(PAPER) Design Philosophy Statement - Freshwater and Recycle Dams - Escarpment Mine Project PDF

November 2010
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT
Freshwater and Recycle Dams

- Escarpment Mine Project
REPORT
Submitted to:
Bathurst Resources Ltd
Report Number.
1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
Distribution:
Bathurst - Les McCracken
FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

STATEMENTS
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2
Scope of Document ................................................................................................................................. 1
POTENTIAL IMPACT CLASSIFICATION............................................................................................................. 2

2.1
New Zealand Society of Large Dams Potential Impact Category ............................................................... 2
2.2
Potential Incremental Consequences of Failure ........................................................................................ 3
2.2.1
Effects on stream flow ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2.2
Risk to structures ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.3
Risk to human life .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.4
Socio-economic, financial & environmental risk ................................................................................... 5
2.3
3.0
DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1
General Design Requirements ................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1
Inflow design flood ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.2
Seismic design criteria ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.2
4.0
PIC classification ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Hydraulic Design of Dams ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1
Design floods..................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2
Embankment freeboard...................................................................................................................... 8
EMBANKMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 9

4.1
Site Geology ........................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2
Foundation Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1
Embankment shoulder ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1
Liner and core/filter .......................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1
Cutoff trench .................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3
4.3.1
Embankment Cross Section .................................................................................................................. 10

Dam type......................................................................................................................................... 10
4.4
Available Construction Materials ............................................................................................................ 11
4.5
Embankment Construction .................................................................................................................... 12
4.5.1
Core (Zone 3A) ................................................................................................................................ 12
4.5.2
Drainage fingers (Zone 2B) ............................................................................................................ 12
4.5.3
Shoulder (Zone 3) material ............................................................................................................... 12
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
4.5.4
Liner filter (Zone 2A) ........................................................................................................................ 12
4.5.5
Rip rap (Zone 4) .............................................................................................................................. 13
4.5.6
Embankment crest and laydown construction ................................................................................... 13
4.6
5.0
SPILLWAY DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 13

5.1
6.0
7.0
Access for Machinery ............................................................................................................................ 13
Spillway Design..................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1.1
Design criteria ................................................................................................................................. 13
5.1.2
Design............................................................................................................................................. 14
5.1.3
Reservoir drawdown arrangement .................................................................................................... 14
5.1.4
Temporary stream diversion arrangements ....................................................................................... 14
DAM OPERATION AND REHABILITATION ...................................................................................................... 15

6.1
Dam Operation...................................................................................................................................... 15
6.2
Proposed Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................................ 15
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 16
TABLES
Table 1: Preliminary dimensions of the Recycle and Freshwater dams. .......................................................................... 2
Table 2: Potential Impact Categories for dams in terms of failure consequences (NZSOLD, 2000). ................................. 2
Table 3: Modelled flood levels and channel velocities - Freshwater Dam sunny day failure (Golder, 2010). ...................... 3
Table 4: Modelled flood levels and channel velocities Recycle pond sunny day failure (Golder, 2010)........................... 3
Table 5: Preliminary seismic design loads. .................................................................................................................... 8
Table 6: Estimated dam peak inflows #. ......................................................................................................................... 8
Table 7: Spillway design criteria. ................................................................................................................................. 14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Report Limitations
APPENDIX B
Freshwater and Recycle Dam Concept Drawings
APPENDIX C
Dam Break Analysis
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
ii

STATEMENTS
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Bathurst has entered into an agreement with L&M Mining Ltd (L&M) to purchase and develop a mining lease
covering the Escarpment Mine Project (EMP) part of the Buller Coalfield on the Denniston Plateau, New
Zealand. Bathurst and L&M are proposing to consent and develop the EMP, with the proposed mine area
covering 148 hectares. The bulk of the mining operations will be carried out within the current Mining
Permits, and concessions will be sought to establish roads and pipelines within Department of Conservation
lands.
The EMP area is estimated to contain approximately 6.1 million tonnes of recoverable coal. It is proposed to
extract up to 1.5 million tonnes per year and according to projections the life of the mine is estimated to be
just over five years.
Bathurst and L&M have applied to the West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council for several
consents to construct and operate the EMP mine. During the consenting process, Bathurst has been
required to provide some additional information to the councils, specifically to address the design of the
recycle pond (20,000 m3) and freshwater pond (152,000 m 3), which this document addresses.
The EMP will require the construction of two dams to form each pond. The recycle pond is required to
recover and recycle water from the coal processing plant (CPP). While the freshwater pond is a buffer pond,
temporarily storing the water extracted from the Waimangaroa River, before being used in the CPP (as
makeup water) to transport the coal slurry from the plateau to the dewatering and stockpile facility, or to
augment the river flows in the Whareatea River. The EMP is proposing to replace the catchment water that is
intercepted by the mining operation and mitigate any potential effects on the downstream Kawatiri Energy
Power Scheme.
1.2
Scope of Document
This Design Philosophy Statement has been prepared to summarise the basis for the design of the recycle
and freshwater dams.
Several dam cross-sectional design options have been considered. Both dams will be upstream lined earth
and rockfill structures. There are many examples nationally and around the world of lined earth and rockfill
embankment dams that have been successfully designed, constructed and operated.
As noted above, the primary purpose of the dams is to retain water for mining purposes. The Freshwater
Dam will store treated freshwater from the Waimangaroa River. Storage is required to accommodate the
variable flow in the Waimangaroa River and therefore buffer abstraction rates. A clean water supply is
required to primarily transport the processed coal within a slurry line from the CPP to the dewatering and
stockpile facility. Secondary purposes include, (1) the supply of makeup water for the CPP operation, and
(2) augment the river flows in the Whareatea River for the Kawatiri Energy Power Scheme.
The Recycle Dam will store the recirculation plant water as well as act as a stormwater detention basin for
the CPP, ROM and general workshop area.
Coal slurry and process water will be pumped from the Freshwater and Recycle Dams respectively, the
design of these pump stations is outside the scope of this document. The duty, configuration and operational
control philosophy will be developed during the detailed design phase.
The Freshwater and Recycle Dams have a nominal operating life of 35 years, following which then will be
backfilled and landscaped and any stormwater inflows redirected to a stable channel. It may be possible that
the operation life of the Freshwater Dam could be extended if an alternative application for the storage of
water could be identified (e.g. power generation, potable water etc.).
The approximate physical dimensions of the proposed dams are summarised in Table 1. The location of the
dams and typical cross sections are shown in Appendix B.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
Table 1: Preliminary dimensions of the Recycle and Freshwater dams.

Dimension
Maximum height (m)
Fill volume (m3)
Crest level (mRL)
Freshwater Dam
Recycle Dam
18
73,100
672
14
TBA
655
Spill sill level (mRL)

670.5
3
Water storage volume (m ) (reservoirs at spillway sill
152,000
level)
Normal water storage volume
152,000 (670 mRL)
*
3
3
Notes: 10,000 m active storage volume + 15,000 m flood storage (Envirolink, 2010)
654
25,000 *
10,000
During the detailed design phase, a Dam Design Report, construction issue drawings, and technical
specifications will be produced based on the concepts outlined in this document.
2.0
POTENTIAL IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
The likelihood of failure of a properly engineered and constructed dam is extremely low. However, the New
Zealand Society of Large Dams (NZSOLD) Dam Safety Guidelines (NZSOLD, 2000) require dams to be
ranked in terms of the severity of downstream effects (potential impact) in the unlikely event of a dam failure.
As summarised below, the dams have been subject to a qualitative dam break assessment to determine
their Potential Impact Category (PIC).
2.1
New Zealand Society of Large Dams Potential Impact Category
NZSOLD (2000) provides broad guidelines for assessing the PIC of new dams, as reproduced in summary
Table 2 below.
Table 2: Potential Impact Categories for dams in terms of failure consequences (NZSOLD, 2000).
Potential incremental consequences of failure
Potential Impact Category
Life
High
Medium
Low
Fatalities
A few fatalities are possible
No fatalities expected
Very-low
No fatalities
Socio-economic, Financial and

Environmental
Catastrophic damages
Major damages
Moderate damages
Minimal damages beyond owners
boundary
The NZSOLD New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines (NZSOLD, 2000) suggest that the dam height and
reservoir volume parameters are useful for an initial screening of PIC, yet should not necessarily control the
PIC designation. They suggest that low PIC dams are likely to have dam heights less than 10 m, medium
PIC dams are likely to have dam heights in the order of 10 20 m, but not exceeding 15 m if the stored
volume of water exceeds 1,000,000 m3. If the dam height and storage exceeds those for medium category,
then the dam classification is probably a high PIC.
3
Both dams are in the order of 10 20 m high and will store about less than 1,000,000 m .
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
2.2
Potential Incremental Consequences of Failure
A qualitative preliminary dam break analysis was performed by Golder (2010) for both the Freshwater Dam
and Recycle Dam (Appendix C). The analysis assessed the potential incremental consequences of failure of
both dams during a sunny day failure scenario. The analysis was undertaken using a hydraulic model
based on the HEC-RES modelling system. Parameters describing the breach formation time and breach
geometry were obtained from a literature review and conservative values adopted. As Bathurst are
proposing to use the Recycle Dam crest as a plant laydown and car parking area. As the crest width is
considerable longer than typical, a longer breach formation time and narrower breach width were adopted.
The dam break analysis predicted the following flood level and channel velocities for a sunny day failure of
the Freshwater Dam (Table 3) and Recycle Dam (Table 4).
Table 3: Modelled flood levels and channel velocities - Freshwater Dam sunny day failure (Golder,
2010).
Location
Channel
velocity (m/s)
Flood
(mRL)
level
SH 67 road bridge
Upstream
1.9
11.74 *
Downstream
4.4
10.54 *
Westport Ngakawau Railway Bridge
Upstream
0.5
2.81
Downstream
0.5
2.78
Notes: * denotes overtopping of the bridge.
#
Minimum
channel
elevation
(mRL) (est.)
Bridge soffit
(mRL) (est.)
Surface level
road/track
(mRL) (est.)
7.80
7.80
9.50
9.50
10.00
10.00
-0.20 #
#
-0.25
5.50
5.50
6.00
6.00
a negative reduced level denotes minimum channel elevation below datum adopted in the analysis
Table 4: Modelled flood levels and channel velocities Recycle pond sunny day failure (Golder,
2010).
Location
Channel
velocity (m/s)
Flood
(mRL)
level
Minimum
channel
elevation
(mRL) (est.)
Bridge soffit
(mRL) (est.)
Surface level
road/track
(mRL) (est.)
7.80
7.80
9.50
9.50
10.00
10.00
-0.20 #
#
-0.25
5.50
5.50
6.00
6.00
SH 67 Road Bridge
Upstream
1.4
9.58
Downstream
1.7
9.34
Westport Ngakawau Railway Bridge
Upstream
0.4
2.24
Downstream
0.4
2.22
#
Notes: denotes wave impinges on bridge deck.
#
a negative reduced level denotes minimum channel elevation below datum adopted in the analysis
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
2.2.1
Effects on stream flow
A dam break will result in an uncontrolled release to the Whareatea River of rapidly increasing flow, heavily
entrained with sediment. Because simultaneous and instantaneous failure of both dams is considered highly
unlikely, a simultaneous failure has not been specifically calculated.
Golder (2010) has determined that the dam break flows would be generally be confined to the Whareatea
River both within the plateau river system and on the lower terrace and flats of the Fairdown area, during a
sunny day (normal weather condition) failure scenario.
2.2.2
Risk to structures
A failure of the Freshwater Dam, whilst it will result in complete or partial destruction of the dam, should not
result in additional damage to the mining infrastructure due to the location of the mining infrastructure being
located upstream of the dam. However failure of the Recycle Dam could result in the loss/damage of one or
more of the following infrastructure items, due to their location being on the crest of this dam:
Workshop buildings
Laydown area
Heavy equipment parking and any equipment in the park
Office, ablution and amenities complex
Staff car park and vehicles
Sewage treatment system
Employee car park and vehicles
The Kawatiri Energy Power Scheme is proposing to construct an intake weir in the Whareatea River, at
approximately 5376605 mE, 1497412 mN. It is highly likely that a dam break wave from either the
Freshwater or Recycle Dam will damage and/or compromise the operation of the intake weir.
Golders dam break analysis (2010) indicates that the bridge on SH 67 across the Whareatea River is
subject to overtopping in the simulation of the breach of the Freshwater Dam. The wave is estimated to
arrive at the bridge 17 minutes after dam-break with the water level rising from the creek bed to maximum
level in 2 minutes. The modelled flood depth and velocity suggests that the flood wave may be a hazard to
bridge. Whilst further investigations are required, it is likely that the flood wave will wash away the bridge
and/or its embankments.
2.2.3
Risk to human life
It is not expected that mine staff will normally operate in the vicinity of the Freshwater Dam crest or
downstream of the dam. However breaching of the Recycle Dam, with significant mining infrastructure
located on the crest of the dam, presents a hazard to between 10-100 people operating within the vicinity of
the dam crest. Due to the breach timing and width, 15 minutes and 15 m respectively, it is expected that the
signs of the dams distress will be evident as the failure develops allowing time for evacuation.
Consequently it is estimated that less than 2 lives could be lost.
Persons using the Whareatea River system would be at risk in the event of a flood wave. As outlined in the
EMP AEE (L&M Coal, 2010) tourism, mountain biking, tramping and four wheel driving is focused to the
north of the EMP project and does not appear to extend down into the Whareatea River system. As a
consequence the probability that someone will be present in the river system during the flood wave is low.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
The flats of the Fairdown area in the vicinity of the SH 67 Road Bridge across the Whareatea River will be
inundated. Currently no residential properties are located near the Whareatea River, and hence the
probability that someone will be near and at risk of the flood wave is low.
Due to the sudden nature of the predicted flood wave that will result due to failure of the Freshwater Dam,
and that the wave will peak at 1.7 m above the SH 67 Road Bridge deck, it is likely that motorists who
happened to be on the bridge at the time would be at risk.
2.2.4
Socio-economic, financial & environmental risk
The damage of the SH 67 Road Bridge is expected to take more than three months to reinstate, which would
result in major damage and inconvenience to a major public infrastructure component on the upper West
Coast of the South Island of New Zealand. A temporary bridge e.g. Bailey Bridge would need to be installed.
Environmentally, the dam breaks would result in a significant release of stored sediment, in the order of a
few thousand cubic metres, into the Whareatea River. Whilst the implication to aquatic species in the river
has not been assessed, the financial cost to restore the river would be significant and possibly technically
impossible due to the deeply incised nature of the Whareatea River descending from the Denniston Plateau.
The failure of either of the dams will adversely affect the operation of the coal processing plant. Without the
Freshwater dam, the CPP will be unable to continue to process and slurry coal to the dewatering and
stockpile facility at Fairdown. The loss of the recycle pond would temporary halt the CPP and mining
operations due to the lack of support infrastructure (workshops, offices and/or equipment).
Failure of either dam has significant direct financial risks to Bathurst, the socio-economic environmental
effects may also have a financial risk to Bathurst, in terms of either loss of reputation or non-compliance with
environmental standards and possible prosecution by the West Coast Regional Council.
2.3
PIC classification
Specific guidance on assessing the PIC is provided in Dam Safety Scheme Guidance for Regional
Authorities and Owners of Large Dams (DHB, 2008). This document sets out a formalised means to derive
the potential impact classification of a dam. It is based on the population at risk (defined as the number of
people who would experience 0.5m or greater of inundation in the event of a dam breach) and the degree of
damage expected.
3
As summarised in Table 1, both dams are in the order of 10 to 20 m in height and will store 53,000 m and
3
152,000 m of water in the recycle dam and freshwater dam respectively. In terms of NZSOLD (2000) sizevolume screening criteria, the recycle and freshwater dam would be broadly classified as medium PIC
structures. However based on the evaluation outlined above, in the event of a dam failure, then:
A Freshwater dam failure could result in the following:
Although a few fatalities are possible, none are expected.
Socio-economic and environmental consequences are expected to be major due to the damage of the
SH 67 Road Bridge.
Damage beyond the owners property will be significant and may result in the lost of the SH 67 bridge.
Financial consequences may be major in terms of bridge repair costs and loss of mine production.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
A Recycle dam failure could result in the following:
In excess of 10 fatalities if the crest is washed away without warning, but less than 2 fatalities are
expected due to the likelihood that a warning can be given for evacuation.
Socio-economic and environmental consequences are expected to be moderate.
Damage beyond the owners property will be minimal, as the resulting flood wave should be retained
within the Whareatea River banks and should not result in damage to downstream bridges or
embankments.
Financial consequences may be significant due to loss of mine production.
Based on the NZSOLD (2000) potential impact guidelines summarised in Table 2, the Freshwater Dam may
be classified as high, while the Recycle Dam may be classified as a medium-high" PIC structure.
3.0
3.1
DESIGN CRITERIA
General Design Requirements
The NZSOLD Dam Safety Guidelines (2000) addresses the design, construction, and long-term
maintenance and operation of water retaining structures, irrespective of the size or type of dam. These
guidelines are intended to outline general measures to achieve successful design, construction, operation
and maintenance of safe dams that are economically viable and fit for the purpose. These guidelines provide
the industry general guidance on dam engineering, but it is not a prescriptive standard. The 2004 Building
Act introduced specific legislation covering dam safety.
The likelihood of failure of a properly engineered and constructed dam is extremely small. However, as a
means of comparison, both the NZSOLD guidelines and Building Act require dams to be assessed and
classified in terms of their PIC. The potential impact rating for a structure is based on an evaluation of the
potential incremental consequences of failure to human life, and the socioeconomic, financial, and
environmental effects that could result from a potential release of an impounded reservoir. As the level of
downstream impacts (due to a potential dam failure resulting in the uncontrolled release of the reservoir)
increases, so does the potential impact classification. Depending on the level of this classification, guidelines
are provided for different levels of effort required during design, and in the selection of critical design criteria
of the dam, foundations and abutments as listed below:
Be able to safely pass the Inflow Design Flood (IDF).
Be able to withstand the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) without uncontrolled release of the
reservoir.
Be able to withstand the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) with only minor, repairable damage.
Have a sliding factor of safety greater than 1.5 under static loading with steady state seepage and
maximum storage pool.
Have a sliding factor of safety greater than 1.2 under static loading with rapid draw down from
maximum storage pool.
Have a sliding factor of safety greater than 1.3 under static loading at the end of construction and
before reservoir filling.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
Have sufficient freeboard such that the percentage of waves that could overtop the dam would not lead
to dam failure. Sufficient freeboard should also be provided to ensure the dam is not overtopped
subsequent to an earthquake.
3.1.1
Inflow design flood
For a medium PIC dam, the IDF usually has an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of between a
1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 while a high PIC dam, the IDF AEP is usually between 1 in 10,000 and PMF. For
the Freshwater and Recycle Dams, it is intended that the IDF event will have an AEP of 1 in 10,000 and 1 in
7,500 respectively. This decision is supported by the following probabilistic assessment.
Freshwater Dam: If 1 in 10,000 is selected as the AEP for the IDF, then:
Probability of a flood exceeding the IDF in any single year = 0.00010
Probability of no flood exceeding the IDF in any single year = 1 - 0.00010 = 0.99990
If (say) the design life is 35 years, probability of no flood exceeding the IDF in 35 years, equates to the
following:
Probability of 1 or more floods exceeding the IDF in 35 years, equates to the following:
.
This is judged to be acceptable for the Freshwater Dam.
Recycle Dam: If 1 in 7,500 is selected as the AEP for the IDF, then:
Probability of a flood exceeding the IDF in any single year = 0.00013
Probability of no flood exceeding the IDF in any single year = 1 - 0.00013 = 0.99987
If (say) the design life is 35 years, probability of no flood exceeding the IDF in 35 years, equates to the
following:
Probability of 1 or more floods exceeding the IDF in 35 years, equates to the following:
.
This is judged to be acceptable for the Recycle Dam.
3.1.2
Seismic design criteria
The New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines do not give specific design levels of earthquake shaking for dams.
However, they do note that for high PIC dams a site specific seismic risk study should be undertaken. The
NZSOLD (2000) guidelines indicate that Medium and High PIC dams should be designed for two levels of
earthquake. These are the maximum design earthquake (MDE) and the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE).
The MDE is the maximum level of ground motion for which the dam should be designed or analysed. Based
on PIC criteria of the dams, the MDE shall be the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) or 1 in 10,000 AEP.
Bathurst has yet to undertake a site specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of the EMP site. As a
consequence no site specific seismic loadings are currently available for the dams. For the purposes of the
conceptual design only, it is likely that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the MDE and ODE will be
similar to those determined for the Mangatini Dam at Stockton Coal Mine (URS, 2005), as summarised in
Table 5.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
Table 5: Preliminary seismic design loads.

Design seismic load
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)

0.38
1 in 150 year AEP
Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)
0.82
1 in 10,000 year AEP
Note: A site specific seismic hazard assessment is required before detail design.
3.2
Hydraulic Design of Dams
Both dams will require a spillway to pass large flows up to the maximum design flood. It is anticipated that
the spillways will be formed in open channels cut through rock on the abutments to the dams, and allow the
Incremental Damage Flood (IDF) flows to pass safely.
3.2.1
Design floods
The proposed dams will be designed to a 1:10,000 AEP criteria for an IDF. This is consistent with the
maximum IDF criteria for a medium PIC dam classification in which the minimum IDF is usually between
1:1,000 and 1:10,000 AEP (NZSOLD, 2000) and at the minimum end for a high PIC dam, where the IDF
AEP is usually between 1 in 10,000 and PMF.
Table 6: Estimated dam peak inflows #.

Parameter
Catchment Area (Ha)
Peak Inflow (m 3/s)
1:1 AEP
1:10 AEP
1:50 AEP
Freshwater Dam
Recycle Dam
15.3
1.7
2.7
4.4
4.0
0.5
0.7
1.1
1:100 AEP
5.6
1.5
1:1,000 AEP
TBA
TBA
1:10,000 AEP
TBA
TBA
Probable maximum flood (PMF)
16.6
4.5
#
This data from Envirolink (2010) will need to be verified and possibly adjusted for the detailed dam design
phase.
3.2.2
Embankment freeboard
The spillway system for each dam will be designed to ensure the reservoir level during the IDF is at least
0.4 m below the crest of the dam.
The Freshwater Dam will be designed so that the spillway intake sill is at 670.5 mRL, being 1.5 m below the
crest of the dam and 0.5 m above the maximum operating level. If the spillway were designed to pass the
3
PMF of 16.6 m /s, then the spillway breadth will be in the order 8.6 m.
The Recycle Dam will be designed so that the spillway intake sill is at 654.0 mRL, being 1.0 m below the
crest of the dam. A 3.5 m wide spillway, operated at a water level of 655 mRL is able to discharge
3
approximately 5.8 m /s, which is greater than the predicted PMF for this dam.
Design levels for the crest and spillway intake sill for each dam are summarised in Table 1.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
4.0
EMBANKMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The design of the embankments provide for a level of protection appropriate for a high PIC dam against
instability, seepage, erosion and deformation under all normal and potential loading conditions.
4.1
Site Geology
The EMP dams are located on the Denniston Plateau, a gently undulating plateau that generally slopes to
the north and east and is deeply incised by north-east sloping streams.
Basement rocks on the plateau comprise Greenland Group greywacke and argillite of Ordovician age, locally
intruded by porphyritic granites, associated gneiss and younger intrusives of quartz porphyry. During the late
Cretaceous and early Tertiary, these rocks were eroded to form an erosional surface with relief that had a
major influence on coal measure deposition. Basement rocks are extensively exposed where erosion has
removed Tertiary rocks.
Brunner Coal Measures of Mid-Late Eocene age unconformably overlie basement rocks. The measures are
variable in thickness, averaging 40 to 60 m in the west and thickening to more than 270 m near Mt Rochfort.
Thickness variations can be very rapid, as can vertical and lateral changes in lithology. Throughout the Buller
Coalfield, only one major interval contains coal of workable thickness, either resting directly on basement or
on a conglomerate-sandstone succession. The interval comprises carbonaceous mudstones and lenticular
coal seams up to 17m thick which are often split in several directions by sandstones.
Conformably overlying Brunner Coal Measures (BCM) are thick (originally several kilometres) dark coloured,
micaceous, marine siltstones with some sandy layers. Coarse beds exposed along the western edge of the
coalfield are the Torea Breccia Member consisting of closepacked boulders of granite and gneiss. Erosion
has stripped most of the original thickness of soft Kaiata Mudstone from the coalfield.
The Buller Coalfield is preserved as a distorted, eastward-dipping plateau between the Papahaua Overfold in
the west and the Glasgow Fault in the east. The two structures converge to the north. The intervening
structure is complex and largely responsible for the present physiography that exposed coal measures form.
The plateau is cut by faults, and generally slopes to the north. Much of the plateau is underlain by early
Tertiary sediments, with local windows of the underlying Pre-Tertiary rocks exposed by erosion.
There is a good quality geological database available within the mining permit areas. This database includes
good quality geological maps at 1:10,000 scale based on in excess of 50 drill holes and old mine maps.
4.2
Foundation Preparation
The prepared foundation surface will be mapped by an engineering geologist prior to placement of any fill,
and specific defects will be treated as described below. As noted above, finger drains will be provided
beneath the downstream shoulders to drain potential seepage from rock defects exposed during foundation
preparation that are judged to be amenable to foundation seepage.
4.2.1
Embankment shoulder
The entire foundation area will be cleared of all plant matter, organic soils and other unsuitable material (as
assessed by the Engineer). Large projecting knobs of rock, steep bluffs and overhangs will be treated to
ensure no areas are left that could cause differential settlement or the formation of voids within the placed
rockfill. The Engineer will inspect and approve the cleared foundation and any treated areas before
placement of any fill commences.
All prominent open defects or joints in the foundation rock below the upstream shoulder that could present
preferential flow paths will be treated to reduce the potential for foundation seepage. Below the downstream
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
shoulder, open joints and potentially erodible features will have filter material (Zone 2A) and finger drains
(Zone 2B) placed over them to ensure free drainage of any seepage to the downstream toe.
4.2.1
Liner and core/filter
A liner with a low permeability core possibly formed of graded sandstone will likely form the key water
detaining element within the dam body. The liner and core / filter foundation requires special attention and
will be cleaned and prepared thoroughly in order to prevent uncontrolled seepage along the fill-foundation
boundary, or through the underlying jointed rock mass. The strip to be prepared will be marked out by the
dam surveyors. Preparation of this area will include the following measures, where appropriate:
Water or air blasting equipment and hand labour to clean all soil and loose material from the rock
surface.
Geological mapping to document the foundation conditions and identify defects that require treatment.
Dental treatment of any open joints, weathered seams, fault zones or other features that could
adversely impact on future dam performance. This will involve water or air blasting the defects clean,
then back-filling and sealing with slush grout, concrete or compacted select fine soil. In some cases it
may be necessary to shape the rock surface to ensure that protrusions and overhangs are treated,
thereby allowing good compaction of the core materials.
The Engineer will inspect and approve the cleared foundation and each stage of this operation before
placement of any core material commences.
4.2.1
Cutoff trench
Any core material will be placed on a prepared foundation surface of slightly to moderately weathered rock. It
is anticipated that construction of a cutoff trench will be necessary, to provided adequate foundation
treatment and that a good seal is provided between the rock and the liner material.
4.3
Embankment Cross Section
4.3.1
Dam type
Dam options studies (Golder, 2010) considered several dam options to identify the preferred least cost, fit
for purpose, quickest construction option. The following provides a summary of the five dam type options
considered viable for the EMP.
a)
Zoned Earth and Rockfill Dam - constructed of well-compacted earth and rockfill materials that are
placed in distinct zones based on material properties. This could consist of:
Outer shells of free-draining large particle granular material (or rockfill) surrounding a central
low-permeability core flanked by free-draining granular filter and drain zones or
Low permeability zone near the upstream face, protected by upstream filter and rip rap
layers and separated from permeable, free draining granular material downstream by freedraining granular filter and drain zones
The size of the various zones is optimised to reduce cost, while maintaining stability and adequately
controlling seepage.
b)
Upstream Lined Earth and Rockfill Dam with Geomembrane Liner - consists of a rockfill
embankment with a liner typically composed of High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) sheets that are
welded together to form a relatively impermeable barrier on the upstream face. Free-draining granular
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
10

STATEMENTS
filter and drain layers are constructed adjacent below the liner to collect and remove seepage. A
concrete plinth is constructed along the upstream toe of the dam to provide a seal between the
geomembrane and rock foundation.
c)
Upstream Lined Earth and Rockfill Dam with Geocomposite Liner (GCL) - similar to option B,
however, a different type of liner is used. All other aspects including filters, drains, and plinth remain the
same. A GCL is a composite material comprising a layer of low permeability bentonite surrounded by
two layers of non-woven geotextile filter fabric.
d)
Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam (CFRD) - similar to options B and C, however, an impervious concrete
slab or facing element is used instead of a geomembrane or geocomposite liner. All other aspects
including filters, drains, and plinth remain the same. Typically the size of the plinth constructed for a
CFRD is larger to provide additional foundation support.
e)
Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dam - consists of a hybrid concrete dam construction (zero-slump
concrete that is placed and compacted in lifts). RCC dams typically require a large quantity of sound
aggregate for concrete production, and significant foundation excavation to develop a suitable
foundation shape with excellent bearing strength.
Preliminary cost estimates indicated that Option A was relatively the least expensive of the options
considered. However, this type of construction can be quite sensitive to wet weather, and the frequent
rainfall on the Denniston Plateau could force frequent delays in the embankment placement schedule,
lengthen the overall construction timeframe, and potentially increase the construction management costs
associated with dam construction.
Subject to further investigations, there may also be a limited supply of potential low permeability core
material available on the mine site and accessible at the time of dam construction. While RCC or CFRD
dams would be suitable for the proposed dam sites, initial analyses indicate that they would be less cost
effective than options B and C, and incur an additional 30-50% construction cost premium.
Of the five embankment options considered by Golder (2010), the upstream lined earth and rockfill dams
(Option B and C) with a 1:3 upstream slope profile appeared feasible and offer the best balance of the
performance, constructability and cost objectives. Golder recommends that the selection of the liner should
be deferred to the detailed design phase. Possible liner materials could include:
HDPE (high-density polyethylene) or LLDPE (linear low-density polyethylene)
Bentonite geocomposite liner
Geotextile reinforced PVC
Bitumen impregnated geotextile
Due to the high PIC rating of the dams, in addition to the water retaining liner, a secondary level of
protection is proposed. In this case it is possible that the Zone 3a core could be constructed of a BCM
Sandstone. Previous experience on the Stockton Plateau suggests that similar geological units exhibited
low-moderated permeability following working of the sandstone (permeability of between 10-5 10-6 m/s).
Roller Compacted Concrete dams may be considered further during detailed design as while they are more
expensive then Options B and C this construction form offers benefits in a more rapid construction and
robustness to overtopping. Further, overtopping of the crest can be designed as the spillway.
4.4
Available Construction Materials
An extensive evaluation has yet to be undertaken of the potential construction materials available on site.
This evaluation should include the characterising of material properties based on field observations,
laboratory testing and if time allows field trials.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
11

STATEMENTS
Due to the conceptual mine plan, many of the construction materials, for example the weathered granites will
not be made available till Year 3-4 of the mine life. As a consequence some of the earth fill materials may
need to be imported into the mine.
4.5
Embankment Construction
4.5.1
Core (Zone 3A)
The core material placed immediately behind the liner will likely be a compacted graded sandstone derived
material that has all rock size particles greater than 225 mm removed from it to form a low to moderate
-6
-7
permeability material in the order of 10 to 10 m/s.
4.5.2
Drainage fingers (Zone 2B)
Drainage (Zone 2B) material will be placed in fingers or as a blanket beneath the downstream shoulder to
direct seepage flows from the chimney drain into the seepage collection system. Further finger drain(s) will
be positioned and sized on site by the Engineer, following preparation of the foundation. These finger
drain(s) will be positioned in natural depressions on the prepared foundation surface and also over areas of
exposed open defects in the downstream shoulder footprint. Alignment of the drain(s) will be approximately
perpendicular to the embankment axis.
4.5.3
Shoulder (Zone 3) material
The shoulder material will be stripped overburden rock with a maximum dimension of 1.5m. Shoulder
material will be placed in lifts with a maximum thickness of 1.5 m and compacted by suitable plant as agreed
with the Engineer. Regular visual monitoring will be performed by the Engineer to check that adequate
compaction of the shoulder material is being achieved.
The shoulder material requires compaction to develop sufficient shear strength to protect against sliding
instability, limit post construction settlements to acceptable levels, and provide resistance to internal and
surface erosion. Blocks larger than 1.5 m will be pushed to the outside of the fill for use as rip rap. Removal
of large boulders (> 0.5 m) from adjacent to the upstream edge of the filter material (Zone 2A) will be
undertaken to reduce the risk of voids or poor compaction adjacent to these material interfaces.
Placement will commence by filling low points and providing as much compaction to these areas as practical.
Given the expected space restrictions at such low points, compaction with mine trucks will be impractical.
Compaction using a vibrating roller with reduced layer thickness may be required to ensure effective
compaction of the shoulder material in this area. The second stage will involve shoulder material placement
on the downstream part of the footprint until the entire footprint area is essentially level. Shoulder material
will then be placed in regular lifts across the entire footprint area.
Similarly, in other areas where compaction of shoulder (Zone 3) material with mine trucks is impractical,
compaction will be performed using a vibrating roller, with a thinner layer thickness before compaction.
The Zone 3A material will be compacted BCM Sandstone. Working and/or screening of this material to < 225
mm particle size will reduce the particle size of this material and result in a decrease in permeability.
4.5.4
Liner filter (Zone 2A)
The main issues that need to be addressed in construction of the liner filter are:
Grading of the material to ensure it is a cohesionless material with < 2% fines to perform the dual
function of drainage and filtering action to trap any eroded fine material in seepage flows.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
12

STATEMENTS
Ensuring that the filter is constructed as a continuous element with a minimum width of 0.5 m.
Ensuring that the material is not compacted such that it forms a bridge in the event of a crack
developing within the dam.
Preventing segregation of filter material during placement.
Compaction of filter material will be achieved with either one pass of an approved vibratory roller or two
passes with hand held compaction equipment. Visual monitoring will be performed by the Engineer to check
that the filter material has been compacted to an appropriate degree, and also to confirm that the method of
placement of filter material does not result in segregation of that material.
4.5.5
Rip rap (Zone 4)
Water levels in the reservoir are expected to vary during normal operation as the inflow rate varies in
proportion to the decant rate. A layer of rip rap (Zone 4) will be constructed to protect the reservoir face of
the dam against wave erosion.
The rip rap will be formed from boulder sized rock from the Zone 3 (shoulder) material, selectively placed at
the outer edge of the upstream shoulder during placement of Zone 3. The need for a bedding layer will be
determined prior to placing any riprap, and will depend on the grading of the material at the margins of the
upstream embankment slope.
4.5.6
Embankment crest and laydown construction
A requirement for the mine operations is to construct a laydown and workshop facility on the Recycle Dam.
This surface will be prepared in accordance with normal civil engineering practice, with a basecourse/running
course placed once the embankment is complete.
4.6
Access for Machinery
The proposed access routes will be within the CPP Dam area as delineated in Appendix B. In the case of
the Freshwater Dam, the primary access of the dam site will be via a temporary haul road that will connect to
the public
c road and mine road adjacent to the CPP.
5.0
5.1
SPILLWAY DESIGN
Spillway Design
The spillway for the Freshwater and Recycle Dams will be sized to provide at least 0.4 m freeboard below
the dam crest in the event of the IDF. As summarised in Section 3.2.1 the IDF for the Freshwater and
Recycle Dam are still to be determined, however for the purposes of conceptual design the spillway has
been designed to convey the PMF. This may be overly conservative, and a more appropriate AEP may be
ultimately adopted.
5.1.1
Design criteria
Initial calculations indicate that the required spillway channel dimensions at the spillway intake for both dams
are as shown in Table 7. These are based on the Inflow Design Flood (IDF), a water depth of 0.5 m at the
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
13

STATEMENTS
spillway sill and allowance of a 0.4 m freeboard below the dam crest under the ID flood condition for the
Freshwater and Recycle Dam respectively.
Table 7: Spillway design criteria.

Parameter
Design Crest Level (mRL)
Spillway Intake Sill Level (mRL)
IDF (ARI) (m3/s)
PMP (m3/s)
Water Depth at Sill (at IDF) (m)
Required Channel Width at Dam (m)
Freshwater Dam
Recycle Dam
672
670.5
TBA (1:10,000)#
16.6
0.55
8.6
655
654
TBA (1:10,000)#
4.5
0.55
3.5
Hydraulic Coping Capacity (m /s)

15.3
#
To be confirmed during the detailed design phase
5.1.2
5.8
Design
The intention is that the primary spillway channels for both dams will be open channels cut into competent
rock and aligned to be well away from the embankment dams.
The intention is that the primary spillway channel for each dam will be cut deeper into rock as soon as
possible after the spillway intake, to allow a transition to a narrower channel width. This will be clarified as
part of detailed design.
Channel protection requirements to prevent excessive erosion downstream from the spillways will be
determined as part of the final design process.
5.1.3
Reservoir drawdown arrangement
There will not be any specific provision of a low level outlet capable of lowering the water level in the dams in
an emergency. To facilitate rapid water level drawdown in an emergency, a combination of the process
withdrawal pumping and additional pumping or syphoning over the dam crest will be required.
5.1.4
Temporary stream diversion arrangements
The general requirement from NZSOLD (2000) regarding design of temporary diversion arrangements for
during construction is that diversion arrangements should be carefully considered in relation to the risks of
overtopping and the expected consequences of the dam being overtopped at any stage of construction.
This requirement will be considered in the detailed design phase.
It is intended that normal stream flows will be diverted around the dam footprints during construction most
likely utilising a diversion culvert through the dam body. This will be grouted up on completion of the dam
construction to fully seal it and prevent the entry of reservoir water.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
14

STATEMENTS
6.0
6.1
DAM OPERATION AND REHABILITATION

Dam Operation
Once the dams are operating regular inspection and maintenance will be carried out to ensure that the dams
perform to specification. Ongoing embankment monitoring will likely include seepage collection and
recording, piezometer installation and surface settlement monitoring. This will be detailed in the dam
surveillance plan to be developed during the detailed design and construction phases. The surveillance plan
will also detail routine dam safety inspection requirements, personnel responsibilities and procedures for
reacting to unusual observations or events.
6.2
Proposed Rehabilitation
It is currently intended that post-closure the dams will be filled with mine waste rock and capped with
available materials to promote site revegetation. The surface will be built up to enable armoured channels to
be developed to carry runoff across the surface of the capped area and down the spillways. Species tolerant
of the local environmental conditions will be selected and planted on permanent landform slopes, wherever
possible.
The downstream shoulder of the Freshwater Dam will be flattened to a slope of 1V:3H by placing additional
waste rock. Exposed embankment surfaces on both dams will be rehabilitated by placing a soil capping layer
and revegetated with species tolerant of local conditions.
It is intended that inflows to these dams will be directed to the respective the spillway channels, this may
require providing additional spillway capacity depending on the detailed design for these post-closure
landforms, and material consideration to avoid erosion risk along the spillway channel.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
15

STATEMENTS
7.0
REFERENCES
DBH (2008): Dam Safety Scheme: guidance for regional authorities and owners of large dams. Prepared by
Department of Building and Housing.
Envirolink (2010): Escarpment Mine Project: Assessment of Runoff from Catchment within Mine Area. Report
prepared for Resource and Environmental Management Nelson Limited by Envirolink Limited. 8 November
2010.
L&M Coal (2010): Escarpment Mine Project: West Coast Regional Council Resource Consent Application
and Assessment of Environmental Effects on the Environment. Report prepared by Resource and
Environmental Management Nelson Limited for L&M Coal Limited. 31 August 2010.
NZSOLD (2000): New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines. New Zealand Society of Large Dams. November
2000.
URS (2007) Stockton Opencast Mine: TM#2 Seismic Hazard Assessment. Report prepared by URS New
Zealand Limited for Solid Energy New Zealand Limited, March 2007.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
16

STATEMENTS
APPENDIX A
Report Limitations
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
REPORT LIMITATIONS
This Document has been provided by Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd (Golder) subject to the following
limitations:
(i).
This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golders proposal and no
responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any
other purpose.
(ii).
The scope and the period of Golders Services are as described in Golders proposal, and are subject
to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible
conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not
expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume
that any determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.
(iii). Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was
retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between
investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not
been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the
Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.
(iv). In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided
in this Document. Golders opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the
production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no
more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be
used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or
any laws or regulations.
(v).
Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published
sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the
actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.
(vi). Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data,
have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No
responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.
(vii). The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Golder to
provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the
Services and work done by all of its subconsultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will
only assert claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and
not Golders affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges
and agrees it will not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or
cause of action, against Golders affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.
(viii). This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional
advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any
person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on
or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions
based on this Document.
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3

STATEMENTS
APPENDIX B
Freshwater and Recycle Dam Concept Drawings
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright.
Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.
SPILLWAY
FRESHWATER DAM
RECYCLE DAM
SPILLWAY
SOURCE: Bathurst Resources Ltd Escarpment Project. Crown Mineral Permits Relative to Project Infrastructure. Drawn LMcC July 13 2010.
DRAFT
TITLE
ESCARPMENT MINE PROJECT: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE COAL PROCESSING PLANT AND DAMS
NOVEMBER 2010
PROJECT
S:\Graphics\Projects-numbered\2010\10781x\01xxx\1078101_422_BathurstResourcesLtd_EscarpmentDam&AMD\Nov10\Project R
| 1078101422
10
Metres
APPROX. SCALE
UPSTREAM LINED EARTH & ROCKFILL

DAM WITH GEOMEMBRANE LINER
5m
1:3 SLOPE PROFILE

CREST
RL 672.0m (PLUS
LONGITUDINAL CAMBER)
FULL OPERATIONAL
STORAGE LEVEL (FSL)
RL 670.0m
3% CAMBER
3
ZONE 4
(RIP RAP)
ZONE 2A
(FILTER)
2
CONSTRUCTION DIVERSION SLUICE
(INDICATIVE, PROJECTED ONTO SECTION)
(CONTINUOUSLY SUPPORTED WITH
CAST-INSITU CONCRETE)
BULK FILL
LINER
ZONE 3a
ZONE 3b
ZONE 4 (RIP RAP)

(DOWNSTREAM TOE DRAIN)
2m (MIN)
1
RL 654.0m
1.75
2m (MIN)
ZONE 2a FINGER DRAIN
CONCRETE TOE
STRIPPED GROUND PROFILE
(INDICATIVE) (BEDROCK)
Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing
TITLE
ESCARPMENT MINE PROJECT: FRESHWATER DAM EMBANKMENT CONCEPT
NOVEMBER 2010
PROJECT
| 1078101422
10
Metres
APPROX. SCALE
UPSTREAM LINED EARTH & ROCKFILL

DAM WITH GEOMEMBRANE LINER
1:3 SLOPE PROFILE
5m
FULL OPERATIONAL
STORAGE LEVEL (FSL)
RL 654.0m
70m
CREST
RL 655m (PLUS
LONGITUDINAL CAMBER)
3
ZONE 4 (RIP RAP)

ZONE 2A (FILTER)
LINER
ZONE 3a
BULK FILL
CONSTRUCTION DIVERSION SLUICE

(INDICATIVE, PROJECTED ONTO SECTION)
(CONTINUOUSLY SUPPORTED WITH
CAST-INSITU CONCRETE)
ZONE 3b
ZONE 4 (RIP RAP)
(DOWNSTREAM TOE DRAIN)
RL 646.0m
2m
(MIN)
CONCRETE TOE
ZONE 2a FINGER DRAIN
1
1.75
STRIPPED GROUND PROFILE

(INDICATIVE) (BEDROCK)
RL 640.0m
2m (MIN)
Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing
TITLE
ESCARPMENT MINE PROJECT: RECYCLE DAM EMBANKMENT CONCEPT
NOVEMBER 2010
PROJECT
| 1078101422

STATEMENTS
APPENDIX C
Dam Break Analysis
November 2010
Report No. 1078101422-001-R-Rev1-3
12 November 2010
Project No. 107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
Les McCracken
c/- Les McCracken Consulting Ltd
70 Aitken Street
ASHBURTON
PROPOSED MINE DEVELOPMENT AT DENNISTON, NEW ZEALAND

DAM BREAK ANALYSIS FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE PONDS
Dear Les
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Golder Associates (Golder) were engaged to provide a preliminary dam break assessment of the Recycle
and Freshwater Ponds associated with the Escarpment Mine Project area (the EMP). The analysis was
conducted considering sunny day failure, caused by piping of these proposed dams. Failure due to
overtopping with coincident flooding was not considered in this assessment.
2.0
BACKGROUND
The two ponds are located in the Whareatea River catchment, which is located in the centre of the Denniston
Plateau. The plateau is bounded by the Mount William Range to the east, Mount Rochfort to the southwest
and the lowland terraces and flats of the Fairdown area to the west. The Whareatea River flows in a
westerly direction to the sea through a road bridge on Fairdown Road and a railway bridge on the StillwaterWestport line. The location of the proposed dams is shown in Figure 1.
The proposed EMP area covers approximately 148 hectares. It is located on the southern edge of the
Denniston Plateau, and is approximately 13 km to the east of Westport and approximately 4 km to the south
of Denniston. Figure 2 shows a preliminary layout of the EMP.
Within the EMP area, there are a number of creeks and streams flowing into the Whareatea River. The
proposed dams for fresh water pond and recycle water pond are located on two unnamed tributaries
upstream of the Whareatea River as shown in Figure 1. Other tributaries that contribute to the Whareatea
River include S Creek, V40 Stream, Conglomerate Creek and Trent Stream.
The topography of the plateau area is typically gently rolling scrub. The majority of the area has an elevation
of between 600 and 700 m above sea level.
3.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
The two dams proposed within the EMP are described below:
Freshwater Pond
Freshwater Pond is to be located on the western side of the proposed plant area within the EMP (Figure 2).
Proposed crest level is 672 mRL, with a top width of 10 m and embankment length of 180 m. The height of
the embankment (dam wall) is approximately 18 m. The proposed spillway sill level is 670 mRL.
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
124 Pacific Highway, St. Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia (PO Box 1302, Crows Nest NSW 1585)
Tel: +61 2 9478 3900 Fax: +61 2 9478 3901 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
A.B.N. 64 006 107 857
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
12 November 2010
There are two potential construction options for this dam:
Upstream Lined Earth and Rockfill Dam
Rolled Compacted Concrete (RCC)
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the Freshwater Pond will be earth and rockfill dam.
Recycle Pond
Recycle Pond is to be located on the eastern side of the proposed plant area (Figure 2). The dam crest is
very wide at 70 m and the crest is proposed to be used as a laydown area, parking as well as the location of
the workshop. The proposed crest level is 655 mRL, with a top width of 70 m and an embankment length
more than 150 m. The height of the embankment (dam wall) is 14 m. A spillway and diversion channel will
be designed to direct stormwater away from this structure. The elevation of the spillway sill is 654 mRL.
4.0
MODEL SETUP
Hydrologic Engineering Centre River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) models, Version 4.1.0 (United States
Army Corp of Engineers, January 2010), were prepared for the Freshwater Pond and the Recycle Pond.
4.1
Model Data
The datasets upon which the model was constructed included:
2 m topographic contours for the whole Whareatea River catchment (topo_nzam_2_10_m.dwg received
20 October 2010)
Mine Model Layout (Mine Model 28 Sept 2010.dwg received 14 October 2010)
preliminary layout of the mine including location of the Freshwater Pond and Recycle Pond as well
as proposed plant footprint.
1 m topographic contours within the EMP area

5 m topographic contours within the Whareatea River catchment
Updated dam dimensions Freshwater and Recycle Pond (via email 25 October 2010)
Topographic Maps (derived from nztopomaps.com)
Aerial Imagery (derived from Google Earth)
4.2
Model Construction
Model Geometry
Two HEC-RAS models were constructed:
Freshwater Pond
Recycle Pond
Each model consisted of a single reach commencing from above the relevant structure and proceeded
downstream through Fairdown Road Bridge onto the floodplain and through the Stillwater Westport
Railway Bridge to the Pacific Ocean.
Cross-sections for each of the models were derived from the 2 m contour dataset, except in the vicinity of the
EMP area, where the 1 m contour dataset was used wherever available. In the lowland terraces and flats of
the Fairdown area, at the western extent of the model, the topographic definition is very broadscale. The 2
m dataset at this location was interpreted, where required, to derive hydraulically appropriate cross-sections
and the minimum channel elevations were assumed below the tidal limit.
There are two hydraulic structures of interest in this analysis:
2/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
Fairdown Road Bridge
Stillwater Westport Railway Bridge
12 November 2010
Detailed topographic survey of these structures has not been undertaken at this stage. Table 1 presents
geometric details that were adopted in the model.
Table 1: Adopted Hydraulic Structure Details
Description
Stillwater Westport Railway

Bridge
35 m
10.00 mRL
9.50 mRL
1.0 m
30 m
6.00 mRL
5.00 mRL
N/A
Average Opening Width

Top Level of Road or Track
Soffit Level of Bridge
Central Pier Width
Figure 3 presents the layout of the Freshwater Pond model, including the location of primary cross-sections.
Figure 4 presents the layout of the Recycle Pond model. Primary cross-sections in each model were then
interpolated at a 10 m interval within HEC-RAS.
Relevant hydraulic parameters adopted in the HEC-RAS models are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Adopted Model Hydraulic Parameters
Parameter
Freshwater Pond
Recycle Pond
Left Bank Mannings Roughness

Main Channel Mannings Roughness
Right Bank Mannings Roughness
XS Interpolation Interval
US Boundary
DS Boundary
0.09
0.06
0.09
10 m
Full Pond
0 mRL
0.09
0.06
0.09
10 m
Full Pond
0 mRL
Table 3 presents the properties of each of the reservoirs to be included in the model. Breach parameters
adopted for use in the model are presented in the following section.
Table 3: Reservoir Geometric Properties
"Sunny Day" Failure
Reservoir Property
Freshwater Pond
Recycle Pond
18 m
14 m
Dam Crest Level
672 mRL
655 mRL
Spill Sill Level
670 mRL
654 mRL
152,000 m3
53,000 m3
16 m
16 m1
Maximum Dam Height
Water Storage Volume (at spillway level)

Depth of Dam at Time of Failure
1
Depth of dam adjusted in the model such that Water Storage Volume for Recycle Dam was approximately 53,000 m .
Boundary Conditions
A known water surface was used as the downstream boundary condition for each HEC-RAS model. The
assumed level was 0 mRL.
3/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
12 November 2010
At the upstream end, an assumed inflow of 5 m3/s was adopted for each model. An inflow of 5 m3/s was
selected as being sufficient:
to stabilise the model simulation
be insignificant compared to modelled discharges caused by the dambreak flood wave.
The dams were also assumed to be full up to sill level as an initial condition of the model simulation.
Dam Breach Parameters

A literature review was undertaken and relevant empirical equations used to predict breach formation time
and average breach width. The empirical equations presented in Wahl (2004) and Froehlich (2008) were
then processed using geometric data presented in Table 3.
It is noted that breach formation time is defined as the time for the breach to completely form once the
breach has initiated. In the case of piping failure, the breach formation time is not the time taken for the
pipe to form; rather it is the time for the breach to form once the breach has been initiated.
Table 4 presents the predicted value for each of the breach parameters.
Table 4: Dam Breach Parameter Predictions (Wahl, 2004 and Froehlich, 2008)
Average
Breach
Width (m)
95% UCL5
95% LCL5
Breach
Formation
Time (hr)
95% UCL5
95% LCL5
Freshwater Pond
Bureau of Reclamation
(1988)
Von Thun and Gillette
(1990)1
48
22
158
0.53
0.13
14.3
46
17
83
0.24
0.10
9.6
Froelich (1995)2
14.2
5.7
34
0.11
0.04
0.77
MacDonald and LangrigeMonopolis (1984)3
3.2
0.5
22
0.29
0.07
3.2
Froehlich (2008)4
14.4
N/A
N/A
0.12
N/A
N/A
Recycle Pond
Bureau of Reclamation
(1988)
Von Thun and Gillette
(1990)1
39
17.5
128
0.43
0.1
11.6
39
14.3
69
0.24
0.1
9.6
Froelich (1995)2
9.7
3.9
23
0.11
0.03
0.55
MacDonald and LangrigeMonopolis (1984)3
1.4
0.2
9.8
0.20
0.05
2.3
Froehlich (2008)4
8.8
N/A
N/A
0.09
N/A
N/A
3
Dam type assumed to be highly erodible; Failure mechanism assumed to be piping (Ko = 1); Assumed
to be earthfill type; 4 From Froehlich, 2008. All others from Wahl, 2004; 5 95% Upper Confidence Limit, 95%
Lower Confidence Limit.
From Table 4, there is a considerable range in predicted values of the breach parameters. The 95% UCL
and 95% LCL highlight the significant uncertainty inherent in these empirical equations.
For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative approach was therefore adopted wherein the lower end of
the range of values presented in Table 4 were adopted. Table 5 presents the parameters adopted for use in
the model.
4/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
12 November 2010
It is noted that the values adopted for the Recycle Pond reflect the proposed use of the crest as a plant
layout and car parking area. The crest length, in a downstream direction, is therefore considerably longer
than typical and hence longer breaching time would be more suitable.
Table 5: Adopted Breach Parameters

Parameter
Breach Formation Time
Average Breach Width
Final Breach Elevation
Side Slope1
Failure Mode
Piping Orifice Coefficient
Initial Piping Elevation
Breach Progression Mode
Breach Trigger Mode
1
Freshwater Pond
Recycle Pond
10 min
20 m
655.5 mRL
0.7H:1.0V
Piping
0.5 (default)
657 mRL
Linear
Specified Time
15 min
15 m
647.5 mRL
0.7H:1.0V
Piping
0.5 (default)
649 mRL
Linear
Specified Time
Side slope for piping failure of 0.7H:1.0V adopted from Froehlich (2008).
5.0
MODEL RESULTS
The models for the Freshwater Pond and Recycle Pond were then executed based on the parameter values
presented in Section 4.2. Table 6 presents the modelled flood levels (mRL) and channel velocities at
Fairdown Road Bridge and Stillwater Westport Railway Bridge.
It is noted that the reported modelled flood level and modelled average channel velocity were obtained from
Table 6: Modelled Flood Levels and Channel Velocities
Channel
Velocity
(m/s)
Freshwater Pond (CON_FHW_26.hec)
Upstream ~100 m (RS99)1
4.2
Upstream of Structure
1.9
Downstream of Structure
4.4
Downstream ~200 m (RS96)1
2.1
Flood Level
(mRL)
Minimum
Channel
Elevation
(mRL)
Bridge
Soffit
(mRL)
Surface
Level of
Road/Track
(mRL)
12.77
11.74*
10.54*
7.78
9.34
7.80
7.80
5.70
N/A
9.50
9.50
N/A
N/A
10.00
10.00
N/A

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
2.85
2.81
2.78
2.42
-0.20
-0.20
-0.25
-0.40
N/A
5.50
5.50
N/A
N/A
6.00
6.00
N/A
Recycle Pond (CON_RCY_13.hec)

2.5
1.4
1.7
1.4
11.43
9.58*
9.34
6.97
9.34
7.80
7.80
5.70
N/A
9.50
9.50
N/A
N/A
10.00
10.00
N/A

0.7
2.26
-0.20
N/A
N/A
5/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
12 November 2010
Channel
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood Level
(mRL)
Minimum
Channel
Elevation
(mRL)
0.4
2.24
-0.20
0.4
2.22
-0.25
1
Downstream ~400 m (RS91)
0.7
1.84
-0.40
* Road overtopped; 1 RS = River Station. See Figure 3 and Figure 4 for location of RS.
Bridge
Soffit
(mRL)
Surface
Level of
Road/Track
(mRL)
5.50
5.50
N/A
6.00
6.00
N/A
HEC-RAS for the maximum water surface profile. The relevant HEC-RAS simulation filenames are noted in
Table 6 for documentation purposes only.
From Table 6, the modelled flood levels from the Freshwater Pond simulation indicates Fairdown Road is
overtopped to a depth of up to 1.74 m. Model results indicate that the flood level at the Stillwater Westport
Railway Bridge is well below the bridges assumed soffit level, therefore the railway bridge is not overtopped
during modelled dam break.
For the Recycle Pond simulation, Fairdown Road is also overtopped, with modelled depth of up to 0.08 m.
Model results indicate that flood level at the Stillwater Westport Railway Bridge is well below the bridges
assumed soffit level.
Figure 5 presents the modelled maximum water surface extent for the Freshwater Pond simulation. Figure 5
presents the modelled maximum water surface extent for the Recycle Pond simulation.
6.0
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The sensitivity of the model results to the uncertainty in the time for the breach to form was evaluated by
considering longer breach formation times and increased breach dimensions.
6.1
Longer Breach Formation Time
The breach formation time for the Freshwater Pond model was changed from 10 minutes to 20 minutes and
the breach formation time for the Recycle Pond model was set at 30 minutes instead of 15 minutes. Other
parameter values remained the same.
Each HEC-RAS model was then executed and the results extracted. Table 7 presents the modelled flood
levels and channel velocities at the same reporting locations as Table 6.
Table 7: Sensitivity Analysis Longer Breach Formation Time
Flood Level
(mRL)
Minimum
Channel
Elevation
(mRL)
Bridge
Soffit
(mRL)
Surface
Level
Road/Track
(mRL)
Freshwater Dam (CON_FHW_27.hec)

Upstream ~100 m (RS99)
4.1
1.9
4.4
2.1
12.70
11.73
10.52
7.80
9.34
7.80
7.80
5.70
N/A
9.50
9.50
N/A
N/A
10.00
10.00
N/A

2.88
2.85
2.82
2.46
-0.2
-0.2
-0.25
-0.4
N/A
5.50
5.50
N/A
N/A
6.00
6.00
N/A
Channel
Velocity
(m/s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
Recycle Dam (CON_RCY_14.hec)
6/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5

12 November 2010
Channel
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood Level
(mRL)
Minimum
Channel
Elevation
(mRL)
Bridge
Soffit
(mRL)
Surface
Level
Road/Track
(mRL)
2.5
1.4
1.7
1.4
11.38
9.51
9.30
6.96
9.34
7.80
7.80
5.70
N/A
9.50
9.50
N/A
N/A
10.00
10.00
N/A
N/A
5.50
5.50
N/A
N/A
6.00
6.00
N/A

0.7
2.26
-0.2
0.4
2.25
-0.2
0.4
2.23
-0.25
0.7
1.84
-0.4
From Table 7, the modelled flood levels and average channel velocities are essentially the same as those
presented in Table 6.
6.2
Increased Breach Width
The average breach width for the Freshwater Pond model was increased from 20 m to 40 m and the average
breach width for the Recycle Pond was increased to 30 m from 15 m. Other parameter values remained the
same.
Each HEC-RAS model was then executed and the results extracted. Table 8 presents the modelled flood
levels and channel velocities at the same reporting locations as Table 6.
Table 8: Sensitivity Analysis Increased Breach Width
Flood Level
(mRL)
Minimum
Channel
Elevation
(mRL)
Bridge
Soffit
(mRL)
Surface
Level
Road/Track
(mRL)
Freshwater Dam (CON_FHW_32.hec)

4.3
1.9
4.4
2.1
12.79
11.75
10.55
7.77
9.34
7.80
7.80
5.70
N/A
9.50
9.50
N/A
N/A
10.00
10.00
N/A

0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
2.84
2.80
2.77
2.41
-0.20
-0.20
-0.25
-0.40
N/A
5.50
5.50
N/A
N/A
6.00
6.00
N/A
Recycle Dam (CON_RCY_18.hec)

2.5
1.4
1.7
1.4
11.43
9.58
9.34
6.97
9.34
7.80
7.80
5.70
N/A
9.50
9.50
N/A
N/A
10.00
10.00
N/A
Channel
Velocity
(m/s)
7/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
12 November 2010
Channel
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood Level
(mRL)
Minimum
Channel
Elevation
(mRL)

0.7
2.25
-0.20
0.4
2.23
-0.20
0.4
2.21
-0.25
0.7
1.82
-0.40
Bridge
Soffit
(mRL)
Surface
Level
Road/Track
(mRL)
N/A
5.50
5.50
N/A
N/A
6.00
6.00
N/A
From Table 8, the modelled flood levels and average channel velocities are essentially the same as those
presented in Table 6.
7.0
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of the potential hydraulic impact associated with a breach of the proposed Freshwater Pond or
Recycle Pond has been undertaken to provide input into a risk assessment of the EMP.
The analysis was undertaken using a hydraulic model based on the HEC-RAS modelling system.
Parameters describing the breach formation time and breach geometry have been obtained from a literature
review and conservative values adopted.
Analysis indicates that the bridge on Fairdown Road at the Whareatea River is subject to overtopping in the
simulation of a breach of Freshwater Pond. The flood wave arrives at the bridge in 17 minutes after dam
break and the water level rises from the creek bed to maximum level in 2 minutes. Modelled flood depth and
velocity suggest that the flood wave may present a hazard to motorists whom may happen to be on the
bridge at the time. Model results may also need to be interpreted with respect to the potential impact on the
structural integrity of the bridge itself.
Analysis indicates that the bridge on Fairdown Road is also subject to overtopping in the case of a breach of
Recycle Pond, however, to a much lesser degree. The flood wave from a breach of Recycle Pond arrives at
the bridge in 30 minutes and the water level rises from the creek bed to maximum level in 2 minutes.
Analysis indicates, however, that the Stillwater Westport Railway Bridge is not subject to overtopping in the
breach of either the Freshwater Pond or the Recycle Pond.
8.0
QUALIFICATIONS
This assessment has been undertaken to provide input into a risk assessment of the potential hydraulic
impact of a breach of Freshwater Pond or Recycle Pond. This analysis should not be used for any other
purpose.
Hydraulic modelling is based on topographic information provided by Bathurst Resources. The

accuracy of the topographic data would be reflected in the accuracy of the hydraulic model.
Detailed topopgraphic survey of the relevant hydraulic structures at Fairdown Road and Stillwater
Westport Railway Bridge is not currently available therefore assumptions have been made as to soffit
levels, deck elevations, pier configuration and opening widths.
Calibration of the hydraulic model has not been undertaken. Parameter values for channel conveyance
have been derived or assumed based on literature values.
Dam Breach parameters have been adopted from literature review. The current scientific
understanding of the breach parameters is limited and hence the modelling results can vary by adopting
different breach parameters.
Analysis of the likelihood of failure by piping has not been undertaken.
8/9
Les McCracken
107622088-001-R-Rev0-5
9.0
12 November 2010
Progression of the breach within the model is based on default parameters within HEC-RAS unless
otherwise stated.
REFERENCES
Wahl, T.L., 2004. Uncertainty of Predictions of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 130(5).
Bureau of Reclamation, 1998. Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters A Literature Review
and Needs Assessment. Reference No. DSO098-004.
Froehlich, 2008. Embankment Dam Breach Parameters and Their Uncertainties. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 134(12).
GOLDER ASSOCIATES
Dr Justin Bell
Senior Environmental Engineer
JRB/HR/jrb
Attachments: Figure 1
Site Layout
Figure 2
Preliminary Layout of the Escarpment Mine Project (EMP)
Figure 3
Model Layout Freshwater Dam
Figure 4
Model Layout Recycle Dam
Figure 5
Maximum Water Surface Extent Freshwater Dam Breach
Figure 6
Maximum Water Surface Extent Recycle Dam Breach
j:\geo\2010\107622088_sydney sundry debtors\task 5 - golder nz dam break assessment\correspondence out\107622088-001-l-rev0-5-dambreakassessment.docx
9/9
66
0
E 1499800 m
E 1499700 m
E 1499600 m
E 1499500 m
E 1499400 m
E 1499300 m
E 1499200 m
675
E 1499100 m
E 1499000 m
670
655
N 5376300 m
675
670
655
670
SLURRY SYSTEM
FOOTPRINT
N 5376200 m
N 5376200 m
655
675
65 5
650
LAYDOWN
AREA
670
660
675
675
665
N 5376100 m
N 5376100 m
660
685
680
675
670
660
680
N 5376000 m
N 5376000 m
67
655
650
660
665
670
665
NOR
655
TO
660
ND O
TH E
N 5375900 m
665
P
F CP
655
660
670
660
N 5375900 m
665
N 5375800 m
E 1499800 m
E 1499700 m
64
650
E 1499600 m
0
E 1499500
m
650
E 1499400 m
E 1499300 m
E 1499200 m
655
650
E 1499100 m
645
645
E 1499000 m
N 5375800 m
645
655
C GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS DRAWING IS THE COPYRIGHT OF GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. UNAUTHORISED USE OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS PLAN EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION INFRINGES COPYRIGHT.
655
660
650
660
N 5376300 m
640
CLIENT
LEGEND
DAM
PUBLIC ROAD
MINE ROAD
RATA FOREST
WETLANDS
665
REMNANT RATA FOREST

SEWAGE
CLEAN WATER STORAGE
1m TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS
PERMIT BOUNDARY
GREEN WATER PIPE

RAW WATER PIPE
Source: Bathurst Resources Ltd Escarpment Project

Crown Mineral Permits Relative to Project Infrastructure
Drawn: LMcC July 13 2010
0
1:2,500
50
100
PROJECT
Escarpment Mine Project
New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 ( NZGD2000)

grid coordinates
150m
www.golder.com
GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD.
Plot Date: 12 November 2010 Time:11:28:53 AM By: Campbell, Helen Path: J:\geo\2010\107622088_Sydney Sundry Debtors\Task 5 - Golder NZ Dam Break Assessment\Technical Doc\CADD\FIGURES - File Name:107622088_005_F0002_REV0.dwg
Xref: GAP_LOGO-A3.dwg;
DRAWN BY
DATE
HC
12.11.2010
CHECKED BY
DATE
HR
12.11.2010
SCALE
DRAWING TITLE
PRELIMINARY CPP LAYOUT

SHEET SIZE
1:2500
A3
PROJECT No
107622088
DOC No
005
DOC TYPE
FIGURE No
F0002
REVISION
FIGURE 2
At Golder Associates we strive to be the most respected global company

providing consulting, design, and construction services in earth, environment,
and energy. Employee owned since our formation in 1960, we have created a
unique culture with pride in ownership, resulting in long-term organisational
stability. Golder professionals take the time to build an understanding of client
needs and of the specific environments in which they operate. We continue to
expand our technical capabilities and have experienced steady growth, now
employing nearly 7,000 people who operate from more than 160 offices
located throughout Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America, and
South America.
Africa
Asia
Australia &
New Zealand
Europe
North America
South America
CHRISTCHURCH
TAURANGA
Tel [64] (9) 486 8068

Fax [64] (9) 486 8072
Tel [64] (3) 377 5696

Fax [64] (3) 377 9944
Tel [64] (7) 928 5335

Fax [64] (7) 928 5336
Level 2
Takapuna Business Park
4 Fred Thomas Drive
Takapuna 0740
Auckland
Level 4
115 Kilmore Street
Christchurch 8013
Suite 6, Level 2
143 Durham Street
Tauranga 3110
(PO Box 2281

Christchurch 8140)
(PO Box 13611

Tauranga Central
Tauranga 3141)
DUNEDIN
NELSON
Tel [64] (3) 479 0390

Fax [64] (3) 474 9642
Tel [64] (3) 548 1707

Fax [64] (3) 548 1727
Level 9A
John Wickliffe House
265 Princes Street
Dunedin 9016
Level 3
295 Trafalgar Street
Nelson 7010
(PO Box 1087

Dunedin 9054)
(PO Box 1724

Nelson 7040)
+ 61 7 3721 5400
+ 44 356 21 42 30 20
+ 1 800 275 3281
+ 55 21 3095 9500
solutions@golder.com
www.golder.com
TAKAPUNA
(PO Box 33-849

Takapuna 0622)
+ 27 11 254 4800
+ 852 2562 3658

(PAPER) Design Philosophy Statement - Freshwater and Recycle Dams - Escarpment Mine Project PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PAPER) Design Philosophy Statement - Freshwater and Recycle Dams - Escarpment Mine Project PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

November 2010

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT

Freshwater and Recycle Dams

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Scope of Document ................................................................................................................................. 1

POTENTIAL IMPACT CLASSIFICATION............................................................................................................. 2

New Zealand Society of Large Dams Potential Impact Category ............................................................... 2

Potential Incremental Consequences of Failure ........................................................................................ 3

Effects on stream flow ........................................................................................................................ 4

Risk to structures ............................................................................................................................... 4

Risk to human life .............................................................................................................................. 4

Socio-economic, financial & environmental risk ................................................................................... 5

DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................. 6

General Design Requirements ................................................................................................................. 6

Inflow design flood ............................................................................................................................. 7

Seismic design criteria ....................................................................................................................... 7

PIC classification ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Hydraulic Design of Dams ....................................................................................................................... 8

EMBANKMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 9

Site Geology ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Foundation Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 9

Embankment shoulder ....................................................................................................................... 9

Liner and core/filter .......................................................................................................................... 10

Cutoff trench .................................................................................................................................... 10

Embankment Cross Section .................................................................................................................. 10

Available Construction Materials ............................................................................................................ 11

Embankment Construction .................................................................................................................... 12

Core (Zone 3A) ................................................................................................................................ 12

Drainage fingers (Zone 2B) ............................................................................................................ 12

Shoulder (Zone 3) material ............................................................................................................... 12

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Liner filter (Zone 2A) ........................................................................................................................ 12

Rip rap (Zone 4) .............................................................................................................................. 13

Embankment crest and laydown construction ................................................................................... 13

SPILLWAY DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Access for Machinery ............................................................................................................................ 13

Design criteria ................................................................................................................................. 13

Reservoir drawdown arrangement .................................................................................................... 14

Temporary stream diversion arrangements ....................................................................................... 14

DAM OPERATION AND REHABILITATION ...................................................................................................... 15

Proposed Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................................ 15

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Table 1: Preliminary dimensions of the Recycle and Freshwater dams.

Spill sill level (mRL)

POTENTIAL IMPACT CLASSIFICATION

New Zealand Society of Large Dams Potential Impact Category

Socio-economic, Financial and

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Potential Incremental Consequences of Failure

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Effects on stream flow

Heavy equipment parking and any equipment in the park

Office, ablution and amenities complex

Staff car park and vehicles

Sewage treatment system

Employee car park and vehicles

Risk to human life

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Socio-economic, financial & environmental risk

Although a few fatalities are possible, none are expected.

FRESHWATER AND RECYCLE DAMS - DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

A Recycle dam failure could result in the following: