Mod 3 - Processing & Tailings Storage

To whom it may concern,

I am very concerned about the proposed mine and it's potential impact on the Deua river, it's unique biodiversity and the economic potential of the river and valley for future generations. The impact of a release from the TSF on the Deua river would be catastrophic.

The heavy metals contained in the ore extracted from the mine, if released into the river after a breach of the TSF, would remain in high concentrations in the river for hundreds of years and cause environmental destruction. Experience would show that the chance of unforeseen events that would lead to a release is very real. Climate change, leading to more variable weather patterns and greater incidences of high rainfall events, increases the chances of a failure of the TSF.

The modifications that have been proposed pose an unacceptable risk to the river and the valley. If these modifications go ahead the Deua river will be at risk, and if an unforeseen event occurs and heavy metals enter the catchment the river will be altered for many generations to come. This will influence the ability for the public to use the amenities of the river and also affect local biodiversity which is unique to the area and has been recognised with the establishment of the Deua National Park.

In conclusion, these modifications pose an unacceptable risk to the Deua river and should not be allowed to pass.

Kind regards,

Edward

I strongly object to the Dargues Reef Gold Mine Modification 3 based on my belief that Unity Mining are putting their short term gains before the long term environmental impact should they be allowed to use cyanide and other toxic chemicals in the processing of gold ore.

Disturbing elements of concern re Modification 3: a) The proposed use of cyanide in a processing plant. As well, subsequent release in a tailings dam of arsenic,mercury,hexavalent chromium,lead(why do we have unleaded petrol now?).Cyanide is increasingly being banned in other countries for processing of gold. b) A processing plant would encourage existing and new mining developments in NSW and beyond bringing increased traffic on our inadequate road systems. c) The plant would be at the head of a major river system used by agricultural,residential,fishing &tourist industries. d)Accidents will happen. Prevention is better than cure. As an educator by profession , this adage has always worked.FINALLY. Please consider with care, intelligence,compassion & common sense this proposal of a processing plant for Dargues Reef Mine at Majors Creek New South Wales.

To whom it may concern,

The following submission relates to 10 0054 MOD 3 - a Modification proposing the development of an on-site cyanide-based gold ore processing facility at Dargues Reef gold mine in Palerang Shire.

There are many reasons for opposing this Modification and the three major ones I would like to address are as follows:
1. The potential environmental consequences of allowing a cyanide-based processing plant on steep land above a rocky escarpment that comprises the head of a water catchment that flows through pristine wilderness, cultivated orchards and grazing land, and is the source of the majority of the water supply for Eurobodalla Shire Council;
2. The integrity of the planning process; and
3. The economics of the gold processing plant.

1. I will not enter into a detailed and full critique of this proposed Modification on environmental grounds as I am aware that many others will be submitting objections that will address the many problems with both the site and the project. Suffice to say that a company that has used incorrect rainfall data (Braidwood figures rather than the readily available Majors Creek data) for the design of the site engineering works including the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) and the bunded works area does not inspire any degree of confidence. There were five sediment spills in the first six months from that work site which resulted in sediment plumes flowing downstream along Spring and Majors Creeks and into Araluen Creek. The Land and Environment Court fined the company nearly $200,000 for those spills but if the contaminated water had contained cyanide and other heavy metals those releases could have had a major and lasting impact on wildlife, individuals and businesses downstream. Fortunately, the damage that occurred, although it was considerable and expensive for the individuals affected, was confined to pumps, water systems and irrigation equipment rather than the altogether more serious problems that would have to be tackled if the water had been polluted with major, long-lasting environmental toxins.

2. I feel strongly that this application should not be addressed by applying for a Modification to an existing approval. The original approval to mine at the site was awarded to Cortona Resources. This permission was granted with many Limits of Approval, one of which stated clearly and explicitly that:
"6. The proponent shall not:
...
c. use any cyanide or mercury on site to process or extract gold from the project."

Unity Mining has put forward this Modification to renegotiate the legal conditions of its licence in order to permit ore processing using cyanide leaching and possibly mercury. This ore body contains cadmium, lead and zinc as well as gold, all of which could be released into the environment once the ore body is pulverised and treated to extract the gold. So as well as the safe handling and use of cyanide and/or mercury in the processing operation, these elements also need to be considered when considering the safe operation and long-term maintenance of the processing plant.
To approve such a significant change to the original proposal by Modification is, in my opinion, an attack on the integrity of the planning process. If Unity Mining wishes to establish a cyanide-based gold processing project on this challenging site they should have to undergo a full Environmental Assessment process for the whole project. The obvious dangers of 'mission creep' is made manifest in this opportunistic and flawed planning process where approval of the mine is first made conditional on the ore being trucked out and processed off-site and then the company attempts to overturn that clearly and explicitly stated condition by Modification.

3. The economics of the processing plant proposal is relevant to this Modification as the financial capacity of the current company (or any other entity that takes on ownership and responsibility for the project in the future) to pay for any remediation works or reparations that might be required in the event of a catastrophic one-off event or a slow accumulation of toxins in the downstream soil and water from numerous smaller spills or leaching from the mine site should be factored in to the risk assessment for this proposal.
The history of the project to reopen the old Dargues Reef mine has seen three different companies named as the proponent - Cortona Resources was the original legal entity that applied for and was given approval to mine in 2013 (with serious conditions placed on that approval). Big Island Mining, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cortona Resources, took over the running of the project in 2014.

Unity Mining bought Cortona (and BIM) and is now the proponent of this processing proposal. Unity Mining (UML), which has been listed on the ASX since 1985, has seen its share price go from a high of about 2.5 cents a share in 2006 to its current price of .025 cents per share (August 25, 2015). The Dargues Reef mine has always been highly marginal and totally dependent on an historically high price for gold. UML stated that the mine would only go ahead if the mining assays yielded at least 6 gms per tonne of rock. The ore is only yielding 6.3 gms per tonne of rock and the price of gold has fallen from $US 1,794/oz (October 4, 2012) to today's price of $US 1,154/oz (August 25, 2015).

The medium-term prospects for gold would appear to be poor. Bank of America Merrill Lynch have cut their gold price forecast by 6.8% this year and expect the price to fall below $US 1000/oz next year. Morgan Stanley said (August 12, 2015) it could even bottom out at $US 800/oz. This should alarm the Department of Planning when thinking about the long-term safety and maintenance of this site. Any company that proposes to undertake something as inherently risky as establishing a processing plant on a steep site at the head of a major water catchment should be obliged to show how it would be able to maintain the integrity of that site long after the mine was exhausted.

The volatility of the ownership of the entity coupled with the volatility of the gold price makes it difficult to see how this proposal could be entrusted to this company. A gold processing plant with its TSF will have to be maintained for many decades, far longer than the suggested five-year life of this particular mine. Ensuring that the responsible entity would still be there and have the financial resources to monitor and maintain the site to ensure that no contaminants were able to leach into the subsoil or flow downstream should form part of the approvals process.

I am a former resident of Majors Creek and I am familiar with the terrain and location of Dargues Reef. I currently live in the Eurobodalla Shire, which could be severely affected by any spill at the mine site. I am completely opposed to the proposal to change the conditions of the original approval by Modification to allow what the original approval explicitly ruled out, namely the cyanide-processing of the gold ore on site at Dargues Reef.

Yours sincerely,
Angela Marshall
25.8.2015

See attached

I am worried for the health of my kids because of the use of poisons. I do not like their plan to put a big dam full of poisonous waste in the creek. I don't think there will be many jobs from this mine and the ones that are available will be given to people from other places.

We would like to express our objection to the proposed modification to the Dargues Reef Gold Project which, if it goes ahead, would allow cyanide processing to take place on site. Our objection is based on our concerns about the toxic nature of cyanide processing and possible environmental damage that would occur in the Araluen, Majors Creek and other areas of the Shoalhaven Valley including its rivers and streams. We note that the owners of Dargues Reef Gold Mine have claimed that no spillages from toxic waste from cyanide processes would occur. However, we also note that the same owners have previously claimed that spillages would not occur from previous/current mining activities. In fact, these claims have not been proved, with a number of spillages occurring in the recent past with some environmental damage caused resulting in fines and mitigation strategies. We are also amazed that the owners of the mine would even consider the use of cyanide processing. It has been banned in other developed countries and is being phased out in other parts of Australia in favour of other more environmentally favourable options eg Thiosulphate processing. It would not seem logical to provide a new approval to an operator with a poor track record of compliance to adopt an inherently risky process that is already out of date. Our second objection is that the proposed modification to allow cyanide processing is a clear breach of the mining company's negotiated agreement with the Eurobaddalla community.

I live by the beautiful Deua River with headwaters at Majors Ck. We respect our river knowing that the town of Moruya downstream will get pristine water to drink and use. It really is a lifeline for us all. I now feel extremely concerned for our river and our families and the animals, in fact now all of the Moruya River is at risk and the town people are too.Most people on the Deua are growing organic food. We have a clean clear running river but if this modification is approved it puts all of this in jeopardy. Extra profit for Unity Mining does not justify the devastating risk that the use of Cyanide brings.

I would like to voice opposition to the proposed modifications to the Dargues Gold Mine in Major's Creek. This is in support of the following observations of the process:

1. The original elected body set up to liaise with the community was rejected and Unity appointed their own selection of residents to liaise with. All of their meetings were secret from the rest of the residents and members were even told that they were not to communicate with the residents about any issues raised.
2. The announcement that they now intended to use cyanide occurred at a public meeting with no previous discussion or intention to do so indicated. Many residents did not attend that meeting, assuming that whatever was to be talked about would be the usual miner's "spin", and having no idea of his intention.
3. By doing this Unity Mining lost all credibility in this community.
4. In addition it then became evident that , unknown to the residents Unity had already
surreptitiously changed some of the conditions that had been laid down by the Land and Environment Court, apparently by stealth, secrecy, or corruption, but certainly with no consultation whatever with us.
5. Our trust in the Land and Environment Court was hereby damaged severely and we became aware that the law does not in fact protect us. What is the use of the Court if it's
conditions can so easily be overriden.
6.The limited community consultation by the miner has been selective, courting supporters and ignoring objectors. He has made no attempt to resolve concerns in any meaningful way.
7. He has had no general consultation with the residents . He opened an office in Braidwood for people to go to one day to ask questions but by this time very few had any trust in his responses because he was seen to be a liar.
8. Even local shareholders of the company expressed concern that they had bought shares on the basis of mining without cyanide.
9. The miner has suggested to some residents that the mine will not go ahead without cyanide processing, but in a public meeting has agreed that the mine is in fact viable without it.
10. It is obvious that the miner's intention is to override the valid concerns of the residents now facing the risks involved in a HAZARDOUS MINE, placed IN THE VILLAGE, ABOVE A PRISTINE WATER COURSE providing water for domestic, agricultural and farming use as it flows to the coast providing drinking water to coastal towns.
11. The risk of toxic leaks over centuries from toxins which do not need to be here is belittled, even though the liner of the TSF has a life of 25-350 years according to the manufacturer.
12. All of this risk is to bring EXTRA profit to the miner.
13 The Government will make no more money as the royalties are paid on the basis of gold extracted from the ground.
14 The major use of gold in the world is for WEALTH SUBSTANTIATION. Hardly worth the enormous risks involved but of no consequence to the miner.
15.Under the approved development 100 jobs are available. The miner makes much of extra employment that the modifications will bring, but an additional 20 jobs, probably working in a toxic cyanide environment seems to be not worth the risks.
16. The jobs currently available would include many jobs expected by local haulage contractors in the district keen for the employment. This also benefits all of the support network providing tyres, fuel and maintenance. With modification this will no longer be the case.
17. Despite agreement in place to limit the number of trucks generally, and their movements on the road when children are travelling to and from school and restricted
above ground at night, the miner is telling the community that it will be bad to have so many trucks on the road and he is inflating the numbers.
18. The trucking of cyanide over hundreds of miles and its storage in Majors Creek represent a far greater hazard.
19. There has been no discussion about the possibility of real estate prices dropping significantly because people will not live near such a toxic environment.
20. There has been no discussion with the community about the retention of the lifestyle for which most of us live here, We do not seek money beyond our needs or we would not have chosen to live here. Rejecting the stress, superficiality, and competitiveness of city life, we instead seek real values in a natural , serene and safe environment, living a more simple lifestyle. Toxic mining does not fit.
21. The amount of money bonded for reparations has been suggested to be around 4 million dollars. This is grossly insufficient to rectify and clean-up after an accident and we suggest this be raised substantially.
22. The miner obviously intends to extend the life of this mine into the future, no doubt planning continuing modifications. If a cyanide processing plant were to be built here no doubt much more ore would be brought here in the future and Majors Creek would simply become a hazardous mining town. In addition he mentions robust mining of alluvial gold, does this mean open-cut mining?
Who knows, you can't believe the mining company.
In summary I suggest that this mining company has not met the expectations of the community with this project. The miner has lost credibility with the community, as he has lied to us and not kept his promises nor fulfilled his obligations to the community in this project. He has arrogantly run roughshod over the agreements clearly established at the time of approval of the development, and he has clearly deceived the community and undermined our trust not only in the company but also in the Planning Department and the Land and Environment Court whom we trusted to uphold our safety. The modification is a totally new project in our minds and there are many issues involved, such as local health facilities, not available here at the level that would be required to respond to accidents. The fact that contamination in the water system could easily reach properties in Araluen in as short a time as 8 minutes. Totally insufficient for any action to rectify an accident, especially as monitoring is said to be undertaken once a day! His consultation with the community has been obviously totally inadequate or non-existent.
I ask that you reject this application to modify the mine already approved as it is totally inappropriate and unneccesary to place such a hazard in this location. No tailings dam lasts forever, but the toxic heavy metals released by this process are hazardous forever. There can be no peace for those living below the mine, knowing that a ticking time bomb is above them. Some local residents are ready to leave if this goes ahead, fearing to go through pregnancy or raise their children in such an environment.

I am a resident and landholder in the Deua River Valley and have lived here for 40 years. I love its pristine countryside and in particular the beautiful clean valuable water source from the Deua. During my time here I am proud to be among similar people who pride themselves on their care of our special environment. Most don't use chemicals on their farms and gardens. We are all inspected by council concerning our waste water and sewage disposal. So the idea of a toxic time bomb at the headwaters of our waterway is a very hard idea to swallow and the powers that be should be very careful in their deliberation on this outrageous proposal.
My main concern is the changing weather pattern predicted for our future climate, namely heavier rain showers meaning more flooding. The unforseen freak weather events as happened in the Lockyer Valley not long back was never expected and had devastating effects on land, stock and human lives.
We on the Deua River are not alone in our concerns about this mine using toxic cyanide and heavy metals on a massive scale as the water from the river supplies the Eurobodalla Shire in general. Moruya and Batemans Bay are large towns and without water they would be extinct.
Not much makes sense about this dangerous operation. The price of gold is falling, there is no money in it for anyone but the shareholders and if the mine is sold off, who is going to take charge of the "time bomb"? Only nature and we know what that can do. For these reasons I strongly object to these latest modifications proposed to the operation rules of Dargues reef Gold Mine.

Having been a landowner in the Major Creek area for over 10 years, I have been privy to the initial consultations and submissions made by the mining company to secure the initial lease, and its subsequent modification requests.

The original lease only had gained approval when the company committed to not processing ore on site - the single most concerning issue with the mine. Now that securing the lease was successful, the company is attempting to remove this requirement of the lease. The company has acted fraudulently now that their true intent has been revealed, and have lost the community's trust.

Cyanide processing must not be permitted on this site. The health and livelyhood of the Araluen Valley and Moruya River communities is at stake.

Despite the company claiming they will be stringent and it will be safe, NO guarantee can be given by the company that a spillage will occur. In fact so far this mine has had 5 breaches of environmental conditions for which it has been fined, including chemical spillage - so they already have a legacy of poor capability

This mining company is only interested in profit at the expense of the environment and livelyhood of everyone downstream from these tailing dams. They have lied, they will continue to lie, and will continue to have accidents. They cannot be trusted. Too much is at stake

I object to this proposal on the grounds that there is a risk that a tailings Dam will not be sufficient to withhold any overflow leakage of toxic substances such as arsenic and other heavy metals that it may attract. Also object to this company taking advantage of a narrow window of opportunity to expand their business without community knowledge. The Deau River is a vital source of fresh water that must be safeguarded for farming and recreational purposes.The possibility of a few more local jobs is not enough for the risks involved with this mine. Thanks for opportunity to object.

I object to the Dargues Reef Mine Mod 3. The potential damage to the surrounding ecosystems far outweighs any short term economical gain for the community. It is time we started thinking of our children and grandchildren and not of simply lining the pockets of a few.
Mod 3 is a greedy, sneaky move and according to latest climatic information, very wrong in its data.

"I submit the following information in support of my objection to these modifications being approved. In particular I oppose this application on the basis that Unity Mining does not fulfill the requirements for Social Licence to Operate. I have been a visitor to Majors Creek for 38 years and have observed the following:

Background Information

When Cortona Mines arrived in town seeking to mine Dargues Reef, it was established from the very beginning that no cyanide mining would ever happen here, and nor would any open-cut mining ever be undertaken. It was only on this basis that consultation and discussion were established and a committee voted in by locals was set up to liaise with the mining company.

The discussions were robust and eventually the requirements of the community were addressed and compromise reached. These compromises were included in the Development Application and enshrined in law by the Land and Environment Court, and approval granted.

With some misgivings the members of the community were generally prepared to accept these hard-fought compromises, aware of the fact that almost all of the toxic heavy metals and sulphides would be removed with the gold to an existing cyanide processing plant in Parkes or elsewhere and assurance that our tailings dam would be relatively inert, and therefore safe.

Two families decided to leave the village, but were content to do so, despite very significant stress before making that decision. Cortona had spent a great deal of time listening to our needs and were keen that the lifestyle for which we came here would be protected. They established a playground and contributed significantly to refurbishment of the tennis courts in Majors Creek and donated an old gold carriage to the Braidwood museum, with further financial gifts to follow in time. They had conducted many public meetings with demonstrations, and I believe that at this time Cortona had established reasonable social licence to operate.

Unity Mining's Loss of Social Licence

However, Unity Mining purchased the mine and having initially stated that they would comply with the Development as it stood and assured us in public meetings that they also would NEVER use cyanide processing here, suddenly announced that they were applying for modifications to set up a cyanide processing plant.
At this time I submit that Unity then lost the social licence that had been established, as things continued to deteriorate. The following reasons I give in support of this claim:

1. The original elected body set up to liaise with the community was rejected and Unity appointed their own selection of residents to liaise with. All of their meetings were secret from the rest of the residents and members were even told that they were not to communicate with the residents about any issues raised.

2. The announcement that they now intended to use cyanide occurred at a public meeting with no previous discussion or intention to do so indicated. Many residents did not attend that meeting, assuming that whatever was to be talked about would be the usual miner's "spin", and having no idea of his intention.

3. By doing this Unity Mining lost all credibility in this community.

4. In addition it then became evident that , unknown to the residents Unity had already
sureptitiously changed some of the conditions that had been laid down by the Land and Environment Court, apparently by stealth, secrecy, or corruption, but certainly with no consultation whatever with us.

5. Our trust in the Land and Environment Court was hereby damaged severely and we became aware that the law does not in fact protect us. What is the use of the Court if it's
conditions can so easily be over ridden.

6.The limited community consultation by the miner has been selective, courting supporters and ignoring objectors. He has made no attempt to resolve concerns in any meaningful way.

7. He has had no general consultation with the residents . He opened an office in Braidwood for people to go to one day to ask questions but by this time very few had any trust in his responses because he was seen to be a liar.

8. Even local shareholders of the company expressed concern that they had bought shares on the basis of mining without cyanide.

9. The miner has suggested to some residents that the mine will not go ahead without cyanide processing, but in a public meeting has agreed that the mine is in fact viable without it.

10. It is obvious that the miner's intention is to override the valid concerns of the residents now facing the risks involved in a HAZARDOUS MINE, placed IN THE VILLAGE, ABOVE A PRISTINE WATER COURSE providing water for domestic, agricultural and farming use as it flows to the coast providing drinking water to coastal towns.

11. The risk of toxic leaks over centuries from toxins which do not need to be here is belittled, even though the liner of the TSF has a life of 25-350 years according to the manufacturer.

12. All of this risk is to bring EXTRA profit to the miner.

13 The Government will make no more money as the royalties are paid on the basis of gold extracted from the ground.

14 The major use of gold in the world is for WEALTH SUBSTANTIATION. Hardly worth the enormous risks involved but of no consequence to the miner.

15.Under the approved development 100 jobs are available. The miner makes much of extra employment that the modifications will bring, but an additional 20 jobs, probably working in a toxic cyanide environment seems to be not worth the risks.

16. The jobs currently available would include many jobs expected by local haulage contractors in the district keen for the employment. This also benefits all of the support network providing tyres, fuel and maintenance. With modification this will no longer be the case.

17. Despite agreement in place to limit the number of trucks generally, and their movements on the road when children are travelling to and from school and restricted
above ground at night, the miner is telling the community that it will be bad to have so many trucks on the road and he is inflating the numbers.

18. The trucking of cyanide over hundreds of miles and its storage in Majors Creek represent a far greater hazard.

19. There has been no discussion about the possibility of real estate prices dropping significantly because people will not live near such a toxic environment.

20. There has been no discussion with the community about the retention of the lifestyle for which most of us live here, We do not seek money beyond our needs or we would not have chosen to live here. Rejecting the stress, superficiality, and competitiveness of city life, we instead seek real values in a natural , serene and safe environment, living a more simple lifestyle. Toxic mining does not fit.

21. The amount of money bonded for reparations has been suggested to be around 4 million dollars. This is grossly insufficient to rectify and clean-up after an accident and we suggest this be raised substantially.

22. The miner obviously intends to extend the life of this mine into the future, no doubt planning continuing modifications. If a cyanide processing plant were to be built here no doubt much more ore would be brought here in the future and Majors Creek would simply become a hazardous mining town. In addition he mentions robust mining of alluvial gold, does this mean open-cut mining?
Who knows, you can't believe the mining company.

In summary I suggest that this mining company has not met the expectations of the community with this project. The miner has lost credibility with the community, as he has lied to us and not kept his promises nor fulfilled his obligations to the community in this project.He has arrogantly run roughshod over the agreements clearly established at the time of approval of the development, and he has clearly deceived the community and undermined our trust not only in the company but also in the Planning Department and the Land and Environment Court whom we trusted to uphold our safety. The modification is a totally new project in our minds and there are many issues involved, such as local health facilities, not available here at the level that would be required to respond to accidents. The fact that contamination in the water system could easily reach properties in Araluen in as short a time as 8 minutes. Totally insufficient for any action to rectify an accident, especially as monitoring is said to be undertaken once a day! His consultation with the community has been obviously totally inadequate or non-existent.
I ask that you reject this application to modify the mine already approved as it is totally inappropriate and unnecessary to place such a hazard in this location. No tailings dam lasts forever, but the toxic heavy metals released by this process are hazardous forever. There can be no peace for those living below the mine, knowing that a ticking time bomb is above them. Some local residents are ready to leave if this goes ahead, fearing to go through pregnancy or raise their children in such an environment. Our beautiful lifestyle will be lost, if not destroyed and why? So that wealthy people may sustain their wealth and feel rich, as they steal and destroy our true wealth. As informed by a resident.
Please protect the residents, native animals and visitors to the area,
Pauline Aconley

N.S.W. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

Submission on Project Number 10-0054 MOD 3.

Modification 3 of Big Island Mining at Dargues Reef, Majors Creek

I thank the Department for the patience and persistence evident in its professional consideration of plans and modifications put forward by successive proponents of this long standing project.

My comments on some aspects of Modification Nr. 3 concern the administrative process and some technical aspects, The latter draw chiefly on the excellent recent report by Dr P. Beck of GHD Pty Ltd, which is free of commercial obfuscation and ambiguity, as well as my own experience over sixteen years in research project management in the U.K. With R.T.Z. / Borax as then was.

Background - Promises and Social Licence
I do not support the proposed modification , which includes the use of cyanide in whatever form to process gold at Majors Creek. As the Report by Dr Beck points out, processing with cyanide would lead to hazards including the dissolution of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, antimony, and others present in the sulphide ore. The proponent had used cyanide at its Kangaroo Flat operation in Bendigo, which had been polluted through cyanide use by others over many years previously, and requires sustained pumping of effluent to avoid flooding . The proponent was also unable to exercise an alternative processing option, which was to use the cyanide leach facility at Victoria Parkes, owing to a legal challenge there.

For its hearing in 2011 to consider Cortona's operation the PAC had been told that Cortona would not use cyanide at the Creek because of community concerns about likely leaking from the dam. In fact these concerns were not limited to leakage alone. Subsequently, Unity announced to the Majors Creek community on 11 November 2014 that it would not honour the assurances given by it and Cortona that cyanide would not be used at Majors Creek. In so doing it forfeited its social licence.

Approvals Process - Hostage to the Past
As is known, a site for mining requires a significant financial bond for safety and related remedial work when no longer economically viable; as well as increasing over time through sustained deterioration and degradation both physical and chemical, such work may be constrained by the prospect of the mine re-opening as ore discoveries or prices grow. Since the interest cost of the bond and of any urgent remediation could be more favourable as a tax deduction when the owner works elsewhere there is effectively a potential for a subsequent mine approval to be granted to encourage work at a former site. The approvals process is then in effect held " hostage to the past" or, as less tactfully described by other commentators, is a "Ponzi Scheme."

PAC and Proponent's Budget
In its recommendation on the extension of the Bulga Middlebrook coal mine operated by Rio Tinto the PAC recommended moving the village, which is obviously costly and unusual, but may be within the budget of major multinational. This is perhaps of concern to the extent that this and other PAC recommendations may reflect the liquidity of the proponent and especially more so in a converse situation where the proponent may have limited resources.

Noise and vibration impacts
In documents prepared for the proponent on this subject previously, surface noise measurements were overlaid on old maps of the Creek that showed the original 'paper roads', and therefore gave a potentially misleading representation of where mine noise would be of most nuisance. It must also be emphasised that the transmission of noise and vibration through sub surface strata of varying density and elasticity is complex and difficult to predict. For this reason it is no coincidence that several residents on the line of major former mine workings have experienced noise and vibration nuisance despite their distance from the mine site, which has not adequately been acknowledged. It is also important to recognise that noise nuisance has a subjective component, evidenced by the irritation caused by a dripping tap at night. In this context acceptable urban noise levels should not be applied at the Creek, where at night in particular there is extremely low noise background. This observation is not novel, and is recognised in basic acoustics work. In relation to the crusher there has I believe been work on active silencing, which is particularly suitable where noise signatures are relatively constant.

Effluent Dam - Tailings Storage Facility (T. S.F.)
Visitors to the mine site have been told that the presently designed TSF will meet design criteria including withstanding ingress by a crashed medium sized aircraft. More realistically leakage through, rather than over the wall, from e.g. burrowing by wildlife could eventuate, leading to failure. Although the present design and location approach the ludicrous, it may be that the T.S.F as presently proposed in a location at at the head of a gulley, above a crucial water catchment, with a wall in large extent approaching 35 metres, and linings of questionable physical and chemical durability has been put forward as basis for for further improvement. This would be a charitable interpretation, recognising the proponent's primary fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Failure of TSF dams from gold winning and containing inter alia cyanide residues has occurred worldwide with very serious consequences, especially after ad. hoc. modifications to increase the capacity of an otherwise professionally guaranteed design. Tailings contain a mixture of chemicals which make it difficult to predict the action of them or their reaction products. In particular it may be critical if there is embrittlement of the plastic liner by leaching or reaction of the plasticisers in it.

Majors Creek Climate, Tailings, dust suppressants, and smelter dust
Majors Creek frequently has heavy, pervasive and long lasting mists. At the mine site they both reduce visibility and blanket dams including the tailings . There is therefore I believe valid concern over the possibility of particulates and dissolved solids being carried form the tailings in a smog or other colloidal dispersion and subsequently deposited on roofs collecting rainwater. Mention has also been made of dust suppressants, in the context of mine dust settling on roofs. Since these are typically quaternary amines and related organo-nitrogen compounds they too present a risk, although some have been tested for carcinogenicity. For the safety of water supplies in Majors Creek and the locality it is imperative that efficient dust settling is effected and monitored.

Treating the Tailings
Unity has advised that it is unlikely to re-commission the reverse osmosis equipment that was included in its Bendigo acquisition. There are however many other established methods likely to decrease the level of contaminants in tailings water including ultra-filtration/reverse osmosis, and also perhaps, electro-dialysis and possibly solvent extraction with a centrifugal [ Podbielniak ] unit. Amongst gold producers Barrick Resources in NSW has used reverse osmosis / ultra filtration to substantially clean their effluent at Hillgrove.

Foreign investment and the uncertain risks of tighter regulations.
Were Unity to seek overseas investment for the mine it may be crucial for regulations to be set at a level that need not be increased later. If Australia became party to The Trans Pacific Partnership (T.P.P.) trade agreement, its present provision for Inter State Dispute Resolution ( I.S.D.S.) could allow an overseas investor to seek damages if, subsequently, new or increased regulations were proven to reduce the profitability of its investment.

Representation
It must be clear, albeit sadly, that Majors Creek Progress Association (P.A.) has not permitted discussion of the mine at its meetings. For this reason our P.A. should not be taken to speak on the mine as representative of the residents of majors Creek and nearby.

In conclusion. most of the concerns raised here, as well as by others and in the Report by Dr Beck are especially evident in the post-remedial effects of the Captains Flat mine and its dam, which has been capped similarly to plans for Dargues, and from which the leaking contents have made grass unsuitable for grazing locally and are passing into Lake Burley Griffin via the Molonglo River.

I object to this modification to Darges Reef Gold Mine Application on the grounds that a risk that overflow from a heavy weather event such as in recent times will cause unwanted waste that contains arsenic and other properties that do not belong in the water of the Deau River and thus end up in our water supply downsteam from Majors creek.Thanking you for the opportunity to object.

I write to object strenuously against the modifications being approved. Unity Mining does not have a Social Licence to operate, and there are strong grounds to suggest that there are major problems with the Miner's information about the likely environmental impacts of the mine.
I write as someone who has recently married into a family that had been resident at Majors Creek for nearly four decades. Majors Creek is a place that people have come to live in for its tranquility, isolation and pristine environment. This development threatens all of these.
There is ample evidence that the Miner, Unity Mining has not conducted honest consultation and negotiation with the residents of Majors creek in good faith. They initially stated they would not use cyanide in processing then reneged on this promise. The body to negotiate with Unity was rejected by the Miner, who then set up their own group of people hand-picked to be compliant with their desires. This group apparently met in secret, and did not communicate with the wider community.
There was no genuine consultation with the whole community.
The Tailings Storage Facility lining is only guaranteed to last for 25 years, although tailings will be stored indefinitely. There is evidence that the Miner's estimation of rainfall levels is not robust, and certainly does not take into account likely fluctuations in rainfall patterns as a result of climate change.
Overall, information given to the community by Unity Mining has been inconsistent, conflicting and selective.
It is clear that the overwhelming majority of the community do not want the mine to proceed if it is going to use cyanide processing, and without an honest and open consultation with the community about any modifications to the approval previously granted.
In short, this mine offers a serious environmental threat to Majors Creek and all downstream communities, including Bateman's Bay. The miner has not negotiated in good faith, and lacks any trust with the community.
The mine should not proceed.

I am opposed to the mine now they have changed their position on the use of cyanide in the processing of the gold. When this mine was first proposed we were told they would NOT use cyanide, this is a complete U-Turn that seems thought through and calculated. Why the sudden change so soon. Unity Mines have already had environmental breaches that instil no confidence within the local community, and the communities that would suffer down stream, that this would not happen again. Flippant, bottom line at all costs, short term rather than long term are just a few of the phrases that come to mind about the treatment from Unity Mines and the way they are treating the locals. Their pasts, present and futures.

I am strongly opposed to Modification 3 of the Dargues Reef Mine. This modification is a breach of the agreement that the mine owners had with the local community and councils not to use cyanide. The transportation, use and indefinite storage of the cyanide and other toxic compounds is an unacceptable risk now and into the distant future for Majors Creek and the greater Eurobodalla catchment that lies below the escarpment. This issue has caused major divisions in our tiny community and is causing ongoing anxiety, stress and uncertainty for many residents. That Unity Mining can do this after the repeated promises of no cyanide is dishonest and desperately unfair to the community. The mine does not have the approval of the local community and there is no vocal group in support of it. There is now a large trust deficit between the community and the mine owners, and the repeated change of mine ownership leaves us with a complete lack of confidence in the ability or willingness of the company to deal with any breaches should/when they occur. We have already seen the mine owners fined nearly $200,000 for three spills during the construction phase which we are somehow expected to believe are not going to happen again, or that a mere $3-4 million bond would be able to rectify. My concerns about the 1.6 million tonne ore-containing Tailings Storage Facility and its many tonnes of cyanide and heavy metals are exacerbated by a very real and unknown future of climatic extremes that may well be brought about by climate change.

My family and I have moved to the Majors Creek area in the last couple of years to make a "tree-change" from busy city life (although have been ratepayers for much longer). I was aware of the mine before moving here and understood the history. Like many in the area, although not thrilled by the additional noise and traffic that the mine would bring to our already roadkill-scattered roads, it seemed a fair compromise had been reached and that the community overall was glad that at least the final processing would be done elsewhere and the community would be saved from the toxic legacy of cyanide tailings. Andrew McIlwain, CEO of Unity Mining, has stated several times that the mine will still go ahead without these proposed modifications and so the 100 local jobs promised will still remain without the changes. I have several friends who are hoping for employment opportunities at the mine to bring their partners closer to home, and the potential opening of a shop or café in Majors Creek would be welcomed by many. The addition of a carbon in leach processing plant using cyanide will only bring in an estimated 20 additional jobs for the duration of the mine operation, but massively increase the OH&S risks to all employees. Mr McIlwain has stated quite clearly that the sole reason for this modification application is to improve the profitability of the mine. I find this a completely unacceptable reason to expose us and future generations to this risk. The reduced truck movements with concentrated ore going out will hardly be welcomed since they will be replaced with trucks coming in carrying the tonnes of deadly concentrated cyanide.

The Majors Creek area, as well as being an important traditional farming area, is a hub of creativity and small-scale agricultural endeavours such truffle, garlic and alpaca farms, and has a thriving arts community. There are employment opportunities already here and we would welcome more tradespeople in many areas, as anyone who has built or renovated a house around here would surely agree. Majors Creek is not a struggling town as some of the media has recently tried to portray. Mr McIlwain has repeatedly stated that he will "never say never" to the prospect of bringing in additional ore for processing to this site in future. This is an extremely scary prospect for many residents. We do not need and do not want our peaceful little town to become an industrial mining processing centre.

I was fortunate to attend a tour of the mine site with Unity last week and could see clearly just how close some of the residents' properties and houses are to the mine. My family and I are grateful that we will be too far away to be affected by the constant noise, but feel very deeply for those local residents that will. The size of the TSF is clearly huge in every dimension and difficult to picture on top of the existing landscape. On the tour of the mine I noticed the large amount of wombat droppings about the site, including adjacent to the buildings and earthworks. I am very concerned about the local wildlife, especially the wombat population being affected i.e. killed, injured, burrows and habitat destroyed, but also of the damage the wombats can do to vital structures such as storage facilities, fences and the plastic liner of the TSF. Anyone who has lived with wombats around their house knows how powerful their digging is and how determined they can be to get through something in their path, even strong metal wire fences. Recently excavated earth seems a particular favourite for them to burrow through.

Only this month we have seen the devastating spill into the Animus/San Juan/Colorado Rivers in the USA following breach in storage of heavy metal-contaminated mine waste from 1926, nearly 100 years later, by a backhoe. How can we guarantee future generations of Eurobodalla residents and farmers that this toxic heavy metal sludge left at the top of the escarpment will be safe indefinitely after we are all gone?? Who will be the custodians of this mine in 2045 when my daughter may be starting her own family? Or in 2075 when she may see her first grandchildren born? I have read through the draft report by Dr Peter Beck of GHD Pty Ltd and this report states that "Geochemical and hydrogeochemical studies have shown that residual cyanide and sulphide trapped in the gold-mine tailings can cause persistent release of toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, hexavalent chromium, lead and others into the groundwater and surface water systems". The report goes on to state that the HDPE liner that will be used in the TSF, "when installed and protected correctly, maintains its integrity for between 30-300 years". This falls far short of forever. The report further states that "it will not be a matter of if the TSF will leak, but when the TSF will leak". This is quite shocking to read.

As I'm sure you are aware from reading these submissions, there is a strong, numerous, vocal, educated, media-savvy opposition to this modification that is not going away. After 3 different mine owners, a lengthy initial mine application process, and multiple promises of no cyanide, the community has had enough. We do not want this modification, we do not want cyanide, we all want to get on with our lives without the constant stress of wondering when the next spill or breach will occur, or what further modifications Unity will seek approval for following this one.

The use of cyanide in Majors Creek on an escarpment above the Eurobodalla catchment is insane. The detailed independent report commissioned by our local councils discusses the seriousness of these risks, and the inadequacy of the plans submitted by Unity Mining. Unity must stick to their original agreement with the community and with the Department and not use cyanide. The mine can still go ahead and we can be saved the stress and anxiety of cyanide use, and we can begin repairing the divisions in the community. I care very deeply about the state of the environment that we leave for future generations and as a parent this becomes all too real. The short-term economic gain for one mining company is not worth the risk and legacy that will be a toxic time bomb, sitting on an escarpment above the beautiful and productive Eurobodalla region of NSW, indefinitely.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to lodge an objection to the Dargues Reef Mine Modification 3 on both environmental and social grounds.

The application to use cyanide in the processing warrants more scrutiny than a mere modification. This proposal is more demanding of a new development assessment.

The use of cyanide processing and the construction of a large tailings dam in the headwaters of a major catchment servicing agricultural, rural residential, wilderness and eventually an estuarine environment, leaves a poor legacy for current and future generations.

The dynamic geography and the volatile micro climate of the site underlines the unsuitability of the modification proposal

Independent reports reinforce the inappropriateness of such a proposal in this situation

The proponents of the mine have breached the social licence negotiated with the local population in the initial development assessment when the use of cyanide on the site was categorically dismissed by the then applicants.

The policy of obtaining planning agreements on an incremental basis is a blatant miscarriage of the approval process and one that needs to be addressed by the regulatory authority. This modification application is a prime example of a transgression of the spirit and the essence of the original determination.

I trust the Planning Department will recognise the inadequacies of the measures to safeguard the environment and the lack of social licence to operate of the proposal.

Openly admitted by the applicant as non essential to the economic viability of the project, the determination on Modification 3 would seem obvious!

Yours sincerely

Angelo Rossi