REPORT INTEGRA PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL BEST PRACTICE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAM INTEGRA MINE COMPLEX. Job No: July 2012.

Transcription

1 REPORT INTEGRA PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL BEST PRACTICE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAM INTEGRA MINE COMPLEX Job No: July 2012 A PEL Company

2 PROJECT TITLE: Integra Particulate Matter Control Best Practice Pollution Reduction Program Integra Mine Complex JOB NUMBER: 6628 PREPARED FOR: John Trotter Vale DATE OF RELEASE: 24 July 2012 PREPARED BY: G. Laing APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY: J. Cox DISCLAIMER & COPYRIGHT: This report is to be read subject to the disclaimer and copyright statement located at Queensland Environment Pty Ltd trading as PAEHolmes ABN DOCUMENT CONTROL VERSION Draft v1 DATE PREPARED BY G. Laing/J. Cox REVIEWED BY J. Cox Draft v G. Laing/J. Cox J. Cox/J. Trotter Draft v J. Cox J. Trotter Draft v G. Laing/J. Cox J. Cox/J. Trotter FINAL J. Cox J. Cox/J. Trotter Queensland Environment Pty Ltd trading as PAEHolmes ABN SYDNEY: Suite 203, Level 2, Building D, 240 Beecroft Road Epping NSW 2121 Ph: Fax: PERTH: Level 18, Central Park Building, St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000 Ph: Fax: BRISBANE: Level 1, La Melba, 59 Melbourne Street, South Brisbane QLD 4101 PO Box 3306, South Brisbane QLD 4101 Ph: Fax: ADELAIDE: 35 Edward Street, Norwood SA 5067 PO Box 1230,Littlehampton SA 5250 Ph: Fax: MELBOURNE: Suite 62, 63 Turner Street, Port Melbourne VIC 3207 PO Box 23293, Docklands VIC 8012 Ph: Fax: GLADSTONE: Suite 2, 36 Herbert Street, Gladstone QLD 4680 Ph: Fax: info@paeholmes.com Website: Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx ii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION OEH Best Practice PRP Requirements Overview of Mining Operations Mining activities and associated emission factors Site-specific measurements Wind Erosion - Threshold Friction Velocity Haul Road Surface Silt Content Coal Moisture 10 2 CURRENT MEASURES USED TO MINIMISE PARTICLE EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions with No PM Controls Estimated Emissions with Current PM Controls Ranking of Activities with Current PM Controls Highest Ranking PM-Generating Activities 17 3 BEST PRACTICE MEASURES Best Practice Measures for Highest Ranking PM contributors Hauling on unpaved roads Wind erosion on coal stockpiles Wind erosion on overburden areas Loading ROM coal to Trucks Bulldozers on overburden Estimated resultant emissions 20 4 PRACTICABILITY OF IMPLEMENTING BEST PRACTICE MEASURES Assessment of practicability 23 5 PROPOSED TIMEFRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST PRACTICE MEASURES 32 6 MONITORING AND TRACKING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PM CONTROLS AT THE INTEGRA MINE COMPLEX KPI-1 Emissions of PM 10 per tonne of ROM coal KPI-2 Control of PM 10 Emissions KPI-3 Opacity (Visible Dust Emissions) KPI-4 Watering intensity for haul roads Recommendations for Ongoing Improvement of KPIs 37 7 CLOSING/CONCLUSIONS 39 8 REFERENCES Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx iii

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: PRP Guideline requirements and report reference... 2 Table 1.2: Emission factors for TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 by mining activity... 6 Table 1.3: Integra Mine Complex size distribution... 9 Table 1.4: Threshold friction velocity by size fraction Table 2.1: Summary of PM emissions with no controls in place Table 2.2: Current PM control measures implemented at Integra Mine Complex Table 2.3: Summary of PM emissions with current controls in place Table 2.4: Ranked activities by mass controlled emission Table 2.5: Best practice measures for highest ranking activities Table 3.1: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from hauling on unpaved roads Table 3.2: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from coal stockpiles Table 3.3: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from overburden areas Table 3.4: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from bulldozers Table 3.5: TSP emissions applying best practice measures (t/y) Table 3.6: PM 10 emissions applying best practice measures (t/y) Table 3.7: PM 2.5 mass emissions applying best practice measures (t/y) Table 4.1: Review of the practicability of best practice measures for Integra Mine Complex Table 5.1: BPM to be implemented Table 5.2: BPM deemed not viable due to economics Table 6.1: KPIs for BPM Table 6.2: Site-specific measurements for improvements to KPI Table 6.3: Site-specific control efficiencies Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx iv

5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Layout of Integra Mine Complex... 4 Figure 2.1: Water cart operating on unsealed road Figure 2.2: Enclosed 3-sided ROM bin with water sprays Figure 2.3: Covered conveyor Figure 2.4: Temporary vegetative ground cover prior to final rehabilitation APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Copy of PRP as contained in Integra Mine EPL Copy of Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best Practice Site Specific Determination Guideline August 2011 Emission Inventory Input Parameters Threshold Friction Velocity Sampling Haul Road Surface Silt Content Sampling Coal Moisture Sampling Cost related information 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx v

6 1 INTRODUCTION Integra Coal Operations Pty Ltd (Integra), a subsidiary of Vale, operates the Integra Mine Complex. The Mine Complex is located approximately 10 kilometres northwest of Singleton in the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales (NSW). The operations at the Integra Mine Complex include open-cut and underground mining, and processing of Run of Mine (ROM) coal at the Coal Handling and Processing Plant (CHPP). The mine currently produces approximately 2.6 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of product coal, all of which is transported by rail to the Port of Newcastle. This report has been prepared to comply with condition U1 of the Integra Environment Protection Licence (EPL) 3390 (Appendix A). 1.1 OEH Best Practice In 2011 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) published the document NSW Coal Mining Benchmarking Study: International Best Practice Measures to Prevent and/or Minimise Emissions of Particulate Matter from Coal Mining (hereafter referred to as the Best Practice Report ) (Donnelly et al., 2011). As an outcome of the Best Practice Report, OEH developed a Pollution Reduction Program (PRP) to be included in the EPL for each coal mine in NSW. 1.2 PRP Requirements The PRP requires the Licensee (Integra) to conduct a site-specific Best Management Practice (BMP) and to prepare a report on the practicability of implementing measures to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM). The Licensee must prepare a report which includes, but is not necessarily limited to the following: The identification, quantification and justification of the measures that are currently being used to reduce PM emissions. The identification, quantification and justification of best practice measures that could be used to minimise PM emissions. An evaluation of the practicability of implementing the best practice measures. A proposed timeframe for implementing all practicable best practice measures. The PRP process is based upon the following three metrics: Total suspended particulate (TSP) Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 µm (PM 10 ) Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ) In preparing the report the Licensee must refer to the document entitled Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best Practice Site Specific Determination Guideline (referred to as the Guideline) (OEH, 2011), which details the process to be followed in the PRP (Appendix B). It also provides the required content and format of the PRP. Table 1.1 presents a summary of the Guideline requirements and a reference to the relevant section in this report Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 1

7 Table 1.1: PRP Guideline requirements and report reference EPL U1.2 Guideline Requirement Report Reference 1) Identification, quantification and justification of current measures that are being used to minimise particle emissions a. Estimate baseline emissions of TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 (tonne per year) from each mining activity using US EPA AP-42 emission estimation techniques for both uncontrolled emissions (with no particulate matter controls in place) and controlled emissions (with current particulate matter controls in place). Section 2.1 b. Rank the controlled emission estimates for TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 emitted by each mining activity from highest to lowest. Section 2.3 c. Identify the top four mining activities that contribute the highest emissions of TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5. Section 2.4 2) Identification, quantification and justification of best practice measures that could be used to minimise particle emissions a. For each of the top four activities identified in Step 1(c) identify the measures that could be implemented to reduce emissions. b. For each of the top four activities identified in Step 1(c) estimate emissions of TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 from each mining activity following the application of the measures identified in Step 2 (a). Section 3.1 Section 3.2 3) Evaluation of the practicability of implementing these best practice measures a. For each of the best practice measures identified in Step 2(a), assess the practicability associated with their implementation, by taking into consideration: i. Implementation costs ii. Regulatory requirements iii. Environmental impacts iv. Safety implications and v. Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments. Section 4 b. Identify those best practices that will be implemented at the premises to reduce particle emissions. Section 5 4) A proposed timeframe for implementing all practicable best practice measures a. For each of the best practice measures identified as being practicable in step 3(b), provide a timeframe for their implementation. Section Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 2

8 1.3 Overview of Mining Operations Figure 1.1 shows the layout of the Integra Mine Complex. The Mine Complex consists of the following major areas and infrastructure: North Open Cut, which is the most northern open-cut mining area. It is located between the tailings dams and a major mine water storage dam known as Possum Skin Dam. South Pit, which forms a significant part of the overburden emplacement area for the Extended South Pit (Western Extension). Extended South Pit (Western Extension) which will be the primary area of open cut mining activities and will operate 24 hours a day. Underground workings, currently longwall mining in the Middle Liddell seam, with development works occurring to access the coal resource in the Hebden Seam and approval to mine in the Barrett seam. Underground/open-cut related surface infrastructure, which includes administration facilities, gas drainage infrastructure, ventilation shafts, workshops and major hydrocarbon storage areas. The CHPP, which receives, stockpiles and washes coal from both the underground and open cut operations and loads product coal via the rail load-out facility into trains for transport to the Port of Newcastle. Tailings dams. Three independent tailings dams are used for tailings disposal. During 2011, two of the tailings dams were raised and augmented to increase tailings storage capacity. All significant dust sources for the Mine Complex are located at or around the areas mentioned above Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 3

9 Figure 1.1: Layout of Integra Mine Complex 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 4

10 1.4 Mining activities and associated emission factors The PRP defines the following mining activities which generate PM: Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads Wind erosion of overburden Loading and dumping overburden Blasting Bulldozing coal Trucks unloading overburden Bulldozing overburden Front-end loaders on overburden Wind erosion of exposed areas Wind erosion of coal stockpiles Unloading from coal stockpiles Dragline* Trucks unloading coal Loading coal stockpiles Graders Drilling Coal crushing Material transfer of coal Scrapers on overburden Train loading Screening Material transfer of overburden * Activity not undertaken at Integra. The relevant emission factors for each of these activities are presented in Table 1.2. Section 2.1 presents the calculated emissions for the activities relevant to the Integra Mine Complex. Appendix C details the input parameters for the emission factors, which were sourced from the operators at Integra Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 5

11 Table 1.2: Emission factors for TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 by mining activity Mining activity Units TSP Emission Factor PM 10 Emission Factor PM 2.5 Emission Factor Source Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads kg/vkt AP Wind erosion of overburden (a) kg/ha/h x TSP (0.5 from AP ) x TSP (0.075 from AP ) AP Table Loading and dumping overburden kg/t AP Blasting kg/blast 0.52 x TSP 0.03 x TSP AP Table Bulldozing coal kg/t x TSP AP Table Front-end loaders on overburden kg/t x TSP AP Table Wind erosion of exposed areas (a) kg/ha/h x TSP (0.5 from AP ) x TSP (0.075 from AP ) AP Table Wind erosion of coal stockpiles kg/ha/h 1.8 x u 0.5 x TSP (0.5 from AP ) x TSP (0.075 from AP ) AP Table Unloading from coal stockpiles kg/t x TSP AP Table Dragline N/A kg/bcm x TSP AP Table Trucks unloading coal kg/t x TSP AP Table Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 6

12 Mining activity Units TSP Emission Factor PM 10 Emission Factor PM 2.5 Emission Factor Source AP Loading coal stockpiles kg/t (Note: AP Table has train loading emission factor, but footnote directs user to Chapter 13 for more accurate emissions factors) Graders kg/vkt AP Table x TSP 0.03 x TSP Drilling overburden kg/hole 0.59 (PM 10 ratio assumed same as blasting AP Table ) (PM 2.5 ratio assumed same as blasting AP Table ) AP Table Drilling coal N/A kg/hole x TSP 0.03 x TSP AP Table Coal crushing kg/t No data AP Table Material transfer of coal kg/t x TSP AP Table Scrapers on overburden N/A kg/t (b) No data No data AP Table Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 7

13 Mining activity Units TSP Emission Factor PM 10 Emission Factor PM 2.5 Emission Factor Source AP Train loading kg/t (Note: AP Table has default train loading emission factor but footnote directs user to Chapter 13 for more accurate emissions factors.) Screening kg/t No data AP Table Material transfer of overburden kg/t AP Where: Notes: A = horizontal area (m 2 ) M = material moisture content (%) s = material silt content (or surface silt content in unpaved roads) (%) u = wind speed (m/s) d = drop height (m) W = mean vehicle weight (tonnes) S = mean vehicle speed (km/h) (a) An alternative method for the estimation of wind erosion from exposed areas is contained within AP-42 Chapter The method takes into account site-specific wind data, site-specific erodible material properties (threshold friction velocity, particle size distribution of the material eroded) and the frequency of material disturbance. Notwithstanding the data intensiveness of this approach, exercises in applying this method in to Hunter Valley mines to date (e.g. Integra Complex, Ravensworth Operations) have resulted in little or no wind-initiated dust lift-off emissions being predicted from active mine sites. As such, the AP-42 Chapter approach has been adopted. This is considered both conservative and applicable to the estimation of wind erosion emissions over the longer term. (b) N/A The emission factor referenced relates to topsoil removal by scraper. No data are provided within the AP-42 relating to scraper stripping topsoil so a value of was derived from the NPI. These activities do not take place at the Integra Mine Complex 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 8

14 1.4.1 Site-specific measurements Wind Erosion - Threshold Friction Velocity In dispersion modelling completed for the EA (URS, 2009), a constant emission factor of 0.4 kg/ha/h was used to calculate emissions due to wind erosion from exposed areas. It was also assumed that open areas are emitting continuously each hour of the year from the entire exposed area. In reality, not all the areas will be active constantly, meaning that dust from exposed areas will only be generated if the wind velocity is high enough to lift dust from the surface. This occurs when the surface wind velocity is greater than the threshold friction velocity (TFV) of the material (i.e. the wind speed above which material would be lifted). Surfaces with a low TFV have greater propensity for fine particles to be lifted at relatively low wind speeds. Since rocks and other nonerodible elements add protection against soil erosion, they raise the TFV if they are present on the disturbed surface. TFV were sampled at the Integra site in November 2009 (Bureau Veritas, 2009). The US EPA AP-42 emission factors provide a method to estimate PM emissions from wind erosion which can be more representative of wind erosion emissions than the simplified assumptions applied in the dispersion modelling presented in the EA. The method takes into account sitespecific wind data, erodible material properties (friction threshold velocity, particulate size distribution of the material eroded) and the frequency of material disturbance. To determine the relevant threshold friction velocities, samples of material from the following locations were collected in November 2009 by Carbon Based Environmental and analysed by Bureau Veritas in accordance with the method outlined in AP-42: Topsoil (North Open Cut) Subsoil (North Open Cut) Open pit (South Pit) Active waste dumps (South Pit) ROM stockpile (CHPP) Threshold friction velocity is determined by passing the samples through a series of nested sieves with openings of 4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.25 mm. Table 1.3 presents a summary of the size distribution analysis. The full set of data are presented in Appendix D. Table 1.3: Integra Mine Complex size distribution Sieve size (mm) Topsoil Subsoil Open pit Min Max Mass (%) Active waste dumps ROM stockpile greater than less than The sieve which contains the majority of the material is used to determine the threshold friction velocity by reference to Table 1.4. As all the samples have the majority of material in the 4 mm sieve, the threshold friction velocity is greater than 100 cm/s Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 9

15 Table 1.4: Threshold friction velocity by size fraction Sieve size (mm) Threshold friction velocity (cm/s) 4 Greater than Adopting this approach, would result in essentially no wind initiated dust lift-off emissions from these sources. The US EPA method is limited when applied in this situation, and for this reason, it has not been applied to the predicted impacts. It is clear from the examination of the threshold friction velocity of material at the Integra Coal Complex that the constant emission factor adopted in the dispersion modelling completed is conservative Haul Road Surface Silt Content Analysis of the haul road RL100 (North End) was undertaken by SGS Muswellbrook (SGS, 2011). Three samples were taken and the highest value from this sampling exercise, 2.6%, was deemed a conservative estimation of the silt content of haul roads at the site. A summary of these data is included in Appendix E. Further sampling of the silt on the haul roads at the site would allow for a more accurate value for this parameter Coal Moisture Coal moisture has been measured during a trial period at the CHPP as part of the Ash Analyser Trial during May 2012 (Bureau Veritas, 2012). All coal types were measured and these values have been used in this assessment. A summary of these data is included in Appendix F. Moisture is also measured before product coal is shipped at the port. These values have been collated from the reporting and used in this assessment for product coal. An average moisture content of the coal measured before the CHPP washery was used as the moisture value for ROM coal. 2 CURRENT MEASURES USED TO MINIMISE PARTICLE EMISSIONS This section provides estimates of particulate matter emissions from all identified activities for the two scenarios: uncontrolled emissions (with no particulate matter controls in place) and controlled emissions (with current particulate matter controls in place). Emissions were calculated using the relevant USEPA AP-42 emission estimation techniques for both uncontrolled emissions and controlled emissions (See Table 1.2) for both uncontrolled emissions and controlled emissions. TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 emission estimates have been calculated for mining activities that occurred during January 2011 to December 2011 at the Integra Mine Complex Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 10

16 2.1 Estimated Emissions with No PM Controls Table 2.1: Summary of PM emissions with no controls in place TSP PM 10 PM 2.5 Mining Activity (t/year) (t/year) (t/year) Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads 4, Wind erosion of overburden Blasting Bulldozing coal Trucks unloading overburden Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden Wind erosion of exposed areas Wind erosion of coal stockpiles Unloading from coal stockpiles Loading coal stockpiles Graders Drilling Coal crushing Material transfer of coal Material transfer of overburden Conveying transfers Topsoil activities Total 5,819 1, Estimated Emissions with Current PM Controls Emissions were then recalculated taking into account various control factors for the PM controls in place at the Integra Mine Complex. These controls are listed in Table 2.2. The control factors listed are taken from the Best Practice Report (Donnelly et al., 2011). Some of the controls used on site are illustrated in Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. Table 2.2: Current PM control measures implemented at Integra Mine Complex Mining Activity Control measure currently in place Level of control applied Drilling overburden Water sprays while drilling 70% Hauling on unsealed roads Water carts operating at 2 l/m 2 /h 75% Grading roads Reduced speed to 8 km/h and keep travel routes moist 50% Loading and unloading coal to stockpile Water sprays on ROM bin or sprays on ROM pad 50% Unloading coal from stockpile to hopper Water sprays on ROM bin or sprays on ROM pad 50% Unloading ROM coal directly to hopper 3 sides plus water sprays 85% Wind erosion of exposed areas Wind speed reduction (vegetative groundcover) 70% Conveying coal Enclosure 70% After the application of these control factors to the uncontrolled emission rates, the resulting emissions are shown in Table Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 11

17 Figure 2.1: Water cart operating on unsealed road Figure 2.2: Enclosed 3-sided ROM bin with water sprays 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 12

18 Figure 2.3: Covered conveyor Figure 2.4: Temporary vegetative ground cover prior to final rehabilitation 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 13

19 Table 2.3: Summary of PM emissions with current controls in place Mining Activity TSP PM 10 PM 2.5 (t/year) (t/year) (t/year) Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads 1, Wind erosion of overburden Blasting Bulldozing coal Trucks unloading overburden Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden Wind erosion of exposed areas Wind erosion of coal stockpiles Unloading from coal stockpiles Loading coal stockpiles Graders Drilling Coal crushing Material transfer of coal Material transfer of overburden Conveying transfers Topsoil activities Total 2, Ranking of Activities with Current PM Controls The calculated emissions from the mining activities (controlled) listed in Table 2.3 were combined into activity groups corresponding to those listed in the OEH Guideline, and ranked from highest to lowest according to total mass. In accordance with the Guideline, the top four ranked activities in terms of emissions of TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5 are shown in bold in Table 2.4. The ranking of each activity differed depending on the particle size metric used Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 14

20 Table 2.4: Ranked activities by mass controlled emission Rank Mining Activity t/year TSP 1 Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads 1,032 2 Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden Wind erosion of coal stockpiles Wind erosion of overburden Material transfer of coal Wind erosion of exposed areas Trucks unloading overburden 59 8 Material transfer of overburden 59 9 Unloading from coal stockpiles Bulldozing coal Blasting Graders Topsoil activities Drilling Coal crushing 7 16 Conveying transfers 3 17 Loading coal stockpiles 1 PM 10 1 Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads Wind erosion of coal stockpiles Wind erosion of overburden Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden Wind erosion of exposed areas 68 6 Material transfer of coal 52 7 Trucks unloading overburden 28 8 Material transfer of overburden 28 9 Blasting Loading coal stockpiles Graders 9 12 Bulldozing coal 7 13 Topsoil activities 7 14 Drilling 6 15 Unloading from coal stockpiles 5 16 Coal crushing 3 17 Conveying transfers 1 PM Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden 45 2 Material transfer of coal 34 3 Wind erosion of coal stockpiles 27 4 Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads 26 5 Wind erosion of overburden 22 6 Wind erosion of exposed areas 10 7 Loading coal stockpiles 10 8 Topsoil activities Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 15

21 Rank Mining Activity t/year 9 Trucks unloading overburden 4 10 Material transfer of overburden 4 11 Blasting 1 12 Graders 1 13 Bulldozing coal 1 14 Unloading from coal stockpiles 1 15 Drilling 0 16 Conveying transfers 0 17 Coal crushing Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 16

22 2.4 Highest Ranking PM-Generating Activities The top four ranked activities according to mass particulate emissions at the Integra Mine Complex, are listed in Table 2.5, for TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5. The top four contributors to PM emissions varied depending on the particle metric. For the Integra Mine Complex there are a total of five activities that ranked among the top at least once for TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5. Table 2.5: Best practice measures for highest ranking activities Activity Size fraction Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads TSP, PM 10 & PM 2.5 Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden TSP, PM 10 & PM 2.5 Wind erosion of coal stockpiles TSP, PM 10 & PM 2.5 Wind erosion of overburden TSP & PM 10 Material transfer of coal PM Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 17

23 3 BEST PRACTICE MEASURES Section 3.1 summarises the best practice control measures that are available for each of the highest ranking activities identified in Section 2.3. An estimation of the emissions through application of these measures is then provided in Section Best Practice Measures for Highest Ranking PM contributors Table 3.1 to Table 3.4 summarise the emission control factors for the different control measures that are applicable to these activities. Both the control measures and the control efficiencies are taken from the Best Practice Report (Donnelly et al., 2011). Where implemented, the current control measure adopted by Integra is shown in bold Hauling on unpaved roads Table 3.1: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from hauling on unpaved roads Control Measure Control Pave the surface 90% Surface improvements Low silt aggregate 30% Oil and double chip surface 80% Level 1 watering (up to 2 l/m 2 /h) 50% Surface treatments Level 2 watering (> 2 l/m 2 /h) 75% Watering grader routes 50% Chemical dust suppressants 85% 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 18

24 3.1.2 Wind erosion on coal stockpiles Table 3.2: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from coal stockpiles Control Measure Control Avoidance Bypass stockpiles 100% reduction in wind erosion for coal bypassing stockpile Surface stabilisation Water spray 50% Chemical wetting agents 80-99% Surface crusting agent 95% Enclosure Silo with bag house % Cover storage pile with a tarp during high winds 99% a Wind speed reduction Vegetative wind breaks 30% Reduce pile height 30% Wind screens/wind fences 75-80% Erect 3-sided enclosure around storage piles 75% Wind erosion on overburden areas Table 3.3: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from overburden areas Control Measure Control Avoidance Bypass stockpiles 100% reduction in wind erosion for coal bypassing stockpile Surface stabilisation Water spray 50% Chemical suppressants 70-84% Application of gravel to stabilise disturbed open areas 84% Rehabilitation 99% Wind speed reduction Fencing, bunding, shelter breaks or in-pit dump 30-80% Vegetative ground cover 70% Loading ROM coal to Trucks No best practice control has been established for this activity Bulldozers on overburden Table 3.4: Best practice control measures to reduce PM emissions from bulldozers Control Measure Control Bulldozer Minimise travel speed and distance Not quantified Keep travel routes and materials moist 50% 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 19

25 3.2 Estimated resultant emissions This section presents the resultant mass emissions for activities after applying the best practice measures identified in Section 3.1. Table 3.5 presents the result emissions of TSP, PM 10 and PM 2.5. Table 3.5: TSP emissions applying best practice measures (t/y) Rank Activity Best practice control % reduction from uncontrolled emission Best Practice Emissions Pave the surface Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden 3 Wind erosion of coal stockpiles 4 Wind erosion of overburden Low silt aggregate 30 2,840 Oil and double chip surface Level 2 watering 75 1,1014 Chemical suppressants Travel routes and material kept moist Bypass stockpiles Water sprays Chemical wetting agents Surface crusting agent Silo enclosure with baghouse Cover with tarp during high winds 99 3 Vegetative windbreaks Reduce pile height Wind screens/fences Erect 3-sided enclosure around storage piles Bypass stockpiles Water sprays on stockpile Chemical wetting agents Surface crusting agent Silo enclosure with bag house Cover with tarp during high winds 99 3 Vegetative windbreaks Reduce pile height Wind screens/fences Erect 3-sided enclosure around storage piles (80% control) 3 (99% control) 16 (95% control) 0 (100% control) 80 (75% control) 64 (80% control) 58 (80% control) 3 (99% control) 14 (95% control) 0 (100% control) 72 (75% control) 58 (80% control) 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 20

26 Table 3.6: PM 10 emissions applying best practice measures (t/y) Rank Activity Best practice control 1 Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads 2 Wind erosion on coal stockpiles 3 Wind erosion on overburden 4 Bulldozing and front end loaders on overburden % reductio n from uncontro lled emission Best Practice Emissions Pave the surface Low silt aggregate Oil and double chip surface Level 2 watering Chemical suppressants Bypass stockpiles Water sprays on stockpile Chemical wetting agents (80% control) 2 (99% control) Surface crusting agent 95 8 Silo enclosure with bag house (95% control) 0 (100% control) Cover with tarp during high winds 99 2 Vegetative windbreaks Reduce pile height Wind screens/fences Erect 3-sided enclosure around storage piles 41 (75% control) 33 (80% control) Bypass stockpile Water sprays Chemical suppressants Application of gravel to stabilise disturbed open areas Fencing/shelterbelts (70% control) 23 (84% control) (30% control) 29 (80% control) Vegetative ground cover Travel routes and material kept moist Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 21

27 Table 3.7: PM 2.5 mass emissions applying best practice measures (t/y) Rank Activity Best practice control 1 2 Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads Bulldozers and front end loaders on overburden 3 Material transfer of coal 4 Wind erosion of coal stockpiles % reductio n from uncontr olled emissio n Best Practice Emissions Pave the surface 90 9 Low silt aggregate Oil and double chip surface Level 2 watering Chemical suppressants Travel routes and material kept moist Bypass ROM stockpiles (50% control) 0 (100% control) Minimise drop height (10m to 5m) Water sprays on ROM pad Water sprays on ROM bin or sprays on ROM pad Enclosed dump hopper (3 sides and a roof ) Enclosed dump hopper (3 sides and a roof ) plus water sprays Enclosure with control device 90-98% (90% control) 1 (98% control) Bypass stockpiles Water sprays on stockpile Chemical wetting agents (80% control) 0 (99% control) Surface crusting agent 95 2 Silo enclosure with bag house (95% control) 0 (100% control) Cover with tarp during high winds 99 0 Vegetative windbreaks Reduce pile height Wind screens/fences Erect 3-sided enclosure around storage piles 8 (75% control) 6 (80% control) Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 22

28 4 PRACTICABILITY OF IMPLEMENTING BEST PRACTICE MEASURES This section provides an assessment of the practicability and cost associated with the implementation of each of the best practice measures identified in Section 3.1. As outlined in the OEH Guideline, the assessment takes into consideration the following criteria: Regulatory requirements Environmental impacts Safety implications Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments Measures considered practical on these grounds were taken forward for costing. 4.1 Assessment of practicability Table 4.1 presents a summary of the practicability assessment for the activities that can potentially be further managed by best practice controls. Those activities which are considered impractical on a regulatory, environmental, safety or compatibility basis, and therefore not costed, are shaded in orange in Table 4.1. Controls that are already implemented are shaded in green, and controls that are not applicable to the Integra Mine Complex are shaded in blue. To summarise, the practicable measures are: Vegetative windbreaks to minimise wind erosion. Installation of a fabric filter to one drill in 2013 An ongoing program of fitting one fabric filter dust collection system to a drill each year beyond 2013 until all drills in the fleet are so fitted Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 23

29 Activity Hauling on unpaved roads Surface improvements Surface treatments Best Practice Control Table 4.1: Review of the practicability of best practice measures for Integra Mine Complex Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Environmental Impacts Pave the surface N Y Y Safety Implications N - Dump trucks have offroad tyres - would not be suitable for a paved surface. On-road tyres not available. Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments N - Some current haul roads have interim use followed by overdumping and rehabilitation. Low silt aggregate Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Oil and double chip surface Watering (standard procedure) Watering Level 1 (2 l/m 2 /h) Watering Level 2 (>2 l/m 2 /h) Watering grader routes Watering twice a day for industrial unpaved road N Y Y Y N - In the sense that failure to maximise mine water utilisation will, in the extreme, curtail future mining productivity. Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Suppressants N Y Y Y - Assuming adequate traction can be maintained. N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. Practicability Not practical Currently implemented Not practical N/A: Higher level used on site N/A: Higher level used on site Currently implemented Currently implemented N/A: Higher level used on site Not practical 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 24

30 Activity Best Practice Control Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Environmental Impacts Hygroscopic salts N Y Y Safety Implications Y - Assuming adequate traction can be maintained. Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. Practicability Not practical Other Lignosulphonates N Y Y Polymer emulsions N Y Y Tar and bitumen emulsions Sealed or saltencrusted Use of larger vehicles N Y Y N Not using biggest on market Y N Possibly - Salt would be expected to contribute to mine water salt content as a consequence of runoff/seepage. Possibly - One consideration would be sound power level of larger trucks - i.e. noisier? Y - Assuming adequate traction can be maintained. Y - Assuming adequate traction can be maintained. Y - Assuming adequate traction can be maintained. Y - Assuming adequate traction can be maintained. Y - Would possibly need altered haul road travel width to accommodate a wider truck. N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. Possibly - If not gain approval for an altered trucking fleet as part of a Project Approval modification, would not be compatible. Not practical Not practical Not practical Not practical Not practical Wind erosion - Exposed Conveyors N Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not practical Avoidance Minimise pre-strip Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Currently implemented 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 25

31 Activity areas (active pit/active rehab areas) & overburden emplacement areas Surface stabilisation Wind speed reduction Best Practice Control Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Watering Y Y Chemical suppressants Paving and cleaning Application of gravel to stabilise disturbed open areas N Y Environmental Impacts Possibly - Watering of rehab areas has potential problems with ground compaction & soil salting. Possibly - In context of rehab areas - dependent on chemical composition & soil compatibility. N Y Y N Y (but N for rehab areas) N - Gravel on completed rehab areas would not be acceptable - would restrict plant germination. Safety Implications N - Watering of batters could promote slope instability. Safe access for water or some other form of dust suppressant application may not be possible. N - Watering of batters could promote slope instability. Safe access for water or some other form of dust suppressant application may not be possible. N - Dump trucks have off road tyres - would not be suitable for a paved surface. On road tyres not available. N - Some areas may be difficult (and hence possibly unsafe) to access/apply. Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments Y N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. N - Some current haul roads have interim use followed by overdumping and rehabilitation. Y (but N for rehab areas) Rehabilitation goals Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Fencing, bunding, shelterbelts or inpit dump Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Practicability Not practical Not practical Currently implemented Not practical Currently implemented Currently implemented 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 26

32 Activity Wind erosion - coal stockpiles Avoidance Surface stabilisation Best Practice Control Vegetative ground cover Primary rehabilitation Vegetation established but not demonstrated to be self-sustaining. Weed control and grazing control Bypassing stockpiles Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Environmental Impacts Safety Implications Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Y Y Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Water sprays Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Chemical wetting agents Surface crusting agent Enclosure Silo with bag house N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N - Would need to consider whether this would require an additional structure which would require Development Approval. N Due to excess site water, this must be used otherwise future mining potentially curtailed. N - Pile continually in use and hence any surface layer would be subject to burial. Practicability Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Not practical Not Practical Y Y N Not practical 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 27

33 Activity Wind speed reduction Best Practice Control Cover storage pile with a tarp during high winds Vegetative windbreaks Reduced pile height Wind screens/fences Pile shaping / orientation Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Environmental Impacts N Y Y Safety Implications N - Activity of placing and removing a tarpaulin could present risks to those involved. Large coal stockpiles have inherent surface instability. N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N - A screen high enough to protect the entire product stockpile may require Development Approval. Y Y Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments N - Having a tarped stockpile possibly not compatible with having that same pile in constant use. Possibly - Would need to determine planting location for any trees - whether a location is available whereby trees, when substantially grown, could offer a wind break to the stockpile. N - Product stockpile height lowering would necessitate footprint expansion. Expansion is compromised by adjacent clean water system, in situ Aboriginal artefacts and rehabilitated waste dump. Y - Subject to assessment of potential placement options. Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Practicability Not practical To be implemented at product stockpile during 2013 Not practical Not practical Currently implemented 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 28

34 Activity Bulldozers Blasting Drilling Best Practice Control Erect 3-sided enclosure around storage piles Current Assumption of Use N Regulatory Requirements N - An enclosure likely to require Development Approval. Environmental Impacts Y Safety Implications Y Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments Y - Subject to assessment of potential placement options. Minimise travel speed and distance Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Keep travel routes and materials moist Design: delay shout to avoid unfavourable weather conditions Y (in part) Y Y Possibly - Only parts of any travel route accessible to a water cart could be watered. Y - With the exception of non-accessible areas for a water cart. Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Design: minimise area blasted Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Wet Dry collection Water injection sprays while drilling Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Fabric filters N Y Y Cyclone N Y Y Y - Would have to have a drill which was amenable to operating a fabric filter. N - Drill supplier (Sandvik) advises they no longer supply cyclone type dust collectors. Cyclone units present unacceptable OH&S risks e.g. exposure for maintenance personnel to dust containing silica Y - Would necessitate retrofitting existing drills (if possible) or new drills (if available) etc. Not assessed Practicability Not practical Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Will fit to one drill in 2013 and one per year following this until are in fleet are fitted Not practical 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 29

35 Activity Dragline Loading and dumping overburden (Excavators) Loading and dumping overburden (Trucks) Unloading trucks Loading and dumping ROM coal Conveyor and transfers Best Practice Control Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Environmental Impacts Safety Implications Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments Practicability Minimise drop 30m to 5m N/A N/A height 10m to 5m N/A N/A Water application N/A Not assessed - no dragline N/A Modify activities in windy conditions N/A N/A Minimise side casting N/A N/A Minimising drop height Minimising drop height Reduce from 3m to 1.5 m Reduce from 3m to 1.5 m Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Water application Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Modify activities in windy conditions N Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Water sprays N Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Avoidance Truck or loader dumping ROM coal Truck or loader dumping to ROM bin Conveyors Bypass ROM stockpiles Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Minimise drop height (10 m to Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed 5 m) Water sprays on ROM pad Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Water sprays on ROM bin or sprays on ROM Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed pad Enclosed dump Y - Subject to hopper (3 sides Y Y Y - Subject to design and a roof ) Currently 3 design sides and water sprays Enclosed dump hopper (3 sides and a roof ) plus water sprays Enclosure with control device Application of water at transfers Y Y Y - Subject to design Y Y Y Y - Subject to design Y - Subject to design Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Fitting of a roof/control device considered not practical due to financial costs Currently implemented 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 30

36 Activity Stacking and reclaiming product coal Transfers Avoidance Loading coal stockpiles Reclaim coal Best Practice Control Unloading product stockpiles Wind shielding - roof or side wall Wind shielding - roof AND side wall Belt cleaning and spillage minimisation Current Assumption of Use Regulatory Requirements Environmental Impacts Safety Implications Compatibility with current processes and proposed future developments Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Enclosure Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Enclosure and fabric filters Bypass coal stockpiles Variable height stack Boom tip water sprays Telescopic chute with water sprays Practicability Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented Currently implemented N Y Y Y N Not practical N Y Y Y N Not practical N Y Y Y N Not practical N Y Y Y N Not practical N Y Y Y N Not practical Total enclosure N N Y Underground reclaim Bucket wheel, portal or bridge reclaimer with water application Water sprays Wind breaks N - physical size limits ability to enclose Y Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed N Not practical Currently implemented N/A: Underground reclaim N/A: Underground reclaim N/A: Underground reclaim 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 31

37 5 PROPOSED TIMEFRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST PRACTICE MEASURES Based on the evaluation presented in Section 4, the following BPM are proposed for implementation by Integra. Table 5.1: BPM to be implemented Activity/BPM Proposed implementation date Vegetative windbreaks to minimise wind erosion from product stockpiles Installation of a fabric filter to one drill in An ongoing program of fitting one fabric filter dust collection system to a drill each year beyond onwards until all drills in the fleet are so fitted. The following practicable measures have been deemed not viable due to economic reason at this time. Table 5.2: BPM deemed not viable due to economics Activity/BPM Unloading ROM coal to dump hopper Installation of a roof/control device Proposed implementation date Currently not considered economically viable 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 32

38 6 MONITORING AND TRACKING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PM CONTROLS AT THE INTEGRA MINE COMPLEX On 9 May 2012 the EPA held an information session and workshop to provide feedback to consultants and mining companies on the dust PRPs received to date. A key outcome of the workshop (referred to as Key Message 3 (EPA, 2012)) was that the control effectiveness of both current and proposed BPM should be measured and reported, as follows: Control effectiveness must be supported by: - Key performance indicator - Monitoring method - Location, frequency and duration of monitoring - Monitoring data records and analysis - Management procedures In accordance with EPA expectations, the following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are proposed as options for Integra. 6.1 KPI-1 Emissions of PM 10 per tonne of ROM coal This headline KPI will provide an indication of the overall dustiness of the mine relative to its production, as a combination of all activities. It makes direct use of the emissions inventory compiled for the PRP process, and rather than simply measuring the total dust emissions, it is expressed as a proportion of the production rate. The value of the KPI will change each year as the generation of PM 10 is dependent on any changes in the distribution of mining activities such as lengths of haul roads and dozer hours. However, if these things remain relatively similar each year, a downward trend in the KPI over time will indicate the effectiveness of the control measures that are implemented. The KPI will be recalculated on an annual basis (Annual Review/NPI reporting period) using the PRP emissions inventory spreadsheet. The annual recalculation will be relatively straightforward, requiring input data on intensity for each mining activity (e.g. material production rates, VKT, dozer hours etc.). It is also recommended that this KPI be improved by using site-specific input data (silt content, moisture content, control efficiencies) and the monitoring recommended to achieve these improvements are outlined in Section 6.5. Further details for this KPI are outlined in Table 6.1, along with objectives and targets and reporting requirements. If adopted for the mine, a site-specific procedure would be developed for this KPI. Based on the emission estimates presented for this PRP, the existing kg PM 10 / t ROM ratio for Integra is 0.33 kg/t. This is the baseline against which this KPI can be tracked. The equivalent ratio for uncontrolled emissions would be 0.62 kg/t. 6.2 KPI-2 Control of PM 10 Emissions This KPI will quantify the progress of the mine towards achieving best practicable controls on PM 10 emissions (Donnelly et al, 2011). It provides a measure of improvement of the mine as a whole, 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 33

39 by combining the efficiency of each individual control. It is therefore not dependent on such variables as productivity, VKT and dozer hours as is the case for KPI-1. The current control measure for each mining activity is compared to the best practically achievable control measure for that activity. This ratio is then weighted according to the contribution of that uncontrolled activity to the total uncontrolled annual emission. A mine that is operating with best practicable controls on activities producing the majority of emissions would score close to 100. This KPI will be calculated annually using the PRP emissions inventory spreadsheet and it is recommended that it be improved by using site-specific data, as outlined in Section 6.5. Further details about the KPI, including the metric, objectives, targets and reporting requirements are outlined in Table 6.1. If adopted for the mine, a site-specific procedure would be developed for this KPI. 6.3 KPI-3 Opacity (Visible Dust Emissions) This KPI is designed to provide an indication of visible dust emissions at the mine site. There are various methods for monitoring opacity, and the chosen method would determine the monitoring locations and intervals. Further details for this KPI are outlined in Table 6.1, including the various methods and standards for measurement, objectives and targets and reporting requirements. If adopted for the mine, a site-specific procedure would be developed for this KPI, relevant to the chosen opacity monitoring method. 6.4 KPI-4 Watering intensity for haul roads Hauling on unpaved roads is the major contributor to total PM emissions. Controlling emissions from this activity is therefore important, and there are a number of measures listed in the Best Practice Report which can produce significant reductions. A current control efficiency of 75% is assumed for this PRP report, equivalent to Level 2 watering, as per the Best Practice Report. The actual site-specific control efficiency for the watering of haul roads at the Integra Mine Complex is unknown, and it is recommended that this be determined. Once the site-specific control efficiency is measured, and the equivalent watering rate determined, it can be used for tracking and reporting against this KPI. Where the site-specific control efficiency is found to be less than 75%, the watering application rate required to achieve 75% control can be determined and used for tracking and reporting against this KPI. Further details for this KPI are outlined in Table 6.1, including objectives and targets and reporting requirements. If adopted for the mine, a site-specific procedure would be developed for this KPI, relevant to the chosen monitoring method. The options for the measurement of site specific control efficiencies are outlined in Table Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 34

40 Table 6.1: KPIs for BPM KPI-1 Annual emissions of PM 10 per tonne of ROM coal (kg PM 10/t ROM) Metric Method / Standard Objective / Target Frequency Report This KPI is defined as follows: Where: Annual dust emissions inventory using PRP emissions inventory template Downward trend in PM 10/ROM ratio until best practicable control is achieved Annual (matching 12 month reporting period for AR/NPI) Include in AR K1y is the value of KPI-1 (in kg of PM 10 per tonne of ROM coal) in year y E PM10 is the total emission of PM 10 from the mine (in kg, with current controls) in year y M ROM is the mass of ROM coal (in tonnes) mined in year y KPI-2 PM 10 Emission Control (%) This KPI is defined as follows: Where: Annual dust emissions inventory using PRP emissions inventory template in conjunction with site-specific measurements of individual parameters and control efficiencies. Progression towards 100%. This indicates that the mine is doing everything practicable and achievable within the constraints of operations, to reduce emissions. Annual (matching 12 month reporting period for AR/NPI) Include in AR K2y is the value of KPI-2 (%) in year y CF i is the current control factor for activity i in year y CF i-b is the best practicable control factor for activity i 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 35

41 This KPI is defined as follows: Where: K3y is the value of KPI-3 (dimensionless) in year y y is the average opacity in year y KPI-3 Opacity (Visible Dust Emissions) Visual Observations US EPA Method 9 Visual Determination of the opacity of emissions from stationary sources San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 8011 General Requirements (Appendix A Visual Determination of Opacity) Digital Imagery ASTM WK New Test Method for Determining the Opacity of Fugitive Emissions in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, Using Digital Imagery <20% Opacity at source - hauling, open pit and stockpile area Weekly Weekly operators log. <20% Opacity at source Weekly Weekly operators log. KPI 4 - Watering Intensity for Hauling (L/VKT) This KPI is defined as follows: Where: N/A No less than the level of watering (L/VKT) to achieve the site-specific control efficiency. (Derived through site-specific determination of watering control effectiveness) Annual Include in AEMR K4y is the value of KPI-3 (in litres per vehicle-kilometre) in year y W Haul is the total amount of water applied to haul roads in year y VKT Haul is the total number of vehicle-kilometres on haul roads in year y 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 36

42 6.5 Recommendations for Ongoing Improvement of KPIs Another key message from the EPA information sessions (referred to as Key Message 2 (EPA, 2012)) was the use of site-specific data in deriving PM emissions estimates for the PRP, such as: Material parameters moisture and silt contents Meteorology Vehicle weight, speed, traffic volume Activity data areas disturbed, stockpiles, material transfer The available site-specific data has been provided by the mine and used for the PM emissions estimates presented in the report. However, due to time constraints the sampling and analysis of all material properties was not completed. For ongoing evaluation against the KPIs, it is recommended that improvements are made to emission estimates using site-specific data and sitespecific control efficiencies. The recommended monitoring for input into the KPIs is outlined in Table 6.2. Measurement methods for determination of site-specific controls for water are outlined in Table 6.3. Table 6.2: Site-specific measurements for improvements to KPI-1 Parameter Measurement Method / Standard Frequency % moisture content (overburden dumps, ROM coal and product coal) % silt content (overburden dumps, ROM coal and product coal, haul roads) Threshold Friction Velocity for coal piles and exposed areas Dust Extinction Moisture Level (DEM 1 ) (ROM and product coal) US EPA AP42 Appendix C.1 Procedures for Sampling Surface / Bulk Dust Loading US EPA AP42 Appendix C.2 Procedures for Laboratory Analysis of Surface Dust Loading Samples US EPA AP42 Appendix C.1 Procedures for Sampling Surface / Bulk Dust Loading US EPA AP42 Appendix C.2 Procedures for Laboratory Analysis of Surface Dust Loading Samples US EPA AP42 Chapter AS Coal Preparation Part 6: Determination of dust/moisture relationship for coal Annual Annual Annual One off (for each coal type or new seam) Notes: 1 DEM is defined as the moisture level at which dustiness is reduced to a level of 10 (i.e. minor dust emissions expected during bulk handling operations). The control efficiency of the watering of haul roads at the Integra Mine Complex is currently unknown; it is recommended that this be determined. Once the site-specific control efficiency is measured, and the equivalent watering rate determined, it can be used for tracking and reporting against this KPI Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 37

43 Table 6.3: Site-specific control efficiencies Parameter Measurement Method / Standard Frequency Site Specific Watering Control Effectiveness Mobile emissions monitoring device for unpaved roads. Method uses equipment designed to make direct measurements of dust concentrations as a result of vehicle traffic on the roadway as it travels. The system was developed by PAEHolmes for ACARP (publication pending). Control Efficiency determined by linear relationship between control efficiency and moisture content of surface, shown below. Seasonal Seasonal Moisture Ratio (M) as defined by US EPA AP 42 Chapter Unpaved Roads: Moisture Content determined by: ASTM D Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft (2,700 knm/m)) 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 38

44 7 CLOSING/CONCLUSIONS This study identified that the highest ranking activities at the Integra Mine Complex in terms of particulate generation, when emissions alone are evaluated include: Wheel generated particulates on unpaved roads Wind erosion on coal stockpiles Wind erosion on overburden Bulldozers and front end loaders on overburden Material transfer of coal Potential Best Practice control measures for the above activities were identified, and their practicability and cost evaluated. Measures identified as potentially achievable for the Integra Mine Complex were: Vegetative windbreaks to minimise wind erosion from product stockpiles to be installed during Installation of a fabric filter to one drill in An ongoing program of fitting one fabric filter dust collection system to a drill each year beyond 2013 until all drills in the fleet are so fitted Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 39

45 8 REFERENCES Bureau Veritas (2009). Threshold Friction Velocity: HV November Reported 13 November Bureau Veritas (2012). Ash Analyser Trial: HV May Reported 4 July Donnelly S-J, Balch A, Wiebe A, Shaw N, Welchman S, Schloss A, Castillo E, Henville K, Vernon A and Planner J (2011). NSW Coal Mining Benchmarking Study: International Best Practice Measures to Prevent and / or Minimise Emissions of Particulate Matter from Coal Mining. Prepared by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd for NSW Office of Environment and Heritage June OEH (2011). Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best Practice - Site-specific determination guideline. November New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. November SGS (2011). Analytical Report: HM00096, November Reported 27 January 2011, SGS Minerals. URS (2009). Environmental Assessment: Integra Open Cut Project prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd, June USEPA (1998). AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Section Western Surface Coal Mining, October USEPA (2004). AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Section Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing, August USEPA (2006a). AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Section Unpaved Roads. November USEPA (2006b). AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, Section Aggregate Handling And Storage Piles, November Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx 40

46 Appendix A: Copy of PRP as contained in Integra Coal EPL Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx

47 Source: EPL Dec Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx A-1

48 Appendix B: Copy of Coal Mine Particulate Matter Control Best Practice Site Specific Determination Guideline August Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx

49 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx B-1

50 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx B-2

51 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx B-3

52 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx B-4

53 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628 Appendix C: Emission Inventory Input Parameters

54 TSP ACTIVITY TSP emission for FY 2011 (kg/y) TSP emission for FY 2011 (kg/y) No Intensity Units Emission Factor Units Variable 1 Units Variable 2 Units Variable 3 Units Variable 4 Units Variable 5 Units % control Units Control Type SOUTH PIT OB - Drilling South Pit 2,567 8, holes/y 0.59 kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting South Pit 4,049 4, blasts/y 289 kg/blast Area of blast in square metres 1036 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from South Pit OB to trucks 1,100 1, ,798 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from South Pit to emplacement 16,537 66, ,798 t/y kg/t 170 t/load 233 Mean operating weight (t) 5.1 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB South Pit to Emplacement 1,100 1, ,798 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - South Pit 8,936 8, h/y kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10.0 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (South Pit) 3,618 3, h/y kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from South Pit to trucks (including rehandle) 12,223 12, ,712 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from South Pit to ROM stockpile 13,907 55, ,712 t/y kg/t t/load 251 Mean operating weight (t) 9.30 km/return trip 3.63 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading South Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile 1,406 2,811 50,074 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading South Pit ROM coal directly to hopper 1,412 9, ,638 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading South Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper 1,406 2,811 50,074 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads South Pit 663 1,326 2,155 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 269 grader hours 50 % control Watering SOUTH WEST PIT OB - Drilling South West Pit 1,593 5, holes/y 0.59 kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting South West Pit 4,408 4, blasts/y 157 kg/blast 8000 Area of blast in square metres 321 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from South West Pit OB to trucks 10,680 10,680 6,103,207 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from South West Pit to emplacement 72, ,003 6,103,207 t/y 0 kg/t 171 t/load 232 Mean operating weight (t) 2.3 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB South West Pit to Emplacement 10,680 10,680 6,103,207 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - South West Pit 80,843 80,843 4,831 h/y kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (South West Pit) 7,406 7, h/y kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from South West Pit to trucks (including rehandle) 26,845 26, ,136 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from South West Pit to ROM stockpile 24,899 99, ,136 t/y kg/t 123 t/load 256 Mean operating weight (t) 7 km/return trip 3.66 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading South West Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile 3,087 6, ,971 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading South West Pit ROM coal directly to hopper 3,101 20, ,164 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading South West Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper 3,087 6, ,971 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads South West Pit 4,805 9,611 15,615 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 1,952 grader hours 50 % control Watering NOC OB - Drilling NOC 1,947 6, holes/y 0.59 kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting NOC 5,667 5, blasts/y 157 kg/blast 8000 Area of blast in square metres 306 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from NOC OB to trucks 16,318 16,318 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from NOC to emplacement 158, ,426 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 157 t/load 171 Mean operating weight (t) 3.5 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB NOC to Emplacement 16,318 16,318 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - NOC 118, ,492 7,080 h/y kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (NOC) 9,592 9, h/y kg/h 6 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from NOC to trucks (including rehandle) 35,689 35, ,311 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from NOC to ROM stockpile 31, , ,311 t/y kg/t t/load 191 Mean operating weight (t) 8.6 km/return trip 3.21 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading NOC ROM coal to ROM Stockpile 4,104 8, ,512 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading NOC ROM coal directly to hopper 4,122 27, ,799 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading NOC ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper 4,104 8, ,512 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads NOC 6,902 13,803 22,427 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 2,803 grader hours 50 % control Watering WEST PIT Topsoil removal - Scrapers stripping topsoil West Pit 18,259 18, ,634 t/y 0.03 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 silt content in % Topsoil removal - Scrapers loading topsoil (West Pit) 1,102 1, ,634 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s Topsoil removal - Scrapers hauling topsoil from West Pit to topsoil stockpile 24,003 24, ,634 t/y kg/t 15 t/load 54 Mean operating weight (t) 1.2 km/return trip 0.48 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 Topsoil removal - Emplacing topsoil from West Pit at topsoil stockpile 1,102 1, ,634 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Drilling West Pit 3,806 12, holes/y 0.59 kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting West Pit 15,620 15, blasts/y 220 kg/blast Area of blast in square metres 303 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from West Pit OB to trucks 31,205 31,205 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from West Pit to emplacement 591,847 2,367,386 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 141 t/load 247 Mean operating weight (t) 5.2 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB West Pit to Emplacement 31,205 31,205 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - West Pit 224, ,139 13,393 h/y kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (West Pit) 9,510 9, h/y kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from West Pit to trucks (including rehandle) 36,326 36, ,007 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from West Pit to ROM stockpile 65, , ,007 t/y 0.41 kg/t 114 t/load 260 Mean operating weight (t) 12.5 km/return trip 3.69 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading West Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile 4,178 8, ,812 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading West Pit ROM coal directly to hopper 4,196 27, ,196 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading West Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper 4,178 8, ,812 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads West Pit 12,804 25,607 41,606 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 5,201 grader hours 50 % control Watering UNDERGROUND CL - Loading ROM coal from UNDERGROUND to trucks (including rehandle) 37,030 37, ,157 t/y kg/t 8 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from UNDERGROUND to ROM stockpile 33, , ,157 t/y kg/t t/load 202 Mean operating weight (t) 6.5 km/return trip 3.29 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading UNDERGROUND ROM coal directly to hopper ,157 t/y kg/t 8 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 85 % control Three sides/roof/water Conveying CL - Conveying Transfer from ROM bin to RC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from RC7 to Surge Bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Surge Bin to RC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from RC9 to CHPP ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to DC2 Reject Conveyor ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from DC2 Reject Conveyor to Reject Bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to CC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to SC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CC1 to Transfer Tower ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from SC1 to Transfer Tower ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Transfer Tower to CC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Transfer Tower to SC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from TL2 to Train load out bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 #REF! Enclosed WE - Conyeying from ROM pad to Train load out bin 3,589 7, ha 2.7 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y Average windspeed (m/s) 50 % Control Water Sprays CHPP CHPP - Crushing ROM coal 7,142 7,142 2,645,323 t/y kg/t - % Control CHPP - Unloading product coal to product stockpile ,290,000 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s - % Control Wind erosion on active mining areas (Open Cut) 76,913 76, ha 0.1 kg/ha/hr 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (Open Cut) 174, , ha 0.1 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on active mining areas (North Open Cut) 59,743 59, ha 0.1 kg/ha/hr 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (North Open Cut) 63,510 63, ha 0.1 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (Underground) 50,107 50, ha 0.1 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on ROM and product stockpiles (inc;udes maintenance) 314, , ha 2.7 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y Average windspeed (m/s) 0 % control Total TSP emissions for FY2011 (kg/yr) 2,638,067 5,819, Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx C-1 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

55 PM10 ACTIVITY PM10 emission for FY PM10 emission for FY 2011 (kg/y) 2011 (kg/y) No Intensity Units Emission Factor Units Variable 1 Units Variable 2 Units Variable 3 Units Variable 4 Units Variable 5 Units % control Units Control Type SOUTH PIT OB - Drilling South Pit 1,335 4, holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting South Pit 2,105 2, blasts/y 150 kg/blast Area of blast in square metres 1036 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from South Pit OB to trucks ,798 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from South Pit to emplacement 3,728 14, ,798 t/y kg/t 170 t/load 233 Mean operating weight (t) 5.1 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB South Pit to Emplacement ,798 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - South Pit 2,159 2, h/y 4.04 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10.0 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (South Pit) h/y 4.64 kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from South Pit to trucks (including rehandle) 1,689 1, ,712 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from South Pit to ROM stockpile 3,135 12, ,712 t/y kg/t t/load 251 Mean operating weight (t) 9.30 km/return trip 0.82 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading South Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile ,074 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading South Pit ROM coal directly to hopper 185 1, ,930 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading South Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper ,074 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads South Pit ,155 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 269 grader hours 50 % control Watering SOUTH WEST PIT OB - Drilling South West Pit 828 2, holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting South West Pit 2,292 2, blasts/y 82 kg/blast 8000 Area of blast in square metres 321 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from South West Pit OB to trucks 5,052 5,052 6,103,207 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from South West Pit to emplacement 16,233 64,931 6,103,207 t/y 0 kg/t 171 t/load 232 Mean operating weight (t) 2.3 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB South West Pit to Emplacement 5,052 5,052 6,103,207 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - South West Pit 19,536 19,536 4,831 h/y 4.04 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (South West Pit) 1,757 1, h/y 4.64 kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from South West Pit to trucks (including rehandle) 3,709 3, ,136 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from South West Pit to ROM stockpile 5,613 22, ,136 t/y kg/t 123 t/load 256 Mean operating weight (t) 7 km/return trip 0.82 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading South West Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile ,971 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading South West Pit ROM coal directly to hopper 406 2, ,039 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading South West Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper ,971 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads South West Pit 1,679 3,358 15,615 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 1,952 grader hours 50 % control Watering NOC OB - Drilling NOC 1,012 3, holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting NOC 2,947 2, blasts/y 82 kg/blast 8000 Area of blast in square metres 306 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from NOC OB to trucks 7,718 7,718 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from NOC to emplacement 35, ,032 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 157 t/load 171 Mean operating weight (t) 3.5 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB NOC to Emplacement 7,718 7,718 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - NOC 28,634 28,634 7,080 h/y 4.04 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (NOC) 2,311 2, h/y 5.76 kg/h 6 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from NOC to trucks (including rehandle) 4,708 4, ,311 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from NOC to ROM stockpile 7,137 28, ,311 t/y kg/t t/load 191 Mean operating weight (t) 8.6 km/return trip 0.72 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading NOC ROM coal to ROM Stockpile 541 1, ,512 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading NOC ROM coal directly to hopper 516 3, ,667 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading NOC ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper 541 1, ,512 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads NOC 2,411 4,823 22,427 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 2,803 grader hours 50 % control Watering WEST PIT Topsoil Removal - Scrapers stripping topsoil West Pit 4,596 4, ,634 t/y 0.01 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 silt content in % Topsoil removal - Scrapers loading topsoil (West Pit) ,634 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s Topsoil removal - Scrapers hauling topsoil from West Pit to topsoil stockpile 3,300 3, ,634 t/y kg/t 15 t/load 54 Mean operating weight (t) 1.2 km/return trip 0.07 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 Topsoil removal - Emplacing topsoil from West Pit at topsoil stockpile ,634 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Drilling West Pit 1,979 6, holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting West Pit 8,122 8, blasts/y 114 kg/blast Area of blast in square metres 303 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from West Pit OB to trucks 14,759 14,759 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from West Pit to emplacement 133, ,731 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 141 t/load 247 Mean operating weight (t) 5.2 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB West Pit to Emplacement 14,759 14,759 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - West Pit 54,165 54,165 13,393 h/y 4.04 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (West Pit) 2,256 2, h/y 4.64 kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from West Pit to trucks (including rehandle) 5,019 5, ,007 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from West Pit to ROM stockpile 14,772 59, ,007 t/y 0.09 kg/t 114 t/load 260 Mean operating weight (t) 12.5 km/return trip 0.83 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading West Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile 577 1, ,812 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading West Pit ROM coal directly to hopper 550 3, ,315 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading West Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper 577 1, ,812 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads West Pit 4,473 8,947 41,606 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 5,201 grader hours 50 % control Watering UNDERGROUND CL - Loading ROM coal from UNDERGROUND to trucks (including rehandle) 37,030 37, ,157 t/y kg/t 8 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from UNDERGROUND to ROM stockpile 7,496 29, ,157 t/y kg/t t/load 202 Mean operating weight (t) 6.5 km/return trip 0.74 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading UNDERGROUND ROM coal directly to hopper 5,554 37, ,157 t/y kg/t 8 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water Conveying CL - Conveying Transfer from ROM bin to RC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from RC7 to Surge Bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Surge Bin to RC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from RC9 to CHPP ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to DC2 Reject Conveyor ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from DC2 Reject Conveyor to Reject Bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to CC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to SC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CC1 to Transfer Tower ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from SC1 to Transfer Tower ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Transfer Tower to CC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Transfer Tower to SC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from TL2 to Train load out bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 #REF! Enclosed WE - Conyeying from ROM pad to Train load out bin 3,589 7, ha 2.7 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y Average windspeed (m/s) 50 % Control Water Sprays CHPP CHPP - Crushing ROM coal 3,174 3,174 2,645,323 t/y kg/t - % Control CHPP - Unloading product coal to product stockpile ,290,000 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s - % Control Wind erosion on active mining areas (Open Cut) 38,456 38, ha 0.05 kg/ha/hr 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (Open Cut) 87,074 87, ha 0.05 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on active mining areas (North Open Cut) 29,872 29, ha 0.05 kg/ha/hr 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (North Open Cut) 31,755 31, ha 0.05 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (Underground) 25,054 25, ha 0.05 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on ROM and product stockpiles (inc;udes maintenance) 157, , ha 1.33 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y Average windspeed (m/s) 0 % control Total PM10 emissions for FY2011 (kg/yr) 874,035 1,627, Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx C-2 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

56 PM 2.5 ACTIVITY PM2.5 emission for FY PM2.5 emission for FY 2011 (kg/y) 2011 (kg/y) No Control Intensity Units Emission Factor Units Variable 1 Units Variable 2 Units Variable 3 Units Variable 4 Units Variable 5 Units % control Units Control Type SOUTH PIT OB - Drilling South Pit holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting South Pit blasts/y 9 kg/blast Area of blast in square metres 1036 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from South Pit OB to trucks ,798 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from South Pit to emplacement 373 1, ,798 t/y kg/t 170 t/load 233 Mean operating weight (t) 5.1 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB South Pit to Emplacement ,798 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - South Pit h/y 1.76 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10.0 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (South Pit) h/y 0.43 kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from South Pit to trucks (including rehandle) ,712 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from South Pit to ROM stockpile 314 1, ,712 t/y kg/t t/load 251 Mean operating weight (t) 9.30 km/return trip 0.08 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading South Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile ,074 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading South Pit ROM coal directly to hopper ,638 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading South Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper ,074 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads South Pit ,155 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 269 grader hours 50 % control Watering SOUTH WEST PIT OB - Drilling South West Pit holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting South West Pit blasts/y 5 kg/blast 8000 Area of blast in square metres 321 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from South West Pit OB to trucks ,103,207 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from South West Pit to emplacement 1,623 6,493 6,103,207 t/y 0 kg/t 171 t/load 232 Mean operating weight (t) 2.3 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB South West Pit to Emplacement ,103,207 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - South West Pit 8,488 8,488 4,831 h/y 1.76 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (South West Pit) h/y 0.43 kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from South West Pit to trucks (including rehandle) ,136 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from South West Pit to ROM stockpile 561 2, ,136 t/y kg/t 123 t/load 256 Mean operating weight (t) 7 km/return trip 0.08 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading South West Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile ,971 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading South West Pit ROM coal directly to hopper ,164 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading South West Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper ,971 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads South West Pit ,615 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 1,952 grader hours 50 % control Watering NOC OB - Drilling NOC holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting NOC blasts/y 5 kg/blast 8000 Area of blast in square metres 306 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from NOC OB to trucks 1,169 1,169 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from NOC to emplacement 3,576 14,303 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 157 t/load 171 Mean operating weight (t) 3.5 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB NOC to Emplacement 1,169 1,169 9,325,051 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - NOC 12,442 12,442 7,080 h/y 1.76 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (NOC) h/y 0.53 kg/h 6 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from NOC to trucks (including rehandle) ,311 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from NOC to ROM stockpile 714 2, ,311 t/y kg/t t/load 191 Mean operating weight (t) 8.6 km/return trip 0.07 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading NOC ROM coal to ROM Stockpile ,512 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading NOC ROM coal directly to hopper ,799 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading NOC ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper ,512 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads NOC ,427 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 2,803 grader hours 50 % control Watering WEST PIT Topsoil Removal - Scrapers stripping topsoil West Pit 4,596 4, ,634 t/y 0.01 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 silt content in % Topsoil removal - Scrapers loading topsoil (West Pit) ,634 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s Topsoil removal - Scrapers hauling topsoil from West Pit to topsoil stockpile 3,300 3, ,634 t/y kg/t 15 t/load 54 Mean operating weight (t) 1.2 km/return trip 0.07 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 Topsoil removal - Emplacing topsoil from West Pit at topsoil stockpile ,634 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Drilling West Pit holes/y kg/hole 70 % control Water sprays OB - Blasting West Pit blasts/y 7 kg/blast Area of blast in square metres 303 holes/blast OB - Sh/Ex/FELs loading from West Pit OB to trucks 2,235 2,235 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Hauling OB from West Pit to emplacement 13,343 53,373 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 141 t/load 247 Mean operating weight (t) 5.2 km/return trip kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 OB - Emplacing OB West Pit to Emplacement 2,235 2,235 17,832,103 t/y kg/t 2 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s OB - Dozers on OB - West Pit 23,535 23,535 13,393 h/y 1.76 kg/h 2 moisture content in % 10 % silt content CL - Dozers ripping/pushing/clean-up (West Pit) h/y 0.43 kg/h 7 moisture content of coal in % 5 silt content in % CL - Loading ROM coal from West Pit to trucks (including rehandle) ,007 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from West Pit to ROM stockpile 1,477 5, ,007 t/y 0.01 kg/t 114 t/load 260 Mean operating weight (t) 12.5 km/return trip 0.08 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading West Pit ROM coal to ROM Stockpile - - t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays CL - Unloading West Pit ROM coal directly to hopper ,315 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water CL - Loading West Pit ROM coal from ROM stockpile to hopper ,812 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % 50 % control Water sprays Grading roads West Pit ,606 km kg/km 8 speed of graders in km/h 5,201 grader hours 50 % control Watering UNDERGROUND CL - Loading ROM coal from UNDERGROUND to trucks (including rehandle) 32,149 32, ,157 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % CL - Hauling ROM coal from UNDERGROUND to ROM stockpile 750 2, ,157 t/y kg/t t/load 202 Mean operating weight (t) 6.5 km/return trip 0.07 kg/vkt 2.6 % silt content 75 % control Watering Level 2 CL - Unloading UNDERGROUND ROM coal directly to hopper 4,822 32, ,157 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % 85 % control Three sides/roof/water Conveying CL - Conveying Transfer from ROM bin to RC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from RC7 to Surge Bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Surge Bin to RC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from RC9 to CHPP ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to DC2 Reject Conveyor ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from DC2 Reject Conveyor to Reject Bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 7 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to CC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CHPP to SC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from CC1 to Transfer Tower ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from SC1 to Transfer Tower ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Transfer Tower to CC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from Transfer Tower to SC ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 % control Enclosed CL - Conveying Transfer from TL2 to Train load out bin ,645,323 t/y kg/t 9 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s 70 #REF! Enclosed WE - Conyeying from ROM pad to Train load out bin 3,589 7, ha 2.7 kg/ha/h 8760 h/y Average windspeed (m/s) 50 % Control Water Sprays CHPP CHPP - Crushing ROM coal - - 2,645,323 t/y - kg/t - % Control CHPP - Unloading product coal to product stockpile ,290,000 t/y kg/t 6 moisture content in % average of (wind speed/2.2)^1.3 in m/s - % Control Wind erosion on active mining areas (Open Cut) 5,768 5, ha kg/ha/hr 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (Open Cut) 13,061 13, ha kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on active mining areas (North Open Cut) 4,481 4, ha kg/ha/hr 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (North Open Cut) 4,763 4, ha kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on dumps areas (Underground) 3,758 3, ha kg/ha/h 8760 h/y % control Wind erosion on ROM and product stockpiles (inc;udes maintenance) 23,596 23, ha kg/ha/h 8760 h/y Average windspeed (m/s) 0 % control Total PM2.5 emissions for FY2011 (kg/yr) 186, , Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx C-3 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

57 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628 Appendix D: Threshold Friction Velocity Sampling

58 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx D-1 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

59 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx D-2 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

60 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx D-3 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

61 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx D-4 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

62 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628 Appendix E: Haul road silt sampling

63 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx E-1 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

64 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx E-2 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

65 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628 Appendix F: Coal Moisture Sampling

66 Sampling undertaken by Bureau Veritas, 2012 in accordance with Australian Standards AS4264.1, AS and AS Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx F-1 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628

67 6628 Integra PRP FINAL PUBLIC.docx F-2 Integra PRP PAEHolmes Job 6628