Mod 4 – Changes to Mining & Water Supply

Schools are skilled in educating students about traffic safety. In addition, there are many external resources schools can draw upon to assist with this process. Trundle Central School has discussed the impact on educational delivery, student safety and assessed risk using the departmental risk assessment template. This process has found that all areas of concern such as noise and dust can be easily mitigated or eliminated. I feel the mine will change some processes that the school currently undertakes but the positive social and economic multipliers also need to be taken into account for the town and district.

I think the mine will be very beneficial for the town of Trundle
I dont believe the traffic will be a problem as the trucks will have to adhere to strict regulations. It is not the mine trucks that will roar thru Trundle, it will be the ones dodging the cameras on the highway which is what is happening now. More jobs to the area is a good thing, and more business to the town.

Narelle Sunderland
Currajong Park
Fifield Rd
FIFIELD.2875
12th December 2017
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
[email protected]
Submission on the Sunrise Mine Project - Modification No 4
Dear Ms Hawkeswood,
I am a landholder adjacent to the proposed mine site and Chemical plant object to the Modification.
This mine will severely impact our lives. As adjoining landholders we have had very little discussion with mining management.
We are concerned about the emissions from the chemical plant, as this process (RIP) has never been used in Nickel mining before. The long term affects of the tailings and evaporation ponds on the water table. If contamination occurs it would severely impact on our productive capacity.
Our biosecurity with our livestock.


My objection relates to the following:

1. Traffic Impacts

* the significant increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of up to an additional 200,000 tpa of limestone;
* the increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of 100,000 tpa of ammonium sulphate;
* the increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of an additional 90,000 tpa of sulphur;
* the increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of 100,000 tpa of ammonium sulphate; and
* the increase in traffic arising from the haulage of 3,000 tpa of caustic soda and 50,000 tpa of lime reagents.

2. Ore Processing Emissions

As a nearby landholder we are also concerned about the ore processing technology and whether it has been proven to be environmentally safe. In this regard we seek an assurance from the EPA and independent experts that noise and air quality emissions will be within acceptable limits and that there will be no adverse impacts on human health, livestock and the environment.




3. Water Impacts

As farmers we are totally reliant on the quality and quantity of water, both for our livelihood and for domestic consumption. I am concerned about the accuracy of the predictions regarding the drawdown in surrounding water bores, the validity of make-good provisions and the impacts on clean surface water quality, quantity and drainage flow pattern changes. These waters are the beginning of the Bogan River water shed flowing on up stream ending in the Murray darling system.

4. Voluntary Acquisition Provisions

The voluntary acquisition consent conditions as drafted are seriously inadequate to protect our health and wellbeing in the event that noise, dust, water, human health or other impacts are unacceptable to us. We ask that these provisions be significantly strengthened to better protect the interests of landholders, acknowledging that the miner holds the power and influence in such negotiations.

Thank you
Your Faithfully


Narelle Sunderland.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in relation to Modification Application 4 for the Sunrise Mine.

Council has reviewed the environmental impact statement and has noted the increase in heavy vehicle movements associated with the transport of sulphur and limestone as well as water during the construction phase of the development.

Council requests that the transport of materials, including sulphur and limestone utilise National, State, Regional and then local roads in order of priority. Council has some concern that Middle Trundle Road (local road) could be utilized by heavy vehicles between Parkes and the Mine and Processing Facility to provide a short cut.

Council supports the Short-term Water Transport Route which utilises State and Regional Roads within the Parkes Shire.

I understand that the community has concerns re traffic but feel that any concerns can be mitigated. Many other towns/cities exist happily with much more traffic. I travel Bogan Gate to Trundle every weekday and numerous weekends and the only issue is the width of the road (and kangaroos) I'd be looking forward to more being spent to upgrade the road as Parkes Shire Council don't seem to have it as a high priority.

Many residents wouldn't know how many traffic movements we currently have, agricultural machinery, stock trucks, general freight trucks, caravans, buses etc. I wonder if they realise or consider everything they purchase comes into town on a truck that has driven through many other towns. We often have highway trucks coming through to avoid the pads at Forbes and cameras, they are more problematic re speed and noise as they don't care. Local trucks do care and mine trucks will too as they are closely monitored.

I'm sure the traffic management plan will address the issues perceived, ideas such as;

Move the school pick up/drop off into Croft St
Pedestrian crossings
Lollypop people at the school
Move ABBA into Parkes St or the oval or the showground

I think the town needs opportunity and employment, I have 2 sons that will need jobs. It will be good for town.
Employing local people will also reduce the complaints as people are less likely to complain about the mine and traffic if their neighbour or sibling work there.

I think Trundle is in the box seat, we can be asking the mine to contribute to local facilities and employment which is exactly what this town needs.

I think Trundle has much more to gain than to lose

I support the Sunrise Modification 4 project. The project has the potential to bring many social and ecomonical benefits to the Central West Region, and more specifically the Parkes, Lachlan and Forbes Shire Councils. The Company is innovation in their approach in extracting and producing materials that are currently in high demand within the lithium-ion battery industry - an industry that aims to address some of the environmental burden the transport / traffic industry currently places on the earth. Every project / change of this size has some negative impacts, and this is unfortunate, however I feel the benefits outway the negative.

GJ & NU SUNDERLAND
ABN 53724281966
Currajong Park
FIFIELD NSW 2875
Phone: 02 6892 7308
Mobile: 0427098160
Email: [email protected]

12 December 2017


Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
[email protected]

Dear Ms Hawkeswood,
Submission on the Sunrise Mine Project - Modification No 4

We are landholders adjoining the proposed mine site and chemical plant and
object to the Modification. This mine will severely impact our lives. As adjoining
landholders we have had minimal personal discussions with mining
management. We are very concerned about the emissions from the chemical
plant, as this process (RIP) has never been used in Nickel mining before. The
long term affects of the tailings and evaporation ponds on the water table. If
contamination occurs it would severely impact on our productive capacity our
bio security when selling stock.
.
Our objection relates to the following:

1. Consultation:
a. We have had minimal consultation with CleanTeq staff even
though we own one properties adjoining the mine and one
property joining Brooklin on the eastern side.

b. Not enough hard copies of the modification were made available
to the community. The Lachlan Shire, Parkes Shire and Forbes
Shires are only open business hours. The majority of the
population work these hours. Not all people have a computer, not
all people are proficient users of technology and the
internet/satellite downloads are pathetic.

2. Land Values: With a large chemical plant on our boundary we can
assume that our land values will be significantly reduced. Consent conditions as drafted do not provide adequate protection/rules for a
landholder to negotiate a fair buy-out price if one is adversely impacted
by noise, dust, health , smell , night lighting ,or domestic and ground
water issues.
3. Air Quality and Emissions:
a. Emissions will include sulfuric acid mist, sulfur dioxide, sulphur
trioxide, nitrogen dioxide and hydrogen sulphide. Dust from
blasting and pit operations. Noise from the blasting and pit
operations.
b. The blasting and mining activity will cause noise and dust. Neither
of which we have now.
4. As a nearby landholder we are also concerned about the ore processing
technology and whether it has been proven to be environmentally safe. In
this regard we seek an assurance from the EPA and independent experts
that noise and air quality emissions will be within acceptable limits and
that there will be no adverse impacts on human health, livestock and the
environment.
5. Groundwater & Domestic Water
a. CleanTeq have failed to recognize commissioned and active bores
in the area that could be affected by the seepage from the tailings.
Our stock water is a flow off from the mine site.(Sunrise property
is the beginning of the Bogan water shead) this eventually flows
through to the Murry Darling system.
b. Excavation of the open cut pits would result in the intersection of
ground water flows in the deepest area of the pits. This could have
very grave impacts on stock and domestic bores in the area.
c. Our two homes are within the affection zone for noise and dust
our domestic water is collected from our roofs I am very
concerned about our rights and wellbeing and what safeguards
are in place.

6. Seepage Control
a. Our concern is that of the long-term permeability of the
foundation soils beneath the tailings dams and the evaporation
ponds. We believe insufficient testing has been done to indicate
the holding ability of the clays in the Tailings Storage Facility and
Evaporation Ponds. The Environmental Impact Study originally
and in Modification4 shows no back up of this e.g. soil tests. If soil
testing for permeability (not the seismological tests) has been
carried out, how many, location and results of same have not been
published. Local Knowledge tells us that this country does not
hold water.
b. The modeling for seepage of tailings and evaporation ponds water
through compacted clay has been done assuming a TDS in liquid
of 26 000 mg/L. However the tailings dam will be built in layer up
to heights of 30m. The liquids contained in the tailings are high in
magnesium, aluminum and calcium sulphates, concentrations of these salts are expected to generally have a concentration of 60
000mg/L. The decanted water from the tailings dam is transferred
to the evaporation pond at an average daily rate of 3.2 ML/day.
The total dissolved salt concentrations are expected to be between
100 000 and 200 000 mg/L in this pond. Any excess water from
this pond is discharged to a surge dam. The modeled salt level in
this dam is expected to be at saturation levels of 360 000mg/L. for
the life of the project. The chemicals would have a major impact
on the breaking down of the clay liner.
c. As the TSF, evaporation ponds and surge dam cover 394 ha in
total we require a guarantee that no seepage into the groundwater
will occur.
d. Mod 4 fails to identify what contaminants eg chromium, arsenic
and lead that will be in the seepage from the tailing dam.

7. Transportation:
a. Hazardous chemicals
i. 100 000 tonne/annum of ammonium sulphate
ii. 350 000 tonne/annum of sulphur
iii. hydrochloric acid
iv. 3 000 tonne/annum of sodium hydroxide (caustic soda)
v. 50 000 tonne/annum of lime reagents
b. Emergency response services.
i. The EIS fails to take into consideration the possibility of fire
emanating from the mine site and spreading to adjoining
land.
ii. With increased traffic flow, as per Mod 4, there will be 216
to 316 vehicle (including heavy vehicles and hazardous
loads) movements per day through Trundle and Fifield to
the mine site. If an accident occurs local SES and Rural Fire
would be first response. I understand no consultation has
been entered into with either of these local groups.
c. Proposal to haul water from bore fields.
i. Route via Henry Parkes Way including North Condobolin
Road (approximately 8 km), Bedgerabong Road (approx. 15
km), Noakes Road (approx. 7 km) and Yarrabandai Road
(approx. 24 km).
ii. No mention of road upgrades for these roads. What size
trucks will be used for haulage? How many trucks will need
to be used? What is the duration of the transport of water to
the mine site?
d. The modification does not mention upgrades to the Bogan Way
between Bogan Gate and Trundle, which will be the route of the
haulage of limestone.



8. Cleanteq states that in the transport of limestone they will be using 48
tonne payload capacity trucks. They are considering the use of larger trucks with a 90 tonne payload capacity, subject to relevant approvals.
There are known trucks with a 90 tonne pay load capacity.
9. Monitoring:
a. Monitoring. There is to be no off-site monitoring. The mine will be
operating 24hr/day. There are likely to be adverse impacts re
noise (especially at night), dust, traffic, possibly odour/air quality
issues from the chemical processing, water drawdown in bores,
night lighting and visuals, water quality for human consumption.
b. Berrilee house is within 5km of the blasting site, there is to be no
monitoring site on this property.

c. With the toxic emissions (Section 4.6.1 Vol 1, Page 80) eg Sulphur
dioxide, Sulphur Trioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide, we are
concerned that monitoring of water quality that is caught from
run-off after rain and stored in tanks for human consumption has
not been addressed.
d. If the processes and emissions from this mine and chemical plant
are to have such a minimal impact on surrounding properties, I
would have thought it good policy to provide off site monitoring
on surrounding properties to calm landholders fears.

10. Number of Modifications:
a. The number of modifications and changes in plans is very
confusing and not easy to follow, with related sections spread
between the two volumes and numerous appendices. Model 5 was
released before Model 4, which makes one wonder if the plan is to
confuse. The original EIS was much easier to comprehend.
b. I would ask that when they get it right can we have one readable
document.

11. Modelling:
a. Modeling is not a fail safe method of predicting outcomes. The
modeling for the extraction of Nickel Cobalt for the Murrin Murrin
Nickel Cobalt mine in Western Australia proved to be inaccurate
and the chemical plant had many problems in the start up phase. A
lot of the data used to in the modeling predictions come from
areas far removed from here.
b. Appendix B 4.2 Long term noise monitoring from 5 December
2016 to 15 December 2016. If this is long term what is short term?

12. Not in Mod4
a. Proposed 40km 66,000 KVA electricity line from Trundle to the mine site.
Thank you for considering my concerns.

Yours faithfully

Garry Sunderland

I support the development of CleanTeQ Sunrise mine and the positive economic impact it will have on the area, particularly our town of Trundle.

While the mine will obviously have other impacts that cause concern in the community, I have been encouraged and impressed by CleanTeQ's resolve to deal with these concerns seriously and quickly.

I believe that the best possible outcome for our community is to develop a constructive working relationship with CleanTeQ, and to this point, I have personally experienced nothing that leads me to doubt that will be possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Department of Planning and Environment regarding the proposed Sunrise Nickel/Cobalt Mine (Mod 4).
We have a personal connection with Trundle that began in 1994. Since that time we have had regular contact with people in the community, attended social gatherings, church meetings and sporting events. We have stayed, at times for extended periods of time, in a Trundle home that is located on The Bogan Way. To access the area we have driven light vehicles in a variety of conditions and times of day and night. Brett has many years of experience operating and driving heavy vehicles and equipment and has had the pleasure of driving in most parts of the eastern States of Australia.
We have concerns for the implication the expected increase in traffic volume will have on the Trundle community and surrounding areas. The possibility of increased road accidents, vehicle noise, vehicle pollution and changes in traffic flow are likely should the preferred route to the mine be utilised. We believe the excess noise could negatively impact the lives of Trundle residents who are not accustomed to 24 hour day vehicle movements at the proposed amounts each day. The level of vehicle movements through the town would significantly increase as quoted in the Appendix E, Road Transport Assessment, Syerston Project Modification 4 (Environmental Assessment). This information indications that for the approved Full Production Phase, the Syerston Project can be expected to generate some 470 vehicles trips per day, of which 263 trips would be by light vehicles and 207 trips per day would be by heavy vehicles (p.24). It is clear this indicates a change to traffic levels, noise and vehicle pollution through the town of Trundle and would alter the character of the area.
Other points of concern are:
* Emergency Management - Trundle does not have an ambulance station. What plans are in place for emergency situations, including chemical spill or a fire?
* Road Maintenance - While it is indicated in `Road Transport Handout' that CleanTeQ would contribute funding to the maintenance of key roads it is unclear if this is for the entire length of the project, or during startup. How will road assessments take place and who will determine when maintenance is required?
There are several large sections of low lying roadway on The Bogan Way that are covered in flood water in times of heavy or prolonged periods of rain. If left unimproved these road sections will deteriorate rapidly, be a major hazard and cause delays and require road users to find alternate bypass routes in times of flooding.
* Alternative Traffic Routes - are other routes that bypass Trundle under consideration, such as Boor Hill Road?
* Railway Crossings - The railway crosses The Bogan Way and there are currently minimal safety precautions in place. Level rail crossings along The Bogan Way are currently without signals, unlit at night time and some are on dangerous sections of road and rail bends. It can be very difficult to see trains on approach to the level crossings. Given a proposed increase in rail movements of 3 return rail trips per week, what plans are in place to upgrade these crossings?
While we support local development and supporting rural areas, it appears the proposed mine will have limited benefit to Trundle and the surrounding area. Limited employment for local residents, the unlikelihood of new employees residing in or moving to nearby villages and an increase in traffic movements result in a project with unclear local, long term prospects.
Regards,
Brett and Colleen Farrow

I am very concerned about the number of trucks that will be driving through the township of Trundle, as well as past my parent's property on the Fifield Road. Their property is Moorlands and I frequently visit them with my young child. I am concerned about the increased traffic and dangers it may pose to pedestrians in the town of Trundle and commuters who use the road for general use.

I have two main concerns regarding the large volume of traffic that the CleanTeq Sunrise project will have on the Trundle community.

Firstly, I am concerned that the safety of Trundle's elderly residents and children will be severely compromised with the large number of heavy and light vehicle movements through the main street on a daily basis.

My second concern is that traffic movements along the proposed routes will pose major challenges for graziers moving stock along the road.

With regards to the Sunrise Clean Teq mine I am extremely concerned by the volume of vehicles that will be passing through Trundle's Main Street. These concerns revolve around the safety of pedestrians, the noise these vehicles- especially trucks- will create and the social impact on our town. I am in favour of a heavy vehicle bypass to alleviate some of these problems.
As a landholder in close proximity to the proposed mine and our farm being situated on the proposed main route to the mine, I am concerned about the emissions from the actual mine as well as the increased traffic on our road to and from the mines.
Another concern is the railway intersections between Bogan Gate and Trundle which do not have boom gates or warning lights.

Please see attached PDF

File attached

FILE ATTACHED

I do not have an email address so am using my neighbours. Please direct correspondence to my postal address.

RA & LM McMahon
12th December 2017
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
[email protected]
Submission on the Sunrise Mine Project - Modification No 4
Dear Ms Hawkeswood,
I am a landholder adjoining to `Brooklin' 4km away from the proposed mine deposit site and my objection relates to the following:

1. Traffic Impacts/ Pollution

* the significant increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of up to an additional 200,000 tpa of limestone;
* the increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of an additional 90,000 tpa of sulphur;
* the increase in traffic resulting from the haulage of 100,000 tpa of ammonium sulphate; and
* the increase in traffic arising from the haulage of 3,000 tpa of caustic soda and 50,000 tpa of lime reagents.
With these chemicals being used how can you prove there will not be significant pollution to the air and water in the proximity. Therefore, impacting our cereal produce and livestock which is our livelihood and sole income.

2. Ore Processing Emissions

As a nearby landholder we are also concerned about the ore processing technology and whether it has been proven to be environmentally safe. Regarding this we seek assurance from the EPA and independent experts that noise and air quality emissions will be within acceptable limits and that there will be no adverse impacts on human health, livestock and the environment, which is hard to believe with all the above additional chemicals being used in processing, especially when I have a 15month old who suffers from asthma.

3. Water Impacts

As farmers we are totally reliant on the quality and quantity of water, both for our livelihood and for domestic consumption. I am extremely concerned about the accuracy of the predictions regarding the drawdown in surrounding water bores, the validity of make-good provisions and the impacts on clean surface water quality, quantity and drainage flow pattern changes, as the water ways that you are using run through our property, and are our only source apart from rain water which will then be contaminated by any air and dust pollution.
In a flood how will you contain all the settling ponds if they over flow? Because all of our dams rely on the run off water from kings dale, Syerston, Sunrise and Wonderbye.
So in a case of a flood all of our water will be polluted and therefore any stock that drink this water will be worthless.

4. Voluntary Acquisition Provisions

The voluntary acquisition consent conditions as drafted are seriously inadequate to protect our health and wellbeing in the event that noise, dust, water, human health or other impacts are unacceptable to us. We ask that these provisions be significantly strengthened to better protect the interests of landholders, acknowledging that the miner holds the power and influence in such negotiations. But If this mine goes ahead and our land is polluted in any of the number of ways noted above, its value will be significantly less if not worthless. So, will you be offering compensation for the farmers around this area? Because most of the community have lived here their whole lives and have worked hard to build a livelihood here for themselves, of which a lot are third and fourth generation famers, so to take away their whole life's work in a blink of an eye without proper consideration is despicable.

Ross & Lucie McMahon

KP & RL McMahon
12th December 2017
Department of Planning & Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
[email protected]
Submission on the Sunrise Mine Project - Modification No 4
Dear Ms Hawkeswood,
I am a landholder 4km away from the proposed mine deposit site and my objection relates to the following:

1. Ore Processing Emissions

As a nearby landholder we are also concerned about the ore processing technology and whether it has been proven to be environmentally safe. Regarding this we seek assurance from the EPA and independent experts that noise and air quality emissions will be within acceptable limits and that there will be no adverse impacts on human health, livestock and the environment, which is our livelihood and sole income. It is hard to believe that with the use of;
* an additional 200,000 tpa of limestone;
* and an additional 90,000 tpa of sulphur;
* 100,000 tpa of ammonium sulphate; and
* 3,000 tpa of caustic soda and 50,000 tpa of lime reagents, it will be safe for us and our families to carry on living here unaffected, especially when you have respiratory condition (sarcoidosis of the lungs).

2. Water Impacts

As farmers we are totally reliant on the quality and quantity of water, both for our livelihood and for domestic consumption. I am really concerned about the accuracy of the predictions regarding the drawdown in surrounding water bores, the validity of make-good provisions and the impacts on clean surface water quality, quantity and drainage flow pattern changes, as the water ways that you are using run through our property, and we rely on them to fill our dams, which then supply water to our livestock (Cows, Sheep and Pigs) the house and surrounding gardens and land.
So in the case of a flood how will you contain all the settling ponds if they over flow? Because that will in turn fill our dams, and therefore pollute everything in its path, not only condemning our livestock but making our land worthless too.

3. Voluntary Acquisition Provisions

The voluntary acquisition consent conditions as drafted are seriously inadequate to protect our health and wellbeing in the event that noise, dust, water, human health or other impacts are unacceptable to us. We ask that these provisions be significantly strengthened to better protect the interests of landholders, acknowledging that the miner holds the power and influence in such negotiations. So If this mine goes ahead and our land is polluted which will be inevitable, its value will be worthless. So, will you be offering compensation?

Kevin & Robyn McMahon

See attached

Have uploaded submission as attachment