Ana səhifə

Minutes of Meeting Penrice Community Consultative Committee (pccg)

Yüklə 112.5 Kb.
ölçüsü112.5 Kb.
Minutes of Meeting
Penrice Community Consultative Committee (PCCG)

Wednesday 14th January 2009, 6.00pm

The Barossa Council Chambers, Nuriootpa
Present: Charles Irwin (Chair), Robert Edwards (RE), Chris Linke (CL), Ian Baldwin (IB), Mike Carter (MC), Darrin Wright (DW), Peter Clark (PC), Greg Marshall (GM) (PIRSA), Erik Lock (EL) (PIRSA), Lindsay Hope (LH), Mal Millikan (MM), Dee Joss (Secretariat)

Meeting opened 6.10pm.

  1. Welcome & Apologies

  • Chairperson (CI) welcomed and wished all a happy New Year.

  • Group should now focus on the tasks they were set up to do

  • The schedule and agenda have been circulated

  • Apologies: Andrew Newland; Virginia Simpson; Ted Tyne will arrive later

  1. Review of Minutes of Previous Meeting

2.1 Corrections

  • Add Peter Clark and Mal Millikan to those present at the meeting

  • Page 2 - Clarified the MARP automatic right of renewal for RE

  • Page 3 – Clarified strategic visual amenity plan: draft MARP had proposal to Penrice not a plan; final MARP has been reworded

  • Recording of minutes – minutes are public documents available through website; level of detail appropriate to record gist of discussion but impractical to record all detail.

  • Page 4 - Water pH of 11 was checked shouldn’t be lowered

  • Page 4 - Next meeting 14th not 12th.

  • Page 5 - Mal Millikan (not Western)

  • Minutes accepted

2.2 Report on action items

  • PIRSA - Will continue to chase Crown Law re indemnity. Honorarium to be direct from Penrice to community representatives – to be put in place now

  • Mike Carter has sent visual amenity map in colour to members – everyone has it and PCCG members to nominate more vantage points. Additional positions suggested: two on Penrice road, on corner by train line, on Research Rd, Light Pass Rd, other end of Research Rd, Pipeline Road Wolf Blass corner

  • Mike has sent noise report – all received

  • Penrice yet to supply rehabilitation plan and statutory requirements for MOP to PCCG but provided a map of proposal in hard copy for everyone tonight

  • CI to edit terms of reference when advised by PIRSA of comments from Crown Law

  • Mal has received draft Western MPL MARP from Virginia

  • Tree report – all received

  • Geotechnical report hard copy - all received

  • Ground water report – all received

  • Oxygen viewpoint - all received

  1. Lease / MARP compliance Status report

    1. Short term MPL118 status

  • PIRSA reported on the temporary Western MPL Lease and MARP, now approved Dec 31 or Jan 2nd.

Action: Exact date of approvals to be confirmed.
3.2 Whole Site (private Mine/Eastern MPL) status (PIRSA)

  • Whole site review is now tied in and agreed by Penrice.

  • $185,000 bond has been paid. However, legal paperwoirk is outstanding and formal letters re MOP/MARP and mine closure yet to be sent to Penrice.

  • Complaints number circulated and will be advertised in 2 local papers, local website and newsletter in February. Talking with local newspaper about an insert .

  • Complaints Process: Need to reply verbally within 24 hours to a call. Will report the complaints etc to the PCCG monthly. Yet to clarify log, eg: how Penrice protects themselves against someone who says they’ve left a message and you haven’t replied to it? Mike is open to suggestions as to how it can be done. Dedicated complaints arrangements and internal process to be confirmed.

Action: Formal documentation to be completed by PIRSA.

Action: Penrice to confirm detail of complaints arrangements
4.0 Whole Site Operations Programme: Next 3 Months

    1. Ongoing mining operations plan (Penrice)

  • Eastern side – shaping as per Warden’s Court zone finished and now moving in north west face area to finish shaping and re-grassing when weather permits (did some planting after the last rain)

  • Western face continuing to crush material, building stock up for commencement of northern expressway requirements, out a couple of weeks from what understand

  • Vine removal commenced and removal of top soil beginning; will be sent for analysis

  • Half day workshop this Friday for visual analysis with Oxigen for Jackeli site area , to have a view of the visual amenity for the March meeting

  • Plans for the re-location of weighbridge submitted to Council; 9 months / $250,000 to complete; will bring to PCCG when on track – major source of dust

  • Installed rotating heads on truck wash for a better wash

  • A new environmental resource person on staff for next 6 months

  • Also a part-time mine planning consultant on board – first three priorities are storage of low class limestone; availability of Osborne limestone from existing faces; establishment of quality of deeper ore on western side of pit.

    1. Community communications programme (Penrice)

  • A quarterly newsletter being developed for February, to be e-mailed, mailed, and inserted in local newspaper. Will include PCCG profile.

  • Complaints number – see above

  • Open site to the public – have done this in the past, but a big affair so needs to be well planned. Suggested to do once every 2 years, need to do one in 6 months.

  • Terms of reference suggest holding 6-monthly community meetings; do after visual amenity has been discussed late April/May

  • Open to suggestions of people relevant for a survey of community attitudes and concerns (cf complaints). PCCG already doing this.

  • In conjunction with council, school and community groups, tree plantings are being planned outside the area

  • Penrice to explore possibility of establishing a viewing platform on eastern area (previously done): offers great view of landscape and also of the operation, no timetable yet but it’s a good idea. Need to check insurance. MC to develop and report back.

  • RE questioned whether the public go to the website, suggesting printed matter may be better. Queried balance of current press coverage.

  • CI noted PCCG is a working group, not involved in advocacy. Minutes and presentations are put up on the PIRSA website. Welcomed suggestions as to how to maximise community input through this group and noted PCCG Chair can report to press on a regular basis if valuable to community.

Action: RE / CI to correspond re PCCG input to local newspapers, Penrice newsletter

Action: Penrice to provide more information about the viewing platform at a future meeting

4.3 Other issues

  • 2 or 3 complaints have occurred since last meeting; see letter attached to Virginia’s e-mail. Address in more detail in Feb meeting.

Action: Complaints section to be added to agenda from now on, according to agreed tabular format.
5.0 Whole Site MOP/MARP Impact Analysis Discussion

Action: In future, previous community comments on each discussion topic are to be circulated for each subject with agenda.
5.1 Air Pollution

Sources (see also Penrice presentation)

  • Air pollution – excavating, loading, unloading, tipping, untarped trucks, unwashed trucks, re-entraining of existing dust deposits are dust generating; dust is the major problem for air pollution, but there are some emissions from diesel. Work is done 6am to midnight for various tasks; some exceptions apply but mostly stick to hours

  • RE; thought 85% came from crushing. MC: majority of dust is from front road entrance, past weighbridge.

  • RE: Has overall volume increased? Penrice: Yes – are doing crushing over longer hours now and pit is more open as well

  • Train loading hours most important – is that totally a Penrice decision, or is there another party who has an input to that? MC: Some limits placed on it, Penrice put 7am start (8-9am Sunday) but depends on when the train gets in if train is delayed or maintenance for loading then times will vary. Noise is also a very big problem with the train loading. Is there flexibility on those hours? Penrice – don’t know.

  • Do you truck aggregate down to Osborn? Not often; only if there is a problem with train or extra required, but not often as too expensive – on an emergency as needs basis.


  • EPA: Doesn’t have any regulatory authority over any of the mine or overburden movement. EPA requirements can control equipment but can’t control overburden. EPA don’t do anything under the mining act – not even if moved by wind; only can do environments i.e. crushing problems regulation. If levels are too high then Health would be brought in. EPA is both advisory and regulatory; looking to be a cooperative regulator

  • EPA: Need to measure to establish appropriate baselines. No background monitoring has been done by EPA. Have not measured any of the Penrice site before so don’t know what impacts are. Need to monitor chimneys and stacks and also fusion emissions, nuisance emissions. Some can be seen, some you can’t see; vehicle emissions and particles less than 10 microns important as breathed into lungs. Looking at dust monitoring attached to a weather station (eg: Pt Pirie, Adel Brighton) which can tell when and the direction of dust entering. It may not be all coming from Penrice. Once we have the data then can work on managing the dust, times of work, use a 10 minute average. Up to Penrice to have an independent consultant to measure the air pollution

  • Work is being done with gauges around site (bottle with funnel) measuring dust in air, but this doesn’t say where the source is. Can’t assess the problem until it’s measured, and this is over and above what Penrice is already doing.

  • Can this be done in a relatively short time frame? Yes, can be done quite quickly just need resources put in.

  • If Penrice has consultant put the program in place, is it easy for EPA to check the data? Need to establish a baseline first

  • Dust from traffic external to the mine, whose jurisdiction is that? Trucks leaving Penrice, it’s still Penrice’s problem even if it’s a third party

Current Management/Impacts:

  • Current Penrice management of air pollution includes monitoring wind conditions and moving or closing operations when conditions warrant this; using water trucks, water cannons and stockpile sprinklers; using additives, enclosures of dust generating equipments, vegetation screens, environmental embankments in some areas; grassing topsoil mounds to prevent erosion; street sweeping on Penrice road daily

  • Of the total usage of water on site since 2005 more than half is used to suppress dust; this dropped dramatically in later years due to inability to pump sufficient water. Water use still a concern due to dry seasons

  • Lindsay Hope is Penrice consultant. Ex EPA, he has been working with Penrice for a number of years with dust issues, been engaged to go beyond the basic measurements that have been done

  • Intending to get 4 permanent Hi-Vol Samplers plus one mobile unit for total suspended particle measurement (tsp) and two PM10s. 1 sample /6 days for 24 hrs. Continuous samplers better but 2 month lead time, expensive.

  • Three standards: NEPM50 (chemical values), ground level concentrations, acceptable nuisance values (120mg?). WHO standards also relevant. Have got comparable sample results from another company in the region

Proposed Control Strategies:

  • CI: We need more information, need baseline studies in some form, screening for nasties (e.g. silicon, beryllium) and guidance from EPA / PIRSA What the level should be for this environment – how quickly can this be established?

  • LH: Find sites firstly - doing tomorrow - but obtaining equipment can be time consuming but for a quick start. One set to start probably inside a fortnight – run 24 hours at a time and depending on frequency standard 24 hours every 6 days, can operate more often every third day for example. Continuous monitors yield 10 minute data so very specific data; to obtain those would be at least a couple of months lead time and more infrastructure is required for them. Expensive.

  • RE: Prevailing winds in southwest blows across the mine to the north but greatest dust is to the west of the mine the loading bay, especially on easterly winds, northerly and easterly are the worst. Would like to see continuous 24 hour monitoring for a time at any rate. How to establish that baseline, what can be put in place relatively quickly?

  • What form of on-going monitoring is appropriate? Need to sample for 12 months to include all climatic conditions

  • CI: Can’t conclude this one tonight, don’t have the base data, if Penrice can get this on board quickly then will be back on in two meetings time , in between now and then PIRSA should work with EPA to establish jurisdiction and applicable standards.

  • MC: Becomes a serious capital outlay for Penrice if everything in the environmental section of MARP is this urgent.

  • CL: One of things glaringly omitted in comments is about dragout. Dragout is bad after rain and cleaning up with street sweeper etc not doing a great job. Community don’t understand all this just want results specific events, not everyday dust billowing out!

  • This is a MOP/MARP issue. Effectively from Oct/Nov there should be no dragout as a result of fixing other items

  • RE: When Greg reports back re nasties can we have indicators of levels that would make the alarm bells ring? Other specific questions but will e-mail direct to Mike.

  • Is odour a problem? Community says no. General consensus not a problem.

  • Lindsay Hope left 8.55pm

Actions: Penrice to establish baseline air pollution level data within two months and report program and progress next meeting.

PIRSA to report back re any potential dangers in dust composition.

PIRSA/EPA to establish jurisdiction and workable standards with respect to air pollution and report back next meeting.

Action: Penrice to prepare draft MOP/MARP Clauses for future meeting

    1. Noise

Sources (see also Penrice presentation)

  • Noise sources: reversing alarm on equipment, engine noise from equipment, sales yard and exit roads, loading especially large loads of aggregate, primary crusher and onsite mobile crushing unit, blasting, rock breaking, drilling for explosives, train loading, compressors glass shed, trucks leaving. No additions to identified sources.

  • Haven’t done a full noise study external to the plant to establish background levels. All existing noise pollution information is internal, eg: a sudy for staff safety. Need to do a formal noise study.


  • EPA: New noise policy from March 2007 changed noise levels and changed the way compliance levels are assessed. New levels assessed by zoning around mine – different levels for each zone or an average of both where zones overlap. Rural living is the quietest level. If there is doubt about what level applies, EPA consults with council and council decides on what amenity applies to each zone . Weekends are not considered different in this situation by EPA.

  • Bassett reports provide typical data. Reports based on monitoring, methodology was good, weather conditions were generally worst case. In essence apart from one occasion Penrice is compliant for noise.

  • Review of Bassett reports (2 tabled) – in summary all measurements complied apart from one location in a particular circumstance (Exception: Location 7 Kalimna Rd at Wedges Rd exceeded the policy requirements by about 3dba - just noticeable to most people - due to a drill rig operating - not normal practice). Second report on the main crusher showed it well within compliance levels – building of acoustic surrounding proven effective . Is the Basset report accurate? - Results varied according to the zone, i.e. rural valley floor zone, Moculta area. New policy requires an average, which would have pushed compliance noise level up for all of these zones (eg: most dramatic change in a primary production area previously considered a rural area: old policy would have put a lower level in primary production areas but it is now higher in primary production areas because it is an industry), so recent changes have gone against community. Rural Valley Floor and Moculta areas are primary production not lifestyle (rural living) areas.

  • Correction - Current MARP specifies general industry but should be special industry – this raises the compliance level.

  • Interpretation of data: On graphs, L10 line is not relevant for compliance; the Leq line is the line that matters

  • Application of annoyance noise penalty - only applied when noise type is discernable at receiver, generally where people live.

  • How are frequencies taken into account - Measured for 15 minutes; equipment takes an average of all variations within the 15 minutes, and average is taken for compliance

  • A measurement problem is extraneous noises – e.g. birds, trees, distant traffic cf trucks and train loading. Requires analysis of attended monitoring.

  • How is wind direction taken into account? When from the north you can hear a lot, from the south hardly any - Wind does make a big difference. Bassett report, did comment on wind direction and wind speed. When asking for compliance reports, ask for data in worst weather conditions; measurements were taken from all over the site, so wind direction would have been different in different areas

  • Don’t want Penrice to do monitoring, want EPA? - EPA don’t have equipment, Penrice will put equipment in, but data will go to EPA for checking

  • If control of truck noise / exhaust brakes etc doesn’t fall within EPA jurisdiction who does this? - DTEI are the main authority, but councils could be involved since council do have jurisdiction over some roads. IB: Council thinks the main access roads are council roads. WHO have guidelines to sleep disturbance; usually a big difference between outside and inside noise. Householders may need to look at abatement techniques like double glazing, or acoustic fencing themselves. Council looking at how to control trucks / exhaust brakes in this instance – no regulatory group for this problem – a matter between neighbours and the companies

  • Penrice proposing measurements on two specific sites (two householders) measuring for train loading for one and trucks for the other; test to be for 7 days 24 hours a day

Current Management/Impacts:

  • Management of noise impacts by Penrice: enclosure around crusher aggregate, traffic management and education program (handout), consultant assessment of offsite noise levels, train loading after 7am truck exit after 6 am, partial enclosure of train loader, immediate repair of noisy equip, restricted area rock breaker, trying to work on lowest level noise.

  • Additional strategies: weather station, integrating wind conditions with noise model studies, increase amount of internal vegetation, contractor truck maintenance, speed reduction Penrice road, improve train loader noise screen by mid 2009, additional environmental embankments, new entrance, improved front road layout

  • EPA: vegetation doesn’t have much of an effect on noise reduction

Proposed Control Strategies:

  • If noise is identified as a major issue raised by number of people, MOP/MARP shouldn’t automatically accept EPA requirements – if we can establish ways of reducing noise lower than the standards then we should do so

  • Penrice have an internal aspiration to have a noise level equal to the lowest zone rural living and have monitoring program

  • May need stretch targets to enable Penrice to reach their targets over time.

  • PC: Can’t insist on something more stringent than EPA require? CI: Can PIRSA insist on higher thresholds as regulators of the operation? EPA: Regulatory levels in any court case the EPA regulatory levels would be the standards that the crown works to so may override any MARP condition, but voluntary targets are also used (e.g. Nyrstar with lead, licensed by EPA); EPA regulates on license but can’t regulate stringently on voluntary targets.

Action: PIRSA to coordinate with EPA on effective regulation of noise and report back next meeting.

Action: Penrice to implement background noise study to inform acceptable background noise levels in relation to two residences on Penrice Rd’

Action: Penrice to prepare draft MOP/MARP Clauses for future meeting

    1. Traffic

Sources (see also Penrice presentation)

  • On-site traffic includes: haul trucks, loaders, excavators, dump trucks, bulldozer, grader, light vehicles, forklift, staff cars and vehicles, service vehicles, semis, vans etc. Exhaust brakes a problem on access roads.

  • Off-Site: predict 166 trucks out per day – based on 6 days per week, 27 – 32 tonnes per load, including Northern Expressway work, so 332 trips per day on access roads.


  • Who’s in charge of these particular roads? – Normal public roads. Council currently working with DTEI with regards to speed limits on Barossa roads, on a designated freight route, and on some restrictions on traffic down Penrice road

Current Management/Impacts:

  • Current preventative measures include required vehicle maintenance, upgraded truck wash, signage, speed limits /signs, driver education – small card handout to drivers

  • Accidents – two accidents Nuriootpa to Penrice. RE: some on other corner, a high risk collision zone

  • Traffic counter being installed at entrance / exit: can measure the total number, type, speed, direction, time and date and will report data by day/week/month/type/speed/hours of operation. Council doing traffic counts, just need to analyse the data, for percentages of heavy versus light traffic; traffic measurements should work out Penrice’s percentage of heavy traffic

  • Currently exploring options for other exits / entrance, increased use of rail, reduced speed zones, redirection of traffic, alteration of the intersection of Penrice / Stockwell roads. Some of these works needs to be done in conjunction with Council

  • Hours of Operation - RE: Why is ABC now taking stuff from early until late? - MC: Good question. Old contractor (Linke) stopped at 4pm, but new contractor operates up to 9:30 or 10pm. Penrice is taking this up with ABC – waiting to hear back from them. Also to go to contractor and ask them to have their trucks maintained in a manner via the manufacturers design. Police can do a roadworthy tests on trucks.

  • Is light spill from headlights leaving/onsite an issue? – never heard it mentioned

  • Dust and dragout? - once entrance/exit is paved and new wheel wash washing should not be a problem. Entrance will take approximately 9 months to complete; will report more next meeting

  • What triggers should be built in to decide when to stop work or use water? - weather station should be used to help in deciding when to stop work (high wind) will have to use the weather station data, and observation. Weather station should be installed in January

Proposed Control Strategies:

  • Yet to be developed. Penrice to present drafts to future meeting.

Action: Penrice/Council to report status of traffic planning, entrance proposal discussions with Council to next meeting

Action: Penrice to prepare draft MOP/MARP Clauses for future meeting

Action: Need to have the draft MOP/MARP clauses for every agenda discussion about a week before a meeting so people can read them first prior to the meeting and also get community comments
6.0 Other Business

  • Additional members for panel: EOI advertisement in local papers received three nominations. Need a selection committee to meet and agree on members

  • CI Can we do this within the month – GM: Yes..

7.0 Future Meetings

Chris can’t do 2nd Wednesday of the month; leave next meeting as is, then change to first Wednesday of the month after that privided Council can make this room .

8.0 Close 10.20pm

Summary of Actions
Next meeting

  • Confirm exact date of approvals.

  • Completed formal documentation.

  • Report back re any potential dangers in dust composition.

  • Establish jurisdiction and workable standards with respect to air pollution with EPA and report back next meeting.

  • Coordinate with EPA on effective regulation of noise and report back next meeting.


  • Report status of traffic planning, entrance proposal discussions with Council to next meeting

  • Confirm detail of complaints arrangements

  • Penrice to implement background noise study to inform acceptable background noise levels in relation to two residences on Penrice Rd’

  • Penrice to establish baseline air pollution level data within two months and report program and progress next meeting.


  • Correspond re PCCG input to local newspapers, Penrice newsletter


  • Email specific questions to Mike


  • Council needs to check if room available 1st Wednesday of each month for ongoing meetings


  • Ensure Peter Clark listed in those present in relevant previous meetings

Future meetings

  • Complaints section to be added to agenda from now on, according to agreed tabular format.


  • Prepare draft MOP/MARP Clauses for future meeting

  • Prepare draft MOP/MARP clauses for every agenda item about a week before a meeting so people can read them first prior to the meeting and also get community comments

  • Establish baseline air pollution level data within two months and report program next meeting.

  • Penrice to provide more information about the viewing platform at a future meeting


  • In future, previous community comments on each discussion topic are to be circulated for each subject with agenda.

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət