Senior executives of Centennial Coal sat alongside conservationists on Monday, May 8, as the Land and Environment Court in Sydney was told how a series of negligent actions at the company's Clarence Colliery led to more than one hundred tonnes of coal fines escaping into a river of the Blue Mountains National Park near Lithgow.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
"Given the sensitivity of the Blue Mountains National Park and the sheer scale of the incident, the EPA chose to bring the most serious charge against Clarence Colliery,” Environment Protection Authority CEO Barry Buffier said.
The EPA, who had issued an Environmental Protection License for the mine, are pursuing the maximum penalty for the incident, amounting to $2 million.
The packed-out court, featuring a public gallery of mining executives and conservationists, heard how a holding cell that was already full, apart from an excavated hole, was mismanaged to the extent that it overflowed.
Over 2000 tonnes of coal fine slurry and chitter (coal reject) pumped from the Clarence washery overflowed from the REA3 holding cell, causing an outer wall of the holding cell to slump. An unknown amount of coal fines from the overflow escaped into the Wollangambe River located down hill from the cell.
The river runs into the Blue Mountains National Park, a World Heritage Area, and was impacted for a length of 10.3 km.
The EPA's barrister, Stephen Rushton SC, said that due to systemic failures the overflow was a “disaster waiting to happen”.
“This is not merely a very serious offence,” Mr Rushton said.
“The defendant should have known they would have to be absolutely vigilant to avoid an accident affecting an area of environmental significance.”
Clarence Colliery, owned by parent company Centennial Coal, pleaded guilty to two charges laid by the Environmental Protection Authority and the Environment and Heritage Office in regards to the incident. The EPA prosecuted Clarence with a Tier 1 (the most serious) offence that involves proving the defendant negligently caused a substance to escape in a manner that harms or is likely to harm the environment.
The defendant agreed it had been negligent in several capacities, including that it had failed to give adequate instructions to contractors operating the slurry pump, failed to install lights at the holding cell to allow contractors to check the levels of material at night, failed to build the inner wall of the cell to a level height to adequately to contain an overflow, failed to provide contractors with appropriate training and that contractors failed to inspect the holding cell at critical times before the incident occurred.
"The companies come before the court accepting its negligence in relation to this incident," Clarence Colliery Barrister Tom Howard SC said.
The court also heard the pump and the holding cell had no measuring tools installed so judgement of how full the cell was was made by visual estimation and intuition.
However, Mr Howard went on to protest the incident could not be considered the highest level of seriousness in terms of environmental harm. He said the defendant’s negligence was largely caused by a “confluence of human mistakes” rather systemic failure.
“There is nothing particularly unusual about discharge from a mine site into the environment,” Mr Howard said.
“There are Tier 2 cases where more serious chemicals have been discharged into the environment.”
Before the hearing was concluded Clarence’s representative proposed a reduction in fines of up to 35 per cent for pleading guilty at the first opportunity and facilitating the prosecution’s investigation.
The judgement determining fines and orders for Clarence Colliery is expected to be handed down within a month.