Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

Part3A Modifications

Determination

Mod 3 - Extension

Muswellbrook Shire

Current Status: Determination

Attachments & Resources

Application (2)

EA (8)

Submissions (20)

Response to Submissions (9)

Additional Information (15)

Recommendation (4)

Determination (3)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 21 - 40 of 341 submissions
Name Withheld
Support
Singleton , New South Wales
Message
I believe the Mount Pleasant project will become a positive contribution to our region, creating jobs, local investment and opportunities for many people.

The landform design amendments are a positive outcome from this submission and an increase in workforce means more jobs!
Kate Burns
Support
North Rothbury , New South Wales
Message
This project will help to increase employment of locals in this community, which has been declining over the past few years, not only through direct employment, but also by supporting local 3rd party business that provide services to the industry. This would mean that local people can stay in the communities that they have grown up in or become part of and not have to leave to find meaningful work to support their families.
There is also the additional flow on effect, where those employed by the project will intern be spending their money in the local community, having a flow on effect for other non- related businesses, such as hairdressers, restaurants, car dealerships etc. making the area as a whole more successful.
Susan Cox
Support
MT THORLEY , New South Wales
Message
I support the submission for the modifications
Gareth Johnson
Support
Paterson , New South Wales
Message
I support this application to extend the mine life at Mt Pleasant. The continued operation of the pit will ensure jobs for local miners and support local business in the hunter region. The planned provisions for noise and visual barriers seem adequate for the mine to function close to Muswellbrook with limited impact on the local community.
Daryl Gray
Support
Jerrys Plains , New South Wales
Message
I own a house in Muswellbrook with a direct line of sight view of the mine. I support the mine as a temporarily disturbed hillside is a small price to pay for employment opportunities for the people of Muswellbrook and surrounding areas. The Mt Pleasant Mine is a great opportunity for the local, state and national economy.
Name Withheld
Object
scone , New South Wales
Message
This is another mine impacting on the critical equine cluster and agriclturual land.

this mine adds to the already cumulative impacts.

I live ....... out of scone and work at Aberdeen.

The air quality in the local area has deteriorated and the noise from mining operations in the vicinity has worsened.

What about the CIC - this mine won't stop here, it will merge into Dartbrook and West muswellbrook - total disaster for this area.

land use conflicts have also heightened - especially between local agricultural land holders and mining companies.
Over the past 20 year period mines have encroached upon residents and landholders and imposed unacceptable risks to our livelihoods, our environment, our health, our
future and the economic diversity and prosperity of our region.

the original DA was over 20 years ago. surely it is recognised that 20 yrs is a long time and government regulations, approval processes have changed, community angst and distress has amassed, landuse conflict at tipping point (another individual mine we have to deal with...we need no go zones to give non mining investments certainty.

Given the Mount Pleasant DA was granted in 1999 and no mining has taken place on that site in the intervening period, this Modification should either be refused or the
NSW Government should require MACH Energy to undertake a new environmental impact statement fully assessing the project, its cumulative impacts and the socioeconomic
consequences - including the unresolved land use conflicts in the region.

an open cut paralleling the new England highway, hunter river, across agricultural land and stud proximity - the mine should be rejected/original DA should be rejected.
Thank you
Name Withheld
Object
Scone , New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to this application due to the intense impact that it will have on the surrounding local area & more specifically the human lives living within it.
It's about time that the NSW & National Government protect areas of agriculture land that once disturbed by mining will never return to it's natural state.
Name Withheld
Object
Scone , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Mount Pleasant Modification..
Mining is in decline.. We need to look to the future and support our agriculture and tourism industries.. They are here for the long term and provide sustainable jobs and a strong diverse regional economy and should be protected.
I have lived in the Upper Hunter all my life and so disappointed what the NSW government has allowed around Muswellbrook destroying landscape and devaluing properties and dividing the community.
This mine has been inaction for 20 years ,how can the government let them proceed without thinking what affects it will have on the environment and tourism of our area in the next 20 years.
Name Withheld
Object
Aberdeen , New South Wales
Message
We need appropriate buffers to protect us from the effects of mining and so that all industries can exist with certainty and balance.
Name Withheld
Object
Scone , New South Wales
Message
i Object to the mount pleasant modification 3 proposal and seek that the deparment of planning and environment either reject the proposal or require a comprenehsive environmental impact assessment be undertaken to reflect todays environmental standards government policies and community expectations
Mathew Chapple
Object
Scone , New South Wales
Message
In the late 1990's when the Mount Pleasant was initially on exhibition I opposed the mine due to the risks and impacts on water, dust, air quality, noise vibration and blasting, concerns over cumulative impacts of mining and rehabilitation, road closures, heritage, visual impacts, impacts on agricultural businesses, and social concerns including health and property values.

Many of these issues have not changed but have worsened over the intervening 18 year period. My opposition is stronger now than it was then.
Paul Hartmann
Object
, New South Wales
Message
I believe this request should not be granted. The location of this extension is extremely close to the towns of Muswellbrook and Aberdeen. It appears to be alongside the path of the Hunter River which is a major water source from the Upper Hunter Valley down to Newcastle. It would seem that the movements of the mines in the areas are not away from residential areas, but moreso in their direction. This cannot be a good thing for the health, livelihood nor future existence of those towns.
Golden Grove Stud
Object
Denman , New South Wales
Message
I object to the Mount Pleasant Modification 3 proposal and seek that the Department of Planning and Environment either reject this proposal or require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment be undertaken to reflect today's environmental standards, government policies and community expectations.

PAC findings have repeatedly affirmed that the mining and breeding industries are incompatible in the Hunter Valley, with the financial and employment implications enormous should the major thoroughbred breeding operations depart from the region.

This is not a straightforward or simple extension to an existing operating mine. It is clear that the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken in the late 1990's is no longer relevant to, or reflects the cumulative impacts associated with, the Modification sought in 2017. The air quality in the local area has deteriorated and the noise from mining operations in the vicinity has worsened.

The Proponent admits that air quality and noise exceedences already occur due to the cumulative impacts of both Mt Arthur and Bengalla mines. This is an indisputable reason why this mine should not proceed at all.

It is not acceptable that a mine that was granted a DA nearly 20 years ago should be allowed to proceed without rigorous and contemporary environmental and socio- economic assessments.

The NSW Government should not allow a mine to proceed if it will harm the local community, our environment or health.
Name Withheld
Object
Aberdeen , New South Wales
Message
It is not acceptable that a mine that was granted a DA nearly 20 years ago should be
allowed to proceed without rigorous and contemporary environmental and socioeconomic
assessments.
The mining operations proposed by this Modification would result in both noise and
air quality exceedences.
We are/I am concerned about the negative effects mining is having, and that this
mine will, on our community and environment.
We are /I am concerned about the damaging effects mining is having, and that this
mine will, on the Upper Hunter's air quality and health.
Heath Courtney
Object
Scone , New South Wales
Message
Over the past 20 year period mines have encroached upon residents and landholders and imposed unacceptable risks to our livelihoods, our environment, our health, our future and the economic diversity and prosperity of our region.
Given the Mount Pleasant DA was granted in 1999 and no mining has taken place on that site in the intervening period, this Modification should either be refused or the NSW Government should require MACH Energy to undertake a new environmental impact statement fully assessing the project, its cumulative impacts and the socioeconomic consequences - including the unresolved land use conflicts in the region.
Barbara Davis
Object
Cheltenham , New South Wales
Message
Objection to the Mount Pleasant Operation Coal Project 2017

Introduction
All new coal projects and extensions of coal projects such as the Mt Pleasant Operations (10Mtpa proposed operations from 2017 to 2026) threaten the health of local and global communities, due to pollutants produced at all steps of the coal life-cycle from mining, transportation and washing to combustion and disposal of combustion wastes (1) (2).
It is unlikely that concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change can be ameliorated by measures besides halting the project.
In addition to pollutants, loss of visual amenity, noise, social upheaval, financial loss from coal projects such as these also risk health.
This submission deals mainly with pollutants.
Description of Project
The Mount Pleasant Mine proposed open cut thermal coal mine with an extraction rate of 10Mtpa from 2017 to 2026 would be located 3km North West of Muswellbrook, South West of Aberdeen and Kayuga in the Upper Hunter Valley. Communities in this region deal with existing impacts of surrounding mining activities.

Climate Change
Climate change is widely regarded as the biggest threat to health in the 21st century (3) (Costello et al 2009) and (4) (WHO 2015) and burning coal is one of the major contributors. To avoid temperature rise of greater than 2 degrees Celsius, eighty of known coal reserves must stay in the ground (5) (The Climate Institute).
In 2015 WHO estimated (6) human induced climate change is responsible for 300,000 to 400,000 annual deaths globally (from 4 selected, climate-sensitive causes: malnutrition, diarrhoea, malaria and floods).
If Australia accounts for 1 to 2% of this climate change, it was responsible for up to 7000 deaths annually in 2015.
It has also been estimated that one death occurs as the result of 45,000 tonnes of carbon or 165,000 tonnes of CO2.
From the supplied information, this mine would be responsible the following number of deaths due to climate change over its lifetime:
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
CO2 emissions tonnes 1,685,540 471,108 226,714,125
Deaths
(one death=165,000 tonnes CO2 10 2 1374

Scope1 and 2 is stated as representing 0.04% of Australia's emissions and approximately 0.17 per cent of the New South Wales greenhouse emissions for 2014 period but further discussion of these global impacts of Scope 3 are ignored


Blast Plumes
Blast plumes contain NO2 which can travel in an unpredictable fashion. They can cause respiratory irritation, pulmonary oedema and death up to several kilometres away therefore residential areas within 2 km could be at risk. Studies are needed to assess NO2 over short periods (<10 minutes)
The EIS Appendix B states that
"Air quality impacts associated with blasting at the Mount Pleasant Operation would be managed to minimise the risk of any impacts arising. Continual adjustments would be made to account for the progression of the mine position over time, and advancements in the available technology."
This requires more clarification.

Air Quality
Studies such as US review of open-cut mines by Physicians for Social Responsibility (7) have shown that communities in proximity to open-cut mines have increased rates of: cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive airway disease, hypertension, kidney disease, strokes, asthma and mortality and hospitalisation for obstructive pulmonary disease. Children have increased: respiratory symptoms (wheeze and cough), blood levels of lead and cadmium, school absences, neural tube defects, chances of low birth weight (which is a risk factor for future obesity, diabetes and heart disease)
Lung growth in children as measured by FEV1 increases 65.5ml over 4 years for 8.7microgram/m3 decline in annual average PM10 exposure in a Californian Study by Gauderman 2015 (8)
PM10
The WHO recommends annual average PM10 of less than 20 micrograms/m3 (9). The current NEPM standards in Australia have a PM10 level of 25 microgram/m3. As with CO2, the impacts are cumulative from all surrounding projects.
But the standard used by the proponent for particulate matter &#8804;10µm (PM10) annual is 30µg/m³ (Table 3-1 Summary of applicable air quality criteria). This is also not in line with current National Environment Protection Measures.
The proponent acknowledges this (3.3 of the Appendix B).
Please note that these updates are not reflected in the Development Consent and EPL conditions for the Mount Pleasant Operation (or any other project in the vicinity) and therefore are not used to evaluate compliance for the existing operations.
By the proponent's own criteria there are the following predicted adverse changes in the vicinity of the project:
The EIS Appendix B states that "The assessment predicts potential dust impacts are likely to occur at a number of privately-owned receptor locations due to the assessed 24-hour and annual average particulate matter less than 10 micrometres in diameter (PM10) impacts."

PM2.5
In the Upper Hunter, the ambient annual PM2.5 is already a problem probably due to surrounding cumulative mining. The EIS Appendix B states
"The ambient air quality levels that are monitored at various locations surrounding the mining operation indicate that air quality in the area is generally good and is typically below the relevant New South Wales Environment Protection Authority goals with the exception of annual average particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter (PM2.5) levels."


Economics
External health costs are not addressed in this Environmental Impact statement.
In Australia, the cost of damage to health due to coal was estimated in 2007 to be $2.6 billion annually (10) (Biegler) and if climate was taken into account the coat would be considerably more. Each project (including this one) contributes to this economic burden.

Conclusion
The significant human health risks resulting from coal mining activities demonstrate the need for the proponent to provide a Health Impact Statement in addition to an Environmental Impact Statement.
Individual coal projects such as the Mount Pleasant Operation contribute incrementally to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water contamination and loss of agricultural land.
The health and well-being of vulnerable people are affected first as threats increase globally and locally. The global poor are most likely to suffer ill health due to climate change. In Australia, it is also the poor who are forced to live in the proximity of these projects and suffer adverse health effects.
The proponent has not satisfactorily resolved the issue of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Neither has it adequately answered local concerns to do with water loss, noise, air quality and community harmony and stability and amenity as well as remediation.
Based on these criteria this project is not justified.



(1) Castleden WM, Shearman D, Crisp G and Finch P (2011) The mining and burning of coal: effects on health and the environment. The Medical Journal of Australia, 195(6), 333-335.
(2) Climate Council (2014). Briefing paper. Health effects of coal. 2014 Available at http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/d2b6cbbfff522e700c99f3c4e3c0aee0.pdf
(3) Costello, A et al. 2009.Managing the health effects of climate change. The LANCET, 373 (9676), pp 1693-1733
(4) Coal's Assault on Human Health, A Report from Physicians for Social Responsibility Alan Lockwood,et al (2009)
(5) The Climate Institute, 2013. Unburnable Carbon: Australia's carbon bubble. Available at: http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/Unburnable_Carbon_Australias_ Carbon_Bubble_finalreport.pdf.http://www.ecologicalinternet.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=223935&keybold =climate%20AND%20%20solution%20AND%20%20intergenerational
(6) WHO, 2015 Climate change and human health. Available at: http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/
(7) Hendryx M, Ahern MM Relations between health indicators and residential proximity to coal mining in West Virginia. Am J Public health 2008; 98;669-671
(8) Gauderman, Association of improved air quality with lung development in children. New England Journal of Medicine, 2015; 372:905-13
(9) WHO media release 26 September 2011
Biegler, T., 2009. The
Russell Hart
Support
Lambton , New South Wales
Message
As a project manager of a local engineering company - the Mine Optimisation Modification will offer a much needed boost to the employees of engineering service providers that have been hit hard by the downturn in recent years.

Furthermore, the impact of the downturn has been felt throughout the local communities that service the mines and the families' of the miners - with many being laid off, and having to travel interstate away from their family to provide for them. This development will help to keep construction and operations jobs in the local area, and return workers to their families again.
Name Withheld
Support
Lambton , New South Wales
Message
I support the Mount Pleasant Coal Mine Modification 3, including the jobs it will provide in the local area and the revenue it will generate for the country.
Name Withheld
Object
Avenel , Victoria
Message
I object to the Mount Pleasant Modification 3 proposal and seek that the Department of Planning and Environment either reject this proposal or require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment be undertaken to reflect today's environmental standards, government policies and community expectations.
It is not acceptable that the NSW Government should disregard its policies,
environmental obligations and duty of care to the local community by allowing an
open cut coal mine to proceed on this site without appropriate reassessment of the
environmental and socio-economic impacts this mine would have today.
Mining companies will come and go but agriculture is here forever. Agricultural
industries and jobs need protection.
The Hunter has a growing tourism industry that should be encouraged and
supported. Mining and tourism do not mix.
We cannot co-exist with mining so close to our towns, agricultural and tourism
industries.
Name Withheld
Object
Gosford , New South Wales
Message
Given the Mount Pleasant DA was granted in 1999 and no mining has taken place on
that site in the intervening period, this Modification should either be refused or the
NSW Government should require MACH Energy to undertake a new environmental
impact statement fully assessing the project, its cumulative impacts and the socioeconomic
consequences - including the unresolved land use conflicts in the region.
The previous owners of Mt Pleasant had no intention of proceeding with this mine.
After nearly 20 years of inaction, any new owners should be required by the NSW
Government to reapply for permission to mine on this site and be required to submit
a new, comprehensive and contemporary environmental impact assessment.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
DA92/97-Mod-3
Main Project
DA92/97
Assessment Type
Part3A Modifications
Development Type
Coal Mining
Local Government Areas
Muswellbrook Shire
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N

Contact Planner

Name
Megan Dawson