Mod 6 - Expansion of Coal Mine

Friends of the Earth (Australia) is a national environmental membership-based organisation.

We object to the proposed project.

Our concerns are outlined below.

BROKEN PROMISES

The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any commitments it makes in the present application. The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. That decision must be respected.

LACK OF INFORMATION BY PROPONENT

Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it.

This is not appropriate behaviour from the proponent of a major project, which greatly undermines any faith the local community might hold regarding expectations for genuine consultation.

UNFAIR PROCEDURE

This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This was surely not a co-incidence, and erodes public trust in the objectivity of the state government in this process.

Ordinarily, a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project just allows two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see the Modification application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be working with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this perception will be damaging to both the reputation of the government and the approvals process.

IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS

Noise

The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Particulate emissions

The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year.

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.


ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.

Rio Tinto's proposed Warkworth Extension was comprehensively rejected by the Land and Environment Court on compelling environmental, social and economic grounds. In response the Government has attempted to amend legislation to fetter the Court's power to reject or constrain mining developments in the public interest, and is acting in support of the company against the community. I object most strongly to such a policy, of continuing the sort of corrupt collusion with developers which provoked such public disgust with the previous Government.

This proposed modification appears likely to be the precursor to a revived Extension proposal being submitted with government support in the future. The manner of its sudden appearance, with a mere two weeks for public response, in a context of such blatant and improper Government advocacy, is likewise most objectionable. It is improper to seek approval in stages, of an Extension so clearly contrary to the local and wider community interest.

The Modification proposal itself is also quite unacceptable. It would destroy endangered vegetation and employ a most inadequate offset ratio of 2:1; it would result in the same social, noise and health impacts found by the Court to be unacceptable with respect to the Extension; it would result in the destruction of Aboriginal artifacts; and it would involve the destruction of land within the area previously protected by Deed of Agreement.

This proposed modification should not be allowed.

Barrie Griffiths.

This is a submission against the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, and I submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.

80% of known fossil carbon resources must remain underground and unburnt to still have a barely liveable planet. Knowing this it is long past time to be allowing even proposals to dig up whole communities let alone endangered ecological ones. It is also long past time for the fossilised mentality that still wants to burn fossil carbon for energy when there is an abundance of low entropy energy coming presently from the sun, more than enough for human requirements. It is time that the bureaucracy no longer supported idiots and instead stopped abusing our planet.

BROKEN PROMISES
The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application. The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. That decision must be respected.

DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

UNFAIR PROCEDURE
This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This was surely not a co-incidence, and erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process.

Ordinarily, a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project was sprung on the public without any notice, with just two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see the Modification application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is not a good look.

IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS
Noise
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Particulate emissions
The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.

It is disappointing to note that Rio Tinto has been misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension was rejected in court, and has failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement it has broken - to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their bland public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.

Sincerely,

Alan Roberts
Secretary: Nimbin Environment Centre

This is a submission against the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, and I submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.

BROKEN PROMISES
The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application. The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. That decision must be respected.

DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

UNFAIR PROCEDURE
This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This was surely not a co-incidence, and erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process.

Ordinarily, a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project was sprung on the public without any notice, with just two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see the Modification application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is not a good look.

IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS
Noise
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Particulate emissions
The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.

It is disappointing to note that Rio Tinto has been misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension was rejected in court, and has failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement it has broken - to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their bland public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist

I have worked here at MTW for 7 years. Like many people in the area I took a job up there for the stability and long term financial security for my family. Before gaining full time employment at MTW I worked for contracting company's that rely on work generated by the mine. If the mine closes it will directly effect me and my family, I have family and close friends working there, and all the company's in the area that rely on the mine being operative to be sustainable, everyone from cleaners to role replacement contractors and all the company's that deliver supplies to the mine, even to the take away shop in the industrial estate and the people that work there.

My father worked here for 25 years, will be sad to see it shut down!

This is a submission towards the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, the manner in which it was submitted and the time-limit to respond to this "interim proposal". I submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.

The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 with assurance that it would never mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the endangered woodland upon the ridge which had been rezoned for environmental protection and to shelter the village of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio's commitments are being forgotten and ignored by the multinational Rio Tinto simply in the interests of profit and the now spent boom on Australian Coal.

Local residents learned of the new application, by chance, the day before it was lodged despite attending a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project was complete and ready to lodge, yet management preferred not to advise residents. This is deliberately behaviour from Rio Tinto, with no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This is no co-incidence, and the public have no grounds to trust the government or Rio Tinto.

This mine expansion, allegedly state significant, because Rio Tinto submit under this premise, should go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project was sprung on the public without any notice, with just two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. Rio Tinto and the Government are using the Modification application as another step to override the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is further cause for concern.

The proposed expansion as appears to be progressing is bringing the mine closer to Bulga, and by removing some of the direct shielding landform is increasing mine impacts on the village. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

The proposed Warkworth modification project will destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga must not be allowed to join this list of disappearing communities for the sake of corporate greed, supported by a sympathetic planning process that appears to be hell bent in supporting the multinational at all cost.
Rio Tinto, by misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension being rejected in court, has further divided the community and has failed to support both the community and the workers with this strategy.
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, and at least a dozen more that the locals have not spoken of. Rio Tinto had previously agreed to protect the known sites (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah and other local people must be protected.

Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project because there is none.

Rio Tinto's misleading claims in this direction have no credence within the representatives of our legal system to date with estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent are just tactics. Those jobs are not secure with most workers being on contract to be hired/fired as finance dictates. They certainly cannot take precedence over the protection of public health, and adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6) based on the following:



1. The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application.

2. Disregard for Judicial Process and Inadequate Submission Period
The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. As this decision is currently the subject of an appeal (with judgement pending), Rio Tinto's rush to resubmit an amended DA can only be seen as showing complete disregard for the judicial process.

Even more concerning, this application was lodged just two business days after an amendment was made to the Mining SEPP , which require the economic significance of a resource to be the primary factor influencing the decision maker's determination of a mine application. This coincidence can only erode public trust in the objectivity of government in this process. Fortunately, the NSW Upper House has repealed this amendment.

Normally a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this DA has given just a two week period for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current appeal by Rio Tinto/NSW Govt in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see this application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is does not instil public faith in our government.


3. Inadequate Community Consultation
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.



4. Noise Impacts
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?


5. Adverse Health Impacts
The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

6. Loss of Endangered Species and Habitat
The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss as pointed out by Justice Preston, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

7. Social Impacts
Too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.

It is disappointing to note that Rio Tinto has been misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension was rejected in court, and has failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement it has broken - to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

8. Aboriginal Heritage Impacts
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

9. Overestimation of Employment Opportunities
Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their bland public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.


Sincerely,

Gabrielle Tobias
BVSc(Hons), BSc(Vet)(Hons), DipVetClinStud, MAppSc

Please accept my submission to OBJECT to the amendment to the Warkworth expansion on the following grounds.

Dust.

Bulga and the surrounding communities are experiencing unprecedented problems with dust. If we allow Rio Tinto to expand more dust will be produced closer to the village of Bulga. It is my understanding that this area will produce huge amounts of overburden to further increase the problem with dust. It is unacceptable. Where will all of this overburden go? Mt Thorley? If this is the case is this legal? It is my understanding that when Bulga appealed and won, the DA went back to the 2003 approval which means the two mines operate under separate approvals.

The World Health Organisation states no level of dust is acceptable.

Noise

Rio Tinto state they are in compliance with noise levels. This is totally untrue as the numbers of complaints have increased incredibly over the last year. They are also totally arrogant as they do not add the low frequency noise to the total as they are required to do under the NSW industrial Noise Policy. In the Land and Environment Court they did accept they were not measuring this scale but told the court they would start complying. To date they have not done so which shows in my mind a contempt of court. The low frequency noise is so bad at times my ears physically hurt and I cannot sleep at night. Low frequency noise passes through the walls of your building no matter how thick and even wearing earplugs make no difference. In the end to enable sleep a sleeping pill is the only solution. The stress it causes in my house is intense and affects our relationship.


Health

Both the above, dust and noise, contribute to ongoing health problems. The apparent symptons are respiratory problems but add to that the phsycological problems that can go on for years undetected. The stress of living next to an open cut mine with the prospect of them moving closer and closer is hard to explain but it is there all of the time and can become unbearable.


Saddle Ridge

Again the arrogance and deceit shown by Rio Tinto is unbelievable. They have submitted this amendment whilst still waiting on the decision of the courts. This area they want to dig into is part of the ministerial deed which was put in place to protect this land in perpetuity. I do not believe for a minute that this will be the end of the amendment. If you allow this to go through they will just keep coming back with more amendments until the whole Ridge is gone. By their own admission this will be the case. I refer you to a full page ad that has appeared in the Argus paper. " This will allow us to continue operating the mine on its existing scale for up to 2 years, to minimise impacts on production and jobs while we plan a longer term future for Mt Thorley and Warkworth, "
We all know what that means. They will not be happy until they have taken the whole ridge and move closer to Bulga which will be destroyed.

They still have until 2021 on the existing approval.

Economics

The catch cry of the mines is jobs, jobs, jobs!!!!!!! They will blame people like us in Bulga for the loss of jobs and this is not the truth. There is a downturn in the economy and jobs will go. The approval for the mine is until 2021 and people will move onto other jobs just like every other person has to do in other industries.

It is hard to understand why Rio Tinto want to keep expanding this mine which surely is not that economical considering the ratio of overburden is 10/1 I am no expert but I am pretty sure where they are intending to dig into Saddle Ridge would have much higher ratio than this! The overburden will be considerable.

In conclusion please be aware that there needs to be an even playing field and we need the DoPI to ensure this is the case. At the moment it is not. Rio Tinto applied for this amendment out of the blue. There was no community consultation and we have been given 2 weeks in which to respond. Rio Tinto has obviously been planning this for some time and they have been running full page adverts and online web pages? We do not have the resources to combat all of this but surely right is on our side.

Health, social impacts and environment need to be put ahead of money for overseas operations. Communities such as Bulga need to be protected by the Government.

Yours sincerely
Leslie Krey

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6) based on the following:

1. The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application.

2. Disregard for Judicial Process and Inadequate Submission Period
The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. As this decision is currently the subject of an appeal (with judgement pending), Rio Tinto's rush to resubmit an amended DA can only be seen as showing complete disregard for the judicial process.

Even more concerning, this application was lodged just two business days after an amendment was made to the Mining SEPP , which require the economic significance of a resource to be the primary factor influencing the decision maker's determination of a mine application. This coincidence can only erode public trust in the objectivity of government in this process. Fortunately, the NSW Upper House has repealed this amendment.

Normally a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this DA has given just a two week period for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current appeal by Rio Tinto/NSW Govt in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see this application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is does not instil public faith in our government.

3. Inadequate Community Consultation
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

4. Noise Impacts
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Hi,

I have worked in the huinter valley in mining for almost 190 years. I am married, and have two young children to support. My family, and many of families like mine, rely on mining to keep us going, financially.

I see the good work completed here, the good intentions to minimise interruptions with neighbours, the care that everyone has here for the health and safety of everyone, and the support that we provide to the community as a whole. We run donations committees, give away plants and trees, porvide money to local chariities and support with able bodies in times of crisis such as the recent bushfires, and floods prior to this.

Without these mines being supported all of these good things will stop. Many lives will be ruined, both financially and emotionally.

This submission is a responsible one, with generous offsetting and adherence to the strictest environmental condisiotns around. We need this to keep us going. I implore you to base this on merit, and provide approval to keep our economy going.

many thanks for your time.

I object to this proposal and any disturbance of WSW. Rio Tinto should relocate to its Mt Pleasant Approved site at Muswellbrook in lieu of extension of Warkworth-Mt Thorley.

Submission against the Warkworth Mine Modification

I am extremely annoyed to be yet again making another submission against a Mt Thorley Warkworth (MTW) proposal. I am angry about the time frame of 2 weeks to make my inquiries and then to write my submission. I think it is an outrageous situation caused by both Mount Thorley Warkworth Mine and the Department of Planning.

We received notice of this Modification by mail, 1 day after the mine had submitted their application. My husband is a Community Member on the MTWCCC and was present at the October meeting. No mention was made of this application. In a "Community Letter"(Re Warkworth Modification Application) from the General Manager I read about the wonderful community consultation there is with the community of Bulga - what rot! The people of Bulga are always the last to find out about the mine's future extension plans, sometimes from radio news or we have to read all about it in the newspaper! By not consulting the Community Consultation Committee and Singleton Council the mine was in breech of its guidelines. This mine has a very poor rating for consultation in this area.

This proposed Modification is on an area of land which the Land and Environment Court judgement that was made earlier this year considered to be a Permanent Conservation Area. The Judge said in his findings that this land, known as Saddle Ridge was set aside for the protection of the people living in the village of Bulga against noise and dust. This land is part of 2003 Deed of Agreement which was originally promoted by MTW mine as a trade off in an earlier consent application as a protection barrier for the village. It was their solution, their idea, not a request by the people of Bulga. It now seems their offer was too generous and they want it back. In my opinion this back flip may have somehow be influenced by the 2013 world coal prices.

The Deed of Agreement was the security for the Bulga residents. The judgement from the Land and Environment Court considers it to be valid. The government of NSW owes a "Duty of Care" to the people of Bulga and for it not to value this deed it is nothing short of criminal!

When we purchased our property, we had a minerals search conducted and relying on its results we purchased our property. Again, in 2003 I did not speak against any conditions of consent to mine their next extension proposals. This was because I accepted in good faith the offer of the Deed of Agreement not to mine Saddleback Ridge from the mine and we continued to expand our business. I have now lost faith in this mine.

We live at the end of Inlet Road in a beautiful quiet rural setting. Our property adjoins the Wollemi National Park. We chose this area because of its clean air, quality underground water and suitable land topography to grow grapes. We operate a biodynamic vineyard and produce beef cattle. Grapes breath through the stomates in their leaves as with all grasses and crops so they must have a clear clean surfaces to do this. Over the years, as the mine is coming closer to our property we are seeing the effects of coal dust. The coal dust has a greasy sticky substance to which black dust is attached and this grime is now on our pastures, crops and on the roof of our house. The cattle now eat contaminated grasses and grape bunches don't ripen evenly. We drink the contaminated water that has been collected from the roof. We have had to install a first flush system on our tank and this must be emptied to remove the black grime every time it rains.

My main concern with the modification will be the noise, dust and visual pollution it will generate. Now 2013, noise is well above acceptable levels and we repeatedly have to phone the complaints hot line. I keep a record of exceedance levels at our property. One night the noise was so bad I could not sleep and at 12.30pm I got out of bed and drove down to see where the noise was coming from. The noise level in the village was deafening and the noise level below the Mt Thorley site were lower than this and the levels at the Warkworth site were even lower still. The reason for the variation in noise levels is because of the topography of this valley and this is why the noise at the village is often louder than at the mine sites. This is also why the noise levels at Inlet Road have louder readings than the noise levels taken at the Renaud monitor. It is the Renaud noise monitor that the EIS has based their calculations from and this methodology is flawed.

It is because of this reason, I ask why the present modification can even be considered as correct when the mine has submitted selected noise data from only one monitor (Renaud's) and has not included data from two higher monitors in Inlet Road. These monitors continually show higher noise readings. Surely the EIS is flawed.

I have lived in the Singleton region all my life and can say 2013 has been the worst year I have witnessed for coal dust storms. Many times I have reported dust clouds across the Putty Road from MTW to the Singleton Compliance Officers. When you drive past the dust enters the car air conditioning system and you can smell, see and eat the coal dust. It is like eating and breathing grit. At night time there is a very strong smell of gas at one spot which has only become more pronounced in the last 2 years.

On many of these occasions it was the Bulga residents who make the noise complaints that result in the shutdown of machinery. As I have said I now record my complaints and when I receive an acknowledgement from them I now expect to be told what they did to rectify the situation. I often wonder what would happen it we did not contact them the about the noise - I'm sure it would be full steam ahead!.

In a letter to the residents (Date 26/11/13) the General Manager has stated for the year to date the following indicative hours of shutdowns have occurred:


"To assist with dust control" - no mention if it worked
Loading units (Shovels, Excavators and Front End Loaders) 699 hours.
Haul Trucks 4826 hours
Auxiliary Equipment ( Dozers, Graders, Scrapers etc) 1497 hours
Dragline and Drills 951 hours.

During my lifetime I have lived in several areas of Singleton and have found the village life in Bulga full of community spirit. There is a range of activities for all to enjoy from sporting to education pursuits. In the local hall they hold card nights, local dances, cooking classes, computer classes, pre school etc. It is a very rich existence. It is a closer community than is found in larger towns.

I realise the benefits to the economy that mining generates but there needs to be a balance. At present the pendulum has moved too from the middle. It needs to come back to balance. I would be in favour of an underground operation, as this would result in a win win situation, a win for miners and their jobs and the residents of Bulga would not have the noise and dust. And it is a big win for the environment and the future.



Susanna O'Brien.

i support the warkworth mine extension. if this mine does not get the extension its is going to affect so many wokers and there families and also the communities around it.

This is a submission against the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, and I submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.

BROKEN PROMISES
The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application. The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. That decision must be respected.

DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

UNFAIR PROCEDURE
This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This was surely not a co-incidence, and erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process.

Ordinarily, a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project was sprung on the public without any notice, with just two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see the Modification application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is not a good look.

IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS
Noise
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Particulate emissions
The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.

It is disappointing to note that Rio Tinto has been misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension was rejected in court, and has failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement it has broken - to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their bland public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.


Sincerely,
Gerard

This is a submission against the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, and believe that it should be refused.

The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement with the State Government in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

Rio Tinto have applied already to mine this promised offset area, and the Government's approval of that proposal was overturned by the Land and Environment Court. For the Government to approve this proposal would obliterate the legal and social basis of the practice of offsetting. There could be no confidence in it as a mechanism to mitigate environmental impacts of mining proposals henceforth. Extraordinarily, the proponent is proposing in this very application to make more offsets! It's farcical, and cannot be upheld.

Further more, the proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the land form which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

In breaking the 2003 Deed of Agreement and in breaching its conditions of consent for the existing mine, the proponent has demonstrated that it is not fit to be given any further mining approvals in NSW. This application must be rejected.

sincerely

Georgina Woods

What is a promise or an agreement worth these days? Not much it seems. Or is everything either a promise or a "core promise"? Even Court rulings seem not to be consider of any strength.

This is a submission against the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, and I submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.

BROKEN PROMISES
The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application. The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. That decision must be respected.

DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

UNFAIR PROCEDURE
This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This was surely not a co-incidence, and erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process.

Ordinarily, a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project was sprung on the public without any notice, with just two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see the Modification application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is not a good look.

IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS
Noise
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Particulate emissions
The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.

It is disappointing to note that Rio Tinto has been misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension was rejected in court, and has failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement it has broken - to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their bland public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.



Sincerely,
Deborah Harris

This is a submission against the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the project, and I submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.

BROKEN PROMISES
The proponent, Rio Tinto, signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising not to mine Saddle Ridge, which protects the town of Bulga from the worst impacts of the Warkworth mine. Rio committed to approach Singleton Council and have Saddle Ridge and the endangered woodland around it rezoned for environmental protection.

The company is breaking both of these promises, and cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application. The NSW Land and Environment Court has previously rejected Rio's application to mine Saddle Ridge. That decision must be respected.

DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR
Local residents learned of the new application the day before it was lodged. Residents attended a community consultation meeting with Rio Tinto just three weeks before that. At that point in time, the Environmental Assessment for the project would have been ready to lodge, but yet residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and sneaky behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.

UNFAIR PROCEDURE
This application was lodged just two business days after new mining regulations came into force, which require the economic significance of a coal resource to be the primary factor influencing the government's determination of a mine application (the "Resource Significance" SEPP). This was surely not a co-incidence, and erodes public trust in the objectivity of government in this process.

Ordinarily, a significant mine expansion such as this would go on public exhibition for up to 6 weeks. Yet this project was sprung on the public without any notice, with just two weeks for public submissions. A formal appeal by local residents for an extension to the public exhibition period was rejected by the Planning Department, with no reason given.

For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard for the outcome of the previous Land and Environment Court ruling, and the current proceedings in the Supreme Court. It is difficult not to see the Modification application as the first step in a strategy to have the disallowed Warkworth Extension approved bit-by-bit to avoid full assessment.

The government appears to be conspiring with Rio Tinto to push this project through the approval system without due process,. In light of recent revelations from the ICAC inquiry into mining lease corruption in NSW, this is not a good look.

IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS
Noise
The proposed expansion would bring the mine closer to Bulga, and remove some of the landform which currently shields the town from the worst of the mine's impacts. Noise from the mine already has a major impact on the mental and physical health of the residents of Bulga. The mine has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. Despite this, and despite 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions.

How can the Government approve a project that would increase noise impacts on local residents, when the mine cannot even adhere to its existing approval conditions to control noise impacts?

Particulate emissions
The World Health Organization now classifies particulate pollution as a Class 1 Carcinogen. According to the EPA, 87% of PM10 sized particle pollution in the Upper Hunter comes from coal mines. It is likely that the existing Warkworth coal mine has a significant impact on the health of local residents, and and the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in these impacts. A cumulative health impacts study of the Hunter coal industry is needed.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
The proposed Warkworth modification project would destroy 16 hectares of Endangered Ecological Communities. The promised "offset" for this irreversible loss of endangered species and their habitat does not compensate for its loss, and would not protect equivalent habitat to that proposed to be bulldozed. In any event, Rio Tinto have shown that their so-called 'offsets' are not protected anyway, and may be subject to future mining applications.

The Warkworth mine must not be allowed to expand into an area that Rio Tinto agreed, in 2003, to protect in a permanent conservation area, and in which open cut mining was rejected by the Land and Environment Court in earlier this year..

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Sadly, too many Hunter Valley villages have already been swallowed up by coal mining. Bulga, a close-knit community with deep historical significance for the Hunter, must be protected.

It is disappointing to note that Rio Tinto has been misleading its employees about the reasons the Warkworth Extension was rejected in court, and has failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement it has broken - to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, that Rio Tinto has previously agreed to protect (under the Deed of Agreement). This agreement must be kept, and these important cultural artefacts of the Wonnaruah people must be protected.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Rio Tinto have provided no economic assessment in support of the project, and their bland public statements to the effect that this project is needed to maintain jobs have not been supported by any information provided.

Rio Tinto's estimates of the employment and economic benefits of expanding the Warkworth mine have previously been rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court, and they remain untrustworthy. Threats of jobs losses by the proponent should not be a factor for consideration when assessing the merits of this project, and they certainly should not take precedence over the protection of public health, adherence to the Deed of Agreement to protect Saddle Ridge from coal mining, and the right for the community of Bulga to persist.


Sincerely,

Lucia Scurrah

The skulduggery by the company, the NSW government and the Department of Planning concerning this application will go down in history. Agreements made by Rio Tinto back in 2003 to spare the ridge and surrounds near Bulga have been discarded. The court case won by Bulga residents, in which the NSW government joined against the residents in the unholy alliance with Rio Tinto, has been overturned by the hasty alteration to planning laws, with the "Mining SEPP" now prioritising money over human health, the environment and water resources. There is certainly something rotten in the state of NSW, and in the Dept. of Planning, trampling on communities for short term profits, mostly sent overseas to shareholders in this London-based outfit.

I oppose the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine(DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6) and request that this Development Application is refused. This year the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected an application by Rio Tinto to mine Saddle Ridge. The reasons given by the judge were sound and comprehensive and must be relied upon by the Department when considering this DA.
Saddle Ridge is an important buffer between the noise, light and dust of the Warkworth mine and the residents of Bulga.
The health and welfare of the residents of Bulga should be valued above that of an oversesas multinational company who really only has profit as its agenda.
If this DA is approved, the extension of the mine will destroy Saddle Ridge which is also an Endangered Ecological Community.
The Deed Agreement signed by that Company in 2003 provided that Saddle Ridge would be preserved as a Non Disturbance Area.
The 2003 Deed of Agreement must be enforced and Saddle Ridge preserved. There is no reason, legal or moral, why Rio Tinto shouldn't be required to be bound by that Deed.