Rocky Hill Coal Mine

Dear Sir/Madam
I support the Rocky Hill Coal Project going ahead as it will create future employment opportunities and it will also assist the security of my current employment.

Unfortunately I don't know how to convert this submission to PDF. So as advised by your information person on 1300 305 695, I will email it to [email protected]

Thanks you

Jeff KIte

Leveltec Engineering Pty Ltd is a manufacturer of level control product headquartered in the Gloucester industrial estate a few Kilometers from the proposed Rocky Hill mining site. Much of its manufactured product is used in Australian coal mining and as such we as a company are heavily reliant on the coal industry for income. All employees of the company live in Gloucester and while some are concerned with fears of a loss of amenity, others are not concerned about the proposed mine development and welcome any employment security of opportunities it will bring to Gloucester.
There are those in Gloucester who I believe would oppose the Rocky Hill development no matter how good the proposal,or the benefits to the community and even if proposed in any other location. I think it unfortunate that Gloucester has had to endure a very negative, obviously well funded campaign promoting all manor of perceived loss of amenity to garner support for no new coal development in Gloucester.
I have looked at the amended EIS proposal, visited the rocky hill information office and after a career long association with the coal industry knowing just how many environmental issues they must satisfactorily address, have come to the conclusion this is a good project and worthy of my support.
It will bring employment to Gloucester. GRL will invest in road infrastructure without cost to the community and support industries like hotels, motels,and local shop owners.
The Gloucester community and NSW will benefit from this development if approved. I believe that if all the legislative requirements and standards are satisfactorily met to the satiation of NSW and this development is unable to gain approval, then there needs to be a serious review of just how any development can proceed under the current review
process.

I live in the Manning Valley and have friends in Gloucester whom I visit regularly. I object to the proposed mine because it is too close to the town and will have intolerable noise, dust and visual amenity impacts on residents within the Gloucester Valley. My friends have lived in the area for some time and their amenity along with that of many others will be severely curtailed.
Peter Gerhard

Gloucester needs a diversity of industry/employment options to remain sustainable and viable.

I oppose the approval of the Rocky Hill Coal Mine EIS.

This EIS does not address important issues of ground water quality and heavy metal contamination which are likely to arise if mining activities at the proposed Rocky Hill Mine are approved.

There is no information provided regarding the levels of heavy metal salts in water released from the coal seams during mining or regarding levels of general salinity and heavy metals expected to be remaining in treated water after reverse osmosis treatment.

The wide-scale spraying of mine water for dust suppression on the mine site or for "irrigation" purposes onto pastures on surrounding farms can lead to increased soil salinity and an increased residue of heavy metal salts in soils. In the long term this can compromise agricultural productivity, animal health and subsequent human food safety.

A related and equally serious issue is that of coal dust contamination of surrounding pastures. Ingestion of coal dust by grazing stock leads to accumulation of persistent heavy metals present in the coal which may reduce livestock health and compromise food standards for meat and milk production arising from these animals. There is currently no proposal to regularly monitor heavy metal accumulation in either pastures, livestock, meat products or milk and no studies are readily available on this issue.

Sustainable agricultural production that can continue productively for many generations should be given precedence over mining activities that at best will be over in two decades. Indeed, given the increasing availability of alternative renewable technologies and the urgency with which we must address the threats posed by climate change, this coal mine is likely to shut down well short of current projections.

It is also worth noting that should a carcass prove to have higher than allowed levels of heavy metal contamination arising from coal dust or low quality mine water contamination of pasture or drinking water, then it will be the primary producer who will be held liable for that event. The mining company will not be held accountable. This is blatantly unjust.

Under these circumstances, this mine is a very poor investment for the Gloucester region and should not be permitted to proceed.

Mark Sutherland
Emeritus Professor of Molecular Crop Sciences
University of Southern Queensland

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Mine for these reasons:

1. The impacts on the mental health of the residents most affected by the mine.
As a qualified Psychotherapist I have witnessed the mental breakdown of many residents. This commenced in 2008 when GRL started buying properties in the Fairbairns Road and Forbesdale area.
This includes periods of amnesia for two people. Depression, anxiety, hopelessness, helplessness, anger and suicidal thoughts for others. Many are on anti depressants. Several residents who sold out unwillingly to GRL cannot go back to their old residences due to the grief they experience.

This is an on going problem and will be until GRL leave our valley.
There will be years before the decision is made by the Dept. of Planning about the project. People have put their lives on hold for over 8 years.

How can a Government have a duty of care to its people and let this happen?
Let's bring in Beyond Blue but lets not talk about how mining has affected our lives. We can intervene when it is bushfires or floods or draught or other natural disasters but the disaster of open cut coal mining on residents is ignored.

2. The impacts on the health of the residents
Health in reference to traffic increase is not mentioned as part of the health assessment in the EIS. As there will be a dramatic increase in traffic flow in the local area this is a serious omission.

Health information is covered but is not related back to the project.

Considering the population of Gloucester LGA has a large section of aged people the SIA has a limited focus on the aged population. The aged are known to have increased risk for health impacts from living near an open cut coal mine. The health services in Gloucester will be inadequate to cope with this increase.

Note: At present to obtain an appointment with a general practitioner at the Gloucester Medical Centre the wait can be a week. To have a Dr of choice can be a wait of 6 weeks.

Nearly 500 people live within 3km of the mine. 2000 people live within 5km of the mine. 3500 people live within 7km of the mine. The Gloucester valley being closed holds air pollution. A high percentage of the Gloucester residents are in the high risk categories for health impacts from mining. Children and infants, the elderly, the chronically ill, the socially disadvantaged. The EIS incorrectly uses the measurement of 1.5 people per square klm instead of the correct figure of 50 people per square klm.

Lead is a significant problem in the Stratford area already. The Stratford school had to install first flush filtering and add a calcium carbonate float to their rain water tank due to lead in the water. Many local people have rain water tanks but no measure has been taken to alert them to the lead problem. This problem will magnify with increase mining in the Stratford mine.

3. Hours of Operation
First three years we are assured in the EIS will have no night time activity, but the shift for workers finishes at 10.00pm. This is night time. Any noise will carry at night in the very quiet countryside. Car and truck movements will be an intrusion on night time sleep.

After three years GRL can change to any operating times very simply. Promoting the fact that after three years it will be only to 10pm is deceitful.

4. Water
The saline water will contain BTEX. This is not mentioned and therefore not addressed in the EIS.
32,800 tonnes of salt, but no arrangements for where it will be deposited.
4,000,000.00 litres a day will be needed for dust suppression. Where will this come from?

5. Geology
Not all the coal seams are named in the EIS. Is this an oversight or do the geologists lack the knowledge? To obtain 95% coking coal they will need to cherry pick and discard thermal coal into the overburden. This will create toxic mine seepage in the overburden mounds to pollute large areas. 8 million tonnes of coal crusher waste.

The Rocky Hill mine is unique due to the topography. The Duralie mine and Stratford mine have had wall collapse and coal fire. In the section on fire there is no mention of coal fires or how they will be dealt with.

6. Overburden
Amenity Barriers - Nowhere in the EIS is it explained how these will be constructed. Large barriers as suggested will erode over time and cause chemical pollution. The photomontages show green hills after 3 months. This is completely ridiculous. The example from the Stratford and Duralie mines is that years have passed and the overburden heaps are still visible in the landscape.

7. Noise
The greatest source of complaints from people living with coal mines. Audible noise and non audible noise from machinery and works. John Turner, the administrator from MidCoast council explained it was like a low constant rumble. People living 3 kms from the Stratford mine are `driven mad by the noise'. This will create the most obvious impact from the mine. No amount of conditions will change the outcome. Gloucester is a country town with very low noise, particularly at night. Any extra noise will be heard, let alone constant mine noise.



8. Viability
We have done the maths based on GRL's figures and we come up with a shortfall of $160.33 million. This mine project will only be viable if GRL extend the operations, north towards Gloucester township, south towards Stratford or west across the Bucketts Way. Stage two exploration is on the Maslen dairy north towards town. They will follow the coal seam.

9. Last but not least:
The destruction of the cohesion of a country town.
Families and friends split apart.
New comers not willing to buy here because of the mine threat.
The town in limbo for years.
Lack of growth due to uncertainty.
Lack of growth south of town because of the impending mine threat.
The proposed growth south of town, planned by council, not possible.

GRL ask, "what will happen to Gloucester if there isn't a mine?"

I ask, "what could have happened to Gloucester if GRL had not come?"

The imaginings are endless.

As an owner of a rural property I have been involved in farming and bush regeneration activities for a number of years.
With significant and valuable areas of remnant native rainforest very close by, I visit the Gloucester region regularly for recreational activities.
I strongly object to the proposed mine because it is too close to the town and will generate significant and intolerable noise levels dust and visual pollution for residents within the Gloucester Valley.
The associated health aspects of increased coal dust levels is of great concern to me, especially in light of developing research into it's harmful effects.

The proposed mine is way too close to residential areas.
The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township. The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.
The health impacts are far too great
Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts.
The mine threatens Gloucester's $50 million tourism industry.
Gloucester is a unique and beautiful town on the edge of the Barrington wilderness, and it has a thriving nature-based tourism industry. Open cut coal mining is completely incompatible with this important local industry, which must be protected.
So-called 'commitments' to reduce mining impacts are not trusted.
The community has no reason to trust either commitments from the mining company made during its application, nor conditions imposed by the Planning Department if approval is given. We have seen elsewhere in Gloucester and the Hunter Valley that these conditions can be changed later, and usually are. Conditions regarding mine rehabilitation, night-time work hours, noise, blasting, and dust, and even the footprint of the mine are untrusted. It is known, for example, that there are plans for a "Stage 2" of the coal mine. The only acceptable outcome for the Rocky Hill application is to reject it outright.

We must protect our farmland & our water!

To whom it may concern,
I write this letter to formally lodge my objection to all aspects of the development of the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Mine.

Gloucester is a small but very important town located at the base of the Barrington tops mountain ranges. The Barrington's are a major water supply to many rivers and to have that water and the aquifers underneath running through and potentially contaminated my an open cut mine is simply something I cannot condone.

Gloucester already is home to too many coal mines and in this critical time of global warming and the importance of reducing carbon emissions, to build a new mine is not only a backwards step by the government but an attack on the health and well being of our environment and all who live within it.

Finally, I believe the governments ongoing investment in coal energy, which, amongst other things is proven to be a an industry in recession and a financial burden on the country is irresponsible given all the benefits that renewable energy has to offer our country.

Please do the right thing for our country and environment and reject the Rocky Hill Mine.

Regards, Richard Grant

I object to the proposed mine for the following reasons:
The mine is way too close to residential areas considering
The proposed pits are only 900m from the Forbesdale residential estate, and barely 3km from Gloucester township.

The impacts from noise and air pollution, blasting, loss of amenity and lifestyle on surrounding residents are simply unacceptable, and in no way justified by the dubious economic arguments put forward by mine proponents.

The potential health impacts are also far too great.

Gloucester's hospital, its schools, and almost all of its residents are within 5km from the proposed coal pits. Particulate pollution from open-cut mining is known to lead to reduced respiratory health and increased death rates in surrounding communities. It is completely unfair and unjustified to expose the population of Gloucester to these health impacts.

I am in support of the Rocky Hill Project. To revive Gloucester it needs to support this Application for the cycle of people, businesses, government and essential services, etc to be maintained and to support each other.

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal mine.
This EIS does not address the important issue of heavy metal contamination in the food production chain which is likely to arise if coal mining at the proposed Rocky Hill Mine is approved.
The EIS contains no information regarding the levels of heavy metal salts in water released from the coal seams during mining or regarding levels of general salinity and heavy metals expected to be remaining in treated water after reverse osmosis treatment.
The wide-scale spraying of mine water for dust suppression on the mine site or for "irrigation" purposes onto pastures on surrounding farms can lead to increased soil salinity and an increased residue of heavy metal salts in soils. In the long term this can compromise agricultural productivity, animal health and subsequent human food safety.
A related and equally serious issue is that of coal dust contamination of surrounding pastures. Ingestion of coal dust by grazing stock leads to accumulation of persistent heavy metals present in the coal, which may reduce livestock fertility and health, whilst also compromising food safety standards for meat and milk production arising from these animals. There is currently no proposal to regularly monitor heavy metal accumulation in soil, pastures, livestock, meat products or milk and no studies are readily available on this issue.
Section 4.4.9.19 refers to an extremely limited piece of research that implies cattle meat production is not compromised by eating pasture that is loaded with coal dust. Indeed cattle will eat just about anything, as palatability has no correlation with stock feed toxicity. They regularly eat lead batteries if left accessible to them!
We also know that cattle can consume up to 50 kg of soil/year without any adverse health effects presuming the soil is not contaminated with a persistent toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Unfortunately for neighbouring farms, coal dust carries persistent heavy metals. I refer you to the National Pollution Inventory (NPI), search any open cut coal mine in Australia and view the air, water and soil emissions for heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic, to name a few. This link is to the data at the NPI for New Acland Coal mine on the Darling Downs in Qld. The data is indicative of every inappropriately placed open cut coal mine in farmlands In Australia. http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/emission-by-individual-facility-result/criteria/state/QLD/year/2015/jurisdiction-facility/Q020NAC001
Not only are these metals banned from Australia food stuffs, our export markets will not allow imported foods to carry them. Allowing them to be released from an open cut coal mine into the food production chain is tantamount to putting the entire meat and dairy export industry of Australia at risk.
Heavy metals bio accumulate which means that over time pasture concentrations can increase, they will persist in muscle and fat tissue and thus increase in concentration over the lifespan of the animal. It should be noted that aged dairy cows often enter the processed meat food chain, which is commonly exported. These aged cows will have many years exposure to the emissions via consumption of pasture where it has been taken up by the grass from the soil, eating dust dropped onto the pasture, breathing dust and drinking from water troughs where coal dust has settled.
It is also worth noting that should a carcass or milk sample prove to have higher than allowed levels of heavy metal contamination arising from coal dust or low quality mine water contamination of pasture or drinking water, then it will be the primary producer who will be held liable for that event. The mining company will not be held accountable.
I refer the Department of Planning to the National Vendor Declaration Documents that meat producers have to sign, forcing them to take the liability for food safety when they have no capacity to prevent coal dust contaminating their farms. http://www.mla.com.au/meat-safety-and-traceability/red-meat-integrity-system/about-the-livestock-production-assurance-program/
I also refer the Dept. to the Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) Guide http://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/meat-safety-and-traceability/documents/lpa_guidebook_v7.pdf
"Livestock Production Assurance (LPA) is the Australian livestock industry's on-farm food safety program. Introduced in 2004, it meets the stringent requirements of our export markets, providing an assurance of the safety of red meat grown on Australian farms. In 2013/14 Australia exported 71 per cent of beef, 56 per cent of lamb, 95 per cent of mutton and 95 per cent of goat meat to overseas markets."
Page 10, question 7: Do livestock have access to leaking electrical transformers, capacitors, hydraulic equipment or coal mine wastes?
Coal dust, coal seam water and other produced waters from coal mining are all constituents of coal mine waste from a toxicological stance. They are not compatible with safe food production.
However dairy and meat producers have to ensure their animals comply with all food safety requirements for chemical residues. Heavy metal contamination of food stuffs is one of the most concerning of all food residue contaminants because it bio-accumulates in humans at the top of the food chain.
It is irresponsible of government to support the pretense that mining and agriculture can co-exist safely. Food production and Australia's export meat and dairy industries are only one adverse residue finding away from a major international economic catastrophe.
It is also irresponsible of government to not ensure that Gloucester Resources Ltd take the liability for any contamination of neighbouring farm products in a radius commensurate with the widest dispersal of coal dust from the mine, the transport corridor and the processing plant at Stratford.
To leave the farmers to carry the financial consequences of contamination by the mining and processing operations is surely an unconscionable business practice? This liability must be addressed or this mine should not be approved.
Under these circumstances, this mine is a very poor investment for the Gloucester region and should not be permitted to proceed.
Dr. Kylie Goldthorpe BVSc
Veterinarian.

I oppose the development for the following reasons
1 it is incompatible with Gloucester town.
2 any suggestion that there will be no night works is ridiculous given the fact that coal mines are shutting down due to cost pressures
3 coal mining and its use are a thing of the past with respect to global warming and investment should be encouraged toward renewable energy .
4 mining wrecks small towns and the environment

Date: 13th October 2016
Director - Resource Assessments Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Submission for the Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156 Stratford Coal Extension Project - Application No SSD-4966 MOD 1

Dear Sir,

I completely oppose both of the projects above.

We have friends in Gloucester who are totally opposed to the mine. They have shown us where the mine will be and we are amazed that the state government could approve a mine so close to houses. The scenic beauty of the Gloucester valley will be lost forever. This will lead to a drop in tourists. Surely this will mean that whatever financial benefit claims the mining company makes will be cancelled out by loss of tourist dollars.
Gloucester is known to be clean and green. That is its claim to fame. That image will be irreparably damaged if this mine is approved.
Our friends are very concerned about any health issues that will arise from living near this mine. It is known that living near coal mines has a detrimental affect on health, including asthma and heart disease. The NSW Department of Health cannot deny the risks.
We ask that the NSW Planning Department do the right thing and not approve this mine, which will affect so many people in a negative way.

Yours faithfully

Name Wilma Bedford
Address 10 Kingsford Ave, Turramurra NSW 2074
Personal inf. not for publication No

WE appose the mines in Gloucester....

It will ruin the AIR the WATER even our BARRINGTON BEEF

ALSO TOURISEM which is being promoted in Gloucester & Sydney as a marvellous TREE CHANGE for all who would like to come to GLOUCESTER

There is no justification for this mine. The negative impacts on nearby residents and regional tourism along with the local and global environmental damage far outweigh any short term profit

Rocky Hill Coal Project - Application No SSD-5156

I oppose the Rocky Hill Coal Project and the modification to the Stratford Coal Extension Project.

This project appears to lack any community support, threatens a unique physical environment and promotes unclean energy production.

I am opposed to the proposed mine. My opposition is based on research which shows we must curb coal mining, not open new mines, if we are to meet our Paris commitment to keep global warming within 2 degrees and thus saving humanity. This planet is on the precipice of becoming unliveable and the privileged few continue to treat it like a huge atm to be plundered for profit. It is criminal and serves so few while hurting so many. If you have any conscience, you will follow your heart and do what you know is the right thing and do what you can to stop this barbaric and stupid folly.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html