Mod 5 - Progression of Mining

I wish to voice my support for this project modification.

DP&E
I have very briefly reviewed the Mod 5 HVO South application and are concerned that inadaquate effort has been made to provide a beneficial post mining land use for the mine site.

The application requests approval to move significantly more overburden resulting in a larger overburden dump and larger and deeper void. WIth this should come a requirement for increased effort to provide a better visual result and less limitations in the final landform. Some effort has been made in the low wall area, but the technology is available for a better effort for reasonable cost if spread over the life of the project.

My concern falls over 3 areas:
Overburden dump shape
Proposed highwall
Void utilisation.

Overburden dump shape.
An improvement in the top surface of the dump is proposed, however this is minimal and does not look very "natural" as viewed from Maison Dieu. Whilst a little more height may be required, significant improvement could be made here with more peeks and troughs. The dump face apears to have no micro relief and is not consistent with current expectations.

The low wall appears a better shape than the one approved, however care will be needed to ensure it is free draining to prevent the infiltration of water. The Consent should ensure all areas or the overburden dump are free draining or impermiable water tight structures are built for wildlife and stock use.

Proposed highwall.
The proposed highwall is much higher than the approved, and little is said about this in the application. The consent will need the mining to cease with enough room from the boundaries to allow an adequate highwall treatment for safety and post mining land uses. Learnings from the Drayton mine closure should be used to allow an agreed high wall landform in the approval process and not just what is the best fit possible at the time of closure.

Void utilisation
This is my most significant concern with this development proposal. The assessment states the void will be 523Ha in size and be a ground water sink. This means the water surface will be very saline and of little use for any post mining land use. The community is becoming more concerned about the number and size of voids, and this is a big one.

For all the current planned mine voids in the Hunter Valley I am of the opinion that this void is probably the easiest one to find a suitable post mining land use for, depending of the result of some further hydrogeological studies.

In Western Australia and Europe such voids are used for recreational activities. This void is near a major highway for access and near the river as a water source. I am well aware of the risk of salinity and its potential impact on the Hunter River. The current plan allows for less than optimum management of the backfilled void and the ground water be caught in the void and evaporate. As discussed above all possible methods including free draining land and the use of clay should be used regardless, in the construction of the void backfill.

If the void was filled in high and/or flood flows from the Hunter River it could be filled resonably quickly. The planned depth of the void, together with removing the hydraulic gradient, will minimise the movement of saline water from the backfill to the void water surface. Should the void fill be designed for some, but minimal circulation in high and/or flood flows, then the void water will not become stagnant and the saline water will only be released at times to allow tolerable water quality. As the water surface would be larger than the current planned equalibrium level, evaporation would provent trickle flows out of the void. I understand this is the princilpe used in the Western Australia (Margaret River) void.

The community would then be left with a lake to ski and sail on. The mine closure could then be designed around this with leveled areas for caravans and compacted or original ground areas for constructed infrastructure. A boat ramp could be constructed and a sandy beach created following the construction of suitable end of mine landforms.

From my recent observations, getting social license to leave large and useless voids for the community at the end of mining is becoming more difficult. With some sites the other choices are technically difficult. With the Riverview void I believe there is an opportunity for a better alternative and this should be rigourously investigated and peer reviewed if needed. Please contact me if you require any further explanation.

Scott

I wish to object to the HVO modification. When project approval PA06-0261 was granted in 2009 we were told we wouldnt be affected by this project and therefore would not be entitled to noise or dust mitigation. The mitigation line missed us by 150-200 metres, after many complaints to the 1800 number of which was not working for a 3 month period Rio Tinto decided to engage EMGA/MitchellMcLennan to conduct additional noise monitoring. A barnowl monitor was installed at my residence from 6/6/2011 to 10/10/2011. During that period there was a 2 week failure of equipment but it recorded over 400 exceedences of "noise impact assesment criteria", 280 exceedences of "additional noise mitigation criteria" and 70 exceedences of "land acquisition criteria" not bad seeing as we were told we wouldnt be affected. And now over 8 years later they decide we will be affected and offer mitigation but we will have to stay in our houses because it will be to noisy and dusty outside, sorry I forgot they claim we are not affected by dust, so I dont know where our filthy drinking water comes from. The first we were informed of this modification was in december 2016 .HVO say they will have noise attenuation fitted to their machines over 2 years, this is what they told us last time back in 2008 and it still hasnt been done. As we are continually exposed to noise and dust an increase is unacceptable.

Extension will cause greater cumulative impacts for nearby properties.The additional groundwater draw down will eventuate in a 10metre fall in groundwater resources which is totally unacceptable. Increasing the size of the void creates far greater effort and expense for rehabilitation in the future . Any agreement to pass this mine on to another company must clearly set out a Rehabilitation Agreement costing to eventually rehabilitate the compete voids remaining and other surface rehabilitation as described in the Department of Resources guidelines.No more increase in polluted minewater must enter into the Hunter River.
Generally the impacts of this extension carry far greater cumulative impact and should be rejected outright.

I am very concerned about this proposal for many reasons, but the main ones are as follows. This part of the Hunter is already oversaturated and over-used/abused by coal, but that is no reason to make it worse.

Increasing the extraction rate to 4mtpa will inevitably cause increased noise, dust and blasting impact.

The increased overburden height of 80m will cause more adverse visual amenity impacts, and more dust at a regional level. Hence worse air pollution and health impacts.

It is unconscionable to consider increasing the drawdown of groundwater by an additional 2.8 m, as it will have a cumulative impact of nearly 10m drop in groundwater sources. Plus discharges of polluted mine water into the Hunter River will increase.

There should be no final void. The suggestion that the final void increase from 404ha to 523ha is appalling; it will be a perpetual groundwater sink.

There will be unacceptable impacts on threatened populations of River Red Gums, Hunter Flood Plain Red Gum Woodland and Hunter Valley River Oak, and the ephemeral wetland, Carrington Billabong.

Naturally local community members fear of further loss of amenity; they have suffered enough. It is time to rein in coal in this part of the Hunter.

I object to modification 5 for the following reasons:

-increased final mine void

-increased dust and noise for the nearby community

-increase in polluted water being discharged into the Hunter River

-the cumulative effect of all the coal mines in the Hunter area

-Threatened populations of River Red Gums, Hunter Flood Plain Red Gum Woodland and Hunter Valley River Oak, and the ephemeral wetland, Carrington Billabong, will be impacted.

- increased drawdown of water

Thank you

Sincerely,

Charlotte McCabe

I have seen this mine and the pollution it is currently causing.No extension should be approved both to protect the local residents and indirectly us all from the damaging effects of climate change from coal fired power stations

TO whom it may concern.I am writing in regards to the Mod request of HVO South Application Number MP06 0261 Mod5.I am against the proposal due to the fact we are only going to have more continuos dust,noise and vapours from blasts, as we have been having to put up for years. Complaining to the EPA does nothing and it seems it is time to include media coverage to possibly get somewhere. A representitive of HVO came out and was shown the filth in our entertainment area and was told of our other issues with drinking water(we have to buy bottled water) and we got no feedback from him or anyone else. I know it is probably a waste of my time in writing this as this project has most likely been approved,look at Bulgas scenario,win a couple in court but loose the main one.Health of people and the planet is of no issue to them,changing the lands contours and changing the environment due to these artificial hills they make. I have had my say and they already know how I feel no one should have to be exposed to these conditions. Yours Truely Tony Ventra.

This continuation of demands on the local community must stop. It is critical the deliberate destruction of the valley by multinationals is halted.
1. The increased extraction rate and increased overburden height of 80m will cause visual amenity impacts, increased dust, noise and blasting impacts.
2. The increased drawdown of groundwater by an additional 2.8 m will have a cumulative impact of nearly 10m drop in groundwater sources.
3. The final void will increase from 404ha to 523ha and will be a perpetual groundwater sink.
There should be no final void.
4. Discharges of polluted mine water into the Hunter River will increase.
5. The Hunter already has too great a cumulative impact from the devastation of mining.

I have lived in the mid/upper Hunter region for 43 years. I am 63years old. I have seen the horrendous decline in the landscape, the increase in dust, the huge increase in traffic, the exodus of farming and decrease of productive food growing farming activities.
Please consider the coming generations who are going to have to depend on imported food that will be far from fresh and nutrititious. We need to care for the land and allow land use to return to and increase area as a food producing area for the health of future generations.

The increased extraction rate of 4mtpa will cause increased noise, dust and blasting impacts

The increased overburden height of 80m will cause visual amenity impacts and more dust at a regional level

The increased drawdown of groundwater by an additional 2.8 m will have a cumulative impact of nearly 10m drop in groundwater sources

The final void will increase from 404ha to 523ha and will be a perpetual groundwater sink. There should be no final void.

Threatened populations of River Red Gums, Hunter Flood Plain Red Gum Woodland and Hunter Valley River Oak, and the ephemeral wetland, Carrington Billabong, will be impacted.

Discharges of polluted mine water into the Hunter River will increase

The area of concentrated mining activity in this part of the Hunter already has too great a cumulative impact

Local community members have communicated fear of further loss of amenity

The Hunter Valley is being turned into a super pit. This needs to stop now.

When will our leaders realise it is time to stop mining and put resources into developing alternative forms of energy, preferably renewables?

I object to the proposed HVO Mod 5.

HVO's proposal will contribute to the Hunter's "death by a 1000 cuts" (or should that be "open cuts").

The desire, presumably, is to position the mod as a (relatively) small incremental change. While this may stack up in absolute comparisons to other projects, the changes sought are not without impact and - viewed from the arguably more important perspective of cumulative impacts across the region.

The proposed modification will generate more noise and dust, further impact on water resources, have a deleterious effect on amenity and increase the final void size (amongst others). That there should be a void at all is close to scandalous; there should be no void at all left by the project. (There has been plenty written about voids and their impacts, especially in the Hunter. We need less of them, not more, and project modifications should provide an opportunity to have this happen.)

I object to this application to expand production on the following grounds
1 More coal, more dust , noise and general impact on an already mine saturated part of the valley
2 Even larger final void to be left forever
3 Increased overburden height unacceptable
4 Further impact on the threatened river red gums and the Carrington Billabong
5 Ever more greenhouse gases that will seriously impact on my grandchildrens' future

Increasing the extraction rate reduces the lifespan and increases adverse impacts such as noise, overburden height and dust.

There should be no final void, not a bigger one. The further aquifer destruction, habitat destruction, water pollution discharge into the Hunter River are not things that heal and repair once the mining has finished. Nor can the rate of climate change be slowed if we increase the rate of mining and burning coal.

- The increased extraction rate will create increased noise, dust and blasting impacts
- The final void will increase from 404ha to 523ha which is unacceptable and obviously difficult to remediate. The objective should be to have no final void
- Threatened species such as the river red gum, Hunter Valley River Oak will be seriously impacted
- Discharges of polluted water will ultimately end up in the Hunter River
- Local communities have communicated a further loss of amenity

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:-
1. The increased extraction rate of 4mtpa will cause increased noise, dust and blasting impacts

2. The increased overburden height of 80m will cause visual amenity impacts and more dust at a regional level

3. The increased drawdown of groundwater by an additional 2.8 m will have a cumulative impact of nearly 10m drop in groundwater sources

4. The final void will increase from 404ha to 523ha and will be a perpetual groundwater sink. There should be no final void.

5. Threatened populations of River Red Gums, Hunter Flood Plain Red Gum Woodland and Hunter Valley River Oak, and the ephemeral wetland, Carrington Billabong, will be impacted.

6. Discharges of polluted mine water into the Hunter River will increase

7. The area of concentrated mining activity in this part of the Hunter already has too great a cumulative impact

8. Local community members have communicated fear of further loss of amenity

Sincerely, Jan Davis

I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed modification of the HVO Mod 5. The increased extraction rate of 4mtpa will cause increased noise, dust and blasting impacts
The increased overburden height of 80m will cause visual amenity impacts and more dust at a regional level
The increased drawdown of groundwater by an additional 2.8 m will have a cumulative impact of nearly 10m drop in groundwater sources
The final void will increase from 404ha to 523ha and will be a perpetual groundwater sink. There should be no final void.
Threatened populations of River Red Gums, Hunter Flood Plain Red Gum Woodland and Hunter Valley River Oak, and the ephemeral wetland, Carrington Billabong, will be impacted.
Discharges of polluted mine water into the Hunter River will increase
The area of concentrated mining activity in this part of the Hunter already has too great a cumulative impact
Local community members have communicated fear of further loss of amenity.
Australia is not addressing the climate emergency the planet is faced with instead our corrupt governments are promoting and selling it. Think of YOUR children!
Robert McLaughlin
46 Inlet Rd Bulga 2330

I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed modification of the HVO Mod 5. The increased extraction rate of 4mtpa will cause increased noise, dust and blasting impacts
The increased overburden height of 80m will cause visual amenity impacts and more dust at a regional level
The increased drawdown of groundwater by an additional 2.8 m will have a cumulative impact of nearly 10m drop in groundwater sources
The final void will increase from 404ha to 523ha and will be a perpetual groundwater sink. There should be no final void.
Threatened populations of River Red Gums, Hunter Flood Plain Red Gum Woodland and Hunter Valley River Oak, and the ephemeral wetland, Carrington Billabong, will be impacted.
Discharges of polluted mine water into the Hunter River will increase
The area of concentrated mining activity in this part of the Hunter already has too great a cumulative impact
Local community members have communicated fear of further loss of amenity.
Australia is not addressing the climate emergency the planet is faced with instead our corrupt governments are promoting and selling it. Think of your family's future!
AnneMaree McLaughlin
46 Inlet Rd Bulga 2330

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed modification at the Hunter Valley Operations complex to increase the extraction rate of ROM coal from 16Mtpa to 20Mtpa. As the proponent describes this will result in increased CO2 emissions in Australia and elsewhere globally. This is clearly not compatible with objectives of the Paris Agreement in 2016 (ratified by Australia) to work towards limiting global warming to two degrees by decreasing (not increasing!) emissions.

Approval of this proposal by government sends a message to voters and business that it is not serious about its commitments and is not planning a just transition for coal workers to a renewable future.

When the climate is obviously changing and the damaging health impacts of coal are known but not yet fully incorporated into the cost, expansion of coal in NSW is economically, legally and politically risky. It is also reprehensible.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed modification at the Hunter Valley Operations complex to increase the extraction rate of ROM coal from 16Mtpa to 20Mtpa. As the proponent describes this will result in increased CO2 emissions in Australia and elsewhere globally. This is clearly not compatible with objectives of the Paris Agreement in 2016 (ratified by Australia) to work towards limiting global warming to two degrees by decreasing (not increasing!) emissions.

The application states, "At a state level, the estimated greenhouse emissions for NSW in the 2013 period was 141.8 Mt CO2-e (Department of the Environment, 2015a). The annual contribution of greenhouse emissions from the proposed modification in comparison to the NSW greenhouse emissions for the 2013 period is conservatively estimated to be approximately 0.50 per cent.

The estimated greenhouse gas emissions generated in all three scopes are based on approximated quantities of materials and where applicable generic emission factors. Therefore, the estimated emissions for the proposed modification are considered conservative."

It concludes by stating that these estimates are "conservative".

An increase in emissions is incompatible with the NSW objective of having zero emissions by 2050.

Further increase in greenhouse emissions will be detrimental to the health of the population.

This expansion should not be approved.