land uses and zoning

The CBO falls within the WAL owned mining tenement M77/399, which is on Unallocated Crown Land (UCL).

The nearest residence is in the Wheatbelt region some 30 km to the west, and the predominant industry is

broad‐acre agriculture. Immediate neighbouring land is UCL with mining tenements overlain. Apart from

WAL operations, there are no other significant operations in the area.

2.3 Existing facilities

The CBO and associated infrastructure are situated on tenement M77/399. Established infrastructure

includes:

• Cosmic Boy Concentrator, Run-of-mine (ROM) and TSF;

• Workshop;

• Cosmic Boy Bioleach Facility;

• Cosmic Boy Village and related infrastructure;

• Fuel Storage;

• Gravel Pits;

• Septic evaporation ponds;

• Internal haul road;

• Core yard;

• Dewatering infrastructure;

• Contractor’s lay down; and

• Former TSF rehabilitation area.

In addition, the Forrestania Marvel Loch gazetted road runs approximately north/south through tenement

M77/399.

2.4 Regional setting and topography

The FNO and associated tenements are located within the Western Mallee and Coolgardie Biogeographical

sub-regions, and within the Roe Botanical District of the Southwest Botanical Province. The area has low

relief and lies 300 to 500 metres above sea level (masl). The main exceptions are the iron stone hills namely

the North Iron Cap, Middle Iron Cap and South Iron Cap. Forrestania lies within the Salt Lake, or Salinaland,

physiographic division, which includes most of the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia. This division is

characterised by a string of salt lakes that act as surface water sinks; these are relic river systems. In

exceptionally wet rainfall years floodwaters can move along the palaeodrainages, with Forrestania

topographically dividing the palaeodrainage systems that lead westwards and eastwards toward the Avon

drainage system and the Eucla Basin, respectively.

The topography of the Proposal area is flat having been previously levelled by prior disturbance and is at

approximately 407 m Australian Height Datum (AHD).


2.5 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

There are no permanent surface water bodies or seasonal wetlands adjacent to the Proposal area. The Lake

Cronin “A Class” Nature Reserve is located approximately 22 km north of the CBO.

Groundwater in the Forrestania region occurs in weathered and fractured bedrock aquifers. Groundwater

salinity ranges from saline to hyper-saline and is approximately 40,000 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

Groundwater movement is mostly from higher parts of the landscape, often where greenstone belts occur,

to discharge at salt lakes. The nearest such system is located within the Wheatbelt some tens of kilometres

away. Recharge is mostly by widespread infiltration of rainfall and probably at low rates as indicated by the

high prevailing groundwater salinities. The natural groundwater levels in the Forrestania region are between

20 to 60 metres below ground level (mbgl).

The current TSF was built atop the original TSF in 2008 (built by OMA), and commissioned in 2009. From mid-

2009 and as a result of operation of the TSF, water levels have shown rising trends in the majority of nearby

monitoring bores (Rockwater 2019). As a result, groundwater levels in the Proposal area are higher than the

natural groundwater levels of the region. In 2011, four recovery bores were installed on the north-western

corner of the TSF facility to ensure that groundwater levels were maintained below the licence requirement

of 4 mbgl (L8041/1990/5).

2.6 Geology

The geology of the Forrestania area largely consists of a greenstone belt running on an axis from Mt Holland

in the north to Hatters Hill in the south and includes many types of ancient metamorphic rocks. The

Forrestania greenstone belt (FGB) is constrained by granitoid rocks that developed during the late Archaean

/Proterozoic and form the western and eastern boundaries to the FGB. During the period of granite

emplacement significant alteration, folding and faulting occurred within the FGB. The most significant

alteration to the greenstone ‘stack’ of mafics, ultramafics, and sediments was the formation of a major

synclinal structure. This feature dominates the structural geology of the region.

The CBO are located on a typical greenstone belt with north-south trending suites of metasediments (schists),

mafic and ultramafic rocks. The upper weathering profile typically consists of 10 to 15 m of clay developed

above weathered mafic and ultramafic lithologies. Weathering extends to about 65 mbgl. Banded iron

formations (BIF) and siliceous caprock material (after ultramafic rocks) are common.

2.7 Soil characteristics

The soils of the FGB are largely red sandy soils with mottled yellow clayey subsoils, with some minor areas

displaying calcareous loamy soil and brown calcareous earth (Beard, 1979). The soils are a function of the

geomorphology with elevated ridges being dominated by sand over lateritic soils, and the heavier brown/red

clay loams predominantly being in areas of lower elevation (Beard, 1979).

The soils surrounding Cosmic Boy consist of neutral to alkaline sands. Previous soil sampling taken in

proximity to the Proposal area as part of Mining proposal 30654 identified no major environmental risks from

soil samples. Similar soil characteristics are expected within the area proposed for the BioHeap™ Facility. In

addition, the heap leach pads will be located in an area that is currently being utilised for rehabilitation topsoil

stockpiling (Figure 2).

2.8 Acid generating potential

The scats materials proposed for use in the heap leach process are inert, contain no fibrous material and are

not dispersive or contain potentially acid forming material. The storage and handling of this material

therefore presents insignificant environmental risk.


2.9 Vegetation, flora and fauna

The proposed BioHeap™ Facility will be located on previously disturbed land associated the original TSF built

by OMA in 2008 and adjacent to the current TSF. Accordingly, there are some small areas within the Proposal

area containing native regrowth/rehabilitation (<0.1 ha) which may be impacted by the works. The Proposal

will therefore not involve any direct impacts or clearing of remnant vegetation. Given the potential for

indirect impacts however, the below regional and local context has been provided.

Regionally FNO lies within the Great Western Woodlands (GWW). The region covers almost 16 million

hectares in the south-west of Western Australia. The area provides an eastward connection between the

south-west forests and inland deserts (Gondwana Link) as well as linking the Northwest Passage to Shark Bay.

The majority of the GWW is UCL (58.9%). Other interests include pastoral leases (17.5%), conservation

reserves (16.1%), Crown reserves (3.7%) and land subject to miscellaneous tenure (3.4%) (DEC, 2019).

The FNO is located within the Coolgardie and Mallee Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia

(IBRA) regions. Vegetation of the Coolgardie 2, COO2 – Southern Cross subregion, is predominantly

Eucalyptus woodland (Eucalyptus salmonophloia, E. salubris, E transcontinentalis, E. longicornis). These

woodlands are known to occur around salt lakes, on low greenstone hills, valley alluvials, and broad plains of

calcareous earths (Beard, 1990). Dwarf shrublands of samphire are mostly found adjacent and within salt

lake surfaces. Sands, gravels and granite outcrops on mid-levels of the landscape tend to support perennial

herbs such as Borya constricta, acacia shrublands and some Eucalyptus species e.g. Eucalyptus loxophleba

(Cowan, et al., 2001). Dense scrub-heath of Acacia, Allocasuarina, Melaleuca and Mallees (Eucalyptus

leptopoda, E. Platycorys and E. scyphocalyx) tend to dominate the sandplains of the uplands and broad valley

floors (Cowan, et al., 2001).

Vegetation of the Western Mallee (MAL2) region is more varied than its eastern counterpart in terms of relief

(Beecham & Danks, 2001). There is a high degree of endemism noted within the MAL2 region. Particular

genera include Grevillea and Hakea (Cowling & Lamont, 1998), Eucalyptus and Acacia (Lamont, et al., 1999),

Dryandra and the Asteraceae family (Keighery & Lyons, 2001). The Mallee communities tend to occur on a

variety of surfaces. Eucalyptus woodlands have a high floristic diversity and occur mainly on fine textured

soils, with scrub-heath on sands and laterite (Beecham & Danks, 2001). The landscape is fragmented from

agriculture with particular vegetation associations almost completely cleared (Beecham & Danks, 2001).

A comprehensive flora survey conducted by Botanica Consulting (2015) targeted the Cosmic Boy Middle

Ironcap Schedule 1 Area which is located approximately 500 m north west of the proposed BioHeap™ Facility

(Figure 3). The survey covered an area of 314 ha (including 26.4 ha of cleared/rehabilitated areas)

encompassing the entire boundary of a Schedule 1 Area (centred on the Middle Ironcap) as described in

Regulation 6 and Schedule 1, clause 4 of the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation)

Regulations 2004 (EP Clearing Regulations). Although no specific survey has been undertaken between the

Schedule 1 Area and the original TSF disturbance footprint, given the short distance, consistency in landform

and vegetation structure, it can be inferred that vegetation communities and the flora species they contain

would likely be extensions of those mapped by Botanica Consulting (2015). A flora and vegetation survey

was undertaken on the original TSF disturbance footprint by Jim’s Seeds, Weeds and Trees (2005) following

on from closure and rehabilitation by OMA in 2011.

Nine broad vegetation communities were identified by Botancia Consulting (2015), which were represented

by a total of 26 Families, 51 Genera and 115 Taxon, including sub-species and variants:


1. Open tree mallee of Eucalyptus pileata/ E. tephroclada over heath of Allocasuarina campestris/ A.

corniculata/ Melaleuca hamata and open low sedge of Lepidosperma sanguinolentum on ironstone

hillslope;

2. Open shrub mallee of Eucalyptus tephroclada/ E. urna over low scrub of Acacia sulcata var.

platyphylla/ Melaleuca hamata and open dwarf scrub of Dodonaea bursariifolia on ironstone

hillslope;

3. Thicket of Allocasuarina campestris over heath of Melaleuca cordata and low heath of Hibbertia

pungens with occasional low sedges of Lepidosperma ferriculmen (P1) on ironstone hillslope;

4. Open scrub of Acacia lasiocalyx over heath of Allocasuarina campestris and low sedges of

Lepidosperma ferriculmen (P1)/Lepidosperma sanguinolentum on BIF ridge;

5. Open tree mallee of Eucalyptus calycogona/ E. eremophila/ E. urna over low scrub of Daviesia

benthamii/Melaleuca pauperiflora and dwarf scrub of Acacia merrallii/Dodonaea bursariifolia/

Westringia cephalantha on sand-loam plain;

6. Open shrub mallee of Eucalyptus tephroclada/ E. urna over heath of mixed Melaleuca spp. and open

dwarf scrub of Dodonaea bursariifolia on sand-loam plain;

7. Tree mallee of Eucalyptus horistes/ E. pileata/ E. tephroclada over heath of Melaleuca hamata and

dwarf scrub of Hibbertia pungens/ Westringia cephalantha on sand-loam plain;

8. Forest of Eucalyptus melanoxylon with occasional E. salmonophloia over thicket of Melaleuca

pauperiflora and dwarf scrub of Acacia merrallii/ Olearia muelleri on sand-loam plain; and

9. Forest of Eucalyptus salmonophloia/ E. salubris/ E. urna over thicket of Melaleuca lateriflora/ M.

pauperiflora over dwarf scrub of Acacia intricata/ A. merrallii.

Based on the Keighery vegetation health rating scale (1994) seven of the nine vegetation communities were

classed as ‘very good’ and two vegetation communities were rated as ‘good’. No introduced taxa were

identified within the survey area (Botanica Consulting 2015). Based on Botanica Consulting (2015) mapping

it can be inferred that vegetation communities 5 and 9 (described above) and the flora species they contain

would likely extend from the Schedule 1 Area, to the boundary of the original TSF disturbance footprint.

No Threatened flora species listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), or the State Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (which has now been replaced

by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 [BC Act]) and as listed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife

(which are now called the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions [DBCA]) were identified

within the survey area. Six Priority Flora taxa as listed by DBCA were identified within the survey area:

1. Acacia singula (P3);

2. Grevillea insignis subsp. elliotii (P3);

3. Lepidosperma ferriculmen (P1);

4. Microcorys sp. Forrestania (V. English 2004) (P4);

5. Stenanthemum liberum (P1); and

6. Stylidium sejunctum (P3).

Based on Botanica Consulting (2015) and other targeted surveys conducted in proximity to the TSF it is likely

that similar priority species would be present in vegetation between the Schedule 1 Area and the original TSF

disturbance footprint.

None of the vegetation communities within the Botanica Consulting (2015) survey area were found to have

National Environmental Significance (NES) as defined by the EPBC Act. A Threatened Flora taxon (Boronia

revoluta) listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act and Vulnerable under the BC Act, is listed by the DBCA as

occurring on the Middle Ironcap within the survey area; however, this taxon was not identified within the


survey area by Botanica (2015). No Threatened Ecological Communities pursuant to Commonwealth or State

legislation or listed by the Western Australian Minister for the Environment were recorded within the survey

area. The entire Botanica (2015) survey area is however located within the Middle Ironcap region of a Priority

3 Ecological Community known as the Ironcap Hills vegetation complexes (Mt Holland, Middle, North and

South Ironcap Hills, Digger Rock and Hatter Hill).

The Botanica (2015) survey area also contained a small (0.78 ha) Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) which

is centred on a previous recording of Boronia revoluta plus a 50 m radius of the plant. In addition, the entire

boundary of the survey area is located within a proposed Conservation Reserve listed under the

Environmental Protection Authority Red Books Recommendations (1976-1991) which is encompassed within

the Schedule 1 Area as described in Regulation 6 and Schedule 1, clause 4 of the EP Clearing Regulations. To

date this proposed Conservation Reserve has not been formally approved for management by the DBCA.

The original TSF was rehabilitated in 2011 and a flora and vegetation survey was undertaken by Jim’s Seeds,

Weeds and Trees (2005). Forty-two (42) species were recorded in the rehabilitated TSF representing 15

Families and 17 Genera. Three weed species are present within the proposal area:

1. Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle);

2. Carrichtera annua (Ward’s weed); and

3. Acetosa vesicaria (Ruby Dock).

The report also noted that bare patches within the Cosmic Boy TSF rehabilitation area contain high surface

salinity and fine sediment.


Figure 3: Environmental Attributes


Fauna

The GWW supports a diverse fauna community by providing various and different foraging, nesting and

roosting habitats. The Western Australia Museum and Birds Australia have recorded a wide number of

species in the GWW. This includes 49 species of mammals, 138 reptile species, 14 frog species, 215 species

of bird, as well as a number of different reptile species (DEC, n.d.). The Western Australian government’s

rare and endangered fauna list includes 32 threatened vertebrate species that either exist or are likely to

exist in the GWW. These comprise of 16 mammals, eight bird and eight reptile species (DEC, n.d.).

WAL has undertaken several fauna surveys within the Forrestania region (Biota 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2010).

These were undertaken to target specific areas and better understand the fauna assemblage within the local

vicinity. Overall the surveys have recorded a total of 170 species of which 7 are currently listed as

conservation significant under Commonwealth and State legislation including:

• Calyptorhynchus latirostris (Carnaby’s cockatoo) – Endangered under EPBC Act and BC Act;

• Leipoa ocellata (Malleefowl) – Vulnerable under EPBC Act and BC Act;

• Dasyurus geoffroii (Chuditch) – Vulnerable under EPBC Act and BC Act;

• Platycercus icterotis xanthogenys (Western Rosella) – Priority 4 under BC Act;

• Macropus irma (Western Brush Wallaby) – Priority 4 under BC Act;

• Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) – Marine under EPBC Act; and

• Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) - Other Specially Protected under BC Act.

Calyptorhynchus latirostris (Carnaby’s cockatoo); Leipoa ocellata (Malleefowl); and Dasyurus geoffroii

(Chuditch) rely on certain attributes within various vegetation groups for core breeding, foraging, refuge and

roosting habitat. Typically, suitable breeding and refuge habitat includes trees or logs of species such as

Salmon Gum (Eucalyptus salmonophloia) or Morrel (Eucalyptus longicornis) that contain suitably sized

hollows. No potential habitat has been identified in the proposed disturbance footprint however if any

potential habitat (e.g. hollow logs) are encountered during ground disturbance, they will be salvaged and

used in rehabilitation activities to encourage fauna back into the area post closure. Fauna barriers (fencing)

will be installed where required (e.g. around sumps) to prevent access and trapping of native fauna.

Considering the small disturbance footprint of this Proposal, WAL does not believe that fauna will be

significantly impacted.

2.10 Heritage

The FNO area has been extensively surveyed by previous tenants in 1975, 1989 and 1991 and these surveys

indicated that there were no sites of Aboriginal heritage in the area. In addition, between 2008 and 2010

WAL engaged consultants Gleason and Associates to undertake additional heritage and archaeological

surveys of the FNO and consult with representatives of the local indigenous community. No aboriginal

heritage or archaeological sites were noted during the consultation efforts or surveys (Gleason and

Associates 2008, 2009 and 2010). In preparation of this supporting report, a search of the Aboriginal Heritage

Inquiry System (AHIS) was undertaken for Mining Tenement M77/399 confirming that no Registered

Aboriginal Sites occur within or in proximity to the Proposal Area (Appendix 1). Therefore, no areas of cultural

significance are expected to be impacted by this Proposal.

2.11 Sensitive receptors

The Proposal is located within a remote environment and therefore there are no sensitive receptors within

close proximity to the Proposal area. The nearest sensitive receptors are located in agricultural areas

surrounding the town of Varley greater than 15 km from the Proposal area.


3.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

3.1 Description and overview

WAL is proposing to add a BioHeap™ Facility to the existing CBO at the company’s CBC site located within the

FNO located in the Yilgarn and Phillip’s River Mineral Fields of Western Australia (Figure 1).

The CBC consists of a three-stage crushing circuit followed by a single closed-circuit ball mill and a system of

flotation tanks and thickening and filtration system. The CBC treats ore from both the Flying Fox and Spotted

Quoll ore bodies producing a ~14% nickel concentrate product. The proposed BioHeap™ Facility will treat

the scats rejected from the crushing and milling circuit from the concentrator process.

Since 2010, mill rejects or scats have been stockpiled within the apron of the TSF located at the CBC site.

Currently there are 280,000 tonnes of scats at a bulk density of 2.11 tonnes per m3 within a stockpile

comprising a main load and smaller long pile. This equates to an approximate volume of 132,701 m3 (Figure

2).







Bioleach Plant, also referred to as the MREP which was previously approved under W5839/2015/1 for nickel

recovery.

Process test work has been conducted by WAL’s subsidiary bacterial leach technology company BioHeap Ltd.

WAL and BioHeap Ltd have developed the process design criteria for this project from this test work and their

heap leach experience. It is proposed that leaching take place at elevated pHs of 2.5 to 3.0 and that leaching

take place using saline raw water. The combination of high pH and salinity reduces the solubility of arsenic

and iron so that very little of either element reports to solution. Any iron and arsenic leached into solution

via the BioHeap™ Facility process will be precipitated as a stable ferric arsenate and pumped and stored in

the existing TSF with the rest of the tailings. The ferric arsenate tailings will make up approximately 0.5% of

the total tailings stream produced by the CBC.

3.2 Proposed activities

WAL proposes to construct and operate the BioHeap™ Facility within the existing CBO. The CBO is currently

divided into a number of distinct activity areas each with its own discipline code depending on what process

or activity is carried out in that particular area as shown in Table 1. A new discipline code is proposed to be

assigned ‘61’; and will be added to the below list for the BioHeap™ Facility. The BioHeap™ Facility process

elements are described in the sections to follow. The facility layout and design are further shown in Figure 4

to Figure 6 (Coffey 2019a, 2019b and 2019c).

Table 1: Cosmic Boy Operations (CBO) discipline codes

Discipline code Discipline

00 Standards

10 General

37 Power Reticulation


50 Crushing and Screening

53 Grinding and Classification

55 Flotation

56 Concentrate Thickening

57 Concentrate Filtering and Washing

58 Concentrate Storage

59 Bioleach Circuit

62 Tailings Thickening and Disposal

64 Laboratory

68 Services Equipment (Air, Water, Ancillary Buildings)

Feed Preparation Pad

It is proposed that scats will be reclaimed from the scats stockpile using a front-end loader (FEL) and

transported to the Feed Preparation Pad as shown in Figure 4. It will then be fed into the current

(refurbished) mill emergency feeder, consisting of feed bin, plate feeder and conveyor belt. This will feed a

drum magnetic separator for removal of the ball mill fragments contained in the feed material. These ball

fragments are acid soluble and cause a build-up of chrome in solution if not removed from the heap leach

feed. Chrome is a toxic element and would have a significant adverse effect on the bacteria, as well as

presenting a potential environmental hazard. The rejected material will be returned to the Cosmic Boy scrap

metal stockpile for offsite recycling (periodically).

Non-magnetics will report to the heap leach stockpile conveyor. An inoculum slurry (2% solids) will be added

to the feed material on the stockpile conveyor. The day stockpile will have a capacity of 500 tonnes. The

area used for this facility is within an existing hard-stand that was previously used for equipment laydown

during construction of the tailings dam lift (W6273/2019/1). A lined pad with sump is provided for the

inoculated scats stockpile to prevent acid contamination to the environment. This is a 16 m x 16 m area pad

which is prepared with in-situ soil foundation of 300 mm overlain with a 1.5 mm thick High Density

Polyethylene (HDPE) liner incorporating a 1 m x 1 m x 1 m sump for drainage collection (Figure 5).

Heap Leach Pad

Material will be reclaimed from the day stockpile by FEL and trucked to the Heap Leach Pad where it is pushed

out in layers by FEL. As the stack height increases a ramp is constructed of un-inoculated scats material for

truck access to the heap. The Heap Leach Pad is designed as a single use pad with the capacity to hold 20,000

tonnes. Stack height is 8 m with cell width of 30 m and length of 80 m. Two inter-cell bunds are provided to

split the heap into three cells which can be operated under different conditions for testing purposes Figure

6). The pad foundation is constructed from in-situ surficial soils scarified, moisture conditioned and

compacted. This is overlain with a HDPE liner with leak detection and collection. The drainage layer recovers

leach solution and comprises “Megaflow” slotted drainage pipe laid directly onto the HDPE liner and covered

in heap leach scats. Inverted partially slotted PVC pipe delivers air into the heap. The pad slopes

approximately 1% and cell drainage pipes deliver solution to an external HDPE lined Pregnant Liquor Solution


(PLS) pond. Each cell discharge pipe discharges into the pond separately for sampling. The PLS pond

overflows into a compacted clay lined stormwater event pond (designed to account for local seasonal

rainfall).

Heap Irrigation

Each cell has its own irrigation feed pump drawing PLS from the PLS pond for recirculation to the heap.

Irrigation is by 2L/h emitter type drippers arranged in a square grid pattern placed across the cells at 0.4 m

spacing (12.5 emitters/m2). The longitudinal and lateral grid lines can be operated separately to provide

nominally 12L/m2.h or together to provide the design maximum 24L/m2.h. Acid is dosed into in-line mixers

on the pump discharge lines controlled by pH probe in the mixer discharge line. Pressure and flow are also

monitored for each cell.

A 140 kW PLS heater is provided to heat the initial PLS in order to heat the heap to the design operating

temperature of 55oC. This heater provides heating to one cell PLS with a temperature rise of 20oC at the

nominal irrigation rate of 12L/m2.h. Under this design, each cell would be brought on-line and heated

separately. Heap temperatures are monitored by nine thermocouples embedded in each cell at 2, 4 and 6 m

depths. A PLS Bleed pump transfers a portion of the PLS to the MREP facility for nickel recovery.

Raw water is added to the PLS pond to make-up solution inventory. Raw water supply to the heap leach

facility will be via new pipeline run from the Mossco Farm evaporation pond disposal pipeline; and will use

existing (disturbed) infrastructure corridors (Figure 2). The Mossco Farm evaporation ponds store water from

the FNO dewatering system which is hypersaline ground water.

Heap Aeration

A low-pressure blower distributes air to each cell for aeration. Aeration pipes are spaced at 3 m intervals,

supplied from a header. Each individual pipe can be isolated, flushed and drained if precipitate builds up.

Inoculum Tankage

Inoculum is added to the feed preparation stockpile conveyor. The MREP bacteria farm facility will be used

to supply the heap leach facility. A 1 m3 Inoculum Day Tank is provided at the BioHeap™ Facility for dosing

from at nominally 1.25L/min while stacking. Inoculum slurry will be transferred from the MREP to the heap

leach day tank at approximately 2 m3/h once per day. The day tank is agitated and insulated, but not heated

or aerated.

Acid Storage

Acid for the heap leach facility is provided from a hired 60 m3 (purpose built) storage tank from the acid

supplier. From this storage tank, three pumps dose acid to each cell irrigation in-line mixer. One of the pumps

also supplied acid to the inoculum tank during the stacking phase. The tank will have bunded protection in

place to prevent spills/leaks to the environment.

MREP Requirements

The PLS bleed to MREP is estimated to peak at 1.7 m3/h. This flow rate is considered manageable in the

existing MREP circuit without modification. The bleed solution will be added to the polishing tank of the

MREP for impurity precipitation prior to nickel sulphide precipitation. The PLS bleed pipeline will use existing

(disturbed) infrastructure corridors.

Power Supply

Electrical power for the heap leach electric drives, instrumentation and controls will be by a dedicated local

diesel gensets. One 20 kVA unit will power the Feed Preparation Pad area for the short period of time

required. The Heap Leach Pad area requires an 80 kVA genset when heating is complete. The heating circuit


requires a further 150 kVA. All fuel storage will have bunded protection in place to prevent spills/leaks to

the environment.

Controls and Communication

The heap leach circuit will use local start/stop control with a limited number of local control loops and

instrumentation for critical process monitoring. Drive status and instrument signals will be directed back to

the MREP and incorporated as new pages in the MREP Citect control system for remote monitoring only. The

communications equipment will use existing (disturbed) infrastructure corridors.

PLS Heating

The design includes a 148-kW heating system consisting of four Rheem 37 kW electric hot water heaters

connected in parallel to a single plate and frame heat exchanger. PLS from any one cell may be directed

through the heat exchanger with the capacity to increase the PLS temperature by 20oC at an irrigation rate

of 12L/m2.h. This means that the start-up of each cell must be scheduled sequentially if heating is to be

applied to each on start-up.

3.3 Clearing activities

It is likely that only minimal clearing of vegetation within or adjacent to the proposal footprint will be

undertaken as part of this proposal (<0.1 ha); and this will only be undertaken within former disturbance

regrowth/rehabilitation areas. Any vegetation clearing that is undertaken will be defined under the EP

Clearing Regulations under Schedule 1, Clause 2, subclause 2, and therefore a clearing permit is not required.

Ground disturbing activities are regarded as a significant environmental aspect of the WAL Environmental

Management System (EMS); and WAL’s Ground Disturbance Procedure is the key risk control process. This

procedure defines the process required for the responsible management of ground disturbance activities at

the FNO; and all proposed works resulting in ground disturbance will require authorisation via a Ground

Disturbance Permit (GDP) issued by the FNO Environmental Department. WAL shall ensure that vegetation

clearing is minimised by utilising previously disturbed or rehabilitated areas and ensure that all ground

disturbance activities are authorised through a GDP process.

3.4 Water use

Raw water will be required at the BioHeap™ Facility as part of the heap irrigation system and to make-up

solution inventory in the PLS pond. Water sourced will be via a new pipeline run from the Mossco Farm

evaporation pond disposal pipeline; and will use existing (disturbed) infrastructure corridors.

Raw water is sourced from the FNO dewatering system and is therefore hypersaline in nature. In addition,

saline water will be used for the conditioning of the roads and for general dust suppression activities. No

additional dewatering on top of current dewatering activities will be required for this application.

Potable water from the Cosmic Boy Reverses Osmosis (RO) system will be supplied to the BioHeap™ Facility

for emergency showers and eye wash stations (as required).


Figure 4: Proposed BioHeap™ Facility Layout (Coffey, 2019a)


Figure 5: Proposed BioHeap™ Facility Sections and Details (Coffey, 2019b)


Figure 6: Proposed BioHeap™ Facility Drainage Layout Plan (Coffey, 2019c)


4.0 Project timing

A new guidance document entitled ‘Industry Regulation Guide to Licencing’ was released by DWER (2019)

and provides guidance on when the Department will allow a proposal to move through project phases

including ‘Construction Phase’, ‘Environmental Commissioning Phase’ and ‘Time Limited Operations Phase’.

Under the new guidelines, confirmation that the works have been conducted in accordance with works

approval conditions is required in the form of specific reporting prior to undertaking environmental

commissioning and time limited operations, and ultimately a licence amendment. Therefore, until the works

approval is granted, it is currently not possible to determine timeframes beyond the Construction Phase of

the Proposal.

Table 2 below details the anticipated timeframes for the construction phase and sub-phases of the Proposal,

as well as anticipated longer-term operational timeframes.

Table 2: Construction Phase timeframe (from approval).

Phase Phase description Indicative

timeframe

Date

Works Approval

application

Submission and DWER determination of

Works Approval application under Part V of

the EP Act.

~ 3 months December 2019

Construction Phase 1 • Bulk earthworks

• Installation of scats preparation and

stockpiling facilities

• Construction of scats heap leach

cells

• Construction of PLS Pond

• Installation of PLS pumping, acid

dosing and heating facilities

~ 1 month April 2020

Construction Phase 2 Preparation and submission of reporting

required under works approval (i.e.

Environmental Compliance Report and

Critical Containment Infrastructure Report

[CCIR]). *

To be determined by Works Approval

condition requirements and delivery of

consultant reports.

~TBD Mid 2020

Environmental Commissioning and Time Limited Operations phases To be determined once works

approval is granted.

Operation 5+ years (based on estimated

mine life of 5 years) * Hold point while DWER assesses the CCIR. During this time no environmental commissioning, or operation of the containment infrastructure may

occur.


5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT

Identifying the environmental aspects and impacts of its activities is the foundation of the WSA

Environmental Management System (EMS) on which continual improvement and management reviews are

based. An assessment of aspects and impacts relating to WAL activities has been incorporated into the EMS

Environmental Aspects Register.

Environmental impacts and their inherent risk are typically identified through an appropriate risk assessment

process. Control measures must be identified to reduce the inherent risk and ensure the residual risk is low

and environmentally acceptable.

An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has been completed as part of this Supporting Document (Appendix

2). The methodology for the ERA has been taken from the existing Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

for the FNO, developed in line with ISO 14001 (Environment Management Systems). In addition, the ERA has

been undertaken with regard to the DWER guidance document ‘Guidance Statement – Risk Assessments’

(DWER 2017) which provides guidance on the Departments regulatory framework and the application of

regulatory controls for works approvals and licences granted under Part V, Division 3 of the EP Act.

The ERA methodology used and aspects register for the Proposal are detailed in Appendix 2. Relevant

environmental factors are also discussed in more detail in Section 5.1 to Section 5.6 below, along with

proposed controls and management actions associated with the Proposal.

5.1 Ground Disturbance

It is likely that minimal clearing of vegetation will be required (<0.1 ha) as part of this Proposal in order to

establish the footprint and associated ancillary infrastructure for the BioHeap™ Facility.

Potential impact

Without proper controls land clearing has the potential to result in unintended clearing of native vegetation

and associated impacts on flora and fauna as well as non-compliance with environmental regulations.

Controls and management actions

Key controls and management actions include:

• Vegetation clearing will be minimised by utilising previously disturbed or rehabilitated areas;

• Clearing to be undertaken will be defined under the EP Clearing Regulations under Schedule 1, Clause

2, subclause 2 and therefore no clearing permit will be required;

• All proposed works resulting in ground disturbance will require authorisation via a GPD permit issued

by the FNO Environmental Department.

5.2 Weeds

Construction of the BioHeap™ Facility will utilise on-site machinery and equipment as well as machinery and

equipment brought from offsite.

Potential impact

Transporting equipment from offsite has the potential to introduce and spread weeds into remnant

vegetation and subsequently undermine vegetation quality and fauna habitat.


All equipment shall be clean of foreign material prior to entering the FNO. The following management

measures will be implemented to control the spread of weeds:

• Vehicles will be washed/blown down prior to and following ground works at the site;


• Vehicles will be inspected by the site environmental officer;

• When moving from a weed infested area to a clean area within the Forrestania area, vehicles will be

washed/blown down prior.

In addition, weed inspections and control at the disturbance site will be carried out at regular intervals

following disturbance.

5.3 Water

There are no permanent surface water bodies or seasonal wetlands adjacent to the Proposal area. The Lake

Cronin “A Class” Nature Reserve is located approximately 22 km north of the CBO. In addition, natural

groundwater levels in the area are typically between 20 – 60 mbgl. Impacts to groundwater or permanent

surface water bodies are therefore unlikely. Impacts to locate drainage may occur however unless

appropriate controls are in place.

Potential impact

Construction and earth moving activities may disrupt existing surface drainage patterns.


The following management measures will be implemented to manage any potential impacts to surface and

groundwater:

• Natural drainage will be preserved by installing surface water management infrastructure such as

culverts and drains to ensure no inflow from upstream areas;

• No additional dewatering on top of current dewatering activities will be required for this application;

• All potentially polluting materials and processes will be contained within lined/bunded areas with

leak detection as described in Section 3.2. Routine inspections shall be undertaken to ensure that

adequate freeboard is maintained within containment sumps;

• Post commissioning and prior to handover to WAL, a maintenance schedule will be developed for

use by WAL Mill team to maintain infrastructure; and

• Saline water will be used for the conditioning of the roads and for general dust suppression activities.

Dust suppression activities will be managed so that impacts to adjacent vegetation will be minimised.

WSA’s normal management practices include:

o Limit dust suppression activities to when required e.g. hot conditions on haul roads;

o The use of dribble bars for dust suppression; and

o Installation of surface water infrastructure to capture any runoff from the roads (i.e. spoon

drains on the sides of roads).

5.4 Flora, Fauna & Ecosystem

The proposed BioHeap™ Facility will be located on previously disturbed land associated the original TSF built

by OMA in 2008 and adjacent to the current TSF. Accordingly, there are some small areas within the Proposal

area containing native regrowth/rehabilitation (<0.1 ha) which may be impacted by the works. The Proposal

will therefore not involve any direct impacts or clearing of remnant vegetation. There is low potential

however for indirect impacts to surrounding remnant vegetation in proximity to the TSF.

Potential impact

Potential impacts to flora, fauna & ecosystem factors as a result of the Proposal include:

• Removal of <0.1 ha of regrowth/rehabilitation vegetation during construction including degraded

fauna habitat;


• Indirect impacts to surrounding vegetation and fauna as a result of dust, air drift and noise during

construction;

• Fauna injury or death as a result of vehicle interactions;

• Impacts to flora and fauna as a result of deviations from designated access tracks;

• Fauna injury or death as a result of ingress into above ground cells, sumps and ponds; and

• Impacts to flora and fauna as a result of bushfire.


WAL recognises the need to ensure long-term conservation of the regions protected flora and fauna, as well

as its natural cultural values. Accordingly, the following management measures will be implemented to

manage any potential impacts to flora, fauna and ecosystem factors:

• Vegetation clearing will be minimised by utilising previously disturbed or rehabilitated areas;

• Clearing to be undertaken will be defined under the EP Clearing Regulations under Schedule 1, Clause

2, subclause 2 and therefore no clearing permit will be required;

• All proposed works resulting in ground disturbance will require authorisation via a GPD permit issued

by the FNO Environmental Department;

• Dust suppression equipment will be available during earth moving and mine speed limits will be

implemented on access roads;

• Noise will be minimised through contractor management to ensure plant and machinery is

maintained in optimal condition;

• Vehicle / fauna interactions will be minimised through inductions and awareness of staff and

contractors, and implementing mine speed limits across the site;

• Vehicles will only be permitted on designated access roads and tracks.

• Surrounding vegetation will be monitored to ensure the Proposal does not negatively impact the

area from dust or air drift form the BioHeap™ Facility;

• Fauna barriers (fencing) will be installed where required (e.g. around sumps) to prevent native fauna

injury or death; and

• Contractor management and inductions / awareness for bushfire risk. All sources of ignition will be

prohibited on declaration of Total Fire Ban, implementation of Bushfire Response Management Plan

and Emergency Management Plan.

5.5 Dangerous goods and Hazardous substances

Hazardous substances are those that, following worker exposure, can have an adverse effect on health.

Examples of hazardous substances include poisons, substances that cause burns or skin and eye irritation,

and substances that may cause cancer. Many hazardous substances are also classified as dangerous goods

(Safe Work Australia, n.d.). Dangerous goods are substances, mixtures or articles that, because of their

physical, chemical (physicochemical) or acute toxicity properties, present an immediate hazard to people,

property or the environment. Types of substances classified as dangerous goods include explosives,

flammable liquids and gases, corrosives, chemically reactive or acutely (highly) toxic substances (Safe Work

Australia, n.d.).

Potential impact

There is potential that dangerous goods and hazardous substances my impact on the environment unless

appropriate control measures are implemented. Raw water supply to the heap leach facility will be via new

pipeline run from the CBC water supply system; and will use existing (disturbed) infrastructure corridors.

Water quality typically ranges from 100,000 ppm TDS to 130,000 ppm TDS and is recognised as potentially

polluting to the surrounding environment. In addition, dangerous and hazardous chemicals will be used to


power components of the process (i.e. diesel generators) and acid will be used to irrigate the heap leach

stacks.


The following management measures will be implemented to manage any potential impacts to the

environment as a result of dangerous goods and hazardous substances:

• All pipelines containing environmentally hazardous materials will be either:

o Equipped with telemetry systems and pressure sensors along the pipelines to allow the

detection of leaks and failures;

o Include daily physical inspections of the infrastructure; and

o Provided with secondary containment (where practical).

• WAL shall retain a register of all hazardous and dangerous goods on-site and ensure that personnel

have access to their Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS);

• WAL shall ensure that environmentally hazardous materials are stored in accordance with the Code

of Practice for the storage and handling of dangerous goods; and

• Routine inspections will be undertaken to ensure bunding, refuelling and maintenance of equipment

is undertaken on hardstand areas and ensure hazardous and dangerous spill procedures are in place.

5.6 Atmospheric Pollution and Noise

Dust emissions are likely from this Proposal during the construction and operational stages as a result of

earth moving activities and movement of plant and machinery. Noise impacts are expected to be minimal

and considering the remote location of the FNO and absence of nearby sensitive receptors, insignificant. The

FNO has experienced recent summer bushfires in both 2018 and 2019 which has interrupted operations and

resulted in large remnant areas of bushland being burnt surrounding the FNO. Therefore, the risk of

triggering bushfire and impacts on the environment have been considered.

Potential impact

Potential impacts associated with atmospheric pollution and noise include:

• Dust emissions during the construction and operational stages as a result of earth moving activities

and movement of plant and machinery;

• Minimal noise impacts associated with use of plant and machinery during construction and

operation; and

• Fire ignition from use of machinery and equipment during construction and operation.


The following management measures will be implemented to manage any potential impacts associated with

atmospheric pollution and noise:

• Dust suppression equipment will be available during earth moving and mine speed limits will be

implemented on access roads;

• Noise will be minimised through contractor management to ensure plant and machinery is

maintained in optimal condition;

• WAL shall ensure that a 20 m wide low fuel buffer is maintained around all high-risk mining and

support infrastructure;

• WAL shall respond to and extinguish bush fires that may threaten mine infrastructure assets, and

where practicable any conservation significant flora and fauna assets; and


• Contractor management and inductions / awareness for bushfire risk. All sources of ignition will be

prohibited on declaration of Total Fire Ban, implementation of Bushfire Response Management Plan

and Emergency Management Plan.


6.0 REFERENCES AND BILIOGRAPHY

• Beard, J. S., 1979. Vegetation Survey of Western Australia,1:250,000 series. Sydney: Vegmap

Publications.

• Beard, J. S., 1990. Plant life of Western Australia. s.l.:Simon & Schuster Australia.

• Beecham, B. & Danks, A., 2001. Mallee 2 (MAL2 - Western Mallee subregion), Perth: Department of

Parks and Wildlife.

• Biota Environmental Sciences, 2010. Spotted Quoll Haul Road Single Phase Fauna Survey, Perth: s.n.

• Biota, 2006a. Forrestania Fauna Monitoring Survey – Fauna & Fauna Assemblages Report Flying Fox,

s.l.: Unpublished Report.

• Biota, 2006b. Forrestania Water Disposal Pipeline Fauna Survey, s.l.: Unpublished Report.

• Biota, 2007. Diggers South Fauna Survey - Phase 1, s.l.: Unpublished Report.

• Biota, 2010. Spotted Quoll Haul Road Single Phase Fauna Survey, s.l.: Unpublished Report.

• Botanica Consulting, 2015. Level 1 Flora and Vegetation Survey - Cosmic Boy, Perth: Unpublished.

• Coffey, a Tetra Tech Company (Coffey), 2019a. General Arrangement Plan - Cosmic Boy Scats Heap

Leach Design, Forrestania Nickel Operations. Prepared for Western Areas Ltd.

• Coffey, a Tetra Tech Company (Coffey), 2019b. Sections and Details Plan - Cosmic Boy Scats Heap

Leach Design, Forrestania Nickel Operations. Prepared for Western Areas Ltd.

• Coffey, a Tetra Tech Company (Coffey), 2019c. Drainage Layout Plan - Cosmic Boy Scats Heap Leach

Design, Forrestania Nickel Operations. Prepared for Western Areas Ltd.

• Cowan, M., Graham, G. & McKenzie, N., 2001. Coolgardie 2 (COO2 – Southern Cross subregion), Perth:

Department of Parks and Wildlife.

• Cowling, R. & Lamont, B., 1998. On the nature of Gondwanan species flocks: diversity of Proteaceae

in Mediterranean south-western Australia and South Africa, s.l.: Australian Journal of Botanay.

• DEC, 2019. The Great Western Woodlands. [Online] Avaliable at:

• http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/off-reserve-conservation/the-great-western-

woodlands

Accessed 2 November 2019].

• DEC, n.d. A Biodiversity and Cultural Conservation Strategy for the Great Western Woodlands, Perth:

Department of Environment and Conservation.

• Department of Water, Environment and Regulation (DWER), 2017. Guidance Statement – Risk

Assessments, Part V, Division 3, Environmental Protection Act 1986. Government of Western

Australia. February 2017

• Department of Water, Environment and Regulation (DWER), 2019. Guideline – Industry Regulation

Guide to Licencing. Government of Western Australia. June 2019

• Gleason and Associates, 2008. Report of Indigenous Heritage Surveys (Ballardong Native Title

Claimants and Graeme Pellew Group) of Western Areas' Forrestania Nickel Project Mining

Tenements M77/545, M77/583 (Spotted Quoll Mine) and M77/366 east of Hyden, WA, Perth:

Unpublished.

• Gleason and Associates, 2009. Report of an Archaeological Heritage Survey: Western Areas' Spotted

Quoll Project Area and Exploration Areas M77/366, east of Hyden, WA, Perth: Unpublished.

• Keighery, G. & Lyons, M., 2001. CALM Biodiversity Survey of the Agricultural Zone - June 2001 Status

Report, Perth: Unpublished Report.

• Lamont, B., Hopkins, A. & Hnatiuk, R., 1999. The flora - composition, diversity and origins. In.

Kwongan: Plant life of the Sandplain. Biology of a south-west Australian shrubland ecosystem. Eds.

J.S. Pate and J.S. Beard, Perth: University of Western Australia Press.

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/off-reserve-conservation/the-great-western-woodlands

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/off-reserve-conservation/the-great-western-woodlands


• Rockwater Pty Ltd (Rockwater), 2019. Cosmic Boy TSF – Revision of Groundwater Recovery

Management. Report for Western Areas Ltd. October 2019


APPENDIX 1: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE INQUIRY SYSTEM (AHIS) – M77/399


APPENDIX 2: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT (ERA)

The ERA methodology rated both likelihood (Table 3) and consequence (Table 4) on a scale of 1 to 5. Historical

data from other mining operations was used to assess the likelihood of an environmental risk occurring. The

consequence of an environmental issue was assessed by determining the severity of the effect, the

area/population to be affected, the permanence of effects and the capacity of the area to recover.

These numbers were assessed in the matrix shown in Table 5 to provide an indicator of the degree of risk

associated with the issue and relative priority of the issue. Table 3 shows the definitions of the risk levels

respectively.

Table 3: Qualitative measures of consequence

Label Injury Illness Environment Property /

Process

Loss

1 Insignificant Minor Injury Minor illness e.g.

nausea

Little or no environmental

impact – no accumulative

damage e.g. dead bird in TSF.

Low

financial

loss

(<$5,000)

2 Minor Medical

Treatment

Injury

Medical Treatment

illness e.g., skin

rashes

Small &/or localised impact –

technical non-compliance e.g.

overflow of a saline process

water dam.

Medium

financial

loss

($5,000 -

$20,000)

3 Moderate Alternate Duties

Injury or Lost

Time Injury <2

weeks

Lost time illness

(<2 weeks) e.g.

asthma

Substantial environmental

impact –Non-compliance,

Government reportable event

e.g. chemical spillage >5000

litres.

High

financial

loss

($20,000 -

$50,000)

4 Major Lost Time Injury

>2 weeks

Lost time illness

(>2 weeks) e.g.

permanent

hearing loss

Serious environmental impact,

Non-Compliance, material harm,

government reportable event,

offsite impacts

Major

financial

loss

($50,000 -

$500,000)

5

Catastrophic

Fatality or

permanently

disabling injury

Fatal disease or

permanently

disabling illness

Disastrous &/ or widespread

environmental impact.

Irreparable damage on or off

site, serious environmental

harm. e.g. Tailings dam failure

Huge

financial

loss

($500,000

and above)


Table 4: Qualitative Measures of Likelihood

Label Terms of Reference Indicative Frequency

1 Rare (Negligible) Consequence may occur in exceptional

circumstances, practically impossible. Have heard of

something like this occurring elsewhere.

Once every 5 years

2 Unlikely Consequence could occur at some time, but not

likely. The event does occur somewhere from time

to time.

Once every 3 years

3 Possible Could occur at some time or “I’ve heard of it

happening”.

Once every year

4 Likely Consequence will probably occur in most

circumstances. Is known to occur, or “it has

happened”.

Once every 6 months

5 Almost Certain Consequence is expected to occur in most

circumstances, common or repeating occurrence.

Once every month or more

frequently

Table 5: Qualitative Risk Analysis Matrix

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost Certain H H E E E

Likely M H H E E

Possible L M H E E

Unlikely L L M H E

Rare L L M H H

Table 6: Risk Definitions

Extreme Do Not Start – Unacceptable Risk. Senior Manager to make changes to reduce Risk

High Do Not Start –Manager to reassess and ensure Risk is As Low As Reasonably Practicable

Moderate Reassess - Risk must be As Low As Reasonably Practicable prior to commencing job

Low Manage by Routine Processes

The following table summarises the risk assessment and management strategies to be implemented to

minimise environmental risks associated with the BioHeap™ Facility proposed in this Works Approval

application.


Table 7: Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) for the proposed BioHeap™ Facility.

Reference Number

Phase Activity (Description) Hazard / Issue (Description) Outcome (Description)

Like

liho

od

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ran

kin

g RISK ASSESSMENT Controls / Actions Required (Description)

Like

liho

od

Co

nse

qu

ence

Ran

kin

g

Risk Action Priority

1 Construction Ground disturbance Non-compliance with environmental regulations

Activity not assessed or approved by regulatory authorities

4 2

Hig

h

Project planning, regulatory approvals and WAL Ground Disturbance Procedure.

2 2

Low

"C" Management by application of routine procedures, check to ensure adequacy of existing controls.

2 Plant and earth movement, vehicle movement

Generation of dust Impacts to flora and fauna 4 1

Mo

der

ate

Dust suppression equipment available during earth moving, drive to speed limits on access roads.

3 1

Low


3 Generation of noise Impacts to flora and fauna 3 1

Low

Contractor management and vehicle maintenance.

2 1

Low


4 Fauna / vehicle interactions Impacts to fauna 3 2

Mo

der

ate

Contractor management, inductions and awareness. Drive to speed limits on access roads.

2 2

Low


5 Deviation from designated access routes

Impacts to flora and fauna 3 2

Mo

der

ate

Contractor management, inductions and awareness. Drive on designated access routes only.

2 2

Low


6 Emission of greenhouse gases. Impacts to air quality. 2 1

Low

WAL are required to submit annual report of greenhouse gas emissions under the NGER Act.

2 1

Low


7 Plant and equipment laydown

Chemicals and hydrocarbons Leaks and spills to soil and groundwater

3 1

Low

Contractor management, routine inspections to ensure bunding, refuelling and maintenance of equipment on hardstand areas (the Mill). Hydrocarbon spill procedures in place.

2 1

Low


8 Construction and hot works

Bushfire Impacts to flora and fauna 2 3

Mo

der

ate

Contractor management and inductions / awareness. All sources of ignition prohibited on declaration of Total Fire Ban, implementation of Bushfire Response Management Plan and Emergency Management Plan.

1 3

Mo

der

ate

"B" Management responsibility must be allocated to approve temporary control for up to 48 - 72 hours; then apply permanent solution.

9 Impacts to FNO operation 2 4

Hig

h

Contractor management and inductions / awareness. All sources of ignition prohibited on declaration of Total Fire Ban, implementation of Bushfire Response Management Plan and Emergency Management Plan.

1 4

Hig

h


10 Operation Use of acid for leach purposes

Emissions to air from reaction with scat materials

Impacts to vegetation from potential air drift.

3 2

Mo

der

ate

Monitor surrounding vegetation for damage from potential air drift and if necessary, implement necessary screening.

2 2

Low


11 Use of cells, sumps and ponds to contain process liquids

Emissions to soil, surface water and groundwater

Seepage or overflow from containment infrastructure

3 3

Hig

h

Engineering controls as per Coffey (2019) design. HDPE Liners, leak detection systems, freeboard and dedicated stormwater pond. Ongoing maintenance and inspections.

1 3

Mo

der

ate



12 Storage and use of dangerous goods and hazardous material

Emissions to soil, surface water and groundwater

Leaks and spill from chemical containers

3 2

Mo

der

ate

All pipelines containing environmentally hazardous materials will be either:

• Equipped with telemetry systems and pressure sensors along the pipelines to allow the detection of leaks and failures;

• Include daily physical inspections of the infrastructure; and

• Provided with secondary containment (where practical).

WAL shall retain a register of all hazardous and dangerous goods on-site and ensure that personnel have access to their Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). WAL shall ensure that environmentally hazardous materials are stored in accordance with the Code of Practice for the storage and handling of dangerous goods. Routine inspections will be undertaken to ensure bunding, refuelling and maintenance of equipment is undertaken on hardstand areas and ensure hazardous and dangerous spill procedures are in place.

2 2

Low


13 Electrical power generation from the use of diesel power gensets

Emission of greenhouse gases. Impacts to air quality. 2 1

Low

WAL are required to submit annual report of greenhouse gas emissions under the NGER Act.

2 1

Low


14 Generation of waste materials from scat preparation process

Hazardous materials Incorrect disposal 3 2

Mo

der

ate

Dispose of waste to TSF in accordance with Part V licence conditions (L8041).

2 2

Low


15 Operation of above ground cells, sumps and ponds

Fauna ingress Fauna deaths 3 1

Low

Fencing around cells, sumps and ponds to prevent fauna access. Monitoring and inspections around infrastructure to detect presence of fauna.

2 1

Low


16 Conveyance of scats material using Front End Loader (FEL)

Spillage, dust Contamination of soil 3 1

Low

Water down scat stockpiles prior to movement. Ensure any spills are contained and cleaned up in line with Hazardous Spill Response Procedure.

2 1

Low


cosmic boy ioheap™ facility bacterial heap leach licence ... · cosmic boy concentrator site –...

Documents