Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

Coal is dirty. Transporting it on local roads spreads coal dust into residential rural areas.

It's the wrong place for a coal mine.

Coal mines are an old fashioned source of energy.

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: Objection to proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Project - Application No. SSD -- 4974

I Vehemently Object To THE WALLARAH 2 Coal mine

Do all our politicians now think more of $$$ to spend, so they get a pat on the back and a "WELL DONE", rather than caring about the lives of the people who put them into office?
Do they not give a damn about the "HEALTH & WELL BEING of the communities they have sworn to represent???

1) I Vehemently Object to putting the WALLARAH 2 coal mine smack bang in the middle of the MAIN WATER CATCHMENT BASIN that supplies water to the Central Coast region!!!!
Such an action will permanently damage our pure water supply forever.
The Central Coast is always on some sort of water usage restriction, as it is, so we should be trying to preserve our water supply, NOT DESTROY it!!!

2) I Vehemently Object to building a rail coal loading facility, working 24 hours /7 days a week, within 2 or 300 metres from my home & the homes of other Blue Haven residents.
It is absolute madness and it will totally ruin all our lives.

3) I Vehemently Object to Wallarah mining shortening our predicted lifespan by accelerating the health risks to my wife & myself. We retired here for our health and to extend our lives, not have them drastically reduced. My wife has already survived cancer now this project threatens our very existence!!!

4) I Vehemently Object to our most valued asset, our family home, being devalued by thousands of dollars, if not being made totally unsellable, as we will be forced to move away if this project goes ahead.

5) I Vehemently Object to The HEALTH & SANITY of the Blue Haven community, no longer being a concern to our "so-called" POLITICAL LEADERS. Would they allow this in their back yards?

6) I Vehemently Object to The Beautiful Central Coast being left to DIE OFF as it most certainly will if its waterways are contaminated and destroyed and there is no pure drinking water available to it.

7) I Vehemently Object that Blue Haven residents & surrounding suburbs will no longer be able to enjoy our outdoor lifestyle as everything will be covered in COAL DUST!
IT IS SO FINE it will be everywhere, in our homes, all over our gardens, cars, outdoor furniture, no more will we be able to even hang out our washing, but the scariest thing is, we will be BREATHING the stuff into our lungs and so will our children!!!!!

The EXPERTS say we will control the dust by spraying it with water.. Yeah Right!!! Not in the windy months, not in the summer, in fact NOT AT ALL! I worked in earthwork construction for 42 years.
They won't be able to stop it spreading EVERYWHERE & WE WILL BE BREATHING THE DUST.

When we have rain storms where does the run off go? IT'S CONTAMINATED





They say they will control the run off & waste water from the mine site, BUT when it rains ..IT HAS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO BUT INTO WALLARAH and SPRING CREEK, then INTO the LAKE SYSTEM.
And that will END HOLIDAY & TOURISM ON THE CENTRAL COAST.

And we haven't even covered the question of noise pollution.
A nine storey coal loader and coal trains operating 24/7???!!!
The occasional freight trains that operate infrequently now, on the existing rail line, already rattle our home's windows, what damage will the coal trains and the coal loader cause?

Please save our Paradise STOP THIS MADNESS NOW!!!


Water not Coal

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation. I would like to add my voice to theirs.

WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT SSD 4974 AMENDED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (ADA)
I hereby object to the current referenced ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The proposal makes no sense economically; it makes no sense environmentally; it makes no sense socially; it makes no sense politically. The current Amendment to the Application does not address issues which have been previously raised by the Planning Assessment Commission, consultant experts and the Central Coast community regarding the proposal. Accordingly, both the Amendment and the Application should be rejected outright.
POINTS OF OBJECTION
Water Availability
The Dooralong and Yarramalong Valleys comprise a significant proportion of the water supply for the Central Coast. Water demand is not going to decline, no matter how many restrictions are placed on its use. Population growth alone will continue to increase demand, and it is therefore madness to even contemplate a proposal which threatens a large part of the water supply. There is enough hydro-geological evidence to indicate that there is a significant risk that the water will either suffer substantially in quality or disappear altogether. When you take into consideration that not only current residents, but probably at least three to four future generations will have to wear the consequences if the water fails, then this proposal affects tens of millions of people.
Air Quality
The genius who came up with the idea of siting a coal loading facility in the midst of a suburban community should be held criminally liable for any adverse health outcomes that will inevitably arise from the deterioration of the Central Coast's air quality through coal dust pollution. Spraying coal with water just makes it wet - the coal dust, particularly in summer, will remain motile and deadly. And when the stream beds have cracked and the water has drained away, will the pile manager continue to diminish the already-devastated Central Coast water supply in order to spray the coal?
The KORES proposal predicts that there will be deaths arising from coal dust pollution. I want to know the names of the politicians and bureaucrats who will face criminal proceedings when this happens. When decision-makers, elected and unelected, are knowingly putting civilians into harm's way, they should be personally held accountable for the outcomes. The mine operator might wear some of the consequences, but given they have flagged the certainty of such outcomes in their proposal, then the officials who subsequently might grant a license to operate must also be deemed responsible.
Subsidence
Should Wallarah 2 go ahead, there is a significant risk of subsidence for thousands of residents, including my family. Coal projects in this region have an appalling record in terms of paying compensation for subsidence, so there is little confidence that Wallarah 2 will be any different. And even if compensation payments are forthcoming, all affected residents will still be out of pocket, their lifestyles disrupted, and severely inconvenienced. Who pays for that? My wife is disabled, and we have spent a lot of time and money to make our property accessible for her needs. When our house is affected by subsidence, then this property will not be safe for her. If we need to find alternative accommodation while rectification works are undertaken, then our experience is that there is zero prospect of finding temporary accommodation that is anywhere near as safe and accessible as our home. How is she to be compensated for that?
Again, I want to know the names of the politicians and bureaucrats who will go to gaol if reasonable and adequate compensation is not delivered for all residents affected by subsidence. Officials who have knowingly and deliberately caused the damage and in some cases complete destruction of residents' homes and properties need to make sure that the compensation is just as extensive and just as guaranteed as the subsidence. If they fail to do this, they cannot be allowed to escape without appropriate punishment.
Risk Mitigation
Whatever treatments the proponent says they have or will instigate to address risks associated with the proposal, the reality is that they will devote the absolute minimum amount of money and effort in implementing mitigation measures. Consequently, not all risks will be properly dealt with, and bad things will happen. I want to know the names of the officials who will go to gaol when the water supply is devastated, or some poor child dies of coal dust inhalation, or when the subsidence fund runs out of money. The reality is that these outcomes are not only likely, they are virtually guaranteed.
In risk assessment terms, we have at least three risks with a likelihood of Certain or Almost Certain, and a severity of Catastrophic. The NSW Public Sector Governance Framework states that `the more significant the impact of the consequence and the higher its likelihood of occurring, the higher the degree of Government control required to manage the risk.' What are the extensive Government controls proposed to manage the risk of death to Central Coast residents? Or the loss of the Central Coast water supply? In my opinion, any official who permits a project with such risks to proceed a millimetre further without undertaking comprehensive, expert and independent risk mitigation evaluation would be negligent.
Furthermore, such an evaluation needs to conducted in light of the risk appetite of the community which will be affected by the potential outcomes: not the risk appetite of the operator, or the risk appetite of government officials safe in their air-conditioned offices in Sydney. How much of its water will the community be prepared to lose? How many deaths are acceptable to the families living and working in the coastal suburban environment into which an industrial coal facility is to be inserted? How many years will residents be willing to wait for compensation so that they can repair or rebuild their homes which have toppled metres into the ground?
I won't be satisfied with the proposal's risk assessment until I hear that it is a pessimistic one, with the issues of water and air quality at least being realistically mitigated at the level of worst case scenario. I want to hear that it has been independently evaluated. I want to hear that there are solid and legally binding ramifications for all decision makers, environmental consultants and the coal company itself should adverse outcomes eventuate from them glossing over the facts, or under-assessing risks or under-resourcing mitigation measures. I want to hear that the affected communities will be the arbiters in judging how well the risks have been mitigated. I want everyone involved in this ridiculous and repugnant proposal to be absolutely accountable to the people of the Central Coast for their actions.
The farce of this mine proposal has gone on long enough. The time is right now to knock it on the head, and remove the malicious and ill-conceived threat it represents to the health and wellbeing of the Central Coast community. Please consider this objection with due regard and act accordingly.

I have been an employer in the underground coal mining industry and both a Wyong Shire and currently Lake Macquarie resident. I have had the pleasure of employing a multitude of local young people to give them a start and then watched them establish themselves in their local community. I have witnessed the town of Morisset grow and prosper over the last 25 years and attribute this to the mining industry's direct and indirect employment and have also witnessed the generosity of mining companies support local schools, sporting teams and other community organisations. Lake Macquarie, which has been mined underneath for decades by qualified local people, who also care about where they live, is a thriving marine environment. I believe Wyong and it's community would similarly benefit from local input and the Wallarah Project should proceed.

It seems that the work that has gone into the Wallarah II Project this has been done by qualified Australian engineers, surveyors, geologists and scientists and so with these safeguards I am confident that the Wallarah II Project will be a worthwhile addition to the Wyong Shire community and also assist and address some of it's youth employment issues.

As Australian manufacturers and steel fabricators employing a number of qualified welders, fitters and apprentices producing quality work for the mining and construction industries we are keen to see this project proceed.

I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not prevent the fact that the Central Coast's water supply would be compromised. Nor does it prevent the fact that the people in the suburbs along, and beyond, the coal rail line would have to breathe the coal dust from this mine for 28 years.
That the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation should be enough for the PAC to reject this mine.
There would appear to be a determination by the Baird Government to make this mine possible. How generous of NSW Roads and Maritime Services to help get around the Darkinjung block!
I am amazed this project is still being put forward. The Baird Government should be ashamed to allow the possibility that the Central Coast's water supply could be compromised, or think it's ok for the people in the suburbs along the coal line to breathe the coal dust. Maybe they think it's ok for the suburbs in a Labor or low socio-economic electorate? One also has to wonder if the Federal Government's "water trigger" would be applied considering which electorates would be affected.
I not only object to the project, I object to having to spend my time making a submission again. This project shouldn't even be on the table. Labor knocked it back in 2011. The Baird Government are way behind the times, using the PAC under the guise of independence, when the whole process is geared in favour of mining approvals. Even now in the mining bust.
Maybe Nathan Tinkler can buy the mine from the Korean Government if the PAC approves it.
Yours faithfully
Beryn Jewson

I object to the Wallarah2 mine for the following reasons.
Continuing noise generated by stop/go shunting of coal wagons under coal loading hopper.

Continuing noise from diesel locomotive i.e.( loop line not electrified ).

Fine coal dust carried by the wind and settling onto residential areas causing child and adult health issues.

Long wall mining causing land subsidence.

Damage to Aquafer/rivers effecting water supply .

Subsequent financial loss on surrounding realty.

Considering the huge environmental impacts and public health concerns this mine will impact on. It is therefore not in the best interests of this region. The EPA does not currently monitor pollution levels from existing industry including surrounding electricity sites and mining in this area. Increasing infrastructure within this region demands enough environmental impacts without further mining considerations.

I strongly object to the Wallarah 2 mining proposal. The expected impact on our property and many others nearby seems to have been dismissed under the proposal. The potentially negative impact on the Jilliby Conservation Area could be significantly higher than estimated by the proposal given the recent experience in Sugarloaf Conservation Area. Also, this project is being considered based on economic value, but the economic feasibility study is worryingly questionable.

Impact on our property:

* My family has a small rural property near Jilliby Conservation Area. Our property is located in one of the worst affected areas by the proposed mining below our property, with expected subsidence of more than 2 meters.

* According to the proposed mining plans, there will be three long wall faces mined under our property at different times. A study by the NSW Government: Office of Environment & Heritage highlights that "Active subsidence, which forms 90-95% of the total subsidence in most cases, follows the advance of the working face and usually occurs immediately". This suggests it is highly likely that a third of our property falls 2m, later another third falls 2m as the workface moves forward, followed by the final third at a later time.

* My family live in a house that was built ten years ago. According to the proposal, there is no house on our property, just a shed. This raises the question of the accuracy of the impact study. How many other houses exist but have not been taken into consideration?

* I shudder to think what would happen if our house straddles two mining work faces.

* Do the trees which provide shade for our house fall towards or away from the house as the ground shifts two metres below?

* Does the dam on our property, which irrigates our property and provides drinking water for our animals, seep away?

* How do the underground water tanks, which provide our drinking water, survive as the ground shifts? If they are damaged, who is responsible for fixing or replacing them? How quickly would this occur?

* Does the small cement bridge across a creek which forms part of our driveway and the only access to our property survive as the ground level shifts 2m? If it doesn't, how do we access our property? Who is responsible for rebuilding this urgently so we can access our property? My elderly parents visit regularly to enjoy the serenity. What happens if they need emergency assistance and the driveway is impassable?

* What happens to the fences as the ground shifts by twice the height of the fences? How safe will horses in fenced paddocks be as the ground shifts 2m at different times, creating crevices and felling fences?

* Electricity wires span the valley in which our property is located. How safe are the supports when each side shift two meters, most likely at different times? How will the safety of my family and animals be ensured if the electricity lines fall?

* Our property includes various terrain, much of which is hilly slopes. If there is significant disruption caused to the land itself, do property owners get compensated for the damage to the land as well as the infrastructure?

Impact on Jilliby Conservation Area

* My family regularly enjoys horse riding into the Jilliby Conservation Area. Others use the Area for bike riding, motor bike riding, walking, and running. The above mentioned NSW Government study says subsidence is "more evident in hilly terrain than in flat or undulating areas". What consideration has been given to the safety of the regular users of the Conservation Area for recreational activities?

* An example of the destruction caused by long wall mining in a conservation area is the ongoing subsidence in Sugarloaf State Conservation Area. According to the Office of Environment & Heritage website, massive subsidence is ongoing:

1. "In October 2012, Oceanic Coal Australia (OCAL) advised the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) of a greater than predicted impact from a subsidence event within Sugarloaf State Conservation Area."

2. "On 12 September 2013 a cliff fall in Sugarloaf SCA was reported to OEH, involving an estimated 20-30 metres of overhang from a cliff line in the northern area of the SCA."

3. "In February 2015 Oceanic Coal Australia Limited (OCAL) advised OEH of the formation of a very large (approximately two metres wide in places and one hundred metres in length) crack in the SCA."

4. According to a Herald article (3 Apr 2014) "Expert reports reveal a series of possible safety risks to people using the public reserve including rockfalls, large-scale landslide and trees toppling" so "a section of Sugarloaf State Conservation Area is expected to be closed to the public for more than a decade as authorities struggle to deal with threats to safety posed by mine subsidence damage."

* These very recent examples of the destruction in a Conservation Area caused by long wall mining raise the question of how anyone can have any confidence in the predicted impact and unintended consequences on the landscape.

* This type of damage is irreparable. The mining companies have no credibility in predicting the impact of long wall mining on Conservation Areas.

Questionable economic feasibility study

* The proposal has been discredited twice by independent economic think tanks - "Economists at Large" and "Australia Institute".

* The proposal relies on unrealistic forecasts of the coal price which is in a secular downturn, and the forecasts of the cost of production appear low compared to industry norms.

* The proposal uses questionable methodology in calculating the economic benefit including placing dollar values on the procreation of jobs for the community.

* Despite placing a value on job creation, the proposal does not cost the negative impact on public health, the water system, private property, the environment, and the possible worse than expected impact on the Conservation Area (as is currently being experienced in Sugarloaf State Conservation Area).

* Forecasts over such a long timeframe should allow for a large margin of error. The consequences of falling at the outer range of that margin of error far outweigh the minimal economic benefit of this proposal.

I'm raising children and hope to help them develop a moral compass. If they find themselves with a choice of making some money or doing the right thing, I hope they will choice the right thing. Every time.

I strongly object.

I am 14 years old and my house is right next to the conservation area. I am very worried about the impact of subsidence on our house, the wildlife and our safety while horse riding in the conservation area. It is very hard to picture how over 2 metres of subsidence is not going to affect the land and leave everything the way it is.

As our property backs onto Jilliby conservation area, we do a lot of riding on our horses on the trails. We go on 20km rides along the ridges, down gulleys and up steep hills with many boulders supporting the hills from eroding. If the land drops 2 metres, this will change our trails and cause big crevises or boulders moving causing parts of the hill to fall down. If our trails aren't usable anymore then either we would have to create our own around the damages which could be dangerous, or we wouldn't trail ride any more which would be a shame as I am a very passionate horse rider and love riding in the Australian bush.

On our property we have many types of wildlife, such as kangaroos, wallabies and wombats. We have many wombat holes on our property, which means that we have quite a lot of wombats under our property. If the ground drops then all of their holes and tunnels with collapse, trapping them and killing them.

Our house is next to a large billabong and surrounded by very tall gums. I am worried that if the land moves then the gums will fall down and the billabong will not have any water left. I have seen the terrible photos from Sugarloaf Conservation Area which had similar predicted subsidence from mining and unexpected crevises 100+ metres long appeared, hillsides collapsed and rockfalls occurred. They had to close the area as it was too dangerous. I don't see what will stop this from happening to the area around our house.

Please don't approve this proposal. Changing ground levels can cause crevises, landslides and rockfalls which would be dangerous to our family, our animals and the wildlife. I don't understand if we don't know what damage the mining will cause, why we would take the risk.

The slow murder of this Country, well, perhaps not so slow.. No water, no life...it is as simple as that! I object to the Amended Development Application for the Wallarah 2 coal mine. The amended application does not reduce the overall impacts of the mine proposal, which far exceed any benefits it would bring to NSW.

The proposed mine:

Poses a serious risk to Wyong's drinking water supply. It will undermine a major tributary and the void is modelled to soak up 2.5 million litres of water per day for at least 500 years - water diverted from creek and groundwater systems. For these reasons, the mine is opposed by the Central Coast Water Corporation.

Is opposed by Darkinjung traditional owners, who are disgusted with the arrogance the mine proponent has shown them. Rather than seek to make amends with the Darkinjung land council, the company has sought to cut them out of the process.

Is opposed by the directly affected communities of the Dooralong Valley, Blue Haven, and Wyee areas, whose health and livelihoods are threatened by the project. It is unfair and undemocratic to ask local residents to bear the impacts of a project that will provide no overall public benefit.

Is of highly dubious commercial viability. The ultimate owners of the project, the Korean Government, recently announced a strategic restructure for their resources companies, including Kores, away from thermal coal. In fact, the thermal coal industry is in the throes of terminal decline - many analysts expect the market will never recover, in the face of accelerating global climate change and the rapid development of renewable energy. The "economic assessment" put forward by the mine proponents is completely untrustworthy, and there is no reason to expect the mine would provide the long term financial benefits to NSW - in the form of jobs and royalties - that are promised.

Director
Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
4th September, 2016

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application (AMD)

I wish to object to the Amended Development Application of the Wallarah @ Coal Project SSD 4974.

Firstly, I challenge the classification of this project a s being of State Significance and firmly believe that this classification is a means to further the facilitation of this project.
Coal, world wide, is in decline and with global warming in progress, we cannot afford to progress with a project that increases that risk, however slight.

Dust
As a retired teacher and visitor to this area, I am deeply concerned about the number of schools and preschools within 5km of the facility that will be affected by dust emissions. PM 10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the local weather conditions. Climate models are predicting an increasing frequency of intense wind and storm events. Recent weather activity supports this. Therefore one can expect a wider distribution of dust.
PM 2.5 emissions are of greater concern to school aged children and the long term effects as such have not been adequately considered or mitigated, e.g. there is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the communities of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle. PM 2.5 particles have a greater range than PM 10 and a greater impact upon health.
Blue Haven and Wyee townships will be less than 500 metres from the new proposal and thus subject to constant dust emissions. Coal particles, in particular, are of particular concern due to their carcinogenic nature.

Noise.
The 24h/day will produce a constant background noise which will be most evident during the night. The question arises: would the disruption of sleep and stress associated with the project mean that workers in general would breach OH&S regulations?
Constant noise is used as a torture tool as is it has a disorientating effect. I am not suggesting that sound levels will be as high but unwanted sound does has a physiological effect.
And, I remind you that, a good learning environment has as little noise as possible.

Employment.
The employment figures for AMD are 1605 for direct and indirect jobs. This figure seems inflated as the original rail spur will not be built resulting in fewer employed. There seems to be an anomaly. An exaggeration of employment figures seems to be typical of extractive industries in order to obtain favour from sections of the community.

Effect on Local Economy.
The proposed conveyor system would effectively land lock the Darkinjing ALC land. This would downgrade the value of property and would any enthusiasm for development. I firmly believe that there would be a net negative impact on the local economy.

Water.
The impact upon Central Coast water catchment is at real risk due to subsidence. A comprehensive study of the water catchment is required with emphasis on the cumulative impact of all developments that potentially impact upon the water supply.
The Amendment should be rejected due to the risks associated with water, health and well being of the community.
Lastly, it is not of State Significance

Director
Planning Services
Department of Planning and Environment
4th September, 2016

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application (AMD)

I wish to object to the Amended Development Application of the Wallarah @ Coal Project SSD 4974.

Firstly, I challenge the classification of this project as being of State Significance and firmly believe that this classification is a means to further the facilitation of this project.
Coal, world wide is in decline and with global warming in progress, we cannot afford to progress with a project that increases that risk, however slight.

Dust
As a retired teacher and visitor to this area, I am deeply concerned about the number of schools and preschools within 5km of the facility that will be affected by dust emissions. PM 10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the local weather conditions. Climate models are predicting an increasing frequency of intense wind and storm events. Recent weather activity supports this. Therefore one can expect a wider distribution of dust.
PM 2.5 emissions are of greater concern to school aged children and the long term effects as such have not been adequately considered or mitigated, e.g. there is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the communities of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle. PM 2.5 particles have a greater range than PM 10 and a greater impact upon health.
Blue Haven and Wyee townships will be less than 500 metres from the new proposal and thus subject to constant dust emissions. Coal particles, in particular, are of particular concern due to their carcinogenic nature.

Noise.
The 24h/day will produce a constant background noise which will be most evident during the night. The question arises: would the disruption of sleep and stress associated with the project mean that workers in general would breach OH&S regulations?
Constant noise is used as a torture tool as is it has a disorientating effect. I am not suggesting that sound levels will be as high but unwanted sound does has a physiological effect.
A good learning environment has as little noise as possible.

Employment.
The employment figures for AMD are 1605 for direct and indirect jobs. This figure seems inflated as the original rail spur will not be built resulting in fewer employed. There seems to be an anomaly. An exaggeration of employment figures seems to be typical of extractive industries in order to obtain favour from sections of the community.

Effect on Local Economy.
The proposed conveyor system would effectively land lock the Darkinjing ALC land. This would downgrade the value of property and would any enthusiasm for development. I firmly believe that there would be a net negative impact on the local economy.

Water.
The impact upon Central Coast water catchment is at real risk due to subsidence. A comprehensive study of the water catchment is required with emphasis on the cumulative impact of all developments that potentially impact upon the water supply.
The Amendment should be rejected due to the risks associated with water, health and well being of the community.
Lastly, it is not of State Significance.

Dear Sir/Madam I strongly appose the new Amendment to the coal loading to be sent by conveyor system to a rail spur and load out bin which would be very close to the housing estates of Blue Haven and other close by suburbs in that area.There would be considerable amounts of coal dust in the air most likely 24 hours per day for that type of coal loading system.This area of the Central Coast is a boom area for new housing estates now and well into the future,is that worth effecting peoples health now and into the future for that type of coal mine and the present coal loading system which is proposed.

I wish to object to the current Amended DA (ADA) on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.

Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million which equates to just over $7 million per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated.

Media reports suggest that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios - future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

The NSW government has removed our right to go directly to the Land and Environment Couirt and argue our case on Merit Appeal. Premier Baird has removed that legal right from every community fighting coal or gas in NSW.

Confidential draft documents circulating through Planning Dept suggest "second workings" of coal seams meaning further and greater subsidence over time

Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. BlueHaven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day with a huge overhead structure on the main rail line and and loading hopper. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

Noise exceedences are admitted to for "residences to the north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" and general noise 24 h/per day for those living in BlueHaven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.

Proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to an out-of-influence area at Wyong Racecourse thereby distorting air quality readings for the region. Appendix C from the consultants (pages 2 and 3) says "Fugitive emissions can be expected during operation from loading stockpile to conveyor, wind erosion and maintenance of stockpiles and from upcast ventilation shafts"
5270 cubic metres per year of semi-solid salt waste for at least 14 years into underground storage and capacity and salty brine discharges into the Wallarah Creek system. OEH have expressed concerns - the "ultimate fate of the supersaturated salt solution remains unclear"

The consultant's suggestion that "after more than 500 years, water levels in the workings (in the Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be of concern)" is unacceptable.

The Mine Subsidence Board accepts only about a quarter of claims over the last ten years and will fight any great expense claimed by those who suffer subsidence. Also only the house itself is covered, while sheds,fences pools etc are exempt from claims.

Wallarah 2 have failed continually to consult with any of the people directly affected by the proposal. They have failed to hold any open public meeting explaining the project
Wallarah 2 have failed to bring to the public any concept drawing of the new conveyor system and loading facility near Blue Haven.

Further, Appendix H of Subsidence List Wallarah 2 states a 900 millimeters subsidence for our address. This would be disastrous for our property as we already get floods during heavy rain falls.

Major Development Assessment, Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
or
Email: [email protected]

Submission for Wallarah 2 Coal Project
Application Number SSD-4974
Location Approximately 5 Km northwest Wyong
From : Jason Pauls


To whom it may concern.


I object to the amended Wallarah 2 proposal on the following grounds. All of these grounds refer to the area north of the previous studies, which did not include Wyee.

* Lack of community consultation with Wyee residents concerning the proposed coal loader just south of Wyee Station.

*Lack of any written notification to nearby residents of proposed amendment.

*Lack of environmental impact statement regarding proposed amendment.

*Lack of noise impact studies on proposed amendment, including shunting of locomotives, noise of coal loading, noise of locomotive throttling up from a dead start and struggling up the hill Northbound out of Wyee.

*Lack of dust impact studies on proposed amendment.

*Lack of vibration studies on the proposed amendment. Lack of visual impact statement regarding the 9 story high coal loader in the proposed amendment.

*Lack of fume studies regarding locomotives struggling up the hill Northbound out of Wyee from a standing start...Quite a number of nearby residents are on tank water.

*Lack of studies regarding impact on Aboriginal land near the proposed amendment.

*A lack of land value impact near the proposed 9 story high coal loader if the proposal goes ahead.

*A lack of a financial study into the viability of the proposed amendment, rumour has it that it is earmarked to be sold soon after approval, if approved.

* I also support each and every past and current objection to this amended proposal

I am Opposed to this Amended planning application
on what planet do these guys think that monetary gain is m ore important than the health of our future generations
with the amount of coal dust to be generated by this amendment being so close to Blue Haven Boundaries.
i am vehemently opposed to this project

I support to Wallarah 2 development application as it will bring jobs and a diversity of businesses to the Wyong area. Though the area's proximity to Sydney will increasingly make it a base for people who work, but cannot afford to live in Sydney, this does little in terms of the maintenance or development of a diverse community. This Project presents an opportunity for an area which has a high proportion of the socially and economically disadvantaged people. It will create direct and indirect local jobs, promote a diverse economic and industrial base in the area and, most importantly, provide long-term opportunities for the youth - opportunities which are generally lacking now, particularly with the slowing of the coal mining industry elsewhere in the vicinity.