LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND REGISTRY: Brisbane NUMBER: EPA495-15 MRA496-15 MRA497-15 Applicant: New Acland Coal Pty Ltd ACN 081 022 380 AND Respondents: Frank Ashman & Ors AND Statutory Party: Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE TO THE LAND COURT BY DUNCAN IRVINE AND ANDREW DURICK 1. Expert details and qualifications 1.1 Name (a) This statement of evidence is prepared by Duncan Irvine and Andrew Durick. (b) The experts are referred to throughout this statement by their initials - DI and AD. 1.2 Address (a) Our business address is Level 2, 15 Mallon Street, Bowen Hills Qld, Australia 4006. 1.3 Qualifications (a) Nominally, DI addresses the topics of groundwater conceptualisation while AD addresses groundwater modelling. However, there is some overlap between the issues, and as such opinions from both experts are expressed for some of the issues. (b) The qualifications for each expert are provided below: (i) Duncan Irvine: BSc (Rhodes University, South Africa). (ii) Andrew Durick: MAppSc (Maths), Queensland University of Technology, BEng (Environmental Engineering) (Hons), Griffith University. 1 (c) Annexure A to this statement is a copy of the curriculum vitae for each expert. 2. Instructions 2.1 We have been instructed by Clayton Utz on behalf of New Acland Coal Pty Ltd (NAC) to prepare a statement of evidence to the Land Court in relation to the objections lodged in opposition to NAC's New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Expansion project (the Project). 2.2 A copy of our letter of instructions from Clayton Utz dated 17 February 2016 is Annexure B to this statement. 2.3 In summary, our instructions are to prepare a statement of evidence to the Land Court addressing: (a) pursuant to order 24 of the Land Court orders dated 9 November 2015 (as amended on 8 February 2016), points of disagreement identified in the joint expert reports undertaken by us with Matthew Currell and Adrian Werner (the JER); and (b) pursuant to order 23 of the Land Court orders dated 9 November 2015 (as amended on 8 February 2016), objections lodged, and evidence provided, in opposition to the Project where there is no expert in that field of expertise nominated by the relevant objectors. 3. Facts and Assumptions 3.1 In producing this statement, we have relied on the following facts and assumptions: (a) This report has been prepared to assist the Land Court for the purpose of providing expert assessment and advice to the Court on the groundwater issues in relation to the Project that is located within Mining Lease Application (MLA) 50232 and MLA 700002. The MLAs are located immediately south of the current New Acland Coal Mine operated on ML50170 and ML50216. (b) We have used the following methodologies to assist in preparing this report: (i) We conducted an initial peer review of the EIS and AEIS documents. (ii) AD conducted a review of groundwater model files. (iii) We conducted a site visit on 2nd November 2015 to familiarise ourselves with the current mine operations and groundwater management of these operations. 2 (iv) We reviewed New Acland Mine fault mapping provided by the New Hope Group. (v) We reviewed New Acland Mine groundwater monitoring water level data provided by the New Hope Group. (vi) We have reviewed the objections made to the MLAs and related amendment to the environmental authority (EA Amendment Application). 3.2 The following documents and data have been relied upon in making an assessment of the Project: (a) AEIS Appendix D Commitments Register, New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project AEIS, New Hope Group, August 2014. (b) AEIS Appendix F, IESC Report – Groundwater Modelling Technical Addendum, New Acland Coal, New Acland revised Stage 3 Project AEIS, 13 August 2014. (c) AEIS Appendix N, IESC Submission Response, New Acland Stage 3 Project, New Hope Group, August 2014. (d) Barnett et al, 2012, Australian groundwater modelling guidelines, Waterlines report, National Water Commission, Canberra. (e) Draft environmental authority EPML00335713 – New Acland Coal Mine, 28 August 2015. (f) EIS Chapter 6, Groundwater Resources, New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 - Environmental Impact Statement, New Hope Group, January 2014. (g) EIS Appendix G.4, Groundwater, G.4.1, Stage 3 Aquifer Testing Report (July 2009). (h) EIS Appendix G.4.3, WSAA Water Quality Monitoring Report, Establishment of Groundwater Quality Background Limits (2012), New Acland Coal Pty Ltd, December 2012. (i) EMOS: New Acland Coal Mine, Environmental Management Overview Strategy, Mining Lease 50170, report prepared by Ison Environmental Planners for New Acland Coal Pty Ltd, June 2001. (j) IESC 2015-073: New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 (EPBC 2007/3423) – Expansion, Final New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Advice, 10 December 2015. 3 (k) OGIA, Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area, report prepared by the Queensland Water Commission, 18 July 2012. (l) New Acland Coal Mine Stage 2 Expansion Project Environmental Impact Statement, report prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz (now Jacobs) for New Hope Coal Australia, January 2006. (m) New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 project, Coordinator-General’s evaluation report on the environmental impact statement, December 2014. (n) Response to Information Request from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project, New Hope Group, June 2015. (o) Appendix A – Revised Environmental Management Plan, Response to Information Request from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project, New Hope Group, June 2015. (p) Appendix C – GMIMP, Response to Information Request from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project, New Hope Group, June 2015. (q) SKM, New Acland Coal Mine – Groundwater Modelling Report – Calibration to Observed Drawdown Responses, August 2013. (r) SLR, New Acland Stage 3 Project Bore Baseline Assessment Program, report number 620.11279.0001 prepared for New Hope Group, 3 December 2015. (s) Statement of Evidence of Dr Andrew Daniels dated 7 February 2016 and filed in these proceedings on 19 February 2016. 4. Structure of statement 4.1 In accordance with our instructions summarised in paragraph 2.3 above, our evidence comprises the following two parts: (a) Part A addresses the issues of disagreement recorded in the JER; and (b) Part B addresses certain matters relevant to our field of expertise that have been raised in the objections to the MLAs and EA Amendment Application, and the lay-witness evidence filed, in these proceedings. 4 5. Opinions and findings Part A - Opinion and findings on points of disagreement in the JER 5.1 In the JER, because in relation to the same issues, we dealt with matters of agreement first and then dealt with matters of disagreement second (in most cases some 20 pages later), it is difficult to see in one place the points of agreement and disagreement on the same issue. Accordingly, we have created the table in Annexure C to this statement which clearly outlines the matters of agreement and disagreement (by simply copying and pasting the text of the JER) for each issue and then also includes our further statements in relation to the areas of disagreement. 5.2 From the joint expert meetings and JER, it is clear that the opposing experts have identified many issues that relate to alleged poor drafting of the groundwater report. AD and DI agree that the report could have been drafted better and this was an issue identified in the peer review conducted by AD in June 20141. The experts have largely found agreement on this issue2. In AD and DI's view, the objectors' experts appear to be putting greater emphasis on the drafting rather than the substance and AD and DI consider that such criticisms do not change the appropriateness of the model development, calibration and the assessment of the impacts on groundwater for the Project. 5.3 Accordingly, in relation to the substantive matters, being the adequacy of the following: (a) the conceptualisation of the hydrogeology; (b) the assessment of existing and potential water quality impacts; (c) the proposed monitoring program; and (d) the model, although there was some agreement on these matters, Annexure C indicates that there were also many fundamental differences of opinion. 5.4 AD refers above to the peer review that was undertaken in relation to the groundwater impacts for the project and AD and DI consider that it is appropriate to provide more detail in relation to that review. The peer review was undertaken in accordance with the Australian groundwater modelling guidelines3. This document details guidelines for 1 Appendix C of Appendix N of the AEIS (being Document ID: EHP.0111, pp 229-251). 2 See paragraphs 2.1, 2.3, 2.7, 2.54 and 2.55 of the JER. 3 Barnett et al., 2012, Australian groundwater modelling guidelines, Waterlines report, National Water Commission, Canberra. 5 appropriate methodologies and approaches to design, construction, calibration, prediction, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis during the model development phase, and appropriate ways to assess models for reliability and “fitness for purpose”. A checklist is provided in the guidelines that is used by modellers during construction and by reviewers as a means of determining if the modelling has been undertaken appropriately. From the peer review, AD concluded that the model was assessed to be “fit for purpose” for meeting the project objectives, those being to provide information on the extent of impact and the potential inflow of groundwater to the mine pits. 5.5 As mentioned above, AD has utilised the Australian modelling guidelines in the peer review to assess the model. The guidelines provide a methodology for assessing to what level a model needs to be developed to be considered appropriate for various uses.