Mod 6 - Processing Rate Increase

A simple objection because of the significant increased usage of water. Water remains a critical issue for Orange in the wake of the drought in 2009, issues with new dam proposal on Belubulah River, etc. Newcrest needs to address how they intend to tackle without a cost on the local community.

The proposed works in relation to the Cadia Mine will further stress the evironment of the Belubula Valley, the water catchment of the Belubula River, and the unique karst environment associated with the Cliefden Caves.

The Cadia Mine was due to cease operation at about this time and a continuation of the operation of the mine is not in the long term interest of the environment or the people of NSW/

We are local residents and we oppose the modifications because of increased dust impacts, increased use of water and extra vehicular traffic on local roads.
The modifications could have been forseen but the impacts were not included in the original Cadia East approval process to make it more palatable for the local community. If the need for increased production was not seen at the time it is just one more example of the poor planning which characterises the CVO operations.
DUST
This company makes little effort at appropriate suppression of particle pollution now. Large volumes of dust pollution are generated off the tailings dams which receive little attention in the modification proposal. It is worth noting that this so-called dust is actually mining industry waste. It is breathed by the local community, ingested through their household tank water supplies and impacts pasture supplies and livestock feed. Any increase in particle pollution is not acceptable!
We called the mine's Community Hotline on 16th Dec., 2014 with a dust complaint. Neither the duty supervisor nor the Public Relations department could even tell us if there was a policy regarding the dumping of waste in high winds, or where that policy might be accessed by the public. This company only pays lip-service to the suppression of particle pollution. They have the means to solve the problem but little desire to do so. There is plenty of money and resources to throw at the problem but they choose not to.To them dust is the environment they work in. To local graziers and families we expect to live in clean air!! The modification proposal only states that they will "consider" mitigation. They demonstrate no solid commitment to effective remediation.
WATER
CVO has a poor track record of water management, having to plead with Orange residents for more water during the drought of several years ago. While there may be adequate water storage at present the forecast for the Spring and Summer to come is for significant dry periods and water shortages. CVO will take whatever their requirements are regardless of any shortages and drought conditions. The water stored and used by the mine is lost to the environment and has downstream effects even if it is taken at periods of high water flow. CVO has a history of not being able to "adjust mining operations" to match licence requirements. One has only to remember the original water debate when Orange was held to ransom because of the mine's desire to continue as usual despite severe water shortages. That situation resulted from poor planning on the mine's part.
TRAFFIC
The roads around us are poor and were only ever designed for local traffic by farmers and graziers. The increase in light traffic over the last few years has caused stess as those miners heading to work and returning home after long shifts treat the road as if it were a major highway mostly with scant regard for local residents and the poor road conditions. An 18.5% increase in Heavy vehicles is also significant and a cause for concern.
In conclusion, this proposal does not generate any extra jobs in the long term, but has severe impacts on air quality, water quality and lifestyle. Any proposal that includes an almost 20% increase in water usage is NOT a MINOR modification - it is yet another example of CVO's poor planning and complete disregard for their real impacts on the local community.
We are steadfastly opposed to it proceeding.

I object to the proposed sixth modification to the Cadia East goldmine because it is an unsustainable project. The current mine approval was based on an economic assessment that considered the operation to be viable.

The regional environment and community should not be further impacted by proposed changes to the operations of Cadia Mine.

Central West Environment Council (CWEC) is an umbrella organization representing conservation groups and individuals in central west NSW working to protect the local environment for future generations.

CWEC wishes to make a complaint about the short time frame of the public exhibition for the sixth modification of the Cadia East goldmine operation. Two weeks is no enough time for the community to access, absorb and comment on the information provided to justify the proposed increase in processing rate.

CWEC objects to the proposal because of the history of water use at the Cadia East mine and lack of supply during the millennium drought.

The report attempts to demonstrate that existing water licenses held by the mine will cover all contingencies.

However, there appears to be no analysis of the water shortage experienced by the operation during the millennium drought.

A comprehensive regional water study is required to understand the current impacts of the drawdown caused by the mining operations, the impacts on base flows to surrounding surface water sources and the ability of regional water sources to supply the necessary water for an increased rate in gold processing during a drought of record.

The inability of Cadia water supply needs to be met during the millennium drought has not been clearly identified. The issue caused the mine to seek as many new sources of water a possible while the entire region was suffering major shortages.

The concept of water sharing for environmental and social needs was severely compromised during the water shortage. There has been no adequate assessment of the impacts on regional water supply and other water users of the proposed increase in processing rate.

The current operations were approved on the understanding that the mine is economically viable. There is no justification for this modification.

CWEC recommends that Cadia East Modification 6 not be approved.

I understand from the Environmental Assessment that additional water (quantity unstated) will be drawn from the Belubula River to support increased extraction rates. I am concerned that, even though the additional water needed is within the company's allocation, it will put additional stress on the Belubula River. This stream is already under severe stress, exacerbated by the threat of a new dam near Cranky Rock, and should have additional environmental flows, not increased extraction.

I am also concerned that the time-frame provided for comments is very short and that the documents provide very little information on the possible environmental impact, in particular how the increased extraction would affect the flora, fauna and aquatic ecosystem in times of low water flow.

It would seem to me that the original EA should have predicted the appropriate extraction rate and that there is now no doubt to modify this.

Attached

Attached submission

refer to pdf

A simple objection because of the significant increased usage of water. Water remains a critical issue for Orange in the wake of the drought in 2009, issues with new dam proposal on Belubulah River, etc. Newcrest needs to address how they intend to tackle without a cost on the local community.

The proposed works in relation to the Cadia Mine will further stress the evironment of the Belubula Valley, the water catchment of the Belubula River, and the unique karst environment associated with the Cliefden Caves.

The Cadia Mine was due to cease operation at about this time and a continuation of the operation of the mine is not in the long term interest of the environment or the people of NSW/

We are local residents and we oppose the modifications because of increased dust impacts, increased use of water and extra vehicular traffic on local roads.
The modifications could have been forseen but the impacts were not included in the original Cadia East approval process to make it more palatable for the local community. If the need for increased production was not seen at the time it is just one more example of the poor planning which characterises the CVO operations.
DUST
This company makes little effort at appropriate suppression of particle pollution now. Large volumes of dust pollution are generated off the tailings dams which receive little attention in the modification proposal. It is worth noting that this so-called dust is actually mining industry waste. It is breathed by the local community, ingested through their household tank water supplies and impacts pasture supplies and livestock feed. Any increase in particle pollution is not acceptable!
We called the mine's Community Hotline on 16th Dec., 2014 with a dust complaint. Neither the duty supervisor nor the Public Relations department could even tell us if there was a policy regarding the dumping of waste in high winds, or where that policy might be accessed by the public. This company only pays lip-service to the suppression of particle pollution. They have the means to solve the problem but little desire to do so. There is plenty of money and resources to throw at the problem but they choose not to.To them dust is the environment they work in. To local graziers and families we expect to live in clean air!! The modification proposal only states that they will "consider" mitigation. They demonstrate no solid commitment to effective remediation.
WATER
CVO has a poor track record of water management, having to plead with Orange residents for more water during the drought of several years ago. While there may be adequate water storage at present the forecast for the Spring and Summer to come is for significant dry periods and water shortages. CVO will take whatever their requirements are regardless of any shortages and drought conditions. The water stored and used by the mine is lost to the environment and has downstream effects even if it is taken at periods of high water flow. CVO has a history of not being able to "adjust mining operations" to match licence requirements. One has only to remember the original water debate when Orange was held to ransom because of the mine's desire to continue as usual despite severe water shortages. That situation resulted from poor planning on the mine's part.
TRAFFIC
The roads around us are poor and were only ever designed for local traffic by farmers and graziers. The increase in light traffic over the last few years has caused stess as those miners heading to work and returning home after long shifts treat the road as if it were a major highway mostly with scant regard for local residents and the poor road conditions. An 18.5% increase in Heavy vehicles is also significant and a cause for concern.
In conclusion, this proposal does not generate any extra jobs in the long term, but has severe impacts on air quality, water quality and lifestyle. Any proposal that includes an almost 20% increase in water usage is NOT a MINOR modification - it is yet another example of CVO's poor planning and complete disregard for their real impacts on the local community.
We are steadfastly opposed to it proceeding.

I object to the proposed sixth modification to the Cadia East goldmine because it is an unsustainable project. The current mine approval was based on an economic assessment that considered the operation to be viable.

The regional environment and community should not be further impacted by proposed changes to the operations of Cadia Mine.

Central West Environment Council (CWEC) is an umbrella organization representing conservation groups and individuals in central west NSW working to protect the local environment for future generations.

CWEC wishes to make a complaint about the short time frame of the public exhibition for the sixth modification of the Cadia East goldmine operation. Two weeks is no enough time for the community to access, absorb and comment on the information provided to justify the proposed increase in processing rate.

CWEC objects to the proposal because of the history of water use at the Cadia East mine and lack of supply during the millennium drought.

The report attempts to demonstrate that existing water licenses held by the mine will cover all contingencies.

However, there appears to be no analysis of the water shortage experienced by the operation during the millennium drought.

A comprehensive regional water study is required to understand the current impacts of the drawdown caused by the mining operations, the impacts on base flows to surrounding surface water sources and the ability of regional water sources to supply the necessary water for an increased rate in gold processing during a drought of record.

The inability of Cadia water supply needs to be met during the millennium drought has not been clearly identified. The issue caused the mine to seek as many new sources of water a possible while the entire region was suffering major shortages.

The concept of water sharing for environmental and social needs was severely compromised during the water shortage. There has been no adequate assessment of the impacts on regional water supply and other water users of the proposed increase in processing rate.

The current operations were approved on the understanding that the mine is economically viable. There is no justification for this modification.

CWEC recommends that Cadia East Modification 6 not be approved.

I understand from the Environmental Assessment that additional water (quantity unstated) will be drawn from the Belubula River to support increased extraction rates. I am concerned that, even though the additional water needed is within the company's allocation, it will put additional stress on the Belubula River. This stream is already under severe stress, exacerbated by the threat of a new dam near Cranky Rock, and should have additional environmental flows, not increased extraction.

I am also concerned that the time-frame provided for comments is very short and that the documents provide very little information on the possible environmental impact, in particular how the increased extraction would affect the flora, fauna and aquatic ecosystem in times of low water flow.

It would seem to me that the original EA should have predicted the appropriate extraction rate and that there is now no doubt to modify this.

Attached

Attached submission

refer to pdf