Penrice Community Consultation Group
Minutes
Wednesday, 13 February, 2013, 6pm
Barossa Council Chambers
Present: Charles Irwin (Chair - CI), Ian Baldwin (IB), Peter Clarke (PC); Robert Edwards (RE), Janette
Rennie (JKR), Mal Millikan (MM), Catherine Fullston (CF), Kate Walsh - (DMITRE); Peter White
(PE), James Rowe (JR), Michael Sanderson (MS) - (Penrice); Merri Tothill - (Secretariat).
EPA - Glenn Sorrenson (GS)
Aquaterra – Hugh Middlemis (HM)
Dept Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) – Paul Magarey (PM) and Lloyd Sampson
(LS).
Apologies: Hans Bailiht
Gallery: 3, including James Ohanga (Aquaterra), Geoff Donovan (Donovan’s Earthcare), Simon Argent
(SA) - (Marketing Manager, Penrice).
Meeting opened 6.10pm.
1.0
Welcome
CI
Welcomed PCCG members, guests and gallery.
2.0
Review of minutes and action items
All
Minutes from last meeting 14 November accepted.
IB
Council update on proposed works at the entrance road.
Subsequent to previous advice, this proposal is no longer being put forward for funding this year. Council
is now working with other Councils in the region on road funding proposals and together they all
determine priorities for Commonwealth funding. The slip lane has been discussed as part of the proposal
and this may involve some land acquisition. There is still a bit of work to do to get this proposal in a form
ready for funding applications, possibly next year.
CI
Important that Penrice keep up with this issue.
Other action items to be dealt with as per agenda.
3.0
DMITRE: Compliance Overview
CF
3.1
DMITRE compliance report
The Annual Report has been received. It is an amalgamation of all of the quarterly reports. The structure
of the report has greatly improved and is now in line with the government determination and compliance
criteria. It is available on the website.
Inspection on 6 February (hot and dusty day) with Kate Walsh to follow up on last year’s complete audit.
Continuous measurement now on all BAMS. They are on line and working well.
Limestone dust was apparent on the internal roads but not on public highway.
Viewed the complaints register and nothing reported since December last year.
Took photos of the visual amenity in line with the contour of the landscape and only one area looking
“white” and this is temporary.
A blasting notification was received I January but within the 95% criteria. All incidences and
notifications are logged on the DMITRE database.
Overall a good report and communication channels are open.
CI
Any questions? Thank you for the report.
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
1/8
4.0
Penrice: Operational Update/Mine Planning and Quarterly Environmental Report
4.1
Recent Announcements by the Company (PW)
Penrice undertook a strategic business review in January 2013. They looked at was working well and
found that 2 out of 3 chemical business units are performing well. These are - production of Sodium
Bicarbonate and Selective Salts Recovery (SSR).
PW
SSR is a process used in Coal Seam Gas mining. The water pumped from the ground as part of the coal
seam gas mining process is very salty. Penrice has developed a technology to treat the salty water to
produce a by product of soda ash and water. Developing this business is on track.
Question - Are Penrice involved in the Coal Seam Gas business?
No. We are working with them on this technology and the process for cleaning the water.
PW
The Soda Ash business is unprofitable due to increased costs (labour, energy, taxes, compliance) and the
high Australian dollar value. All customers are undergoing the same pain (e.g. wine bottles, glass and
detergents – these products are being imported from China).
Penrice still wants to stay in the soda ash business, so has entered into a Joint venture (JV) to import soda
ash for resale and then sell to customers.
It is estimated that there will be around 60 job losses. These job losses are in Osborne Production only.
This part of the business will close by June 2013. No job losses at Angaston.
Looking at a turn around time to profit for soda ash in 2014 financial year.
Quick Lime is a new quality product to be produced at Osborne and will need limestone. However there
will initially be a reduced volume of limestone travelling to Osborne and so a reduction in train
movements.
Question
Will the train go less frequently?
Yes, it will not be daily for a period until we develop other opportunities; train movements may build up
again with the development of Quicklime production.
Community needs to be made aware of any changes.
PW
CI
PW
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is currently being collected because of the carbon tax. We use energy, so trying to
pay less carbon tax.
Question
How are you dealing with by-products?
Calcite (Calcium Carbonate – Ca CO3) - a schist blend is being put into an engineered fill trial site at
Gillman. Still require EPA approval.
Where is the Calcite stored?
At Osborne and Gillman, working with EPA on this.
PW
PW
Thank you Peter.
4.2








Operational Update and Quarterly Environmental Report (JR)
Supply reduction from 500,000 tonnes to approx 130,000 tonnes per annum to Osborne
KRC Mining Consultants went into liquidation pre Christmas. However, Penrice has recently secured
the services of Nick Van Der Hout as Mining Consultant (Ex KRC Engineer who has serviced
Penrice for 3 years) – working on the Mine Plan to include the reduction of limestone production.
Marketing team looking into several different markets to explore for high grade limestone products
Working to a reduction of approx 300,000 tonnes of high grade limestone in financial year 2014.
Aggregates & Chemical sectors still very slow at the moment
Civil sales profile increasing due to warmer weather and developments moving forward in timing
South Australia Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) case study being published in the Mining
and Energy magazine
Annual Report sent into DMITRE and distributed to PCCG members in January. Thanks to DMITRE
for their help with the report.
Environmental Reports
Visual presentation of photos taken in early February – see Power Point presentation on website. For
MPL 118, the first layer will be complete by June 2013.

Rehabilitation/Environment Program
Continuing maintenance of revegetated areas – Donovan’s Earthcare are flat out watering as it has
been a very hot dry summer. Includes a overhaul of irrigation systems on the revegetated areas
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
2/8










Continuing Jaeckeli Creek management plan
Continuing the use on Vital Bon Mitte dust suppressant
Final rinse jets in place with a mains water rinse
Had some feedback that the water was leaving a film on windows and mirrors of the trucks and was a
safety issue. This has been eliminated.
MPL progressing at Phase 1B ( originally estimated completion of June 2012), subject to mining and
climatic conditions
Dozing southern side of the MPL Tier 1 this week
Estimated time of completion of Phase 1B is June/July 2013, ready for seeding and planting of tube
stocks for the upcoming planting season
Increased irrigation watering of MPL 118 due to prolonged hot dry conditions
Rehabilitation and dozing of the southern side of Tier 1 on MPL118
Full compliance on TARP survey
Community Engagement
Production Manager has met with 34 families (2 this quarter) adjacent to the quarry
Penrice has processed the 5th community newsletter and has been distributed throughout the Barossa
Valley via The Leader newspaper today

Donated material for the Barossa Pony Club for their annual Cross Country & Show Jumping
Training Day

Donation given to Angaston Bowling Club

Engaged Local Lions club to cater Penrice site Xmas Break up

Resource and Engineering Skills SA (RESA) brought 25 Aboriginal children out to visit the mine to
highlight potential jobs. We went through different occupations and it was a good day.


JR
JR
JR
JR
CF
MS
JR
CI
Questions
The life of the mine is currently 23 years, has that changed?
That is based on the original resource and it hasn’t been updated. With the introduction of Quicklime, it is
still unknown.
Have you cut the hours of people working at the mine?
Yes and the last 4 vacant positions have not been filled.
MPL118 – the overburden on the west – how many tonnes?
It has been up-scaled to 2.5 million tonnes.
Has this been up-scaled since the MOP/MARP, as this is an increase of ½ million tonnes?
Yes, have increased the tonnage but not the height, this is not different.
This was changed in March 2010.
Height is locked in so you can retain the visual look.
So is there ever a limit on tonnage?
It has stopped at 2.5 million tonnes.
Penrice are able to dig up more topsoil.
Can we look at the plan for visual amenity?
JR
We will be presenting that at the next meeting. Have also asked Engineering to look at compaction
Action: Penrice to present Visual Amenity Plan at next meeting.
CI
SA
What about a site visit?
It is timely to organise another site visit to look at the progress made and especially Phase1A and Phase
1B. There has been a long delay in implementing the Visual Analysis Plan and 1C is not due until June
2014. Need to see if it can be modified to get some relief or if it is status quo can the impact be reduced?
Short presentation on Quick Lime
As part of the analysis of the future of limestone production at Osborne, looking at producing quicklime –
a core product of hydrated lime. It is already being produced at Osborne but it will be utilised in the soda
ash product. The production process will not change.
It is Calcium Oxide (CaO), a white, caustic, alkaline crystalline solid, widely used chemical compound as
Hydrated Lime; in Agricultural - PH Control for Soil Stabilisation; Water & Sewerage Treatment; Flux in
Steel; Sugar Refining; Mineral Processing; Construction and Paper Manufacture.
SA is currently developing this market and mineral processing is the main target. Initially it will be
70,000 tonnes produced but are looking for extra markets. This product will be market driven.
Questions
What percent of current production is the 70,000 tonnes?
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
3/8
SA
SA
MM
Slightly more than half of what is currently being produced.
Is this all new material?
Yes, all new.
PW
CI
I understand the business is changing. We have dealt with significant issues in the past, so lets continue to
be updated.
There is a dual role for the committee. Committee members are the go-to people for the community. It is
a two-way process, so important to keep this group up to date. This information is very useful. Thank you
Penrice for presenting this.
The limestone for Osborne is only a component; there is still Brighton Cement and other construction.
It is a difficult time and at the moment this community has been spared significant job cuts
5.0
Penrice: Dust Update
CI
5.1.
Dust Monitoring (JR)
BAM and TEOM Results
Over regulatory limit 4 times from October to December. DMITRE and EPA informed and Dust
Management Plan put into action.
Two external dust complaints in late October, reported last meeting.
5.2.
EPA Comment (GS)
Background
No confidence in Dustrak monitors from a real time point of view and calibration was an issue. Had many
discussions and got TEOM/BAM combination at the start of 2012. More accurate data, however all units
should be the same, so now all new BAMS. Site 3 monitor has been changed.
Dust characterisation study looked at the best locations. These were assessed by EPA and onsite with
DMITRE. The locations are considered satisfactory.
Penrice have been asked for data. November to February only 2 exceedences with material going off site
and also coming onto the site, so this cannot be attributed to work on the mine site.
Looking at a 12 month period there were 7 execeedences. Some of these would have happened any way
due to high winds. These have been reported to EPA and DMITRE and action has been done in
accordance with Dust management Plan e.g. machinery shut down. Penrice is still looking at whether
they can adjust what they are doing.
Also looking at calibration of all units and so far looking good, all are adequately calibrated.
CI
GS
CI
IB
JKR
RE
So in summary, there are 3 BAMS all in optimal positions, all calibrated and are being checked regularly
and are working as expected. There have been 7 exceedences but some have been state wide dust events.
It is a matter of sitting down and discussing what is reasonable and practical and this is a continuous
process.
It was a dry spring and summer, has there been any community feedback?
No reports through Council, only what Penrice reported to EPA.
I saw clouds of dust coming from a stockpile.
About 400m south of the entrance there is some nuisance dust but not like it has been in the past – 3 or 4
years ago.
CF
JR
MS
DMITRE has accepted the Site Characterisation Plan on the basis of continuous monitoring.
About 50% of the total environmental budget is spent on dust suppression.
We have been involved in worker education. Used to rely on the boss telling them, now the workers
understand what they can stop themselves, they have been empowered to act.
CI
GS
This summer has been very dry, so it has been a good test of initiatives. The comments are a lot more
positive than 3-4 years ago.
Penrice is now reacting to changes.
CI
JR
CI
The mobile phone alerts – are these working well?
Yes, it is a 24 hour, active management tool.
There have been some big changes and the community appreciates this.
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
4/8
6.0
Penrice: Noise Update/Voluntary EIP and Noise Management Plan
GS
Noise Plan is progressing but haven’t been able to catch up with Rob Lyons.
AECOM report looks at operations under certain conditions and criteria for compliance. Since that time
there have been changes in facilities and operations in relation to machinery. Need to re-visit this to
ensure still complying. EPA have looked at 2010 and 2012 AECOM report as both reports go hand in
hand and both consider EPA policies.
MM
Has there been any further consideration of tonal penalties? There are only single tonal penalties. This is
a subjective component. It is hard to accept that there is only one tonal issue at one time, not a cumulative
effect.
This was considered in the initial report.
This has been discussed and Rob Lyons considered it an issue.
AECOM can look at this in their next annual review. Also which levels are due to land use. Should those
applied limits be looked at in relation to tonal penalties?
There are several penalties but a single tonal issue at one time and that is surprising. I would assume that
there is more than one issue at a time.
The report was very comprehensive and we have had no complaints in 12 months, in general the
community is happy.
I do not have full confidence in how tonal issues were dealt with and it is unwise to judge effectiveness
on number of complaints.
We need to get an indication from EPA on tonal penalty and the accumulative nature of this; the way it
works in the legislative framework and how this can be interpreted.
It is within the current policy but maybe the policy is not correct.
I accept the expertise of AECOM and the independence of EPA. It is not a major issue but it needs to be
addressed.
It has been managed to EPA criteria.
However the tonal issues have not been addressed properly.
MS
CI
CF
MM
MS
MM
CI
GS
MM
MS
MM
Further questions/comments
MM
People tell me the mine is noisy, even accepting that you cannot get perfection.
GS
Policy does not address one off events.
MM
Prior to 2007 (when there was a change of policy), now the averaging has allowed for more noise.
IB
At this stage there have been no exceedences and no complaints and this is testimony to the work done on
site.
MM
The changes in policy/legislation have allowed Penrice to make more noise.
Action - EPA to review application of tonal penalties at next meeting.
7.0
Penrice: Groundwater Update
7.1
Hydrology Study by Aquaterra – Hugh Middlemis presentation (available on the website)
Last time this issue was discussed we had 30 people present.
The report only arrived last Thursday; it is not enough time to consider. Need to discuss again in future
meeting as it is a lot of information and possibly have a presentation to the wider community outside
vintage.
We can see the presentation first; this will provide more information so that the report can be understood.
CI
JKR
CI
HM
This is all new information from the latest report
Two main aquifer systems: Barossa Basin sediments and Mt Lofty Ranges Fractured Rock aquifer

Penrice Mine is in Fractured Rock aquifer, east of Barossa Basin sediments

Groundwater flow east to west (from Fractured Rock into Basin)


Department Groundwater Status Report 2011 – regional summary
Regional groundwater levels steady trend
Salinity rising trend in some areas/aquifers (7.5 mg/L/yr), in the lower aquifer there is a consistent
rise in salinity
Fractured Rock aquifer
Rainfall-recharge on Mt Lofty Ranges, then through flow to Basin
Salinity typically in range 1000 to 1500 mg/L TDS
Barossa Basin sediments

Upper and Lower sedimentary aquifer units

Underlain by deep Fractured Rock basement

Rainfall-recharge plus through flow from Fractured Rock

Salinity typically above 1500 mg/L TDS (Angaston area)
Groundwater quality (nominal beneficial use status)

Generally sub-potable to brackish (1000-1500 mg/L; higher in Basin)


Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
5/8


Some notable exceptions (some isolated bores have lower salinity)
Suitability for growing vines is based on salinity level, marginally suitable for vine irrigation
(nominal constraint 1500 mg/L)
Penrice Water Use
Pumping out of groundwater inflows to mine to allow ‘dry’ mining
Penrice have 2 approved Water Licences: Licence 3778 – 102.2 ML/yr (mine dewatering), Licence
3724 – 25.6 ML/yr (approx 130 ML/year)

Groundwater used for dust suppression and mine product preparation

Penrice volume is small in context of metered extraction across Barossa of about 1100 ML/year, and
in comparison with local distribution


CI
HM
JKR
HM



How much is evaporation and how much is for the mine?
All for the mine
130ML is how much?
1 ML is an Olympic size swimming pool, so 130ML is 130 Olympic swimming pools.
Investigation methodology
Data from public sources and site specific data - BoM climate and DEWNR groundwater data and
Penrice in-pit climate station (2 years of data), benchmarked against long term Nuriootpa BoM data
Data analysis - Water levels and Cumulative Rainfall Deviation CRD plots
Data interpretation and model prediction - Analytical modelling using three methods to address
uncertainty
There are some trends but not large scale.
Groundwater level trends generally influenced by rainfall recharge and subsequent natural recession
during dry periods

Some pumping effects evident, but local scale (around 500-1000m): Large irrigation use affects local
groundwater levels (e.g. MOR074) and Mine extraction effect apparent 500–1000 metres from mine,
with water level recovery during wet periods (e.g. 2010-2011) e.g. MOR126 (Frac Rock); MOR122,
MOR123, MOR264 (unspecified aquifer)

Effects are local (not regional), consistent with DEWNR Status Report 2011

Long term post mining conditions
Post-mining, groundwater levels will slowly increase
Equilibrium involves balance between inflow, outflow & evaporation
Final equilibrium level, consistent with existing water levels in mine
Thus, scale of long term impacts same as existing (within 0.5 to 1km)
About 80% of predicted long term equilibrium level achieved within about 40 years of post-mining; Final
equilibrium may take >150 years

Future work may require development of a numerical groundwater model, subject to discussions with
Government Departments. Operational data will show whether the predictions are correct.
Recommendation that need to get accurate data on water extracted and also on evaporation rate and then
identify risks. To better understand the system need data for the next few years and then validate the
predictions.





PC
HM
Questions and comments
Are we talking about allocation or extraction?
It is extraction from the metered response. So we can see pumping effects of irrigation and the mine only
within 500m, further than that it is hard to see any effects.
JKR
HM
The evaporation station is in Nuriootpa?
This is the local evaporation measuring site and we have 2 years data from the pit. Comparison shows
that the evaporation rate is 1 ½ times more in the pit.
PC
HM
How far east does the aquifer rise?
In a cross section of the mine and out to the east it follows the topography, not very far east. It is a deep
system and may be long scale.
PC
LS
Why is there higher salinity in the basin than the fractured rock?
It is in response to direct recharge and how long the time is for it to get to the water table.
PC
HM
As the mine goes down, there will be more water to pump out, so will it take less out of the bores?
Possibly but it depends on the quality of water and the management approach. If more is needed then it
has to be purchased.
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
6/8
RE
HM
RE
PC
HM
JKR
CI
LS
JKR
MM
HM
If within 1km, affected by mine?
Yes to about 2-4m, so a bore only needs to be 2-4m deeper. There are also some bores within that zone
that are not affected.
Springs in the creek dried up about 20 years ago.
And ponds up to 5 years ago would fill up over night.
We have had very dry years in last 10 years and certainly not as wet as the 1970’s. The data in the report
shows that it has been dry since 1998.
In the next 20 years will we see a drop and will it take 40 years to come back to the level in the
surrounding area up to 5km?
You won’t see any effect at 5km.
The effects generally within 1km from the mine. The mine is a water user so they are having an impact
but once they cease pumping the effect will cease.
They haven’t been operating at the same level for 60 years.
Is it the worst case scenario?
Can’t say yes or no.
7.2
DEWNR Comments – LS
We will be feeding our comments back through DMITRE. The report is using DEWNR data but still
interested in post closure impacts and salinity increases. What are these likely to be and are we ready for
them. A through-flow pit is preferable, a sink would be interesting.
CI
LS
PC
PM
IB
HM
MM
LS
Is the depth of the pit significant?
No. Depth is not significant and shouldn’t see too much increase in salinity.
Would you be concerned with changes in salinity?
Reports on this are produced and it is monitored so you can track this.
Over 900mg/L salinity will have an impact on grape yield, 1200 mg/L is critical and over that will have a
major impact.
Salinity levels are patchy
I have concerns about impact
It is usually a point source and is diluted further away.
Break at 8.30pm, resumed at 9pm.
Questions and comments continued
RE
It is important that a summary of this report is sent through the Barossa Wine Association to the growers.
They need to know that it does not have an immediate effect.
CI
This can happen when DEWNR have looked at it and are happy with it. We first looked at this in 2009
and thought that there was no impact and now that we have looked at it again we can see that after 500m
there is little effect. Still, salinity is an issue. Am interested in thoughts about where the process goes after
DEWNR and DMITRE look at it and then it can go out into the community.
RE
It could be released through the Barossa Wine and Grape Growers, they have good access through their
newsletter.
CI
Then it won’t be necessary to have a larger meeting. If anyone has any questions, they can email them in.
RE
Peter Wall from the North Para Water Resources Committee is a good contact, it would be good to pass
the information onto him.
Action - Penrice to distribute reviewed water report through Peter Wall and Barossa Wine Association.
8.0
Community Engagement Program - See report above in 4.2.
9.0
Any Other Business
9.1
Penrice Road upgrade - See agenda item 2.
9.2
Terms of Reference review
There is a tender out to do this work.
CI
JR
9.3
Site Visit
It is timely to visit, a lot of work has been done and a lot has happened, especially the revegetation work,
so well worth a look. Traditionally this was before a meeting i.e. 4pm at next meeting on 8 May.
Neither James or Peter will be able to attend the next meeting on 8 May.
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
7/8
IB
I will look at availability of meeting room on 15 May, the 3 rd Wednesday in the month.
Action – IB/Barossa Council to check availability of room
9.4
Date of meetings - review
CI
We need to look at this as a permanent arrangement. So Site visit to be arranged for 4pm on 15 May.
Action – Penrice to organise site visit for 4pm on 15 May 2013.
JR
9.5
Round Table Discussion – any other issues not raised above.
Thank you to Hugh and James for their report and Lloyd and Paul for their input.
CI -Thanks to all for your attendance. Thank you to Hugh and Lloyd.
Meeting closed at 9.15pm.
Next meeting Wednesday 15 May 2013 at 4pm at Penrice Mine Site, followed by meeting at 6pm
at the Barossa Council Chambers.
Summary of Action Items.
Action - Penrice to present Visual Amenity Plan at next meeting.
Action - EPA to review application of tonal penalties at next meeting.
Action - Penrice to distribute reviewed water report through Peter Wall and Barossa Wine Association.
Action – IB/Barossa Council to check availability of room
Action – Penrice to organise site visit for 4pm on 15 May 2013.
Meeting dates for the rest of the year – confirming change to 3rd Wednesday of the month
– 21August and 20 November 2013 (NB room at Barossa Council has been booked)
Minutes PCCG 13 February 2013
8/8