Dalton Power Station

Informal discussions with real estate agents reveal an expectation of a 25% to 30% depreciation of property values in the Dalton area due to the perceived hazards associated with the Dalton Power Project.
As AGL intends to make a profit for their shareholders from this venture the residents of Dalton expect to receive appropriate and realistic compensation from AGL for the devaluing of their property.

Seismologists from Geoscience Australia and the Australian National University predict that the Dalton-Gunning area is due for a very large earthquake.
The area has more earthquakes than anywhere else in the country which led to Geoscience Australia maintaining a long term seismic station at Dalton.
Has AGL factored an earthquake scenario into the Dalton Power Project and did they consult with Geoscience Australia?
Geoscience Australia doesn’t appear to be mentioned in their “Stakeholder” list in Chapter 6 Table 6-1.

Formaldehyde is bad enough, however there doesn’t appear to be any reference to the carcinogens toluene and benzene that an AGL representative confirmed would be present in the exhaust plume.
Or do they come under “particulate matter”?

Quoting from the NSW Government Health bulletin [14 August 2011] regarding the recent Stockton Orica chemical leak.

“Stockton chromium results confirm no health risk to residents”

However, the same document then proceeds to advise residents to take the following precautions [in spite of it being considered safe]:

• “Don’t drink water from rain water tanks. These tanks should be emptied onto the lawn or down the drain.”
• “Don’t eat home grown leafy vegetables or fruits.”
• “Wash hands before eating or smoking after being outside [this is also a good lifetime habit].”

The concern is that combustion by-products present in the exhaust plume will fall-out and accumulate on domestic roofs from where this material will then be washed into rain water tanks where it will be concentrated posing a significant health risk to residents of Dalton and Gunning, as acknowledged in the above example.

Also, pasture and fruit and vegetable crops will also be contaminated, again, as acknowledged in the above example.

Did AGL consider a site that did not impact on the population? For example, The Wheeo Road area 10 km to the north east of the present site?
The power lines pass through this area and it would be necessary to increase the gas line another 8km. Origin Energy is prepared to run a 30km branch line to their Kerrawary Power Station.

The advantages of the alternative site are that the exhaust plume will have little or no health impact on Dalton or Gunning and the construction traffic passes up the Crookwell Road thereby avoiding Gunning altogether.

Due to the high risk of hazardous chemical fallout from the exhaust plume from the Dalton Energy Project we request that the contaminant levels be monitored.
This would be performed by an independent agency and financed by AGL.
The monitoring agency would be rotated periodically and the programme would include testing levels of contamination in domestic rain water tanks in Dalton and Gunning.
This would be performed before the Dalton Power Project was commenced to establish a base line and then every 6 months thereafter.
The results, in plain English, would be published in the public domain.
In the event of any contamination being found, the station will cease operating until the problem rectified.

I have a number of concerns regarding the project.

1) The modelled air emissions appear to be benchmarked against maximum regulatory requirements, rather than being assessed within the context of levels of noxious gases in the existing Dalton environment.

Without modelling based on the existing environmental levels of emissions, the magnitude of the negative impact of the power station on the air quality of the local environment is unknown.

2) The proportion of time that the power station will run appears to be determined solely by economic factors (eg the wholesale price of electricity) rather than technical factors.

Given the very great likelihood that economic factors relating to electricity generation (especially those pertaining to the ongoing use of coal-powered stations) will change, it seems likely that the power station will potentially run for a far greater proportion of the time than indicated in the EA.

I would suggest that regulatory or legislative limitations on the power station operating hours per annum would provide certainty in this regard.

3) The requirements for water, especially process water, appear to poorly addressed within the EA. It is stated that ([tankers are] “currently the only guaranteed water supply…” and a “….large number of [tanker] trips [will be] required per year…” but then in another part of the EA it is stated: “It is assumed that the Facility would not be supplied entirely by trucking water”.

Furthermore, process water modelling is based on a 5 per cent use and the operation of the power station as a whole is based on 15 per cent use.

Given the economic implications of using process water for improved turbine efficiency and uncertainty as to how many hours a year the power station would actually operate, the reliance on trucking alone as a water supply appears problematic. Such an approach potentially represents a major local environmental impact.

4) The impact of increased traffic flows appear to be based on maximum noise levels that occur, rather than the increased frequency of those noise levels.

Especially given the doubt about the implementation of trucks for process water supply, it appears that the real world impact of the increased traffic will be substantial.

The project as currently proposed will have a significant ongoing negative impact on the area, particularly in regards to water.

As discussed with AGL staff at a local meeting, there is currently no site water available. They have indicated they will not use water from the Lachlan River (which is only now recovering from the last drought). They have indicated they may pipe water from Gunning (10km away), but Gunning's water supply is also limited. They would like to drill to assess the potential for bore water - but the local bore water is not adequate for machinery due to high mineral contamination. Also during the drought, the bores were drying out, so the option of bore water is by no means a stable proposition. The only option left is to truck the water in, which will mean a minimum of 1100 trucks a year (based on AGL's own conservative estimate of requiring 20 megalitres per year). This will be an ongoing negative impact on the local communities and the environment.

I also have concerns about the number of trees that will need to be removed along the route taken to bring in the large pieces of machinery for the project. The large trees, many of which are over 100 years old, provide homes for wildlife and wind protection for adjacent livestock. The road is over 10km long, with potentially hundreds of trees under threat. Replanting will be no compensation, given the age of the trees and the time required to repair the damage.

I also feel the Dalton town has been portrayed as insignificant by AGL, as the town is not mentioned on many of the maps and diagrams in their submissions.
This town has over 100 residents, a school, pub, service station, post office, 3 churches, and is a vibrant, active community, with a history dating back to the 1830's. This development is less than 3kms from the school. The trucks that will service the site during construction, and after, will pass the cricket ground, where my children get off the school bus.

This project would be suited to an industrial area closer to a larger population, so the peak power produced would be provided closest to where it is needed, saving what would otherwise be lost in transmission from a more remote location such as Dalton.

My property adjoins the site of the proposed power station. The turbines will be less than 500 metres from the edge of my property. While I dont live on the property, it is mine (and my sisters).

Consultation from AGL has been extremely poor. I have not been contacted, beyond invitations to meet at community consultation days, and the AGL staff at the first of those meetings were unaware that I was the closest landowner to their proposed site. I understand they have been in contact on a regular basis with my parents and brother, but as the nearest land belongs to my sister and I, I expected to be contacted.

With the development of the Dalton TI am concerned that the land I own will now be effectively worthless - there is unlikely to be any interest from anyone in purchasing the land - should I be interested in selling. While it has some use as grazing land, its main benefit was its peace and quiet - and with at least one power turbine installed (and more planned) - that peace and quiet will be gone forever.

In addition, I am concerned about the lack of planning shown by AGL. Issues such as water use, and the source of that water, have not been addressed to my satisfaction. AGL staff at consultation events have not been able to provide a suitable level of detail on how much water would be required, or where that water would come from.

There has been a lack of transparency about future plans for the site. While it is currently advertised as an off-peak power generation facility, the fact that there are plans for additional capacity suggests that AGL have a belief that they will be able to increase the power station's size and noise envelope in the future to meet the growing requirement for power.

In addition, AGL has been careful not to make any commitment to local owners or communities on what it would provide to them in the way of compensation. This contrasts very poorly with Transfield Energy and the planned Collector Windfarm. Transfield has been up front that it will make a substantial amount of funding available to the local community - In its February 2011, Collector Wind Farm Community Newsletter, Transfield noted:
As part of our commitment to the local community, Transfield Services is proposing to establish a Community Investment Fund and contribute approximately $180,000 to the fund each year.
AGL has done nothing of this sort - the website contains platitudes about a community charter.

Under Section 94 of the ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979, Contribution towards provision or improvement of amenities or services, the Act states:
the consent authority .. may grant development consent subject to a condition requiring ... the payment of a monetary contribution.
What is AGL's plan in this regard?

Overall, I think AGL has done very poorly - its consultation has been limited, it hasnt sought to speak to me - its nearest neighbour - and it has not provided any certainty to reduce my concerns.

as per attachment

as per attachment

Please find attached Upper Lachlan Shire Council's comments regarding the Dalton Power Project.

See pdf attached below.

Please see attached PDF AGL_Dalton_Power_Project.pdf

Attached

Attached

I have attached a PDF file.

As per attachment

As per attachment

As per attachment

As per attachment

As per attachment