News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Hunter coalmine dust breaches 'low risk' 

Hunter coalmine dust breaches 'low risk'

20 Dec, 2010 03:00 AM
AUDITS of several Upper Hunter coalmines found they breached a number of government conditions for dust management but the harm posed to the environment was at the "lower risk" end of the scale.

Three government departments held the audits at nine mines, seven of which were in the Upper Hunter, in what is said to be the first round of broader compliance audits.

The departments found that mine practices needed to be improved in relation to suppressing and preventing dust emissions, but that there appeared to be no cause for serious alarm and some mines showed innovative practices.

The breaches ranged from an unspecified mine scheduling blasts during unsuitable windy conditions because it did not use "real time" weather information, to a mine not having a bushfire management plan and a mine not using enough water carts to minimise dust when trucks were moving coal.

In relation to coal stockpiling, the audits identified "activities under way at several mines in areas outside those approved for mining and thus not currently being regulated", which "may increase the cumulative impacts of operations".

The mines audited were Drayton, Ashton, Boggabri, Camberwell, Hunter Valley Operations, Glennies Creek, Mount Arthur Coal, Mount Owen and the Wilpinjong mine.

The audits looked at compliance with separate conditions imposed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Industry and Investment and the Department of Planning.

A Department of Environment summary report released this month said of the breaches the Planning Department identified, 13 per cent were ranked "code orange" in a risk matrix, which was "still a significant risk of harm to the environment" but a "lower priority".

Most breaches the Environment Department identified were "code blue", which related to reporting and administratiion but were "still important to the integrity of the regulatory system".

Industry and Investment condition breaches were mostly "code yellow", a low priority.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
no wonder we have respiratory problems in the hunter valley. a breach is a breach. what was their fine? what have they done to prevent it from happening again? how long do they have to fix the problem? what will happen if they breach these conditions again? dont give us half a story.
Posted by judgedredd, 20/12/2010 5:40:05 AM, on The Herald
so will there be fines, and will the money received remain local ?

my guess is no and no.

Posted by just a thought, 20/12/2010 7:32:27 AM, on The Herald
There should be 100% compliance because the rules are negotiated as part of the consent conditions.
Posted by Bigfeller, 20/12/2010 7:40:15 AM, on The Herald
hear hear bigfella . & succesful enforcement of conditions should be examined urgently across the board.
Posted by non compliant, 20/12/2010 12:20:16 PM, on The Herald
Try this excuse next time you get pulled over for speeding. Tell the officer " the harm posed to the environment was at the "lower risk" end of the scale". I bet it won't work.
Posted by Steve, 20/12/2010 2:17:03 PM, on The Herald
Dust minimisation at coal mines is a farce. The most harmful dust particles are the 2.5 micron particles and the most effective measures to minimise them are by improving the emission controls on the massive mine vehicles, power stations and blasting. Spraying water is not very effective in suppressing these fine dust particles.

The mine consent provisions are written in terms of 10 micron (coarse) sized particles and even larger very coarse particles which are more effectively suppressed by water spraying so this is what the mines focus their preventive efforts on. All the mining consent provisions need to be rewritten to ensure PM2.5 levels are minimised. There is no level of these particles which is wholly safe so that the lower we can get them the better it will be. Just because mines are complying with their consent provisions does not mean they are operating safely for either their employees or the local community. Ultra fine particles (Less than PM 0.1) which can get inside cells and cause genetic damage including cancers will be minimised by the same measures as reduce fine particles. Water borne poisons need a separate wholesale review.

Dr Steve Robinson

Posted by steve robinson, 20/12/2010 6:28:28 PM, on The Herald

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles


 
Landcom Sanctuary 190512
 
 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...