Mod 6 - Expansion of Coal Mine

28 November, 2013

This Submission is made on behalf of over 400 members of Stop Coal Seam Gas Blue Mountains. It opposes the proposed expansion of the Warkworth coal mine (DA 300-9-2002-i MOD 6).



We submit that it should be refused on the following grounds.



THE COMPANY'S RECORD


The company has a history of broken promises. 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.

 These commitments have not been met and the company has proved it cannot be trusted to keep any committments it makes in the present application.

DECISION OF THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

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 residents were not told about it. This is deliberately deceitful and untrustful behaviour from Rio Tinto, who clearly have no commitment to genuine consultation with the Bulga community.



UNFAIR PROCEDURE


A significant mine expansion such as this would normally 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 casts the present NSW government also in a very bad light.

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
year alone, the NSW Government has not taken any action to enforce the mine's approval conditions. The Government cannot legitimately 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


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.



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 the 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 job 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.


Jan O'Leary
Coordinator,
Stop Coal Seam Gas Blue Mountaiuns

uploaded

Warkworth Mine Modification 6 - Submission


I am a resident of the Hunter Valley village of Bulga.I have read all the documentation for the current Warkworth Mine Consent 2003 Modification 6. [1]. The Modification is presented as a small and insignificant change that would extend the life of the mine for additional two years. I am not convinced that this is right. Therefore I oppose the proposed Consent Modification 6 for the following reasons:

HIGH COURT APPEAL. The very existence of our village is currently threatened by proposed expansion of the Warkworth open cut coal mine that belongs to the Rio Tinto transnational group . They originally wanted to extend the mine within 2.6 km from the Bulga village . This was approved by a PAC sitting in Singleton (February,2012), then disapproved by NSW Land and Environment Court (April,2013). At present we are waiting for a decision on an appeal to NSW High Court that was initiated jointly by Rio Tinto and NSW Department of Planning (September,2013). Why this rush? Why Rio Tinto cannot wait for what the High Court of NSW decide? This shows a lack of respect for Australian institutions! The unseemly rush of this proposal may also indicate that the rumours that Rio Tinto is trying to unload their Hunter coal mines and sell them to an Indian or Chinese corporation are true [2]. Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association would be then conveniently blamed for any job losses by the Rio's publicity machine.

SOCIAL LICENSE. This time around there was no consultation with the local community of Bulga and Milbrodale before the Modification 6 was lodged with the Planning Department. The move was not even discussed at a recent Warkworth Mine CCC meeting. The company is obviously not seeking a social license for their operations and hopes to get their way by brute force. It gives us no pleasure to get into legal battles with Rio Tinto, a big transnational company with unlimited funds. Everyone in Bulga would much prefer to live quietly in our pleasant rural surroundings - our village used to be the orchard of the Hunter and our oranges were famous! However we have seen what happens to villages and townships like, Warkworth,Ravensworth, Camberwell,Ulan and Wollar that allowed open cut coal mines to expand too close to them - after a lot of suffering they became ghost towns!

LAND. In this application Warkworth Mine wants to extend its Western Pit into the high elevation area behind the Saddleback Ridge. This area was in 2003 declared "Non Disturbance Area 1" to be protected in perpetuity. Warkworth Mine subsequently failed to register this undertaking with the Singleton Council by negligence or perhaps intentionally. The Saddleback Ridge was always regarded to be an important bulwark protecting Bulga from the noise and dust pollution. Now Warkworth Mine wants to dig into the Ridge regardless. It is quite likely that they will find the wall too high and try to apply for another consent modification to remove the whole Saddleback Ridge on work safety grounds. This is a well known "salami" technique i.e. achieving the original goal slice by slice and mining companies are famous for it.


NOISE. Section 6.4.1 Overview of noise management plan [3] of the documentation shows that the Warkworth Mine management is aware that the noise pollution generated by their coal mining machinery is plaguing local residents.They also make a great effort to downplay this serious problem. My personal experience is that five years ago we could not hear at home any mining noise and these days, or more accurately these nights we do. No amount of scientific jargon will convince me that the level of the noise pollution has no increased significantly!

However, it appears [4] that the Company installed some very impressive instrumentation software and production procedures to try to combat the problem. Unfortunately, all this sophistication is only internal, invisible from outside and therefore not transparent. The local community has to trust what the nice people from the Mine tell them. This is very hard after the Saddleback Ridge debacle. Surely a company seeking a social license would at least attempt to make their systems transparent and local-residents-friendly by making them available on-line. Thus if local residents are woken up in the middle of the night by a mining machinery noise they could go to the company website and see that the foreman is aware of the problem and is taking action. This would be far less confrontational than the current procedure of calling an external complaint line, waiting for a response from the mine and then getting into heated noise arguments with the staff. This would be the way to gain at least some of the social license back.

AIR QUALITY. Similarly, the Company is aware that dust escaping from the mine is a problem and tries to downplay it. Yet the scientific research [5] shows that both PM10 and PM2.5 dust particles are a serious health hazard . The former are created by shifting mountains of overburden and coal day and night. The latter are the result of burning huge quantities of the heavy diesel fuel by heavy vehicle mining fleets. Both PM10 and PM2.5 particles are known to shorten human life.

I have worked on various coal mining sites for over twenty years and consequently my respiratory system is very sensitive to dust pollution. When I drive on the Putty Road on a windy day past the Warkworth Mine on my way to Singleton, I always make sure that the car is hermetically sealed. On such days the Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network (UHAQMN)
[6] issues health alerts to warn Hunter residents to stay indoors.

Since January 1, 2013 to November 27, 2013 UHAQMN issued altogether 299 health alerts and from these 65 were from the monitoring stations at Bulga and Mount Thorley [11]. These monitors are the two closest to our home and the dust plumes emanating from the Warkworth Mt.Thorley mine working surely make a very significant contribution. Unfortunately, without the proprietary Warkworth Mine air quality monitoring data available on-line it is not possible to ascertain which mine generates excessive dust. Documentation of the Modification 6 proposal provides a link [7] to the environmental reports that the Mine submits to the EPA on a monthly or annual basis. These are crude reports in Microsoft word format that provide a summary of environmental monitoring results for Mount Thorley Warkworth in accordance with Environment Protection Licences 1376, 1976 and 24. Data from each monitor, which are collected by the Mine on a self-regulation basis, is averaged into a single mean and is invariably under the maximum air pollution limit as specified by the EPA regulations. This single figure in no way credibly represents the air quality situation characteristic of the Warkworth Mine.The independent Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring [6] shows a different picture. I believe that the current EPA statutory reporting system, of the last century vintage, is obsolete and cannot cope with the pollution created by this century mega-mines. Even worse, it helps them to maintain the fiction that the dust problems are under control. This legislation needs to be updated and modernised to reflect the current reality. Now we know that there is no a simple limit below which the dust pollution is harmless to human health!

UHAQMN introduced and maintained by Department of Health is an excellent system. It allows to view meteorological and dust pollution data at in hourly detail or summarised in various ways. The summary charts from just about any "health alert day" often show an interesting pattern: There are huge peaks and troughs in the PM10 while the wind speed and direction stay much the same. This shows that the dust loads are predominantly the result of the mine operations. Section 6.5 Warkworth noise - management system in action. [4] of the Modification 6 documents shows how difficult and complicated it is for open cut coal mine to keep some semblance of dust control. It is turning out that this may not be practically possible at all. There is only one solution: KEEP THE MINES AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS! A statutory buffer zone of, say, 5km around each town or village would do the trick and and prevent enormous regulatory waste of time and money for all parties concerned. In our case this means: Stop the Warkworth Mine expansion towards Bulga!


SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Chapter 12 "Other social and environmental considerations" of the Modification 6 proposal [8] is the least impressive. It completely ignores any REAL social issues. It looks like if the consultant, who have been paid to write it, did not know what to put there and filled the allocated space with some meaningless statistical waffle and half-baked assertions about "what a lot of public good" Rio Tinto generates in Australia.

Of course , the miners and mine executives are paid well - good luck to them. However, when they attack Bulga residents for endangering their jobs security they should realise that the out-of-control coal mining in the Hunter also endangers health, well being and property values of many more other residents who were here, after all, first. The situation may not be as the mine spin doctors like to paint it. Maybe that Greg Ray "King Coal up to old tricks" is right [9]. Maybe King Coal over-invested while the coal prices were high and now tries to cut back to restore the profits. They should also study the the history of coal mining. It shows that it is just a sequence of booms and busts and that nobody's job is ever safe.

Similarly, any large industrial concern needs to buy necessary materials and services in the place they operate in. So Warkworth Mine is not doing anyone any great favours here . Coal industry also hugely overstates their contributions to the Australian economy because the majority of the coal mines is foreign-owned and the profits are mostly exported. There is also a lot of talk about the the royalties pouring into the government coffers. Strange! If the governments at all levels are doing so well form the resource industry, how come that they are all practically broke? We are currently supposed to be riding the crest of the mining boom, some say "the best is yet to come". Yet the state and the federal governments have no money. We are told daily that there is no money for schools, hospitals, roads and for any other infrastructure and that severe government budget cuts are necessary. Where is the evidence that expanding the coal industry, controlled by transnationals under the current arrangements, will actually improve government budgets? I have to conclude that we are selling our resources too cheap and that we are becoming a third world economy in the process. Clever countries do not base their future on digging big holes!

Several serious problems exist in the social area and they have not been touched upon in the Modification 6 documents [8]. We have seen that mines are not able to keep the dust, noise, lights and blast pollution within the boundary of their land and that this gets them into conflicts with the local residents. It appears, and Sharyn Munro "Rich Land, Wasteland" demonstrates very clearly [10], that the coal mining industry, either consciously or unconsciously, decided that the best solution to this conflict is to de-populate the rural countryside. Sharyn gives a many examples of where this already happened or is in the process to happen. Read about what already happened and is currently happening to villages and towns such as Warkworth, Ravensworth, Camberwell, Wollar,Cumbo, Ullan, Bulga, Jerrys Plains and Gloucester and, of course, Ackland on the Darling Downs.Read about what happened to people who once lived in those lovely rural settlements!

For better or worse, the Australian economy machine is centred on property values. Family home or family farm are the most important assets for the majority of Australians. They borrow money, pay mortgages, hope for an increase in the property values and expect that one day they will be able to leave something of value to their children. That has always been the Australian way. Yet these days in the rural areas the resource industry throws a mighty spanner into the works. As soon as an exploration or mining license for a new/expanded mine or gasfield mine is granted by the government, the property values in the particular area are affected. Property prices decrease, banks stop lending and insurance companies become difficult. Eventually it is impossible to sell anything at any price and the local residents become trapped.

Under the current system, in this situation, the mining company engages some computer modellers, they establish an acquisition zone and the property owners within this zone are then supposed to negotiate with the mining company the purchase of their property. This is a very unequal relationship. On one side there is an extremely rich multinational non-human "legal person" and on the other side a real person - an unfortunate landowner. The power is entirely on the side of the mining company. They might give you a good price and thus saw envy and disruption into the local community or they might give you a ridiculously low price and say that this is all you ever get. One side of the street might be in the acquisition zone and the other side, 20 m apart, outside it. It is all a real, unholy and unjust mes! The only solution that I can see would be to establish some baseline property values as a part of the exploration process , at the mining company expense, and then give the acquisition and compensation powers to an independent magistrate. That would be a fair solution, but what politician would fight for that solution? Certainly not those like Macdonald or Obeid!


I think that I have sufficiently demonstrated that there are huge problems in the area of co-existence between coal mines and local residents and what causes them. If these problems are not resolved and if we continue on the "business as usual" route we will finish with a very unpleasant future. Australian population will be clinging to the endless coastal suburbs, rich agricultural lands will be destroyed by coal and gas, inland areas will be depopulated and filled dusty man-camps in the moonscape left behind by the out-of-control mining. Is this the land we want to leave to our children? APPROVING THE WARKWORTH MINE EXPANSION IS A STEP IN EXACTLY THAT DIRECTION!



REFERENCES
[1] Warkworth Coal Mine - Warkworth Consent 2003 - Modification 6
http://www.majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6260
[2] Chinese, Indian suitors mulling bids for Rio coal assets: report http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/6/12/resources-and-energy/chinese-indian-suitors-mulling-bids-rio-coal-assets-report

[3] Warkworth Mine Modification 6 - Section 6.4.1 Overview of noise management plan. https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/21a8282b326e7df576a885f5848cecfa/17.%20Warkworth%20Coal%20Mine%20Mod%206%20EA%20-%20Chapter%206%20Noise.pdf

[4] Warkworth Mine Modification 6 - Section 6.5 Warkworth noise - management system in action.
https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/21a8282b326e7df576a885f5848cecfa/17.%20Warkworth%20Coal%20Mine%20Mod%206%20EA%20-%20Chapter%206%20Noise.pdf


[5] The health factor: Ignored by industry ...
.http://dea.org.au/images/general/DEA_-_The_Health_Factor_05-13.pdf&usd=2&usg=AFQjCNHmfz9Av-x8dAeAyqyee5Xf4iDJ7g
[6] Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/aqms/uhunteraqmap.htm


[7] Mount Thorley Warkworth EPA reports
http://www.riotintocoalaustralia.com.au/ouroperations/5090_monitoring_results.asp

[8] Chapter 12 Other social and environmental considerations
https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/013625a58790d8b0f1b6684ad4d35aad/23.%20Warkworth%20Coal%20Mine%20Mod%206%20EA%20-%20Chapter%2012%20Other%20social%20and%20environmental%20considerations.pdf


[9] Greg Ray "King Coal up to old tricks"
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1610004/greg-ray-king-coal-up-to-old-tricks/

[10] Sharyn Munro "Rich Land , Wasteland".
http://richlandwasteland.com/

[11] UHAQMN Summary of the Health Alerts, 2013
http://forum.huntervalleyprotectionalliance.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=667



Submitted by
Jorge Tlaskal, BULGA.

Please see attached submission of objection to this development.

Dear Sir/Madam

The proposed Warkworth mine expansion should be rejected.

Air pollution monitoring at the EPA's Warkworth site has registered more than a dozen alerts during 2013. These pollution alerts indicate concentrations of PM10 above the national (NEPM) standard of 50 micrograms per cubic metre averaged over 24 hours. There is no safe level of PM10. Concentrations well below the NEPM standard have a range of harmful effects on respiratory and cardiovascular health. In their evidence to the Senate inquiry into the Health Impacts of Air Quality in April 2013, the Australian Medical Association stated that particle pollution kills more Australians each year than car crashes.

It is clear that Rio Tinto are unable to comply with the conditions of their licence and that their existing operations result in harmful particle pollution with impacts that are both local and regional. Until and unless they ensure that PM10 levels remain well below the NEPM standard, the extension should not be approved. It is clear that the EPA's programs, including monitoring and the Dust Stop program, are incapable of effectively regulating Rio Tinto's operations.

A two week consultation period has been inadequate in this instance, and the Department's inflexibility regarding extensions has meant important voices have not been heard and advice that might have guided this decision has been excluded. In particular, it is disturbing to hear that Doctors for the Environment Australia was denied even a short extension of time to make a submission. DEA is a professional body whose members are experts in fields of respiratory health and the health impacts of coal mining and its consequent particle pollution. Their advice would have been invaluable.

In lieu of DEA's input, I attach a literature review by Professor Bert Brunekreef. Professor Brunekreef is an internationally renowned expert on the health impacts of course particles (PM10) associated with coal mining.

Again, I urge the Department to reject this application until and unless Rio Tinto demonstrate conclusively how their operations will not result in elevated PM10 concentrations. Hunter Valley communities have suffered more than 200 pollution alerts in 2013. The priority for the NSW Government should be to improve air quality.

I would appreciate the opportunity to explain these concerns to the Planning Assessment Commission.

Dr James Whelan
Islington NSW
0431 150 928

See attached.

Submission is uploaded as a PDF Attachment 'SubZero Group Limited_Mt Thorley Warkworth Comment_29 November 2013.pdf'

I have uploaded the pdf file below.

Please find attached our submission.

Our submission has been uploaded as a PDF attachment.

I object to the application by Warkworth Mine to mine through the area known as Saddleback Ridge because:

Rio Tinto states that it must get approval to mine into Saddle Ridge to "preserve the viability of the Warkworth Mine and maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels". Rio Tinto omits to state that it signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising that it would never open cut mine Saddle Ridge and that it would apply to Singleton Council to have the Saddle Ridge and the balance of the NDA1 that was to protect Bulga, rezoned as a permanent conservation area. Rio Tinto is breaking its promise with both of these important undertakings and thus cannot be trusted to honour any of the promises it is making with this amendment application.

In 2013 the NSW Land & Environment Court rejected the mining of Saddle Ridge as part of the previous application. This new application to mine into Saddle Ridge must be refused.

Garth O'Brien

I object to the proposed Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW) Mine modification on the basis that it moves the mine closer to the village and as such will have a greater impact on the quality of life for people living in the village.

This impact will be in the form of increased proximity to the mine operations and resultant noise and dust impacts.

The residents do not want their village to become another Ravensworth or Warkworth. These villages no longer exist because of mining impacts.


MTW Objection

Andrew O'Brien

Attached is the holding submission from Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association our final submission will be sent in by 9th December as per email from Mike Young
Manager Mining Projects

On behalf of Orica, we hereby voice our support for 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.

Orica is one of Mount Thorley Warkworth's key suppliers, and the mine is one of Orica's largest customers in the region.

Orica employs over 600 people in the local Hunter Valley region. A significant drop in production at the Mount Thorley Warkworth mine would result in a significant reduction in Orica jobs in the region.

Beyond Orica, thousands of people in the broader economy depend on this mine, and if production was to drop the result could be devastating.

If this minor modification to an existing 30 year old mine does not get approved, we are 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

Attached file

Attached is Holding Submission from Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc

Please see attached.

I object to the application by Mount Thorley Warkworth (MTW) Mine to modify their current development consent for the following reasons:

Despite words to the contrary, Rio Tinto have absolutely no idea of the meaning of the word "consultation". Consult implies a two way process and this duality fails to occur at times of their own choosing with this company. At the Community Consultative Committee(CCC) Meeting held in October, no mention was made of this proposal and they also failed to notify Singleton Council. This is pure and simple deceit on Rio's part. It is, I believe, contrary to the guidelines that apply to the management of CCC's where Rio are obliged to inform the community in a timely manner, not at the last minute.

That I have had only 2 weeks to prepare this submission and the refusal to grant an extension made by the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association (BMPA) for submissions is totally unreasonable. Rio Tinto have had months to prepare their modification request, especially with the support of their friends in government, such request document runs to about 230 pages.The timing of this application calls into question the timing of the submission, just a few days after the announcement of the new mining SEPP. I believe that there has been collusion between the government and Rio Tinto. Bad luck that Brad Hazard is criticising the Legislative Council decision in today's media.

Rio Tinto states that it must get approval to mine into Saddle Ridge to "preserve the viability of the Warkworth Mine and maintain current employment as close as possible to current levels". Rio Tinto omits to state that it signed a Deed of Agreement in 2003 promising that it would never open cut mine Saddle Ridge and that it would apply to Singleton Council to have the Saddle Ridge and the balance of the NDA1 that was to protect Bulga, rezoned as a permanent conservation area. Rio Tinto is breaking its promise with both of these important undertakings and thus cannot be trusted to honour any of the promises it is making with this amendment application. The proposal to mine this land has been denied by the Land and Environment Court.

That the new SEPP downgrades environmental considerations in favour of economics shows why the SEPP is flawed.

In 2013 the NSW Land & Environment Court rejected the mining of Saddle Ridge as part of the previous application. This new application to mine into Saddle Ridge must be refused because this issue is still in the hands of the Court.

MTW cannot control the effects of dust and noise on the village and surrounding areas. They have shown their dishonesty by their choice of noise data by selecting data from one monitor that shows general compliance while ignoring data from other monitors that show many exceedences. The mine received 800 complaints about noise last year and have been fined for noise non compliance.

There is no economic justification in the application nor is there any justification as to why mining of Saddleback is essential for the continued production levels. Rio are sending out mixed messages in different forums by indicating that there will be removal of overburden in Saddleback for 2 years. This is not coal production!

In their advertising Rio make much of their wish to " maintain production and employment as close as possible to existing levels for around two years". This is a conditional statement that contains no guarantees but they continue to make much of the 1300 jobs at the pit. The mention of two years in the advertising appears to match up with the time it will take to remove the overburden.

There is no mine plan included in the application to indicate how the coal is to be extracted.

Air quality research now shows that there is no safe level of PM2.5 particulate matter. No mention is made of how this issue is to be managed.

I do not want Bulga to go the way of Warkworth and Ravensworth villages. They no longer exist! There is a sense of place for the residents of Bulga that people who have never lived in a village like this one would understand. The submission in a previous application of Dr Stubbs was arrant nonsense because she did not interview anyone from Bulga before she submitted her paper that opined that there would be no social impacts on the villagers.

Rio intend to destroy part on an endangered community and the proposed offset is definitely not like for like. Thr area proposed to be mined is a ridge while the offset is generally flat with a gentle slope towards the Wollombi Brook. The issue of like for like with respect to offsets was an issue that Judge Preston highlighted in his judgement.

The closer proximity of the mine to the village will impact on property values. The most expensive asset that property owners have is their home and they have no wish to see its value downgraded to such an extent that they cannot afford to purchase elsewhere or in a worst case, the property becoming unsaleable.

Open cut mining destroys the microbiology of the soil and rehabilitation will never return it to its previous state. The hills that are created are false and look false and there will be added night time light impact on the village and in my case on our property that borders the peaceful place of the world heritage Wollemi National Park

Rio Tinto continues to ignore the NSW Industrial Noise Policy as it applies to low frequency noise. They just do not want to know about it. Of equal concern is the fact that the NSW Government and the regulators continue to be derelict in their duty by condoning Rio's non action.

In my opinion Rio Tinto are not entitled to move overburden from the Warkworth pit to the Mount Thorley pit, so they appear to be in breech of the relevant approval.

All of the reasons for denying the approval are contained in the Appeal by the Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Judgement to the Land and Environment Court and so on that basis this application should be rejected.


Graeme O'Brien
29/11/13

i object to this proposal, with details of my concerns in the attach files (3 pages of the same letter).

see attached document