HVO 2009 Annual Environmental Management Report - Final

Annual 

Environmental 

Management Report 

2009 

Hunter Valley Operations

This page has been intentionally left blank 

Cover: Photo of Rehabilitation at Cheshunt Pit

Coal & Allied – Hunter Valley Operations 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 SCOPE............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1.1 Background Development................................................................................................... 1 

1.1.2 Corporate Environmental Management Strategies............................................................. 2 

1.2 CONSENTS, LEASE AND LICENCES............................................................................................ 5 

1.2.1 Current Approvals ............................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.2 Compliance Audits ............................................................................................................ 21 

1.2.3 Amendments over the Reporting Period........................................................................... 21 

1.2.4 Proposed Developments................................................................................................... 22 

1.3 MINE CONTACTS ......................................................................................................................... 23 

1.4 ACTIONS REQUIRED AFTER REVIEW OF 2008 AEMR ............................................................ 24 

2 OPERATIONS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD ............................................................................ 27 

2.1 EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE UTILISATION ........................................................................ 27 

2.1.1 Current Exploration ........................................................................................................... 27 

2.1.2 Reserve/Resource Status ................................................................................................. 28 

2.1.3 Estimated Mine Life........................................................................................................... 28 

2.2 LAND PREPARATION................................................................................................................... 28 

2.2.1 Vegetation Clearing........................................................................................................... 29 

2.2.2 Topsoil Management.........................................................................................................29 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 29 

2.4 MINING .......................................................................................................................................... 29 

2.4.1 Changes during the Reporting Period............................................................................... 30 

2.4.2 Mining Equipment ............................................................................................................. 30 

2.5 MINERAL PROCESSING .............................................................................................................. 30 

2.5.1 Product and Market........................................................................................................... 31 

2.5.2 Production and Waste Summary ...................................................................................... 32 

2.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................ 32 

2.6.1 Hydrocarbon Disposal.......................................................................................................32 

2.6.2 Sewage Treatment/Disposal............................................................................................. 32 

2.6.3 Non Hazardous Wastes .................................................................................................... 32 

2.6.4 Processing Plant Residues/Rejects Management............................................................ 34 

2.6.5 Monitoring and Maintenance of Tailings Containment Facilities ...................................... 34 

2.7 ORE AND PRODUCT STOCKPILES ............................................................................................ 37 

2.7.1 Stockpile Capacity............................................................................................................. 37 

2.7.2 Changes or Additions to Process or Facilities during 2009 .............................................. 37 

2.7.3 Changes in Product Transport .......................................................................................... 37 

2.8 WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................... 38 

2.8.1 Water Balance................................................................................................................... 38 

2.8.2 Improvements to Mine Water Management...................................................................... 43 

AEMR 2009 

ii


2.8.3 Mine Water Management System..................................................................................... 43 

2.8.4 Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme.............................................................................. 44 

2.8.5 Flooding ............................................................................................................................ 44 

2.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT................................................................................... 49 

2.9.1 Status of Licences............................................................................................................. 49 

2.9.2 Inventory of Material Management ................................................................................... 49 

2.9.3 Fuel Containment.............................................................................................................. 49 

2.9.4 Oil and Grease Containment and Disposal ...................................................................... 49 

2.10 OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT.............................................................................. 50 

3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE ................................................................. 51 

3.1 METEOROLOGICAL ..................................................................................................................... 51 

3.1.1 Environmental Management ............................................................................................. 51 

3.1.2 Environmental Performance ............................................................................................. 51 

3.1.3 Rainfall .............................................................................................................................. 52 

3.2 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................. 55 



3.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 71 



3.4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................71 



3.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY..........................................................................................................89 



3.6 CONTAMINATED POLLUTED LAND.......................................................................................... 117 

3.6.1 Environmental Management and Performance .............................................................. 117 

3.7 THREATENED FLORA AND FAUNA.......................................................................................... 118 

3.7.1 Environmental Management ........................................................................................... 118 

3.7.2 Environmental Performance ........................................................................................... 118 

3.7.3 Flora and Fauna Monitoring............................................................................................ 119 

3.8 WEEDS ........................................................................................................................................ 120 



3.9 BLASTING.................................................................................................................................... 123 



3.10 OPERATIONAL NOISE ............................................................................................................... 130 



iii



3.10.3 Noise Predictions for 2010.............................................................................................. 137 

3.11 VISUAL, STRAY LIGHT............................................................................................................... 138 



3.12 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ......................................................................... 138 

3.12.1 Relations with the Local Aboriginal Community.............................................................. 138 

3.12.2 Management of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage....................................................... 139 

3.12.3 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Performance ........................................................... 141 

3.12.4 Historic Heritage.............................................................................................................. 143 

3.13 NATURAL HERITAGE................................................................................................................. 144 

3.14 SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION ................................................................................................ 144 



3.15 BUSHFIRE ................................................................................................................................... 145 



3.16 MINE SUBSIDENCE.................................................................................................................... 146 

3.17 HYDROCARBON CONTAMINATION ......................................................................................... 146 



3.18 METHANE DRAINAGE/VENTILATION ....................................................................................... 147 

3.18.1 Environmental Management and Performance .............................................................. 147 

3.19 ACID ROCK DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................. 147 



3.20 PUBLIC SAFETY ......................................................................................................................... 148 



3.21 REPORTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS ........................................................................ 148 



3.22 FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND TARGETS........................................................................... 151 

3.22.1 2009 Performance against Targets................................................................................. 151 

3.23 TRIALS AND RESEARCH........................................................................................................... 152 

3.23.1 Commercial Forestry Trials............................................................................................. 152 

3.23.2 Biosolids Trial.................................................................................................................. 154 

3.23.3 Meteorological Data Measurement and Assessment ..................................................... 154 

3.23.4 Blast Vibration Studies.................................................................................................... 154 

3.23.5 Contribution of Mining Emissions to NO 2 and PM 10 in the Upper Hunter ....................... 155 


iv


3.24 CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................................................... 156 

3.24.1 Efforts to Address Climate Change................................................................................. 156 


3.25 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT DELAYS ................................................................................ 160 



3.26 CARRINGTON BILLABONG........................................................................................................ 161 



4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS ................................................................................................................... 162 

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINTS.............................................................................................. 162 

4.1.1 Listing of Complaints for the Reporting Period ............................................................... 162 

4.1.2 Complaint Resolution...................................................................................................... 162 

4.2 COMMUNITY LIAISON................................................................................................................ 163 

4.2.1 External Relations ........................................................................................................... 163 

4.2.2 Community Consultation................................................................................................. 163 

4.2.3 Community Consultative Committees............................................................................. 164 

4.2.4 Aboriginal Relationships.................................................................................................. 164 

4.3 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION AND ACHIEVEMENTS ................................................ 166 

4.3.1 Involvement in the Community........................................................................................ 166 

4.4 RECOGNITION AND SHARING SUCCESS ............................................................................... 169 

4.4.1 Coal & Allied Community Trust ....................................................................................... 169 

4.4.2 Community Partnerships................................................................................................. 171 

4.5 EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND DEMOGRAPHY......................................................................... 173 

5 REHABILITATION ................................................................................................................................. 175 

5.1 BUILDINGS.................................................................................................................................. 175 

5.2 REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED LAND ................................................................................. 175 

5.2.1 Assessment of Land Capability....................................................................................... 175 

5.2.2 Rehabilitation Material Characteristics............................................................................ 175 

5.2.3 Method of Land Shaping................................................................................................. 175 

5.2.4 Characteristics of Cover Material.................................................................................... 175 

5.2.5 Methods, Thickness and Compaction of Cover Material ................................................ 176 

5.2.6 Drainage and Erosion Control......................................................................................... 176 

5.2.7 Final landform Profile Slopes .......................................................................................... 176 

5.2.8 Soil Treatment................................................................................................................. 176 

5.2.9 Vegetation Species and Establishment .......................................................................... 177 

5.2.10 Native Seed Strategy ...................................................................................................... 180 

5.2.11 Habitat Audit.................................................................................................................... 180 

5.2.12 Water Containment, Control and Distribution ................................................................. 180 

5.2.13 Feral Animal Control ....................................................................................................... 181 


v


5.3 OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE....................................................................................................... 183 

5.4 REHABILITATION STATUS AT END OF REPORTING PERIOD............................................... 183 

5.4.1 West Pit........................................................................................................................... 183 

5.4.2 South (Riverview, Cheshunt, Lemington South Pits)...................................................... 184 

5.4.3 North (Carrington and North Pits) ................................................................................... 184 

5.4.4 Review of Rehabilitation Monitoring and Performance................................................... 185 

5.4.5 Decommissioning Closure Plans and Schedules ........................................................... 186 

5.4.6 Final Void ........................................................................................................................ 187 

5.5 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL REHABILITATION PLAN..................................... 187 

6 ACTIVITIES PROPOSED IN THE NEXT AEMR PERIOD .................................................................... 188 

6.1 PLANS FOR THE 2010 REPORTING PERIOD .......................................................................... 188 


vi


LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: HVO Regional Proximity....................................................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2: HVO Mine Site Layout.......................................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 3: Coal & Allied Environmental Services Organisation Chart for 2009 .................................................. 24 

Figure 4: Coal & Allied Product Coal Destinations 2009 ................................................................................... 31 

Figure 5: Schematic of the Material Recycling Facility at Thornton .................................................................. 33 

Figure 6: Waste Statistics for HVO in 2009....................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 7: 2009 HVO Waste Streams ................................................................................................................. 34 

Figure 8: Location and Status of Tailings Dams at HVO................................................................................... 36 

Figure 9: HVO Water Balance Schematic ......................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 10: HVO Salt Balance Schematic Diagram............................................................................................ 41 

Figure 11: HVO West Pit Water Management Structures ................................................................................. 45 

Figure 12: HVO North Pit Water Management Structures ................................................................................ 46 

Figure 13: HVO South Pit Water Management Structure.................................................................................. 47 

Figure 14: Location and Status of Levee Banks at HVO................................................................................... 48 

Figure 15: Rainfall Summary for 2007 to 2009.................................................................................................. 52 

Figure 16: Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for the 2009 Period............................................................ 53 

Figure 17: 2009 Annual Wind Rose................................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 18: Quarterly Average Wind Roses for HVO in 2009 (Clockwise from top left; January to March, April to 

June, July to September, and October to December)....................................................................... 54 

Figure 19: Ambient Air Monitoring Network at HVO in 2009............................................................................. 56 

Figure 20: Dust Depositional Annual Average 2007 to 2009 ............................................................................ 58 

Figure 21: Dust Depositional Annual Average Increase 2008 to 2009 ............................................................. 58 

Figure 22: Dust Isopleth Annual Average Dust Deposition January 2009 – December 2009 (g/m2/month 

insoluble matter) at gauges on private and Coal & Allied owned land.............................................. 61 

Figure 23: Annual Average HVAS TSP Results 2007 to 2009.......................................................................... 64 

Figure 24: Monthly Mean TSP and Rainfall at HVO in 2009............................................................................. 64 

Figure 25: Annual Average HVAS PM 10 Results 2007 to 2009......................................................................... 65 

Figure 26: Monthly Mean PM 10 and Rainfall at HVO in 2009............................................................................ 66 

Figure 27: PM 10 Results for 2009 against 24 Hour Impact Assessment Criteria .............................................. 68 

Figure 28: Surface Water Monitoring Network at HVO in 2009 ........................................................................ 72 

Figure 29: Hunter River Mean pH, EC and TSS ............................................................................................... 76 

Figure 30: Hunter River pH Trends ................................................................................................................... 76 

Figure 31: Hunter River EC Trends ................................................................................................................... 77 

Figure 32: Hunter River TSS Trends ................................................................................................................. 78 

Figure 33: Wollombi Brook pH Trends .............................................................................................................. 79 

Figure 34: Wollombi Brook EC Trends.............................................................................................................. 79 

Figure 35: Wollombi Brook TSS Trends............................................................................................................ 80 

Figure 36: Other Tributaries pH Trends............................................................................................................. 81 

Figure 37: Other Tributaries EC Trends ............................................................................................................ 82 


vii


Figure 38: Other Tributaries TSS Trends .......................................................................................................... 82 

Figure 39: HVO Site Dams pH Trends .............................................................................................................. 83 

Figure 40: HVO Site Dams EC Trends.............................................................................................................. 84 

Figure 41: HVO Site Dams TSS Trends............................................................................................................ 84 

Figure 42: Groundwater Monitoring Network at HVO in 2009........................................................................... 90 

Figure 43: Carrington Bore Monitoring Network in 2009 ................................................................................... 91 

Figure 44: Cheshunt Bore Monitoring Network 2009 ........................................................................................ 91 

Figure 45: Carrington Groundwater pH Trends................................................................................................. 96 

Figure 46: Carrington Groundwater EC Trends ................................................................................................ 97 

Figure 47: Carrington Groundwater SWL Trends.............................................................................................. 98 

Figure 48: North Pit and Alluvial Lands Groundwater pH Trends ................................................................... 101 

Figure 49: North Pit and Alluvial Lands Ground EC Trends............................................................................ 101 

Figure 50: North Pit Alluvial Lands Groundwater SWL Trends ....................................................................... 102 

Figure 51: Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater pH Trends....................................................... 103 

Figure 52: Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater EC Trends ...................................................... 103 

Figure 53: Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater SWL Trends ................................................... 104 

Figure 54: Alluvial Levee Bank Groundwater pH Trends ................................................................................ 105 

Figure 55: Alluvial Levee Bank Groundwater EC Trends................................................................................ 106 

Figure 56: Alluvial Levee Bank Groundwater SWL Trends............................................................................. 107 

Figure 57: Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater pH Trends................................................................................... 110 

Figure 58: Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater EC Trends .................................................................................. 110 

Figure 59: Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater SWL Trends................................................................................ 111 

Figure 60: Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater pH Trends................................................................................... 111 

Figure 61: Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater EC Trends .................................................................................. 112 

Figure 62: Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater SWL Trends................................................................................ 112 

Figure 63: Lemington Groundwater pH Trends............................................................................................... 113 

Figure 64: Lemington Groundwater EC Trends .............................................................................................. 114 

Figure 65: Lemington Groundwater SWL........................................................................................................ 114 

Figure 66: West Pit Groundwater pH Trends .................................................................................................. 115 

Figure 67: West Pit Groundwater EC Trends.................................................................................................. 116 

Figure 68: West Pit Groundwater SWL Trends ............................................................................................... 116 

Figure 69: HVO Weed Control Areas for 2009................................................................................................ 122 

Figure 70: Location of Version 6 Blast Monitors for HVO in 2009................................................................... 124 

Figure 71: Moses Crossing Blast Monitoring Results 2009............................................................................. 126 

Figure 72: Jerrys Plains Blast Monitoring Results 2009.................................................................................. 127 

Figure 73: Cheshunt East Blast Monitoring Results 2009............................................................................... 127 

Figure 74: Maison Dieu Blast Monitoring Results 2009 .................................................................................. 128 

Figure 75: Wandewoi Blast Monitoring Results 2009...................................................................................... 128 

Figure 76: Warkworth Blast Monitoring Results 2009 ..................................................................................... 129 

Figure 77: HVO's Equipment Noise Reduction Plan ....................................................................................... 131 


viii


Figure 78: HVO Noise Monitoring Locations 2009. ......................................................................................... 132 

Figure 79: Breakdown of Environmental Complaints by Issue for 2009 ......................................................... 162 

Figure 80: Coal & Allied Shopfronts and Community Information Line ........................................................... 167 

Figure 81: Coal & Allied Community Development Investment in 2009.......................................................... 169 

Figure 82: Coal & Allied Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee Investment in 2009 .................... 170 

Figure 83: Locations of Feral Animal Control in 2009 ..................................................................................... 182 


ix


LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: HVO Approvals...................................................................................................................................... 5 

Table 2: HVO Licences and Permits ................................................................................................................... 8 

Table 3: HVO Water Licences ........................................................................................................................... 10 

Table 4: HVO Mining Tenements ...................................................................................................................... 18 

Table 5: HVO Other Approvals.......................................................................................................................... 20 

Table 6: Actions Required After Annual Environmental Inspection................................................................... 25 

Table 7: HVO Mining Equipment Used in 2009................................................................................................. 30 

Table 8: Total Product Coal at HVO in 2009 ..................................................................................................... 31 

Table 9: Production and Waste Summary for HVO 2009.................................................................................. 32 

Table 10: Tailings Storage Facilities.................................................................................................................. 35 

Table 11: Stockpile Capacities .......................................................................................................................... 37 

Table 12: Coal Transported at HVO during 2009.............................................................................................. 38 

Table 13: 2009 HVO Water Balance ................................................................................................................. 39 

Table 14: Modelled or Measured Groundwater Contribution from Connected Hunter River Alluvium.............. 42 

Table 15: Summary of Environmental Impacts Risk Register........................................................................... 51 

Table 16: Rainfall Summary for 2009 ................................................................................................................ 52 

Table 17: Annual Average Insoluble Matter Deposition Rates at HVO Dust Gauges 2007 to 2009................. 59 

Table 18: Selected High Results in 2009 .......................................................................................................... 59 

Table 19: TSP Monitoring Results for HVO in 2009.......................................................................................... 63 

Table 20: Annual Average HVAS PM 10 Results 2007 to 2009.......................................................................... 65 

Table 21: PM 10 Maximum Over 24 Hour Against Acquisition Criteria ............................................................... 66 

Table 22: HVO South Project Environmental Assessment Cumulative Predictions for 2006 and 2010 against 

2009 Annual Averages for TSP Data ................................................................................................ 69 

Table 23: HVO South Environmental Assessment Cumulative Predictions for 2006 and 2010 against 2009 

Annual Averages for PM 10 Data ........................................................................................................ 69 

Table 24: HVO South Environmental Assessment Cumulative Predictions for 2006 and 2012 against 2009 

Annual Averages for Dust Deposition Data....................................................................................... 70 

Table 25: HVO Surface Water Monitoring Data Recovery for 2009.................................................................. 73 

Table 26: Surface Water Results from Hunter River Sites for 2009.................................................................. 75 

Table 27: Surface Water Results from Wollombi Brook Sites for 2009............................................................. 78 

Table 28: Surface Water Results from Other Tributaries Sites for 2009........................................................... 81 

Table 29: Surface Water Results from HVO Site Dams for 2009...................................................................... 83 

Table 30: Water Quality during Discharge from Lake James............................................................................ 86 

Table 31: Discharge Record for Lake James .................................................................................................... 87 

Table 32: Representative Water Quality for West Pit........................................................................................ 88 

Table 33: HVO Ground Water Monitoring Data Recovery for 2009 .................................................................. 92 

Table 34: Ground Water Results from HVO Carrington Groundwater’s for 2009 ............................................. 96 

Table 35: Groundwater Results from North Pit & Alluvial Lands for 2009 ...................................................... 100 

Table 36: Groundwater Results from Hobden’s Gully and South Facilities for 2009 ...................................... 102 


x


Table 37: Groundwater Results from Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Groundwater for 2009............................... 105 

Table 38: Groundwater Results from Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater’s for 2009.......................................... 108 

Table 39: Groundwater Results from Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater’s for 2009.......................................... 109 

Table 40: Groundwater Results from Lemington for 2009 .............................................................................. 113 

Table 41: Groundwater Results from West Pit Groundwater’s for 2009 ......................................................... 115 

Table 42: Carrington groundwater results ....................................................................................................... 117 

Table 43: HVO Internal Meteorological Limits................................................................................................. 125 

Table 44: LAeq Greater than Allowable Noise Levels Generated by HVO ..................................................... 133 

Table 45: HVO North (West Pit EIS, 2003) – Day Period LAeq...................................................................... 134 

Table 46: HVO North (West Pit EIS, 2003) – Night Period LAeq.................................................................... 134 

Table 47: HVO South (Cheshunt Extension SEE, July 2005) – Day Period LAeq.......................................... 135 

Table 48: HVO South (Cheshunt Extension SEE, July 2005) – Night Period LAeq ....................................... 135 

Table 49: HVO South (South Coal Project EA, 2006) – Night Period LAeq.................................................... 136 

Table 50: Equipment Planned to be used in Mining Areas in 2010 ................................................................ 137 

Table 51: HVO Objectives and Target Performance 2009 and 2010.............................................................. 151 

Table 52: Electricity Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009 ................................................... 158 

Table 53: Diesel Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009......................................................... 158 

Table 54: Total Energy Usage 2009................................................................................................................ 159 

Table 55: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009.......................................................................................... 159 

Table 56: Equipment Delays for 2009 ............................................................................................................. 160 

Table 57: HVO – Demographic Breakdown in 2009 ....................................................................................... 173 

Table 58: HVO – Occupational and Gender Breakdown in 2009.................................................................... 173 

Table 59: Rio Tinto Coal Australia HVS – Demographic Breakdown in 2009................................................. 174 

Table 60: Rio Tinto Coal Australia HVS – Occupational and Gender Breakdown in 2009 ............................. 174 

Table 61: Pasture Species and Seeding Rates at HVO.................................................................................. 178 

Table 62: Tree Species and Seeding Rates at HVO....................................................................................... 179 

Table 63: Vertebrate Pest Control Summary 2009 ......................................................................................... 181 

Table 64: Sand pad Abundance Calculations – 2009 ..................................................................................... 181 

Table 65: 2009 MOP Commitments and Performance – Rehabilitation and Disturbance .............................. 183 

Table 66: 2010 MOP Commitments and Planned Rehabilitation and Disturbance ........................................ 188 


xi


LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 

Photograph 1: 

Establishment Technique Trial, 12 Nov 2008 (part of minimum till plot with 

comparatively poor growth) 

Photograph 2: Establishment Technique Trial – Mounded Plot, 12 Nov 2008 (height stick at 3m) 

Photograph 3 & 4: 

Photograph 5: 

Photograph 6 & 7: 

Local residents learn more about Coal & Allied at Community Information Sessions in 

2009. 

The Coal & Allied Rescue Helicopter in full flight 

Through Coal & Allied’s Community Alliance, the Newcastle Knights continue to work 

with Indigenous students at Singleton High School in 2009. 


xii


LIST OF APPENDICIES 

Appendix 1 

Appendix 2 

Appendix 3 

Appendix 4 

Appendix 5 

Appendix 6 

Appendix 7 

Appendix 8 

Appendix 9 

Appendix 10 

Appendix 11 

Appendix 12 

Appendix 13 

Appendix 14 

Appendix 15 

Appendix 16 

Appendix 17 

Appendix 18 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia Health, Safety & Environment Policy 

2009 Environmental Complaints 

2009 Environmental Incidents 

Community Newsletter 

Meteorological Data 

Air Quality Monitoring Data 

Real Time Air Quality Monitoring Data 

Surface Water Monitoring Data 

Comparison of 2009 Water Balance with the 2004 West Pit EIS Water Balance Prediction 

Groundwater Monitoring Data 

Blast Monitoring Data 

Noise Monitoring Data – Attended 

Real Time Noise Monitoring Data – Unattended Noise Monitoring 

Environment Protection Licence 

Environment Protection Licence – Annual Return 

Development Consent Compliance Tables 

Rehabilitation Schedules 

Department of Industry and Investment Review of 2008 HVO AEMR 


xiii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ACARP – Australian Coal Association Research Programme 

ADCC – Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee 

AECOM – AECOM Australia Pty. Ltd. 

AEMR – Annual Environmental Management Report 

AHMP – Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan 

AHIMS – Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System 

AHIP – Aboriginal Heritage Impact Plan 

ALRA – Alluvial Lands Reinstatement Area 

ANZECC – Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council 

AS – Australian Standard 

ASNZS – Australian and New Zealand Standard 

AWS – Annual Works Schedule 

CCAP – Climate Change Action Plan 

CCC – Community Consultative Committee 

CCL – Consolidated Coal Lease 

CHIMA – Cultural Heritage Indigenous Management Agreement 

CHMP – Cultural Heritage Management Plan 

CHMS – Cultural Heritage Management System 

CHSF – Cultural Heritage Storage Facility 

CHWG – Cultural Heritage Working Group 

CHZP – Cultural Heritage Zone Plan 

CMA – Catchment Management Authority 

CML – Consolidated Mining Lease 

CPP – Coal Preparation Plant 

CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 

DA – Development Application 

DAP – Diammonium Phosphate 

dB (L) – Decibels (Linear Peak) 

DC – Development Consent 

DECC – Department of Environment and Climate Change 

DECCW – Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 

DEUS – Department of Energy Utilities and Sustainability 

DEWHA – Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 

DII – Department of Industry and Investment New South Wales 

DNR – Department of Natural Resources 

DNV – Det Norske Veritas 

DoP – Department of Planning 

DPI – Department of Primary Industries 


xiv


DPI – MR – Department of Primary Industry – Mineral Resources 

DTI – Department of Transport and Infrastructure 

DTL4B – Dare to Lead for Business 

DWE – Department of Water and Energy 

EC – Electrical Conductivity 

EEO – Energy Efficiency Opportunity 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

EMP – Environmental Management Plan 

EMS – Environmental Management System 

ENSR – ENSR Australia Pty Ltd 

EP&A Act – Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 

EPBC Act – Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 

EPL – Environment Protection Licence 

ESAP – Energy Savings Action Plan 

EWU – Early Warning Units 

FFMP – Flora and Fauna Management Plan 

g/m² – Grams per metre squared 

GDP – Ground Disturbance Permit 

GGE – Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

GHG – Greenhouse Gases 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

GPR – Ground Penetrating Radar 

ha – Hectares 

HMRI – Hunter Medical Research Institute 

HRSTS – Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme 

HS&E – Health Safety and Environment 

HSEQ – Health Safety Environment and Quality 

HVAS – High Volume Air Samplers 

HVCPP – Hunter Valley Coal Preparation Plant 

HVLP – Hunter Valley Load Point 

HVO – Hunter Valley Operations 

HVRF – Hunter Valley Research Foundation 

HVS – Hunter Valley Services 

IA – Inaudible 

IJM – Indigenous Jobs Market 

INP – Industrial Noise Policy 

kg – Kilograms 

km – Kilometres 

LCPP – Lemington Coal Preparation Plant 


xv


LGA – Local Government Area 

LIDAR – Light Detecting and Ranging 

L/s – Litres per second 

LODB – Limit of Disturbance Boundary 

Mbcm – Million Bank Cubic Metres 

MCH – McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd 

ML – Megalitres 

ML – Mining Lease 

MLP – Mine Life Plan 

mm – Millimetres 

mm/s – Millimetres/second 

MOP – Mining Operations Plan 

MRF – Materials Recycling Facility 

MSC – Muswellbrook Shire Council 

MSDS – Material Safety Data Sheet 

MTW – Mount Thorley Warkworth 

N/A – Not Applicable 

NATA – National Association of Testing Authorities 

NAIDOC – National Aboriginal Islander Day Observance Committee 

NCPP – Newdell Coal Preparation Plan 

NLP – Newdell Load Point 

NM – Non-Measurable 

NOW – New South Wales Office of Water 

NPW Act – National Parks and Wildlife Act 

NPWS – National Parks and Wildlife Service 

NRL – National Rugby League 

NSW – New South Wales 

OCE – Open Cut Examiner 

PaL – Parents and Learning 

PFF – Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation 

pH – Measure of the hydrogen ion concentration, [H + ] 

PM10 – Particulate Matter < 10 micron units 

PAD – Potential Archaeological Deposits 

RFS – Rural Fire Service 

ROM – Run Of Mine 

RTA – Roads and Traffic Authority 

s90 – Section 90 

s87 – Section 87 

SEE – Statement of Environmental Effects 


xvi


SEM – Scanning Electron Microscopy 

SSC – Singleton Shire Council 

SWL – Standing Water Level 

t – Tonnes 

TEM – Transmission Electron Microscopy 

TEOM – Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance 

TSC Act – Threatened Species Conservation Act 

TSP – Total Suspended Particulates 

TSS – Total Suspended Solids 

TWMS – Total Waste Management System 

UHSDC – Upper Hunter Skills Development Centre 

UNE – University of New England 

Uv-DOAS – Ultra violet – Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy 

WAL – Water Access Licence 

WONS – Weeds Of National Significance 

WOOP – Western Out Of Pit 

μS/cm – Micro Siemens per Centimetre 

μ – Microns 

< – Less than 

> – Greater than 


xvii


1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 SCOPE 

This Annual Environmental Management Report (AEMR) has been compiled to review the environmental 

performance of Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) during the 2009 reporting period. The Report has been 

prepared in accordance with New South Wales Department of Industry & Investment (DII) agreed format and 

government guidelines to meet the conditions of HVO Development Consents. 

This report is distributed to: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NSW Department of Planning (DoP); 

NSW Department of Industry & Investment (DII); 

NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW); 

Singleton Shire Council (SSC) and Singleton Library; 

Muswellbrook Shire Council (MSC) and Muswellbrook Library; 

HVO Community Consultative Committee (CCC); 

NSW Rural Fire Service; 

Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA); 

Mine Subsidence Board; and 

Neighbouring mines – Wambo Mining Corporation, United Collieries and Ravensworth Operations. 

The reporting period extends from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. 

1.1.1 Background Development 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia has an agreement to provide management services to Coal & Allied Operations Pty 

Limited. HVO is managed by Coal & Allied and is situated in the Upper Hunter Valley between Singleton and 

Muswellbrook, approximately 24km north west of Singleton, and approximately 100km north west of 

Newcastle (see Figure 1). The integration of various pits and associated facilities forms HVO and has enabled 

improved operational efficiency, rationalisation of infrastructure and improved resource utilisation. HVO 

consists of the following areas (as shown in Figure 2): 

 

 

 

 

 

West Pit (previously Howick Pit), including the Howick Coal Preparation Plant (HCPP), Newdell Coal 

Preparation Plant (NCPP) and Newdell Load Point (NLP); 

North Pit and Alluvial Lands (previously Hunter Valley Number 1), including the Hunter Valley Load Point 

(HVLP) and the Hunter Valley Coal Preparation Plant (HVCPP); 

Carrington Pit; 

Cheshunt and Riverview Pits, incorporating the new Cheshunt Development and the former Lemington 

Pit, as well as the Riverview Pit (previously South Pit or Hunter Valley Number 2) and Lemington Coal 

Preparation Plant (LCPP); and 

Lemington South Pit. 

West Pit is one of the oldest established pits in the Hunter Valley, where mining first commenced in 1952. Rio 

Tinto Coal assumed management of the pit in 1997 following the merger of Rio Tinto Zinc and Conzinc Rio 

Tinto of Australia. Seven seams (with up to 21 splits) are mined, with consent to mine up to 12 million tonnes 

per annum Run Of Mine (ROM) coal. Seams dip at an average of 7.5 degrees to the south east with an 

overburden to coal ratio average of 5.5:1. 

North Pit commenced coal recovery in 1979 and mining was extended to the alluvial floodplain in 1993, until 

its conclusion in 2003. Rehabilitation of the area between the Hunter River and the final void was completed in 

2008 with the filling of the final void with tailings to be completed in approximately 2020. 

AEMR 2009 1


Carrington Pit is located on the western boundary of North Pit and commenced operations in November 2000. 

The seams mined are the Broonies and Bayswater and the pit has consent to mine up to 10 million tonnes per 

year ROM coal, with all seams dipping at an average of three degrees to the south east. The overburden to 

coal ratio averages 3.5:1. 

Cheshunt Pit incorporates the former Lemington North Pit, where the new strip alignment commenced in 

November 2001. Seams mined in the Cheshunt Pit are Warkworth, Mt Arthur, Piercefield and Vaux seams 

and the pit has a combined consent with the Riverview Pit to mine up to eight million tonnes per year of ROM 

coal. Seams predominantly dip at two degrees to the south east with an overburden to coal ratio of around 

4:1. Following the grant of the HVO South consent in 2009, the Deep Cheshunt development was 

commenced. This involves the extraction of Piercefield, Broonies and Bayswater seams with the first strip of 

Bayswater coal expected to be extracted in early 2011. 

Riverview Pit commenced mining operations in 1991 and a modification to consent in 2001 allowed for the 

introduction of a dragline. Coal is extracted from the Glen Munro, Woodlands Hill, Arrowfield and Bowfield 

seams. The combined consent with Cheshunt Pit allows annual ROM coal production of up to eight million 

tonnes per year. Predominantly, seams dip at three degrees to the south east and the current overburden to 

coal strip ratio is approximately 6:1. 

Lemington South Pit is located on the southern side of the Wollombi Brook and is consented to produce up to 

4.4 million tonnes per year of product coal. Mining operations are currently suspended within the Lemington 

South Pit. 

1.1.2 Corporate Environmental Management Strategies 

All of Coal & Allied’s Hunter Valley mining operations operate under an Environmental Management System 

(EMS) which is certified to the international standard ISO14001 (2004) by Det Norske Veritas (DNV). The 

EMS relies upon an environmental policy, a series of regulatory required management plans, a monitoring 

programme and environmental standards and procedures. The EMS forms the basis for rigorous and 

consistent environmental management. 

The EMS is reviewed annually and was audited on three separate occasions during 2009. The effectiveness 

of the system has been demonstrated through audits, which have shown a consistent trend in environmental 

improvement throughout the business. 

As part of the EMS, HVO also has in place a robust Environmental Impacts Risk Register which systematically 

identifies all the activities related to the mine that could cause environmental harm and applies a risk ranking 

to these aspects. Those aspects which are subsequently identified with a high level of risk are appropriately 

managed through procedures, management plans or Environmental Improvement Plans. 

At the commencement of each calendar year a set of environmental objectives and targets are developed to 

ensure continuous improvement in environmental performance. Targets and status for 2009, along with those 

set for 2010, are detailed in Section 3.22. Performance against these targets is reported monthly to 

employees and contractors. 

Coal & Allied operates under the Rio Tinto Coal Australia Health, Safety and Environment Policy Statement 

(Appendix 1). 



Figure 1: HVO Regional Proximity 



Figure 2: HVO Mine Site Layout 



1.2 CONSENTS, LEASE AND LICENCES 

HVO operates under a number of different approvals including: 

 

Development Consents and approvals issued by the Department of Planning, SSC and Muswellbrook 

Shire Council; 

Environment Protection Licence issued by the DECCW (see Appendix 13 and Section 1.2.3); 

Dangerous Goods Licences issued by WorkCover; 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 87 and 90 permits issued by the DECCW; 

Water Licences issued by NOW (New South Wales Office of Water); 

Mining tenements issued by DII; 

Mining Operations Plans (MOP) approved by DII; and 

Dam Licences issued by the Dam Safety Committee. 

The following sections describe the current approvals. 

1.2.1 Current Approvals 

The status of HVO development consents, licences and relevant approvals are listed in Table 1 to Table 5. 

Table 1: HVO Approvals 

Approval Number Description Issue Date Expiry Date 

HVO North 

450-10-2003 West Pit consolidated consent 12/06/2004 12/06/2025 

450-10-2003 M1* Modification to HVLP 16/08/2005 12/06/2025 

450-10-2003 M2* Carrington Pit extension 25/06/2006 12/06/2025 

884/2004 Relocation of Energy Australia access road 02/02/2005 02/02/2010 

6/2001 Pikes Gully Creek realignment 28/03/2001 N/A 

6/2001 M1* 

Amendment to Pikes Gully Creek 

realignment consent 

05/08/2003 N/A 

117/93 Newdell enhancement project 26/11/1993 N/A 

420/2000 Lemington Road Realignment Carrington 10/11/2000 N/A 

627/2006 Carrington Mine Extended Flood Levees 08/02/2007 N/A 

HVO South – Cheshunt and Riverview 

PA 06_0261 

PA 06_0261 M1* 

Hunter Valley Operations – South Coal 

Project 

Modification 1 to PA 06 – 0261 - Raising 

Lake James 

24/03/2009 24/03/2030 

17/12/2009 24/03/2030 




85/27 Hunter Valley No. 2 Coal Mine 04/05/1986 06/03/2010 

81/828 (85/27 M1)* Modifications to DA 85/27 12/11/1990 06/03/2010 

37/90 

Western out of pit emplacement and 

realignment of Jerrys Plains Road 

18/10/1990 N/A 

144/96 Extension to Hunter Valley South Mine 24/01/1997 06/03/2010 

144/96 (37) M1* Modification to DA 144/96 27/08/1997 06/03/2010 

114-12-98 Hunter Valley No. 1 Mine South Pit 15/03/2000 15/03/2021 

14-01-01-M1* 

114-12-98-M2* 

114-12-98-M3* 

114-12-98-M4* 

Modification to DA 114-12-98 – change to 

mining schedule 

Modification 2 to DA 114-12-98 – change to 

mining sequence 

Modification 3 to DA 114-12-98 – extension 

to blasting hours 

Modification 4 to DA 114-12-98 – Riverview 

Pit extension 

02/11/2001 15/03/2021 

11/03/2002 15/03/2021 

23/01/2003 15/03/2021 

11/05/2006 15/03/2021 

181-8-05 Cheshunt Pit extension 31/03/2006 31/03/2021 

628/2006 Cheshunt Mine Extended Flood Levees 08/02/2007 N/A 

HVO South – Lemington 

N/A Lemington Open Cut Development Consent 24/06/1971 N/A 

N/A Lemington Open Cut Extension to Mining 05/03/1976 N/A 

88/76 Mining in No. 2 complex and LCPP 24/02/1976 N/A 

79/48 Expansion Buchanan Lemington Colliery 17/06/1980 N/A 

80/71 Extension of Lemington Open Cut (3 Mt) 24/11/1980 N/A 

80/70* 

Modification to DA 80/71 - Extension of 

Lemington Open Cut (Vary Conditions) 

10/08/1981 N/A 

83/145 Office block No. 2 03/01/1984 N/A 

83/153 Overburden dump 10/02/1984 N/A 

80/961 (equivalent 

to DA 84/115) 

84/115 M1 

(equivalent to DA 

80/961) 

Northern Lemington open cut extension 29/07/1981 N/A 

Extension of Lemington Mine 19/08/1985 N/A 




87/42 Lemington Mine 18/12/1987 N/A 

84/115 M2* Modification to DA 84/115 06/01/1998 N/A 

86/75 Bathhouse 24/07/1986 N/A 

86/104 Extension to No. 2 Mine workshop 04/11/1986 N/A 

86/119 Carport 04/11/1986 N/A 

115/90 Laboratory 20/09/1990 N/A 

73/91 Building extension 10/07/1991 N/A 

101/92 Offices 09/07/1992 N/A 

225/92 

215/97 

Coarse reject conveyor & rehabilitation of old 

portal 

South Lemington open cut and highwall 

mining 

29/01/1993 N/A 

17/07/1998 17/07/2019 

405/98 Increase in production tonnage 11/01/1999 17/07/2019 

215/97.2 and 

405/98.2 

Modification of DA 215/97 and 405/98 09/01/2001 17/07/2019 

651/2001 Temporary Shovel Crossing 13/02/2002 13/07/2007 

396/2001 

Temporary Crossing and relocate Dragline & 

Electric Shovel 

22/10/2001 22/10/2006 

215/97.2 and 

405/98.2 

Modification of DA 215/97 and 405/98 22/11/2002 17/07/2019 

195/2000 Hay shed 06/02/2001 N/A 

58/2007 Installation of production bore 27/02/2007 27/02/2012 

*Modification to previous consent 

Note: Hunter Valley Operations – South Coal Project Approval (PA 06_0261) will consolidate all other 

previous HVO South – Cheshunt, Riverview and Lemington approvals, once they are surrendered by 24 

March 2010, as per Condition 10 of the project approval. 



Table 2: HVO Licences and Permits 

Licence No. Description Expiry Date 

Environmental Protection Authority 

EPL 640 

Dangerous Goods 


1 April (Anniversary) Review 

Date 27/02/2011 

35/037852 Dangerous Goods Licence HVO 27/09/2010 

Radiation Licence 

28724 Radiation Licence 15/08/2011 

Section 87 Care and Control Permit 

2491 Cheshunt Pit Extension 11/07/2011 

2863 

AHIP Care and Control Permit 

(extended for a further three 

years on 16/1/2009) 

16/01/2013 

Section 90 Consent to Destroy Permit 

3393 West Pit (Howick) 19/08/1988 

798 Hunter Valley No. 2 19/03/1990 

370005 Hunter Valley No. 1 04/02/1993 

431 

North west CNR of Lemington 

Colliery Lease 

N/A 

512 Hunter Valley 1-37-5-63 28/12/1993 

566 

656 

657 

Hunter Valley 37-5-63 SW 

Portion 

Hunter Valley No.1 37-5-63 North 

East Portion 

Hunter Valley No. 1 Stage 1 37- 

5-0063 

08/11/1995 

09/09/1996 

15/09/1996 

734 North Pit Alluvial Stage 2 N/A 

SZ245 

Hunter Valley No. 1 Salvage 

Stage for 37-5-0063 

11/02/2001 

254 Lemington South 26/05/2001 

SZ300 Howick 04/08/2002 

SZ288 Howick April 2000 



Licence No. Description Expiry Date 

SZ311 Carrington Mine Lease 25/09/2002 

SZ315 

South Pit (issued 22/01/01 & 

reissued 5/09/02) 

22/01/2003 

2086 West Pit Mine July 2005 

2091 

Carrington Pit – Substation 

Access Road 

20/05/2004 

2114 Newdell Borrow Pit 22/02/2007 

2488 Cheshunt Pit Extension 11/07/2011 

2547 Carrington Pit Extension 09/03/2012 

2804 West Pit Extension 31/10/2009 

1102084 Riverview Pit 11/06/2011 



Table 3: HVO Water Licences 

Licence Number 

Type of 

License 

Purpose Legislation Description Renewal Date 

20AL201237 (see 

WAL 962) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Management Act 2000 

HVO North – HVCPP River Pump – Water 

Access Licence 

Perpetuity 

20AL201254 (see 

WAL 969) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Management Act 2000 HVO South – Former Riverview pump Perpetuity 

20AL201256 (see 

WAL 970) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 


HVO South – LCPP River Pump – Water 


Perpetuity 

20AL201337 (see 

WAL 1006) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 


HVO South – LCPP River Pump – Water 


Perpetuity 

20AL201500 (see 

WAL 1070) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 


HVO South - LCPP River Pump – Water 


Perpetuity 

20AL201684 (see 

WAL 13387) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 


Macquarie Generation Hunter River Pump 

Station 

Perpetuity 

20AL201895 (see 

WAL 13391) 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Access 

Licence 

Water Management Act 2000 HVO North – Alluvials Rehabilitation Irrigation. Perpetuity 

20BL030566 Bore Well Part 5 Water Act 1912 East Open Cut Perpetuity 

20BL141584 Bore Monitoring Bore HVO North – Carrington Work Licence Perpetuity 

20BL166637 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 No Current Bores Perpetuity 

20BL167860 Bore Excavation - 

Mining 

Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Carrington Pit 11/05/2010 




Type of 

License 


20BL168820 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 

HVO North – Bores: CGW56, CGW57, 

CGW58, CGW59, CGW60, CGW61, CGW62, 

CGW63, 4036C, 4035P, 4032P, 4034P, 

4033P, 4053P, 4052P, 4051C, 4040P, 4038C, 

4037P 

Perpetuity 

20BL169241 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Bores: DM1, DM2, HF3, HF7 Perpetuity 


Mining 

Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO West – West Pit Excavation 22/12/2010 


Mining 

Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Pit Excavation 11/04/2011 


Mining 

Part 5 Water Act 1912 

HVO South – Cheshunt/Riverview Extended 

Excavation 

26/11/2011 


HVO South – Bores: BZ10 (CHPZ 2A), BZ11 

(CHPZ 3A), BZ18 (CHPZ 10A), BZ20 (CHPZ 

12A), BZ21(CHPZ 13D), BZ23 (Bunc 14), 

BZ24 (Bunc 13), BZ25 (Bunc 12), BZ21A 

(CHPZ 13A), BZ20A (CHPZ 12D), BZ11A 

(CHPZ 3D), Bunc 3 

Perpetuity 



(CHPZ 8D), BZ17 (CHPZ 9A), BZ19 (CHPZ 

11A), BZ16A (CHPZ 8A), Bunc 39 (Shallow & 

Deep), Bunc 44D, Bunc 46D 

Perpetuity 




Type of 

License 




(CHPZ 5A), BZ14, BZ9 (CHPZ 1A), BC1, 

BC1a, BZ8-1, BZ8-2, BZ8-3, HG1, HG2, 

HG2a, HG3, S4, S6, BZ22 (CHPZ14D), BZ22A 

(CHPZ 14A), BZ5-1, BZ5-2 

Perpetuity 

20BL170735 Bore Test Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – LUG Test Bore Perpetuity 

20BL171157 Bore Dewatering bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – DM7 Dewatering Bore 25/03/2012 




20BL171423 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 E1.5 Perpetuity 

20BL171424 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 GW9711 Perpetuity 

20BL171425 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: GW9701, GW9710 Perpetuity 

20BL171426 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: D2(WH236), GW9702 Perpetuity 

20BL171427 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: C335, C630 (BFS) Perpetuity 

20BL171428 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 D807 Perpetuity 


HVO South – Bores: B925 (BFS), C122 (BFS), 

C122 (WDH) 

Perpetuity 




Type of 

License 



HVO South – Bores: C613 (BFS), C809 

(GM/WDH) 

Perpetuity 

20BL171431 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Bores: B631 (BFS), B631 (WDH) Perpetuity 


HVO South – Bores: C130 (AFSH1), C130 

(ALL) 

Perpetuity 

20BL171433 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Bore B334 (BFS) Perpetuity 


HVO South – Bores: C317 (BFS), C317 

(WDH) 

Perpetuity 

20BL171435 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Bores: BZ3-1, BZ3-2, BZ3-3 Perpetuity 

20BL171436 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Bores: BZ4A(1), BZ4A(2), BZ4B Perpetuity 

20BL171437 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: WG1, WG2, WG3 Perpetuity 


HVO North – Bores: CGW5, CGW51A, 

CGW52, CGW53, CGW54, CGW55A, 

CGW53A, CGW52A, CGW54A, CGW6, 

CFW55, CFW56, CFW56A, CFW58, CFW57, 

CFW57A, CFW59, and CFW55R. 

Perpetuity 

20BL171439 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: BRN, E012 Perpetuity 

20BL171492 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: C1(WJ039), GW9704, North Perpetuity 

20BL171681 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Bores: Bunc 45A, Bunc 45D Perpetuity 




Type of 

License 



HVO South – Bores: B425 (WDH), BRS, C621 

(BFS), C919 (ALL), D317 (BFS), D317(ALL), 

D317(WDH) 

TBA 


Bores: SR002, SR003, SR004, SR005, 

SR006, SR007 

Perpetuity 

20BL171727 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 SR001 Perpetuity 


HVO South – Bores: BZ2B, BZ1-1, BZ1-2, 

BZ1-3, BZ2-1, BZ2-2 

TBA 


HVO South – Bores: C817, D010 (BFS), D214 

(BFS), D406 (BFS) (AFS), D510 (BFS), PB01 

(ALL), D510 (AFS), D010 (GM), D010 (WDH), 

D406 (BFS) (AFS), D612 (AFS), D612 (BFS) 

TBA 


HVO North/South – Bores: HV2, PZ1CH200, 

PZ2CH400, PZ3CH800 

Perpetuity 

20BL171852 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – PZ4CH1380 Perpetuity 

20BL171853 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – DM3 Perpetuity 

20BL171854 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Bores: DM5, PZ6CH2450 Perpetuity 

20BL171855 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – PZ5CH1800 Perpetuity 

20BL171856 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Bores: HV6, HV3, DM6, HV2 (2) Perpetuity 




Type of 

License 


20BL171857 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 Bores: HV4, HV4 (2) (GA3), GA3, Perpetuity 

20BL171858 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – DM4 Perpetuity 

20BL171895 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO West – NPZ4 Proposed 


20BL171897 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO West – Bores: NPZ5, NPZ1 Proposed 


20BL171905 Bore Monitoring Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Bores: CFW70, CFW71 Perpetuity 

20BL171929 Bore Test Bore Part 5 Water Act 1912 HVO South – LUG Bore 13/01/2009 

20CA201192 

(see WAL 11933) 

Works 

Approval 

Pumping Plant Water Management Act 2000 Associated with WAL 11933 & 20SL030324 22/04/2019 

20CA201247 

Works 

Approval 

Pumping Plant Water Management Act 2000 Associated with WAL965 28/12/2017 

20CW802613 

Controlled 

Work 

Levee Part 8 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Barry Levee 05/09/2011 

20CW802603 

Controlled 

Work 

Controlled Work Part 8 Water Act 1912 HVO South – Hobden Gully Levee 26/03/2011 

20CW802604 

Controlled 

Work 

Controlled Work Part 8 Water Act 1912 HVO North – North Pit Levee 3 26/07/2011 




Type of 

License 


20CW802612 

Controlled 

Work 

Controlled Work Part 8 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Carrington Levee 5 06/09/2011 

20SL050903 

Stream 

Diversion 

Stream Diversion Section 10 Water Act 1912 HVO West – Parnells Creek Dam 24/01/2013 

20SL061290 

Stream 

Diversion 

Cutting (Diversion 

Drain) 

Section 10 Water Act 1912 Pikes Gully Creek Stream Diversion 07/09/2008 

20SL042746 

Diversion 

Works 

Industrial Section 10 Water Act 1912 HV Loading Point Pump Bayswater Ck 08/09/2012 

20SL061594 

Stream 

Diversion 

Cutting (Diversion 

Drain) 

Section 10 Water Act 1912 HVO North – Carrington Stream Diversion 14/12/2010 

20WA201238 

(see WAL 962) 

Diversion 

Works 

Pumping Plant Water Management Act 2000 HVCPP River Pump 16/03/2018 

20WA201257 

(see WAL 970) 

Diversion 

Works 

Pumping Plant Water Management Act 2000 HVO South – LCPP River Pump Refer file 

20WA201338 

(see WAL 1006) 

Diversion 

Works 


20WA201501 

(see WAL 1070) 

Diversion 

Works 


20WA201685 

(see WAL 13387) 

Diversion 

Works 

Pumping Plant Water Management Act 2000 HVO West – "Lake Liddell" Licence Refer file 




Type of 

License 


WAL 11933 

Water Access 

Licence 

Certificate of Title Water Management Act 2000 Associated with 20SL030324 & 20CA201192 Perpetuity 

WAL 13387 

Water Access 

Licence 

Certificate of Title Water Management Act 2000 "Lake Liddell" Licence Perpetuity 

WAL 969 

Water Access 

Licence 

Certificate of Title Water Management Act 2000 Refer to 20CA201192 Perpetuity 

WAL1006 

Water Access 

Licence 

Certificate of Title Water Management Act 2000 Refer to 20AL201337 Perpetuity 

WAL1070 

Water Access 

Licence 


WAL13391 

Water Access 

Licence 


WAL962 

Water Access 

Licence 


WAL965 

Water Access 

Licence 

Certificate of Title Water Management Act 2000 Refer to 20CA201247 Perpetuity 

WAL970 

Water Access 

Licence 




Table 4: HVO Mining Tenements 

Mining Tenements Grant Date Expiry Date 

ML 1560 (West Pit Extension Area) 28/01/2005 27/01/2026 

ML 1474 (Carrington Pit) 24/11/2000 23/11/2021 

ML 1482 (Carrington Dams) 19/03/2001 14/04/2019 

ML 1489 (NW Corner of Riverview) 14/06/2001 13/06/2022 

ML 1500 (Mitchell 1 Road) 21/12/2001 20/12/2022 

ML 1324 (Alluvial Lands) 19/08/1993 19/08/2014 

ML 1359 (Access Roads HVCPP Coal Loader) 01/11/1994 01/11/2015 

ML 1396# (Barry Property Cheshunt) 17/06/1996 06/03/2010 (converted) 

CL 327* (Hunter Valley No. 2) 06/03/1989 Renewal Pending 

CL 359 (Former Lemington Road) 21/05/1990 21/05/2011 

CL 360 (Additional Area – HV1) 29/05/1990 29/05/2011 

CL 390 (Riverview Out of Pit Dump) 19/02/1992 19/02/2013 (converted) 

CL 398 (West Corners of Riverview) 04/06/1992 04/06/2013 

CCL 755 (HV1 Consolidation) 24/01/1990 Renewal Pending 

ML 1406 (East of D/L Erection Pad) 27/02/1997 10/02/2027 

ML 1428 (Mitchell & Carrington Pits) 15/04/1998 14/04/2019 

CL 584 (Newdell CPP) 01/01/1982 31/12/2023 

CML 4 (Howick Consolidation) 02/03/1993 03/06/2013 

ML 1465 (Lemington) 21/02/2000 21/02/2021 

ML 1337 (Belt Line Road) 01/02/1994 09/09/2014 

CCL 714* 23/05/1990 Renewal Pending 

AUTH 435 08/05/1991 08/05/2012 

AUTH 72 08/03/1977 24/03/2013 

EL 5291 28/04/1997 Renewal Pending 

EL 5292 28/04/1997 27/04/2010 

EL 5417 23/12/1997 08/05/2012 



Mining Tenements Grant Date Expiry Date 

EL 5418 23/12/1997 08/05/2012 

EL 5606 11/08/1999 10/08/2014 

ML 1582 (Barry Property Home Paddock 

Cheshunt) 

14/06/2006 13/06/2027 (converted) 

ML 1589 (Carrington Extended) 02/11/2006 01/11/2027 

ML 1634 31/07/2009 30/07/2030 

* Following confirmation of tenement renewals from the Department of Industry & Investment (DII) the land 

areas of these tenements will be reduced due to the grant of ML 1634. 

# Note: ML 1396 was scheduled for renewal in 2009. Subject to final DII confirmation, this tenement has been 

entirely superseded by the grant of ML 1634. 



Table 5: HVO Other Approvals 

Approval Type Approval Date Expiry Date 

Mine Operations Plans 

Hunter Valley Operations (North 

Pit) 

West Pit 

Hunter Valley Operations South 

(Including Cheshunt Pit, Riverview 

Pit, Lemington South Pit No.1 & 

Lemington Coal Preparation Plant) 

Carrington 

Newdell CPP 

Tailings Emplacement Areas 

Accepted March 1995 

Amended April 2001 

Accepted November 2003 

Approved February 1998 

Amended June 2003 

Amended October 2005 

Approved December 2005 

Accepted October 2009 

Approved 

Accepted November 2000 

Amended October 2006 

Accepted December 2006 

Extension Approved 2009 

Accepted September 2002 

Amended November 2004 

Expires 2010 

Expires 2012 

Expires 2015 

Expires 2010 

Delayed submission approved 

by DII 

Eastern Slurry Dam 12 October 1994 N/A 

Centre Tailings Dam 17 April 1998 N/A 

South East Tailings Dam 5 October 2001 N/A 

Bobs Dump Tailings Dam 21 November 2001 N/A 

North Pit Tailings Storage Facility 13 June 2003 N/A 

Lemington Number 5 23 December 2003 N/A 

Bobs Dump Stage 2 23 December 2003 N/A 



1.2.2 Compliance Audits 

One environmental compliance audit was undertaken at HVO during 2009. AECOM undertook the 

environmental compliance audit on the West Pit consent (DA 450-10-2003) and associated licences and 

plans during July 2009, the audit included a site visit between 21 – 22 July 2009 and a documentation review 

that was undertaken from July – August 2009. The final compliance audit report was completed and 

submitted to the Director-General in December 2009, in accordance with condition 6 of schedule 6 of the 

West Pit consent (DA 450-10-2003). 

The compliance details of HVO’s development consent conditions (inclusive of the West Pit consent) are 

outlined in Appendix 16. 

1.2.3 Amendments over the Reporting Period 

Mining Leases 

Mining Lease 1634 was granted on 31 July 2009. This mining lease will replace several existing mining 

tenements that currently apply to HVO South associated with the HVO South Coal Project. 

Development Consents 

Hunter Valley Operations – South Coal Project 

On 24 March 2009 Department of Planning approved the Hunter Valley Operations – South Coal Project (PA 

06_0261). The approval consolidated a large number of consents associated with HVO located south of the 

Hunter River, and included approval for the additional activities outlined below: 

An extension of mining operations at the Riverview, Cheshunt and South Lemington Pits (and, 

subsequently, extensions to the approved disturbance area); 

 

 

 

Mining up to 16 million tonnes per year by dragline and truck and shovel operations; 

The full integration of operations at HVO South through new activities, upgrades and modifications to 

existing approved operations; and 

The granting of a project approval to replace all existing consents. 

All previous consents associated with HVO south of the Hunter River are due to be surrendered on the 24 

March 2009, as per Condition 10 of the project approval (PA 06_0261). 

Hunter Valley Operations – South Coal Project – Modification 1 – Raising Lake James 

On 17 December 2009 Department of Planning approved a section 75W modification to the HVO – South 

Coal Project (PA 06_0261). The approved modification comprised of three key components which included: 

 

 

 

The amendment of HVO South Approval boundary to incorporate the entire footprint of Lake James and 

associated infrastructure; 

An increase in the storage capacity of Lake James from 330 Mega Litres (ML) to 730ML; and 

An increase in the currently permitted maximum discharge rate from the currently approved 120ML/day to 

200ML/day. 

Other Approvals 


The HVO Environment Protection Licence (EPL 640) Annual Return was completed and sent to the DECCW 

in May 2009. Six non-compliances occurred during the reporting period (1 April 2008 – 31 March 2009). Two 

non-compliances were associated with minor reporting errors. Four non-compliances were associated with 

mine water discharges. Three of the four events involved submitting incident reports at the time of the 

discharge events. A copy of the Annual Return is provided in Appendix 15. 



Water Licences 

A review of water licences was undertaken during 2009, with renewals completed and new or modified 

licences issued for bores and water access licences located across HVO North and South. HVO has a total of 

eighty six various water licences which cover both the north and south sites. Table 3 in Section 1.2.1 lists 

current water licences. 

Cultural Heritage Approvals 

On 11 June 2009 the DECCW approved section 90 (s90) permit #1102084, for the Riverview Pit Salvage at 

HVO. The salvage was undertaken between the 6 and 7 August 2009. The report “Hunter Valley Operations: 

South Riverview AHIP s90 # 1102084 Indigenous Archaeological Results” prepared by McCardle (August 

2009) was submitted to the DECCW in August 2009. The permit is now complete as the report was submitted 

to the DECCW. 

During 2009, the DECCW also approved an extension of four years to Coal & Allied Aboriginal Objects Care 

and Control Permit - Permit # 2863, this permit consolidated all of Coal & Allied’s past Care and Control 

Permits for artefacts collected under past section 87 (s87) and s90 permits. The Care and Control Permit is 

associated with Coal & Allied Cultural Heritage Storage Facility located at Hunter Valley Services office. The 

site is utilised for the safe storage of all cultural heritage materials salvaged under s90 and s87 permits as 

authorised under National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The permit approval has now been extended to 16 

January 2013. 

Temporary Road Closure Licence 

The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) and SSC approved a Road Occupancy Licence (application # 2032C) 

to HVO for the temporary road closures on the Golden Highway between Lemington Road and Comleroi 

Road Lemington/Warkworth associated with blasting. The licence was approved from 1 January 2009 to 31 

December 2009. Subsequently HVO has received approval through to June 2010. 

Carrington Barrier Wall 

As part of the Carrington Southern Extension development consent condition 22A, HVO is required to 

construct a groundwater barrier wall within 2 years of commencing mining in the Carrington Southern Pit 

Extension. Due to unavoidable delays from bad weather HVO applied to the DoP for an extension to this time 

limit until 31 March 2010. The extension was granted in September 2009 to allow construction of the Barrier. 

1.2.4 Proposed Developments 

Hunter Valley Operations West Pit Modification – Carrington West Wing 

HVO are seeking to modify DA 450-10-2003 to extend the Carrington pit into what is known as the Carrington 

West Wing. The extension will allow for the extraction of approximately 17 million tonnes of in-situ coal. The 

proposed extension will have a life of approximately six years. Mining will be completed within the existing 

development consent period, which is currently approved to 2025. Specialist technical studies are currently 

being undertaken and an environmental assessment to support an application to modify the consent under 

section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is being prepared. The application is 

expected to be lodged early in the second quarter of 2010. 



1.3 MINE CONTACTS 

Site personnel responsible for mining, rehabilitation and environmental management at HVO are: 

Graham Gageler 

Paul Ernst 

Mark Currie 

Neil Smith 

Alastair Mathias 

Maria Zappela 

Graham Holland 

General Manager HVO 

Manager Mining 

Manager Coal Preparation Plants 

Manager Maintenance 

Manager Mine Planning 

Manager Performance Improvement 

Manager Human Resources 

During the reporting period, planning and support functions in environmental management were provided by: 

Rory Gordon 

Rod Cameron 

Anthony Russo 

Carmen Dyer 

Ann Perkins 

Bill Baxter 

Andrew Speechly 

Glenn Cook 

Jessica Blair 

Mark Nolan 

Joanna Greenlees 

Trudie MacDonnell 

Sarah Poynton 

General Manager Health, Safety and Environment 

Manager – Environmental Services 

Principal Advisor – Project Approvals 

Acting Environmental Systems Specialist 

Environmental Specialist 

Environmental Specialist Rehabilitation 

Environmental Specialist Operations 

Environmental Site Coordinator – HVO 

Environmental Officer 

Project Approvals Specialist 

Environmental Systems Officer 

Environmental Coordinator Project Approvals (HVO) 

Environmental Graduate 

The Coal & Allied Environmental Services organisation chart for 2009 is outlined in Figure 3. 

Contact details for the current General Manager and Environmental Manager at HVO are: 

Graham Gageler 

Rod Cameron 

General Manager HVO 

Phone: 02 6570 0228 

Email: Graham.Gageler@rtca.riotinto.com.au 

Manager Environmental Services 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia 

Phone: 07 3361 4290 

Email: Rod.Cameron@rtca.riotinto.com.au 



General Manager 

Health, Safety & Environment 

Rory Gordon 

Manager 

Environmental Services 

Rod Cameron 

Principal Advisor 

Project Approvals 

Anthony Russo 

Senior 


Specialist 

Ann Perkins 


Specialist 

Rehabilitation 

Bill Baxter 


Graduate 

Sarah Poynton 


Specialist 

Mark Nolan 


Specialist 

Systems 

Carmen Dyer 

(Acting) 


Systems Officer 


Specialist 

Operations 

Andrew Speechly 


Coordinator 

MTW 


Coordinator 

HVO 

Glenn Cook 


Coordinator – 


(HVO) 

Trudie MacDonnell 

Joanna Greenlees 

Scott Mitchell/ 

Jessica Blair 

(Acting) 

Figure 3: Coal & Allied Environmental Services Organisation Chart for 2009 

1.4 ACTIONS REQUIRED AFTER REVIEW OF 2008 AEMR 

Greg Summerhayes (Principal Environmental Officer) from DII conducted an annual environmental inspection 

at HVO on 14 July 2009. The purpose of the inspection was to review compliance with environmental 

requirements of relevant approval instruments including the ML, MOP and AEMR. Following the DII review of 

the 2008 AEMR (Appendix 18) there where a number of specific issues to be addressed by HVO for the 2009 

AEMR. These are outlined in Table 6. 

No correspondence was received from the DoP in regards to the 2008 AEMR. 



Table 6: Actions Required After Annual Environmental Inspection 

Issue Action Required Due Coal & Allied Action 

DII 

1 HVO South 

consolidated 

consent 

Consolidation will replace many previous approvals in Table 1. The 

consolidated consent conditions are to be recorded as annexure to the next 

AEMR. 

Next 

AEMR 

See Appendix 16. 

2 Hydrocarbon 

containment and 

contamination 

management 

Management initiatives are acknowledged: 

New double skin tanks installed in pit; 

Register, recording of contaminated sites and clean up; and 

Hydrocarbon bioremediation farm site inspected. 

Records and test results are to be maintained for Mine Closure Plan 

assurance. 

Ongoing See section 3.17 

Hydrocarbon 

Contamination. 

See section 5.4.5 

Decommissioning Closure 

Plans and Schedules. 

3 HVO MOP status MOP’s are due to expire in 2009/2010. A consolidated South MOP 

(Lemington, Cheshunt, and Riverview) is to be drafted for DII review in 

quarter 3. 

A separate Newdell MOP is to be drafted for DII review in quarter 4. 

A consolidated Hunter Valley – Carrington MOP (including North Pit Tailings 

Strategy, and Carrington Final Void Management Plan) is to be drafted for DII 

review in quarter 4 2010. 

Q3 2009 

through 

Q1 2010 

South MOP Pending 

Approval. 

Newdell MOP submission 

delay approved by DII. 

Newdell is not an active 

mine and therefore MOP 

is not of high importance. 

Carrington MOP valid until 

March 2010. 



Issue Action Required Due Coal & Allied Action 

DII 

4 Rehabilitation 

Initiatives 

DII acknowledges a rehabilitation shortfall in 2008/2009 against MOP 

commitments due to changed mining at Carrington and South mines. This is 

to be addressed in new MOP’s – see 3 above. Notwithstanding, this shortfall 

is in part offset by other rehabilitation programme initiatives in the AEMR: 

2010 New HVO South MOP 

outlines that rehabilitation 

will overtake disturbance 

in the future. 

Maintenance, weed management, aerial fertiliser/seeding in 2009; 

Native Seed Strategy, revegetation monitoring, native seed collection & 

application; 

Red Gum remnant protection and research; and 

Capping and rehabilitation of available tailings emplacements (Howick, 

Lemington, Western). 

Total disturbed area will 

decrease from 1559.7ha 

at the start of the MOP to 

1069.5ha at the end of the 

MOP. 

Rehabilitated area will 

increase from 588.4ha at 

the start of the MOP to 

1309.5ha at the end of the 

MOP. 

5 Lemington South pit 

status 

Inspection of Lemington South Pit indicates; 

Maintenance requirements of rehabilitated areas – weed infestation, 

erosion (S5.4.4); and 

Revegetation - while some revegetation of unshaped emplacement areas 

is naturally occurring, a further strategy of temporary seeding of disturbed 

areas is required to stabilise for dust control. 

By spring 


Inspection by HVO 

Environmental and 

Rehabilitation Specialists 

found the area to be 

crusty and producing little 

dust. 

As such it was determined 

that disruption to the area 

to attempt seeding would 

encourage production of 

dust. 

The area will continue to 

be monitored in the 

Annual Rehabilitation 

Audit and any 

maintenance and seeding 

will be undertaken when 

deemed necessary. 



2 OPERATIONS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD 

2.1 EXPLORATION AND RESOURCE UTILISATION 

Resource utilisation at HVO is outlined below: 

 

West Pit has an average stripping ratio of 5.5:1. This pit includes the Broonies seam down to the Barrett 

seam; 

Carrington Pit has an average stripping ratio of 3.5:1. This pit includes the Broonies, Bayswater, 

Piercefield and Vaux seams; 

 

 

Riverview Pit has an average stripping ratio of 6:1. This pit includes the Glen Munro, Woodlands Hill, 

Arrowfield and Bowfield seams; and 

Cheshunt Pit has an average stripping ratio of 4:1. This pit includes the Warkworth, Mt Arthur, Piercefield 

and Vaux seams. 

2.1.1 Current Exploration 

During the reporting period, pre-production and exploration drilling was conducted at HVO as part of a 

continuing regime to update and refine the geological models with new structural and coal quality data within 

the existing mining lease. 

A total of 75 open holes, 12 core holes and eight shallow piezometer holes were drilled in 2009 forming a total 

of 14,036 metres of open-hole drilling and 1,799 metres of cored-hole drilling. All open holes have been 

geophysically logged, with three of the cored holes unable to be geophysically logged to date due to seam 

gas exiting the bore holes. This will be completed once the area is safe. Exploration sites have been 

progressively rehabilitated in accordance with DII guidelines when equipment has become available. 

Four separate exploration drilling campaigns were undertaken in 2009. Initially the focus for drilling was on 

completing the West and Wilton Pits drilling programme within CML0004, ML1406 and ML1560, which 

commenced in 2008. This drilling was focused on the enhancement of the resource classification of West and 

Wilton Pits. 

In addition a campaign was conducted in the Riverview West region within ML1634, CL398 and ML1489. 

These holes were drilled to support resource knowledge for the new dragline boxcut by investigating the 

potential for intrusions and faulting in the area. In total 27 holes were drilled consisting of 26 open holes and 

one cored hole. Drill targets were formed from a ground magnetic survey, targeting potential dykes and sills in 

the area. The drilling programme did not find any significant dykes or sills. This campaign will be extended in 

2010, moving southward in a grid pattern to continue the investigation for possible intrusions affecting the coal 

resource. 

A groundwater campaign consisting of 12 holes was conducted on Auth435 and EL5418 during 2009. These 

holes were drilled as part of a wider groundwater study targeted at developing a more comprehensive 

understanding of the permeability of the alluvium across this area. 

Nine of the piezometers were constructed using 65mm diameter CL12 pressure pipe with full slotting over the 

alluvium, with gravel packing back to the surface from the base of the alluvium. Two of the remaining holes 

had 31mm CL18 piezometers installed, set 20m below the base of the alluvium and capped back with one 

metre gravel pack, then a 3/8 hole plug to the base of the alluvium (for water level dipping to assess pore 

pressures). Hole 4039C was equipped with pore pressure transducers (vibrating wire line piezometer) in the 

coal measures, instead of the standard standpipe piezometer arrangement. 

The final drilling campaign for the year focused on the Cheshunt pit area within ML1634. Seven holes in total 

were drilled, with three open holes and four fully cored holes. One of these cored holes was not completed in 

2009 and will carry over into the 2010 exploration period. 



2.1.2 Reserve/Resource Status 

The in situ mining reserves at HVO (including approved and proposed mining areas) as at 31 December 2008 

are 484.1 million tonnes of coal with additional coal resources of 1,331 million tonnes. The 2009 resource 

status was not available at time of printing. 

2.1.3 Estimated Mine Life 

The following life expectancies of each mine pit are based on current approved rates of production: 

West Pit is expected to produce coal beyond 2021; 

North Pit ceased mining operations as of the second quarter 2003 and the final void will accept tailings 

until 2020. Rehabilitation of the area between the tailings dam and the North Pit Levee was completed in 

2008, with rehabilitation of the tailings dam to follow the cessation of tailings emplacement; 

Carrington Pit reserves extending south and east will allow continued production to 2012; 

 

Riverview Pit and the Cheshunt development are planned as a combined operation, reserves are 

conservatively estimated to last until at least 2021; and 

South Lemington reserves are expected to take 12 months to two years to mine when mining 

recommences. 

2.2 LAND PREPARATION 

All land disturbance occurs in accordance with the Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 5.1 

Disturbance and Rehabilitation. This procedure ensures that all topsoil is correctly stripped, handled, 

stockpiled and re-used. In addition to this, the procedure details the requirements for progressive 

rehabilitation in compliance with DII. 

Environmental Procedure 5.1 details the steps to be followed when undertaking the following activities: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soil stockpiling and maintenance of soil stockpiles; 

Spoil dumping; 

Surface preparation; 

Soil re-spreading and ploughing; 

Drainage works; 

Revegetation; 

Maintenance; 

Weed control; 

Erosion control; 

Dust control; and 

Monitoring and reporting. 

Prior to vegetation removal and topsoil stripping, a Ground Disturbance Permit (GDP) must be obtained from 

the Environmental Services department, in accordance with Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 13.3 

Ground Disturbance Permit. The GDP process involves an inspection of the site by the Environmental 

Coordinator to identify any potential environmental issues such as (but not limited to) cultural heritage sites, 

drainage issues, threatened species (flora and fauna), and the identification of any seed or timber resources 

that may be salvaged. The proposed disturbance area is pegged and clearly marked by the Mine Surveyor or 

Projects Department prior to any work commencing. Details of the GDP Programme in 2009 are outlined in 

Section 3.7.2. 



2.2.1 Vegetation Clearing 

All cleared timber suitable for re-use as milling timber, fencing material or habitat reinstatement is 

appropriately pushed up and cut as part of the timber removal and soil-stripping process. Prior to being used 

for mining the vast majority of the site is selectively logged for use as fencing products. Additional unusable 

timber is mulched for use on rehabilitation areas in order to retain moisture and nutrients and encourage seed 

growth. While other remaining vegetative material is cut to size and either stored or relocated to rehabilitation 

areas to provide habitat for fauna in accordance with Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 10.2 Fauna 

and Flora. 

Other remaining vegetative material which is unable to be used is cut to size and heaped, then pushed onto 

the blasted ground and buried in the truck spoil. Vegetation removal ahead of mining is typically kept to within 

two mining strips of the high wall, with provision for infrastructure and an access road located along the edge 

of the strip area. 

At HVO, native tree and shrub seed is harvested from areas within the mine lease and areas designated to be 

cleared. During 2009 a Seed Strategy was developed for HVO and MTW to enhance species diversity and 

creation of habitat on the areas of post-mining rehabilitation. There were two main components to developing 

the Strategy: Part 1 – Review of the species mix to align with pre-mining communities and improve diversity 

(particularly of understorey species); and Part 2 – Formalise the procedures for collecting and storing local 

provenance native seed. The strategy will assist CNA to improve future native vegetation seed collection and 

rehabilitation programmes. 

2.2.2 Topsoil Management 

Topsoil stripping and vegetation salvage is carried out in accordance with the relevant HVO MOP and Coal & 

Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 5.1 Disturbance and Rehabilitation prior to the commencement of drill 

and blast preparation. The depth of useful soil is identified on the topsoil stripping plan on a site-specific 

basis, owing to the high variability in topsoil quality and depth. Topsoil is then used directly on new 

rehabilitation areas wherever possible or stockpiled for re-use at various strategic locations around the mine 

site and surveyed. The topsoil stockpiles and volumes are maintained by the Coal & Allied Environmental 

Specialist Rehabilitation, as per the Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 5.1 Disturbance and 

Rehabilitation. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION 

The only additions or alterations to buildings or facilities during the 2009 reporting period were modifications 

and additions to the Lemington Facilities. 

2.4 MINING 

HVO is organised into six mining zones; West, North, and Carrington Pits to the north of the Hunter River and 

Riverview, Cheshunt and Lemington South Pits to the south of the Hunter River. The area to be mined is 

geologically modelled, a plan is formed and the relevant mining locations are surveyed. 

The area immediately preceding the active mining zone is stripped of topsoil, which is stockpiled for future 

rehabilitation purposes or placed directly onto shaped areas where available. 

To improve efficiency, overburden removal above the first seam and each subsequent layer of interburden is 

drilled and blasted or ripped. Shovels, excavators and loaders remove the overburden/interburden, which is 

transported by truck to be placed in previously worked areas of the mine. In addition to truck transportation, 

draglines relocate large quantities of overburden/interburden within the pit. The top of each of the coal seams 

is cleaned and prepared, then blasted or ripped and finally loaded by front-end loaders into haulage trucks. 

Raw coal is transported to the Coal Preparation Plants (CPP) including the Hunter Valley CPP and Howick 

CPP. The Newdell CPP is currently used only as a loading facility, whilst operations at the Lemington CPP 

are currently suspended. The product coal is directly loaded at the Newdell or Hunter Valley Load Point 

(HVLP) and railed to the Port of Newcastle for export. The coarse reject coal from the washing process is 

trucked back into the active spoil emplacement areas for co-disposal with overburden. 



2.4.1 Changes during the Reporting Period 

No changes were made to the mining method during the reporting period. Mining progress deviated slightly 

from the schedule of the MOP’s as a result of normal variations in productivity and utilisation. 

2.4.2 Mining Equipment 

All plant and vehicles will be maintained according to manufacturer's specification and all repairs conducted 

promptly to ensure that equipment remains in a sound operating condition. The mining equipment fleet 

employed to carry out mining operations at HVO is detailed in Table 7. 

Table 7: HVO Mining Equipment Used in 2009 

Equipment Type Number Used in 2009 

Scrapers 1 

Drills 8 

Draglines 2 

Shovels 6 

Excavators 2 

Trucks 62 

Loaders 9 

Service Trucks 5 

Track Dozers 23 

Rubber Tyre Dozers 5 

Graders 8 

Water Trucks 8 

Floats 1 

Cable Reeler 1 

Cable Tractors 5 

Backhoe Excavators 4 

Total 150 

2.5 MINERAL PROCESSING 

ROM coal is transported from the pit area to the receival areas and dump hoppers via internal coal haulage 

roads. Prior to the coal entering the CPP, rotary breakers are used to ensure that entering coal is below the 

maximum size allowable for processing in the CPP. Coal is subsequently stored in various surge bins before 

being transported to the CPP via conveyor belt for processing. 

After processing at the HVCPP, the coal is transferred from the processing plant to the HVLP by a seven and 

a half kilometre overland conveyor. 



Large material that is rejected by the process is known as coarse coal rejects. Once the coarse rejects have 

been separated, they are disposed of in pit areas. Fine reject material or tailings, are placed in a tailings dam 

which is located in a pit area. Disposal of reject material for each pit is limited according to the MOP in place 

for that pit. 

2.5.1 Product and Market 

Product coals include low-ash, semi-soft and steaming coals. During 2009, total product coal increased on 

2008 figures (see Table 8). 

Table 8: Total Product Coal at HVO in 2009 

Product Coal 2009 (Mt) 2008 (Mt) 2007 (Mt) 2006 (Mt) 

Hunter Valley CPP 10.01 10.50 9.66 10.48 

Howick CPP 1.16 0.25 0.43 1.54 

Lemington CPP NIL NIL NIL NIL 

Total HVO Product Coal 11.17 10.75 10.09 12.02 

There were nine product destination markets for Coal & Allied operations during 2009, including the 

Australian domestic market (presented in Figure 4). Japan received the largest volume of product, 46.4 per 

cent, followed by the traders market with 22.5 per cent. 

0.2% 

2.9% 

0.9% 

Australia 

22.5% 

China 

Italy 

Japan 

Korea 

9.0% 

46.4% 

Other 

Taiwan 

Thailand 

6.5% 

Traders 

0.9% 

10.6% 

Figure 4: Coal & Allied Product Coal Destinations 2009 



2.5.2 Production and Waste Summary 

A summary of production and waste at HVO during 2009 in comparison to previous years is provided in Table 

9. 

Table 9: Production and Waste Summary for HVO 2009 

Reporting 

Period 2009 


Period 2008 


Period 2007 


Period 2006 

Topsoil Stripped (ha) 272.50 112.40 105.00 149.00 

Topsoil Used/Spread (ha) 86.00 116.20 109.00 95.00 

Prime Waste (Mbcm) 71.40 73.59 72.36 78.34 

ROM (Mt) 14.99 14.40 13.31 15.35 

Processing Waste (Mt) 3.82 3.83 3.36 3.45 

Product (Mt) 11.17 10.75 10.09 12.02 

2.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT 

2.6.1 Hydrocarbon Disposal 

In 2009 HVO used most of its waste oil (552 tonnes) in blasting as a replacement for diesel. The remainder 

(146 tonnes) was taken offsite to be refined into a base oil for reuse in new oil products. Other hydrocarbons 

recycled via a licensed waste hydrocarbon disposal company include approximately 410 tonnes of oil, 54 

tonnes of grease and 54 tonnes of coolant. 

2.6.2 Sewage Treatment/Disposal 

The sewage treatment and disposal facilities at Coal & Allied’s operations consist of packaged sewage 

treatment plants which treat, disinfect and re-use the treated effluent on-site. The remaining effluent from 

some septic systems that can’t be treated on site is sent to approved facilities for disposal. 

HVO currently has 19 on-site sewerage management systems, of which six are located in pit, a further six are 

associated with CPP’s and the remaining seven systems are located at infrastructure associated with mining 

and administration. Two of the nineteen systems are large scale systems that service up to four sub systems. 

2.6.3 Non Hazardous Wastes 

The management of waste generated on the site is undertaken in accordance with Coal & Allied’s Total 

Waste Management System (TWMS), local ordinances and within existing regulatory guidelines. Waste 

rubbish not suitable for recycling is disposed of at the SSC’s Garbage Depot. HVO only uses waste 

management firms licensed by the DECCW. 

Figure 5 shows a schematic of the Thiess Materials Recycling Facility at Thornton where HVO’s co-mingled 

waste is sorted for recycling. 



HOW A ATERIALS ECYCLING ACILITY WORKS. 

Compute r Co ntro lle d 

We ig hbridg e 

Measures, monitors and tracks 

quantities of materials before 

and after processing. 

Weighbridge 

Pa per Wa ste 

Container 

Drop-off 

Area 

Glass Bunkers 

Wa ste 

Ve hicu la r 

Access 

OUT 

Recyclables are sorted 

into the following 

end products: 

Pa per 

Lo a d ing 

Conveyor 

Pa per 

Sorter 

Container 

Sorter 

Conveyor 

Ba ler 

Residue 

Takeaway 

Conveyor 

Pa per 

Drop-off 

Area 

Ve hicula r 

Access 

Bounce Adherence Separator 

Automatically separates paper 

and cardboard from the 100% 

co-mingled collection system. 

Newspaper 

Cardboard 

Mixed Pa per 

Liquid Paper Board 

PET 

HDPE 

PVC 

Steel Cans 

Aluminium Cans 

Ba le 

Storage 

Area 

Ve hicula r 

Access 

IN 

High Density Baler 

Bales all products. 

Air Cla ssifie r 

Automatically separates glass 

from plastic containers. 

Figure 5: Schematic of the Material Recycling Facility at Thornton 

Recycling Target 

HVO has maintained a focus on training and reinforcing the principles of a good TWMS across the site 

including recycling. HVO’s 2009 recycling statistics are provided in Figure 6. Only 13 per cent of non-mineral 

waste material generated at HVO was disposed to offsite landfill licensed facilities during 2009. To improve 

recycling, HVO set an internal recycling target of 85 per cent. Through the education of employees, regular 

inspections and the provision of the correct facilities a result of 87 per cent was achieved in 2009. 

Disposed 

13% 

Recycled 

87% 

Figure 6: Waste Statistics for HVO in 2009 



Waste Tracking 

The TWMS allows for the tracking of wastes by type, weight and costs. This information can be tracked back 

to the individual waste bin. The system is automated, however, the docketed system currently required for 

compliance is still maintained. Figure 7 depicts the waste statistics at HVO. This information is used by HVO 

personnel to identify areas of improvements and track performance against targets. 

1600 

Mass (tonnes) 

1200 

800 

400 

0 

Scrap Metal 

Effluent 

General Waste 

Oily Water 

Oil 

Timber / Demolition 

Comingled Waste 

Contaminated Grease 

Coolant 

Oil Filters 

Batteries 

Oily Rags 

Empty Oil Drums 

Air Filters 

Confidential Docs 

Paint 

Waste Stream 

Figure 7: 2009 HVO Waste Streams 

2007 2008 2009 

2.6.4 Processing Plant Residues/Rejects Management 

Coarse coal rejects from the CPP’s are sedimentary material with low coal content that is of no commercial or 

energy value. When the coarse coal reject is in contact with coal, it has similar properties to the overburden 

with moderately saline and alkaline properties. Due to the low coal content of the material it is not prone to 

spontaneous combustion. 

Handling and Disposal Procedures 

Coarse washery reject material is transported and dumped within the active pit and covered by a minimum of 

two metres of overburden (or as stipulated in the relevant pit’s MOP). The fine sedimentary tailings material is 

pumped into the in-pit disposal facilities located in HVO’s North Pit (void) and West Pit (Bobs Dump Tailings 

Dam). The Lemington Tailings Dam was not used over the reporting period. 

The site currently produces around 2.83 million tonnes of coarse washery rejects and 0.69 million tonnes of 

fine washery rejects per annum. Currently, rejects are also used for filling final voids in the North, West, and 

Riverview Pits to bring the landform up to approved levels. 

2.6.5 Monitoring and Maintenance of Tailings Containment Facilities 

Visual inspection of the North Void and Bobs Dump Tailings Dams and associated pipelines are carried out 

daily and weekly in accordance with procedures and maintenance manuals. The Lemington, Central and 

South East Tailings Dams are inspected monthly as no material was deposited into them in 2009. Bobs Dump 

Tailings Dam was an active facility during the last half of 2009. 

An engineering inspection/tailings dam audit of all tailings and major water storage facilities is carried out 

every two years. This was carried out in early 2009. An additional environmental inspection of the tailings 

dams is conducted on an annual basis. All active tailings containment facilities have a formal risk assessment 



and operation and maintenance manuals in place. Table 10 highlights the status of each tailings storage 

facility at HVO. Figure 8 shows the locations of tailings dams at HVO. 

Table 10: Tailings Storage Facilities 

Name Status Start Date Decommission 

Date 

Reshape 

Date 


Date 

Centre 

Tailings Dam 

South East 

Tailings Dam 

North Pit Void 

Tailings Dam 

Closed and drying 

in 2008 

Closed and drying 

in 2008 

Active. Expected 

life 15 years 

1992 2007 2012 2012 

1994 2004 2009 2012 

2004 2017 2022 2023 

Lemington 

Dam 5 

Suspended with 

Lemington CPP 

Not in 5 

year plan 

Not in 5 

year plan 

Not in 5 

year plan 

Not in 5 year 

plan 

Eastern 

Tailings Dam 

Rehabilitated 1981 

(approx) 

1997 

(approx) 

1998 1999 

Bobs Dump 

Tailings Dam 

Active for the last 

quarter 2008. 

2006 2009 Not in 5 

year plan 

Not in 5 year 

plan 

Western 

Tailings Dams 

60% capped in 

2008 

1981 

(approx) 

1997 

(approx) 

2007-2008 2009 

Howick 

Tailings Dam 

Inactive 1981 

(approx) 

1997 

(approx) 

2007-2008 2009-10 

Lemington 

Dam 4 

Lemington 

Tailings Dam 

3 

Lemington 

Tailings Dam 

2 

Lemington 

Tailings Dam 

1 

Capped in 2008 Unknown 2000 2006-2007 2010 

Capped in 2008 Unknown 2000 2006-2007 2010 

Rehabilitated Unknown 1994 1995 1996 

Rehabilitated Unknown 1984 1992 1993 



Figure 8: Location and Status of Tailings Dams at HVO 



2.7 ORE AND PRODUCT STOCKPILES 

2.7.1 Stockpile Capacity 

Each different CPP site has different storage facilities for processed (saleable) and unprocessed (ROM) coal. 

The capacity of each site is listed in Table 11. 

Table 11: Stockpile Capacities 

Location ROM (t) Saleable (t) 

Hunter Valley CPP 100,000 297,000 (HVLP) 

Howick CPP 15,000 30,000 

Lemington CPP (care & maintenance) 75,000 700,000 

Newdell CPP 0 600,000 

2.7.2 Changes or Additions to Process or Facilities during 2009 

The Lemington CPP has been inactive for the entire 2009 period. Howick CPP was operated during 2009 for 

the processing of coal from West Pit. Newdell CPP site is currently being used as a second loading facility. 

2.7.3 Changes in Product Transport 

Once the coal has been processed, it is then transported to one of the various loading points via conveyor 

belt or road. The coal from HVCPP is transported to the HVLP by means of overland conveyor with a total of 

10 million tonnes of coal moved by this method in 2009. A further 0.76 million tonnes of processed coal was 

moved from Howick CPP to Newdell Load Point for transport. HVO also has the capacity to transport coal by 

conveyor belt directly to a local power station. During 2009, 0.41 million tonnes of coal was handled by this 

method. During the year 0.35 million tonnes of coal was transported from HVLP to Newdell Load Point. 

Under the HVO DA 450-10-2003, Coal & Allied have been granted an exemption to Schedule 4 Condition 51, 

and are no longer required to wash the wheels of trucks entering public roads. 

After the coal has reached either HVLP or the Newdell Load Point, the bulk of it is transported to Newcastle 

by the rail network. During 2009, 10.80 million tonnes of coal was transported by this method. 

Currently, both HVCPP and Howick CPP are in operation, with coal processing facilities suspended at the 

Lemington CPP. During 2009 there was a total of 13.50 million tonnes of ROM coal processed by the HVCPP 

and 1.50 million tonnes by the Howick CPP. The HVCPP is in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

The Howick CPP operates 24 hours per day for five days a week. Table 12 outlines the details for product 

tonnes transported throughout the HVO site in 2009. 



Table 12: Coal Transported at HVO during 2009 

Category of Transport 

Quantity 

Coal transported from the site (million tonnes) via trains 10.80 

Coal received from HVO South of the Hunter River (million tonnes) 7.53 

Coal hauled by road to the Hunter Valley Load Point 

NIL 

Coal hauled by road to the Newdell Load Point (million tonnes) 1.11 

Coal hauled by road from the Newdell Load Point to the Ravensworth Coal Terminal 

Coal hauled by road from the Hunter Valley Load Point to the Ravensworth Coal 

Terminal 

NIL 

NIL 

Number of coal haulage truck movements (on site) generated by the development* 75,000 

This is assuming that the average payload per truck is 200 tonnes and does not account for contractor 

haulage. 

2.8 WATER MANAGEMENT 

The objective of the HVO Water Management Strategy is to manage all surface and sub-surface water so 

that: 

 

 

 

Fresh water usage is minimised; 

Impacts on the environment and HVO neighbours are minimised; and 

Interference to mining production is minimal. 

This is achieved by: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minimising freshwater use from the Hunter River; 

Preferentially using mine water for coal preparation and dust suppression; 

An emphasis on control of water quality and quantity at the source; 

Segregating waters of different quality where practical; 

Recycling on-site water; 

Ongoing maintenance and review of the system; and 

Disposing of water to the environment in accordance with statutes and regulations. 

2.8.1 Water Balance 

A 2009 static water balance for HVO is presented in Table 13 and a simplified schematic of this balance is 

included as Figure 9. The water balance is for a coal production rate of 15 million tonnes per year ROM and 

11.2 million tonnes per year of product. The elements of the static water balance most affected by climate 

show the largest variation year to year. Those elements of the water balance mainly affected by process show 

the least variation from year to year, and remain within a reasonably narrow and predictable band (eg the 

volume of water pumped in tails depends mainly on the tonnage of coal processed and the level of control of 

the tailings density). 

A salt flux schematic is shown in Figure 10. A comparison of the water balance with the 2004 West Pit EIS 

(Environmental Impact Statement) water balance prediction is presented in Appendix 9. 



Table 13: 2009 HVO Water Balance 

Water Stream 

Volume (ML) 

Inputs 

Fresh Water 26 

Groundwater 1251 

Rainfall Runoff 7,485 

Recycled to CHPP from Tails & Storage (not included in total) 3,786 

Imported (Liddell) 10 

Water from ROM Coal 1,196 

Total Inputs 9,969 

Outputs 

Dust Suppression 1,533 

Evaporation - Mine Water & Tailings Dams 2,034 

Entrained in Process Waste 1,812 

Discharged (HRSTS) 192 

Water in Tailings (not included in total) 3,339 

Water in Coarse Reject (not included in total) 544 

Water in Product Coal 1,100 

Total Outputs 6,672 

Change in Storage (increased) 3,297* 

* Estimated value using the OPSIM daily water balance model. The measured change in storage for 2009 

was an increase of 3,124ML, this compares to the OPSIM model result of 3,297ML, indicating good 

agreement between measured and estimated water balances. 



Groundwater 

1,251 ML (E) 

Coarse Reject 

544 ML (E) 

LEGEND 

Affected mainly by geometry eg depth, length and 

geology. 

Affected mainly by climate 

Rain 

7,485 ML (E) 

Tails 

3339 ML (E) 

Affected mainly by process eg production rate, 

moisture control 

Affected both by climate and process 

Evaporation 

2,034 ML (E) 

Recycled Tails 

1658 ML (E) 

Affected by geometry, geology and process 

(M) = Measured (E) = Estimated 

Dust 

Suppression 

1,533 ML (M) 

HRSTS 

Discharges 

192 ML (M) 

Open Cut Pits 

& Pit Storages 

Coal 

Processing 

Plants 

Internal 

Recycling 

460 ML (E) 

Product Coal 

(M) 

1,100 ML 

Lost to Tails 

and Spoil 

1,812 ML (E) 

Dewatering & Storage 

2,093 ML (E) 

Fresh 

26 ML (M) 

Storage 

3,297 ML (M) 

ROM Coal 

1,196 ML (E) 

External (Poor) 

10 ML (M) 

Figure 9: HVO Water Balance Schematic 



Groundwater 

6,451 t (E) 

Coarse Reject 

1,413 t (E) 

LEGEND 

Affected mainly by geometry eg depth, length and geology 

Affected mainly by climate 

Rain 

3,649 t (E) 

Tails 

8,680 t (E) 

Affected mainly by process eg production rate, moisture control 

Affected both by climate and process 

Affected by geometry, geology and process 

Evaporation 

0 t 

Recycled Tails 

4,850 t (E) 

(M) = Measured (E) = Estimated 

Dust 

Suppression 

3,986 t 

HRSTS 

Discharges 

499 t (M) 

Open Cut Pits 

& Pit Storages 

Coal 

Processing 

Plants 

Internal 

Recycling 

1,345 t (E) 

Product Coal (E) 

4,469 t (E) 

Lost to Tails 

and Spoil 

7,068 t (E) 

Dewater 

5,441 t (E) 

Fresh 

0 t (E) 

Storage 

8,793 t (E) 

ROM Coal 

9,716 t (E) 

External (Poor) 

30 t (E) 

Figure 10: HVO Salt Balance Schematic Diagram 



Water Inputs 

Water was supplied predominantly from three sources in 2009: 

Surplus mine water stored in pit; 

 

Intercepted runoff water; and 

Groundwater percolation into the open cut. 

A total of 564mm of rainfall was recorded at HVO in 2009 producing an estimated 7,485ML of runoff from 

approximately 4,500ha of developed, disturbed and mining catchments. Water falling on undisturbed clean 

water catchments is diverted off site into natural systems where possible. Rainfall runoff was the largest input 

to the site mine water balance in 2009. 

Groundwater contributed approximately 1,251ML to the site water supply. 

Independent groundwater Modelling of the pits which comprise HVO indicate a portion of total groundwater is 

contributed from connected Hunter River alluviums. Table 14 lists the Modelled amounts of water entering the 

pit and the reference from which the number is generated. 

Alluvial groundwater intercepted in North Pit was measured based on pump out rates during active mining in 

this area. Since that time the pit has been back filled with spoil and the water level has risen to the base of the 

barrier wall, hence seepage from the river alluvium will have reduced significantly. The seepage figure 

provided is considered an overestimate. No Modelling has been undertaken to determine seepage rates with 

the current conditions in North Pit. 

Table 14: Modelled or Measured Groundwater Contribution from Connected Hunter River Alluvium 

Pit 

Alluvial Groundwater 

Intercepted (ML/Day) 

Source 

Reference 

Cheshunt 0.22 Hunter River MER 2005 

Barrys 0.22 Hunter River Coffey 2008 

North Pit 

(Alluvial lands) 

0.55 Hunter River Measured 

Carrington 0.07 Hunter River MER 2010 

Mackie Environmental Research (2005), Assessment of River Leakage Within the Cheshunt Pit Buffer Zone, 

Amended Report, April. 

Coffey Geotechnics (2008), Preliminary Groundwater Modelling Study, Cheshunt Pit, HVO South Coal 

Project, July. 

Mackie Environmental Research (2010), Carrington Extended- Review of Mining Related Impacts on the 

Paleochannel Groundwater System. 

Groundwater intercepted from connected surface alluviums is estimated to have contributed 387ML to the site 

during the reporting period. HVO has a high security licence entitlement for 2,685ML of water in Zone 1B of 

the Hunter River. Inflow from Hunter River alluvium is deducted from this entitlement. 

No fresh water was pumped from the Hunter River during the reporting period. Freshwater usage is expected 

to remain low in 2010 due to a large volume of stored mine water at the end of 2009. 

All water extracted from the Hunter River is recorded against Water Access Licences issued by NOW. Refer 

to Section 1.2.1 (Table 3) for details of these licences. 



Water Outputs 

The main consumption of water in 2009 was for dust suppression on haul roads, mining areas and coal 

stockpiles (1,533ML) and CPP circuit losses (2,912ML). Evaporation from water storages and tailings dams 

was estimated at 2,034ML in 2009. 

A total of 192ML of excess water was discharged off site during 2009 in accordance with the Hunter River 

Salinity Trading Scheme (HRSTS) and HVO’s EPL. Refer to Section 3.4.2 for further details. 

Water Storage and Transfer 

At the end of 2009 the overall volume of water stored at HVO had increased by 3,297ML. The primary storage 

for mine water is the North Pit Void. Storage in the North Pit Void increased by an estimated 989ML during 

2009. Use of water from the North Pit Void was limited in 2009 due to preferential use of water stored in pit. 

Water levels in the South Pit increased markedly over the year, accounting for about half the overall storage 

increase. Water levels in Riverview East Void (3,280ML) increased by 860ML. Riverview East Void was the 

primary dewatering destination from Cheshunt and Riverview mining pits in 2009. Water from Riverview East 

Void was transferred back to the Hunter Valley CHPP via Dam 9N, and to the new storage in the Barry Pit 

Void which increased to 180ML. The Riverview East Void storage will be replaced by the Barry Pit storage in 

2010 as the Cheshunt Pit moves south west. Water stored in the North and South Auger Pits, South 

Lemington and several other small South Pit voids increased by 650ML. 

Parnells Dam is the main water storage for West Pit. Water stored in Parnells Dam and West Pit increased by 

330ML over the reporting period. 

2.8.2 Improvements to Mine Water Management 

Improvements to mine water management in 2009 have focussed on improving mine water transfer, 

segregating clean and mining catchments and improvements to discharge points. This included: 

Implementation of clean water diversions for Carrington Pit and Riverview East Void; 

 

 

Constructing replacement storage for Riverview East Void in Barrys Pit; and 

Upgrade of discharge monitoring instrumentation at Parnells Dam and Dam 11N to improve operability 

and reduce risk of discharge non-compliance. 

2.8.3 Mine Water Management System 

The water management system is designed to contain all mine water arising from runoff within disturbed 

areas. Plans showing the layout of all water management structures and key pipelines are shown in Figure 11 

to Figure 13. 

West Pit 

West Pit mine water management structures (Figure 11) are based around Parnells Dam and the Emu Creek 

Dam (Dam 12W). Howick CPP, Industrial Area and Dams 2W to 6W contain process water. 

North Pit/Carrington 

North Pit mine water management structures (Figure 12) are Dams 9N, 11N, the South East Sump (21N) and 

the North Pit Tailings Dam (30N). Excess mine water from Carrington Pit is pumped into Dam 9N or to the 

South East Sump where it can be directed to the HVCPP, discharged or used for dust suppression. Water is 

recovered from the North Pit Tailings Dam via a surface pump. This water is pumped to Dam 9N or the South 

East Sump for use in the HVCPP or dust suppression. At the HVCPP and main Workshop, Dams 16N to 19N 

contain process water (a mixture of various water qualities) while Dam 15N is operated empty as an 

emergency storm buffer storage for overflows from Dam 16N and 19N. 

South Pit 

The Riverview East Void (Dam 20S) operates as a central mine water storage for the mining areas south of 

the Hunter River (Figure 13) receiving excess mine water from Cheshunt and Riverview Pits. This will be 

replaced by Barrys Void water storage in 2010 due to mining through Dam 20S. Water from Dam 20S is used 

for dust suppression or pumped to Dam 9N via the north south pipeline to supply the HVCPP. Water from 

Cheshunt and Riverview can also be pumped east to the Lake James (Dam 15S) discharge point. The East 



Open Cut Dam (Dam 16S) collects degraded water from large catchments containing the Lemington 

Workshop and two disused tailings dams. This water is pumped to Dam 20S or to Lake James so that Dam 

16S remains near empty, providing ARI 100 storm buffer to the Hunter River. 

Undisturbed catchment runoff and runoff from rehabilitated and some disturbed areas, continued to be 

diverted off site after settling out suspended solids in sediment dams. 

2.8.4 Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme 

During the report period, HVO discharged 192ML of water from its licensed discharge point at Lake James 

under the HRSTS. 

2.8.5 Flooding 

Two levee banks (North Pit Levees 2 & 3) have been constructed to protect the low lying areas of North Pit 

from river flooding. Both levees have been designed to be capable of withstanding a 1 in 185 year flood 

event. These levees also incorporate ground water “barrier cut off walls” to prevent seepage through the 

embankment during flood events. The groundwater barrier beneath the North Pit 2 Levee bank has performed 

within design criteria, and no excessive seepage through or below the barrier has been recorded by 

monitoring wells in the area over the 2009 reporting period. 

Carrington Levee 5 was installed in 2007 in accordance with approved conditions. This levee has been 

designed to be capable of withstanding a 1 in 185 year flood event to protect the low lying mining areas of 

Carrington Pit from river flooding. In accordance with conditions in the modified West Pit Development 

Consent (see section 1.2.3), the construction of a groundwater barrier wall commenced in 2009. 

Two levee banks are located at HVO south of the Hunter River, Hobden Gully and the Cheshunt Levee. Both 

are designed to be capable of withstanding a 1 in 185 year flood event and protect the low lying mining areas 

of Cheshunt and Riverview Pit from inundation following a flood event. 

All the levees have current Controlled Works Approvals issued by NOW under Part 8 of the Water Act 1912. 

Refer to Section 1.2.1 for details of these approvals. 

Figure 14 indicates the status of levee banks at HVO. 



Figure 11: HVO West Pit Water Management Structures 



Figure 12: HVO North Pit Water Management Structures 



Figure 13: HVO South Pit Water Management Structure 



Figure 14: Location and Status of Levee Banks at HVO 



2.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT 

2.9.1 Status of Licences 

Current licences exist for the storage of dangerous goods and explosive materials at HVO. These are listed in 

Table 2. 

2.9.2 Inventory of Material Management 

Inventories of hazardous materials and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are available through the Store’s 

system and the Occupational Health and Safety Department. HVO manages hazardous materials through the 

Chem-Alert system whereby all chemicals used on site are registered in a central database. This database 

contains all information contained in the MSDS and can be accessed at any computer terminal within the 

operation to provide guidance on storage, use and disposal. 

In addition to the Chem-Alert system, HVO aims to reduce the number of hazardous chemicals used on site, 

which restricts the materials to those essential to the operation. A chemical approvals system is utilised at 

HVO to assess all new chemicals being used on site. This is to ensure proper disposal and environmental 

management of hazardous materials, while also improving health and safety on site. 

2.9.3 Fuel Containment 

The HVO fuel storage systems are located at several sites across HVO including: 

Hunter Valley Store area at the main workshop facility; 

 

 

West Pit Workshop service area; 

Cheshunt Workshop area; and 

Lemington Workshop. 

HVO also has three in pit fuel tanker locations. Each of these facilities is fully bunded to contain the capacity 

of the fuel being stored. Existing in pit fuel tankers were replaced with new double skin tanks during 2009 to 

improve containment of fuel on site. 

2.9.4 Oil and Grease Containment and Disposal 

Bulk oil and grease is stored at the Hunter Valley Store. The bulk oils and grease storage facilities are part of 

the fuel storage facility that complies with Australian Standard AS 1940. 



2.10 OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT 

During the reporting period there were no new activities relating to infrastructure. 

The following is a list of the existing HVO facilities: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hunter Valley Load Point – used as the main rail loading point; 

Howick Coal Preparation Plant – used to wash and supply export and domestic coal (only utilised for the 

last half of 2009); 

Newdell Coal Preparation Plant – used to load export coal; 

West Pit Workshop – used as heavy parts storage for shovel and dragline parts and equipment, and also 

for contractor machinery maintenance; 

West Pit Office Complex – 50 per cent mothballed, remainder used for frontline management for West Pit, 

as a medical centre and also as a training centre; 

West Pit Training Facility – used for in-house training and meetings; 

West Pit Bathhouse – 60 per cent mothballed, remainder used by West Pit operators; 

Hunter Valley Services Office – Hunter Valley Services division of Rio Tinto Coal Australia; 

Hunter Valley Mine Administration Office – used as the operating office for HVO mine staff, employees 

and contractors north of the Hunter River; 

Hunter Valley Workshop – workshop used to maintain equipment on site; 

Hunter Valley Coal Preparation Plant (HVCPP) – used to process the bulk of coal within HVO; 

Cheshunt Mine Office – used as the operating office for HVO mine staff and employees and contractors 

south of the Hunter River. Vacated in October 2009 to be dismantled in 2010; 

Cheshunt Workshop – currently not in full capacity use. Operates as a mid to long-term shutdown and 

rebuild maintenance facility; 

Lemington Coal Preparation Plant – operation was mothballed; 

Lemington Office and Bathhouse Complex – Fully reactivate. Now used as the operating office for HVO 

mine staff, employees and contractors south of the Hunter River; and 

Lemington Workshop – used by the ‘Heavy Maintenance Crew’ primarily with other maintenance 

scheduled as required. 



3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE 

The Environmental Impacts Risk Register was reviewed in 2009 to systematically identify all the activities 

related to the mine that could cause environmental harm. A risk ranking is applied to these impacts (Table 15). 

Risk are ranked using a four tier classification; low, moderate, high or critical. In 2009 HVO identified no 

critical environmental impacts on site. The implementation and effectiveness of control strategies is to manage 

these risks which are summarised in Table 15. 

Table 15: Summary of Environmental Impacts Risk Register 

Potential Impact 

Air Quality (dust, spontaneous combustion, greenhouse gases) 

Vibration and Air Blast Overpressure 

Visual Amenity, Stray Light 

Habitat Protection (vegetation clearing, feral animals and weed control) 

Water Use 

Land Contamination 

Operational Noise 

Surface Water Quality 

Soil Erosion/Soil Loss 

Cultural Heritage 

Groundwater Quality 

Risk Ranking 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Low 

3.1 METEOROLOGICAL 

3.1.1 Environmental Management 

The collection of meteorological data is carried out to assist in day to day operational decisions, planning, 

environmental management and to maintain an historic record. The meteorological (weather) stations record 

wind speed, wind direction, temperature, humidity, solar radiation and rainfall. The instruments are installed 

and calibrated according to the relevant Australian Standards (AS) 2923 (1987). 

Real time wind speed and direction is accessible to employees via the Coal & Allied intranet. This service 

provides the mining operations with the trend assessment details required to allow for informed operational 

decisions aimed at minimising impacts from the operation. HVO operates two real time weather stations; The 

HVO Corporate Meteorological Station and the Cheshunt Meteorological Station (refer to Figure 19). 

3.1.2 Environmental Performance 

Monthly records (January 2009 – December 2009) and an annual summary of weather data is presented in 

Appendix 5 and Figure 15 to Figure 18. These records include; total monthly rainfall and total cumulative 

rainfall, monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, maximum wind speeds, mean wind direction, relative 

humidity minimum and maximum, solar radiation maximum, quarterly and annual wind-roses. 

HVO operates two meteorological stations, Corporate and Cheshunt. The HVO Corporate meteorological 

station was struck by lightning in October 2009. Therefore the reported weather data for was collected from 

the Cheshunt station while the Corporate station was inoperational. 



Data capture for 2009 was 100 per cent with the exception of rainfall which captured 99.73 per cent. Missed 

data was due to equipment malfunction during 2009 as detailed in Appendix 5. Data has been reported using 

the Cheshunt East meteorological station where equipment failure occurred at HVO Corporate meteorological 

station (01/10/2009 to 12/10/2009 due to lighting strike), Solar radiation (04/03/2009 to 31/12/2009) and 

Rainfall (01/10/2009 to 31/12/2009) due to equipment failure. 

3.1.3 Rainfall 

Total rainfall for this reporting period was 564.4mm. Table 16 details the monthly breakdown for rainfall. A 

comparison on rainfall data for the last three years can be seen in Figure 15. There was approximately a three 

per cent decrease in annual rainfall in 2009 compared to 2008. 

Table 16: Rainfall Summary for 2009 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Monthly 

Rainfall 3.0 172.0 81.6 57.4 38.4 38.2 22.2 1.0 26.2 33.0 25.0 66.6 

2009 (mm) 

Cumulative 

Rainfall 3.0 175.0 256.6 314.0 352.4 390.6 412.8 413.8 440.0 473.0 498.0 564.6 

2009 (mm) 

Wet Days * 3 8 7 6 10 7 8 2 4 10 7 7 

Cumulative 

Wet Days * 

3 11 18 24 34 41 49 51 55 65 72 79 

*Note: Wet days are classified as days receiving rainfall greater than 0.2 mm. 

** Note: Some data for October, November and December sourced from the Cheshunt meteorological station 

due to a lightning strike on the Corporate Centre meteorological station. 

Hunter Valley Operations - monthly and cumulative rainfall 

2007-2009 

Monthly Rainfall (mm) 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 

Date 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Cumulative Rainfall 

(mm) 

Monthly Rainfall 2007 Monthly Rainfall 2008 Monthly Rainfall 2009 

Cumulative Rainfall 2007 Cumulative Rainfall 2008 Cumulative Rainfall 2009 

Figure 15: Rainfall Summary for 2007 to 2009 



Evaporation and Temperature 

Evaporation is not monitored at HVO weather stations. Maximum and minimum temperatures recorded at the 

HVO Corporate Meteorological Station for 2009 is represented in Figure 16. 

HVO Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for 2009 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

Temperature (Deg. C) 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Date 

Air Temperature Minimum (Degrees C) Air Temperature Maximum (Degrees C) 

Figure 16: Maximum and Minimum Temperatures for the 2009 Period 

Wind Speed and Direction 

During 2009 the wind direction at the HVO Corporate Meteorological Station (Figure 17) was predominantly 

from the south east quadrant (approximately 46 per cent of the time); with approximately 35 per cent of these 

winds from the east-south-east through to the south-south-east. West to west-north-westerlies blew for around 

31 per cent of the time. Wind speeds were strongest (>10m/s) from the west and west-north-west and to a 

lesser extent, east-south-east. 

Quarterly wind roses for the 2009 reporting period show the following wind direction trends (see Figure 18): 

 

 

 

January 2009 to March 2009 was dominated by east-south-easterlies and easterlies; 

April 2009 to June 2009 was dominated by westerlies, west-north-westerlies, east, south-easterlies and to 

a lesser extent south-easterlies; 

July 2009 to September 2009 was dominated by westerlies and west-north-westerlies; and 

October 2009 to December 2009 was dominated by south-south-easterlies and to a lesser extent 

southerlies and south-easterlies. 



Figure 17: 2009 Annual Wind Rose 

Figure 18: Quarterly Average Wind Roses for HVO in 2009 (Clockwise from top left; January to March, 

April to June, July to September, and October to December) 



3.2 AIR QUALITY 


The objective of air quality management at HVO is to control the generation of dust from the site in order to 

minimise concentrations of atmospheric particulates in the surrounding area, particularly at the nearest 

privately owned residences. This includes deposited dust, Total Suspended Particulate matter (TSP) and 

Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM 10 ). 

The HVO dust management programme aims to maintain dust (insoluble matter) deposition rates at adjoining 

residences below an annual average of 4.0g/m 2 /month. To monitor regional air quality, HVO operated and 

maintained a network of 10 depositional dust gauges on private land. Depositional dust was monitored 

monthly in accordance with AS 3580.10.1 (2003). These sites were analysed to determine the fallout rate of 

total mass, total insoluble matter, combustible matter and ash. 

The HVO air quality monitoring network is shown in Figure 19. 

Suspended particulate dust was measured in 2009 by a network of High Volume Air Samplers (HVAS). Seven 

of these were fitted with standard inlets to measure TSP and six were fitted with size-selective inlets to 

measure concentrations of PM 10 . A data share arrangement is in place for a TSP unit at Jerrys Plains School. 

In addition the network included six monitors to measure PM 10 concentrations in real time (refer to Appendix 7 

Real Time Air Quality Monitoring data). 

Each HVAS was run for 24 hours on a six-day cycle in accordance with DECCW requirements. When 

equipment malfunctioned eg power was interrupted, or problems occurred with filter papers etc, a make-up 

run was performed to ensure the required number of annual DECCW runs occurred. The HVAS machines 

were calibrated every two months. 

TSP monitors were sampled and analysed in accordance with AS 3580.9.3 (2003). The HVO dust 

management programme aimed to maintain total suspended solids below an annual average of 90μg/m 3 . No 

short term (24 hour) impact assessment criterion has been set for TSP concentrations. 

PM 10 monitors were sampled and analysed in accordance with AS 3580.9.6 (2003). The HVO dust 

management programme aimed to maintain particulate matter below the short term (24 hour) value of 

50μg/m 3 and an annual average of 30μg/m 3 . 

The dust monitoring network illustrated in Figure 19 provided site management with monitoring data to assist 

in the management of air quality. Detailed air quality monitoring results for the reporting period are presented 

in Appendix 6 and are discussed below. 

Dust is controlled and managed at HVO in accordance with Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 8.1 

Dust Management CHPP and Environmental Procedure 8.2 Dust Management – Mobile Equipment. The main 

method of dust suppression used on site is spraying mine water on active areas having the potential to create 

dust. Typical control procedures used at HVO were: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The use of water carts to deliver water to active mining areas, active spoil emplacement areas, coal 

stockpiles, haul roads and other areas that are subject to frequent vehicle movements; 

Dust control systems are maintained in good working order; 

Coal dump hoppers are fitted with automatically activated sprays that operate whenever trucks dump into 

the hoppers; 

Topsoil stripping is confined to periods when there is sufficient moisture contained in the soil to minimise 

dust generation, where practical; 

Correct operation of equipment to minimise dust generation; 

Mine spoil is rehabilitated as soon as practicable after mining to reduce exposed areas; 

Operations are restricted during windy and dry weather; and 

Conveyor covers (partially and fully enclosed). 



Figure 19: Ambient Air Monitoring Network at HVO in 2009 




Depositional Dust 

To monitor regional air quality, HVO operated and maintained a network of 10 depositional dust gauges on 

private land. Depositional dust was monitored monthly in accordance with AS 3580.10.1 (2003) – (Methods 

for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air – Determination of Particulates – Deposited Matter – Gravimetric 

Method). Sites were analysed for mass, total insoluble matter and ash. 

Annual Average Assessment 

Table 17 and Figure 20 show the average depositional dust results for 2009 compared with the depositional 

dust impact assessment criterion of 4g/m 2 /month (annual average for total insoluble solids). During 2009 all 

sites complied with the criteria. 

Depositional dust gauges located on Coal & Allied owned mining land provide additional information for the 

dust management at HVO. A dust isopleth (Figure 22) shows the average depositional dust results for 2009 at 

all gauges. 

An additional impact assessment criterion of a maximum increase of 2g/m 2 /month annual average for total 

insoluble solids applies to HVO depositional dust. The normal intention of this criterion is to limit the increase 

in dust deposition from the pre-mining situation to the levels that apply when mining has commenced. As 

there are no instruments available to distinguish the dust contributed by the mine compared with the dust from 

other sources, environmental performance against this condition cannot comprehensively be tested via the 

monitoring programme. Results indicated that this condition was complied with in 2009 (Figure 21). However, 

most sites reported an increase in dust levels from the previous results, with the exception of D118, DL14 and 

Warkworth School. This conceivably is the result of lower than average rainfall for 2009 compared with 2008. 

Data recovery for the 10 dust deposition gauges was 98 per cent. Two samples were unable to recover data 

due to broken dust deposition bottles. 

A number of the samples were contaminated by material or various activities that may have altered the results 

from a true reading of dust deposition. Contamination was assessed based on field observations, laboratory 

analysis, mine activities, historical data and wind patterns. Samples can include organic material such as bird 

droppings, insects and vegetation. Insoluble solids may have been from a localised non-mine source such as 

livestock or farm activities. Therefore, results may not be representative of mining’s contribution to dust 

deposition. High monthly results (ie >4g/m 2 /month) are summarised in 

Table 18. Depositional dust data is provided in Appendix 6. 



Dust Level g/m 2 /month 

4.5 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

Hunter Valley Operations 2007 to 2009 Annual Avergae Insoluble Matter 

D110 

D112 

D118 

D119 

Knodlers 

Lane 

DL2 

DL14 

Depositional Dust Monitoring Locations 

DL21 

DL22 

W ark worth 

School 

Insoluble Matter 2009 Insoluble Matter 2008 Insoluble Matter 2007 Long Term Impact Assessment Criteria 

Figure 20: Dust Depositional Annual Average 2007 to 2009 

Hunter Valley Operations Increase in Deposited Dust Levels 2008 to 2009 

Dust Level g/m 2 /month 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

-0.5 

-1.0 

D110 

D112 

D118 

D119 

Knodlers 

Lane 

DL2 

DL14 

Depositional Dust Monitoring Locations 

DL21 

DL22 

Warkworth 

School 

Insoluble Matter 2009 increase over 2008 

Maximum Increase Criteria 

Figure 21: Dust Depositional Annual Average Increase 2008 to 2009 



Table 17: Annual Average Insoluble Matter Deposition Rates at HVO Dust Gauges 2007 to 2009 

Gauge Number 

Annual Assessment 

Criterion (g/m2/month) 

Insoluble Matter (g/m2/month) 

2009 2008 2007 

D110 4.0 2.1 1.3 1.9 

D112 4.0 2.0 0.8 1.7 

D118 4.0 2.0 2.5 1.6 

D119 4.0 2.0 1.2 1.5 

Knodlers Lane 4.0 2.3 1.1 1.5 

DL2 4.0 2.5 1.6 1.6 

DL14 4.0 2.8 2.8 3.2 

DL21 4.0 2.8 1.5 1.4 

DL22 4.0 2.9 1.6 2.2 

Warkworth School 4.0 2.9 3.6* - 

*Warkworth School was commissioned in October 2008; consequently the 2008 average is based on 3 

months data only. 

Table 18: Selected High Results in 2009 

Gauge 

Number 

Month 

Insoluble Matter 

(g/m2/month) 

Comment from field sheet and/or laboratory 

analysis 

D110 

October 5.0 

November 4.3 

December 4.3 

High Total Insoluble Solids (TIS) result due to the 

effect of dust storms on the 23/09/2009. 

Sample was noted as contaminated containing 

insects. Additional lab analysis was undertaken. 

Sample was noted as contaminated by insects and 

vegetation/seeds. Additional lab analysis was 

undertaken. 

D112 October 6.8 

D118 October 4.8 





D119 

October 4.3 

December 6.2 





undertaken. 



Gauge 

Number 

Month 

Insoluble Matter 

(g/m2/month) 

Comment from field sheet and/or laboratory 

analysis 

Knodlers 

Lane 

October 5.1 

November 4.0 

December 4.3 




insects and vegetation. Additional lab analysis was 

undertaken. 

Sample was noted as contaminated by insects, bird 

droppings and vegetation/seeds. Additional lab 

analysis was undertaken. 

DL2 October 5.9 

May 4.0 




insects. Grazing and farming activity were also noted. 

Additional lab analysis was undertaken. 

DL14 

DL21 

DL22 

Warkworth 

School 

October 7.5 

December 4.2 

September 4.4 

October 9.1 

December 6.2 

October 8.1 

December 4.7 

October 5.2 

November 4.1 

December 5.1 




bird droppings. Additional lab analysis was 

undertaken. 


insects. Grazing activity was also noted. Additional 

lab analysis was undertaken. 





undertaken. 





undertaken. 




insects, bird droppings and vegetation. Additional lab 

analysis was carried out. 



undertaken. 



Figure 22: Dust Isopleth Annual Average Dust Deposition January 2009 – December 2009 (g/m2/month 

insoluble matter) at gauges on private and Coal & Allied owned land. 



High Volume Air Samplers 

Suspended particulate dust was measured in 2009 by a network of HVAS monitors, consisting of seven TSP 

samplers and six PM 10 samplers. A data share arrangement is in place with Anglo Coal for a TSP unit at 

Jerrys Plains School. The Long Point PM 10 monitor was commissioned in June 2009, consequently the 2009 

average is based on 7 months data. The Long Point PM 10 is not a reportable site and is included here for 

information purposes only. 

TSP and PM 10 Data Recovery 

The following information describes the data capture for the reporting period. 

Wandewoi TSP missed three scheduled run dates due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (17/07/2009 and 

29/07/2009) and due to unit failure to run (10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 01/08/2009, 

06/08/2009 and 12/08/2009. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Maison Dieu TSP missed 14 scheduled run dates due to unit failure (12/01/2009, 11/02/2009, 23/02/2009, 

21/09/2009, 20/12/2009 and 26/12/2009), due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (18/01/2009, 01/03/2009, 

19/03/2009, 09/09/2009, 03/10/2009, 09/10/2009 and 15/10/2009) and sampling error (10/08/2009). Make-up 

runs were conducted on 19/02/2009, 11/03/2009, 25/02/2009, 01/10/2009, 15/01/2010, 05/01/2010, 

05/03/2009, 17/03/2009, 08/04/2009, 12/09/2009, 29/10/2009, 12/11/2009, 17/11/2009 and 23/10/2009 

respectively. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Knodlers Lane TSP missed seven scheduled run dates due to power failure (11/02/2009 and 05/06/2009), 

due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (30/05/2009, 11/07/2009 and 22/08/2009), due to invalid data 

(10/08/2009) and due to unit failure (20/12/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 13/02/2009, 25/07/2009, 

13/06/2009, 06/08/2009, 26/08/2009, 23/10/2009 and 23/12/2009. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Warkworth School TSP missed six scheduled run dates due to power failure (11/02/2009 and 17/06/2009), 

due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (9/10/2009, 21/10/2009 and 20/12/2009) and due to sampling error 

(10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 13/02/2009, 21/06/2009, 12/11/2009, 29/10/2009, 22/12/2009 

and 23/10/2009 respectively. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Kilburnie South TSP missed three scheduled run dates due to power failure (11/02/2009), due to invalid data 

(10/08/2009) and due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (09/09/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 

13/02/2009, 24/10/2009 and 17/09/2009 respectively. Data recovery was 100 per cent in 2009. 

Cheshunt East TSP missed five scheduled run dates due to unit failure (6/01/2009), due to unit operating time 

+/- 24 hours (18/01/2009 and 24/04/2009), due to invalid data (10/08/2009) and due to power failure 

(26/11/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 28/01/2009, 01/02/2009, 02/05/2009, 23/10/2009 and 

28/11/2009 respectively. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Data capture for Jerrys Plains School TSP was provided by data share with Anglo Coal from 1 January to 31 

December 2009. Data recovery for this site was 100 per cent in 2009. 

Wandewoi PM 10 missed two scheduled run dates due to invalid data (10/08/2009) and due to unit operating 

time +/- 24 hours (15/09/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 24/10/2009 and 17/09/2009. Data recovery 

for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Maison Dieu PM 10 missed seven scheduled run dates due to unit failure to run (12/01/2009, 18/05/2009 and 

24/05/2009), due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (18/01/2009), due to power failure (11/02/2009 and 

23/02/2009) and due to sampling error (10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 28/01/2009, 

25/07/2009, 2/06/2009, 4/03/2009, 5/03/2009, 25/02/2009 and 23/10/2009 respectively. Data recovery for 

2009 was 100 per cent. 

Warkworth School PM 10 missed three scheduled run dates due to power failure (11/02/2009 and 17/06/2009) 

and due to invalid data (10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 13/02/2009, 21/06/2009 and 

23/10/2009. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Cheshunt East PM 10 missed three scheduled run dates due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (24/04/2009 

and 08/11/2009) and due to unit failure (10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 2/05/2009, 

22/12/2009 and 12/08/2009 respectively. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 



Kilburnie South PM 10 missed three scheduled run dates due to power failure (11/02/2009), invalid data 

(10/08/2009) and due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (21/10/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 

13/02/2009, 24/10/2009 and 29/10/2009 respectively. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Jerrys Plains School PM 10 missed three scheduled run dates due to power failure (11/02/2009), due to unit 

operating time +/- 24 hours (12/05/2009) and due to invalid data (10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted 

on 13/02/2009, 15/05/2009 and 24/10/2009 respectively. Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

Long Point PM 10 missed two scheduled run dates due to unit operating time +/- 24 hours (29/07/2009) and 

due to invalid data (10/08/2009). Make-up runs were conducted on 01/08/2009 and 23/10/2009 respectively. 

Data recovery for 2009 was 100 per cent. 

TSP Annual Average Assessment 

TSP monitors were sampled and analysed in accordance with AS 3580.9.3 (2003). The TSP impact 

assessment criterion is an annual average concentration of 90μg/m 3 . TSP results are shown in Table 19 and 

Figure 23 to Figure 24. During 2009 all sites were in compliance with the long term criterion of 90μg/m 3 . 

Generally TSP results were higher in 2009 compared with 2008. A decrease in annual rainfall in 2009 

compared with 2008 is likely to have contributed to higher dust levels, particularly during August through to 

November which typically coincides with hot and dry weather conditions. 

Table 19: TSP Monitoring Results for HVO in 2009 

Monitor 


Criteria (g/m3) 

Mean (g/m3) 

2009 2008 2007 

Wandewoi 90 46.4 40.3 48.5 

Maison Dieu 90 61.3 50.4 59.9 

Knodlers Lane 90 67.0 59.0 60.9 

Warkworth School 90 53.3 49.4 65.8 

Kilburnie Sth 90 42.5 36.6 51.9 

Cheshunt East 90 60.5 52.6* 75.3 

Jerrys Plains School 90 59.9 52.0 48.6 

* Cheshunt East TSP data was provided by data share (HV5 Cheshunt East TSP) for the months January to 

August 2008. Coal & Allied commissioned a monitor for the 21 st August 2008. This average represents the 

data from both monitors. 



HVO 2007 to 2009 Annual Average TSP 

- 

Total Suspended Particulates 

(ug//m 3) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Wandewoi Maison Dieu Knodlers Lane Warkworth 

School 

Kilburnie South Cheshunt East 

Gauge 

TSP 2009 TSP 2008 TSP 2007 Consent Criteria 

Jerry Plains 

School 

Figure 23: Annual Average HVAS TSP Results 2007 to 2009 

HVO Monthly Mean TSP 2009 

120.0 

200 

Total Suspended Particulates 

(μg/m 3 ) 

100.0 

80.0 

60.0 

40.0 

20.0 

0.0 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Rainfall (mm) 

Jan-09 

Feb-09 

Mar-09 

Apr-09 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Nov-09 

Dec-09 

Wandew oi Maison Dieu Knodlers Lane Warkw orth School 

Kilburnie South Cheshunt East Jerry Plains School Monthly Rainfall (mm) 

Figure 24: Monthly Mean TSP and Rainfall at HVO in 2009 



TSP Short Term Assessment 

No short term (24 hour) impact assessment criteria applies to HVAS TSP monitors. 

PM 10 Annual Average Assessment 

PM 10 monitors were sampled in accordance with AS 3580.9.6 (2003). The PM 10 impact assessment criterion 

was an annual average concentration of 30g/m 3 . During 2009 all HVO PM 10 monitors were below the annual 

criterion (Table 20 and Figure 25). The sites showed an increase in dust levels compared with 2008. A 

decrease in annual rainfall in 2009 compared with 2008 is likely to have contributed to higher dust levels, 

particularly during August and November which typically coincides with hot and dry periods (Figure 26). 

Table 20: Annual Average HVAS PM 10 Results 2007 to 2009 

Monitor 



Mean (g/m3) 

2009 2008 2007 

Cheshunt East 30 27.3 21.8 24.2 

Maison Dieu 30 23.9 18.5 21.2 

Jerrys Plains School 30 19.3 15.8 18.0 

Kilburnie Sth 30 17.5 15.0 20.3 

Warkworth School 30 26.0 21.9 29.7 

Wandewoi 30 17.6 16.6 19.4 

Long Point 30 21.7 - - 

HVO 2007 to 2009 Annual Average PM 10 

35 

30 

25 

PM10 (μg/m 3 ) 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Cheshunt East Maison Dieu Jerrys Plains 

School 

Kilburnie Sth 

Warkworth 

School 

Wandewoi 

Long Point 

Gauge 

PM10 2009 PM10 2008 PM10 2007 

Figure 25: Annual Average HVAS PM 10 Results 2007 to 2009 



Hunter Valley Operations Monthly Mean PM 10 2009 

PM10 (μg/m 3 ) 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

0.0 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Rainfall (mm) 

Jan-09 

Feb-09 

Mar-09 

Apr-09 

May-09 

Jun-09 

Jul-09 

Aug-09 

Sep-09 

Oct-09 

Nov-09 

Dec-09 

Cheshunt East Maison Dieu Jerrys Plains School Kilburnie Sth 

Warkworth School Wandewoi Long Point Monthly Rainfall (mm) 

Figure 26: Monthly Mean PM 10 and Rainfall at HVO in 2009 

PM 10 Short Term Assessment 

No sites exceeded the acquisition assessment criterion for short term impact over 24 hours of 150μg/m 3 (99 

percentile) (see Table 21). 

Table 21: PM 10 Maximum Over 24 Hour Against Acquisition Criteria 

Monitor 

24 hour Acquisition Assessment 


2009 PM 10 (g/m3) Maximum 

Result 

Cheshunt East 150 78.1 

Maison Dieu 150 72.1 

Jerrys Plains School 150 53.0 

Kilburnie Sth 150 54.8 

Warkworth School 150 79.0 

Wandewoi 150 48.3 

Details of the exceedences of the PM 10 short term 24 hour impact assessment criteria of 50g/m 3 

provided below. 

are 

Cheshunt East PM 10 

The 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50mg/m3) was exceeded on eight occasions; recording 

57.8g/m 3 on 06/01/2009, 52.9g/m 3 on 12/08/2009, 65g/m 3 on 16/08/2009, 78g/m 3 on 28/08/2009, 

53.5g/m 3 on 15/10/2009, 78.1g/m 3 on 21/10/2009, 55.9g/m 3 on 20/11/2009 and 58g/m 3 on 08/12/2009. 

The elevated results on 06/01/2009 and 08/01/2009 occurred during north-westerly and south-easterly winds 

respectively, however elevated PM 10 results across the monitoring network indicate a regional dust event. The 



elevated results on the 12/08/2009, 16/08/2009 and 28/08/2009, 15/10/2009 and 21/10/2009 occurred during 

predominate north-westerly or north-north-westerly winds and therefore was likely influenced by other 

sources. The elevated results on the 20/11/2009 during a strong westerly wind and therefore was likely to 

have been influenced by HVO mining activities. 

Long Point PM 10 

The 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50g/m 3 ) was exceeded on one occasion; recording 

54.7g/m 3 on 23/10/2009. The elevated result on 23/10/2009 occurred during winds shifting from the north to 

south and therefore was unlikely to have been influenced by HVO mining activities. 

Maison Dieu PM 10 

The 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50g/m 3 ) was exceeded on five occasions; recording 

57.9g/m 3 on 05/03/2009, 58.1g/m 3 on 28/08/2009, 57.2g/m 3 on 23/10/2009, 67.4g/m 3 on 20/11/2009 and 

72.1g/m 3 on 08/12/2009. The elevated results on the 08/01/2009 and 05/03/2009 occurred during southeasterly 

winds however elevated PM 10 results across the monitoring network indicate a regional dust event. 

The elevated result on 23/10/2009 occurred during prevailing winds from the north and south-south-east and 

therefore was unlikely to have been influenced by HVO mining activities. The elevated result on 28/08/2009 

and 20/11/2009 occurred during strong north-westerly and westerly wind respectively and therefore was likely 

to have been influenced by HVO mining activities. 

Jerrys Plains School PM 10 

The 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50g/m 3 ) was exceeded on two occasions; recording 

51.2g/m 3 on 15/09/2009 and 53g/m 3 on 08/12/2009. The elevated result on 15/09/2009 occurred during 

mild south-easterly winds with upstream monitors also showing elevated results. Therefore dust levels and 

therefore this site was likely influenced by other sources. The elevated result on 08/12/2009 occurred during 

regionally high dust levels. 

Kilburnie South PM 10 

The DECCW 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50g/m 3 ) was exceeded on one occasion; recording 

58.4g/m 3 on 08/12/2009. The elevated result on 08/12/2009 occurred during regionally high dust levels and 

therefore this site was likely influenced by other sources. 

Warkworth School PM 10 

The 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50g/m 3 ) was exceeded on four occasions; recording 

54.4g/m 3 on 15/09/2009, 66g/m 3 on the 23/10/09, 79g/m 3 on 20/11/2009 and 62g/m 3 on 08/12/2009. The 

elevated result on 23/10/2009 occurred during southerly winds and therefore was unlikely to have been 

influenced by HVO mining activities. The elevated result on 15/09/2009 and 08/12/2009 occurred during 

southerly winds and therefore was unlikely to have been influenced by HVO mining activities. The elevated 

result on 20/11/2009 occurred during strong westerly winds and therefore was likely to have been influenced 

by other sources. 

Wandewoi PM 10 

The 24 hour PM 10 impact assessment criterion (50g/m 3 ) was not exceeded during 2009. 



HVO PM10 Short Term Results 2009 

90 

80 

70 

60 

PM10 (μg/m 3 ) 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

DECCW Short Term 24 hr Limit Cheshunt East Maison Dieu 

Warkworth School Long Point Jerrys Plains School 

Kilburnie Sth 

Wandewoi 

Jul 09 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Figure 27: PM 10 Results for 2009 against 24 Hour Impact Assessment Criteria 

Comparison of 2009 Air Quality Data with EIS Predictions 

Table 22 to Table 24 show a comparison between 2009 air quality data and the predictions made in the HVO 

South Environmental Assessment 2006 (EA). 

Comparisons between modelled and measured values are difficult and dependent on many varying factors. 

For example the meteorological data used in the modelling may be different, or the mining schedules and 

sequences may have changed to what was planned in model. Dust results were within regulatory criteria for 

2009. Model predictions for TSP and PM 10 concentrations appear to be reasonably accurate. With 2009 TSP 

and PM 10 values closer to the 2010 model predictions than the 2006 predictions. Dust deposition values will 

always be difficult to model. This is largely because the deposition levels are very dependent on local 

emission sources. 



Table 22: HVO South Project Environmental Assessment Cumulative Predictions for 2006 and 2010 

against 2009 Annual Averages for TSP Data 

Site Units Assessment 

Criteria 

2006 TSP – EA 

Predictions 

Annual Averages 

2010 TSP – EA 

Predictions 


2009 TSP – 

Actual Annual 

Average 

Wandewoi g/m 3 90 29.7 58.1 46.4 

Maison 

Dieu 

g/m 3 90 30.4 56.1 61.3 

Knodlers Ln g/m 3 90 36.1 57.6 67.0 

Warkworth 

School 

Kilburnie 

Sth 

Cheshunt 

East 

Jerrys 

Plains 

School 

g/m 3 90 46.3 75.4 53.3 

g/m 3 90 24.3 52.4 42.5 

g/m 3 90 27.6 51.3 60.5 

g/m 3 90 20.8 47.6 59.9 

Table 23: HVO South Environmental Assessment Cumulative Predictions for 2006 and 2010 against 

2009 Annual Averages for PM 10 Data 

Site Units Assessment 

Criteria 

2006 PM 10 – EA 

Predictions 


2010 PM 10 – EA 

Predictions 


2009 PM 10 – 

Actual Annual 

Average 

Wandewoi g/m 3 30 22.4 28.6 17.6 

Maison 

Dieu 

Warkworth 

School 

Kilburnie 

Sth 

Cheshunt 

East 

Jerrys 

Plains 

School 

g/m 3 30 22.0 25.2 23.9 

g/m 3 30 33.6 41.8 26.0 

g/m 3 30 17.5 23.5 17.5 

g/m 3 30 20.4 22.6 27.3 

g/m 3 30 14.5 19.3 19.3 



Table 24: HVO South Environmental Assessment Cumulative Predictions for 2006 and 2012 against 

2009 Annual Averages for Dust Deposition Data 

Site 

Units 

(Insoluble 

Solids) 

Assessment 

Criteria 

2006 

Depositional 

Dust – EA 

Predictions 


Averages 

2012 

Depositional 

Dust – EA 

Predictions 


Averages 


Depositional 

Dust – Actual 


Average 

D110 g/m2/month 4 1.2 1.5 2.1 

D112 

(Wandewoi) 

D118 

(Kilburnie 

Sth) 

D119 

(Jerrys 

Plains 

School) 

Knodlers 

Lane 

DL2 

(Cheshunt 

East) 

DL14 

(Maison 

Dieu) 

g/m2/month 4 0.9 1.5 2.0 

g/m2/month 4 0.8 1.4 2.0 

g/m2/month 4 0.7 1.2 2.0 

g/m2/month 4 1.7 2.0 2.3 

g/m2/month 4 1.0 1.4 2.5 

g/m2/month 4 1.4 2.1 2.8 

DL21 g/m2/month 4 1.9 2.1 2.8 

DL22 g/m2/month 4 1.8 2.0 2.9 

Warkworth 

School 

g/m2/month 4 2.1 2.5 2.9 



3.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT 


All active mining and rehabilitation areas have appropriate containment facilities such as drains and 

sedimentation dams which allow retention to settle entrained sediments. A budget is prepared annually to 

ensure that adequate funding is available for the construction and maintenance of these structures. Regular 

integrity inspections ensure that the dams have sufficient capacity available for sediment containment. Dams 

requiring attention are scheduled and de-silted as soon as practical. 


A rigorous inspection regime of surface water management dams has been implemented. The site 

inspections are performed monthly, although some dams are inspected at a lesser frequency, based on 

assessed risk. The dam inspections consider general condition (vegetation, scour, visual assessment of water 

quality), structural integrity and silt capacity. A qualified independent contractor performs the inspections and 

prepares a written report on a monthly basis. The reports are used to prioritise maintenance and de-silting 

work. 

3.4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY 


HVO maintains a network of surface water monitoring sites located on mine site dams and surrounding 

natural watercourses (Figure 28). The Hunter River is sampled at seven sites both upstream and downstream 

of mining operations to monitor the potential impact of mining on the river. On site dams are monitored to 

identify the quality of mine water. 

HVO participates in the HRSTS allowing it to discharge from licensed discharge points at Dam 11 to Farrells 

Creek, Lake James to the Hunter River and Parnells Dam to Parnells Creek. These discharges take place 

during high flow and floods periods in compliance with strict HRSTS regulations and HVO EPL. 



Figure 28: Surface Water Monitoring Network at HVO in 2009 




Surface water samples were taken as grab samples at 26 key sites. All sampling of surface waters was 

carried out in accordance with AS/NZS 5667.6 (1998). All analysis of surface water was carried out in 

accordance with DECCW approved methods by a NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) or 

equivalent accredited laboratory. 

Water quality is evaluated through the parameters of pH, Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Total Suspended 

Solids (TSS). Pertinent surface water sites were also sampled for comprehensive analysis annually. Results 

of monitoring on the Hunter River, other natural tributaries and mine site dams are provided in this report (see 

Appendix 8). Watercourses are assessed against ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment 

Conservation Council) Guidelines (2000) NSW Lowland Rivers for: 

pH 6.5 to 8.5; 

 

EC 125 to 2,200S/cm; and 

TSS Maximum 50mg/L. 

A summary of data recovery for 2009 is shown in Table 25. 

Table 25: HVO Surface Water Monitoring Data Recovery for 2009 

Location 

Hunter River 

Data 

Recovery (%) 

Comments 

W109 100% 

W1 Hunter River 100% 



H1 100% Special sampling on 02/03/2009 and 08/04/2009. 

H2 100% Special sampling on 02/03/2009 and 08/04/2009. 

H3 50% 

No access to site 02/03/2009 (special sampling), 09/03/2009, 

and 08/04/2009 (special sampling). 

Wollombi Brook 

W2 Wollombi Brook 83% 

Site recorded as dry 02/03/2009 (special sampling), 

08/04/2009 

(special sampling), 08/12/2009 (non-routine) and 24/12/2009. 

Warkworth Bridge 100% Special sampling on 02/03/2009 and 08/04/2009. 

WL1 Wollombi 

Brook 

50% No access to site 02/03/2009 (special sampling), 09/03/2009 

and 08/04/2009 (special sampling). 

Other Surface Water Tributaries 



Location 

Data 

Recovery (%) 

Comments 

Carrington Billabong 0% 

Comleroi Creek 66% 

Site recorded as dry 13/01/2009, 02/03/2009 (non-routine) 

09/03/2009, 08/04/2009 (non-routine) 06/05/2009, 13/07/2009, 

02/09/2009, and 10/11/2009. 

Site not sampled in January 2010. Site recorded as dry 

10/11/2009. 

NSW 1 Parnells 

Creek 

12% 

Special sampling on 08/04/2009. Site recorded as dry 

13/01/2009, 02/03/2009 (special sampling), 06/05/2009, 

13/07/2009, 03/09/2009 and 10/01/2009. 

NSW 2 Emu Creek 56% 

NSW 3 Davis Creek 12% 

W11 Farrells Creek 33% 

Special sampling on 02/03/2009 and 08/04/2009. Site recorded 

as dry 13/01/2009, 09/03/2009, 10/11/2009. 

Non-routine sample on 16/02/2009. 

Special sampling on 02/03/2009 (dry) and 08/04/2009. Site 

recorded as dry 13/01/2009, 09/03/2009, 06/05/2009, 

13/07/2009, 03/09/2009 and 10/11/2009. 

Site recorded as dry 13/01/2009, 09/03/2009, 03/09/2009, 

and 10/11/2009. 

Site Dams 

Coal Loader Dam 100% Special sampling on 02/03/2009 and 08/04/2009. 

Dam 11N 100% 

Dam 15N 100% Non-routine sample on 04/04/2009. 

EOC Dam (16S) 100% Non routine sample on 24/12/2009. 

Emu Ck Sed. Dam 100% 

Special sampling on 02/03/2009 and 08/04/2009. Non-routine 

sample on 06/02/2009. 

Final Dam (20N) 50% Site recorded as dry 03/09/2009 and 24/12/2009. 

Lake James (K 

Dam) 100% 

Parnells Dam (W3) 100% 

W9 75% No access to site 24/12/2009. 

WOOP Dump Dam 

(3S) 75% No access to site 24/12/2009. 

NB: Special Sampling was triggered on 2 March 2009 and 8 March 2009 following >40mm rainfall in 24 hours. 



Surface Water Monitoring Results for Hunter River 

The surface water monitoring results for the Hunter River are shown in Table 26 and Figure 29 to Figure 31. 

The Hunter River was sampled at two sites upstream (W109 and W1) and three sites downstream (H1, H2 

and H3) of point sources of runoff (Wollombi Brook and Farrells Creek) to monitor the impact of mining on the 

Hunter River. Site W109 is located furthest upstream of operations and H3 furthest downstream. 

The river stations have been traditionally sampled monthly subject to safe access. Coal & Allied has built up a 

large knowledge base from 30 years of river monitoring, and in that time the DWE (Department of Water and 

Energy) (now DECCW) have greatly increased the level of real time river monitoring within the river. The DoP 

and DECCW have agreed that there is no risk posed to river management if the frequency of monitoring was 

reduced. During 2009 surface water sampling at Hunter River sites was conducted quarterly. 

Results for water quality remained within historical trends, and there were no indication that mining activity 

adversely affected river water quality. 

Table 26: Surface Water Results from Hunter River Sites for 2009 

Location 

pH EC (S/cm) TSS (mg/L) 

Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max 

W109 8.3 8 8.5 790 510 1,090 31 15 44 

W1 8.3 8.2 8.5 820 520 1,140 36 14 70 

W3 (Hunter River) 8.3 8.1 8.4 913 640 1,200 31 4 56 

W4 (Hunter River) 8.5 8.3 8.6 853 580 1,200 27 11 44 

H1 8.2 7.7 8.8 732 590 890 39 15 83 

H2 8.3 7.7 8.4 697 490 920 31 14 68 

H3 8.2 8.1 8.3 667 500 850 18 6 32 



Hunter River pH, EC and TSS 2009 

1000 

8.6 

Electrical Conductivity (us/cm) 

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 

100 

10 

8.5 

8.4 

8.3 

8.2 

8.1 

8 

7.9 

7.8 

7.7 

1 

W109 W1 W3 W4 H1 H2 H3 

Location 

EC TSS pH 

7.6 

Figure 29: Hunter River Mean pH, EC and TSS 

Surface Water Monitoring pH Results for Hunter River 

Recorded pH levels remained within historical trends, and there were no indications that mining activity 

affected pH. The pH at W4 (Figure 30) shows a steady increase above the ANZECC criteria of 8.5 (maximum 

pH value of 8.6 in 2009) however these values remain within historical values. 

9.5 

Hunter River pH Trends 

9 

8.5 

pH (pH units) 

8 

7.5 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Date 

Jul 09 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

W109 W1 W3 

W4 H1 H2 

H3 ANZECC pH upper limit ANZECC pH lower limit 

Figure 30: Hunter River pH Trends 



Surface Water Monitoring EC Results for Hunter River 

Hunter River surface water sites followed a consistent trend in EC for the 2009 reporting period responding 

only to fluctuations in ambient weather conditions (Figure 31). Drier weather conditions in the winter/spring 

months promoted concentration of solutes in river samples causing minor spikes to a maximum of 

1,150S/cm. This value is consistent with river conditions and within ANZECC Guidelines (2000) NSW 

Lowland Rivers allowable maximum EC of 2,200S/cm. 

2,500 

Hunter River EC Trends 

2,000 

Electrical Conductivity (uS/cm) 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

W109 W1 W3 

W4 H1 H2 

H3 ANZECC EC upper limit ANZECC EC lower limit 

Figure 31: Hunter River EC Trends 

Surface Water Monitoring TSS Results for Hunter River 

Sites H1, H2 and W3 exceeded the ANZECC Guidelines recommended maximum for TSS in February due to 

high flows in the Hunter River (Figure 32). TSS in mine water released from site at the time of the spike was 

in accordance with HRSTS conditions (Table 30), indicating that the TSS encountered at the site was 

potentially influence by external conditions beyond the mine sites control. 

Site W1 at the Wollombi Brook reported a single value in excess of 70mg/L in the December sampling period. 

This is most likely due to concentrated effects from intermittent flows in response to evaporative basin 

conditions. 



90 

Hunter River TSS Trends 

80 

70 


60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Date 

Jul 09 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

W109 W1 W3 W4 

H1 H2 H3 ANZECC TSS Limit 

Figure 32: Hunter River TSS Trends 

Surface Water Monitoring Results for Wollombi Brook 

Three sites were monitored on Wollombi Brook during 2009 namely, Warkworth Bridge, W2 and WL1. 

Intermittent monitoring was conducted at Wollombi Brook throughout the 2009 reporting period due to either 

access issues or lack of flow for sampling. Non-routine sampling also occurred at these locations. There were 

no exceedences against ANZECC Guidelines at Wollombi Brook sites during 2009. 

Results for 2009 are shown in Table 27 and Figure 33 to Figure 35. 

Table 27: Surface Water Results from Wollombi Brook Sites for 2009 

Location 



W2 8.0 7.7 8.4 658 460 790 5 3 8 

Warkworth Bridge 7.6 7.1 7.9 680 320 1,130 7 2 15 

WL1 8.0 7.7 8.3 830 470 1,150 9 5 16 



9 

Wollombi Brook pH Trends 

8.5 

8 

pH(pHunits) 

7.5 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Warkworth Bridge W2 Wollombi Brook WL1 Wollombi Brook 

ANZECC pH upper limit ANZECC pH lower limit 

Figure 33: Wollombi Brook pH Trends 

2,500 

Wollombi Brook EC Trends 

2,000 


1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


ANZECC EC upper limit ANZECC EC lower limit 

Figure 34: Wollombi Brook EC Trends 



60 

Wollombi Brook TSS Trends 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


ANZECC TSS Upper Limit 

Figure 35: Wollombi Brook TSS Trends 

Surface Water Monitoring Results for Other Hunter River Tributaries 

A number of Hunter River tributary creeks were sampled bi-monthly throughout 2009. As most of these sites 

are ephemeral in nature, historically they have been dry. Non-routine samples are collected when there is 

sufficient rain for runoff (called special sampling) or during water discharges (W5 Farrells Creek upstream and 

downstream). 

No samples were collected from Carrington Billabong in 2009 as the site was reported as dry at the time of 

sampling. Emu Creek and Davis Creek were reported as dry throughout the majority of 2009 with a single 

sample collected during a special sampling event in April 2009. There were no discharge events from Dam 

11N in 2009, thus no samples were collected from W5 Farrells Creek Upstream and Downstream. 

All markers of water quality remained within historical trends, and there were no indications that mining 

activity adversely affected water quality in the tributary streams. Exceedences against the ANZECC 

Guidelines (2000) for pH and EC were recorded at NSW1 Parnells Creek and NSW2 Emu Creek (Figure 36 

and Figure 37), however intermittent sampling results suggest this is a function of the creek “drying out” to a 

position of no flow. 

Results for 2009 are shown in Table 28 and Figure 36 to Figure 38. 



Table 28: Surface Water Results from Other Tributaries Sites for 2009 

Location 



Carrington 

Billabong - - - - - - - - - 

Comleroi Creek 7.8 7.2 8.3 490 250 840 8 3 12 

NSW1 Parnells 

Ck 8.7 - - 2,630 - - 11 - - 

NSW2 Emu 

Creek 7.9 7.4 8.7 5,107 440 10,750 18 4 50 

NSW3 Davis 

Creek 7.2 - - 230 - - 4 - - 

W11 (Farrell's 

Ck) 8.3 8.1 8.4 525 420 630 5 3 8 

9 

Other Tibutaries pH Trends 

8.5 

8 

pH (pH units) 

7.5 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Farrells Creek W11 Davis Creek Comleroi Creek 

Emu Creek Parnells Creek ANZECC pH upper limit 

ANZECC pH lower limit 

Figure 36: Other Tributaries pH Trends 



11,000 

Other Tributaries EC Trends 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 


7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Davis Creek Comleroi Creek Emu Creek 

Parnells Creek Farrells Creek W 11 ANZECC EC upper limit 

ANZECC EC lower limit 

Figure 37: Other Tributaries EC Trends 

60 

Other Tributaries TSS Trends 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Farrell's Creek W11 Comleroi Creek Emu Creek 

Parnells Creek 

ANZECC TSS Upper Limit 

Figure 38: Other Tributaries TSS Trends 

Surface Water Monitoring for HVO Site Dams 

Ten dams were monitored monthly during the reporting period. Monthly samples were collected from Dam 

11N, K Dam (Lake James) and W2 Parnells Dam. Bi-monthly samples were scheduled for Emu Creek 

Sediment Dam. The remaining sites were samples quarterly, including Coal Loader Dam, Dam 15N, 20N 

Final Dam, Dam 3S , WOOP Dump Dam, EOC Dam and W9. 

The surface water monitoring results for site dams are shown in Table 29 and Figure 39 to Figure 41. Due to 

an outlier, results at Dam W9 shown in Figure 41 the scale has been reduced to promote clarity, a full scale 

graph can be viewed within Appendix 8 as Figure 41A. 



Table 29: Surface Water Results from HVO Site Dams for 2009 

Location 



Coal Loader 

Dam 8.6 8.4 8.7 3,747 2,720 6,080 21 2 111 

Dam 11N 8.8 8.4 9.4 4,877 3,230 8,020 12 2 64 

Dam 15N 9.1 7.8 9.9 2,932 1,400 6,450 90 2 384 

EOC Dam 

(16S) 8.9 8.3 9.2 1,425 1,150 1,710 16 10 22 

Emu Ck Sed 

Dam 8.3 7.5 8.9 637 410 1,010 35 11 76 

Final Dam 

(20N) 9.2 8.4 10 1,225 1,030 1,420 178 71 285 

Lake James 

(K Dam) 9 8.8 9.5 3,106 1,850 4,020 24 5 63 

Parnells 

Dam (W3) 9.1 8.9 9.4 4,202 3,850 5,220 26 2 99 

W9 7.9 7.7 8.2 10,083 9,000 11,100 528 5 2,070 

WOOP 

Dump Dam 

(3S) 8.6 8.2 8.8 937 750 1,180 16 7 32 

10.5 

HVO Site Dams pH Trends 

10 

9.5 

pH (pH units) 

9 

8.5 

8 

7.5 

7 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Coal Loader Dam Dam 11N Dam 15N EOC Dam 

Final Dam Lake James Parnell's Dam W9 

WOOP Dump Dam Emu Ck Sed Dam 

Figure 39: HVO Site Dams pH Trends 



12,000 

HVO Site Dams EC Trends 

11,000 

10,000 

9,000 


8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Coal Loader Dam Dam 11N Dam 15N 

EOC Dam Final Dam Lake James 

Parnell's Dam W9 WOOP Dump Dam 

Emu Ck Sediment Dam 

Figure 40: HVO Site Dams EC Trends 

400 

HVO Site Dams TSS Trends 

300 


200 

100 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Coal Loader Dam Dam11N Dam 15N 

EOC Dam (16S) Final Dam (20S) Lake James (K Dam) 

Parnells Dam (W 3) W9 WOOP Dump Dam 

Emu Ck Sediment Dam 

Figure 41: HVO Site Dams TSS Trends 



Interpretation of Surface Water Monitoring for HVO Site Dams 

Coal Loader Dam 

The Coal Loader Dam is located at the HVLP facilities and collects runoff from the plant area. The pH of the 

dam water ranged from 8.4 to 8.7 in 2009. The average EC in 2009 was 3,747μS/cm representing an 

increase on the 2008 average of 2,996μS/cm. A high maximum EC occurred in December at 6,080μS/cm, 

potentially the result of concentration due to evaporation and small contributions of runoff in the latter part of 

the year. TSS recorded a maximum result of 111mg/L. The high result was recorded during special sampling 

following sufficient rain for runoff. Following this initial result TSS remained under 5mg/l for the rest of the 

reporting period. 

Dam 11N 

Dam 11N at Hunter Valley North Pit is a licensed discharge point and staging dam that receives water 

pumped from Cheshunt, Riverview and Carrington Pits. The water is pumped to the HVCPP for re-use in coal 

washing and dust suppression. Dam 11N collects negligible runoff from a very small catchment. The recorded 

pH ranged from 8.4 to 9.4 in 2009, and the average pH was 8.8 slightly above the long term average of 8.4. 

EC ranged from 3,230μS/cm in October to 8,020μS/cm in January, with a large fluctuation recoded due to 

varying pump out, fill, and discharge regimes. TSS ranged from 2 to 64mg/L, averaging 12.7mg/L, which is 

typical of saline mine water showing variation and potential sediment disturbance from pumping regime. 

Dam 15N 

Dam 15N is located at the bottom of the catchment at the HVCPP facilities protecting Farrell’s Creek. Dam 

15N normally only receives runoff from the HVCPP area after heavy rains. Dam 15N is maintained as low as 

possible to provide 1:100 year flood protection. EC and pH in Dam 15N displays variability over the longer 

term, reflecting the wide range in operating conditions for this dam. The pH of the dam water ranged from 7.8 

to 9.9 in 2009. The average pH was 9.1, slightly higher than the 2008 reported average pH of 8.7 The 

maximum EC of 6,450μS/cm occurred in December and the minimum of 1,400μS/cm was recorded in March, 

suggesting that the dam was receiving some runoff over the first half of 2009. TSS varied in 2009 with a 

minimum of 2mg/L in June and a maximum of 384mg/L recorded in September. This high TSS result may be 

due to evaporative concentration of solids within the dam. 

EOC Dam (16S) 

The East Open Cut (EOC or Dam 16S) is situated on the Lemington site adjacent to the Hunter River. The 

EOC Dam protects the Hunter River and captures runoff from a large catchment which can generate saline 

runoff water. The water is pumped back into the HVO South mine water management system after rain and is 

re-used in the mining process. The pH ranged from 8.3 to 9.2. The EOC Dam maintained a consistent EC 

averaging 1,425μS/cm, with a maximum in March of 1,710μS/cm. TSS for the EOC maintained below 

22mg/L, with an average of 16mg/L for the reporting period. 

Emu Creek Sediment Dam 

Emu Creek Sediment Dam is a sediment dam settling runoff from the advancing West Pit face. The Emu 

Creek catchment consists of undisturbed land and areas that have been stripped of topsoil in preparation for 

mining. This dam was commissioned in April 2008. The pH averaged 8.3 during the reporting period, with the 

lowest value of 7.5 being recorded following rainfall considered sufficient to generate runoff. The dam 

maintained a consistent EC averaging 637μS/cm, with a maximum in March of 1,010μS/cm. The TSS 

reported an average of 35mg/L. 

Final Dam (20N) 

The Final Dam is a sediment dam treating runoff from the Alluvial Lands at HVO North. The catchment 

consists mainly of mature rehabilitation. The dam was dry throughout the second half of 2009 recording only a 

50 per cent sample capture rate. The EC in June was 1,420μS/cm. This is higher than typical runoff from 

rehabilitation due to evaporative concentration effects. The average pH was 9.2 and TSS was 178mg/L. 

Lake James (K Dam) 

Lake James (K Dam) is situated on the Lemington site adjacent to the Hunter River. Lake James is a large 

out of pit mine water storage dam that receives water pumped from Cheshunt Pit via Dam 17S. Lake James 

collects runoff from its own surface area and a small catchment. The dam operates as a discharge dam under 

the HRSTS. The pH for Lake James ranged between 8.8 and 9.5 in 2009 similar to 2008 values. The average 

EC was 3,106μS/cm in 2009, ranging from 1,850μS/cm in May to 4020μS/cm in March. TSS for Lake James 

ranged from 5mg/L to 63mg/L, with an average of 25mg/L. 



Parnells Dam (W3) 

Parnells Dam (W3) at Hunter Valley West Pit is a large out of pit mine water storage dam that receives water 

pumped from West Pit. Parnells Dam collects runoff from its own surface area and a small catchment. The 

dam operates as a discharge dam under the HRSTS. The recorded pH ranged from 8.9 to 9.4 in 2009, and 

the average pH of 9.1. EC remained stable throughout with year with an average EC of 4,204μS/cm. TSS 

ranged from 2 to 99mg/L, averaging 25.5mg/L, which is typical of saline mine water and varies subject to both 

weather conditions and pumping regimes. 

WOOP Dam (3S) 

The WOOP Dam (Dam 3S) is a sediment dam settling runoff from the western out of pit dump at HVO South. 

The WOOP dump catchment consists of equal parts mature rehabilitation and natural regrowth. The dams 

primary function is the capture of water for settlement treatment before being released offsite. Activities 

associated with mining have returned to this catchment in the reporting period. Generally the water sampled 

in this dam is consistent with fresh water runoff. This dam was not accessible for fourth quarter sampling due 

to renewed mining activities. An average pH of 8.6 was consistent throughout the year with EC remaining in a 

range between 750μS/cm and 1,180μS/cm in 2009 due to cycles of rainfall and evaporation. The average 

TSS was 16.3mg/L. 

W9 

W9 (Dam 14W) is located at the Newdell Coal Loader facility and prevents runoff from the coal stockpiles and 

old CPP area from entering Pikes Creek. W9 recorded a 75 per cent sample capture rate with no sample in 

December. As such the trend should be regarded as coming from an evaporating basin. The pH of the dam 

water ranged from 7.7 to 8.2 in 2009. The average pH of 7.9 was lower than the 2008 average of 8.2. The 

maximum EC of 11,100μS/cm occurred in March and the minimum EC of 9,000μS/cm in June. TSS was 

minimal during the first period of 2009


Table 31: Discharge Record for Lake James 

Licence number 640 Discharge point number Point 8 (Lake James) Premises name Hunter Valley Operations 

River Register Information Discharge Record Credit Register 

Information 

Block ID Total allowable 

discharge 

Start Finish Volume 

discharged 

Mean 

EC 

Salt load Number of credits 

held 

(1 block/line) Tonnes Time Date Time Date ML μs/cm Tonnes 

2009-47 6,652 12:20 16/02/2009 00:00 17/02/2009 31.0 3,070 57 139 


2009-92(2) 5,888 18:30 02/04/2009 00:00 03/04/2009 14.2 3,180 27 71 



2009-95 491 00:00 05/04/2009 01:20 05/04/2009 2.0 2,691 3 139 



Comparison of 2009 Water Quality Data with EIS Predictions 

South Pit EIS Predictions 

The South Pit EIS estimated an ‘instantaneous’ water quality for EC of 3,700mg/L (EC 5,700μS/cm) as an 

upper limit. Instantaneous water quality is a simple estimate obtained by dividing the total salt available by the 

maximum amount of possible void water. Actual water quality can vary widely as it is affected by prevailing 

climate, mine spoil configuration, dewatering efficiency, surface drainage and river usage among other things. 

Water held in Lake James had an average EC of 3,106μS/cm in 2009. This is low compared to the EIS 

predictions, though this EC is not uncommon after periods of wet weather. Lake James is a mine water 

discharge dam, and the relatively low EC is probably due to a relatively short contact time with mine spoil and 

coal before it was pumped out of pit. 

The South Pit EIS estimated average runoff water quality from undisturbed catchments to be 400mg/L for 

TSS and 615μS/cm for EC. Comleroi Creek, South of Cheshunt Pit had an average EC of 490μS/cm in 2009. 

West Pit EIS Predictions 

The West Pit EIS included the data in Table 32 as representative of water quality. 

Table 32: Representative Water Quality for West Pit 

Water Stream pH EC (S/cm) 

Davis Creek 7.7 to 8.4 767 to >8,000 

Emu Creek 7.5 to 8.8 365 to >1,000 

Farrells Creek 7.0 to 9.2 195 to >12,000 

Mine Water (Parnells Dam) - 2,400 to 6,300 

Davis Creek was reported as dry in 2009 with the exception of a single sample collected following sufficient 

rain for runoff in April 2009. The pH at the time of sampling was 7.2 with an EC of 2,630μS/cm. 

The average EC in Emu Creek was 5,107μS/cm showing a significant increase on the average value in 

previous years. Due to the ephemeral nature of Emu creek the samples were only collected following 

significant rainfall and samples collected in following months reported EC values around 10,000μS/cm due to 

a function of the creek “drying out” to a position of no flow. The pH ranged from 7.4 to 8.7. 

The average EC in Farrell’s Creek (W11) was 525μS/cm increasing slightly from the 2008 and 2007 average 

of 495μS/cm and 402μS/cm respectively. The pH ranged from 8.1 to 8.4 in 2009. The ephemeral nature of 

Farrell’s Creek means that samples were only successfully collected for 33 per cent of occasions. 

The EC in Parnells Dam in 2009 was consistent through 2009 reporting an average of 4,204μS/cm, which is 

within the ranges predicted in the EIS. This EC average value is similar to the 2008 average of 4,143μS/cm, 

however it should be noted that high EC values have previously been recorded at this site, 7,640μS/cm in 

2007, due to extended periods of drought conditions with no dilution from rain into an otherwise closed circuit. 

The pH ranged from 8.9 to 9.4 during routine monitoring. 

Carrington Pit EIS Predictions 

The long term mine water quality for Carrington is discussed in the Carrington Mine Environmental Impact 

Statement (ERM 1999). The EIS estimated an “instantaneous” water quality for TSS of about 4,750mg/L and 

7,050μS/cm for EC. 

Dewatering from Carrington is a mixture of surface runoff from overburden emplacements, coal mining areas 

and seepage from the coal seams and alluvium, which all pass through Dam 9N and into Dam 11N. The 

average EC in Dam 11N during 2008 was 4,877μS/cm and is considered representative of mine water quality 

for Carrington. 



The Carrington EIS states that runoff from undisturbed catchments within the Carrington Pit will be directed 

around the mine via contour banks to discharge where possible into natural creeks. The salinity of the runoff 

water was predicted to be approximately 615μS/cm. Runoff from rehabilitated lands was predicted to have 

higher TSS initially, with levels approaching pre-mining conditions after several years. Carrington Billabong 

was reported as dry in 2009 with no TSS samples available. 

3.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 


HVO operated a network of piezometers during 2009. The results are used to establish and monitor trends in 

physical and geochemical parameters of surrounding groundwater tables potentially influenced by mining. 

The groundwater monitoring programme at HVO measures the quality of groundwater against background 

data, EIS predictions and historical trends. Groundwater quality is evaluated through the parameters of pH, 

EC, and Standing Water Level (SWL). 

The monitoring locations are shown in Figure 42 to Figure 44. 



Figure 42: Groundwater Monitoring Network at HVO in 2009 



Figure 43: Carrington Bore Monitoring Network in 2009 

Figure 44: Cheshunt Bore Monitoring Network 2009 




Sampling of ground waters was carried out in accordance with AS/NZS 5667.6 (1998) and in accordance with 

DECCW approved methods by a NATA or equivalent accredited laboratory. Data recovery for HVO key 

groundwater sites is summarised in Table 33. 

Table 33: HVO Ground Water Monitoring Data Recovery for 2009 

Location Data Recovery (%) Comments 

Carrington Groundwater 

CGW39 100% 

CGW45 0% 

CGW46 0% 


27/07/2009, 09/09/2009 and 07/01/2010. 


27/07/2009, 09/09/2009 and 07/01/2010. 

CGW49 100% 

CGW51a 100% 

CGW52 100% 

CGW52a 100% 

CGW54a 100% 

CGW6 100% 

North Pit & Alluvial Lands Groundwater 

DM1 0% 

Site recorded as dry 30/03/2009, 02/06/2009 and no access 

10/09/2009. 

DM2 75% Site recorded as dry 10/09/2009. 

DM3 100% 

DM4 100% 

Hobden’s Gully & South Facilities Groundwater 

E5038/5 100% 

Hobden's Well 100% 

S4 0% 



09/09/2009 and 22/12/2009. 




S6 0% 



09/09/2009 and 22/12/2009. 

H5032/5 100% 

H5038/5 100% 

Alluvial Lands Levee bank Groundwater 

PZ1CH200 100% 

PZ2CH400 100% 

PZ3CH800 100% 

PZ4CH1380 100% 

PZ5CH1800 100% 

PZ6CH2450 100% 

HV3 100% 

HV4 0% 


04/11/2009 and 05/01/2010. 

GA3 100% 

Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater 

BC1 0% 

Site recorded as dry02/03/2009 (special sampling), 



BC1a 75% Site recorded as dry 17/03/2009. 

BZ1-1 100% 

BZ1-2 0% 

No access to site 02/03/2009 (non-routine). Site recorded as 

dry 17/03/2009, 08/04/2009(non-routine), 16/06/2009, 


BZ1-3 100% 

BZ3-1 100% 

BZ3-2 100% 

BZ3-3 100% 




BZ4A(1) 75% Site recorded as dry 05/01/2010. 

BZ4A(2) 80% Site recorded as dry 05/01/2010. 

BZ4B 0% 

BZ5-1 0% 

BZ5-2 0% 

BZ8-1 0% 

Site recorded as dry 02/03/2009 (non-routine), 17/03/2009, 

08/04/2009 (non-routine), 16/06/2009, 14/09/2009 and 

05/01/2010. 

Site recorded as dry 17/03/2009, 16/06/2009, 14/09/2009 

and 05/01/2010. 

Site recorded as dry 02/03/2009 (non-routine), 17/03/2009, 

08/04/2009 (non-routine), 16/06/2009, 14/09/2009 and 

05/01/2010. 

Site recorded as dry 17/03/2009, 16/06/2009, 14/09/2009 

and 05/01/2010. 

BZ8-2 75.% Site recorded as dry 14/09/2009. 

BZ8-3 25% 

Site recorded as dry 16/06/2009, 14/09/2009 and 

05/01/2010. 

HG1 75% Site recorded as dry 14/09/2009. 

HG2 100% 

HG2A 100% 

HG3 100% 

Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater 

BUNC44D 100% 

BUNC46D 100% 

CHPZ12A 100% 

CHPZ12D 100% 

CHPZ13A 100% 

CHPZ13D 100% 

CHPZ14A 100% 

CHPZ14D 100% 

Lemington Groundwater 




C1(WJ039) 75% No access to site 19/03/2009. 

F1.5 100% 

GW9701 100% 

GW9702 100% 

GW9710 100% 

GWAR981 100% 

West Pit Groundwater 

NPZ1 100% 

NPZ2 100% 

NPZ3 100% 

NPZ4 100% 

NPZ5 100% 

Special Sampling was triggered on 2 March 2009 and 8 March 2009 following >40mm rainfall in 24 hours. 

Carrington Groundwater 

The interpretation of Carrington Groundwater has been based on nine key sites (Table 33) located to the west 

of the operational area of Carrington Pit. Bi-monthly monitoring of these sites was undertaken in accordance 

Coal & Allied Hunter Valley Operation’s water monitoring programme developed in consultation with DoP and 

DWE (now DECCW). 

Scheduled November sampling was unable to occur. A make up run was performed in January 2010. During 

2009 no reportable values were captured at CGW45 and CGW46 due to the bores being dry. 

Data capture for 2009 is shown in Appendix 10. Monitoring results are shown in Table 34 and Figure 45 to 

Figure 47. The EC and pH levels have not been reported in graphs for sites CGW45 and CGW46 as samples 

were not collected. 



Table 34: Ground Water Results from HVO Carrington Groundwater’s for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 

Average Min Max Average Min Max 

pH 

CGW39 7,897 6,720 8,450 7.4 7.0 8.0 

CGW45 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CGW46 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

CGW49 3,647 3,130 4,210 7.5 7.2 8.1 

CGW51A 11,185 6,980 12,450 7.2 7.1 7.4 

CGW52 5,350 2,450 6,370 7.2 7.1 7.3 

CGW52A 3,887 2,960 4,470 7.6 7.3 7.9 

CGW54A 6,337 3,500 8,410 7.4 7.3 7.5 

CGW6 2,050 1,800 2,420 7.5 7.1 8.6 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for Carrington Piezometers 

Recorded pH levels remained within a 7.0 to 8.6 range (Figure 45). Please refer to ‘Interpretation of 

Groundwater Monitoring Results for Carrington Piezometers’ below. 

9 

Carrington Groundwater pH Trends 

8.5 

8 

pH (pH Units) 

7.5 

7 

6.5 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 Aug 09 

Date 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Jan 10 

CGW39 CGW45 CGW46 CGW49 CGW51A CGW52 CGW52A CGW54A 

CGW6 

Figure 45: Carrington Groundwater pH Trends 



Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for Carrington Piezometers 

The highest average EC level was CGW51A with 11,185μS/cm, the lowest average EC level was CGW6 with 

2,050μS/cm (Figure 46). These results are consistent with historical data. Please refer to ‘Interpretation of 

Groundwater Monitoring Results for Carrington Piezometers’ below. In addition a review of groundwater 

related impacts has been undertaken for the Carrington Pit area. The report “Carrington Extended – Review 

of Mining Related Impacts on the Paleochannel Groundwater System” is attached in Appendix 10. 

13,000 

Carrington Groundwater EC Trends 

12,000 

11,000 

10,000 


9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 Aug 09 

Date 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Jan 10 

CGW39 CGW45 CGW46 CGW49 CGW51A CGW52 CGW52A CGW54A CGW6 

Figure 46: Carrington Groundwater EC Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for Carrington Piezometers 

The standing water level results are shown in Figure 47. Piezometers into the alluvium are those with depths 

to water of less than 15m. These results are consistent with historical data. Please refer to ‘Interpretation of 

Groundwater Monitoring Results for Carrington Piezometers’ below. In addition a review of groundwater 

related impacts has been undertaken for the Carrington Pit. The report “Carrington Extended – Review of 

Mining Related Impacts on the Paleochannel Groundwater System” is attached in Appendix 10. 



0 

Carrington Groundwater SWL Trends 

5 

10 

Standing Water Level (m) 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 Aug 09 

Date 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Jan 10 

CGW39 CGW45 CGW46 CGW49 CGW51A CGW52 CGW52A CGW54A CGW6 

Figure 47: Carrington Groundwater SWL Trends 

Interpretation of Groundwater Monitoring Results for Carrington Piezometers 

CGW6 

CGW6 is located in alluvium near the Hunter River, just upstream of Carrington. 

The mean pH at CGW6 was 7.5 in 2009. A spike in pH values was noted from CGW6 (pH 8.6) occurring in 

September 2009, however this spike was consistent with bores in the vicinity and within historical ranges for 

groundwater located in this alluvium area. 

CGW6 EC levels averaged 2,050μS/cm for the 2009 reporting period. This value is closely aligned with 

historical data. The average EC value is slightly increased on the 2008 reported average (1,700μS/cm) and 

represents the return to normal conditions for the aquifer in the vicinity of this piezometer following the dilution 

caused by the large flood of June 2007. 

Water levels at CGW6 were recorded at an average depth of 9.45m (60.0m AHD) through 2009. 

CGW39 

Samples for pH and EC analysis from CGW39 were only available during the last quarter of 2008. CGW39 

was reported as dry with depths of around 13m (65.04m AHD) over the past three years. However water 

levels and samples were able to be collected following purging of the bore in September 2008. It is therefore 

difficult to establish trends based on the data available. 

The 2009 reporting period represents the first consistent year for data collection from this site. 

The mean pH at CGW39 was 7.4 in 2009. A spike in pH values was noted from CGW39 (pH 8.0) in 



CGW39 EC levels averaged 7,897μS/cm for the 2009 reporting period. Consistent data and minimal 

fluctuation around for EC and SWL support that the bore is functioning within normal limits. 

Water levels at CGW39 where measured at an average depth of 11.08m (65.5m AHD) through 2009. 



CGW49 

CGW49 is located in alluvium north and upslope of CGW6 on the western side of Carrington. 

The pH at CGW49 averaged 7.5 in 2009. A spike in pH values was noted from CGW49 (pH. 8.1) in 



CGW49 EC levels averaged 3,647μS/cm for the 2009 reporting period. CGW49 EC levels trended around 

7,000μS/cm before the flood event of June 2007. Subsequent sampling results indicate that the EC values 

have levelled out to approximately 4,000μS/cm. This indicates some mixing with the lower EC water from 

upslope aquifer recharge after the flood event. 

Water levels at CGW49 where recorded at an average depth of 9.07m (61.4m AHD). The water level 

remained consistent throughout 2009. 

CGW51A 

The pH at CGW51A averaged 7.2 in 2009. This value is consistent with historical data that since 2006 which 

recorded pH values between 6.8 and 7.7. 

CGW51A EC levels averaged 11,185μS/cm for the 2009 reporting period. This value is closely aligned with 

historical EC data (around 13,000μS/cm) prior to the flood events of June 2007 and suggests aquifer water 

quality is returning to normal conditions. The minimum EC of 6,980μS/cm was recorded in the last quarter of 

2009. 

Water levels at CGW51A where recorded at an average depth of 13.97m (55.4m AHD) through 2009. 

CGW52 

CGW52 is targeted to follow groundwater levels associated with the Broonie 1 coal seam. 

The mean pH at CGW52 was 7.2 in 2009. This value is consistent with historical data that since 2006 which 

recorded pH values between 6.8 and 7.7. 

CGW52 EC levels decreased from 6,120μS/cm at the start of the reporting period to 2,450μS/cm at the end of 

the reporting period. It is unknown whether this drop is an anomaly or represents a change in groundwater 

source. 

The standing water level in CGW52 has trended downwards from 15.4m (54.9m AHD) in 2005 to 24.96m 

(45.3m AHD) in 2009. During the 2009 reporting period this trend continued with water levels falling to a 

maximum of 26.04m (44.1m AHD) possibly influenced by closer mining activity. 

CGW52A 

The pH at CGW52A averaged 7.6 in 2009. This value is consistent with historical data since 2006 with pH 

values between 6.8 and 7.7. 

CGW52A EC levels have trended down from a high of 9,090μS/cm February 2007 to an average value of 

3,887μS/cm for the 2009 reporting period. This gradual trend downward may be influenced by continued river 

seepage following initial flushing of salts from the 2007 flood event. 

Water level recovered from 12.1m (58.2m AHD) to around 11.4m (58.8m AHD) after the out of bank flood 

event of June 2007. This level held steady until January 2009 when a decline commenced to reach a 

minimum of 11.97m (58.3 mADH) in July 2009. The reason for a rise to 9.94 m (60.3 mAHD) in January 2010 

is unknown. 

CGW45 

Recorded as dry and reported to maximum available depth. No samples were able to be extracted. 

CGW46 

Recorded as dry and reported to maximum available depth. No samples were able to be extracted. 



CGW54 

CGW54 is located in the Broonie 1 coal seam. CGW54 is no longer monitored due to a bent casing and 

blockage. Samples for pH and EC analysis from CGW54 were only available during the last quarter of 2008. It 

is therefore difficult to establish trends based on the data available. 

CGW54A 

The pH at CGW54A remained in an average range around 7.4 in 2009. This value is consistent with historical 

data that since 2006 suggest pH values between 6.8 and 7.7. 

CGW54A EC levels fluctuated around an average EC value of 6,337μS/cm for the 2009 reporting period. A 

significant drop in EC was observed between the March and July monitoring period, from a maximum 

recorded EC of 8410μS/cm to the yearly low of 3500μS/cm. Following this sample, the September and 

December monitoring results show a returning trend to normal EC conditions. 

Water levels at CGW54A where recorded at an average depth of 10.6m (57.8m AHD) through 2009. 

North Pit and Alluvial Lands Groundwater 

With mining and rehabilitation completed at North Pit, monitoring of restored alluvial with a series of 

piezometers and bores DM1 to DM6 commenced in 2004 to establish water levels and quality located on the 

mined side of the levee bank. 

Sampling is undertaken quarterly subject to safe access. DM5 and DM6 were unable to be sampled in 2009 

due to bore damage. Samples for analysis of EC were not collected for site DM1 with no free water present. 

Monitoring results for 2009 are shown in Table 35 and Figure 48 to Figure 50. 

Table 35: Groundwater Results from North Pit & Alluvial Lands for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

DM1 (Weir 1 Piezo) NA NA NA NA NA NA 

DM2 (Weir 2 Piezo) 10,253 10,000 10,500 6.6 6.5 6.9 

DM3 8,325 8,180 8,630 6.9 6.7 7.2 

DM4 4,833 4,540 5,130 7.7 7.7 7.8 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for North Pit and Alluvial Lands Piezometers 

Recorded pH values in 2009 remain within historical values of 6.5 and 8.0 pH units (Figure 48). 



8 

North Pit Alluvial Lands Groundwater pH Trends 

7.5 

pH (pH units) 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

DM2 DM3 DM4 

Figure 48: North Pit and Alluvial Lands Groundwater pH Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for North Pit and Alluvial Lands Piezometers 

The EC values remained constant with historical values with the highest average reading being 10,235μS/cm 

for DM2 and the lowest average reading of 4,833μS/cm recorded at DM4 (Figure 49). 

12,000 

North Pit Alluvial Lands Groundwater EC Trends 

11,000 

10,000 

9,000 


8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

DM2 DM3 DM4 

Figure 49: North Pit and Alluvial Lands Ground EC Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for North Pit and Alluvial Lands Piezometers 

The SWL in the monitored bores have remained relatively constant over the reporting period (Figure 50). 

Piezometer DM1 is noted historically as a dry well, however a standing water level was recorded on two 

sampling occasions in 2009. 



10 

North Pit Alluvial Lands Groundwater SWL Trends 

15 


20 

25 

30 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 

Figure 50: North Pit Alluvial Lands Groundwater SWL Trends 

Hobdens Gully and South Facilities Groundwater 

Hobdens Gully and south facilities piezometers are sampled quarterly subject to safe access. The key 

piezometers used for the interpretation of the south facilities groundwater are H5038/5, Hobdens Well, 

E5038/5, H5032/5, S4 and S6. Other piezometers in this area have been decommissioned due to the 

advancement of mining activities. 

Water samples for analysis from S4 and S6 were unable to be collected as these were reported as dry in 

2009. Monitoring results for 2009 are shown in Table 36 and Figure 51 to Figure 53. 

Table 36: Groundwater Results from Hobden’s Gully and South Facilities for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

E5038/5 5,658 5,200 6,020 6.9 6.8 7.2 

Hobden's Well 1,080 990 1,190 7.7 7.5 7.8 

S4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

S6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

H5032/5 11,128 10,580 11,900 6.9 6.7 7.1 

H5038/5 6,495 5,940 7,250 6.9 6.8 7.2 



Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for Hobden’s Gully and South Facilities Piezometers 

Observed pH trends across the sites remained stable moving over a fairly narrow range and within historical 

levels between 6.5 and 8.0 pH units (Figure 51). 

8 

Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater pH Trends 

7.5 

pH (pH units) 

7 

6.5 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Hobden's Well E5038/5 H5032/5 H5038/5 

Figure 51: Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater pH Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for Hobden’s Gully and South Facilities Piezometers 

The EC levels have remained consistent with historical data for the sites monitored. During 2009 the highest 

average EC reading of 11,128μS/cm was recorded at H5032/5 with the lowest average EC reading of 

1,080μS/cm being recorded at Hobden’s Well (Figure 52). 

12,000 

Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater EC Trends 

11,000 

10,000 

9,000 


8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Hobden's Well E5038/5 H5032/5 H5038/5 

Figure 52: Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater EC Trends 



Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for Hobden’s Gully and South Facilities Piezometers 

The SWL at E5038/5, H5032/5 and H5038/5 and Hobden’s Well have remained steady during the reporting 

period with minimal fluctuation from historical data (Figure 53). Although piezometers S4 and S6 were 

recorded as dry the standing water level has been recorded for maximum bore depth. 

0 

Hobden's Gully and South Facilities SWL Trends 

5 

10 

15 


20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Hobden's Well S4 S6 E5038/5 H5032/5 H5038/5 

Figure 53: Hobden's Gully and South Facilities Groundwater SWL Trends 

Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Groundwater 

The key piezometers used for the interpretation of potential seepage into North Pit Void through or under the 

cut off wall of North Pit Levee are PZ1CH200, PZ2CH400, PZ3CH800, PZ4CH1380, PZ5CH1800, 

PZ6CH2450, GA3, HV3 and HV4. These piezometers are sampled quarterly subject to safe access. 

Piezometer HV4 was not sampled in 2009 reported to be consistently dry. Piezometers PZ1CH200 and 

PZ2CH400 have undergone screen cleaning on the 24 July 2009. This process subjected these sites to 

significant volumes of water sourced outside the boreholes and subsequently have had an impact on data 

consistency at these sites. 

Monitoring results for 2009 are shown in Table 37 and in Figure 54 to Figure 56. 



Table 37: Groundwater Results from Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Groundwater for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

PZ1CH200 2,055 1,210 2,620 7.0 6.9 7.2 

PZ2CH400 1,818 930 2,850 7.1 6.9 7.4 

PZ3CH800 733 500 860 7.3 7.2 7.6 

PZ4CH1380 1,095 630 2,170 7.3 6.9 7.9 

PZ5CH1800 253 200 310 7.6 7.1 8.1 

PZ6CH2450 615 570 690 7.4 7.0 7.8 

HV3 788 640 890 7.5 7.3 7.8 

HV4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

GA3 715 670 760 7.2 7.0 7.3 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Piezometers 

Observed pH levels remained relatively stable throughout 2009 between values 6.9 and 8.1 (Figure 54). A 

slight increase across all sites was observed during December sampling. 

9 

Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Groundwater pH Trends 

8.5 

8 

pH(pH units) 

7.5 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

PZ1CH200 PZ2CH400 PZ3CH800 PZ4CH1380 PZ4CH1800 PZ5CH2450 GA3 

HV3 

Figure 54: Alluvial Levee Bank Groundwater pH Trends 



Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Piezometers 

The EC levels in all of the monitored bores remained relatively low during the monitoring period (Figure 55). 

Some fluctuations were witnessed in PZ1CH200, PZ2CH400 and PZ4CH1380 however these differences are 

likely to be specific response to large volumes of out sourced water pumped in a purge and case cleaning that 

occurred on 24 July 2009. The highest average EC level was 2,055μS/cm at PZ1CH200 and the lowest 

average reading of 253μS/cm belonged to PZ5CH1800. 

3,000 

Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Groundwater EC Trends 

2,500 


2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


HV3 

Figure 55: Alluvial Levee Bank Groundwater EC Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Piezometers 

Monitored SWL remained largely consistent throughout the year except for a noticeable decline in SWL at 

PZ2CH400 (Figure 56). The trend in PZ2CH400 water level is responding to a purge and case cleaning that 

occurred on 24 July 2009. Levee monitoring data indicates a stable water table adjacent to the levee, with no 

indication of potential seepage issues with the cut-off wall beneath the levee. 



0 

Alluvial Lands Levee Bank Groundwater SWL Trends 

5 


10 

15 

20 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


HV3 

HV4 

Figure 56: Alluvial Levee Bank Groundwater SWL Trends 



Cheshunt Groundwater 

Cheshunt piezometers are sampled quarterly subject to safe access. Interpretation of Cheshunt groundwater 

has been previously based on stage one bore sites; BZ1(1-3), BZ3(1-3), BZ4A(1-2), BZ4B, BZ5(1-2), BZ8(1- 

3), HG2, HG2A and HG3. 

Stage two bores installed into targeted Cheshunt Pit seams in advance of mining came on line in May 2008. 

Several of the bores contain multiple piezometers and provide water level and EC data as far down as the 

Bayswater seam. These new bores include sites BUNC44D, BUNC46D, CHPZ12A, CHPZ12D, CHPZ13A, 

CHPZ13D, CHPZ14A and CHPZ14D. 

Samples were unable to be collected from BC1, BZ1-2, BZ4B, BZ5-1, BZ5-2 and BZ8-1 as sites were 

reported as dry during the reporting period. December sampling was unable to occur as scheduled. As such a 

make up run was performed in January 2010. Monitoring results for 2009 are shown in Table 38 and Table 39 

and in Figure 57 to Figure 62. 

A Groundwater Impacts Report for HVO South is provided in Appendix 10 in accordance with the HVO South 

Development Consent. 

Table 38: Groundwater Results from Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater’s for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

BC1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC1a 1,540 920 2,780 7.3 7.1 7.4 

BZ1-1 6,498 2,800 11,300 7.1 7.0 7.2 

BZ1-2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BZ1-3 1,388 1,290 1,600 7.5 7.3 8.1 

BZ3-1 1,783 1,070 3,690 7.2 7.0 7.5 

BZ3-2 4,810 2,460 6,780 7.3 7.2 7.4 

BZ3-3 1,468 1,340 1,670 6.9 6.7 7.1 

BZ4A(1) 14,083 14,020 14,120 6.7 6.6 6.7 

BZ4A(2) 2,045 1,970 2,160 6.7 6.5 7.1 

BZ4B NA NA NA NA NA NA 




BZ8-2 1,613 1,360 1,740 7.0 6.9 7.1 



Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

BZ8-3 1,610 - - 6.6 - - 

HG1 4,213 4,130 4,270 7.5 7.3 7.9 

HG2 4,258 4,190 4,360 7.4 7.2 7.8 

HG2A 2,790 2,760 2,830 7.4 7.3 7.8 

HG3 2,733 2,670 2,780 7.3 7.2 7.3 

Table 39: Groundwater Results from Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater’s for 2009 

Location 

EC (uS/cm) 


pH 

BUNC44D 1,875 1,130 2,540 6.4 6.3 6.5 

BUNC46D 1,313 1,070 1,750 6.9 4.6 7.9 

CHPZ12A 870 690 940 7.1 6.7 7.4 

CHPZ12D 1,455 1,430 1,480 10.7 10.4 11.1 

CHPZ13A 840 710 890 7.1 6.8 7.4 

CHPZ13D 720 630 780 9.9 8.9 10.8 

CHPZ14A 678 580 760 7.3 6.8 7.9 

CHPZ14D 648 530 710 10.2 8.5 10.9 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for Cheshunt Stage 1 Piezometers 

Observed pH levels remained relatively stable throughout 2009 between values 6.5 and 8.1 (Figure 57). 

Recorded pH across the monitored sites is within normal historical ranges. A noticeable increase trend is 

experienced by bores in December sampling. It is unclear pending further sampling whether this is the 

beginning of an increasing trend or a function of temporal conditions at the time of sampling. 



8.5 

Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater pH Trends 

8 

7.5 

pH(pH units) 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 Aug 09 

Date 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Jan 10 

BC1A BZ1-1 BZ1-2 BZ1-3 BZ3-1 BZ3-2 BZ3-3 BZ4A(1) BZ4A(2) 

BZ8-2 HG1 HG2 HG2A HG3 

Figure 57: Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater pH Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for Cheshunt Stage One Piezometers 

The highest average EC reading of 14,120μS/cm was recorded at BZ4A(1) with the lowest average EC 

reading of 920μS/cm. Other EC levels remained stable (Figure 58). 

The EC levels at BZ1-1 (sandstone/interburden) trended upwards in 2008 from 4,710μS/cm at the end of 

2007, and then levelled off at an average level of 8,232μS/cm in 2008. In 2009 the EC dropped significantly 

from 9,000μS/cm to 2,800μS/cm in June and September, before returning to a maximum of 11,300μS/cm. 

The cause of this variation remains unknown and the site will continue to be monitored in 2010. 

The EC levels for BZ3-2 indicate a substantial increasing trend from 500μS/cm in June 2007 to 5,520μS/cm in 

December 2008. Following a small return to 2460μS/cm in March 2009, an increasing trend, peaking at 

6780μS/cm, was observed at the end of the 2009 reporting period. 

15,000 

Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater EC Trends 

14,000 

13,000 

12,000 

11,000 


10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 Aug 09 

Date 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Jan 10 

BC1A BZ1-1 BZ1-2 BZ1-3 BZ3-1 BZ3-2 BZ3-3 BZ4A(1) BZ4A(2) 

BZ8-2 HG1 HG2 HG2A HG3 

Figure 58: Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater EC Trends 



Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for Cheshunt Stage 1 Piezometers 

Minor variations in standing water level were recorded across the Cheshunt Stage one piezometers (Figure 

59). More significant fluctuations in the SWL at BZ4A(2) were noted through 2009. 

0 

Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater SWL Trends 

5 

10 

Standin Water Level (m) 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 Aug 09 

Date 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

Jan 10 

BC1 BC1A BZ1-1 BZ1-2 BZ1-3 BZ3-1 BZ3-2 BZ3-3 BZ4A(1) 

BZ4A(2) BZ4B BZ5-1 BZ5-2 BZ8-1 BZ8-2 BZ8-3 HG1 HG2 

HG2A HG3 

Figure 59: Cheshunt Stage 1 Groundwater SWL Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for Cheshunt Stage Two Piezometers 

The pH levels associated with these bores appear to be stabilising following construction (Figure 60). A 

gradual increase in pH is observed at bores CHPZ12A and CHPZ13A. CHPZ14A. A decline in pH in noted for 

sites CHPZ12D and CHPZ13D. The pH at CHPZ14D continues to shown instability in its measurements. 

More baseline data is required for accurate assessment of trends. 

11.5 

Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater pH Trends 

11 

10.5 

10 

9.5 

pH (pH units) 

9 

8.5 

8 

7.5 

7 

6.5 

6 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

BUNC44D BUNC46D CHPZ12A CHPZ12D CHPZ13A CHPZ13D CHPZ14A CHPZ14D 

Figure 60: Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater pH Trends 



Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for New Cheshunt Stage 2 Piezometers 

All EC results with the exception of BUNC44D appear to have stabilised (Figure 61). The EC in the stable 

bores likely shows EC directly influenced by the Hunter River. More historical data is required for accurate 

assessment of trends. 

3,000 

Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwaters EC Trend 

2,500 


2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


Figure 61: Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater EC Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for Cheshunt Stage 2 Piezometers 

All SWL results with the exception of BUNC46D appear to have stabilised, showing minor fluctuations likely 

associated with water levels in the Hunter River (Figure 62). More historical data is required for accurate 

assessment of trends. 

0 

Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater SWL Trends 

2 

4 


6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Date 

Jul 09 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


Figure 62: Cheshunt Stage 2 Groundwater SWL Trends 



Lemington Groundwater 

Lemington Groundwater is sampled quarterly or bi-annually subject to safe access. Interpretation of 

Lemington Groundwater has been based on sites; C1 (WJ039), F1.5, GW9701, GW9702, GW9710 and 

GWAR981. Monitoring results for 2009 are shown in Table 40 and Figure 63 to Figure 65. 

Table 40: Groundwater Results from Lemington for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

C1(WJ039) 8,043 7,950 8,210 7.0 6.8 7.2 

F1.5(WF533) 4,430 4,360 4,500 6.9 6.8 6.9 

GW9701 6,430 6,410 6,450 7.2 7.1 7.2 

GW9702 7,075 7,040 7,110 7.2 7.1 7.2 

GW9710 13,310 13,120 13,500 6.9 6.8 6.9 

GWAR981 3,660 3,600 3,720 7.0 6.9 7.1 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for Lemington Piezometers 

Observed pH trends across the sites remained stable moving within a narrow range within historical levels 

between 6.5 and 7.5 pH units. 

7.5 

Lemington Groundwater pH Trends 

pH (pH units) 

7 

6.5 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

C1(WJ039) F1.5(WF533) GW9701 GW9702 GW9710 GWAR981 

Figure 63: Lemington Groundwater pH Trends 



Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for Lemington Piezometers 

The EC levels across all monitored bores remained stable. A slight increase in EC levels recorded at 

GW9710 from 12,730μS/cm in March 2008 to 13,500μS/cm in September 2009. This potential trend will 

continue to be monitored in 2010. The highest recorded average EC level of 13,500μS/cm was taken from 

GW9710 with the lowest average EC level of 3600μS/cm taken from GWAR981. 

14,000 

Lemington Groundwater EC Trends 

12,000 

10,000 


8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


Figure 64: Lemington Groundwater EC Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for Lemington Piezometers 

All SWL results remained stable during 2009 with a slight increase to GW9701 and GW9702. 

0 

Lemington Groundwater SWL Trends 

5 

10 


15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


Figure 65: Lemington Groundwater SWL 



West Pit Groundwater 

West Pit bores were commissioned for sampling in August 2008. These sites are sampled quarterly with SWL 

levels taken on a monthly basis subject to safe access. Interpretation of West Pit groundwater has been 

based on sites; NPZ1, NPZ2, NPZ3, NPZ4 and NPZ5. Monitoring results for 2009 are shown in Table 41 and 

Figure 66 to Figure 68. 

Table 41: Groundwater Results from West Pit Groundwater’s for 2009 

Location 

EC (S/cm) 


pH 

NPZ1 6,350 6,080 6,530 7.7 7.4 8.0 

NPZ2 18,295 17,440 19,400 7.5 7.4 7.7 

NPZ3 12,898 12,290 13,800 8.7 8.5 9.0 

NPZ4 7,615 7,250 8,120 7.5 7.4 7.6 

NPZ5 8,258 8,030 8,400 7.5 7.3 7.7 

Groundwater Monitoring pH Results for West Pit Piezometers 

Observed pH trends across the most sites were stable moving within a narrow range 7.0 and 9.0 pH units. 

NPZ3 moved within a narrow range between 8.5 and 9 pH units. These bores appeared to have stabilised 

since the last reporting period. 

9.5 

West Pit Groundwater pH Trends 

9 

8.5 

pH(pHunits) 

8 

7.5 

7 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 

NPZ1 NPZ2 NPZ3 NPZ4 NPZ5 

Figure 66: West Pit Groundwater pH Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring EC Results for West Pit Piezometers 

The EC trends across the sites where consistent throughout 2009 indicating that the bores have stabilised. 

Site NPZ2 consistently recorded the highest EC across site at an average of 18,295μS/cm, associated with 

high salinity waters in the West Pit Barret coal seam. The lowest recorded EC was consistently present at 

NPZ1 at an average of 6,350μS/cm. 



20,000 

West Pit Groundwater EC Trends 

15,000 


10,000 

5,000 

0 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


Figure 67: West Pit Groundwater EC Trends 

Groundwater Monitoring SWL Results for West Pit Piezometers 

The SWL on for sites to the east of the advancing highwall generally showed a decline consistent with the 

progression of mining, except for NPZ2 and NPZ5 which appear to have either increased slightly or remained 

stable. 

0 

West Pit Groundwater SWL Trends 

10 


20 

30 

40 

50 

Jan 09 

Feb 09 

Mar 09 

Apr 09 

May 09 

Jun 09 

Jul 09 

Date 

Aug 09 

Sep 09 

Oct 09 

Nov 09 

Dec 09 


Figure 68: West Pit Groundwater SWL Trends 



Comparison of 2009 Groundwater Quality Data with EIS Predictions 

The Carrington EIS described the groundwater quality within the alluvial deposits as ‘mostly poor’ with an EC 

up to 9,780μS/cm. Observed data supports this observation. The long term average EC ground water results 

for Carrington area showed in Table 42. 

Table 42: Carrington groundwater results 

Year 

Electrical Conductivity S/cm 

2009 6,757 

2008 5,716 

2007 6,045 

2006 6,532 

2005 7,149 

2004 6,715 

2003 6,899 

The measured drawdown of the Hunter River alluvium adjacent to Carrington closely matches the predictions 

made in the groundwater model used for the various EIS documents. 

Monitoring of the Alluvial Lands Project water table recovery in the North Pit Void is at variance with the 

predictions made in the 1992 EIS. Modelling for the 1992 EIS did not envisage a tailings facility. The North Pit 

tailings facility was approved in 2003 and commenced operation that year. Since then, the water table in the 

North Pit Void has recovered much faster than predicted in the 1992 EIS. Licensed extraction bores have 

been installed to actively control the water table level in the North Pit Void as required. 

3.6 CONTAMINATED POLLUTED LAND 

3.6.1 Environmental Management and Performance 

Control strategies are in place at HVO to mitigate risk to the environment from contaminated land. Controls 

include infrastructure such as bunding and segregation systems as well as procedures for waste 

management, site contamination, prevention, control and remediation. A Contaminated Sites Register is used 

to record and ensure follow up of any contamination that occurs on site. A review of the contaminated sites 

register was undertaken during 2009, and actions identified in the review are currently being implemented. 



3.7 THREATENED FLORA AND FAUNA 


Coal & Allied has implemented flora and fauna management practices aimed at minimising the potential 

impacts on species and habitat resources as a result of mining and associated activities. These practices are 

documented in the Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 10.2 Flora and Fauna. 

The procedure incorporates the actions described in the flora and fauna management plans required by 

HVO’s development consents. It ensures the protection and management of threatened species within the 

development consent area through appropriate planning, pre-clearing surveys in areas where threatened 

species are known to occur, and monitoring. As part of this procedure, management of other key threatening 

processes is also undertaken such as weed management and feral animal control. 

HVO also ensures the extent of clearing is minimised and rehabilitation carried out progressively during pit 

operation. The effectiveness of the rehabilitation programme is reported in Section 5 of this report. A 

rehabilitation plan is developed and reviewed as part of the MOP, which is approved by DII. 


Coal & Allied’s EMS Environmental Procedure 13.3 Ground Disturbance Permit describes the GDP process. 

The GDP process is activated when any clearing is required to be undertaken on the mine site. The GDP 

follows a systematic process, which ensures that a range of environmental conditions and licences are 

checked for the specific area of land to be cleared. This is then followed by a site inspection by the 

environmental department. The GDP is issued with specific conditions that are required to be completed 

before any clearing may occur. Clearing is generally only permitted between January and May, to avoid the 

nesting and breeding times of threatened species. GDP requests that are submitted between May and 

December may require an independent ecologist to undertake site inspections for the presence of threatened 

species. 

Coal & Allied’s EMS Environmental Procedure 13.3 Ground Disturbance Permit describes the GDP process, 

which has been developed at HVO to ensure all employees are aware of the process to be followed. 

The GDP application requires details on the area to be cleared, the timing, and must be approved by specific 

Coal & Allied managers. The review of the application includes an assessment of the area to be cleared 

including, but not limited to: 

 

 

 

 

Compliance of the proposed disturbance with relevant statutory approvals and management plans eg 

Development Consent conditions, licence conditions, Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP) and 

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP); 

Status of identified archaeological sites; 

Presence of any threatened species; 

Location of monitoring sites; and 

Water management measures that may be required. 

Once a GDP is approved, the boundary of the agreed disturbance area is pegged and labelled by a qualified 

surveyor. At sites where threatened species are known to be present, a threatened species management 

protocol is also implemented. The key components of the protocol are site observations/surveys, threatened 

species management actions and reporting. 

A total of 43 GDP’s were approved for HVO in 2009. Two independent site inspections were conducted by 

AECOM to review sites being cleared during faunal breeding seasons. Any habitat trees were marked and 

exclusion zones were developed within these GDP’s until the completion of the breeding season to minimise 

any environmental effects. 



3.7.3 Flora and Fauna Monitoring 

Threatened Species Summary 

A review of all flora and fauna studies that have previously been conducted across Coal & Allied operations, 

including HVO, was completed in 2008. The purpose was to collate and summarise information from all the 

reports to build a picture over HVO of habitat and occurrence patterns of threatened species. 

The report titled “Threatened Flora and Fauna of HVO North, HVO South and Mount Thorley Warkworth – 

Literature Review and Gap Analysis” was finalised in February 2008 and will specifically: 

 

 

 

 

Provide a concise summary of the location and habitat of threatened species, populations and ecological 

communities listed under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) 

and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 

occurring or considered likely to occur within the subject sites; 

Identify gaps in knowledge with respect to the occurrence or likely occurrence of listed threatened 

species; 

Provide recommendations on priority species on which to focus appropriate management actions; and 

Assist with rehabilitation planning. 

River Red Gum Mapping and Management 

A survey of the occurrence and health of River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) on HVO land was 

completed in 2007. The survey was completed by ecologists from Umwelt. River Red Gums have become 

increasingly rare in the Hunter Valley, and the entire population occurring within the Hunter Valley is listed as 

an Endangered Population under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. 

Survey results indicate a total of 72 remnant populations of River Red Gums occurring on HVO land. The 

report will assist in developing appropriate management actions. HVO aims to proactively manage the 

populations of River Red Gums within their land holdings to ensure the protection of the species. 

During 2008 Coal & Allied finalised and submitted a Restoration and Rehabilitation Strategy for the Carrington 

Billabong and the River Red Gum population. The Strategy proposed a number of management actions to be 

undertaken by Coal & Allied which would contribute to the rehabilitation and restoration of the River Red 

Gums and their associated environment at Carrington Billabong. The management actions include increased 

maintenance activities, specific research and focussed monitoring. Reporting of the implementation progress 

of this strategy is included in Section 3.26. 

Since then DoP has approved a further application from Coal & Allied – the development of HVO South – and 

requires that the Carrington Billabong River Red Gum Rehabilitation and Restoration Strategy be reviewed 

and revised to include the Hunter River and Wollombi Brook stands of River Red Gum occurring within the 

HVO South project approval boundary. The revised rehabilitation and restoration strategy is expected to be 

completed in early 2010. 

River Red Gum Genetic Survey 

The University of New England (UNE), Armidale, is conducting a study into the genetics of River Red Gum 

populations within the Hunter Valley, including two located on HVO owned land, including the Carrington 

Billabong and the Barry Property. The intention of the project is to assess the levels of in-breeding or outbreeding 

within and between River Red Gum populations, as well as seed viability, to help determine the 

long-term viability of River Red Gum populations for natural recruitment potential and revegetation 

management. 

The expected outcomes of the project are to: 

 

 

 

Determine the extent of genetic variability and compare with other Eucalyptus species to ascertain 

whether fragmentation has affected genetic decline at this time; 

Investigate the level of variability against recruitment, stand density, population size and connectivity; 

Gain an estimate of the severity of in-breeding depression and an understanding of the breeding system 

in operation to determine optimum recruitment conditions from a genetic perspective; 



 

 

 

Identify population conservation value in regards to the conservation of genetic diversity; 

Propose appropriate management plans for enhancing recruitment including an investigation of possible 

transplantation candidates and sites; and 

Isolate micro satellite primers that give clear amplification for Hunter Valley River Red Gums that may be 

utilised to investigate other genetic questions at a later date. 

The study is being conducted as a PhD-level project having commenced in 2007 and running for four years. 

Warkworth Sands Woodlands Re-establishment 

Soil mapping and vegetation survey work that was undertaken by the UNE in 2007 across the Coal & Allied 

owned Archerfield property adjacent to the HVO South operations indicated the area could be used for the reestablishment 

of Warkworth Sands Woodland. Revegetation trials commenced in 2009, involving the planting 

of various tree species. Further revegetation trials are planned for Autumn 2010. Tubestock planted in the 

trials have been grown from seed sourced in the areas surrounding HVO. 

More information on the Warkworth Sands Woodland research and management work being undertaken by 

Coal & Allied is provided in the Mount Thorley Warkworth AEMR. 

3.8 WEEDS 


The management and control of weeds at HVO is underpinned by the Annual Works Schedule (AWS), which 

was prepared in January 2009 by local independent environmental consultant AECOM Australia Pty Limited 

(AECOM). 

The AWS lists Weeds of National Significance (WONS), noxious, and environmental weed species as 

identified at HVO, and provides a framework to allow for structured weed management and control across 

operational and non-operational areas of HVO. 

The primary objectives of the weed control program are to: 

Ensure HVO complies with its legal and non legal obligations; 

Protect and enhance the environmental values of HVO by eradicating or substantially reducing the 

distribution and density of weed populations across HVO particularly in post-mining rehabilitated areas; 

and 

Ensuring no net degradation of the environmental values at HVO as a result of weed infestations. 

Monitoring of weed control programmes to assess the success or failure of weed control works has been 

undertaken on a regular basis by the HVO Environmental Coordinator and ENSR Australia Pty Ltd personnel. 

Assessment of the impact of weeds across the HVO site is ongoing with the results of the regular monitoring 

programmes used to update the AWS. 


In 2009, weed control continued across HVO’s operational mining leases and along the Hunter River (see 

Figure 69). The key species that have been targeted during the 2009 weed control programme include: 

African Boxthorn; 

 

 

 

 

 

Castor Oil Tree; 

Galenia; 

Mother of Millions; 

Prickly Pear; and 

Tiger Pear. 



Control for the above mentioned weed species focused on the application of registered herbicides and/or 

manual removal of isolated pockets of key species (primarily African Boxthorn and Prickly Pear). Where 

possible, selective herbicides have been utilised to optimise retention of the desired ground cover species, 

whilst also minimising impact to non target species. 

Approximately 121 hectares of the HVO site have been subject to weed control operations in 2009. Details of 

each control area are as follows and are shown in Figure 69: 

 

 

 

21.2 hectares treated at Newdell/Hunter Valley Load Point – Target Species: Castor Oil Tree, Galenia, 

Prickly Pear; 

74.2 hectares treated at HVO North – Target Species: African Boxthorn, Galenia, Mother of Millions, 

Prickly Pear; and 

26.1 hectares treated at HVO South – Target Species: African Boxthorn, Galenia, Mother of Millions, 

Prickly Pear, Tiger Pear. 

Monitoring of weed control programmes to assess the impact of the implemented control works has been 

undertaken on a regular basis by the HVO Environmental Coordinator and during the annual weed survey 

(conducted in spring). The results of the monitoring and weed survey are used to update the AWS and plan 

future weed control activities. 



Figure 69: HVO Weed Control Areas for 2009 



3.9 BLASTING 


Operational Limits 

The objective of blasting operations is to ensure that optimal fragmentation is obtained whilst minimising dust 

generation, adhering to safety standards and conforming to EPL criteria for vibration and overpressure. 

Hunter Valley Operations’ EPL 640 states: 

L7.1 The airblast overpressure level from blasting operations carried out in or on the premises must not 

exceed: 

(a) 115dB(L) for more than 5 per cent of the total number of blasts during each reporting period; 

and 

(b) 120dB(L) at any time. 

At any residence or noise sensitive location that is not owned by the licensee or subject of a private 

agreement between the owner of the residence or noise sensitive location and the licensee as to an 

alternative overpressure level. 

L7.2 The ground vibration peak particle velocity from blasting operations carried out in or on the premises 

must not exceed: 

(a) 5mm/s for more than 5 per cent of the total number of blasts carried out on the premises 

during each reporting period; and 

(b) 10mm/s at any time. 

At any residence or noise sensitive location that is not owned by the licensee or subject of a private 

agreement between the owner of the residence or noise sensitive location and the licensee as to an 

alternative overpressure level. 

Blast Monitoring 

HVO operated a network of six Datamasters Version 6 (V6) blast monitoring units in 2009 (refer to Figure 70). 

These are located at nearby privately owned residences and function as regulatory compliance monitors. 

These monitors are located at: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerrys Plains Village; 

Wandewoi; 

Maison Dieu; 

Cheshunt East; 

Warkworth School; and 

Moses Crossing. 

The blast vibration units continuously screen for ground vibration. All captured blasts are automatically 

recorded to a computerised database that is backed up daily. These instruments can be monitored from the 

main office, allowing blasting results to be viewed immediately after the blast. 

HVO also maintains a number of monitors to assist internal blast vibration and overpressure management. 

These units are strategically located to provide vital information on blast performance. This information is then 

utilised for further improvement in mine production as well as vibration and overpressure levels at surrounding 

residences. 



Figure 70: Location of Version 6 Blast Monitors for HVO in 2009 



Deeds of Agreement 

Since 2006, all Deeds of Agreement between HVO and neighbouring property owners have ceased. The 

Cheshunt property has been purchased by Coal & Allied, the Montrose and Oaklands properties were 

purchased by neighbouring mining companies. 

Blasting Investigations 

Within 24 hours of a blast being ‘fired’ the Drill and Blast Engineer interrogates the results across relevant 

blast monitors. Should any results on regulatory compliance monitors record a reading higher than 115dB(L) 

or 5 mm/s then an investigation is conducted. 

This investigation analyses the results by correlating the distance from the blast with the relevant peaks in the 

vibration and overpressure wave forms. From this analysis, an assessment is made as to the monitor reading 

at the time of the arrival of the blast vibration and overpressure. Should the peak reading correspond to the 

arrival time of the blast this may be deemed to be an ‘Actual Blast’ and further analysis may be performed to 

confirm that the result is representative of the blast and to determine the cause of the exceedance. 

However, if the blast arrival time does not correlate with the peak reading on the blast wave form, a scale 

value is then calculated to determine the actual blast reading. The predominant cause of extraneous blast 

readings is high wind events or electrical interference with the blast monitor during the recording period. 

Strong westerly winds can generate monitor readings above 120dB(L) even in the absence of a blast. 

During 2009, HVO forwarded six blasting results for further independent investigation using the above 

mentioned method. The results of these investigations are discussed in Section 3.9.2 and the independent 

analysis and investigation reports are available upon request. 

Blasting and Community Considerations 

HVO ensures that key residences are given notification prior to all blasts. These residences are neighbours 

who are likely to be affected by blast vibration or neighbours who have requested notification prior to blasting. 

Notification is typically by phone or email. Firing of a blast may involve the positioning of a sentry at or near 

the residence, if the blasting occurs in close proximity. 

To assist in minimising the impact of blasting on the surrounding community, HVO has implemented blasting 

goals which include vibration and overpressure targets, wind speed and direction restrictions, and blast 

management system improvements. 

The voluntary meteorological restrictions, limit blasting when the wind speed and direction have a high 

potential to cause annoyance or impact. Permission to blast must be given by the Drill and Blast 

Superintendent if conditions are unfavourable. This has occurred on several occasions where shots have 

been delayed until weather conditions permit. The meteorological limits for each pit are presented in Table 43. 

Table 43: HVO Internal Meteorological Limits 

Location 

Wind direction 

Wind 

speed 

Conditions 

All pits 0 o – 360 o 10m/s Do not blast if wind speed above 10m/s. 

Cheshunt Pit 

260 o – 315 o 4m/s 

315 o – 325 o 6m/s 

Do not blast if wind speed and direction above 4m/s 

(1 minute and 10 minute averages). 

Do not blast if wind speed and direction above 6m/s 

(1 minute and 10 minute averages). 

Road Closures 

A road closure is required if blasting is within 500m of public roads. HVO required 38 road closures on Jerrys 

Plains Road for the purposes of blasting during the reporting period. Road closures were performed in 

accordance with the SSC and the RTA approved Road Closure Management Plan. 




During the reporting period 441 blasts were initiated at HVO. On 5 May 2009, blasting results for two blasts 

were not recorded at the Warkworth monitor due to the monitor being off line. All other blasts for the year 

were captured. 

One blast recorded an overpressure reading higher than the 120dB(L) EPL limit at the Warkworth and Maison 

Dieu monitors. The same blast recorded a reading above 115dB(L) at the Wandewoi monitor. Results of this 

blast were submitted to the DECCW and an investigation into the blast was conducted. Details of this incident 

are available in Section 3.21 and in Appendix 11. HVO received a warning letter from the DECCW in relation 

to the blast exceedance. HVO also received a community concern from the Jerrys Plains area regarding the 

blast. 

There were a total of 14 blasts which recorded an overpressure reading higher than 115dB(L) during the 

reporting period. Upon investigation, 10 of these blasts were found to be due to wind reinforcement and as 

such were not exceedances of the EPL. Six blasting results were sent for independent investigation. Two of 

these were found to be within the EPL limits, with four blasts exceeding the 115dB(L) EPL limit during 2009. 

This represents 0.91 per cent of blasts, which falls under the 5 per cent limit specified in the EPL. Blasts that 

exceeded the 115dB(L) occurred on 21 January, 13 May, 6 July and 24 December 2009. No community 

concerns where received in relation to these blasts. 

There were no exceedances of the 5mm/s or 10mm/s ground vibration criteria over the reporting period on 

any properties outside Coal & Allied owned land. In accordance with Condition nine, Schedule 3 – HVO South 

blasting consent, no blasts recorded ground vibrations greater than 5mm/s at St. Philip’s Church or the 

outbuildings of Archerfield. 

During the reporting period there were eight community concerns relating to blasting with only one blastrelated 

complaint received in 2008 compared with three in 2007 and nine in 2006 (refer to Section 4.1). 

Results of blast monitoring at privately owned residences during the reporting period are shown in Figure 71 

to Figure 76 and detailed in Appendix 10. 

Wind affected result 

Moses Crossing 

130 

11 

120 

10 

Overpressure (dB) 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Ground Vibration (mm/s) 

40 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Overpressure dB(L) 

EPA Overpressure Limt for Max 5% of Blasts 

EPA Ground Vibration Limit 

EPA Overpressure Limit 


EPA Ground Vibration Limit for Max 5% of Blasts 

Figure 71: Moses Crossing Blast Monitoring Results 2009 



Jerrys Plains 

Wind affected results 

130 

11 

120 

10 


110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 


50 

1 

40 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 







Figure 72: Jerrys Plains Blast Monitoring Results 2009 

Cheshunt East 


130 

11 

120 

10 


110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 


50 

1 

40 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 







Figure 73: Cheshunt East Blast Monitoring Results 2009 



130 

Maison Dieu 


Blast exceeded 120 dB 

on 6 July 09 


11 

120 

10 


110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 


40 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 







Figure 74: Maison Dieu Blast Monitoring Results 2009 

130 

Blast exceeded 115 dB on 13 

May and 6 July 09 

Wandewoi 

Blast exceeded 115 dB on 24 

December 09 

11 

120 

10 


110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 


50 

1 

40 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 







Figure 75: Wandewoi Blast Monitoring Results 2009 




on 21 Jan 09 


Warkworth 


on 6 July 09 

130 

11 

120 

10 


110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 


50 

1 

40 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 







Figure 76: Warkworth Blast Monitoring Results 2009 



3.10 OPERATIONAL NOISE 


The objectives of acoustic management on site are to install, operate and efficiently maintain equipment in 

such a way that: 

Emitted noise levels within the workplace do not exceed defined health criteria; and 

 

Emitted noise levels do not unduly affect the amenity at the nearest privately owned residences. 

The DoP has responsibility for the approval of noise emissions from industrial and mining sites. Consent limits 

are determined in conjunction with the DECCW. The current consent limits are based on guidelines in the 

DECCW Industrial Noise Policy. 

Noise impacts must be assessed separately against each of the relevant development consents. Refer to 

Appendix 12 for attended noise monitoring and Appendix 13 for real time noise monitoring results. 

Since 2006, all private agreements between HVO and neighbouring property owners have ceased. One 

agreement ceased due to the purchase of the property by Coal & Allied. Another agreement concluded due to 

the purchase of the property by a neighbouring mining company and another ceased due to the property 

owner withdrawing from the agreement. 

Operational Noise Controls 

HVO manages and controls noise in accordance with HVO noise management plan and Coal & Allied’s EMS 

Environmental Procedure 9.1 Noise. Control procedures used as part of the HVO include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the project approval stage, noise modelling is used to predict the areas potentially affected by noise 

impacts; 

Development consent conditions are established to allow the purchase of those properties adversely 

affected; 

Mining equipment is maintained to ensure high availability and to meet relevant noise emission criteria; 

Monitoring of mobile plant and ancillary plant sound power levels is undertaken on an ongoing basis; 

Preferential use of quieter equipment in noise sensitive areas; 

The CHPP is enclosed in buildings and protective structures that effectively contain noise generated in 

these processes to the close proximity of the plant; 

Designation of dumps for night time and day time use are incorporation into the mine planning process; 

and 

Ongoing operator education is carried out to improve awareness of noise issues. 

The mobile equipment noise measurement specification, developed by Coal & Allied in 1999, continued to be 

applied during 2009. Figure 77 details the HVO Equipment Noise Reduction Plan for 2009. 

HVO have established an equipment noise-monitoring programme to comply with consent conditions relating 

to the investigation of ways to minimise operational noise. Sound power testing is undertaken on an ongoing 

basis in order to identify items of plant which are noisier than average (typical for that type of plant item), and 

also to see if there is a change in sound power with time. The intention is that those items identified with 

greater than average sound power or showing a significant increase during subsequent testing may come 

under additional scrutiny as part of routine maintenance procedures. This type of monitoring and action is a 

form of noise control. 

Sound power testing of equipment was undertaken in August 2009. A total of 51 pieces of equipment were 

tested throughout the reporting period, representing a total of 34 per cent of the total equipment fleet tested. 



Hunter Valley Operations’ Equipment Noise Reduction Plan 

Planned sound 

power testing of 10 

pieces of equipment 

completed one day 

each quarter 

Results 

Review sound power 

testing results 

To determine if 

equipment is 

complying with 

purchased 

specifications 

Out of 

specification 

Within specification 

Determine corrective 

measures to be 

implemented and time 

frame 

Communicate and 

implement 

Re-test 

equipment and 

communicate 

results 

No action 

required 

Who? Who? Who? 

Planning testing- Mine Planning 

Environmental Coordinator 

Testing- Global Acoustics 

Environmental Specialist 

Production and Maintenance Superintendants 

Figure 77: HVO's Equipment Noise Reduction Plan 



Figure 78: HVO Noise Monitoring Locations 2009. 




Noise monitoring is carried out quarterly at locations illustrated in Figure 78. Attended noise monitoring was 

conducted quarterly at all attended sites around HVO in Quarters 1 through to 4.The purpose of the surveys 

was to quantify and describe the acoustic environment around the site and compare results with specified 

limits. Unattended monitoring (real time noise monitoring) also continued throughout 2009 at seven sites 

surrounding HVO. Results for attended and unattended monitoring data can be seen in Appendix 12 and 13 

respectively. 

Attended Monitoring 

Attended monitoring was conducted in accordance with the DECCW ‘Industrial Noise Policy’ (INP) Guidelines 

and Australian Standard AS 1055 (1997): Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise. 

A total of 72 attended noise measurements were made at sites around the mine during the 2009 calendar 

year. The monitoring programme was rationalised in quarter 4 of 2009 to take into account new monitoring 

requirements in the HVO South Coal Project development consent. 

During 2009 noise levels were within consent conditions for night time and day time levels with the exception 

of one result at Cheshunt East and two results at Maison Dieu (Table 44). 

Table 44: LAeq Greater than Allowable Noise Levels Generated by HVO 

Location Date/Time Relevant Criteria Criterion 

(dB) 

Cheshunt 

East 


02:20 

HVO South Pit 

Consent 

LAeq(dB) 

Exceeds 

Levels 

40 48 8 

Maison 

Dieu 


23.30 


Consent 

36 37 1 

Maison 

Dieu 


23.30 


Consent 

46 48 2 

Chapter 11 of the EPA ‘Industrial Noise Policy’ deems a development to be in non-compliance only “the 

monitored noise level is more than 2dB above the statutory noise limit specified in the consent or licence 

condition” 

Real Time Monitoring 

A network of unattended real time noise monitors, owned and operated by Coal & Allied, gathered noise data 

around HVO during 2009. 

Technology limitations currently restrict the use of this system as a compliance monitoring tool. The system is 

therefore designed to operate as a management tool and this is being further developed whereby relevant 

people on site are automatically notified if off site noise, likely to have been generated by mining, is 

approaching levels where control measures and actions should be implemented. 

In total, the monitoring network comprises six monitoring stations, four of which can provide directional noise 

data; all provide total spectrum (all pass) and spectrum low pass information. Two instrumentation types are 

used, Svan 945A noise analysers and Barnowl monitors. The latter has an array of three microphones that 

allow quantification of directional LAeq in five degree increments. 

An analysis of data collected during 2009 has been conducted, the results of which are provided in Appendix 

13. Identifiable trends are that low pass background levels, the descriptor that can most reliably be linked to 

mining, increases during the winter period. This is consistent with attended monitoring observations. Also 

noted from the data is that the noise environment at many sites is primarily determined by road traffic. 



Comparison to EIS Predictions 

Table 45 to Table 49 show comparisons between 2009 LAeq attended noise monitoring results and the 

predictions made in the West Pit Environmental Impact Statement (2003), the Cheshunt Statement of 

Environmental Effects (2005) and the HVO South Coal Project Environmental Assessment (2006). While in 

many cases noise was inaudible (IA) or not measurable (NM), the measurements generally indicate that the 

EIS predictions are within or below the ranges being measured. 

Table 45: HVO North (West Pit EIS, 2003) – Day Period LAeq 

Location Units EIS Prediction 

(INP) 

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 

Knodlers Lane dB(A) 28 IA IA IA NA 

Maison Dieu dB(A) 28 IA IA IA NA 

Wandewoi dB(A) 47 27 NM 27 NA 

Kilburnie 

South 

dB(A) 35 IA IA IA NA 

Jerrys Plains dB(A) 36 IA IA IA NA 

Warkworth 

School 


Cheshunt 

East 



NM – not measurable 

NA as night monitoring undertaken in Quarter 4. 

Table 46: HVO North (West Pit EIS, 2003) – Night Period LAeq 


(INP) 

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 

Knodlers Lane dB(A) 28 IA IA IA IA 

Maison Dieu dB(A) 28 IA IA IA IA 

Wandewoi dB(A) 47 37 41 29 38-43 

Kilburnie 

South 

dB(A) 35 36 37 NM 33-38 

Jerrys Plains dB(A) 36 34 34 IA 27-36 

Warkworth 

School 

dB(A) 28 IA IA IA IA 

Cheshunt 

East 



dB(A) 40 IA IA NM IA 



Table 47: HVO South (Cheshunt Extension SEE, July 2005) – Day Period LAeq 


(INP) 

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 

Knodlers Lane dB(A) 31 NM 34 IA 

Maison Dieu dB(A) 32 NM 32 NM 

Wandewoi dB(A) 29 IA 41 27 

Kilburnie 

South 

dB(A) 20 IA IA IA 

Jerrys Plains dB(A) 17 IA IA IA 

Warkworth 

School 

dB(A) 28 IA IA IA 

Cheshunt 

East 



dB(A) 31 IA IA 27 

Table 48: HVO South (Cheshunt Extension SEE, July 2005) – Night Period LAeq 


(INP) 

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 

Knodlers Lane dB(A) 34 IA 32 34 

Maison Dieu dB(A) 35 IA NA 37 

Wandewoi dB(A) 33 NM NM 25 

Kilburnie 

South 

dB(A) 32 NM NM NM 

Jerrys Plains dB(A) 27 IA IA IA 

Warkworth 

School 

dB(A) 34 IA NM NM 

Cheshunt 

East 

dB(A) 38 38 48* NM 



*Reading taken at 02.20am 12/05/2009, a second reading taken at 03.07am 2/05/2009 with a reading of 40. 



Table 49: HVO South (South Coal Project EA, 2006) – Night Period LAeq 

Location Units EIS Prediction (INP) 

Under Temperature 

Inversions 

EIS Prediction (INP) 

Under Adverse Wind 

Conditions 

Quarter 4 

Knodlers Lane dB(A) 42 43 33 

Maison Dieu dB(A) 40 42 32 

Shearers 

Lane 

dB(A) 41 42 34 

Wandewoi dB(A) 36 39 IA 

Kilburnie 

South 

dB(A) 35 38 31 

Jerrys Plains dB(A) 28 29 IA 

Warkworth 

School 

dB(A) 40 33 IA 

Cheshunt 

East 



dB(A) 39 42 31-45 



3.10.3 Noise Predictions for 2010 

The pits that will be mined in 2010 include Carrington, Cheshunt, Riverview and West Pit. In general the 

areas to be mined in 2010 are expected to produce similar noise levels by those produced by operations 

conducted in 2009. 

The equipment that will be used in 2010 is outlined in Table 50. These predictions are based on equipment 

usage in 2009 and planned production rates for 2010. 

Table 50: Equipment Planned to be used in Mining Areas in 2010 

Equipment 

Location 

North Pit Carrington West Pit Riverview Cheshunt Total 

Cable Reeler 1 1 1 3 

Cable Tractor 1 2 1 1 5 

Dozer 3 6 6 6 21 

Dragline 1 1 2 

Drill 1 2 1 3 7 

Excavator 1 1 1 3 

FE Loader 1 1 1 3 

Float 1 1 

Fuel/Lube Cart 1 1 1 2 5 

Grader 1 2 2 5 

Loader 1 1 1 1 4 

RT Dozer 1 1 1 2 5 

Scraper 1 1 2 

Shovel 1 2 1 4 

Truck 11 20 4 28 63 

Water Cart 1 2 1 2 6 

Total 0 25 43 18 53 139 



3.11 VISUAL, STRAY LIGHT 


Coal & Allied aims to provide sufficient lighting for work to be undertaken safely, whilst minimising disturbance 

to public roads and neighbouring residents. Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 10.1 Visual 

Management outlines how lighting is managed to minimise light spillage and glow during both construction 

and operation at HVO. 

Mine lighting is reviewed frequently to ensure light is directed below the horizontal within the pit, while out of 

pit lighting is shielded to prevent stray light pursuant to the DoP request. This is to minimise a cumulative 

disturbance to the ‘Dark Skies’ region relied upon by the Siding Springs Observatory and neighbouring 

properties. 


Complaints initiated by intrusive lighting impacts are recorded and responded to in accordance with the 

complaints procedure outlined in the EMS (refer to Section 4.1). HVO mining staff review lighting set ups 

regularly to ensure light is directed below the horizontal to minimise disturbance while maintaining a safe work 

environment. 

During the reporting period, one complaint was received in relation to intrusive light emanating from HVO. The 

complaint was received on 11 July 2009 in relation to lights shining into a property in the Maison Dieu area. 

Following this complaint the lighting setups were adjusted. Training programmes and signage on the lighting 

plants are in place to reduce the potential of light impacting on neighbouring residents. 

3.12 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE 

3.12.1 Relations with the Local Aboriginal Community 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia provides cultural heritage management services to all Coal & Allied operations 

including HVO. Rio Tinto Coal Australia works closely with the Aboriginal community of the Upper Hunter 

Valley who participate in all aspects of Coal & Allied’s cultural heritage program. Guided by the Rio Tinto 

Communities and Cultural Heritage Management Standards, the Rio Tinto Coal Australia Aboriginal Relations 

Unit (External Relations Department) has developed a Cultural Heritage Management System (CHMS) that 

applies across all Rio Tinto Coal Australia owned projects and operations including HVO and all other Rio 

Tinto Coal Australia operations, projects and lands in the Upper Hunter Valley. 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia established the Upper Hunter Valley Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Working Group 

(CHWG) in September 2005 as its primary forum for Aboriginal community consultation on matters pertaining 

to cultural heritage. The CHWG is comprised of representatives from Rio Tinto Coal Australia and Upper 

Hunter Valley Aboriginal community groups, corporations and individuals. The Rio Tinto Coal Australia 

CHWG met on seven occasions in 2009: 19 March, 21 May, 27 August, 21 September, 1 October, 22 

October and 9 December 2009. It has been recognised by the DECCW as an exemplary model for Aboriginal 

community consultation in compliance with DECCW Interim Community Consultation Requirements for 

Applicants (January 2005). The DECCW consultation requirements were developed to improve and broaden 

consultation with the Aboriginal community. 

The CHWG was established so that Rio Tinto Coal Australia and the Aboriginal community could participate 

in the development and implementation of improved cultural heritage consultation and management process 

in the Upper Hunter Valley. This approach involves the ongoing direct engagement between Rio Tinto Coal 

Australia personnel and the Aboriginal community rather than outsourcing the consultation relationship to a 

third party (i.e. consultants). With this approach Rio Tinto Coal Australia has established a robust relationship 

with the Aboriginal community. By working together they have developed an Aboriginal cultural heritage 

management program where the Aboriginal community are encouraged to jointly design, implement, 

participate in and help manage the cultural heritage program. 

The CHWG have worked with Rio Tinto Coal Australia to develop a cultural heritage process that 

encompasses agreed community consultation procedures, terms of reference (scope of works) for each 



cultural heritage project, cultural heritage investigation and assessment methodologies. They have also 

developed a process for the selection and engagement of Aboriginal corporate entities to provide project 

management and administrative coordination services and for the selection and engagement of Aboriginal 

cultural heritage field officers. 

The CHWG developed an innovative process for the selection of administrative coordinators, Aboriginal 

cultural heritage field officers, and technical advisors to support the Rio Tinto Coal Australia cultural heritage 

program including the conduct the cultural heritage assessment and management work. In consultation with 

the CHWG, Rio Tinto Coal Australia advertised nationally for expressions of interest from technical advisors 

(e.g. archaeologists, anthropologists, historians) and regionally for both administrative coordinators (e.g. local 

Aboriginal corporations) and cultural heritage field officers (e.g. people recognised by the Aboriginal 

community as being culturally qualified to conduct heritage work) to register with the CHWG to participate in 

project work. Registers of cultural heritage field officers, administrative coordinators and technical advisors 

have been established for this purpose. The CHWG oversees the selection and rostering of field officers, 

coordinators, and advisors to ensure an equitable and transparent process for the conduct of cultural heritage 

field programmes. 

The CHWG consultation and cultural heritage management process operates alongside the Coal & Allied 

Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee (ADCC) established in 2006. The ADCC has been formed 

by Coal & Allied and representatives from the local Aboriginal Community to provide funding for activities and 

projects that will benefit the Upper Hunter Aboriginal people. The ADDC aims to develop long term positive 

relationships between Coal & Allied and the Upper Hunter Aboriginal community and to build the Aboriginal 

community into the future. 

3.12.2 Management of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 

Archaeology and cultural heritage are managed in consultation with the Aboriginal community in accordance 

with the Rio Tinto Cultural Heritage Management Standard, Rio Tinto Coal Australia CHMS Work Procedures, 

existing Aboriginal Heritage Management Plans and Development Consent conditions, the National Parks 

and Wildlife Act, 1974 (NPW Act) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act). 

Aboriginal cultural heritage investigations, assessments, surveys and studies (which include archaeological 

investigations) are undertaken prior to the commencement of new development activities. Comprehensive 

and systematic cultural heritage assessment surveys are conducted by representatives of the Aboriginal 

community assisted by technical advisors and Rio Tinto Coal Australia personnel. The Aboriginal community 

determine the significance of cultural heritage objects, sites and places and the CHWG meets to discuss 

appropriate management measures. Technical advisors provide input for the consideration of archaeological 

and scientific significance and associated management requirements. 

The Rio Tinto Coal Australia CHMS combines several elements to protect, manage and mitigate cultural 

heritage at HVO which include; 

 

 

 

 

Ongoing consultation and involvement of the local Aboriginal community in all matters pertaining to 

Aboriginal cultural heritage management; 

The Coal & Allied EMS Environmental Procedure 2.1 Cultural Heritage Management, existing Aboriginal 

Heritage Management Plans and Development Consent conditions; 

A cultural heritage Geographic Information System (GIS) and Cultural Heritage Zone Plan (CHZP) 

incorporating cultural heritage spatial and aspatial data (site location, description, assessments, date 

recorded, associated reports, management provisions and various other details to assist with the 

management of sites); 

A GDP system for the assessment and approval of ground disturbing activities to ensure these activities 

do not disturb cultural heritage places; 

Limit of Disturbance Boundary (LODB) procedures to demarcate approved disturbance areas and 

delineate areas not to be disturbed; 

Ongoing cultural heritage sites inspections, monitoring and auditing along with regular compliance 

inspections of development works; 



 

Protective management measures such as fencing/barricading sites to avoid disturbance, protective 

buffer zones, cultural heritage off-set areas; and 

Communicating cultural heritage issues and site awareness to personnel via the Coal & Allied intranet 

and tool box training sessions. 

The CHMS GIS, CHZP, EMS Environmental Procedure 2.1 Cultural Heritage Management, EMS 

Environmental Procedure 13.3 Ground Disturbance Permit and LODB requirements are the key operational 

and planning tools utilised to protect and manage Aboriginal cultural heritage at HVO. A GDP permit must be 

obtained prior to the commencement of any disturbance of Coal & Allied land outside current mining 

operations. All cultural heritage approvals and conditions are assessed and authorised by Rio Tinto Coal 

Australia Aboriginal Relations, Brisbane. The GDP permit and Limit of Disturbance Boundary alert personnel 

to the general location of cultural heritage sites in the vicinity of operations and provides clarity on the extent 

and boundary of approved work areas to personnel conducting ground disturbing activities. 

Operational compliance with GDP requirements for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage is internally 

audited under the CHMS procedures by Rio Tinto Coal Australia Aboriginal Relations and through external 

auditing processes associated with the HVO EMS requirements and Rio Tinto Cultural Heritage Management 

Standard audit protocols. Staff from Rio Tinto Coal Australia Aboriginal Relations and HVO environmental 

personnel, conduct pre and post-construction GDP work area inspections to ensure compliance with GDP 

approvals and conditions. In 2009 a total of 43 GDP’s at were assessed at HVO along with regular targeted 

work area inspections carried out as part of the routine CHMS risk management procedures. 

Where mining or associated activities will significantly affect Aboriginal cultural heritage, an appropriate 

consent and / or permit is sought from the DECCW under sections 87/90 of the NPW Act. New major project 

developments are assessed under Part 3A of the EP&A Act which makes provision for Rio Tinto Coal 

Australia and Aboriginal parties to develop a Cultural Heritage Management Plan. 

On 24 March 2009 the Minister for Planning approved the HVO South Coal Project (PA_06_0261). The new 

approval encompasses all of the HVO mining development areas south of the Hunter River. HVO South PA 

06_0261, Schedule 3, Part 40 requires that the Coal & Allied prepares and implements an ‘Aboriginal 

Heritage Management Plan (AHMP)’ to be submitted and approved by the Director-General, DoP, within 12 

months of the date of the development approval and that the ‘Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan’ be 

prepared in consultation with DECCW and the Aboriginal community. A draft AHMP has been developed in 

consultation with DECCW and the CHWG and was submitted to DoP in May 2009 for review and approval. 

HVO mining development activities located north of the Hunter River are regulated under DA-450-10-2003 

which consolidated a number of previous development consents for mining operations. Cultural heritage 

management requirements are outlined in Schedule 4, conditions 37 to 41A of DA-450-10-2003. Condition 40 

requires that the provisions of the Cultural Heritage Indigenous Management Agreement (CHIMA), approved 

in August 2002 under superseded DA 106-6-99, continue in application for the Carrington Mine area. 

During 2009 DECCW granted Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) s90 consent #1102084 for cultural 

salvage of a number of Aboriginal heritage sites associated with the HVO Riverview Pit. DECCW also granted 

a variation to AHIP care and control permit #2863 to include cultural artefacts salvaged under AHIP 

#1102084. Care and control permit #2863 consolidates authorities for Coal & Allied to take custody of cultural 

artefacts salvaged under AHIP consents 1708, 1795, 1870, 2086, 2233, 2488, 2491, 2547, 3147, 2906 and 

1102084. The duration of Care and Control permit #2863 was also extended to January 2013, to further 

facilitate negotiations between Rio Tinto Coal Australia and the Aboriginal community in the Upper Hunter 

Valley in regards to long term custodial arrangements for the Aboriginal cultural material. 



3.12.3 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Performance 

There were no incidents involving the disturbance of Aboriginal archaeological or cultural heritage sites at 

HVO during 2009. Targeted site inspections and condition monitoring audits were conducted by Rio Tinto 

Coal Australia adjacent to active mining areas throughout HVO North and South and others more generally 

around the HVO mining leases. 

AHIMS sites database audits 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia has continued a comprehensive desk top review and ground truthing audit of all 

Aboriginal cultural heritage sites located on Rio Tinto Coal Australia lands including HVO leases, initially 

focusing on areas proposed for development disturbance within the next five years. The purpose of the audit 

process is to confirm or revise and update the Aboriginal sites data held in the DECCW Aboriginal Heritage 

Information Management System (AHIMS) sites database. Rio Tinto Coal Australia and DECCW agree that 

there are serious inconsistencies between the AHIMS data and ground truthed data verified by Rio Tinto Coal 

Australia. These inconsistencies generally relate to errors in site location recording conducted over the last 20 

years resulting in incorrect information being recorded in the AHIMS database. DECCW have agreed that 

upon the completion of Rio Tinto Coal Australia’s comprehensive sites auditing process, and subject to 

DECCW auditing of Rio Tinto Coal Australia’s results, Rio Tinto Coal Australia’s sites database will replace 

and supersede the existing AHIMS data for Rio Tinto Coal Australia lands. This process will be finalised in 

early 2010 and a report submitted to DECCW for review. 

Cultural Heritage Storage Facility 

With the agreement of the CHWG and DECCW, Rio Tinto Coal Australia established the Hunter Valley 

Services Cultural Heritage Storage Facility (CHSF) adjacent to the HVO mine. The CHSF is a combined office 

and storage shed, with an adjacent sea container, fitted out to allow safe and secure storage of cultural 

materials such as stone artefacts and scarred trees. It is a central repository for all materials collected during 

salvage operations on all Rio Tinto Coal Australia mines and other lands in the Hunter Valley including HVO. 

All cultural materials are deposited there under the authority of Care and Control permit #2863 issued by 

DECCW. The CHSF also houses all field work, sites management and safety equipment and various 

associated records, documents and other materials. 

The CHSF also provides facilities and resources to enable the Aboriginal community to access, examine and 

research cultural materials. The community also have access to a resource library of studies and reports 

associated with Rio Tinto Coal Australia leases and lands, and will in the future have access to computer 

databases and GIS mapping and database software. Community access and use protocols are being 

developed in consultation with the CHWG and DECCW. 

The remnant portion of Aboriginal scarred tree C3 (AHIMS 37-2-2080) which was salvaged in 2007 under 

AHIP s90 consent #2547 is stored at the facility. An annual arborist inspection was conducted in 2009 and a 

report was subsequently provided to Coal & Allied and submitted to DECCW. 

Cultural Heritage Management Program 

Barellan Farm, HVO South: 

Ground Penetrating Radar Survey 

In March 2009 Georadar Research Pty Ltd was commissioned by Coal & Allied Operations to conduct a 

geophysical investigation involving Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) at the Barellan Farm area located in 

HVO South. The purpose of the GPR survey was to assess the possible location of an historic cemetery on a 

hill behind the old homestead site. The work was conducted over one day with a field team consisting of two 

geo-physicists, two Aboriginal community field officers, a Coal & Allied archaeologist/data management officer 

and site supervisor. 

The cemetery study grid was comprised of three 70m and five 40m long transects conducted using a handcart 

mounted GSSI SIR -3000 GPR unit to collect the geophysical data. The GPR data found no conclusive 

evidence of human burials, however, two features were identified and have been classified as targets of 

archaeological potential and may be subject to further archaeological investigation in the future. Stock proof 

fencing has been installed around a 300m x 150m protection buffer area established around the cemetery 

area. 



A GPR survey was also conducted to assess the sub-surface archaeological potential of Aboriginal site 

Barellan Open Site 37-5-0041. The GPR survey grid was conducted along three 300m long and eight 60m 

long transects across the area to map the underlying soil structure and presence of sub-surface 

archaeological deposits and to confirm the general extent of the site. This information will assist in planning 

for any future excavation of the site if subject to future development activities. 

Barellan Open Site (AHIMS 37-5-0041) 

In April 2009, McCardle Cultural Heritage Pty Ltd (MCH) was commissioned by Coal & Allied Operations to 

conduct an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment of farming land around an existing Aboriginal 

archaeological site Barellan Open Site (AHIMS 37-5-0041) following the GPR surveys to assess potential 

impact and management requirements for a proposed mine water dam and relocation of existing electrical 

transmission lines and sub-station. An area of approximately 40ha was comprehensively surveyed with a 

series of 100m wide pedestrian transects. The fieldwork was conducted over one day with a field team of six 

Aboriginal community field officers, a technical advisor (MCH), Coal & Allied data management officer and 

site supervisor. 

A total of six sites were recorded (four isolated finds and two artefact scatters) one of which had been 

previously recorded as Barellan Open Site (37-5-0041). Two Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs) were 

also identified, including the Barellan Open Site: 

 

 

PAD 1 (Transect 90): Horizon A remains intact with little disturbance; and 

PAD 2 (Transect 86, including Open sites HVO-981 & HVO-982 - 37-5-0041): extends along the creek for 

more than 225m x 80m. This area is relatively undisturbed. 

A 500m x 150m buffer area has been fenced off around the Barellan Open Site (37-5-0041). MCH submitted 

an assessment report to DECCW in September 2009. 

Plashett Pipeline Assessment: HVO West Pit: 

In April 2009 MCH was commissioned by Coal & Allied Operations to conduct an Aboriginal cultural heritage 

assessment of a proposed over-ground poly-pipeline from HVO Parnells Dam to Plashett Dam on behalf of 

Coal & Allied and Macquarie Generation. The pipeline easement assessment involved the pedestrian survey 

of a 1.3km x 40m wide transect to find a suitable route that would not disturb any cultural heritage sites. The 

fieldwork was conducted over one day with a field team of three Aboriginal community field officers, a 

technical advisor (MCH), Coal & Allied data management officer and site supervisor. 

The aim of the assessment survey was to identify and avoid disturbing Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, 

implement zones of management for sensitive areas, and mitigate impacts where avoidance or management 

is not possible. If avoidance is not possible a s90 consent application will be submitted to DECCW by 

Macquarie Generation for salvage of the site/s. Sites within close proximity to the proposed route will be 

barricaded and signposted to mitigate, any potential impacts from the proposed development. A new artefact 

scatter, identified as site HVO-986, was recorded within the study area. MCH recorded 50 artefacts, including 

flakes and cores within the extent of site HVO-986. The alignment and installation of the over-ground polypipeline 

is too conducted to avoid impacting site HVO-986. 

Xstrata Ravensworth Extension Assessment – Coal & Allied Lands, HVO North: 

During late May and early June 2009 a comprehensive Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment survey was 

conducted over approximately 340ha of Coal & Allied owned lands as part of the Xstrata Ravensworth 

Extension Project Aboriginal heritage assessment was managed by Umwelt Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of 

Xstrata Coal. Under a land access agreement between Coal & Allied and Xstrata Coal, Umwelt’s sampling 

survey methodology was modified to ensure compliance with Rio Tinto Coal Australia CHMS procedures that 

require 100 per cent survey coverage for areas surveyed on Coal & Allied owned lands. 

The Umwelt survey over the Coal & Allied lands was conducted over 10 days and involved a field team of six 

Aboriginal community field officers, two archaeologists (Umwelt), a Coal & Allied data management officer 

and a site supervisor. A total of 133 archaeological sites were recorded within the Coal & Allied land study 

area which included several scarred trees and artefact scatters, with the greater majority of sites being 

isolated artefacts. 



The results of the Coal & Allied lands assessment survey have been incorporated into the Xstrata 

Ravensworth Extension Project Aboriginal heritage assessment report prepared by Umwelt Australia for 

Xstrata Coal. Coal & Allied are managing the sites recorded on their lands during the survey and it is 

envisaged that these lands will be acquired by Xstrata Coal in the near future. 

Riverview Pit HVO South salvage programme (AHIP s90 #1102084): 

In August 2009, MCH was commissioned by Coal & Allied Operations to supervise and report on cultural 

salvage mitigation activities associated with mining operations at the HVO South Riverview Pit under AHIP 

s90 #1102084. The salvage mitigation work was conducted over one day with a field team of six Aboriginal 

community field officers, a technical advisor (MCH), Coal & Allied data management officer and site 

supervisor. A total of 24 sites were salvaged resulting in the collection, cataloguing and storage of 66 

artefacts. A salvage report was compiled by MCH and submitted to DECCW in October 2009. 

Carrington Pit, Hunter Valley Operations: 

In June 2009, Coal & Allied Operations announced its intention to seek environmental approval to extend 

mining operations at the HVO North Carrington Pit covering an additional area of 142ha. Coal & Allied 

commissioned the extension assessment work under the modification of the development consent DA 450- 

10-2003, clause 8(J)8 (EP&A Act) 2000 and Section 75W 1979 (EP&A Act 1979). 

In September 2009 MCH was commissioned by Coal & Allied Operations to conduct an Aboriginal cultural 

heritage assessment of the previously un-assessed portion of the proposed Carrington West Extension Area. 

An area of approximately 120ha was comprehensively surveyed with a series of 100m wide pedestrian 

transects. The fieldwork was conducted over two days with a field team of six Aboriginal community field 

officers, a technical advisor (MCH), Coal & Allied data management officer and site supervisor The study 

identified five isolated artefact sites (HVO-1121 to 1125) and one Potential Archaeological Deposit. Further 

assessments are planned for early 2010 and the results of the Carrington Extension surveys will be 

incorporated into the Carrington Extension Project Environmental Assessment Aboriginal heritage 

assessment report. 

3.12.4 Historic Heritage 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia has adopted a precautionary management principle for all potential historic heritage 

features until such time as these sites have been properly assessed and appropriate management regimes 

established. 

In late 2005, Rio Tinto Coal Australia commissioned Environmental Resources Management Australia (ERM) 

to report and provide guidance on the nature, condition, potential significance and management of all known 

historic heritage places located on Rio Tinto Coal Australia owned lands in the Hunter Valley. However, there 

are no known historic heritage sites listed in either the Rio Tinto Coal Australia Historic Heritage Places 

register or NSW Heritage Register located within HVO operational areas. 

Two historic heritage investigations were conducted during 2009. In March 2009 Georadar Research Pty Ltd 

was commissioned by Coal & Allied Operations to conduct a geophysical investigation involving GPR at the 

Barellan Farm area located in HVO South. The purpose of the GPR survey was to assess the possible 

location of an historic cemetery on a hill behind the old homestead site. The work was conducted over one 

day with a field team consisting of two geo-physicists, two Aboriginal community field officers, a Coal & Allied 

archaeologist/data management officer and site supervisor. 

The cemetery study grid was comprised of three 70m and five 40m long transects conducted using a handcart 

mounted GSSI SIR -3000 GPR unit to collect the geophysical data. The GPR data found no conclusive 

evidence of human burials, however, two features were identified and have been classified as targets of 

archaeological potential and may be subject to further archaeological investigation in the future. Stock proof 

fencing has been installed around a 300m x 150m protection buffer area established around the cemetery 

area. 

During late May and early June an historic heritage assessment was conducted in conjunction with a 

comprehensive Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment survey over approximately 340ha of Coal & Allied 

owned lands as part of the Xstrata Ravensworth Extension Project heritage assessment managed by Umwelt 

Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of Xstrata Coal. Under a land access agreement between Coal & Allied and 



Xstrata Coal, Umwelt’s sampling survey methodology was modified to ensure compliance with Rio Tinto Coal 

Australia CHMS procedures that require 100 per cent survey coverage for areas surveyed on Coal & Allied 

owned lands. 

The Umwelt survey over the Coal & Allied lands was conducted over 10 days and involved a field team of six 

Aboriginal community field officers, two archaeologists (Umwelt), a Coal & Allied data management officer 

and a site supervisor. An Umwelt historic heritage assessor also inspected sites in the area following the 

completion of the Aboriginal heritage survey. Two historic features were recorded on Coal & Allied lands 

being a sandstone block quarry and concrete footings of unknown origin. 

The results of the Coal & Allied lands historic assessment survey have been incorporated into the Xstrata 

Ravensworth Extension Project heritage assessment report prepared by Umwelt Australia for Xstrata Coal. 

Coal & Allied are managing the sites recorded on their lands during the survey and it is envisaged that these 

lands will be acquired by Xstrata Coal in the near future. 

3.13 NATURAL HERITAGE 

There are no areas of significant natural heritage found at HVO. 

3.14 SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION 


HVO has a Spontaneous Combustion Management Plan and Coal & Allied’s EMS Environmental Procedure 

8.3 Spontaneous Combustion, which outlines techniques employed to control, monitor and prevent 

spontaneous combustion. It also details the physical characteristics pertaining to spontaneous combustion, 

methods used in the prevention and outlines research being undertaken to study spontaneous combustion. 

The objectives of the Management Plan and Environmental Procedure are to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Ensure that spontaneous combustion outbreaks are minimised; 

Endeavour to identify potential areas that may be prone to spontaneous combustion before an outbreak 

occurs; 

Ensure that all carbonaceous material is placed in such a manner that reduces the possible occurrence of 

spontaneous combustion; 

Where longer term spontaneous combustion problems occur, instigate a management plan to deal with 

these; and 

Ensure final rehabilitation is free from spontaneous combustion. 


Monitoring through visual inspection of work areas and at risk coal stockpiles susceptible to spontaneous 

combustion is conducted in accordance with the site workplace inspection protocol. The initial inspection at 

stockpile areas involves a walk around the stockpile checking for heat haze, smoke emissions and odour. 

The use of thermal imagery or the insertion of a thermocouple into the stockpiles to measure temperature 

may be carried out if a heated stockpile is detected by the visual assessment. 

A small area located in the Newdell rail loop area showed signs of spontaneous combustion during 2007. An 

expert consultant inspected the site in February 2007. A report was submitted to the DPI-MR (now DII) in 

September 2007 which included the recommended actions from the inspection. These remedial actions were 

completed in 2007. Regular monitoring is occurring in the area. 



3.15 BUSHFIRE 


The Bushfire Management Plan developed in 2003 for all Coal & Allied owned land is updated annually in 

consultation with SSC and the NSW Rural Fire Service. The main objective of this management plan is to 

minimise the risk of bushfires and rapidly control outbreaks should they occur in order to: 

 

 

 

 

Minimise potential spread of bushfires in and surrounding Coal & Allied mining lease areas; 

Protect people, property and assets; 

Protect areas of heritage value; and 

Protect areas of threatened flora and/or fauna. 

Control measures undertaken to prevent and control bushfires focus on minimising the amount of fuel 

available to burn on the mining leases and surrounding land. HVO also has ongoing communication with the 

NSW Rural Fire Service to keep up to date and receive advice on the appropriate management of the mining 

leases. 

The control measures consist of regular slashing of roadsides which are generally used as fire trails, and 

grazing of rehabilitated mine land and selected non-mine land areas ahead of the mining operations. The 

grazing land inside the mining leases is identified on the mine site’s Colliery Holding Plan 2 as agreed with the 

statutory mine manager. 

All Coal & Allied operations have existing fire control infrastructure with fire fighting equipment at key points, 

and an emergency response team. 

In the event of a bushfire, Coal & Allied’s emergency response procedure is triggered. Serious fires that 

cannot be controlled by on-site resources will be reported to the NSW Rural Fire Service via the 000 

telephone number in accordance with Coal & Allied’s procedure for contacting external emergency services. 


There were no bushfires at HVO during the 2009 reporting period. However, a unique opportunity presented 

in October 2006 in post-mining rehabilitation of West Pit. Arcing from overhead power lines ignited a small 

grass fire in the rehabilitation which engulfed a small portion of pasture rehabilitation (primarily composed of 

Rhodes grass and Thistles) and woodland rehabilitation (composed primarily of Acacia saligna and Galenia). 

At that time, little data had been gathered on Coal & Allied sites on the response of post-mining rehabilitation 

to fire. A monitoring programme was commenced on 20 October 2006 by ENSR Australia Pty Ltd 

investigating the following components: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presence and condition of vegetation strata (overstorey, understorey and ground cover); 

Weed species present; 

Feral animal activity; 

Surface stability of the soil including details on erosive processes, run off and soil compaction; 

Presence of microhabitats including logs, rocks and water bodies; and 

Presence of disturbance factors including fire, rubbish and unauthorised access. 

Each of these categories combines to form part of a weighted field sheet which provides individual scores for 

each category, as well as an overall score for the site. Each of these scores corresponds to a predetermined 

state of health to indicate the degree of functionality and sustainability of each assessed area. The overall 

score for each site can be compared against each of the other sites and monitored over time for improvement 

or decline. Four sites were assessed in the initial phase of the monitoring programme in 2006. The initial 

results indicated that all sites were in a moderate state of health, regardless of being burnt, and require some 

degree of land management to improve the overall health status. A study in March 2008 found a limited 



improvement across the four sites. Regardless all sites maintained a moderate health status and revealed no 

further disturbance or evidence of the 2006 fire. Monitoring of the sites will remain an ongoing process. 

Each site was then ranked according to the above mentioned categories. For woodland sites a score of 95 indicated excellent condition. For pasture sites a score of 70 indicated excellent condition. The scores for pasture sites are lower due to the absence of 

overstorey and understorey vegetative components. 

Site one (Burnt pasture) scored 45, a decrease from 53 in 2006. Site two (Burnt woodland) scored 52, a 

decrease from 66 in 2006. Site three (Unburnt woodland) scored 52, a decrease from 67 in 2006. Site four 

(Unburnt pasture) scored 43, a decrease from 55 in 2006. All four sites have exhibited a reduction in scores 

since the 2006 monitoring round, however still fall within the “satisfactory” condition range. Factors which 

influenced the lower scores include; 

 

 

Increase in introduced species (weeds) across the entire site; 

Absence of understorey vegetation; and 

Decrease in ground cover species diversity and abundance. 

Sites will be re-assessed in 2010 to continue the monitoring programme. 

3.16 MINE SUBSIDENCE 

HVO currently utilise open cut mining techniques that do not result in subsidence of the surface. HVO have no 

active underground workings. 

3.17 HYDROCARBON CONTAMINATION 


Management of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil is ongoing at HVO. The current technique employs 

the use of a bioremediation area that is maintained and operated in accordance with Coal & Allied 

procedures. 

Contaminated soil is taken to the bioremediation area and placed in batches based on the time of 

contamination. To maximise air circulation, contaminated soil is spread out in windrows of no more than 

approximately 300mm in height and approximately a grader width at the base. Windrows are oriented north 

south to achieve maximum exposure to sunlight. NPK fertiliser or farm manure is applied to increase the 

population of degrading bacteria. The windrows are tined by a grader or equivalent on monthly intervals in 

order to provide aeration for the microbes. 

Soil in the treatment area is sampled and tested every three months until total hydrocarbon levels are less 

than 1,000ppm. Soil meeting the criteria may be removed and used for top dressing purposes or disposed of 

in the spoil dump. 


Bioremediation Area 

The HVO bioremediation area is monitored for contaminants and turned regularly throughout the year. Test 

results showed that the hydrocarbon levels in the material improved over the year. Three cells of material 

were removed from the bioremediation area during 2009 and placed in West Pit for use in future 

rehabilitation. 

During 2009, the in pit fuel tankers in West Pit were decommissioned and removed. HVO is currently 

remediating the site of the old fuel tankers in accordance with the NSW EPA 1994 sensitive land use criteria 

and will receive a report from external consultants during 2010 regarding the success of the remediation. 



3.18 METHANE DRAINAGE/VENTILATION 

3.18.1 Environmental Management and Performance 

During 2009 there were no methane drainage/ventilation occurrences at HVO. 

HVO are currently investigating options to test the viability of draining coal seams of methane ahead of opencut 

mining operations. The mine was part of an Australian Coal Association Research Programme (ACARP) 

evaluating methane content during 2008. Refer to Table 55 for details of the amount of coal seam gas 

released from mining operations. 

During 2008 Coal & Allied commenced a $6.8 million pilot programme to investigate the capture and use of 

coal seam methane (CSM) in advance of mining operations. The project involved the construction of four test 

drill wells for the capture of methane from MTW (Mount Thorley Warkworth) coal seams. One of these wells 

was drilled using a new drilling technique which will allow horizontal drill shafts to be formed which should 

allow for increased gas collection from a single well. 

The project aims to capture gas from seams up to 350m in depth in an effort to reduce the green house 

impact of the mine by reducing the emission of fugitive methane from the open cut. In 2010 the programme 

will move into test-production and monitoring of CSM to determine future applications across MTW and other 

Rio Tinto Coal Australia sites. 

3.19 ACID ROCK DRAINAGE 


In November 2007 Coal & Allied implemented an Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) and Mineral Waste Management 

Plan to help manage any problem materials and ensure proper disposal of interburden and washery rejected 

materials that are potentially acid forming. The management plan was developed after an independent review 

in 2005 found that, while there is not a significant ARD problem in the Hunter Valley, HVO has some 

interburden in West Pit that is identified as potentially acid producing. This material is limited to the Archerfield 

Sandstone which represents only six percent of mineral waste generated in West Pit. 

The management plan sets out to control the placement of potentially acid forming spoil materials and coarse 

rejects. Fine coal wastes are deposited into specially designed and constructed tailings storage facilities. A 

groundwater monitoring programme is included in the management plan to monitor the geochemical 

behaviour of HVO spoil and coal waste. Training of Coal & Allied staff is also a focus of the management 

plan, ensuring effective prevention, detection and management of potentially acid forming materials. 


Acid forming overburden and interburden are strictly managed on site through a detailed mining material 

tracking sheet and the mining Dispatch system to ensure these materials are disposed of in low level dumps 

in West Pit. The planning and procedures for daily management of material wastes are the responsibility of 

the Superintendent of mine planning and are communicated to production crews whenever the Archerfield 

Sandstone is being extracted. 

To ensure these plans are executed training is provided by Environmental Services to educate mine staff on 

what ARD is, how it can be prevented, what their role in prevention is and what is done on site to identify 

potential acid forming material. ARD and Mineral Waste training sessions were conducted at HVO during 

February 2008. 

The ARD and Mineral Waste management systems at HVO were subject to a Rio Tinto HSE Standards audit 

in November 2009. There were no non-conformances identified during the audit however three observations 

related to ARD and mineral waste management made during the audit will be addressed in 2010. 



Geology Management 

The geochemical sampling programme detailed in the Acid Rock Drainage and Mineral Waste Management 

Plan, to better quantify the net acid generating potential in the HVO seams and interburdens, has continued 

during 2009. Sampling of coarse rejects and tailings from the two HVO CPPs has been undertaken while high 

sulphur coal is being processed. The results of this sampling programme will be utilised during a review of the 

ARD and Mineral Waste Management Plan planned for the second quarter of 2010. 

Prevention of geotechnical failures at HVO are factored into the design phase of individual pits. Monitoring is 

then conducted during the construction of each pit to ensure both compliance to design, and the engineering 

itself is sound. Any hazards identified during the construction phase, captured by daily inspections, are 

recorded in the Monthly Geotechnical Hazard report. The potential for environmental impact from a 

geotechnical failure is considered low. The key geotechnical risks at HVO are detailed in the Management 

Plan for Geotechnical Hazards. This document is currently undergoing an audit and update to include new 

dump and slope management plans. 

3.20 PUBLIC SAFETY 


Public safety at HVO is managed primarily through the implementation of Coal & Allied safety standards and 

procedures, with daily security inspections. Fencing, signposting, restricted access areas and locked external 

gates form part of the safety measures to ensure the safety of the public. In addition, there is no public access 

from the mine entrance to pit areas, as part of the constraint on public access. 

HVO has a security service contract covering the entire operation and surrounding areas. This service 

consists of nightly inspections of the mining lease area to ensure the safety of all persons in the mine vicinity, 

and to ensure there are no breaches of security. Security Inspections are undertaken in the Mine, 

Maintenance, CPP, magazine area, administration and all exterior gates of the mine lease area. 


During the reporting period, there were no incidents involving members of the general public being detected in 

vehicles on the HVO site. 

3.21 REPORTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS 


All environmental incidents are now ranked using a qualitative risk assessment matrix, based on the 

maximum reasonable consequence and likelihood. 


Five incidents were required to be reported to governing authorities as a result of breaches to development 

consents or the HVO EPL. The details of these five incidents are outline below, with a summary of all 

incidents provided in Appendix 3. 

Incident 1000037320 

On Friday 23 January 2009 at 10:00am a discharge of mine water was discovered at HVO Dam 17N. During 

a routine inspection of the area, a pump was found to be leaking into a collection sump, the sump in turn filled 

with mine water and was found to have flowed through an overflow pipe into the nearby Farrells Creek. 

The volume of water that entered Farrells Creek was estimated to be no more than 0.2ML. The water was 

found to extend no further than 0.5km downstream and was contained within Hunter Valley Operation’s EPL 

Boundary. 

Water samples taken after the event found that water downstream of the leak was similar to that of the stored 

water in the dam, but not dissimilar to levels found in Farrells Creek in the past, and as such determined to be 

of negligible environmental impact. This is not a licensed discharge point under the HRSTS so the leak was 



reported in the Annual Return (see Appendix 15). The leak was immediately blocked and a barrier installed to 

prevent flow of discharge water further downstream. 


On Saturday 4 April 2009 a hole was discovered in the embankment of Dam 15N. The hole in the 

embankment developed as a result of a small leak in the pipeline that runs through the dam wall to supply 

water to the pumping infrastructure. It was apparent that water from Dam 15N had been leaking through the 

hole in the pipeline and seeping through the embankment and into Farrells Creek. 

Dam 15N is situated in the headwaters of a tributary of Farrells Creek. At the time the hole was discovered 

only seepage was evident, at a rate estimated at 1-2L/s. Farrells Creek was flowing at the time in a week 

were the site had more than 150mm of intense rainfall. Dam 15N is a storm buffer dam for the CHPP and 

reached about 75 per cent from the rainfall runoff. At this stage water in the dam would have been higher than 

the pipeline, thus resulting in a small leak in the pipeline and subsequent seepage from the area. Dam 15N 

was in the process of being emptied when the leak was discovered. 

Water quality sampling showed that the leak had not deteriorated the quality of the creek water, and no actual 

or material pollution occurred, hence the incident was not immediately notified to the DECCW. However the 

dam is not a licensed discharge point under the HRSTS so the leak was reported in the Annual Return (see 

Appendix 15). 

Dam 15N is maintained empty to allow 1 in 100 year storm buffer capacity for the CHPP and Maintenance 

area. 


On Tuesday 26 May 2009 a review of water sampling results indicated that a clean water diversion dam (Dam 

18W) had elevated electrical conductivity. Dam 18W is designed to passively spill to Parnells Creek via an 

engineered spillway. Dam 18W is located on HVO’s western boundary and is a settling basin for the main 

western clean water diversion. Approximately 2.5 square kilometres of clean catchment is diverted into Dam 

18W. Parnells Ck is an ephemeral creek draining to the Hunter River. 

Due to rainfall, approximately 30L/s was estimated to be flowing over the Dam 18W spillway. Water quality 

was tested on the 28 May 2009 upstream and downstream of the confluence of Parnells Creek in the Hunter 

River. Results showed that electrical conductivity was falling downstream of the confluence. Actions were 

implemented to drain water from Dam 18W into Parnells Dam to reduce and stop the flow over the spillway. 

Initial investigation determined that there were two sources of saline water entering Dam 18W. A natural 

saline seepage and a seepage path from the West Pit (Bobs Dump) Tailings Dam. 

Further investigation determined that a seepage from the Bobs Dump Tailings Facility was not the main 

source of salinity in Dam 18W. The contribution of salts from the tailings facility seep is not sufficient to 

elevate the salinity of Dam 18W to a measured electrical conductivity of 3mS/cm. A natural saline seepage 

was recording saline values up to five times the levels recorded in Bobs Dump Tailings Dam. 

Since the incident Coal & Allied has isolated the tailings facility seepage from the Dam 18W catchment. Dam 

18W has been pumped and drained into Parnells Dam to mitigate water overflowing the Dam 18W spillway. 


On Monday 6 July 2009 a blast at HVO Cheshunt Pit was initiated at 10:18am. Overpressure results of 

122.4dB(L) and 120.7dB(L) at Maison Dieu and Warkworth respectively, and 116.9dB(L) at Wandewoi were 

recorded. The EPL states that airblast overpressures from blasts carried out on site should not exceed 

120dB(L) at any time. 

An independent investigation by Terrock Pty Ltd determined that at the time of the blast an atmospheric 

inversion was present. The EnvMet model used by Terrock predicted an increase of between 5dB(L) and 

15dB(L) over normal emission levels during this period. 

In addition to the inversion one hole in the blast pattern released energy upwards out of the hole instead of 

transmitting it through the rock strata. This was determined to be a result of the small ground movement 



(relief) of the blast design. Under normal atmospheric conditions this is unlikely to have resulted in an 

overpressure exceedance. HVO have not had a blast overpressure exceedance for at least five years. 

A meteorological model for predicting inversions has been implemented and incorporated into blasting 

procedures to reduce the risk of a recurrence. As a result of this incident a warning letter was received from 

the DECCW due to a breach of the EPL. 


On Monday 21 September 2009 at 3:00pm, during a non-routine inspection, an old exploration borehole was 

found to be discharging saline water into a clean water diversion channel. The water collected in a 

downstream dam within the HVO EPL Boundary. The volume of water discharging from the borehole was 

estimated to be in the vicinity of a 1-3L/s. 

Water samples were taken from the bore, which indicated that the discharging water had a high salt content 

(EC of 6.92mS) with a pH of 6.57. Water samples were also taken from the downstream dams to determine 

the extent of the discharge. Water samples were also collected from the nearest mine water storage to 

determine the origin of the discharging water. 

The investigation determined that the discharging water was originating from a mine water storage void on 

site. The extent of the discharged water was found to have extended no further than a farm dam within the 

mine lease area. The farm dam is currently being managed to ensure no mine water leaves site. 

Actual environmental impact was considered negligible given that all water is currently contained on-site. 



3.22 FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS AND TARGETS 

3.22.1 2009 Performance against Targets 

HVO performance against the 2009 targets is presented in Table 51. This table also includes targets set for 

2010. 

Table 51: HVO Objectives and Target Performance 2009 and 2010 

HVO Objectives and Targets 2009 Target 2009 Actual 2010 Target* 

Number of significant environmental incidents (High/ 

Critical) 0 8 6 

Land rehabilitated (hectares) 82.9 86 69.2 

Land disturbed (hectares) 315.6 272.3 123.5 

Ratio of Total Land Disturbed to Total Footprint 0.60 0.59 0.59 

Fresh water use (Litres per tonne product) 125 123 126 

Electricity use (Kilowatt hours per tonne product) 13.0 12.1 NT 

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-e per tonne product) 90.3 88.9 NT 

Greenhouse gas emissions excluding fugitive coal seam 

methane emissions (kg CO2-e per tonne material moved) 1.47 1.5 1.55 

Average annual site audit score 85% 84% 85% 

Number of incidents with regulatory penalties/fines 0 0 0 

Blasts at non mine-owned residential areas > 115dB(L) 0 3 3 

Blasts at non mine-owned residential areas > 5mm/sec 0 0 0 

% recycling or re-use of waste 85% 87% 85% 

Develop a HV Regional Biodiversity Action Plan Yes Yes NT 

Implement HV Regional Biodiversity Action Plan Yes Yes NT 

Complete further works programmes in accordance with 

Mine Closure Plan Yes Yes NT 

Energy Use (GJ per tonne product) 0.294 0.292 NT 

Energy Use (GJ per tonne EMM) 0.015 0.015 NT 

Number of Hydrocarbon spills over 100 Litres less than 

previous year


HVO Objectives and Targets 2009 Target 2009 Actual 2010 Target* 

Non-compliances with noise limits in development consent 

and licences 0 1 0 

Number of environmental newsletters distributed to 

immediate neighbours (HVO/MTW joint newsletter) 4 4 NT 

Number of complaints recieved


Photograph 3: Establishment Technique Trial – Mounded Plot, 12 Nov 2008 (height stick at 3m) 

Photograph 4: Establishment Technique Trial, 12 Nov 2008 (Part of minimum till plot with 

comparatively poor growth) 



3.23.2 Biosolids Trial 

In November 2007, a trial was initiated in West Pit to investigate the effect on tree/shrub establishment and 

growth of various soil/spoil treatments. Three adjacent blocks of approximately 5.5 hectares were prepared as 

follows: one with 100mm of topsoil, one with overburden only and one with 190 tonnes/hectare of biosolids 

spread on the overburden. Monitoring in 2008 indicated improved vegetation establishment in the topsoil and 

biosolids plots. Coal & Allied is now seeking to establish long term supply contracts for the supply of organic 

material to use in rehabilitation activities. It is expected these will be finalised during 2010. 

3.23.3 Meteorological Data Measurement and Assessment 

Coal & Allied continues to play a key role in the development of the use of acoustic sounding equipment and 

modelling techniques to predict air blast overpressure prior to blasting. In 2004 a joint venture of companies 

operating open cut mines in the Hunter Valley was formed to build and manage a worlds best practice 

meteorological monitoring facility and work with an ACARP funded research project (Project C12036) to 

develop techniques to forecast meteorological conditions which will enhance blast overpressure. 

The research project was completed in 2008 and the forecasting system became fully operational shortly 

after. In 2009 the system was enhanced with improved web tools to display overpressure reinforcement 

patterns and improved maintenance and support facilities. Current activities include investigation into an 

updated meteorological model and better techniques to adjust forecast conditions based on real time surface 

measurements. 

This research project was awarded an ACARP Research Excellence Award – 2009. 

3.23.4 Blast Vibration Studies 

Coal & Allied operates its open cut mines close to rural communities and has a duty of care to minimise its 

blasting impacts on local residents. Coal & Allied has participated in a number of recent research projects to 

better understand and minimise blast vibration impacts. 



3.23.5 Contribution of Mining Emissions to NO 2 and PM 10 in the Upper Hunter 

Coal & Allied continues to play a leading role in supporting research into mining impacts on air quality in the 

Hunter Valley. Coal & Allied works closely with the Australian Coal Association to actively support and 

manage research projects funded through ACARP and over the last 10 years has supported nine major 

research projects into dust and blasting fume emissions. 

The most recent work has concentrated on: 

 

 

 

Understanding the composition of dust emitted from open cut mines and the resultant fine dust impacts in 

local communities; 

Developing tools to better predict dusty conditions and proactively manage dust; and 

Characterising and quantifying the gaseous emissions from blasting activity to determine emissions of 

oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide. 

ACARP Project C18026: Respirable Silica near Open Cut Mines in the Hunter Valley 

Recently the level of community concern relating to dust levels in the Hunter Valley has increased and this 

has prompted the Hunter Valley Mines to closely investigate the quantity and chemical make up of the dust 

emitted. An element of particular concern is silica which can cause the lung disease silicosis. 

This 18 month project started in July 2009 and aims to carry out a risk assessment on the levels of silica in 

the air surrounding open-cut coal mines. The major project objectives are to: 

 

 

 

 

Sample respirable particulates (PM10, PM2.5) in the Hunter Valley airshed in the vicinity of operating 

open-cut coal mines; 

Measure levels of respirable silicon using ion beam analytical techniques; 

Determine the mineral species which contain silicon (silica, silicates) and the morphology (crystallinity) of 

the silica using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), QEMSCAN and Transmission Electron Microscopy 

(TEM); and 

Carry out an initial risk characterisation based on the levels of measured silica. 

ACARP Project C19034: Meteorological Models to Improve Management of Dust from Open 

Cut Mines 

This new project aims to use soil and meteorological information to calculate an easy-to-interpret dust index 

that will provide a quantitative estimate of the risk of dust impacts in the next 24 hours. If successful, this will 

allow mine operators to proactively implement dust reduction measures in advance of adverse weather 

conditions. 

This 12 month project will utilise the highly accurate weather forecasts generated by the Hunter Valley 

Meteorological Sounding Group Joint Venture together with the predicted state of the topsoil to forecast dust 

conditions in the next 24 hours. 

Emissions from Blasting in Open-Cut Coal Mining 

An ACARP project run by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) aims to 

use continuous spectroscopic monitoring for a period of at least two years to determine the concentration of 

Nitrogen Dioxide at the boundary of a large open-cut coal mine. The results of this project could then be used 

to quantitatively determine the contribution of blasting to ambient Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations in 

surrounding districts. In addition, hydrocarbon emissions from blasts will be sampled and analysed to 

determine the range of compounds released. 

The project commenced in 2009 with preliminary work consisting of site selection and off site development of 

the uv-DOAS (ultra violet – Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy) instrument for long term remote 

monitoring. The South Pit at Warkworth was selected as a suitable monitoring location where it borders Putty 

Road. Site setup and monitoring will commence in 2010. Coal & Allied are the Industry Monitor for this 

project. 



3.24 CLIMATE CHANGE 

3.24.1 Efforts to Address Climate Change 

The Rio Tinto Environment Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) aims to ensure the minimisation 

of GHG emissions in Rio Tinto, including Hunter Valley Operations (HVO). This will be accomplished by 

identifying GHG emission sources, evaluating and prioritising them according to significance, then designing 

and implementing appropriate control, reduction and mitigation measures of greenhouse gas emissions to the 

environment. 

One medium used to achieve the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions is the RTCA Climate Change 

Action Plan (CCAP). This plan was implemented in 2006 to manage the risks and opportunities that arise in 

relation to climate change. Rio Tinto Coal Australia’s climate change programme has the following key 

objectives and areas of work: 

Carbon Capture and Storage: Actively researching and promoting technologies that reduce GHG 

emissions from the use of coal. Programmes include COAL21, an initiative of the Australian Coal 

Association aimed at reducing GHG emissions arising from the use of coal in electricity generation in 

Australia. 

 

 

 

 

Energy Management: Improving energy use at operations, projects and in the supply chain. The first step 

was undertaking energy audits at each operation. The audits were conducted in order to satisfy HVO’s 

requirements to produce an Energy Savings Action Plan (ESAP), as a designated user under the Energy 

Savings Order 2005. This order was legislated by the NSW Department of Energy, Utilities and 

Sustainability (DEUS) within the Energy Administration Amendment (Water and Energy Savings) Act 

2005. The audits identified a range of energy projects which were submitted in the ESAP and are being 

undertaken and communicated across the Rio Tinto group to enable sharing and collaboration across the 

business. 

The Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) conducts research and 

development into carbon capture technologies and the geological aspects of carbon storage technologies. 

Its current focus is the Otway Project in Victoria, Australia's first demonstration of the deep geological 

storage, or geosequestration, of carbon dioxide. The project is of global significance because it is the 

world’s largest research and geosequestration demonstration project. Over 65,000 tonnes of carbon 

dioxide have been injected and stored and the project includes an outstanding monitoring program which 

international scientists believe to be the most comprehensive of its type in the world. 

Designing for the Future: Designing projects, recognising risks from a changing climate and opportunities 

in a changing policy environment. Programmes in this area include investigating new options to capture 

coal seam methane from underground and open cut mines, such as the MTW coal seam methane project 

where Coal & Allied is working with university researchers to tap into coal seam methane gas trapped 

underground. Coal seam methane gas is usually released when the coal is mined, but the pilot project 

aims to capture and remove the gas prior to mining. If successful, the $5.5 million pilot project could 

reduce the carbon footprint at MTW with scope for application at other sites. The trial involves flaring off 

the gas, which converts the methane into less harmful carbon dioxide. If the coal bed methane gas is 

available in sufficient quantities and flows freely, it could open up a new source of fuel to generate 

electricity. 

Raising Awareness: Raising awareness with employees, the communities where Coal & Allied operates, 

customers, governments, suppliers and industry that this is an issue which requires us all to change how 

we currently operate. 

In 2009, HVO reported total scope one and scope two greenhouse gas emissions of 955,909tCO2-e (carbon 

dioxide equivalents) under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act 2007. These 

emissions are reported for the financial year ending 30 June 2009, which is the reporting period mandated 

under NGER. 

For the calendar year 2009 HVO achieved a greenhouse performance of 89.0kgCO2-e per tonne product 

below target of 90.3kgCO2-e per tonne product HVO completed several energy projects in 2009 which 

reduced greenhouse gas outputs by 8,891tCO2-e. HVO’s Energy Project Programme has reduced GHG 

emissions by a total of 55,700tCO2-e since its commencement in 2006. 



During 2009 we introduced systems to ensure continued compliance with new Australian government 

legislation, completing assessments required by the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006 (EEO). HVO 

identified eight opportunities and three significant opportunities that will be assessed as part of the integrated 

business planning process A report of our declared EEO projects will be available at www.riotinto.com. 

The three significant EEO projects in 2009 were: 

Effective Dragline Deployment - Goat Island 

Goat Island is a 180 metre box cut that was to be excavated using truck and shovel operation. An opportunity 

now exists to access the area using a dragline rather than truck and shovel. This one-off, single opportunity 

results in both operating cost and energy savings. The savings result from reduced diesel consumption (due 

to reduced truck hours) which outweighs increased electricity consumption due to the dragline's operation. 

The project was identified as an opportunity in 2009. A business case is currently being developed to 

undertake the required work. 

Strip Design – Upper Liddell seam 

Specific mine planning for the Upper Liddell seam of coal extraction has indicated that a lower elevation of the 

pad (a key work zone) will result in a reduction of dozer time for each seam pass. The project was identified 

as an opportunity in 2009 and represents an annual efficiency improvement (from reduced dozer usage) for 

both cost and energy. This work is currently planned to progress in 2011. 

Install Hungry Boards to increase coal payload 

HVO proposes to install hungry boards on seven coal trucks which will potentially increase the payload from 

201 tonnes to 213 tonnes. Increasing payload will improve the efficiency of moving coal and reduce energy 

costs. Currently, different trays are used for overburden and coal. This project will result in enhanced 

matching of truck-tray type to specific tasks. The project was included in the 2009 EEO list of opportunities 

but is unlikely to be progressed until at least 2011 dependent on the availability of capital to undertake the 

design, fabrication and installation of the required modifications. 




During 2009, HVO obtained energy from three main sources (1) electricity supplied through the state 

electricity grid, (2) two percent bio-diesel and (3) a comparatively minor amount of petrol. The breakdown of 

energy usage and respective GHG emissions from the use of electricity and diesel is displayed in Table 52 

and Table 53 respectively. The total energy use for HVO is displayed in Table 54 and the total GHG 

emissions for HVO including coal seam methane gas emissions, explosives emissions and land management 

emissions are displayed in Table 55. 

Table 52: Electricity Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009 

Electricity Consumption 

Energy Usage 

GHG 

Emissions 

Mining (MWh) Processing (MWh) Total (MWh) Total (GJ) 1 

68,718 (50.4%) 67,627 (49.6%) 136,345 490,842 

Mining (tCO2-e) 2 Processing (tCO2-e) 2 Total (tCO2-e) 2 

61,159 60,189 121,348 

1. This calculation was undertaken assuming that 1kWh is equivalent to 0.0036GJ. 

2. This calculation was undertaken assuming that 1MWh is equivalent to 0.89tCO2-e. 

Note: Mining/Processing split is based on rough calculations by the CPP, with Mining approximately 50.4 per cent and 

Processing approximately 49.6 per cent. Same split used in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009. 

CNA have installed electricity meters on major fixed and mobile plant. Meters are being linked into the sites 

communication network where they will be used to improve understanding the breakdown of site electricity usage. 

Table 53: Diesel Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009 

Diesel Consumption 

Energy 

Usage 

GHG 

Emissions 

B2 Bio-diesel Usage (kL) Diesel Usage (kL) Total (kL) Total (GJ) 1 

1,427 69,981 71,408 2,750,641 

B2 Bio-diesel Usage 

(tCO 2 -e) 3 Diesel Usage (tCO2-e) 2 Total (tCO 2 -e) 

13 187,739 187,752 

1. This calculation was undertaken assuming the calorific value of 1kL of diesel is equal to 38.6GJ and the 

calorific value of 1kL of bio-diesel is equal to 34.6GJ. 

2. This calculation was undertaken assuming that 1kL is equivalent to 2.7tCO 2 -e. 

3. This calculation was undertaken assuming that 1kL of bio-diesel is equivalent to 9kgCO 2 -e. 



Table 54: Total Energy Usage 2009 

Hunter Valley Operations Total Energy Use 2008 2009 

Total Energy Consumption – Electricity (GJ) 495,906 490,842 

Total Energy Consumption – Diesel (GJ) 2,474,960 2,750,641 

Total Energy Consumption – Petrol (GJ) 7,271 7,637 

Total Energy Consumption – Site (GJ) 2,978,137 3,249,120 

Table 55: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2009 

Hunter Valley Operations Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2008 2009 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Electricity (tCO2-e) 122,599 121,348 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Diesel (tCO2-e) 171,429 187,752 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Petrol (tCO2-e) 502 532 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Coal Seam Gas (tCO2-e) 652,215 674,573 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Explosives (tCO2-e) 5,280 7,280 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Land Management (tCO2-e) 3,955 11,798 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Site (tCO2-e) 955,980 1,003,283 



3.25 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT DELAYS 


During adverse weather conditions (particularly on hot, dry or exceedingly windy days), HVO has undertaken 

to suspend operations in various pits as an internal proactive measure to reduce potential impacts on 

neighbours and the general public. 


From January to December 2009, operations were suspended for 132 unique pieces of equipment for a total 

of 2,771 hours. These delays were instigated by Open Cut Examiners (OCEs) and equipment operators for 

each pit as a proactive measure to prevent potential dust and noise impacts on HVO’s immediate neighbours, 

particularly during the spring and summer months. Detailed delay times for various pieces of equipment are 

listed in Table 56 

Table 56: Equipment Delays for 2009 

Equipment Type (Number) 

Hours 

Truck (66) 1,657 

Dragline (2) 375 

Shovel (8) 240 

Loader (8) 106 

Drill (7) 64 

Excavator (1) 1 

Bladed Equipment (8) 108 

Dozers (19) 71 

RT Dozer (4) 16 

Scraper(4) 33 

Service Trucks (1) 1 

Graders 99 

Total 2,771 



3.26 CARRINGTON BILLABONG 


The Carrington Billabong is a naturally forming fresh water wetland on the western boundary of HVO and is 

an ideal habitat for River Red Gums, which are a critically endangered species in the Hunter Valley. For 

mining to progress in the Carrington Pit a levee was constructed to prevent flood waters reaching the mining 

area. However this levee has limited the catchment of the River Red Gum, which is a species heavily reliant 

on readily available water and shallow groundwaters which occur around alluvial systems. 

HVO engaged Umwelt Australia (Pty Ltd) to develop a management strategy for this sensitive system in 2007. 

The main goals that the Carrington Billabong Restoration and Rehabilitation Strategy are: 

To reduce the impacts of threatening processes on the billabong; 

 

 

 

To aid the establishment of the appropriate conditions to promote the health of the river red gum 

population; 

To enhance the river red gum population to enable it to persist as a viable, functioning population; and 

To increase biodiversity including residence habitat, foraging habitat and native flora and fauna species. 

The population of River Red Gums in the Hunter is unique in NSW being the only to occur in a coastal 

catchment and is believed to be genetically distinct. The species is listed under the Threatened Species 

Conservation Act 1995 and the factors believed to contribute to this status include loss of habitat, competition 

(weeds), stress from cattle, environmental change and habitat fragmentation. 


The Carrington Billabong has historically been moderately grazed, with significant weed infestations and its 

hydrology has been significantly altered. To achieve the goals to the Carrington Billabong Rehabilitation and 

Restoration Strategy, HVO erected an interim stock fence in 2007, which has been replaced with a large 

permanent fence around the billabong. A buffer zone was included within the permanent fence to help 

encourage recruitment and natural regeneration by eliminating the pressures of cattle grazing. Regular 

monitoring is undertaken to assess the level of recruitment and natural regeneration in the billabong. Weed 

and pest management is carried out in the area by Hunter Land Management, who selectively spray and 

slash to limit the infestation of weeds in the billabong. Meteorological data for the area is recorded to 

understand any climatic stresses and ground water is monitored. 

Since the implementation of the Carrington Billabong Restoration and Rehabilitation strategy, the overall 

health of the system has increased through the exclusion of cattle and reduction of weeds. Also despite the 

limited rainfall in the area individuals are persisting and recruitment is occurring. 

Three hundred River Red Gum seedlings were planted in the billabong in September 2009. However, many of 

these suffered from herbivory by kangaroos or succumbed to drought and are struggling to survive. A survey 

of the juvenile individuals was performed in December 2009 and found that 40 per cent of trees planted were 

still alive. However a subsequent survey in early January 2010 recorded a 61 per cent survival rate, 

indicating some plants have recovered due to substantial rainfall events. A product to deter herbivory by 

kangaroos has since been applied to the surviving River Red Gums and this will be continued in 2010. 

Further revegetation works may include more planting in 2010. 

The Weed Management Plan 2009 was implemented at the billabong which included selective herbicide use 

to eradicate annual weeds, as well as targeting Galenia, Castor Oil plants and tree tobacco. Weed monitoring 

quadrats have been used to assess the effectiveness of the Weed Management Plan. Results show 

significant decreases in weed cover at all quadrats since the implementation of the plan in 2008. 

Efforts to reduce weed infestation at the billabong will continue in 2010. 



4 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLAINTS 

4.1.1 Listing of Complaints for the Reporting Period 

During 2009 a total of 24 complaints where received by HVO. This represents an increase of 11 community 

concerns from 2008. There were no complaints received during January, February, September, October or 

December. A full register of complaints is detailed in Appendix 2. 

The main environmental issues affecting the public during 2009 were blasting with ten complaints and noise 

with nine complaints, shown in Figure 79, which also compares 2009 complaints with those in the last five 

years. 

Issues of Community Concern 

6 

29 

30 

No. Complaints / month (2009) 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

24 

14 

13 

10 

6 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

No. Complaints / year 

0 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

0 

Blast Dust Light Noise Other 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Figure 79: Breakdown of Environmental Complaints by Issue for 2009 

4.1.2 Complaint Resolution 

Coal & Allied provides a 24 hour Environmental Contact Line (telephone: 1800 656 892) for community 

members to comment on concerns relating to its operations. The following procedure is consistently followed 

for complaint notifications at all Coal & Allied sites: 

 

 

 

When a complaint is made via the Contact Line, a member of the Coal & Allied Environmental Services 

team is notified by means of a text message sent to the Environmental Services pager and mobile phone. 

Environmental Services then contacts the complainant and the complaint is discussed. All complainants 

are offered face to face visits from relevant Coal & Allied personnel; 

An Environmental Electronic Complaint form is completed on the Coal & Allied reporting database. If the 

complaint is received by means other than the Contact Line, an Environmental Complaint form is 

completed and Environmental Services are notified; and 

On receipt of a complaint, a member of the Environmental Services team will clarify the issue, notify 

relevant site personnel and discuss appropriate actions. If the appropriate operations personnel cannot 

quickly resolve the issue, the issue is referred to the Manager or General Manager. Any actions taken to 

resolve the issue are communicated back to the complainant as soon as possible. 



Environmental Complaint Forms record the date, time, nature of the complaint and the site that is believed to 

have caused the complaint. The complainant’s name and location are also recorded. The complaint database 

is used to determine areas where operational changes may be required in the future. 

4.2 COMMUNITY LIAISON 

4.2.1 External Relations 

Coal & Allied’s approach to community relations is focused on building enduring relationships based on 

mutual respect, active partnership and long term commitment. 

In practice this means: 

 

Having robust relationships with our communities of interest – this requires understanding the issues and 

needs of different stakeholders as well as active engagement. 

Effectively contributing to communities – this requires understanding the socio economic environment and 

community's vision for the future and providing contributions that are sustainable and build long term 

community capacity. 

The Rio Tinto Communities Standard sets out a framework for implementing the communities policy. This 

includes the HVO Community Relations Plan, which is reviewed regularly and updated annually. The HVO 

community relations strategy is currently being implemented across four key task areas of communication, 

consultation, community development and strategic relationships with stakeholders. 

The following is a summary of some activities included within Coal & Allied sites Community Relations Plans: 

 

 

 

 

 

Face to face visits with near neighbours; 

Community Consultative Committees; 

Coal & Allied Community Newsletters in Singleton and Muswellbrook; 

Internal newsletters on the activities across Rio Tinto Coal Australia; 

Stakeholder meetings for the transfer of information on site issues; 

Curriculum-based school links programmes with schools nearest to Coal & Allied operations; 

Liaison meetings and briefings to local business, Shire Council representatives and government 

agencies; 

 

 

 

An open door policy for neighbours wishing to know more about the operations; 

Web sites (such as www.coalandallied.com.au) available for information on Coal & Allied and Rio Tinto 

Coal Australia; and 

Coal & Allied’s Community Development Fund and Aboriginal Development Consultation Committee. 

4.2.2 Community Consultation 

There are a variety of formal and informal consultation processes available to ensure the community is as up 

to date and fully informed on Coal & Allied’s mining and business activities as possible. 

These include, but are not limited to, the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community Consultative Committees; 

Engagement strategic focus groups to ensure all potential issues are identified early in a project; 

Face to face visits with the operations near neighbours; 

Regular updates to regional, state and federal agencies accountable for the regulatory governance of the 

operations; 

The Coal & Allied web site (www.coalandallied.com.au); and 

Regular newsletters both internal and external. 



4.2.3 Community Consultative Committees 

Each Coal & Allied operation has a Community Consultative Committee (CCC) which monitors compliance 

with conditions of consent and provides a forum for important community discussion. Community 

representatives act as the point of contact to provide feedback between the mines and the community. Each 

consultative committee is comprised of members of the community, representatives from Coal & Allied, 

Singleton and Muswellbrook Shire Councils, DII, DoP, and the DECCW. 

Coal & Allied believes these committees are an important way to communicate with the community. 

Community representatives are asked to relay information from these meetings to their community and, in 

turn, the community can raise issues they would like addressed through their representatives. 

Presentations to the CCC during 2009 included: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current Approval Works; 

External Relations updates; 

Real time monitoring; 

Cheshunt Dump design and dust controls; 

Department of Industry and Investment (formally DPI-DMR) Site Inspection results; and 

Environmental Monitoring Updates. 

4.2.4 Aboriginal Relationships 

The Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee (ADCC) has achieved several milestones throughout 

the course of 2009. It is the first year in which all available funds ($549,000) have been committed. 2009 has 

also been a year when the largest number of eligible proposals was submitted and of these, 17 were 

approved. This is an indication of the growing reputation of the fund and the quality of the applications 

submitted. 

Through these proposals Coal & Allied have achieved a good distribution of funds across all LGAs (Local 

Government Areas) in the Upper Hunter Valley and funded projects have closely aligned to ADCC and 

community priorities in each LGA. The ADCC was proactive in seeking strategic partnerships with foundations 

and organisations outside NSW to develop capacity building programmes across the region. 

A very broad range of projects and programmes have been funded in the past year, encompassing education, 

early intervention, health, business development and community development. Key projects for 2009 have 

included: 

 

 

A partnership between the ADCC and the University of Newcastle through sponsorship of the National 

Indigenous Families and Community Strengths Conference. The ADCC supported a number of 

indigenous health and community workers from the Upper Hunter Valley to attend the conference and 

offset costs of the three day event. The conference attracted more than 300 delegates and a range of 

national and international speakers who presented leading practice case studies and research findings 

from health, economic and community development initiatives here and overseas. 

Ka-Wul Homework Centre at Singleton High School has continued to attract strong support from the 

ADCC in 2009. It is cementing an important place within Singleton High School, with the parents and 

extended families of Aboriginal students and with the wider Singleton education precinct. The Ka-Wul 

dance group performed at a number of community and National Aboriginal Islander Day Observance 

Committee (NAIDOC) Week events throughout the year, in and beyond the Upper Hunter region. Ka-Wul 

coordinated NAIDOC Week in Singleton and actively involved all schools in the LGA in more than 17 

unique events and activities during the week of NAIDOC and beyond. 

Strategic partnerships were developed with two national organisations – Graham (Polly) Farmer 

Foundation (PFF) and Dare to Lead for Business (DTL4B). PFF will implement an after school tuition 

programme in Muswellbrook for Aboriginal students who aspire to achieve in Year 12 and go on to 

university, to undertake other study or Apprenticeships. The programme is operating in 13 centres in 

other states of Australia and is delivering high success rates for the students in these programmes. 

DTL4B will work with the Ka-Wul Centre and other staff at Singleton High School to deliver the School to 



 

Work Transition Initiative. The programme will pilot a range of strategies to support Aboriginal students to 

identify and gain experience in appropriate education and/or training and employment pathways to enable 

them to achieve their goals after secondary school. Both projects will commence in Term one, 2010. 

Parents and Learning (PaL) programme commenced operation in Muswellbrook. PaL supports 

indigenous parents of pre-school age children to get involved with their child’s learning through weekly 

home visits by a PaL tutor, who delivers books, instruction kits and educational games. PaL is expected 

to directly contribute to higher number of enrolments of indigenous children in pre-schools in 

Muswellbrook in 2010 and beyond. 

Two existing ADCC projects - Upper Hunter Skills Development Centre (UHSDC) and the Indigenous 

Jobs Market (IJM) again attracted support in 2009. UHSDC continues to place Aboriginal people into 

employment in the mining industry and with ADCC funding has developed a mentoring programme. The 

IJM, brought more than 1,500 job seekers and school students together with 50 employers and further 

education and training providers in Newcastle in June. 

In addition to funding these initiatives through the ADCC, broader engagement by HVO with Aboriginal 

communities has included: 

 

 

 

 

 

Strengthened relationships with labour hire contractors and relevant Indigenous employment providers to 

continue to provide training and employment opportunities at HVO for Aboriginal people. 

Human Resources teams and labour contractors were linked to the NSW Government programme, ‘The 

Way Ahead’. This programme provides workplace mentoring for Aboriginal people undertaking 

traineeships and apprenticeships. 

In 2009, Aboriginal people continued to take up Certificate Two Surface Coal Operations traineeships. At 

the end of 2009, all the trainees had either successfully completed or were continuing to achieve in their 

traineeship. Planning was also undertaken to implement an Administration Traineeship early in 2010. 

Work has continued with NovaSkill to attract a higher number of suitable Aboriginal candidates to apply 

for Coal & Allied apprenticeships and Coal & Allied have continued to build the level of involvement by 

Aboriginal organisations in the recruitment process. Coal & Allied have strengthened their relationships 

with NSW TAFE in order to access relevant additional tuition and/or other support for Apprentices in their 

studies. 

Coal & Allied have continued to engage Newcastle Knights players in relevant ADCC and broader 

Aboriginal programmes. This has brought tangible benefits to students involved in the Ka-Wul project and 

NAIDOC week activities. Coal & Allied played a key role in first time events and new initiatives during the 

NRL Close the Gap round and are continuing to contribute through our membership of a Steering 

Committee established by the Knights to drive their engagement with Aboriginal communities in the 

Hunter region. 

Coal & Allied have played an active role in key indigenous, government, education, industry and 

community networks. This is contributing to our ability to stay informed about changes in government 

policies and programmes, establish relationships with relevant local, regional and state bodies and in the 

process, has increased Coal & Allied’s ability to identify opportunities for local Aboriginal communities and 

increased our ability to leverage benefits for ADCC funded projects. 

Coal & Allied are proud of the outcomes being achieved through the work Coal & Allied have done in the past 

year and Coal & Allied look forward to continuing to contributing to a sustainable future for Aboriginal 

communities in the Hunter region. 



4.3 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION AND ACHIEVEMENTS 

Coal & Allied operates in line with sustainable development principles as Coal & Allied believe it will result in 

long term benefits to society and our business. Coal & Allied also recognise that sustainable development is 

not something a single organisation can achieve, nor is it a single project that can ever be completed and 

ticked off as finished. It is about the way Coal & Allied work, and the interactions Coal & Allied have with 

others, to meet the multiple objectives of social wellbeing, environmental stewardship and economic 

prosperity, throughout the life of a mine and beyond. 

On this basis, Coal & Allied believe Coal & Allied's projects, operations and products can contribute 

constructively to the global transition to sustainable development. Information about Coal & Allied's approach 

to sustainable development in 2009, including targets and results for HVO (HVO) is available on the Coal & 

Allied website www.coalandallied.com.au. 

Effectively contributing to communities requires a good understanding of the socio-economic environment in 

which Coal & Allied operate, as well as the community's vision for the future. For example in 2008, Coal & 

Allied rolled out the findings of the Hunter Valley socio-economic baseline study completed in 2007 by the 

Hunter Valley Research Foundation. This included presentations to senior managers and staff, Community 

Consultative Committees all operational sites and community partners. The information was also used to 

inform our community relations programmes, Coal & Allied’s Community Development Fund and the 

Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee. 

4.3.1 Involvement in the Community 

Community Relations 

Coal & Allied’s community relations programme is focused on building enduring relationships based on 

mutual respect, active partnership and long term commitment. In practice this means: 

 

Having robust relationships with our communities of interest - this requires understanding the issues and 

needs of different stakeholders as well as active engagement. 

Effectively contributing to communities - this requires understanding the socio economic environment and 

community's vision for the future and providing contributions that are sustainable and build long term 

community capacity. 

The Rio Tinto Communities Standard sets out a framework for implementing the communities policy. This 

includes the HVO Community Relations Plan, which is reviewed regularly and updated annually. The HVO 

community relations strategy is currently being implemented across four key task areas of communication, 

consultation, community development and strategic relationships with stakeholders. 

Community Engagement 

Members of the community are encouraged to engage in ways that suit them and a number of potential points 

of contact have been established. The shopfronts in Muswellbrook (19 Bridge Street) and Singleton (127 John 

Street) continue to ensure Coal & Allied is an active and accessible member of the community. 

Coal & Allied operates a free call Community Information Line (1800 727 745) providing an avenue for 

members of the community to seek information about our activities, operations and projects in the Hunter 

Valley. This number is advertised regularly in local newspapers and community newsletters (Figure 80). 



Figure 80: Coal & Allied Shopfronts and Community Information Line 

In addition, Coal & Allied operates a free call 24 hour Environmental Contact Line (telephone: 1800 656 892) 

for community issues relating to any of its mines. This number is advertised in the local newspaper, 

phonebook and Coal & Allied community newsletters and allows for any member of the community to lodge 

an official enquiry 24 hours a day, seven days per week. 

In November 2008 Coal & Allied distributed a survey to Singleton residents and surrounding communities in 

the LGA to assist with the development of a Community Engagement Programme. The survey invited 

feedback on how the community would like to be informed and involved in Coal & Allied operations, activities 

and plans for future projects in the Hunter Valley. Following input from the community Coal & Allied’s 

Singleton Community Newsletter was introduced in 2009 (see Appendix 4). 

In 2009 Coal & Allied conducted a number of Community Information sessions in Maison Dieu, Warkworth, 

Jerrys Plains and Bulga. These sessions aim to keep the community informed about Coal & Allied’s activities, 

operations and projects. 



Photograph 3 and 4: Local residents learn more about Coal & Allied at Community Information 

Sessions in 2009. 



Sustainable Communities 

Through HVO, Coal & Allied contributes to programmes identified by, and preferably in partnership with, local 

communities. Coal & Allied’s belief is that effective partnerships stem from shared goals, mutual commitment 

and proven outcomes. Coal & Allied support a range of organisations who share the goal of delivering 

sustainable outcomes for the communities in which they operate. 

Local projects and initiatives supported in 2009 include Milbrodale and Jerrys Plains Public Schools, the 

Singleton Art prize, Murrane Womens Crisis Housing, MS Society of NSW, Singleton Chamber of Commerce, 

Wildlife Aid and the Singleton Agricultural Association. 

Donations are also made at Christmas in lieu of the company sending Christmas cards and in 2009, Coal & 

Allied supported the life saving work of the NSW Cancer Council. 

4.4 RECOGNITION AND SHARING SUCCESS 

4.4.1 Coal & Allied Community Trust 

In 2009 Coal & Allied continued its focus on the long term sustainability of the communities where it operates, 

with nearly $2 million invested across the Hunter in partnerships with community groups and businesses. Key 

areas of focus have included education, business development, employment, health and culture, with nearly 

30 programmes supported by our Community Development Fund and Aboriginal Development Consultative 

Committee this year. Coal & Allied funds have continued to enable us to build capacity, not dependency, and 

contribute to the long term sustainability of our surrounding communities. 

Coal & Allied Community Development Fund 

In 2009 the Coal & Allied Community Development Fund was proud to continue its contribution to building 

capacity in our region. This year Coal & Allied Fund celebrated its 10th birthday, and since 1999 have 

committed more than $9.1 million into community projects in the region, which includes nearly $1.3 million in 

2009 for 15 partnerships with community groups and organisations (see Figure 81). An additional $1.3 million 

has also already been committed over the next three years to support projects which will help us deliver long 

term sustainability in the Hunter. 

Through working together with community partners Coal & Allied are delivering projects which are important 

to the local communities, encompassing the LGA’s of Upper Hunter, Muswellbrook, Singleton, Cessnock and 

Maitland. 

Figure 81: Coal & Allied Community Development Investment in 2009 



Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee (ADCC) 

In 2009 the Coal & Allied Aboriginal ADCC was proud to continue its contribution to building capacity in the 

Hunter. 

During 2009 Coal & Allied invested more than $420,000 to deliver 13 partnerships with community groups 

and businesses, supporting projects which will help us deliver long term sustainability in our local 

communities. Coal & Allied’s key focus areas in 2009 included business development, education and 

supporting Indigenous culture in the Hunter region refer to Figure 82. Coal & Allied continued to support the 

Singleton NAIDOC week celebrations and were proud to help more than 10 Indigenous business owners start 

new businesses with help from the Mayapa programme. 

Since its inception in November 2006, the ADCC has contributed more than $1.2 million to projects that 

benefit the Upper Hunter Valley Aboriginal community, encompassing the local government areas of Upper 

Hunter, Singleton and Muswellbrook. 

For more information about our Community Development Funds, including a full listing of partnerships, visit 

Coal & Allied’s web site www.coalandallied.com.au. 

Figure 82: Coal & Allied Aboriginal Development Consultative Committee Investment in 2009 



4.4.2 Community Partnerships 

Coal & Allied has retained an active partnership programme in 2009 with key organisations that provide a 

service valued by the community and have an approach to their business that is aligned with Coal & Allied 

principles. The ongoing partnership with Hunter based organisations demonstrates Coal & Allied’s strong 

commitment to the Hunter Region. 

Partnerships include: 

Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) 

The HMRI is an umbrella organisation which supports medical research in the Hunter. By contributing to the 

Institute, Coal & Allied recognises the importance of the research to the overall health of the Hunter's 

population. 

Hunter Valley Research Foundation (HVRF) 

In 2009, Coal & Allied continued its sponsorship of the HVRF. The HVRF is a not for profit organisation whose 

research assists organisations in the region with stakeholder engagement and business development. 

Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service 

Coal & Allied is a major sponsor of the Westpac Helicopter Rescue Service and is pleased to support a 

service which helps protect the well being of employees and the wider Hunter community. 

Photograph 5: The Coal & Allied Rescue Helicopter in Full Flight 

Coal & Allied and Newcastle Knights Community Alliance 

Coal & Allied took its sponsorship of a National Rugby League (NRL) team, the Newcastle Knights a step 

further in 2008, to form an Australian-first 'Community Alliance' – a unique partnership which sets a new 

benchmark in sporting sponsorships. Through the Alliance both organisations bring different skills and 

resources, as well as shared interests and objectives to make a positive contribution to the Hunter Valley. 

In 2009, in addition to the ongoing work with Singleton High School, the Knights ‘blitzed’ Singleton in 

December, bringing the entire First Grade Team to the community to work with Junior Development Clinic 

participants and Coal & Allied community partners (refer to photographs 6 and 7). 



Photograph 6 and 7: Through Coal & Allied’s Community Alliance, the Newcastle Knights continue to 

work with Indigenous students at Singleton High School in 2009. 



4.5 EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND DEMOGRAPHY 

HVO employs 745 people. An additional 66 are employed at Rio Tinto Coal Australia – Hunter Valley Services 

(HVS). Approximately 600 contractors (full time equivalents) are also engaged at the mine. Approximately 53 

per cent of HVO’s workforce resides in the LGAs of Singleton and Muswellbrook council areas. Detailed 

demographic statistics for HVO are outlined in Table 57 and Table 58 below with the demographic statistics 

for HVS are outlined in Table 59 and Table 60. 

Table 57: HVO – Demographic Breakdown in 2009 

Residential Area Postcodes Employees % 

Newcastle 2285, 2287, 2289, 2290, 2291-2300, 2302-2305 25 3% 

Maitland 2320, 2321, 2323, 2324, 2334, 2421 143 19% 

Cessnock 2325, 2326, 2327 96 13% 

Singleton 2330, 2332, 2335, 283 38% 

Muswellbrook 2328, 2333, 2336 125 17% 

Scone 2337, 2338 29 4% 

Lake Macquarie 2283, 2282, 2281, 2280, 2322 16 2% 

Port Stephens 2315-2318 6 1% 

Other 2329, 2422, 2428, 2420, 2380, 2311, 2097, 2251, 

2267, 2798, 2017, 2261, 2264, 2284, 2486, 2529, 

2530. 

22 3% 

Total 745 100 

Table 58: HVO – Occupational and Gender Breakdown in 2009 

Category 

Operators/ 

Maintainers 

Staff 

Number of Employees 

Male 

Female 

560 22 

Male 

Female 

138 25 

Total 745 



Table 59: Rio Tinto Coal Australia HVS – Demographic Breakdown in 2009 

Residential Area Postcodes Employees % 

Newcastle 2322, 2289, 2260 2 4.44 

Maitland 2323, 2421, 2320 5 11.11 

Cessnock 2335, 2327, 2325 4 8.89 

Singleton 2330, 2335 19 42.23 

Muswellbrook 2333 6 13.33 

Scone 2337 0 0 

Lake Macquarie 2282, 2283 1 2.22 

Other 2259, 2290, 3095, 4018, 4721, 4870, 

6053, 

8 17.78 

Total 45 100% 

Table 60: Rio Tinto Coal Australia HVS – Occupational and Gender Breakdown in 2009 

Category 

Staff 

Number of Employees 

Male 

Female 

28 19 

Total 45 



5 REHABILITATION 

The objective of mine rehabilitation is to create a structurally stable landform of a scale and morphology 

similar to that which presently exists in the Hunter Valley and is capable of future productive use. The aim of 

rehabilitation at HVO is to return the land to at least the same capability as prior to mining and where 

possible, improve upon the previous land condition. 

5.1 BUILDINGS 

No significant alterations to buildings or renovations were undertaken during the reporting period. 

5.2 REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED LAND 

5.2.1 Assessment of Land Capability 

Assessment of any changes to agricultural land capability resulting from the mining operation is part of the 

MOP process. MOP’s for each area are submitted for approval by the DII on a five to seven year interval and 

progress against the MOP is reviewed annually. The key objective of rehabilitation at HVO is to re-establish 

sustainable cattle grazing areas, native woodland and alluvial lands (where relevant) and to return the land as 

close as possible to capability prior to mining. The capability of the lands rehabilitated during the reporting 

period was in compliance with the approved MOP. 

5.2.2 Rehabilitation Material Characteristics 

Overburden is the material that extends from below the topsoil layer to the upper coal seam. Interburden 

occurs between coal seams. Spoil is overburden or interburden that has been moved in the mining process. 

This material varies in physical and chemical properties in accordance with geology and the extent of 

exposure to weathering. Chemical analysis of HVO spoil materials indicates that, in general, it is within 

acceptable ranges for use as a plant growth medium. Analysis shows spoil material to be slightly sodic and 

alkaline. 

However, in a few mining areas, rocks containing a higher than normal content of acid-forming sulphates may 

be evident, and are typically buried low in the dump sequence to avoid contaminated leachates entering the 

local environment. Coarse reject material produced from coal processing is predominantly sandstone and 

mudstone with only minor quantities of coal. Coarse rejects have similar properties to overburden in contact 

with the coal and are generally moderately saline and alkaline. 

5.2.3 Method of Land Shaping 

Overburden dump locations developed by dragline and truck and shovel operations are controlled in 

accordance with the relevant approved MOP. The dump heights are continuously monitored and feedback is 

given during the operation with respect to the dump limits. Preparation for the land shaping is controlled by 

the mine surveyor by placing batter pegs to guide the final land formation. Slopes are generally bulldozed to a 

maximum slope of 10 degrees in accordance with the MOP, except where special permission has been 

granted. Bulldozing work is carried out by a combination of contractor and/or mine equipment. Dumping of 

coarse rejects and carbonaceous materials is controlled to ensure these materials are covered by at least 

three metres of inert spoil material in the final landform (unless otherwise stated in the MOP). 

5.2.4 Characteristics of Cover Material 

In order to attain successful rehabilitation, the characteristics of individual soil types are identified to 

determine each soil’s suitability for topdressing. HVO has many different soil types across the mining lease, 

with each soil type identified in the current EIS. Analysis of dominant soil types show a pH range from 5.5 – 

8.0, acceptable EC (with levels below 2 deciSiemens per metre) and low dispersibility. The topsoil material 

itself is generally relatively dispersible and requires amelioration with gypsum. The soils are moderately 

erodible with medium sand-clay content and are prone to surface sealing and structural decline following 

exposure. 

In summary, the majority of dominant topsoil types at HVO are acceptable for land rehabilitation purposes. 

Subsoils exhibit similar chemical characteristics to topsoil types. 



5.2.5 Methods, Thickness and Compaction of Cover Material 

After dozing the spoil dumps to form the final landscape, generally all rocks exceeding 200mm that have been 

exposed are removed by heaping and picking up by loader or scraper. Topsoil from stockpiles or directly from 

stripped areas is then spread by scraper or dozed over the slope. The topsoil is applied at a minimum depth 

of 100 mm (or otherwise as stated in the MOP, subject to available topsoil reserves), with minimal mechanical 

compaction. Les Russell and Son (contractor) carried out shaping activities of rehabilitation lands during the 

reporting period. 

5.2.6 Drainage and Erosion Control 

Drainage flows in locations which approximate the original flow lines in the mining lease area. Drainage is 

divided into a number of small catchments that feed into a large channel, with drainage lines from the final 

landform being compatible with the surrounding drainage network. This is achieved using a combination of 

controls such as graded banks, designed channels and, where necessary, water course reinforcement. 

Graded banks are generally constructed on the steeper slopes at a gradual grade and a vertical interval of 

approximately seven meters. 

Diversion drains, designed to collect surface runoff, have a maximum slope of 2 per cent in order to minimise 

erosion. 

Sedimentation dams are incorporated into the final landform at appropriate locations to collect water runoff 

and allow time for suspended sediment to settle out prior to the water leaving the site. 

Erosion control is primarily achieved through the establishment of productive vegetation cover on the 

rehabilitated slopes. Graded erosion banks may be constructed as a temporary erosion control measure 

during the early stages of the revegetation process. 

5.2.7 Final landform Profile Slopes 

The final shaped landform is constructed in accordance with Plan 6 of the DII Conditions of Open Cut Mining 

Approval. Under typical conditions, slopes are designed so as not to exceed ten degrees. Both internal and 

external slopes of reformed land in excess of 10 degrees and less than 18 degrees are permissible subject to 

agreement by the DII, whilst slopes in excess of 18 degrees require the Minister’s consent. The final landform 

profile consists of a series of hills, ridges and minor valley systems, and varies according to erosion hazard, 

stability and drainage requirements. 

Final landform profile and slopes were consistent with the rehabilitation plan for the reporting period. All 

completed rehabilitation areas are delineated or fenced off to prevent unauthorised access and eventually 

enable cattle grazing on suitable areas. 

5.2.8 Soil Treatment 

All areas rehabilitated in 2009 were treated with gypsum at a rate of approximately 10 tonnes per hectare. In 

2010, further soil testing will be undertaken to determine the success of the above application and if further 

aerial fertilising and seeding is required. 



5.2.9 Vegetation Species and Establishment 

Pasture and tree species may be sown either into topsoil or directly into spoil emplacements without topsoil, 

generally in Spring or Autumn (depending on rainfall). Pasture seed is mixed with fertiliser and spread from a 

tractor-mounted broadcaster working along contours where possible for uniform seed distribution. Tree seed 

is generally mixed with kitty litter and spread from a tractor-mounted broadcaster and may use a cover crop of 

oats or millet. 

The selected final land use is: 

 

 

Class IV land capability; 

Pastures – mainly cattle grazing, with a mixture of sown pastures and tree belts. 

 

Native woodland tree areas – using local tree seed when available. 

Class I and II land capability; 

 

 

Irrigated lucerne production required to demonstrate compliance of the Alluvial Lands Re-instatement 

Area. 

The land use is compatible with the surrounding landscape and equivalent to pre-mining land use. 

Current rehabilitation practices aim for a landscape with improved grazing capability and approximately 60 to 

70 per cent of the area sown to either improved or native pastures. The remainder of the rehabilitation is sown 

to native tree species. Areas that were rehabilitated during the reporting period were planted with a variety of 

grass and tree species. Areas that were rehabilitated during the reporting period were planted with a variety of 

grasses and tree species. Local native grass, shrub and tree species are mostly used in the sowing and 

planting of rehabilitated areas, but exotic pasture species are also used. All of the sites rehabilitated during 

the reporting period have been planted into available topsoil. 

Pasture and tree species listed in Table 61 and Table 62 have previously been successfully used for 

rehabilitation. These pasture species are generally used for initial re-vegetation and are sown at an 

application rate of approximately 45 to 50 kilograms (total seed mix) per hectare. Pioneer Rhodes Grass has 

been removed from the pasture mix due to its tendency to dominate pasture areas. The diversity of the 

tree/shrub seed mix has been increased in 2009 and non-native species have been removed i.e. Eucalyptus 

cladocalyx (Sugar gum). 



Table 61: Pasture Species and Seeding Rates at HVO 

Improved Pastures Mix 

Green Panic 

Hulled Couch Grass 

Kikuyu (whittet) 

Paspalum 

Wimmera Rye 

Haifa White Clover 

Seaton Park Sub Clover 

Sephi Barrel Medic 

Aurora Lucerne 

Lime Coat and Inoculate Legumes 

Shirrohie Millet 

Coolabah Oats 

Total 

Fertiliser: Starter 15 or DAP 

Total Seed Blend and Fertiliser 

Seeding Rate 

3kg/ha 

3kg/ha 

4kg/ha 

3kg/ha 

3kg/ha 

3kg/ha 

4kg/ha 

3kg/ha 

4kg/ha 

14kg/ha 

10kg/ha 

10kg/ha 

50kg/ha plus inoculate 

400kg/ha 

464kg/ha 



Table 62: Tree Species and Seeding Rates at HVO 

Native Tree Seeding Mixture 

Acacia decora (Western silver wattle) 

Acacia decurrens (Green wattle) 

Acacia falcata (Sickle wattle) 

Acacia filicifolia (Fern leaf wattle) 

Acacia implexa (Hickory wattle) 

Acacia longifolia (Sydney golden wattle) 

Acacia salicina (Coobah wattle) 

Angophora floribunda (Apple tree) 

Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak) 

Corymbia maculata (Spotted gum) 

Dodonea viscose (Hop-bush) 

Eucalyptus albens (White box) 

Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River red gum) 

Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow leaf iron bark) 

Eucalyptus fibrosa (Broad-leaved ironbark) 

Eucalyptus moluccana (Coastal grey gum) 

Eucalyptus punctata/canaliculata (Grey gum) 

Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest red gum) 

Jacksonia scoparia (Dogwood) 

Pultanea spinosa (Grey Bush Pea) 

Total 

Seeding Rate 

0.2kg/ha 

0.6kg/ha 

0.4kg/ha 

0.3kg/ha 

0.2kg/ha 

0.2kg/ha 

0.4kg/ha 

0.1kg/ha 

0.1kg/ha 

1.5kg/ha 

0.1kg/ha 

0.3kg/ha 

0.3kg/ha 

0.6kg/ha 

0.4kg/ha 

0.6kg/ha 

0.6kg/ha 

0.6kg/ha 

0.1kg/ha 

0.1kg/ha 

7.7kg/ha 



5.2.10 Native Seed Strategy 

During 2009 Coal & Allied continued implementation of the seed strategy developed in 2008. The main aims 

of the strategy are to: 

Select species that were present in pre-disturbance ecological communities; and 

Improve the diversity of the understorey and groundcover. 

The seed strategy will guide native seed collection, treatment and application techniques across HVO and 

MTW to maximise seed availability and quality for use in rehabilitation activities. 

5.2.11 Habitat Audit 

ENSR Australia Pty Ltd conducted an audit of the habitat resources at HVO in areas ahead of the mining 

operations. This audit focused on presence/absence of tree hollows and stags with a view to the practical 

application of harvesting this material for use in the mine rehabilitation programme. The project objectives 

were aligned to the habitat requirement of the key fauna species as listed in previous EIS's for the site. 

Suitable trees were tagged with clearly identifiable weather proof tags with details recorded by GPS and 

ground truthing, with GIS data (using MapInfo software) provided to HVO Environmental staff for inclusion in 

their data sets. 

5.2.12 Water Containment, Control and Distribution 

Rehabilitated areas have graded banks to control movement of waters derived from the newly rehabilitated 

country in order to minimise erosion. Sediment dams are also constructed where appropriate. Refer to 

Section 3.3 Erosion and Sediment Management for further detail. 



5.2.13 Feral Animal Control 

As part of HVO’s Vertebrate Pest Action Plan, a control programme is carried out on a quarterly basis. Each 

quarter, the results from the previous programme (along with any focused control required) are considered to 

plan the following control programme. Throughout 2009, control was based on a comprehensive baiting 

programme to target wild dogs and foxes using meat-based baits injected with sodium monoflouroacetate 

(commonly known as 1080). Feral cat cage traps were also used on three occasions at HVO. Table 63 

summarises the vertebrate pest control undertaken at HVO during 2009. 

Table 63: Vertebrate Pest Control Summary 2009 

Total Lethal 

Baits Laid* 

Wild Dog 

Takes 

Fox Takes 

Feral Cat Cage 

Trapping 

Sandpad 

Monitoring 

Summer 144 3 14 Trapping undertaken 

( 0 cats caught) 

- 

Autumn 189 9 22 - Monitoring 

undertaken 

Winter 189 5 30 Trapping undertaken 

(7 cats caught) 

Spring 198 4 35 Trapping undertaken 

(0 cats caught) 

- 

Monitoring 

undertaken 

Total 720 21 101 - - 

* Cumulative number of baits presented at each check. 

Sand pad monitoring was used twice during the reporting period to monitor feral animal abundance. Strips of 

clay-rich bush sand were laid across tracks to record prints of animals moving through the area. Species 

abundance figures were calculated using methods based on research carried out by the CSIRO and DECCW. 

Table 64 presents the resultant species abundance figures. Figure 83 illustrates the areas in which feral 

animal control was conducted at HVO in 2009. Due to the small scale, cat trap locations are not shown on the 

figure. Traps were located around the main administration block and the CPP. 

Table 64: Sand pad Abundance Calculations – 2009 

Target Species 

Autumn % Plot 

Nights* 

Autumn 

Abundance** 

Spring % Plot 

Nights* 

Spring 

Abundance** 

Wild Dog 14.67 Medium 2.56 Scarce 

Fox 18.67 Medium 25.64 High 

Macropod 45.37 High 37.18 High 

Rabbit 18.67 High 19.23 Medium 

Cat NIL Scarce NIL Scarce 

Hare 12.00 Medium 6.41 Scarce 

* No. plots with tracks/total number of plot nights (no. plots x no. nights exposed) 

** Calculated using techniques published by CSIRO and DECCW. 



Figure 83: Locations of Feral Animal Control in 2009 



5.3 OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE 

Refer to Section 2.10, Other Infrastructure Management. 

5.4 REHABILITATION STATUS AT END OF REPORTING PERIOD 

At the request of the DII, the operation at HVO has been subdivided into three zones for reporting purposes. 

The zones include West Pit (Old Howick), north of the River (Carrington and Hunter Valley No.1) and south of 

the River (Cheshunt, Riverview and Lemington South Pits). A breakdown of 2009 performance against MOP 

commitments is provided in Table 65. 

Table 65: 2009 MOP Commitments and Performance – Rehabilitation and Disturbance 

2009 MOP Commitments Actual 2009 


(ha) 

Disturbance 

(ha) 


(ha) 

Disturbance 

(ha) 

North Pit/ Carrington 151.8 22.7 56.7 65.7 

West Pit 32.0 36.0 11.3 57.0 

Cheshunt, Riverview, 

Lemington South 28.3 153.4 18.0 149.6 

Total 212.1 212.1 86.0 272.3 

Fifty eight hectare of the 119ha MOP commitment for 2009 rehabilitation in North Pit had already been 

completed in 2008. The remainder of the MOP commitment for rehabilitation was associated with 

rehabilitating the two inactive Tailings Storage Facilities in North Pit (Centre Tailings Dam and South East 

Tailings Dam). These were not sufficiently dry to rehabilitate during the reporting period. Rehabilitation in 

West Pit and HVO South was less than the MOP commitment due to later than planned release of dumps for 

rehabilitation. It is planned to make up the shortfall in HVO South during 2010. 

A total of 86ha of new rehabilitation was completed across all the HVO pits during 2009. The area 

rehabilitated in this report period and breakdown of rehabilitation is shown in the Tables and Figures provided 

in Appendix 17. Consistent rainfall in the period when most of the planting was conducted (October to 

December) has resulted in good vegetation establishment. 

An independent audit of rehabilitation areas was undertaken in June 2009 by GSS Environmental. The audit 

found rehabilitated areas to be generally in a satisfactory and self-sustaining condition (discussed further in 

Section 5.4.4). Maintenance activities, including weed spraying and erosion repair, were identified in some 

areas and these remedial actions were carried out during the reporting period. 

Grazing is the proposed final land use for a significant proportion of rehabilitated land at HVO. In order to 

determine whether the rehabilitated land will be suitable for grazing use, areas have been progressively 

returned to grazing under leasing arrangements. At the end of the reporting period there were 382ha of 

rehabilitated land at HVO that was being used for cattle grazing. 

5.4.1 West Pit 

Of the 1,699ha disturbed to date, 628.7ha have been rehabilitated, with approximately 403ha sown to 

pastures and 225.7ha sown to native trees. 

During 2009, a total of 11.3ha was rehabilitated all of which was sown to pasture. 



5.4.2 South (Riverview, Cheshunt, Lemington South Pits) 

There has been a total of 2,281.8ha of land disturbed during the operation of the three pits with 580.4ha 

having been rehabilitated. The rehabilitation includes 384.1ha of pasture and 196.3ha of native tree species 

being sown. 

During the reporting period 18ha was rehabilitated in total with 11.3ha sown to pasture and 6.7ha sown to 

native trees and shrubs. 

5.4.3 North (Carrington and North Pits) 

During 2009 56.7ha were rehabilitated in Carrington and North Pits of which 30.8ha was sown to pasture and 

25.9ha was sown to native trees and shrubs. 

The combined land disturbance across Carrington and North Pit totals 1,654.6ha to date with 1,076.1ha of 

this being rehabilitated. There have been a total of 400.5ha of trees sown and planted across both pits with 

the remaining 544.6ha planted to native grasses and approximately 131ha rehabilitated in the alluvial Lands 

Project Area. 

Alluvial Lands 

Background 

Development Consent # DA 7-93 for Hunter Valley Mine’s Authorisation 436, granted 13 May 1993, enabled 

the disturbance and mining of a 165ha parcel of land adjacent to the Hunter River. The consent required the 

relocation and reinstatement of 63ha of Class 1 and 2 lands; suitable for irrigated agriculture. It also required 

a remaining 102ha to be rehabilitated to Class 4 land suited for grazing. 

Condition 15 of the Development Consent and special condition 7 in Annexure ‘A3’ of the DII Open Cut 

Approval, 20 March 1995, required Coal & Allied to demonstrate the achievement of class 1 and 2 land 

reinstatement. This demonstration required the reinstated area to achieve a Lucerne hay productivity yield to 

be ‘at least equivalent to the average crop productivity yields for the Upper Hunter Region for three 

consecutive years’. 

A district comparative yield programme (as requested by DPI) and Monitoring Protocol was developed to 

establish the district average yield and then compare the production from the Alluvial Lands Reinstatement 

Area (ALRA). This programme involved the collection of Lucerne productivity data from a sample of five to six 

different local farmers by way of interview and analysis. These farmers reside in the local district and are 

affected by similar rainfall and weather patterns. 

During the period 2003 to 2007 Coal & Allied was able to demonstrate that lucerne production from the ALRA 

exceeded the district average. At a presentation and site inspection with the DPI NSW on 28 November 2007 

it was agreed that the ALRA had successfully demonstrated compliance with the conditions stated in the DPI- 

MR Open Cut Approval and a project summary was submitted in 2008. 

Coal & Allied intends to implement a licence agreement for the ALRA to be continued to be used as an 

irrigated cropping property. It is expected these arrangements will be finalised during Quarter one 2010. 



5.4.4 Review of Rehabilitation Monitoring and Performance 

Rehabilitation Audits 

The independent biennial audit of rehabilitation was undertaken during May 2009. The audit assessed the 

following monitoring criteria: native vegetation and pasture, weeds, fencing, rock, surface water management, 

surface erosion, long term sustainability and maintenance of revegetated areas. 

The main outcomes of the audit are summarised below: 

Most revegetated areas were in an acceptable condition as a result of good rainfall over the previous 12 

months; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sites over five years of age generally have either dense pasture growth, or adequate tree density and 

growth; 

As a result of occasional heavy rain since the last assessment, there have been significant erosion 

problems in some areas. These include contour drain failure, and/or gully erosion and riling. Erosion 

problems represent the most urgent items needing attention and have accordingly been listed as high 

priority items in the action list; 

While conducting the audit, miscellaneous topsoil dumps and timber stockpiles were observed across the 

mine. It is strongly recommended that a strategy be developed to use these resources. Biosolids is also 

recommended as a substitute for topsoil on areas of the mine where topsoil is scarce and overburden is 

of poor quality; 

Ongoing weed spraying (particularly for Galenia), undertaken in response to previous recommendations 

in earlier audit reports, has been generally effective although some areas have had relatively poor weed 

kill. While remnant weeds exist, repeat spraying will be necessary; 

As in past audits reports, field inspection has concentrated on areas between one and five years of age. 

Most areas five years or older have been progressively remediated (where appropriate), and are 

generally in a satisfactory condition. The need for remedial works in areas less than one year old is 

unclear. These areas need further time before outcomes become clear; 

Now that an improved rainfall pattern is evident, aerial fertilising is recommended. The opportunity to also 

include a light pasture mix should be capitalised on in this time. The addition of a light pasture mix will 

enhance existing pasture swards, repair any failed areas, and will help provide ground cover in treed 

areas; and 

In general, the result of ongoing maintenance over previous years has been very positive, and has 

resulted in a significant improvement in the standard of rehabilitation across most sites. Corrective actions 

reported in this audit largely reflect problems that have occurred in recent times, or the need for ongoing 

and routine maintenance. 

In order to maintain rehabilitation conditions, HVO has concentrated particularly on maintenance of erosion 

and scouring as well as weed control. Extensive inspections were undertaken during 2009 by site personnel 

identifying areas requiring maintenance of these issues. 

Aerial Fertilising and Seeding 

Aerial fertilising and seeding is planned for 2010 in accordance with recommendations from the 2009 

rehabilitation audit. 



Rehabilitation Trials and Research 

HVO – Timber Monitoring 

Local independent environment consultants ENSR Australia Pty Ltd were engaged to undertake an 

assessment of habitat emplacement areas within post mining rehabilitation areas. This assessment was part 

of an ongoing monitoring program which commenced in 2006 with the instalment of the first timber stockpile. 

The habitat emplacement areas consist of timber and rock stockpiles placed within new post mining 

rehabilitation at Wilton Dump, Carrington and West Pits. 

The survey of the habitat emplacement areas investigated insect activity, animal activity (both introduced and 

native animals), presence/colonisation of the area by plant species both native and exotic from either direct 

seeding or natural colonisation, presence of weed species and presence of fungi and other cryptograms. 

These parameters were entered into a weighted field sheet providing an overall score for each site against 

which comparison can be made. 

Generally the overall scores for each of the areas have decreased over time, representing a decrease in 

habitat value of the timber and rock stockpiles. Above average rainfall following a drought may have led to an 

increase in weed species, which in some areas are dominating the vegetation and out competing desirable 

plant species. Soil compaction and an increase in ground cover is also resulting in animal activity being less 

visible so activity may have been scored as absent due to poor visibility of footprints and diggings. 

Management recommendations resulting from the project include targeting weed species such as Galenia 

(Galenia pubescens) amending the direct seeding mix to increase the presence and diversity of native 

understorey and grass species, as well as giving consideration to placing timber and rock stockpiles within 

established rehabilitation areas to assist in the enhancement of species diversity whilst providing habitat for 

ground dwelling fauna within the rehabilitated areas. 

HVO – Nest Box Monitoring 

In May 2006 ENSR Australia Pty Ltd was commissioned by HVO to undertake the placement of 24 ‘nest 

boxes’ in post-mining rehabilitation areas. The project was undertaken with the intention of providing nesting 

habitat for birds and arboreal mammals which is naturally provided by hollows in old trees, but is absent from 

rehabilitation areas. Monitoring of the nest boxes was undertaken during November 2006. 

Based on the results that few of the nesting boxes were being utilised by target species, 21 ‘species specific’ 

nesting boxes were set up in post-mining rehabilitated sites in the West Pit and Carrington Pit areas in July 

2007. These ‘species specific’ nesting boxes were sourced from La Trobe University based on a previously 

conducted flora and fauna study of the site. 

In November 2007 the nesting boxes were inspected to: 

Record signs of visitation and/or occupation by birds and arboreal mammals; 

 

Assess general condition; and 

Assess functionality. 

Six (28 per cent) of the 21 nesting boxes showed signs of visitation by target species. Two nesting boxes 

exhibited evidence of having been used for nesting and rearing young. 

The results and recommendations from past monitoring reports have been adopted for the planning of any 

future nest box installation. Nest box monitoring will continue through 2010. 

5.4.5 Decommissioning Closure Plans and Schedules 

Implementation of the HVO Mine Life Plan (MLP), which was reviewed in 2008, continued. Based on the long 

period before HVO ceases production (and therefore closes), the terms ‘mine life planning’ and ‘Mine Life 

Plan’ have been adopted to more accurately reflect the planning process and the name of the closure plan. 

Work continued on the MLP as per the Implementation Plan, which will be reviewed annually as part of the 

business planning process. Consultation with the community and key stakeholders on the HVO MLP has 

commenced and will continue throughout the mine life planning process. 



5.4.6 Final Void 

Final voids will not result at HVO for a number of years based on the following life expectancies of the pits: 

West Pit is expected to produce coal beyond 2021; 

 

 

 

North Pit ceased mining operations in 2003 and the final void will accept tailings until 2015. Rehabilitation 

of the area between the tailings dam and the Hunter River Levee was completed in 2008, with 

rehabilitation of the tailings dam to follow the cessation of tailings emplacement; 

Carrington Pit is estimated to cease production during 2015; and 

Riverview and Cheshunt Pits are managed as a combined operation, and reserves are conservatively 

estimated to last until at least 2021. 

5.5 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE FINAL REHABILITATION PLAN 

The HVO Mine Life Plan (MLP) (last updated in June 2006) presented the preferred closure options for 

landform design, land use and final voids. Identified in the MLP was further work that would be required to 

ensure successful outcomes at mine closure. The work listed below will be undertaken in 2010. 

 

 

 

Development with stakeholders of agreed success criteria relevant to post-closure landform function; 

Review of the post-closure monitoring programme; and 

Final void hydrological modelling and geotechnical investigations (five years prior to establishment of 

voids). 

A Final Void Management Plan for Carrington Pit will be prepared in 2010, as current plans show mining is 

scheduled to be completed in 2015. 

During 2007, the Conceptual Landscape and Rehabilitation Management Strategy was developed for HVO. 

The strategy aimed to provide a conceptual plan for rehabilitation of the site, including strategies to: 

Offset the flora and fauna impacts of the site; and 

 

Integrate with existing and planned corridors of native vegetation in areas surrounding the site. 

Research and trials related to rehabilitation have already been covered in Section 3.23. 



6 ACTIVITIES PROPOSED IN THE NEXT AEMR PERIOD 

6.1 PLANS FOR THE 2010 REPORTING PERIOD 

An increase in rehabilitation is planned to be completed in 2010, compared to what was predicted under the 

existing MOP commitments. The Howick Tailings Storage Facility is planned to be capped and rehabilitated 

during 2010. Planned disturbance in 2010 is higher than the MOP projection due to higher disturbance rates 

being undertaken in West Pit. Rehabilitation and disturbance areas are summarised in Table 66 below. 

Table 66: 2010 MOP Commitments and Planned Rehabilitation and Disturbance 

2010 MOP Commitments Plan 2010 


(ha) 

Disturbance 

(ha) 


(ha) 

Disturbance 

(ha) 

North Pit/Carrington 26.2 22.5 16.3 12.6 

West Pit 24.0 15.0 24.8 52.9 

Cheshunt, Riverview, 

Lemington South 17.6 42.7 28.1 46.2 

Total 67.8 80.2 69.2 111.7

HVO 2009 Annual Environmental Management Report - Final

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?