Mod 6 - Expansion of Coal Mine

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,

Annika Dean

Dear Minister
I support Coal & Allied's Modification application to gain access to an additional 350m of land owned by the mine, to avoid a significant drop in production and employment.
We work for a Company that provides Specialist Support Services to MTW for the past four years. This includes over 10 fellow work colleagues on site at MTW, if approval should not proceed, employment will cease for 10 of our colleagues and this would have a vast negative effect on their families living in the Hunter Valley Region, and in turn our company.

Dear Minister,
I support Coal & Allied's Warkworth Modification application to gain access to an additional 350m of land owned by the mine, to avoid a significant drop in production and employment.
I worked at MTW for three and a half years and now support the operation through the corporate office in Brisbane. The reduction of operations at MTW would have a significant impact on my future with Rio Tinto and the future of many of my friends who still work at MTW.
Mount Thorley Warkworth provides a stable income for over 1,300 full time employees in the Hunter Valley. And the operation of the mine reaches into many other businesses that supply MTW. Thousands of people depend on this mine and if production was to drop, the result could be devastating.

We need certainty. We've been wondering what the future holds now for four years. If this minor modification to an existing, 30 year old mine does not get approved, I am worried about what this will mean for local jobs and investment across the NSW mining industry.

Please accept this submission in support of the Warkworth Modification.

Regards

Penny Walker

Dear Minister
I support Coal & Allied's Modification application to gain access to an additional 350m of land owned by the mine, to avoid a significant drop in production and employment.
We work for a Company that provides Specialist Support Services to MTW for the past four years. This includes over 10 fellow work colleagues on site at MTW, if approval should not proceed, employment will cease for 10 of our colleagues and this would have a vast negative effect on their families living in the Hunter Valley Region and our Company

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
If this DA is approved, the extension of the mine will destroy Saddle Ridge which is also an Endangered Ecological Area
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.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am supporting the Mt Thorley/Warworth mine expansion. This is based on the fact the mine supports jobs valuable to hunter valley including my husbands.

Regards

Belinda Hoult.

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
If this DA is approved, the extension of the mine will destroy Saddle Ridge which is also an Endangered Ecological Area
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.

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
If this DA is approved, the extension of the mine will destroy Saddle Ridge which is also an Endangered Ecological Area
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.

I cannot believe that Rio Tinto is applying to mine into an area that was previously stopped by the Land & Environment Court. Also this argument is currently before the Supreme Court of appeal so why are they allowed to put in another application over the same or part of the same block of land. What the Judge said in his decision must apply to this block of land in exactly the same manner and for the same reasons as was argued in Court

I object to the environment which they are destroying as part of the mine operation. Cannot the State Government stop this? I remember they signed an agreement some time ago that they would not mine this area. How can anyone trust this company and how can you trust the Government that apparently is letting this happen.

I have followed the recent changes by the Government to the planning laws and this current application and the timing of it reeks of a cosy arrangement between the Government and Rio Tinto. I thought the ICAC proceedings would have put a stop to this kind of `deals for your friends'.

I have visited Bulga many times and request that you do not allow this expansion to occur and start the destruction process. Rio Tinto will not stop at this application. They will continue get more approvals bit by bit and then it will be too late.

They talk about preserving jobs, but mining companies have no interest in preserving jobs. They are only interested in their bottom line. I have read the Home Page for Rio Tinto and it appears to me that they do not take any notice of their own goals and aspiration for communities and the environment.

Finally I thought there were rules in place to protect aboriginal heritage. This appears to be applicable to everyone except mining companies.

I request that for the very small benefit that there may be in this extension (although I cannot see any) please do not jeopardise villages like Bulga and other for the sake of profits for a big mining company. Communities like Bulga expect the Government to protect them from big mining companies and not to help them destroy villages

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
If this DA is approved, the extension of the mine will destroy Saddle Ridge which is also an Endangered Ecological Area
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.

I strongly support the application to modify the 2003 Warkworth Mine development consent.

We need to factor in the economic benefits that coal mining provides to our local community and balance them against the minor environmental impacts that this proposal will have.

There are so many jobs at stake with this proposal and so many livelihoods dependent within the Singleton community.

Please give the miners a fair go and ensure that our community continues to thrive into the future.

The proponent promised to protect the town of Bulga and the Land & Environment Decision to reject the application to mine must be respected.
The noise and health issues will impact considerably on the nearby residents and appears to have been totally overlooked.
The impact of this expansion on bio diversity cannot be allowed to happen as was stated in previous decisions by the Court. 16 hectares of endangered ecological communities can never be replaced.
Sadly too many communities have already disappeared in the valley we don't need another. Social impacts are not being considered.
Rio Tinto remain untrustworthy in their estimation of the employment issues surrounding this expansion.
It is about time the people of the valley had a say about a process that is flawed when a decision by a NSW Court of Law is ignored.

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
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.

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,

David Gravina
CEO
Digital Eskimo Pty Ltd

I would like the Department of Planning to give full and proper consideration to the economic and social benefits fo the proposed modification of the 2003 Warkworth development consent rather than have those benefits outweighed by minor environmental impacts. Let's support he local mining jobs and benefits that flow form that to our community.

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
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.

I support the planning modification application for the Mount Thorley Warkworth mine. My husband supports myself and our 3 young children by working as a site supervisor at Mount Thorley Warkworth. Without this approval my husband could potentially be without a job, leaving our family without any income at all. Not to mention all the other 1000 + workers who could potential be faced with the same situation.

SUBMISSION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE WARKWORTH COAL MINE (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6)

I wish to see this project rejected and object due to following:

This proposal has already been rejected and on substantial grounds. The new proposal is cynical and against the overwhelming majority of the community, against science, against the environment, against fairness and due process, against Aboriginal heritage and against the sense of reasonable economists that aren't on the pay-roll of Rio Tinto.

DUE PROCESS AND ECONOMICS
It is contemptuous of the community that 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 put before the public without any notice, just two weeks before the close of 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 offered.


For the government to accept this application from Rio Tinto in the first place shows a blatant disregard by the NSW Government 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 incrementally to avoid full assessment. The government appears to be working closely together with 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.

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 substantial information. 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 unchecked. Threats of jobs losses should not be considered when assessing the merits of this project, and 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 exist.

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.

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.

LOSS OF ENDANGERED BIODIVERSITY - EXTINCTION STARTS HERE
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.

LOSS OF IRREPLACEABLE ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The proposed modification project would destroy four known Aboriginal artefacts, which 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.

HEALTH AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
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? 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 significant 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 World Health Organisation 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.

It is tragic that so many villages of the Hunter Valley have already been destroyed 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 have failed to publicly acknowledge the agreement they have broken to protect this area from mining. This has lead to conflict in the community.

REJECT THIS UNWORTHY PROPOSAL - TIME FOR A NEW PLANS
For all of the above substantial reasons I wish to see this recycled and unworthy proposal rejected and also wish to see the NSW Government find a new path toward economic sustainability that doesn't compromise the very people and land of NSW.

Yours sincerely,

Name withheld.

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.
Rio Tinto only has profit as its agenda and will do all that it can to achieve its goals. The health and wellbeing of the residents of Bulga has already been compromisesd by this juggernaut. This must not continue!
If this DA is approved, the extension of the mine will destroy Saddle Ridge which is also an Endangered Ecological Area
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.

RE: Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).

I object to the proposed project. I submit that the Environmental Risk Assessment of the impact of this proposed Modification is flawed. The application should be rejected.
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.
The impact must be assessed objectively. Rio Tinto have been misleading in Table 4.2 of the Environmental Assessment.

And it is certainly not feasible or reasonable to maintain that an offset ratio of merely 2:1 is appropriate for destruction of the vegetation subject to the 2003 Deed of Agreement to permanently protect it. It was deemed of such High Conservation Value especially because of its place in the landscape and close proximity to the impact to be mitigated.

Table 4.2 of the Environmental assessment is very instructive.
The 'moderate' rating for impact by the proposed expansion which would destroy Endangered Ecological Communities and the habitat that they provide for threatened species of flora and fauna is self-evidently false. This vegetation was deemed necessary for protection in order to mitigate the impact of the initial Warkworth Mine Project on biodiversity. It was a condition of approval that this country would be protected to offset the impact. Since this would no longer be the case if this modification was approved the rating must be high since even if it is not 'almost certain' then it is definitely 'likely'! Simply following the Environmental Risk Assessment method as provided it is clear that Rio Tinto attempt to understate this and misrepresent the environmental risk.
Furthermore consequent to the incontrovertible fact of destruction of an offset in the immediate locality where mitigation is critically important, based on the information provided in Table 4.2 of the EA alone, even if the consequences of the cumulative ecological impact was only assessed as 'minor' the environmental risk must be considered 'moderate' at the very least, and not 'low' as recorded in Table 4.2.
It is also 'likely' or 'almost certain' rather than 'possible' that there will be increased impact from the Modification proposal that entails mining in to Saddle Ridge and closer to the village of Bulga. This means all the risk assessment ratings in Table 4.2 for Noise and air quality should be at the very least 'high' rather than the 'moderate' rating they currently are reported to be. The mine already has been in continual breach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and its current approval conditions. There were 800 noise complaints against the mine from local residents last year alone. If some of the landform that currently shields the Bulga residents is removed it is inevitable that there will be increased impact.
It is false of Rio Tinto to propose that increased impact is 'possible' when 'likely' or even 'almost certain' is the fact.
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.

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. Again that Table 4.2 is seriously misleading. The false representation of reality in this table is not the issue with respect to the intended use of this Table.
Table 4.2 acts as a yardstick for confidence in the proposal by Rio Tinto.
This proposal should be rejected. Rio Tinto have not even provided an 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.
This modification will increase impact on people, and cultural and biological heritage that cannot be mitigated. It must be rejected.