BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of; Environment, Science and Innovation
[2024] QLC 7
•16 April 2024
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of
Environment, Science and Innovation [2024] QLC 7PARTIES: BHP Coal Pty Ltd, QCT Mining Pty. Ltd., Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd, QCT Investment Pty. Ltd., BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd, QCT Resources Pty Ltd, Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd (applicants) v Environment Council of Central Queensland
(non-active objector)and Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science
and Innovation
(statutory party)and access to the Land Court e-trial site to the administering authority responsible for the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
CATCHWORDS: ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS
OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – LAND COURT – where there are objections to draft amended environmental authority – where the Court makes recommendations to the administering authority for the EP Act concerning the draft amended environmental authority – where the objections concern climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, impacts to endangered and threatened species, groundwater and surface water impacts, cumulative impacts, and the rehabilitation of the impacted area – whether the Court should recommend the application for an amended environmental authority be approved
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – LAND COURT – where the statutory party propose additional conditions be imposed upon the draft amended environmental authority – where the additional conditions require the applicant to develop and publicly report upon a greenhouse gases emissions abatement plan – where the applicant has already committed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – where the statutory party can only impose a condition where it is ‘desirable or necessary’—whether the proposed conditions are desirable or necessary
HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 s 58 – where the Court is acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity – where public entities are required to properly consider human rights relevant to their decisions – where the Court has previously held that greenhouse gas emissions limit the right to life – where no evidence of the limitation upon the right to life was led by the parties – whether the Court can accept its previous findings on greenhouse gas emissions as sufficient to engage the right to life
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 Sch 1
Environmental Protection Act 1994 s 37, s 185, s 191, s 203,
s 208
Human Rights Act 2019 s 15, s 16, s 24, s 25, s 26, s 28, s 58
State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971
s 26
Castles v Secretary, Department of Justice (Vic) (2010) 28
VR 141 ; [2010] VSC 310, appliedCertain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie
Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children (No 1)
(2016) 51 VR 473 ; [2016] VSC 796, applied
Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End
Mine Action Group (No 4) [2021] QLC 22, applied
Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019]
NSWLEC 7, cited
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) (2020)
5 QR 623 ; [2020] QSC 293, cited
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors [2020] QLC
33, applied
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6)[2022] QLC 21, distinguished
APPEARANCES: JM Horton KC with A Hellewell (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills) for the applicants K McAuliffe-Lake (instructed by Litigation Unit, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation) for the statutory party [1] In Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [1] this Court accepted the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[2] That decision may have led to a public expectation that the Court would reject any application for the extraction of fossil fuel, particularly an application for a coal mine. As this decision shows, that is not necessarily the position.
[1] [2022] QLC 21(‘Waratah’).
[2] The existence of anthropogenic climate change has been accepted in other Courts and jurisdictions, see the comments of Preston CJ in at Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7, [514] and [525].
[2] BHP Coal Pty Ltd, QCT Mining Pty Ltd, Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd, BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd, QCT Resources Pty Ltd and Umal Consolidated Pty Ltd (collectively “BMA”) have been mining high quality metallurgical coal at Caval Ridge, 7 km south of Moranbah, in two pits, Horse Pit and Heyford Pit, since 2014.
[3] BMA has applied to amend its existing Environmental Authority (EA) to extend the open cut mining activities at Horse Pit, establish an out of pit dump to the north-west of the project site, and to realign various infrastructure from the east to the west of Horse Pit. The statutory party prepared a draft amended EA that allowed the extension.
[4] Environment Council of Central Queensland (ECCQ) objected to the draft EA. Therefore, the statutory party referred BMA’s application to the Court for an objections decision[3].
[3] Environmental Protection Act 1994 s 185 (‘EP Act’).
[5] ECCQ is a non-active objector. It has not provided any evidence to support its objection and it did not provide submissions to the Court.
[6] The Court must consider each of the matters in s 191of the Environmental Protection Act 1994[4]. BMA and the statutory party largely agree on many of the criteria in s 191 and have provided detailed submissions and evidence to support their positions. In the case of the non-contentious matters, I have read the evidence and the parties’ submissions and I agree with their conclusions[5]. In this decision, I will turn my attention to the ECCQ objections, the implications of the Human Rights Act 2019 and the contested draft greenhouse gas (GHG) emission conditions.
[4] Pursuant to s191(e) of the EP Act, I am required to consider any objection notice for the application.
[5] Appendix A is a summary of the non-contentious s 191 issues, the parties’ submissions, and the evidence to support those submissions.
The ECCQ objections
[7] ECCQ’s objections are contained in a letter dated 6 May 2023. They are in narrative form, but BMA has extracted the following topics from that document.
The need for an Environmental Impact Statement
[8] A recurring theme in ECCQ’s objections is that BMA has wrongly exploited a regulatory loophole which should have required a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
[9] Section 37 of the EP Act sets out when an EIS process applies. It does not apply to a coordinated project [6]. The original mining lease proposal was a coordinated project,[7] which meant that it was the subject of an EIS process under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971[8].
[6] EP Act s 37(1).
[7] BMA.0010.0001.
[8] Section 26(1)(a).
[10] Katherine Taske is the Environmental Approvals Principal at BHP Coal Pty Ltd. In an affidavit provided to the Court, she sets out the protracted and detailed EIS process that has operated over the existing mine[9].
[9] Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske (BMA.0001), para 21 to para 31.
[11] Ms Taske also sets out the process BMA followed for this proposal. It was supported by nine technical reports. An information request from the statutory party generated a further three technical reports. The proposal was subject to public scrutiny. In response to informal requests, BMA provided additional modelling and information[10].
[10] BMA0122; BMA0123.
[12] I am satisfied that this proposal has been the subject of a rigorous assessment and that the public has been given an adequate opportunity to comment on it. If BMA exploited a regulatory loophole, and I am not satisfied that it did, it did not disadvantage the public and certainly did not reduce the regulatory requirements for BMA.
GHG emissions
[13] ECCQ submits that BMA’s voluntary declaration of the Scope 1 CH4 (methane) emissions used a flawed estimate tool and that an updated estimation tool is likely to affect the economic viability of the mine.
[14] Charles Klaassen has calculated the forecast fugitive emissions (methane and CO2) associated with the project based on:
“Caval Ridge Mine's in-situ methane and carbon dioxide contents as estimated in accordance with measurement method 2 for this source as prescribed in the [National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Measurement Determination 2008]”[11].
[11] Affidavit of Mr Charles Klaassen (BMA.0134), para 28 (Note 2).
[15] Mr Klaassen rejects the ECCQ’s submission that there will be a material difference between his calculation and any calculation based on an updated tool[12]. He repeated this view in cross examination[13].
[12] Ibid para 30(g)-(h).
[13] T1-25, line 30 to line 47; T1-26, line 1 to line 22.
[16] ECCQ has provided no evidence to support its submission. I accept Mr Klaasson’s view. I note that Mr Klaasson’s estimate of the fugitive methane and CO2 emissions is less than 3% of the total emissions from the proposal[14].
[14] Affidavit of Mr Charles Klaassen (BMA.0134), para 23.
Climate change consequences
[17] ECCQ submits that, as a general principle, it is no longer appropriate to approve new or expanded coal proposals as they are destructive processes that:
• Produce long term and irreversible environmental and social harms through increasing global temperatures and climate change; • Are contrary to meeting Australia’s emission targets and Queensland’s emission targets; • Will put the regional and global community at further risk of extreme weather by increasing the intensity and frequency of storms, floods, droughts, bushfires, melting of glaciers and sea ice, sea inundation, coral bleaching, and subsequent loss of the Great Barrier Reef; and • Are likely to result in irreparable damage to our local landscape and wildlife habitats, and our native and iconic flora and fauna of both State and national significance. [18] Although ECCQ’s submissions are somewhat prone to hyperbole, they hold an element of truth. Any extraction, and consumption, of fossil fuel will add to the climate change risks. But as President Kingham noted in Waratah:
“… the Court must consider this application on its merits. It is tasked with considering whether this particular Project stacks up economically, environmentally, and socially. In making its recommendations, the Court is acting in an administrative capacity. Unless constrained by the relevant Acts from doing so, it must make its decision with regard to the policy framework that applies to the ultimate decision maker.” [15]
[15] Waratah, [691].
And:
“A project can be consistent and ‘meet’ the requirements of Australia's NDCs and the obligations of the Paris agreement while being contrary to the intent of both. From the perspective of climate change and reduction of global impacts, it is the intent of the Paris Agreement that matters.”[16]
[16] Ibid. [573].
[19] It is also important to remember that, while the climate change effects on the Torres Strait and coastal Queensland was a factor in President Kingham’s decision in Waratah, it was not the only factor. President Kingham also referred to the loss of the Bimblebox Refuge17, the uncertain social benefits of the mine18, and the uncertain economic benefits from the mine19.
[20] In the same way, climate change is a factor in my decision, but it is not the only factor.
[21] The average annual CO2 emissions for the proposal, as a percentage of the current output for Queensland is:20
Caval Ridge HPE UOM Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 All Qld
Project
emission sources
Fuel Fugitive Electricity Fuel Electricity Rail & FIFO use use port fuel
Av. Within Mt CO2-e 0.119 0.004 0.035 0.029 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.202 Annual Qld emissions % of Qld 0.085% 0.003% 0.025% 0.021% 0.005% 0.004% 0.001% 0.145% [22] BMA has calculated the projected annual GHG emissions against the future carbon budget target within the Queensland Climate Action Plan and the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan as follows:21
Caval Ridge Horse Pit Extension UOM Base Latest Target years Project in relation to Queensland's year year emissions reduction targets
2005 2021 2030 2035 2050
Target reduction on base year net Mt CO2-e 196 30% 75% 100% emissions
Emissions budget (from base year) Mt CO2-e 196 3,012 4,331 4,753 5,096 Actual Qld emissions (from base year) Mt CO2-e 196 2,949 17 Ibid [19].
18 Ibid [37].
19 Ibid [38].
20 BMA.0153.002.
21 BMA.0153.002.
Remaining emissions budget (from latest Mt CO2-e 63 1,382 1,804 2,147 year) HPE project emissions in Qld (from latest Mt CO2-e 0.07 1.12 6.13 year)
HPE project emissions as proportion of % 0.01% 0.06% 0.29% Qld budget [23] BMA has also calculated the projected annual GHG emissions as a percentage of global emissions as follows:22
Annual GHG World Project scope 1 Project scope 2 Project scope 3 Project total emissions
Mt CO2-e 49,758 0.12 0.03 7.59 7.75 % of global 100% 0.0002% 0.0001% 0.0153% 0.0156% [24] BMA submits these tables show the projected emissions are a very small percentage of Queensland’s emission sources, a very small percentage of Queensland’s emission budget targets for 2035 and 2050, and an insignificant percentage of total global emissions.
[25] All of that may be true, but that submission alone is not enough to persuade me that climate change is not a determinative factor in my deliberations.
[26] BMA distinguishes this project from the Waratah proposal in significant ways:
• It points out that this project is a metallurgical coal mine. Metallurgical coal is an integral component in the production of steel. BMA submits that Australia and Queensland will not meet its net zero targets without investment in renewable technologies, all of which require steel for their manufacturing/construction23. BMA is one of the highest quality, lowest carbon emission coal producers globally.24 In contrast, Waratah was a thermal coal mine, which is used to generate electricity. 22 Affidavit of Mr Charles Klaassen (BMA.0134), para 14.
23 Affidavit of Mr Brad Prytherch (BMA.0129), para 60 and para 61.
24 BMA.0136.0013.; BMA.0136.0046.
•
BMA, through the BHP Group is taking steps to reduce its operational GHG emissions. Its short-term goal was to maintain its total operational GHG emissions at or below adjusted FY2017 levels by FY2022. BHP’s annual report for 2022 states that this target was exceeded with a 15% decrease in BHP's total operational GHG emissions across its operations around the world[25].
•
BHP's medium-term operational GHG emissions reduction target is to reduce its total operational GHG emissions by at least 30% from adjusted FY2020 levels by FY2030. BHP says it is on track to achieve this target with an 11% decrease in its FY2023 total annual operational GHG emissions across its worldwide operations from FY2022 levels and a 32% reduction from adjusted FY2020 levels[26].
•
BHP's long-term operational GHG emissions reduction goal is to achieve net zero total operational GHG emissions by 2050.
• This is not a proposal for a new mine, but an extension of an existing mine. [25] BMA.0136.0005.
[26] Affidavit of Mr Charles Klaassen (BMA.0134), para 12.
[27] The statutory party acknowledges the importance of the project coal. It is a “currently irreplaceable product in the form of high-quality coking coal”[27].
[27] Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, affirmed 9 November 2023 (DES.0001), para 30.
Impacts to endangered and threatened species
[28] ECCQ submits that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on listed threatened species, including, but not limited to, the:
• Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate); • King Bluegrass (Dichanthium queenslandicum); • Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta); and • Poplar (bimble) Box Grassy Woodland on Alluvial Plains. [29] BMA concedes that the proposal will have an environmental impact because of the need for vegetation clearing, topsoil stripping, and the inherent loss of habitat[28]. It concedes that there will be a 167.84 ha loss of habitat for the Ornamental Snake, a
23.4 ha loss of habitat for the King Bluegrass and “of concern” regulated vegetation, and an 84.19 ha loss of habitat for connectivity values.[29][28] BMA.0117.0054.
[29] Ibid.
[30] BMA submits that this loss of habitat will be adequately managed to create a beneficial conservation outcome in four ways. Firstly, the amended EA has specific conditions requiring progressive rehabilitation. Secondly, the rehabilitation of the void must result in a landform that is safe, stable, non-polluting and able to achieve a post mining land use on the low walls.
[31] Neither of these proposals is particularly impressive or noteworthy. They are the type of measures I would expect from a responsible miner.
[32] Thirdly, BMA has reduced the size of the out of pit overburden dump.
[33] The fourth factor is that the draft amended EA requires the following environmental offsets:
• 167.84ha of ornamental snake habitat; • 84.19ha of connectivity areas; • 12.3ha of king blue grass habitat; and • 12.3ha of ‘of concern’ regulated vegetation (Regional Ecosystem 11.8.11). [34] Again, the requirement of environmental offsets is neither impressive nor exceptional. What does set the BMA proposal apart from other proposals is that it has taken active steps to ensure sufficient and appropriate offsets exist through an arrangement with Inderi Station and Croyden Station[30].
[30] Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske (BMA.0001), para 103.
Groundwater and surface water impacts
[35] ECCQ submits that the proposal will have a significant impact to Horse Creek through a reduction in its catchment area. It submits that this has the potential to affect the Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems and the remnant riparian vegetation. It is not convinced that BMA has conducted sufficient or appropriate testing.
[36] BMA commissioned a number of reports to consider the proposal’s effect on both groundwater and surface water:
•
A groundwater assessment report as required by the statutory party. That assessment was subject to peer review by Dr Noel Merrick. He found that the assessment was best practice, and the modelling methodology was “state-of-[the]- art”[31]. He found that the model was fit for purpose, had been conducted to a very high standard and that a rigorous uncertainty analysis offset much of the uncertainty normally inherent in a groundwater model.[32]
•
A groundwater contaminant trigger levels report as required by the statutory party[33]. As a result of that report, the statutory party amended the draft EA to include additional monitoring groundwater bores, include trigger levels for new and existing bores, and a requirement to update trigger levels when a specified number of samples became available[34].
•
A two-part assessment of groundwater dependent ecosystems. Those reports concluded that the likely potential impact was small and, therefore, the impact of the proposal was not considered significant[35]. BMA will continue to implement mitigation measures and will develop a groundwater dependent ecosystem monitoring and management plan[36].
•
A full assessment of the surface water impacts for the proposal commissioned by BMA acknowledged that there will be a reduction of the catchment area[37]. The overall reduction of the catchment is around 0.2% which represents a very small overall reduction in the catchment. The report concluded that there are only very minor changes to the occurrences of higher or medium flows, and almost no change to the spell durations when comparing existing catchment to the catchment area reduced by the proposal. It was considered unlikely that the proposal would cause changes to the flow regime that would impact either downstream users or the environment[38].
[31] BMA.0120.0097;.BMA.0120.0099.
[32] Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske (BMA.0001), para 105 and para 106; BMA.0116.
[33] Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske (BMA.0001), para 108.
[34] Ibid para 110.
[35] Ibid para 117.
[36] Ibid para118 to para 119.
[37] Ibid para 123.
[38] Ibid para 124.
Rehabilitation and the final void
[37] ECCQ submits that the post rehabilitation void will be “massive”[39] and that the water within the void will have toxic salinity within a decade. It is concerned that there may not be an entity with the financial capacity to address any post rehabilitation issues.
[39] BMA.0156.0008.
[38] The current EA permits a final void of 545 ha. The final void in the proposal is designed to be 545 ha[40]. BMA states that the void will comply with design criteria and the current EA. A void of 545 ha might be massive, but it is within the contemplation of the current EA and there is no greater area contemplated or sanctioned in the proposal.
[40] Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske (BMA.0001), para 145.
[39] BMA states that the Caval Ridge Progressive Rehabilitation and Closure Plan (PRCP) includes a program for assessing both the background and receiving environments for salinity, residual void water quality predictive modelling and water balance, and groundwater predictive modelling to assess the migration and heights of groundwater and void lake water[41]. It submits that this program will, to the greatest extent possible, mitigate any toxic effect on the void water.
[41] Ibid para 136.
[40] BMA understands ECCQ’s concerns about other miners walking away from their commitments but points out that it has already committed to a regime of progressive rehabilitation[42] and that the draft EA includes an amended requirement to progressively rehabilitate which identifies minimum areas of progressive rehabilitation for each financial year.
[42] Ibid para 138.
Cumulative impacts
[41] ECCQ’s objection stated, simply, that it was concerned with the cumulative impacts of all of the above issues from the many mines in the Bowen Basin.
[42] Ms Taske considered the cumulative impacts on groundwater drawdown on third party bores. In her affidavit she stated that the proposal was assessed in accordance with Independent Expert Scientific Committee requirements, that modelling was undertaken, and the results of that work indicated that the cumulative impacts are not related to the proposal but come from other existing and approved mines in the area.[43]
[43] Ibid para 131.
[43] Dr Juliana McCosker considered the possibility of cumulative impacts in the wider context. She agreed with Ms Taske that the proposal did not impact on the ground water drawdown[44]. Dr McCosker considered the cumulative impacts on the threatened species and determined that the environmental authority conditions that will successfully mitigate and manage the impacts for the duration of the project[45].
[44] Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, affirmed 9 November 2023 (DES.0001), para 43.
[45] Ibid para 44 to para 45.
Human Rights
[44] In making an objections decision, the Court is a public entity acting in an administrative capacity and is therefore subject to s 58(1) of the Human Rights Act[46]. The Court has articulated a five-step process in applying human rights[47] and I adopt that approach here.
[46] Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors [2020] QLC 33, [92].
[47] Cement Australia (Exploration) Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group (No 4) [2021] QLC 22, [55]-[57].
[45] BMA and the statutory party agree that the proposal engages both property rights[48] and privacy rights[49] in that it may limit the rights of people living, or conducting businesses, in nearby Moranbah.
[48] Human Rights Act 2019 s 24.
[49] Ibid s 25(a).
[46] The statutory party submits that the proposal may affect the cultural heritage rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples[50] in that the proposal may impact on sites and artifacts which may have cultural significance for First Nations Peoples.
[50] Ibid s 28.
[47] The statutory party also submits that the GHG emissions and climate change impacts may also engage the right to life[51], protection of children[52] and recognition and equality before the law[53].
[51] Ibid s 16.
[52] Ibid s 26(2).
[53] Ibid s 15.
[48] A person must not be arbitrarily deprived of their property[54]. “Property” is defined as any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future, vested or contingent, or tangible or intangible) in real or personal property of any description (including money), and includes things in action[55].
[54] Ibid 24(2).
[55] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Sch 1.
[49] BMA owns the land underlying the proposal. It submits that there is no evidence that any other person’s property rights will be adversely affected by the proposal or that any person’s use or enjoyment of their property will be restricted.
[50] A person has the right not to have their home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with[56]. The possibility of dust, noise, and vibration at residences in and around Moranbah arguably engages this human right.
[56] Human Rights Act 2019 s 25(a).
[51] The statutory party suggests that the air quality, noise, vibration, and overpressure impacts from the proposal may impact the property rights and privacy rights of Moranbah residents.
[52] The closest receptor for the current mining activity is 881 Long Pocket Road, 2.2km away from the mining lease and about halfway between the mining activity and Moranbah. That property is already monitored for noise and vibration concerns[57]. There is no evidence that the owner of that property has ever complained about noise, dust or vibration.
[57] BMA.0114.0018.
[53] The owner of 881 Long Pocket Road did not lodge an objection. No resident of Moranbah has lodged an objection.
[54] Brad Prytherch is the general manager at Caval Ridge. He gave evidence that BMA has a very detailed dust control system, a trigger action response plan and that BMA takes its obligations under the current conditions very seriously[58]. Although the proposal will take mining a little further to the north, Mr Prytherch did not think that the proposal would take the mining activity closer to Moranbah[59].
[58] T1-32, line 30 to line 36.
[59] T1-33, line 5 to line 12.
[55] I am satisfied that property rights and privacy rights will not be engaged.
[56] If I am wrong and those rights are engaged, I am satisfied that any limitation is procedurally appropriate and proportional: the EP Act requires a consideration of the public interest, the EA conditions are a balance between the impacts of the proposal and the rights of others.
[57] BMA makes no comment about the right to life, protection of children and recognition and equality before the law. The statutory party reserved its position on these human rights pending the evidence adduced at the hearing but thought it unlikely that these rights would be engaged.
[58] There was no evidence at the hearing that addressed, or raised, these rights.
[59] It is unlawful for a public entity, when making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to a decision[60].
[60] Human Rights Act 2019 s 58(1)(b).
[60] Ryan J, in Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2), said:
“it is not necessary for an identifiable individual to be affected in order for a human right to be engaged so as to trigger the obligations imposed on public entities by s 58(1). A potential effect on the rights of a class of persons is sufficient.” [61]
[61] (2020) 5 QR 623, 683 [291].
[61] The obligation for a public entity to properly consider rights stems beyond the common law requirement of those involved in public administration to take into account relevant considerations[62]. Rather, the consideration should involve the Court seriously turning its mind to the possible impact of the decision on human rights and the implications thereof for the affected person, as well as the countervailing interests or obligations identified[63].
[62] Certain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children (No 1) (2016) 51 VR 473, 507 [183]-[184] citing Bare v Independent Broad-based Anti- Corruption Commission (2015) 48 VR 129, 218.
[63] Castles v Secretary, Department of Justice (Vic) (2010) 28 VR 141, 184.
[62] In Waratah, President Kingham identified that:
“…the limitation to the right to life would arise from the combustion emissions from the Project coal. The continued accretion of GHGs in the atmosphere will, among other things, cause increasingly adverse impacts to the environment, including people in Queensland. These include increased fatalities in Queensland due to bushfires and bushfire smoke, heat waves, mosquito borne diseases, floods and cyclones.” [64]
And:
“The evidence presents a clear and pressing threat to the right to life that is now experienced by people in Queensland and will only be exacerbated by increasing emissions, to which the Project would make a material contribution.” [65]
[64] Waratah [1488].
[65] Ibid [1505].
[63] It does not matter that I was not presented with the same evidence about climate change effects as was provided in Waratah. The evidence in that case was accepted by all relevant experts and President Kingham’s conclusions have not been the subject of any successful challenge. This Court has identified a potential threat to human rights in any activity that involves increasing GHG emissions. This proposal will increase GHG emissions, albeit to a very small degree. The right to life, protection of children and recognition and equality before the law are engaged and the evidence suggests that they will be limited by the proposal. I must, therefore, balance the importance of the purpose of the limitation against the importance of the proposal.
[64] BMA submits that there will be substantial economic benefits to the local communities and the Queensland economy. It has referred me to the BHP and BMA’s Community Contribution Report for FY 2022[66] as evidence of BMA’s significant financial contribution to Commonwealth revenue through taxes[67], to the Queensland government through royalties[68] and payroll tax,[69] and to regional Councils through rates[70]. The report details BMA’s supplier spending[71], wages bill for Queensland employees[72] and its community engagement programs.[73] Not all of these benefits can be attributed to the proposal, but BMA points out that the proposal will extend the economic benefits in the region by about 20 years.
[66] BMA.0132.0006.
[67] $1.1billion.
[68] $3.1 billion.
[69] $103 million.
[70] $38 million.
[71] $6.8 billion.
[72] $1.534 billion.
[73] $13.7 million.
[65] BMA has undertaken a cultural heritage study[74] which identified matters of cultural significance, possible threats, and mitigation measures. It has a cultural heritage management plan in place. It is already consulting with the traditional owners, storing artifacts of significance, and taking care to avoid, where possible, areas of cultural importance. I am satisfied that any limitation on cultural heritage rights is appropriate and proportional.
[74] BMA.0031.
[66] I have already identified that there will be a need for metallurgical coal for some years to come and that the proposal is a source of high-quality metallurgical coal (unlike Waratah, which sought to mine thermal coal)[75]. Unlike Waratah, the economic benefits are identified, and BMA does not propose to impinge on an area of ecological significance.
[75] Waratah [21], [650].
[67] As before, I am satisfied that any limitation on human rights is procedurally appropriate and proportional: the EP Act requires a consideration of the public interest, the EA conditions are a balance between the impacts of the proposal and the rights of others.
The proposed GHG conditions
[68] The statutory party may only impose a condition on a draft EA if it considers the condition is necessary or desirable[76].
[76] EP Act s 203(1).
[69] If a draft EA condition requires a statement of compliance, the condition must also state the compliance criteria[77] and the supporting information that must be provided to demonstrate compliance[78].
[77] EP Act s 208(2)(a).
[78] EP Act s 208(2)(c).
[70] The statutory party proposes three conditions that address GHG. Condition B22 requires BMA to develop a GHG abatement plan prior to the commencement of activities. The plan must include:
• An inventory of projected annual Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions; •
The intended objectives, measures, and performance standards to avoid and mitigate GHG emissions to ensure consistency with the latest version of the Queensland Climate Action Plan and relevant Queensland target requirements;
•
A process for regularly reviewing, assessing, and implementing new technologies to identify opportunities to further reduce GHG emissions and energy use and progressively improve energy efficiency; and
•
A program for annual monitoring, auditing, and reporting on GHG emissions and the success of measures to avoid and mitigate GHG emissions.
[71] Condition B23 requires that the results of the reports required in B22 must be made publicly available on the statutory party’s website (the DESI website) and any other website it requests.
[72] Condition B24 requires BMA to review the effectiveness of the GHG abatement plan every two years and to update it as required.
[73] Condition B25 requires BMA to comply with its own GHG abatement plan.
[74] These conditions were not included in the original draft EA because the statutory party was sure that BMA would take the necessary action to reduce operational GHG emissions[79] and that there was sufficient commitment to the reduction of GHG so that a condition was not appropriate[80].
[79] T1-35, line 29 to line 31.
[80] T1-35, line 33 to line 35; T1-36, line 10 to line 12.
[75] It cannot be said that these conditions are necessary. They do not impose any limits on GHG emissions. They do not regulate the mitigation of GHG emissions. There is no benchmark against which the statutory party can assess success or failure.
[76] The question, then, is whether these conditions are desirable. “Desirable” is not defined in the EP Act and it has no technical meaning. One of its definitions is “advisable”[81]. Another is “pleasing, excellent or fine”[82].
[81] Macquarie Dictionary (3rd ed, 1997) ‘desirable’ (def 3).
[82] Ibid (def 1).
[77] Given my comments about whether these conditions are necessary, I am not persuaded that they satisfy the less onerous test of “advisable”. The conditions advise no one and, in their present form, give very little guidance to ether the statutory party or BMA.
[78] Whether a set of conditions is “pleasing, excellent or fine” depends on context and from which perspective the question is viewed. Dr McCosker’s justification for a “desirable” set of conditions is twofold. Firstly, that it is a way of demonstrating and improving public confidence in the fact that BMA is going to reduce its emissions[83]. Secondly, because it will be difficult for the public to find the reports generated by these conditions on the DESI website, BMA should bear the responsibility of publishing those reports[84].
[83] T1-36, line 6 to line 8, line 34 to line 37.
[84] T1-38, line 6 to line 11.
[79] In short, it seems to me that inclusion of these GHG conditions is a form of window dressing – the statutory party can say that it considered the impact of GHG emissions, that it has ensured BMA’s commitment to a reduction of GHG emissions, and it has enabled the data surrounding BMA’s commitment to be publicly available.
[80] In fact, the conditions do nothing to ensure the reduction of GHG emissions. BMA points out that it has already made that commitment publicly[85] and that its maximum emissions are already proscribed by a limit on the annual extraction of run of mine coal thorough Condition A3. Because there is no measurable benchmark for compliance, I suspect that the conditions give very little comfort to members of the public.
[85] Affidavit of Mr Charles Klaassen (BMA.0134), para 12.
[81] In its Climate Transition Action Plan[86] BMA’s commitment went far beyond what is required in these proposed conditions. It has already committed to a range of measures aimed at transparency and climate policy engagement. It says[87]:
[86] BMA.0151.
[87] BMA.0151.0022.
•
Feedback and commentary related to climate change are increasingly a part of all of [its] routine investor engagements, including results roadshows with the CEO and CFO, and the Chair’s investor engagement meetings. A summary of this feedback is provided to the Board.
•
[It has] been reporting in line with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations since the recommendations were released in 2017. For example, the BHP Climate Change Report 2020 aligns with the TCFD’s themes of Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. [The] Vice President of Sustainability and Climate Change, Dr Fiona Wild, has been a member of the Task Force since its inception in 2015.
[82] The statutory party may consider the conditions desirable to meet the expectations of the public in the post Waratah world, but they are not desirable in a general sense because they do not enhance the regulatory framework for the proposal.
Conclusion
[83] There is no doubt that this decision will dismay many who are vitally concerned with GHG emissions and global warming.
[84] But, as I have already identified, the Court’s task is to balance competing needs and considerations. This proposal is an extension of an existing mine. The proponents are experienced mine operators who have publicly committed to a reduction in GHG emissions. The coal that will be mined in this proposal is high quality metallurgical coal, which is still required for the production of steel, a vital component in any project to transition to renewal energy. The damage to ecological sensitive areas is limited and BMA has secured offsets. The various studies show minimal impact on groundwater and surface water.
[85] In this particular case, the balance of competing needs and considerations favours a recommendation that the draft EA be granted.
Orders
1.
I recommend that the administering authority responsible for the Environmental Protection Act 1994 approve the application to amend EPML00562013 on the conditions stated in the draft environmental authority contained in Appendix B of these reasons.
2.
I direct the Registrar to provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of these orders and the reasons and access to the Land Court e-trial site to the administering authority responsible for the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
APPENDIX A
EP Acts 191 Criteria
Section 191(a) – the [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [32] to [35]. application Section 191(b) - any [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [36] to [43]. response given for an information request
Section 191(c) - any [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [44] to [46]. standard conditions for the
relevant activity or authority
Section 191(d) - any draft [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [47] to [48]. environmental authority or [BMA.0131] – Draft Environmental Authority. draft PRCP schedule for the [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, [12] to [14] & Exhibit application JCM-08.
[DES.0002] - Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, [4] to [6] & Exhibit JCM-
09.Section 191(f) - any relevant [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [52] to [53]. regulatory requirement [BMA.0110] Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting Information
Document, Section 2 – Regulatory Considerations.Section 191 (h) - the status of [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [81] to [82]. any application under the Mineral Resources Act for each relevant mining tenure
The Standard Criteria (s 191(g))
Standard Criteria (a) - the Precautionary Principle principles of environmental [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [56]. policy as set out in the [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page 91). Intergovernmental Intergenerational Equity Agreement on the [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [57] to [58]. Environment, including: [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page 91).
[BMA.0120] – Request for information response.Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
- The precautionary [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [59] to [60]. principle; [BMA0129] – Affidavit of Mr Brad Prytherch [32] – [44].
- Intergenerational [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (pages 91
equity; and to 92).
- conservation of
biological diversity
and ecological
integrityStandard Criteria (b) - [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting Government plans, Information Document, Section 4.3.2. standards, agreements and [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [61] to [62]. requirements about [BMA.0011] – Environment Protection and Biodiversity environmental protection Conservation Act 1999 referral decision. and ecologically sustainable The statutory party submitted that several other policy documents ought to development also be considered:
- the Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan 2019; - the Queensland Climate Action Plan 2020-2030; and - the Under2 Coalition Memorandum of Understanding which allows
subnational governments to highlight their work to reduce GHG
emissions.
Standard Criteria (c) - Any [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [63] to [64]. relevant EIS, assessment or [BMA.0011] – Environment Protection and Biodiversity report Conservation Act 1999 referral decision.
[BMA.0012] - [BMA.0097] – Environmental Impact Statement and
appendices, supplementary Environmental Impact Statement and
appendices, and supporting expert reports.
[BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting
Information Document, Section 4.3.3.
[DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (pages 91
to 92).
The statutory party submits that the following documents were also
considered by the delegate:
- [BMA.0153] – Letter to DESI (02.02.2024); - [BMA.0154] – Calculations Prepared by Mr Klaassen (2 Feb 2024);
and- [BMA.0155] – Golder GeoChemical Void Water Quality Report.
Standard Criteria (d) - The [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [65] to [67]. character, resilience and [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting values of the receiving Information Document, Section 4.3.4.
[DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (pageenvironment 92). Standard Criteria (f) - all [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [68] to [69]. submissions made by the [BMA.0007] – Objection Request Referral. applicant and submitters [BMA.0156] – Objector Submissions. Standard Criteria (g) - Best [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [70] to [71]. practice environmental [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting management for activities Information Document, Section 4.3.7.
[DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page
92).Standard Criteria (h) - the [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [72] to [73]. financial implications of the [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting requirements under an Information Document, Section 4.3.7. instrument, or proposed [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (pages 92 instrument, mentioned in to 93). paragraph (g) as they would relate to the type of activity or industry carried out, or
proposed to be carried out, under the instrument Standard Criteria (i) - the [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [74] to [75]. public interest [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting
Information Document, Section 4.3.8.
[BMA.0129] – Affidavit of Mr Brad Prytherch, [18], [37], and [39] – [44].
[BMA.0132] – BHP and BMA's Community Contribution Report (pages 6
and 8).[DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page
93).Standard Criteria (j) any [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [76] to [77]. relevant site management [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting plan Information Document, Section 4.3.9.
[DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page 93).Standard Criteria (k) any [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [78] to [79]. relevant integrated [BMA.0110] – Environmental Authority Amendment Supporting environmental management Information Document, Section 4.3.10. system or proposed [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page 93). integrated environmental management system Standard Criteria (l) - any [BMA.0001] – Affidavit of Ms Katherine Taske, [80] other matter prescribed [DES.0001] – Affidavit of Dr Juliana McCosker, Exhibit JMC-04 (page under a regulation 93). APPENDIX B
This environmental authority is issued by the administering authority under Chapter 5 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1994.
Environmental authority number: EPML00562013
Environmental authority takes effect on
Environmental authority holder(s)
Name(s) Registered address BHP COAL PTY LTD Level 14, 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000 AustraliaQCT INVESTMENT PTY. LTD. Level 16 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000 AustraliaUmal Consolidated Pty Ltd Level 14, 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd Level 16, 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000QCT MINING PTY. LTD. Level 16 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000 AustraliaQCT Resources Pty Limited Level 16, 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000BHP Queensland Coal Investments Pty Ltd Level 14, 480 Queen Street BRISBANE CITY QLD
4000Environmentally relevant activity and location details
Environmentally relevant activity/activities Location(s) Schedule 3 13: Mining black coal ML1775, ML70403
Ancillary 08 - Chemical Storage 1: Storing a total of 50t ML1775, ML70403, ML70462 or more of chemicals of dangerous goods class 1 or
class 2, division 2.3 under subsection (1)(a)Ancillary 31 - Mineral processing 2: Processing, in a ML1775, ML70403, ML70462 year, the following quantities of mineral products, other
than coke (b) more than 100,000tAncillary 62 - Resource recovery and transfer facility ML1775, ML70403, ML70462 operation 1: Operating a facility for receiving and 2 Environmentally relevant activity/activities Location(s) sorting, dismantling, baling or temporarily storing- (c)
category 2 regulated wasteAncillary 63 - Sewage Treatment 1: Operating sewage ML1775, ML70403, ML70462 treatment works, other than no-release works, with a total daily peak design capacity of (b-i) more than 100 but not more than 1500EP if treated effluent is
discharged from the works to an infiltration trench or
through an irrigation schemeAdditional information for applicants
Environmentally relevant activities
The description of any environmentally relevant activity (ERA) for which an environmental authority (EA) is
issued is a restatement of the ERA as defined by legislation at the time the EA is issued. Where there is any
inconsistency between that description of an ERA and the conditions stated by an EA as to the scale, intensity
or manner of carrying out an ERA, the conditions prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
An EA authorises the carrying out of an ERA and does not authorise any environmental harm unless a condition
stated by the EA specifically authorises environmental harm.
A person carrying out an ERA must also be a registered suitable operator under the Environmental ProtectionAct 1994 (EP Act).
Contaminated land
It is a requirement of the EP Act that an owner or occupier of contaminated land give written notice to the administering authority if they become aware of the following:
- the happening of an event involving a hazardous contaminant on the contaminated land (notice must be
given within 24 hours); or- a change in the condition of the contaminated land (notice must be given within 24 hours); or - a notifiable activity (as defined in Schedule 3) having been carried out, or is being carried out, on the
contaminated land (notice must be given within 20 business days);that is causing, or is reasonably likely to cause, serious or material environmental harm. using the search term ‘duty to notify’.
Take effect
Please note that, in accordance with section 200 of the EP Act, an EA has effect:
a)
if the authority is for a prescribed ERA and it states that it takes effect on the day nominated by the holder of the authority in a written notice given to the administering authority-on the nominated day; or
b)
if the authority states a day or an event for it to take effect-on the stated day or when the stated event happens; or
c) otherwise-on the day the authority is issued. resource activity, a development permit under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 or an SDA Approval under the
State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971), this EA will not take effect until the additional
authorisation has taken effect.
If this EA takes effect when the additional authorisation takes effect, you must provide the administering
authority written notice within 5 business days of receiving notification of the related additional authorisation
taking effect.However, if the EA is authorising an activity that requires an additional authorisation (a relevant tenure for a additional authorisation is not legal and could result in your prosecution for providing false or misleading information or operating without a valid environmental authority.
Delegate Enquiries: Department of Environment and Science Business Centre (Coal)
Department of Environment andDelegate of the administering authority Science PO Box 3028 Environmental Protection Act 1994
EMERALD QLD 4720 Phone: (07) 4987 9320
Email: [email protected]
Date Issued:
Obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1994
In addition to the requirements found in the conditions of this environmental authority, the holder must also meet their obligations under the EP Act, and the regulations made under the EP Act. For example, the holder must comply with the following provisions of the Act:
- general environmental duty (section 319) - duty to notify environmental harm (section 320-320G) - offence of causing serious or material environmental harm (sections 437-439) - offence of causing environmental nuisance (section 440) - offence of depositing prescribed water contaminants in waters and related matters (section 440ZG) - offence to place contaminant where environmental harm or nuisance may be caused (section 443) Schedule A: General
Condition Condition number A1
This environmental authority authorises environmental harm referred to in the conditions. Where there is no condition or this environmental authority is silent on a matter, the lack of a condition or silence does not authorise environmental harm.
A2
In carrying out the mining activity authorised by this environmental authority, the holder of this environmental authority must comply with Appendix 1 – Approved Caval Ridge Mine Disturbance Extent attached to this environmental authority.
A3 The environmental authority holder is approved to extract coal at a maximum rate of 15 million
tonnes per year (Mtpa) of run of mine (ROM) coal in accordance with this environmental authority.A4 Prevent and /or minimise likelihood of environmental harm In carrying out the environmentally relevant activities, the environmental authority holder must take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent and/or to minimise the likelihood of environmental harm being caused. Any environmentally relevant activity, that, if carried out incompetently, or negligently, may cause environmental harm, in a manner that could have been prevented, shall be carried out in a proper manner in accordance with the conditions of this environmental authority.
A5 Maintenance of measures, plant and equipment The environmental authority holder must ensure:
a)
that all measures, plant and equipment necessary to ensure compliance with the conditions of this environmental authority are installed;
a) that such measures, plant and equipment are maintained in a proper condition; b) that such measures, plant and equipment are operated in a proper manner; and c)
that all instruments and devices used for the measurement or monitoring of any parameter under any condition of this environmental authority are properly calibrated.
A6 Monitoring and records Except where specified otherwise in another condition of this environmental authority, all monitoring records and reports required by this environmental authority must be kept for a period of not less than five (5) years.
A7 Monitoring and determinations required under any condition of this environmental authority must
be conducted by an appropriately qualified person(s).A8
Upon request from the administering authority, copies of monitoring results, records, registers, management plans and reports required by the conditions of this environmental authority must be made available and provided to the administering authority within ten (10) business days or an alternative timeframe agreed between the administering authority and the environmental authority holder.
A9 Notification of emergencies, incidents and exceptions The environmental authority holder must notify the administering authority by written notification within twenty-four (24) hours after becoming aware of any emergency or incident that results in the release of contaminants not in accordance, or reasonably expected to be not in accordance, with the conditions of this environmental authority.
A10
Within ten (10) business days following the initial notification under condition A7, or the receipt of monitoring results associated with the notification made under condition A7, whichever is the latter, the environmental authority holder must provide further written advice to the administering authority, including the following:
a) results and interpretation of any samples taken and analysed; b)
outcomes of actions taken at the time to prevent or minimise unlawful environmental harm; and
c) proposed actions to prevent a recurrence of the emergency or incident. A11 Complaints The environmental authority holder must record all environmental complaints received about the mining activities, including:
a) name, address and contact number for of the complainant; b) time and date of complaint; c) reasons for the complaint; d) investigations undertaken; e) conclusions formed; f)
actions taken to resolve the complaint, including the use of appropriate dispute resolution if required;
g) any abatement measures implemented; and h) person responsible for resolving the complaint. A12 A register of alternative arrangements must be established and maintained by the environmental
authority holder. The register must include:
a) the location to which the alternative arrangement applies; b) the period of the alternative arrangement; c)
details about the particular environmental nuisance impact or impacts the arrangement is for; and
d) details about the mitigation measures, where relevant. A13 Monitoring on request When requested by the administering authority, the environmental authority holder must investigate any nuisance, or contaminant release, or environmental harm, or complaint that is neither frivolous nor vexatious in the opinion of the authorised person, by:
a) undertaking the monitoring specified by the administering authority; b)
undertaking the monitoring in the timeframe nominated or agreed to by the administering authority;
c) completing an analysis and interpretation of the monitoring results; and d) implementing abatement measures, where required. A14
The results of the investigation undertaken in accordance with condition A11 must be provided to the administering authority within twenty (20) business days of completion of the monitoring timeframe in accordance with condition A11(b), or a longer timeframe agreed to by the administering authority.
A15 The environmental authority holder must notify the administering authority on commencement of
Horse Pit Extension activities.Condition Condition number B1 Odour nuisance The release of noxious or offensive odour or any other noxious or offensive airborne contaminant resulting from the mining activities must not cause an environmental nuisance, at any sensitive place or commercial place.
B2
If the administering authority determines odour released from the mining activities to constitute an environmental nuisance, the environmental authority holder must immediately implement abatement measures so that emissions from the mining activities do not result in further environmental nuisance.
B3 Dust nuisance Air Emissions The release of dust or particulate matter or both resulting from the mining activities must not cause an environmental nuisance, at any sensitive place or commercial place.
B4 Dust generated by the mining activities must not cause any of the following air quality objectives
specified in Table B1 to be exceeded at a sensitive place or commercial place.:
a)
a level of deposited dust, measured as total insoluble matter, of 120 milligrams per square metre per day based on a monthly average; and
a)
a concentration of total particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere of 90 micrograms per cubic metre over a 1 year averaging time.
B5 Air emissions for a sensitive place or commercial place must be measured
a) At that place; or b) At the monitoring location representative of the of the sensitive place or commercial place
B6
The environmental authority holder must take all reasonable and practical measures to meet the objective of the concentration of particulate matter generated by the mining activities with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometres (PM10), of 50 micrograms per cubic metre (50µg/m3) suspended in the atmosphere over a 24 hour averaging time at any sensitive place or
B7
The environmental authority holder must ensure when a PM10 level of 50µg/m3 over a 24 hour averaging period at any sensitive or commercial place is measured, the concentration of PM10 generated by the mining activity does not exceed 30µg/m3 over a 24 hour averaging period at the sensitive or commercial place.
B8 The environmental authority holder must develop a Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) that
ensures compliance with conditions B6 and B7.B9 The environmental authority holder must develop a Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) that
ensures compliance with conditions B6 and B7.B10 The environmental authority holder will determine suitable escalating alarm thresholds specifically
relating to implementation of the TARP for condition B7.B11
By 30 June 2024 the escalating alarm levels determined in accordance with condition B109 must be submitted to the department for review and the environmental authority holder must address any comments made by the department.
B12 Following compliance with conditions B9 – B11 the TARP must be implemented. B13 The TARP required by condition B8 must be reviewed by 30 June each calendar year by an
appropriately qualified person and any recommendations implemented into the TARP.B14
The environmental authority holder must ensure and be able to demonstrate that in complying with conditions B6 – B7 (inclusive) the dust abatement measures specified in the Trigger Action Response Plan have been undertaken for the relevant alarm level and documented in the Dust Control System.
B15
An Air Emissions Management Plan must be developed by an appropriately qualified person and implemented by 30 June 2024. The Air Emissions Management Plan must incorporate a program for continuous improvement for the management of dust and particulate matter resulting from the mining activities with respect to, but not limited to:
a)
the collection of air quality and meteorological data at locations and using the monitoring methods described in Table B1 -Air quality limits and monitoring requirements at all locations specified in Table B2 -Dust and Particulate Matter Monitoring Locations;
b)
a system to identify adverse meteorological conditions likely to produce elevated levels of dust including PM10 at a sensitive place or commercial place due to the mining activities; and
c)
a dust and particulate matter control strategy which activates a timely implementation of management control actions.
B16
The Air Emissions Management Plan required by condition B15 must be reviewed by 30 June each calendar year by an appropriately qualified person and any recommendations implemented into the TARP.
B17
Where monitoring identifies instances where a concentration specified in condition B6 -B7 or Table B1 is exceeded at any sensitive place or commercial place, the environmental authority holder must report to the administering authority within fourteen (14) days:
a) the air quality data at the sensitive place or commercial place; b)
a description of meteorological conditions recorded in accordance with Table B1 Air quality limits and monitoring requirements and Table B2 Dust and Particulate Matter Monitoring Locations occurring at the time;
c) the air quality data upwind of the mining activities (if known); d) measures taken to reduce dust generated by the mining activities and d)e)the contribution of the mining activities to the PM10 concentration at the sensitive or
commercial place.
B18 If the monitoring required by condition A13 is undertaken for over one month, then monthly
interim reports should be provided to the administering authority.B19 Air quality monitoring data must be made publicly available in real time online on the
environmental authority holders website.B2089
The format of the information to be made available in accordance with condition B19 must be provided to the administering authority for approval within 6 months of commencement of the Horse Pit Extension activities.
B21 The environmental authority holder must implement the requirements of condition B19 within
twelve (12) months of Horse Pit Extension activities commencing.
Air Quality Determination Monitoring Method to be used Real time monitoring of the 24 hour average using the following method:
Australian Standard AS3580.9.6 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient
air – Determination of suspended particulate matter – PM10 high volume
sampler with size selective inlet – Gravimetric method; or
Australian Standard AS3580.9.7 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient
air – Determination of suspended particulate matter – Dichotomous sampler
(PM10, Coarse PM and PM2.5) – Gravimetric method; or
PM10
Australian Standard AS3580.9.8 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air – Determination of suspended particulate matter – PM10 continuous direct mass method using a tapered element oscillating microbalance analyser; or
Australian Standard AS3580.9.9 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air – Determination of suspended particulate matter – PM10 low volume
sampler – Gravimetric method; or
Australian Standard AS3580.9.11 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air – Determination of suspended particulate matter – PM10 beta
attenuation monitors.
Australian Standard AS3580.9.3 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient
TSP
air – Determination of suspended particulate matter – Total suspended particulate matter (TSP) – High volume sampler gravimetric method; or
Any alternative method of monitoring TSP that may be permitted by the Air Quality Sampling Manual as published from time to time by the administering
authority.
Australian Standard AS3580.10.1 Methods for sampling and analysis of
Dust Deposition ambient air – Determination of particulate matter – Deposited matter – Gravimetric method.
Meteorological data (including but not Australian Standard AS2923-1987 Ambient air – Guide for measurement of limited to wind speed and direction, horizontal wind for air quality applications; or humidity, temperature and precipitation) An alternative method approved by the administering authority. Australian Standard AS3580.1.1 Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient
Siting of monitoring equipment air – Guide to siting air monitoring equipment.
Table B1 – Air quality limits and monitoring requirements
Monitoring Air Quality Frequency Air Quality Limit Monitoring Method Location Indicator All sites PM10 Continuous 50µg/m3(24-hr avg) AS/NZS 3580.9.6:2015 specified in AS/NZS3580.9.7:2009 Table B2 When condition B7 is AS3580.9.8:2022 triggered 30µg/ m3 (24-hr AS358.9.9:2017 avg) AS/NZS35801.9.11:2022 TSP Continuous 90µg/m3 AS/NZS 3580.9.3:2015 Dust deposition Continuous 120 mg/m2/day AS/NZS3580.10.1:2003 Wind speed and Continuous N/A direction, Temperature, AS/NZS 3850.14:2014 Precipitation,
Relative humidity
Table B2 -Dust and Particulate Matter Monitoring Locations
Easting Northing
Monitoring Receiving Area Monitoring Description Point (GDA64) (GDA64)
PM10, TSP, Dust
Site 2 Moranbah Township 607996 7562934 Deposition, Met Station Site 4 Moranbah Access Road north of CVM 609014 7562276 Dust Deposition Site 5 Long Pocket Road 603130 7560336 Dust Deposition PM10, TSP, Dust Site 6 Long Pocket Road 605679 7561154 Deposition, Met Station Site 7 Moranbah Access Road north of site 609780 7561142 Dust Deposition
PM10, Dust Deposition,
Site 8 Moranbah Airport 610852 7559679 Met Station Site 9 Moranbah Access Road, east of site 611743 7558056 Dust Deposition Site 10 Hornery Homestead 612320 7557349 Dust Deposition Peak Downs Highway near intersection with
Site 11 612299 7554887 Dust Deposition Dysart Moranbah Road
PM10, TSP, Dust
Site 13 East of mine on Dysart Moranbah Road 614439 7552791 Deposition, Met Station
Dust Deposition, MetSite 14 West of CHPP 608729 7550026 Station
West of mine, just south of Peak Downs PM10, TSP, Dust
Site 15 608001 7547068
Highway Deposition, Met Station
Condition Condition number C1 Noise nuisance Noise from the mining activities must not cause an environmental nuisance, at any sensitive place or commercial place.
C2 Noise is not considered an environmental nuisance under condition C1 if monitoring shows that
noise does not exceed the limits in Table C1 (Noise Limits), at any sensitive place or
commercial place.C3 Noise monitoring Noise monitoring, undertaken in accordance with condition A11, must comply with the most recent version of the administering authority’s Noise Measurement Manual, and must include the following descriptors, characteristics and conditions:
a) LA eq, adj, 15 mins (external); b)
LA 1, adj, 15 mins (internal, or a measured external noise level and calculation of corresponding internal noise level);
c) the level and frequency of occurrence of impulsive or tonal noise; d) atmospheric conditions including wind speed and direction; e) effects due to extraneous factors such as traffic noise; and f) location, date and time of recording. C4 If monitoring, undertaken in accordance with condition A11, indicates exceedance of the relevant
limits in Table C1 (Noise Limits), the environmental authority holder must immediately
implement abatement measures so that emissions from the mining activities do not result in
further environmental nuisance.
Table C1 (Noise Limits)
Monday to Sunday (including public holidays)
Noise Level
Day Evening Night
dB(A)
(7am to 6pm) (6pm to 10pm) (10pm to 7am)
C5 Vibration nuisance Vibration from the mining activities must not cause an environmental nuisance, at any sensitive place or commercial place.
C6 Vibration is not considered an environmental nuisance under condition C5 if monitoring shows
that vibration does not exceed the limits specified in Table C2 (Vibration Limits).C7 Airblast overpressure nuisance The airblast overpressure level from blasting operations on the mining leases must not cause an environmental nuisance, at any sensitive place or commercial place.
C8 Airblast overpressure is not considered an environmental nuisance under condition C7 if
monitoring shows that airblast overpressure does not exceed the levels specified in Table C3
(Airblast Overpressure Level).C9 Vibration and/or airblast overpressure monitoring Vibration and/or airblast overpressure monitoring, undertaken in accordance with condition A11, must comply with the most recent version of the administering authority’s Noise Measurement Manual, and must include the following descriptors, characteristics and conditions:
a) location of the blast(s) within the mining area (including which bench level); b)
atmospheric conditions including temperature, relative humidity and wind speed and direction; and
c) location, date and time of recording. C10 If monitoring, undertaken in accordance with condition A11, indicates exceedance of the relevant
limits in Table C2 (Vibration Limits) or Table C3 (Airblast Overpressure Level), the
environmental authority holder must immediately implement abatement measures so that
emissions from the mining activities do not result in further environmental nuisance.
Table C2 (Vibration Limits)
Location Vibration Measured Peak particle velocity (mm/s)
Sensitive place or commercial place
For vibrations of more than 35 Hz – no more than 25 mm/s ground vibration For vibrations of no more than 35 Hz – no more than 10 mm/s ground vibration
Table C3 (Airblast Overpressure Level)
Location Airblast Overpressure Measured 115 dB (Linear peak) for four (4) out of five (5) consecutive blasts regardless of
Sensitive place or commercial place the interval between blasts, and not greater than 120 dB (Linear peak) at any time.
Condition Condition number D1 Waste management A Waste Management Plan must be developed by an appropriately qualified person and implemented. The Waste Management Plan must include, but is not limited to:
a) a description of the mining activities that may generate waste; b) a description of all waste activities being carried out; c)
the location/s (including GPS coordinates) of where all waste activities are, or have been, carried out, including:
i. the type of waste disposed of, treated, or reprocessed; and
ii. the volume of waste disposed of, treated, or reprocessed;
d) identification of the potential risks to the environment from all waste activities carried out; e) control measures to be implemented to minimise the potential for environmental harm associated with the carrying out of the waste activities, including but not limited to: i. segregation of the wastes;
ii. storage of the wastes;
iii. transport of the wastes; and
iv. monitoring and reporting matters concerning the wastes;
f) how the waste will be managed in accordance with the waste management hierarchy (that is, avoid, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, disposal); g) the hazardous characteristics of the wastes generated including disposal procedures for hazardous wastes; h) procedures for reprocessing waste in accordance with condition D4; i) procedures for managing accidents, spills and other incidents;
j)
the indicators or other criteria on which the performance of the waste management plan will be assessed; and
k) staff training.
D2 The environmental authority holder must submit the Waste Management Plan required by
condition D1 to the administering authority prior to commencing a new process, or varying an
existing process, for reprocessing any waste.D3 Waste receipt The only waste permitted to be received is:
a) the types of waste specified in conditions D5 to D7 (inclusive); and b) sewage and sludge for treatment in accordance with Schedule H: Sewage Treatment; and c) from a BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal (BMC) or BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA) site in Queensland. D4 Waste reprocessing
The only waste permitted to be reprocessed is:
a) spoil or overburden;
b) vegetation;
c) water or sediment containing hydrocarbons; d) fuels, oils, lubricants and coolants; e) bulk rubber; f) inert waste; g) poly-pipe and other plastic; h) fibreglass;
i) treated and untreated timber; and j) asphalt. D5
Unless otherwise specified in conditions D6 and D7, waste, other than spoil or overburden or vegetation removed as part of the mining activity, must not be disposed of within the mining leases listed on this environmental authority and must be taken to a facility that is lawfully
allowed to accept such waste under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. D6 The following types of waste are permitted to be disposed of within the specified features for the
waste type:
a) rejects:i. in spoil emplacements.
D7 The following types of waste are permitted to be disposed of within the mining leases listed on
this environmental authority:
a) bulk rubber; b) inert waste; c) poly-pipe and other plastic; d) fibreglass;
e) treated and untreated timber; f) asphalt; and g) asbestos.
These types of waste may be disposed of:
a) in pits or voids; b) in spoil emplacements; and c) left in-situ below ground level. Condition Condition number E1 Topsoil Topsoil must be strategically stripped ahead of mining in accordance with a Topsoil Management
Plan.E2
A topsoil inventory, which identifies the topsoil requirements for rehabilitation and availability of suitable topsoil on site, must be provided with any Estimated Rehabilitation Cost application.
E3 Rehabilitation landform criteria Unless otherwise permitted under the conditions of this environmental authority, all areas
significantly disturbed by mining activities must be rehabilitated in accordance with Table E1
(Rehabilitation Requirements).
Table E1 (Rehabilitation Requirements)
Post Mining Goal Objective Indicator Acceptance Criteria Land Use Cattle Safe to Safety hazards in rehabilitation Hazard No significant difference grazing humans and are not significantly different to assessment wildlife surrounding unmined
landscapes subject to the same
land useStable Rehabilitation is geotechnically Factor of safety ≥1.5 stable Rehabilitation is erosionally Extent, slope
1. Groundcover >50% stable gradient and
2. 70% of slopes ≤20% groundcover Non-polluting Rainfall runoff from rehabilitation pH Not significantly different to upstream values achieves relevant water quality EC objectives for receiving waters Turbidity Deep drainage from EC Not significantly different to: rehabilitation achieves relevant (a) the EPP (Water) schedule documents water quality water quality objectives for objectives for relevant groundwater chemistry zones; groundwater or, (b) local water quality objectives developed in accordance with the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines.
Able to Rehabilitation is suitable for Land suitability Land suitability class ≤3 or not different from pre- sustain the sustainable cattle grazing assessment for mining class if ≥4. Assessment completed in agreed post- cattle grazing accordance with LSA Framework for Open-Cut Coal mining land Mine Rehabilitation 2018 (A rule-set for land suitability use
assessment of sustainable beef cattle grazing on land rehabilitated after open-cut coal mining in the Bowen Basin Queensland) unless otherwise agreed in writing between the administering authority and the
environmental authority holder. Post Mining Goal Objective Indicator Acceptance Criteria Land Use Leucaena stem <250 stems >2m height per ha (1 per 40m2), mean density total area Dryland Safe to Safety hazards in rehabilitation Hazard No significant difference cropping humans and are not significantly different to assessment wildlife surrounding unmined
landscapes subject to the same
land useStable Rehabilitation is geotechnically Factor of safety ≥1.5 stable Rehabilitation is erosionally Percentage of 100% of rehabilitated areas stable cultivation at
>1% slope
gradient with
functional
contour banksNon-polluting Rainfall runoff from rehabilitation pH Not significantly different to upstream values achieves relevant water quality EC objectives for receiving waters Turbidity Deep drainage from EC Not significantly different to: rehabilitation achieves relevant (a) the EPP (Water) schedule documents water quality water quality objectives for objectives for relevant groundwater chemistry zones; groundwater or,
(b) local water quality objectives developed in
accordance with the Queensland Water Quality
Guidelines.Able to Rehabilitation is suitable for Land suitability Land suitability class ≤3 or not different from pre- sustain the sustainable dryland cropping assessment for mining class if ≥4. Assessment completed in agreed post- dryland cropping accordance with the Regional Land Suitability mining land Frameworks for Queensland 2013 unless otherwise use agreed in writing between the administering authority
and the environmental authority holder.Woodland Safe to Safety hazards in rehabilitation Hazard No significant difference habitat humans and are not significantly different to assessment wildlife surrounding unmined
landscapes subject to the same
land useStable Rehabilitation is geotechnically Factor of safety ≥1.5 unless an alternative is justified by an stable appropriately qualified person Rehabilitation is erosionally Groundcover 80% stable (steep slopes,
>15%)Groundcover 50% (lesser slopes, ≤15%) Non-polluting Rainfall runoff from rehabilitation pH Not significantly different to upstream values achieves relevant water quality EC objectives for receiving waters Turbidity Not significantly different to: Deep drainage from EC rehabilitation achieves relevant (a) the EPP (Water) schedule documents water quality water quality objectives for objectives for relevant groundwater chemistry zones; groundwater or, Post Mining Goal Objective Indicator Acceptance Criteria Land Use (b) local water quality objectives developed in
accordance with the Queensland Water Quality
Guidelines.Able to Native bushland characteristics Species sustain the richness
agreed post- Trees ≥2 mining land Shrubs ≥3 use Grasses ≥4
Tree canopy ≥16% cover
Water Safe to Safety hazards in rehabilitation Hazard No significant difference Storage humans and are not significantly different to assessment wildlife surrounding unmined
landscapes subject to the same
land useStable Rehabilitation is geotechnically Factor of Safety ≥1.5 stable Rehabilitation is erosionally Groundcover >50% stable (banks and immediate
surrounds)Non-polluting Rainfall runoff from rehabilitation pH Not significantly different to upstream values achieves relevant water quality EC objectives for receiving waters Turbidity Deep drainage from EC Not significantly different to: rehabilitation achieves relevant (a) the EPP (Water) schedule documents water quality water quality objectives for objectives for relevant groundwater chemistry zones; groundwater or,
(b) local water quality objectives developed in
accordance with the Queensland Water Quality
Guidelines.
Able to Rehabilitation retains water that TDS ≤5,000mg/L sustain the is a potential resource for cattle Calcium ≤1,000mg/L agreed post- grazing, with quality according to
Magnesium ≤2,000mg/L
mining land ANZECC guidelines version use
October 2000 Nitrate ≤400mg/L
a)
if a PRCP schedule applies for the activity, the period of between 1 and 5 years stated in the application for an ERC decision under section 298(2)(b); or
b)
if the activity is a petroleum activity that is an ineligible ERA, other than a petroleum activity to which a plan of operations applies, or the activity relates to a 1923 Act petroleum tenure granted under the Petroleum Act 1923, the period of between 1 and 5 years stated in the ERC decision about the estimated rehabilitation cost; or
c) if a plan of operations applies for the activities, the plan period for the plan of operations; or d)
otherwise, the total period during which the resource activity is likely to be carried out under the environmental authority for the activity.
Estimated rehabilitation cost (ERC) for a resource activity, see section 300(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Existing authority has the meaning in section 94 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
Existing structure means a structure that was in existence prior to 24 October 2014.
Extreme storm storage Manual for
means a storm storage allowance determined in accordance with the criteria in the published by the administering authority.
Floodwater means water overflowing, or that has overflowed, from waters, river, creek, stream, lake, pond, wetland or dam onto or over riparian land that is not submerged when the watercourse or lake flows between or is contained within its bed and banks.
Flowable substance means matter or a mixture of materials that can flow under any conditions potentially affecting that substance. Constituents of a flowable substance can include water, other liquids fluids or solids, or a mixture that includes water and any other liquids fluids or solids either in solution or suspension.
Foreseeable future is the period used for assessing the total probability of an event occurring. Permanent structures and ecological sustainability should be expected to still exist at the end of a 150 year foreseeable future with an acceptable probability of failure before that time.
General waste means waste other than regulated waste.
Hazardous waste means a substance, whether liquid, solid or gaseous that, if improperly treated, stored, disposed of or otherwise managed, is likely to cause environmental harm.
Holder, for a mining tenement, means a holder of the tenement under the Mineral Resources Act 1989, and the holder of the associated environmental authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Hydraulic performance means the capacity of a regulated dam to contain or safely pass flowable substances based on the design criteria specified for the relevant consequence category in the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (Version 4, 10 April 2014) (EM635).
Inert waste means bricks, pavers, ceramics, concrete, glass, steel, or similar waste that does not biodegrade or decompose.
mbgl
Infrastructure means water storage dams, roads and tracks, buildings and other structures built for the purpose of mining activities but does not include other facilities required for the long-term management of mining impacts or the protection of potential resources. Such other facilities include dams, waste rock dumps, voids, or ore stockpiles and buildings as well as other structures whose ownership can be transferred and which have a residual beneficial use for the next owner of the
mining leases or the background land owner.
LAeq, adj, 15 mins means the A-weighted sound pressure level of a continuous steady sound (adjusted for tonal character) that within a 15 minute period has the same mean square sound pressure of a sound that varies with time.
LA1, adj, 15 mins means the A-weighted sound pressure level, (adjusted for tonal character and impulsiveness of the sound) exceeded for 1% of any 15-minute measurement period, using Fast response.
Lake includes:
a) lagoon, swamp or other natural collection of water, whether permanent or intermittent; and b) the bed and banks and any other element confining or containing the water. Land in the “land schedule” of this document means land excluding waters and the atmosphere.
Land use describes the selected post mining use of the land, which is planned to occur after the cessation of mining operations.
Landfill means land used as a waste disposal site for lawfully putting solid waste on the land.
Levee means an embankment that only provides for the containment and diversion of stormwater or flood flows from a contributing catchment, or containment and diversion of flowable materials resulting from releases from other works, during the progress of those stormwater or flood flows or those releases; and does not store any significant volume of water or flowable substances at any other times.
Low consequence dam means any dam that is not a high or significant consequence category as assessed using the
Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (Version 4, 10 April 2014)(EM635).
Mandatory reporting level or MRL means a warning and reporting level determined in accordance with the criteria in the
Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (Version 4, 10 April 2014)(EM635) published by the administering authority.
Manual means the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (Version 4,
10 April 2014) (EM635) published by the administering authority.
Matters of state environmental significance or MSES has the meaning in schedule 2 of the Environmental
Offsets Regulation 2014.Maximum extent of impact means the total, cumulative, residual extent and duration of impact to a prescribed environmental matter that will occur over a project’s life after all reasonable avoidance and reasonable on-site mitigation measures have been, or will be, undertaken.
means metres below ground level. or not for the purpose of recycling the waste.
mg/L means milligrams per litre.
Mine affected water means the following types of water:
a) means the following types of water: i. pit water, tailings dam water, processing plant water;
ii. water contaminated by a mining activity which would have been an environmentally relevant activity under Schedule 2 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 if it had not formed part of the mining activity;
iii. rainfall runoff which has been in contact with any areas disturbed by mining activities which have not yet been rehabilitated, excluding rainfall runoff discharging through release points associated with erosion and sediment control structures that have been installed in accordance with the standards and
requirements of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to manage such runoff, provided that this water
has not been mixed with pit water, tailings dam water, processing plant water or workshop water;iv. groundwater which has been in contact with any areas disturbed by mining activities which have not yet been rehabilitated;
v. groundwater from the mine’s dewatering activities; or
vi. a mix of mine affected water (under any of paragraphs i to v) and other water.
b) does not include surface water runoff which, to the extent that it has been in contact with areas disturbed by mining activities that have not yet been completely rehabilitated, has only been in contact with: i. land that has been rehabilitated to a stable landform and either capped or revegetated in accordance with the acceptance criteria set out in the environmental authority but only still awaiting maintenance and monitoring of the rehabilitation over a specified period of time to demonstrate rehabilitation success; or
ii. land that has partially been rehabilitated and monitoring demonstrates the relevant part of the landform with which the water has been in contact does not cause environmental harm to waters or groundwater, for example:
a. areas that are been capped and have monitoring data demonstrating hazardous material adequately contained with the site; b. evidence provided through monitoring that the relevant surface water would have met the water quality parameters for mine affected water release limits in this environmental authority, if those parameters had been applicable to the surface water runoff; or iii. both.
Mineral means a substance which normally occurs naturally as part of the earth’s crust or is dissolved or suspended in water within or upon the earth’s crust and includes a substance which may be extracted from such a substance, and includes:
a) clay if mined for use for its ceramic properties, kaolin and bentonite; b) foundry sand; c)
hydrocarbons and other substances or matter occurring in association with shale or coal and necessarily mined, extracted, produced or released by or in connection with mining for shale or coal or for the purpose of enhancing the safety of current or future mining operations for coal or the extraction or production of mineral oil there from;
d) limestone if mined for use for its chemical properties; e) marble;
f) mineral oil or gas extracted or produced from shale or coal by in situ processes; g) peat;
h) salt including brine; i) shale from which mineral oil may be extracted or produced;
j) silica, including silica sand, if mined for use for its chemical properties; or k) rock mined in block or slab form for building or monumental purposes; But does not include:
a) living matter; b) petroleum within the meaning of the Petroleum Act 1923; c)
soil, sand, gravel or rock (other than rock mined in block or slab form for building or monumental purposes) to be used or to be supplied for use as such, whether intact or in broken form; or
d) water.
Mining activities means the activities:
a) authorised as per the definition in section 110 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994; and b) all environmentally relevant activities authorised under this environmental authority. Minor Infrastructure means low impact infrastructure ancillary to mining activities including culverts, monitoring bores, disturbance for rehabilitation activities; low impact telecommunication infrastructure, electricity infrastructure, fences, environmental monitoring infrastructure, pipelines, access tracks and roads for light vehicles, constructed and operated for the purpose of the mining activities.
Modification or modifying (see definition of ‘construction’).
Natural flow means the flow of water through waters caused by nature.
Notice of election has the meaning in section 18(2) of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
Noxious means harmful or injurious to health or physical wellbeing.
Offensive means causing reasonable offence or displeasure; is disagreeable to the sense; disgusting, nauseous or
repulsive, other than trivial harm.
Operational plan includes:
a)
normal operating procedures and rules (including clear documentation and definition of process inputs in the DSA allowance); and
b)
contingency and emergency action plans including operating procedures designed to avoid and/or minimise environmental impacts including threats to human life resulting from any overtopping or loss of structural integrity of the regulated structure.
Overflow is the flow of water via dam spillways to receiving waters from dams containing water that is deemed to be mine affected water.
Peak particle velocity or ppv means a measure of ground vibration magnitude which is the maximum rate of change of ground displacement with time, usually measured in millimetres/second (mm/s).
Prescribed environmental matters has the meaning in section 10 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014, limited to the matters of State environmental significant listed in schedule 2 of the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014.
Protected area means
a) a protected area under the Nature Conservation Act 1992; or b) a marine park under the Marine Parks Act 1992; or c) a World Heritage Area. Progressive rehabilitation means rehabilitation (defined below) undertaken progressively or a staged approach to rehabilitation as mining operations are ongoing.
Receiving environment, in relation to an activity that causes or may cause environmental harm, means the part of the environment to which the harm is, or may be, caused. The receiving environment includes (but is not limited to):
a) a watercourse; b) groundwater;
c) land; and d) sediments.
Receiving waters means the waters into which this environmental authority authorises releases of mine affected water.
Reference site (or analogue site) may reflect the original location, adjacent area or another area where rehabilitation success has been completed for a similar biodiversity. Details of the reference site may be as photographs, computer generated images and vegetation models etc.
Register of Regulated Structures includes:
a) date of entry in the register; b) name of the dam, its purpose and intended/actual contents; c) the consequence category of the dam as assessed using the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (Version 4, 10 April 2014) (EM635); d) dates, names, and reference for the design plan plus dates, names, and reference numbers of all document(s) lodged as part of a design plan for the dam; e) name and qualifications of the suitably qualified and experienced person who certified the design plan and 'as constructed' drawings; f) for the regulated dam, other than in relation to any levees –
i. the dimensions (metres) and surface area (hectares) of the dam measured at the footprint of the dam; ii. coordinates (latitude and longitude in GDA64) within five metres at any point from the outside of the dam including its storage area iii. dam crest volume (megalitres); iv. spillway crest level (metres AHD). v. maximum operating level (metres AHD); vi. storage rating table of stored volume versus level (metres AHD); vii. design storage allowance (megalitres) and associated level of the dam (metres AHD);
viii. mandatory reporting level (metres AHD);
g) the design plan title and reference relevant to the dam; h) the date construction was certified as compliant with the design plan; i) the name and details of the suitably qualified and experienced person who certified that the constructed dam was compliant with the design plan;
j) details of the composition and construction of any liner; k) the system for the detection of any leakage through the floor and sides of the dam; l) dates when the regulated dam underwent an annual inspection for structural and operational adequacy, and to ascertain the available storage volume for 1 November of any year; m) dates when recommendations and actions arising from the annual inspection were provided to the administering authority; and n) dam water quality as obtained from any monitoring required under this authority as at 1 November of each year. Regulated dam means any dam in the significant or high consequence category as assessed using the Manual for Assessing Consequence Categories and Hydraulic Performance of Structures (Version 4, 10 April 2014) (EM635) published by the administering authority.
Regulated structure includes land-based containment structures, levees, bunds and voids, but not a tank or container designed and constructed to an Australian Standard that deals with strength and structural integrity.
Regulated waste is defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008.
Rehabilitation means the process of reshaping and revegetating land to restore it to a stable landform and in accordance
with the acceptance criteria set out in this environmental authority and, where relevant, includes remediation of
contaminated land.
Rejects means:
a) breaker rejects; or b) coarse rejects; or c) mid/fine size rejects; or d) tailings that have been dewatered; or e) any combination of rejects (under any of paragraphs a to d). Reprocessing includes
a) recycling; or
b) mechanical treatment; or
c) thermal treatment; or
d) biological treatment; or
e) chemical treatment. Representative means a sample set that covers the variance in monitoring or other data due to either natural changes or operational phases of the mining activities.
Residual void means an open pit resulting from the removal of ore and/or waste rock that will remain following the cessation of all mining activities and completion of rehabilitation processes.
Resource activity is an activity that involves
a) a geothermal activity; or b) a GHG storage activity; or c) a mining activity; or d) a petroleum activity. Restricted Surface Disturbance Area means disturbance is restricted to minor infrastructure and exploration activities in the area.
Saline drainage is the movement of waters, contaminated with salt(s), as a result of the mining activity.
Scheme fund means the scheme fund established under section 24 of the Mineral and Energy Resources (Financial
Provisioning) Act 2018.
Self-sustaining means an area of land which has been rehabilitated and has maintained the required acceptance criteria
without human intervention for a period nominated by the administering authority.
Sensitive place means:
a) Any of the following:
i.
a dwelling, residential allotment, mobile home or caravan park, residential marina or other residential premises; or
ii. a motel, hotel or hostel; or iii. an educational institution; or iv. a medical centre or hospital; or v. a protected area; or vi. a public park or gardens. b) Despite paragraph (a), the following places are not sensitive places:
i. subject to paragraph (c), a place that is the subject of an alternative arrangement; or ii.
a mining camp (i.e. accommodation and ancillary facilities for mine employees or contractors or both, associated with the mine the subject of the environmental authority), whether or not the mining camp is located within a mining tenement that is part of the mining project the subject of the environmental authority. For example, the mining camp might be located on neighbouring land owned or leased by the same company as one of the environmental authority holders for the mining project, or a related company; or
iii.
a property owned or leased by one or more of the environmental authority holders, or a related company, whether or not it is subject to an alternative arrangement.
c)
A place that is the subject of a current alternative arrangement in relation to a particular type(s) of environmental nuisance, is not a sensitive place for the purposes of that type(s) of environmental nuisance, however remains a sensitive place for the purpose of other types of environmental nuisances.
Sub surface disturbance means the excavation below natural ground level for the removal of overburden and coal and
does not mean excavation associated with water management infrastructure or other infrastructure.
Suitably qualified and experienced person in relation to regulated structures means a person who is a RegisteredStructure means dam or levee. demonstrated competency and relevant experience:
Sewage means the used water of persons to be treated at a sewage treatment plant.
Significant residual impact has the meaning in section 8 of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
Spillway means a weir, channel, conduit, tunnel, gate or other structure designed to permit discharges from the dam, normally under flood conditions or in anticipation of flood conditions.
Stable in relation to land, means land form dimensions are or will be stable within tolerable limits now and in the foreseeable future. Stability includes consideration of geotechnical stability, settlement and consolidation allowances, bearing capacity (trafficability), erosion resistance and geochemical stability with respect to seepage, leachate and related contaminant generation.
Stormwater means all surface water runoff from rainfall.
a)
for regulated dams, an RPEQ who is a civil engineer with the required qualifications in dam safety and dam design.
b)
for regulated levees, an RPEQ who is a civil engineer with the required qualifications in the design of flood protection embankments.
Note: It is permissible that a suitably qualified and experienced person obtain subsidiary certification from an RPEQ who has demonstrated competence and relevant experience in either geomechanics, hydraulic design or engineering hydrology.
Surface disturbance means all disturbance, including excavation associated with water management structures or other infrastructure, other than sub – surface disturbance.
System design plan means a plan that manages an integrated containment system that shares the required DSA and/or
ESS volume across the integrated containment system.
Tailings means fines from mineral processing that have not been dewatered.
The Act means the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Void means any constructed, open excavation in the ground.
Waste as defined in section 13 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Waste activities means receiving, storing, disposing, treating, or reprocessing wastes, and does not include composting.
Waste and resource management hierarchy has the meaning given by section 9 of the Waste Reduction and Recycling
Act 2011.
Water quality means the chemical, physical and biological condition of water.
Watercourse has the meaning in Schedule 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and means a river, creek or stream in which water flows permanently or intermittently:
a) in a natural channel, whether artificially improved or not; or b) in an artificial channel that has changed the course of the watercourse. Watercourse includes the bed and banks and any other element of a river, creek or stream confining or containing water.
Waters includes all or any part of a river, stream, lake, lagoon, pond, swamp, wetland, unconfined surface water,
unconfined water in natural or artificial watercourses, bed and banks of a watercourse, dams, non-tidal or tidal waters(including the sea), stormwater channel, stormwater drain, roadside gutter, stormwater run-off, and groundwater.
WaTERS means the Water Tracking and Electronic Reporting System.
Wet season means the time of year, covering one or more months, when most of the average annual rainfall in a region occurs. For the purposes of DSA determination, this time of year is deemed to extend from 1 November in one year to 31 May in the following year inclusive.
µg/L means micrograms per litre.
µS/cm means microsiemens per centimetre.
END OF DEFINITIONS
Appendix 1 –Approved Caval Ridge Mine Disturbance Extent
Appendix 2 – Location of Authorised Significant Residual Impacts
END OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY
FILE NO: EPA398-23 (EPML00562013) DIVISION: General Division PROCEEDING: Hearing of application for mining lease and objection;
Objection to application for environmental authorityDELIVERED ON: 16 April 2024 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 19 March 2024. Further written submissions 22, 28 March
2024.HEARD AT: Brisbane A/PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM ORDERS:
1.
I recommend that the administering authority responsible for the Environmental Protection Act 1994 approve the application to amend EPML00562013 on the conditions stated in the draft environmental authority contained in Appendix B of these reasons.
2.
I direct the Registrar to provide, as soon as practicable, a copy of these orders and the reasons
commercial place.
The environmental authority holder must ensure that the concentration of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometres (PM10) generated by the mining activities does not exceed 50µg/m3 suspended in the atmosphere over a 24 hour averaging time at any sensitive place or commercial place.
Quality
PZ08-S PZ01 PZ04 PZ07-D PZ09 PZ11-D PZ12-S PZ12-D MB19 MB20 MB19 MB20 MB20 MB20 CVM09A CVM01A CVM07T CVM04T CVM06A CVM05P Units
Characteristic
Groundwater
| Level | RL | Fluctuations in excess of 2m per year excluding changes from pumping of licenced bores |
6.5- 6.5- 6.5-
| pH | pH units | 8.56.0- | 8.56.4- | 6.5-8.5 | 8.56.3- | 6.5-8.5 | 6.5-8.5 | 6.5-8.5 | 6.3-8.5 | 6.5-8.5 | 6.5-8.5 | 6.5-8.5 | 6.3-.8.5 | 6.5-8.5 |
8.5 8.5 8.5
| EC | µS/cm | 18,41017 | 16,5601 | 16,000 | 21,1802 | 16,000 | 16,0001 | 16,0001 | 8,910 | 8,910 | 8,910 | 12,510 | 22,990 | 20,020 |
,950 16,440 0,570 8910 1,28013
| Sulphate | mg/L | 610625 | 4941507 | 398 | 398 | 3981318 | 3981 | 318 | 318 | 318 | 456 | 2,1101 | 8921 |
00
| Dissolved | 0.2110.1 |
mg/L 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.0551 0.0551 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.0551 0.0551
| Aluminium Dissolved | 9 |
mg/L 0.0090 0.00901 0.0090 0.0090 0.0090 0.00901 0.00901 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.0091
Antimony
| Dissolved | Monitored for |
| Arsenic | mg/L | interpretative | 0.013 | 0.0131 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.0131 | 0.0131 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.0131 |
| reasons only – | |||||||||||||||
| Dissolved Iron | mg/L | no triggers | 0.90.83 | 1118.5 | 0.70 | 4.7 | 1.61.4 | 0.701 | 0.701 | 1.2 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 1.6 | 101 | 1.51 |
| apply | |||||||||||||||
| Dissolved | 0.00060 | 0.00060 | 0.00060 |
mg/L 0.00060 1 0.00060 0.00060 0.00060 1 1 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.00061 0.00061
| Mercury Dissolved | mg/L | 0.034 | 0.0341 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.0341 | 0.0341 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.0341 | 0.0341 |
| Molybdenum Dissolved | mg/L | 0.011 | 0.0111 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.0111 | 0.0111 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.0111 | 0.0111 |
| Selenium | ||||||||||||||
| Dissolved Silver | mg/L | 0.00101 | 0.00101 | 0.00101 | 0.00101 | 0.00101 | 0.00101 | 0.00101 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.0011 | 0.0011 |
| Total recoverable | μg/L | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 201 | 201 |
| hydrocarbons C6-C10 Total recoverable | μg/L | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 1001 | 1001 |
| hydrocarbons >C10-C40 |
3
11
0