On 23 December 2020, Hanson submitted a revised mine operations plan (MOP review) detailing the long-term quarry development plans.

The government has undertaken a detailed assessment of the MOP review involving technical specialists from the Department for Energy and Mining and other relevant government agencies. A summary and a full copy of the request for further information (RFI) and alterations is available:

• Request for additional information - summary of matters raised in the request for additional information
• Request for additional information - comprehensive list of matters requiring alteration by Hanson (PDF)

Hanson must clarify the scope of their proposed operations, and provide risk analysis and evidence relevant to that scope. This involves analysing potential areas of impact including: air quality, noise, blasting, public safety, Aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage, native vegetation and fauna, groundwater, surface water, hours of operation, visual amenity, traffic impacts at the mine access points, and third party property.

Hanson’s proposed operations cannot be undertaken without approval. Hanson will need to address the government requirements and submit an amended MOP Review for re-assessment to continue the application.

Hanson has six months to respond. Once a revised MOP review has been received, technical specialists from the Department for Energy and Mining, the Department for Environment and Water, the Environment Protection Authority and SA Health will then undertake a detailed assessment to determine if updated MOP can be approved or requires further alterations.

A MOP review will happen if the mining plans change significantly, or alterations are required to the environmental objectives or measurement criteria. Operators review their approved MOP to seek approval for changes to extraction plans and activities, or the environmental objectives or measurement criteria.

A review of a MOP can either be initiated by the department or by the private mine owner. In this instance the review of the MOP was initiated by Hanson as the owner of the private mine.

There have been concerns raised about the potential impact the proposed plans would have on the local environment and population.

These concerns have included but are not limited to:

1. Potential noise impacts to adjoining residents
2. Pollution of the adjoining creek
3. Impacts of heavy vehicle traffic on Council’s roads
4. Impacts on fauna and flora within the proposed expansion area
5. Management of crystalline silica dust generated by quarry activity
6. Meeting Environment Protection Authority (EPA) separation guidelines
7. Impact on the Hills Face Zone
8. Buffer or exclusion zones
9. Aboriginal heritage

The Department for Energy and Mining (DEM) acknowledges the concerns and understands the community’s expectation that impacts to the local area will be minimised. DEM’s role as the regulator is to ensure the adherence by mining operators to the Mining Act 1971.

The Mining Act outlines how mining operations must operate and limit the impacts to the environment and requires all mining operations to perform environmental impact assessments (EIAs). EIAs must analyse potential impact from proposed mining operations, and set out strategies to manage those impacts by setting environmental objectives and measurement criteria. For private mines, the EIA is an essential part of the MOP review and needs to address the current requests for further information and alterations sought by the regulator.

Silica is a common name for the compound silicon dioxide (SiO₂). It is a common and naturally occurring mineral, found in almost all rocks and soils, often found in the form of a mineral called quartz.

Fine silica particles that are smaller than or equal to 10 micrometres in size are called respirable crystalline silica (RCS), also known as fine crystalline silica, and can be inhaled deep into the lungs. Particles this small cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Silicosis is a lung disease associated with occupations that involve the fracturing of rocks which contain silica minerals (quartz, cristobalite and tridymite). Management of dust to mitigate any elevated RCS risk for mine and quarry workers in proximity to dust generation activities, and therefore for more-distantly located members of the public, is mandated across South Australia.

Further information about concerns relating to respirable crystalline silicosis (RCS) can be found in the information sheet Silicosis in mining and quarrying in South Australia (PDF 624.1 KB), developed by the Department for Energy and Mining (DEM) in collaboration with Environment Protection Authority (EPA), SA Health, SafeWork SA and the Mining and Quarrying Occupational Health and Safety Committee (MAQOHSC).

A detailed assessment of the MOP review and associated data, management plans and programs is undertaken by relevant technical specialists (for example environmental scientists and engineers) from across the South Australian Government.

The assessment considers the MOP review against the requirements of the Mining Act, and focuses on the appropriateness and achievability of the environmental objectives. This includes whether:

• the expected level of impact to the environment is appropriate, considering the control and management strategies described; and
• the proposed control and management strategies are likely to achieve the proposed objective.

The assessment then considers the criteria that must be monitored and measured to demonstrate the objectives are being achieved, how, where and when that monitoring is performed, and the standards it is performed against.

The assessment will result in a recommendation to either approve the MOP review, or require the applicant to make alterations and re-submit for further assessment. The recommendation is based on the evidence contained in the MOP review and other relevant technical information, which must display an appropriate level of understanding, consideration and mitigation of local impacts.

The request for further information (RFI) published on 28 July 2021 sets out the significant additional work required by Hanson for their proposed plans to be assessed by Government, including in relation to potential impacts in later stages of Hanson’s proposed extension of the quarry.

Reliable and cost-effective supply of construction materials is fundamental to sustainable growth, and for this reason quarrying operations, particularly strategic metropolitan resources, are typically long-term activities. Quarrying regulation is focused on the proposed activities rather than time, and as a consequence the legislation requires that MOPs must be reviewed every seven years during the life of a quarry to ensure that they remain contemporary.

In this instance Hanson are required to provide significant additional information about their proposed future operations in order that those operations can be assessed against the requirements of the Mining Act.

The request for information (RFI) sets out the requirement for Hanson to engage with the Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation to identify the nature and location of any Aboriginal heritage within the proposed development area, for consideration and assessment in accordance with both the Mining Act 1971 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

Hanson must clarify the scope of their proposed operations, and provide risk analysis and evidence relevant to that scope. This involves analysing potential areas of impact including:

• air quality
• noise
• blasting
• public safety
• Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage
• native vegetation and fauna
• groundwater
• surface water
• hours of operation
• visual amenity
• traffic impacts at the mine access points
• third party property.

Hanson’s proposed operations cannot be undertaken without approval. Hanson will need to address the government requirements and submit an amended MOP review for re-assessment to continue the application.

Hanson has six months to respond and once an amended MOP review has been received, government will then undertake a comprehensive assessment of Hanson’s submission ahead of a decision on whether the MOP requires further alteration or can be approved.

The Department for Energy and Mining will continue to update its White Rock webpage with information.

When the 1971 Mining Act commenced, ownership of South Australia’s minerals was transferred to the state to be managed on behalf of South Australians. In recognition of this significant change, the Mining Act introduced a process for people who had lost their mineral rights to apply to retain their mineral rights under certain conditions.

If their application was successful, the Governor proclaimed the area to be a private mine. Whilst changes to the Mining Act in 2020 more closely align the regulatory framework for private mines with those that apply to any other mine, private mines remain distinct from other mining tenements and are regulated under the framework set out in the Mining Act.

No. Mining operations at a private mine are regulated under the Mining Act 1971. Mining operations at a private mine must not be undertaken unless a mine operation plan (MOP) is in place and it is approved by the Department for Energy and Mining (DEM).

As with all mining operations, private mine owners must undertake environmental impact assessments and manage the impact of their mining by implementing appropriate management strategies.

A MOP sets out how objectives, strategies and criteria will work together to manage potential impacts on the environment throughout all stages of mining, including final rehabilitation. A MOP review must include:

• environmental objectives that must be achieved
• control strategies and management plans for avoiding, mitigating or controlling potential impacts, and ensuring environmental objectives can be achieved
• criteria for demonstrating that environmental objectives have been achieved, and a clear monitoring and reporting framework for measurement of operations against the criteria
• relevant obligations to be followed under other legislation, eg requirements under the Environment Protection Act 1993.

Potential impacts that are identified in the assessment must be mitigated, controlled with appropriate management strategies, and reported on annually. The MOP review must also address the requirements of any other relevant environment improvement program or environment protection policies under the Environment Protection Act 1993. Additionally, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) regulates any relevant requirements of an environment improvement program or environment protection policies. SafeWork SA regulate Work Health and Safety (Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA) on mine sites as well as matters relating to the use, transport and storage of explosives (Explosives Act 1936) and the storage, transport and use of dangerous substances (Dangerous Substances Act 1979).

For existing and ongoing operations on private mines, the operator is not required to undertake public consultation on MOP objectives and criteria. However, it is widely recognised that it is best practice to engage with the community, make plans, objectives and criteria publicly available, and seek contributions and feedback during the development or review of a MOP.

For existing and ongoing operations on private mines, there is no legal framework for the regulator to formally consult with the public on the content of the MOP review, including its objectives and criteria. The objectives and criteria within the MOP will be developed by the regulator during the Department for Energy and Mining's assessment, when assessment officers and other government specialists, such as environmental scientists and engineers, undertake a detailed review of the technical aspects of the MOP review and determine whether it is likely that the environmental objectives will be achieved.

The department strongly encourages operators to engage widely with the community and explain the proposed development and how the environmental objectives will be achieved. Hanson have made their proposed development plans and the proposed updated objectives and criteria available to the public, and are maintaining a White Rock Quarry webpage.

You can find the following on Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd (Hanson)’s White Rock Quarry webpage:

1. Revised MOP - the MOP review is the overarching document that sets out the development plans, but also includes the environmental assessment, objectives and criteria
2. Existing approved environmental objectives and criteria as above
3. Proposed development plans for the site by the applicant
4. Proposed updated objectives and criteria
5. A community feedback form

During periods of heavy rainfall, discoloured water enters the Third Creek catchment from White Rock Quarry, because stormwater flows too quickly to allow the installed engineered structures to remove all the sediment from the surface water.

Sediment control is an important part of protecting our aquatic environment downstream of mining and quarrying operations.

Stormwater is rainwater plus anything the rain carries along with it. At White Rock Quarry, sediment is generated when rain falls on disturbed surfaces, such as internal unsealed roads or unvegetated areas. Rainwater falling on to the site collects fine particles as it flows downstream. This stormwater or ‘surface water runoff’ then runs into constructed ponds called sediment basins (also known as stormwater ponds). Sediment basins are designed to slow the water and allow the sediment to fall out of suspension within the basin. When stormwater flows too quickly or too large a volume exists, sediment basins cannot always remove all sediment from the stormwater.

High sediment levels in surface water can cause environmental impacts to waterways or creeks, and therefore the Department for Energy and Mining (DEM) and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) regulate the permissible sediment levels in water leaving mines and quarries across South Australia.

Recent exceedances of the regulatory compliance criteria have led to DEM, in collaboration with EPA, to take compliance action against the site operator. DEM and the EPA are seeking further improvements to stormwater management at the quarry over the next 12 months.

Hanson is required to monitor (by an independent expert) the quality of any water leaving the site against the compliance criteria which sets the maximum permissible sediment level in water leaving the site.

DEM and the EPA will continue to actively regulate the site, including any proposed improvements to surface water management. As with all quarry operations, the department supports direct engagement between operators and the communities they operate in.

No.

Sediment basins are not tailings dams. Tailings dams are used for the permanent storage of mining and mineral processing by-products. Such by-products are called ‘tails’ or ‘tailings’ by the resources industry. Sediment basins are engineered stormwater control structures designed to capture and slow sediment-affected stormwater, to reduce the sediment load of water before it leaves the sediment basin. The capture of stormwater (or surface water runoff) for the treatment of sediment should not be mistaken with a tailings dam.

White Rock Quarry does not produce tails or tailings, and does not have a tailings dam or tailings storage facility located on the site.

Figure 1: Processes within a sediment basin

After Department of Environment and Science, Queensland (2018) Sediment basins — Links and references, WetlandInfo website, accessed 21 September 2021.
https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/wetlands/management/treatment-systems/for-agriculture/treatment-sys-nav-page/sediment-basins/links-and-references.html

A lease agreement between Hanson and the Department for Environment and Water (DEW) permits the on-going use of land for ancillary quarry activities such as water supply and stockpiles, adjacent to their private mine area and the Horsnell Gully Conservation Park. This area of land predates the Horsnell Gully Conservation Park. There is no active mining of quarry material within the DEW lease area.

The DEW lease contains a condition that the lessee shall, at its expense, rehabilitate the land to the satisfaction of the Minister at the conclusion of operations within the DEW lease boundaries.

The site continues to be operated under the current DEW lease arrangement.

A natural billabong did not exist in the area prior to Hanson activities. Recent social media and media reports are incorrect.

During works on the existing water storage dams in 2007, Hanson created an area which captured surface water. This area was not designed as a dam. Time-series aerial imagery highlights both the initial activities leading to the capturing of water and subsequent filling of the area with stockpile material as part of operations. DEM and DEW officers have investigated this matter and conclude a natural and/or significant water source has not been disturbed by the activities in the area.