Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application

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

Beyond the environmental issues and potential damage to water catchment, local residents are afraid of pollutants and noise, subsidence, and loss of property value. These fears, whether real or imagined, indicate a cost that should be acknowledged when proposing mining infrastructure so close to residential areas.

The proposed benefits, in terms of jobs and royalties, are trifling when compared to the potential environmental damage and reparation, and injury to health and psyche.

This mine will not affect me personally. It is not in my backyard, but it is too close to other backyards. Mines and mining related operations do not belong here. This is an ill-conceived and myopic project, and I wish to lodge my objection to it.

Regards,

Dr Tim Bailey

I am a resident of the Central Coast, and I wish to object to the current Wallarah 2 Amended Development Application, and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself.

The Department of Planning and Environment, the relevant government ministers and Premier Baird all know about the concerns of the Central Coast community as well as the concerns of environmental groups and professionals working in the health, environment and jobs and training sectors. It is simply outrageous that the proposed Wallarah 2 is in a major water catchment. It is also well known that coal is a dying industry and coal prices are falling.

Given the above, I would like to ask why the mine proposal, including the ADA, is still even being considered by this government especially in the face of strong community objection? This issue has been going on for years. Why do community and environmental groups have to keep fighting over and over against this mine?
I cannot help but wonder what is really behind the NSW government's push for this mine and its support for KORES, especially with concerns about corruption generally so prominent in the media at present.

My other concerns include:
-Premier Baird has removed our legal right, and the legal right of any community fighting coal or gas in NSW, to go directly to the Land and Environment Court and argue the case.

-Coal dust continues to be a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee areas . The long term cost to public health due to health issues associated with coal dust, which will impact on local communities, is unacceptable.

-It is unacceptable that proposals to have an air monitor installed at Wyee have been diverted to Wyong racecourse, thereby distorting air quality readings for the region.

-Noise emissions are a huge concern for local residents.

-Media reports that KORES is withdrawing from overseas developments, so that future job prospects, development and environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitations have little hope of being realised. The great danger is that the public purse will be left to pick up the bills.

It seems obvious to me that, if the government is concerned about creating work opportunities in the region, then the development of a renewable energy sector, including TAFE training for apprenticeships, is the sensible economically and environmentally viable way to proceed.

To whom it may concern as this deeply concerns me.

Please take the time to read this, it is from a real person written from the heart.

There are so many reasons this submission should be rejected, some of which are outlined below.

I moved to Bluehaven with my wife just short of 20 years ago with hopes and dreams for the future. At the time it was an untapped area with great potential to grow and we were excited to be a part of that and to grow with it.

We now have two daughters that attend the local high school and are doing well. This proposal for an open cut coal mine goes against everything a government should hold themselves accountable for and to, we the people of the state.

I understand there is a monetary argument however the human side and environmental side of this should take precedence. Money comes and goes, the rest will always be here.

I don't consider myself a raging greenie or activist in any real way. I do consider myself a very concerned father , husband and one day grandfather to the next generations. Should this go ahead I genuinely fear for the coming years in the local community. The very real outcome for this area will be sickness and poverty, not jobs for locals and general affluence for the area.

Above all the human and environmental cost of this mine will far outweigh any monetary gain whether short or long term considered.

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.

Thank you,


Dan Clink

OBJECTION

No amendments will ever make this project acceptable to the people of the Central Coast. Most believe this project is dead and buried as promised by both Liberal and Labour.The fact that this project is trying to be approved without the majority of people knowing due to our corrupt main stream media is deplorable.

No sane person would ever consider allowing longwall coal mining under the main water catchment area, that allows 300 odd thousand people to live on the central coast.

I have lived on the banks of Spring creek BlueHaven for 28 years.
The creeks rivers lakes and bushland is my backyard and I know it well,far better than anyone sitting behind a desk in a Korean company or a government office.

The areas of spring creek near the motorlink road is a major sea mullet breeding ground,effect this and there will be an impact on the migatory paterns up and down the coast and commercial fishing activities.The creek is also home to bream garfish longtoms whiting herring tailor flathead fortesque angel estuary perch bass gupies prawns stingrays eels and sharks.The existence of each depends on the existence of the others.The 7 story hopper and coal train in the Spring creek water catchment area, what sort of planning dept do you run, perhaps it should be renamed with the words irresponsible destruction put in their somewhere.

The stockpile .conveyor ,hopper and loading operations sits directly in between Large populated areas and the direction from which we recieve the majority of our winds,which are very often very ,very strong. How smart is that?

The harmful biological effects of coal dust are well recorded.

No doubt you are all under pressure from above to push this project through,we can only hope that honour and integrity will overcome any fear and this project will be stopped from proceeding while it still can.

At $67 a tonne , Korea can buy all the coal it wants from any existing Australian mines not located next to major populated areas. Thats about
$12 a tonne above production costs.There is no net economic benefit for Australians if Wallarah2 proceeds, in fact future liabilities show a very,very large negative return.and future generations will thank you if you prevent this.

Yours faithfully
Robert Bradhurst

Re WALLARH 2 COAL PROJECT SSD 4974 AMENDED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

Kores is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press and that future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

Points of Objection:
1. The ADA states that 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. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Valley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, it easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities.

2. Dust, Health and Noise. Dust is a real issue in the Blue Haven and Wyee
precincts. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons, which will travel through
the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern
Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port
line.

Some areas of Blue Haven and Wyee will now be as close as 200 and 400
metres respectively from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for
familes in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 hours per day. There
are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facilitiy
and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

The Office of Environment and Heritage diverted plans to have an air monitor installed at Wyee and placed in an ou-tof-influence area at Wyong Racecourse, thereby distorting air quality readings for the region.

3 Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure. 86 are destined to suffer metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area. The Mine Subsidence Board has accepted only a about a quarter of claims over the last 10 years. Only the house itself is covered, what will happen to sheds, fences and other farm infrastructure?

4. The damage that will occur to the water catchment area ie the water currently in our creeks and waterways will find its way into the mine. Hence we will have no surface water available for use and water in lower aquifers will also dry up for the same reasons. The consultant (MER) suggestion that `after 500 years, water levels in the workings (Jilliby Creek/Wyong creek catchment) are predicted to have recovered (and not be a concern)'. What happens in the meantime?

.

Longwall coal mining is not appropriate for this rapidly growing community of the Central Coast. I ask the State Government to heed the wishes of this community, to provide strong environmental leadership and STOP THE MINE.

Family members have resided in this area for over 50 years. I therefore instruct the Government on our behalf to refuse any future development of the coal mine.

Your acknowledgment and a reply to this letter would be appreciated.

In regards to the,
Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application,
I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.
The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
Please consider the following points of objection:
1. Costs/Benefits
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. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Valley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.
2. Employment
As this application is solely looking at this amendment the job figures of pages 86 & 87 are blatantly incorrect, as they relate to the project in its entirety. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth of the situation.
This amendment was necessitated by the alteration of original proposal from the construction of a rail spur to its replacement by a conveyor system. As a result of this it is incorrect to say 1605 jobs will be created. Another inaccuracy found in this amendment.
The construction of this conveyor system will effectively landlock the Darkinjung ALC land, it will result in decreased value as well as restrict any future development. These actions will also as a result threaten many jobs in the construction industry, totally unacceptable.

3. Dust and Health and Noise
Dust is a very real health issue for the residents of Blue Haven and Wyee. There is great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control these emissions.
This amendment would see Blue Haven and Wyee townships as close as 200metres & 400metres respectively from the proposed overhead structure on the main rail line and loading hopper, resulting in the families of the areas being subjected to dust and noise 24/7. Within 5kms of this facility there are preschools, schools and community facilities. Our children are our future and this is what we propose to subject them to? Poor reflection of on us as responsible adults!
The Pm10 emission from the site are conservatively portrayed with no allowance for the changing nature of our climate, the increased extreme weather events have not been taken into consideration.
Dr Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for north Sydney and the Central Coast previously made a submission outlining the greater risk to children and health sufferers in this region if this project approved. Please refer back to this.
It is admitted that noise will exceed accepted levels for "residences north of Bushells Ridge Road at Wyee" as well as general noise 24/7 for those living in Blue Haven and Wyee, surely this is a grave concern.

4. Unresolved issue from EIS 2014.

245 homes and their infrastructure will be affected by subsidence according to the proponents EIS, 86 of which are fated to suffer between a metre to 2.3metres, along with the valley floor near the Jilliby Conservation Area, suffering subsidence from 1.8 to 2.6 metres provokes " inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and long periods of isolation from facilities and emergency services.

The Mine Subsidence Board has a shamefully poor record of dealing with the vast majority of claims state wide for subsidence and proves itself to not protect residents as claimed in this application.
According to the PAC "The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply", they also recommend, "...There should be no net impact on potential catchment yield". The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong Valleys is a real risk of destruction due to the massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area.

The fact that Wallarah 2 have failed to hold any public information sessions regarding this amendment is proof in itself that they do not want the public nor people concerned to know their plans. If there is no reason for concern why would they not be transparent about their intentions and the proposed effects on the community and area?

The physical damage is irreparable.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.
Yours faithfully
Alison Mortiss

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application
I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.
ONCE THE DAMANGE IS DONE, EVEN LONG AFTER THE MINE CLOSES, THE SUBSIDENCE AND LOSS OF WATER WILL CONTINUE AND CANNOT BE UNDONE.
The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
POINTS OF OBJECTION
1. Costs/Benefits
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. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Valley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.
2. Employment
Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.
Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.
The conveyor system landlocks Darkinjung ALC land and hence downgrades value and restricts projected developments and therefore threatens hundreds of valuable jobs in construction which is totally unacceptable.
3. Dust and Health and Noise
Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions.
Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual 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 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.
Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.
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.
Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014
MASSIVE SUBSIDENCE AND LOSS OF WATER
Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure, 86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.
The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.
"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
CONCLUSION
1. I am directly affected by the forecast mine subsidence with my house and land having a calculated more than 1 metre subsidence even by the typically conservative Kores figures. This will damage our family home and reduce our quality of life. There will also be a substantial financial loss due to major loss of property resale value and cost of uncompensated repairs.
2. Our property has hundreds of mature trees many of which are significant habitat trees. These trees are at risk of being destabilised and hence dying leading to loss of habitat. Some of these trees are near houses and will develop significantly increased risk of falling and killing anybody in their reach.

3. Mine operations and mine subsidence will cut aquafers resulting in substantial loss of water to the Wyong River being the major fresh water supply to the region.

ONCE THE DAMANGE IS DONE, EVEN LONG AFTER THE MINE CLOSES, THE SUBSIDENCE AND LOSS OF WATER WILL CONTINUE AND CANNOT BE UNDONE.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.

Downer provides support and the following comments on the proposed amendment to the Wallarah 2 Development Application.
Downer has completed a preliminary review of the constructability of Wyong Coals proposed rail and coal load out facility in Nikko road near Bushels Ridge. In Downer's expert opinion and having undertaken many projects with similar physical characteristics such as single point of entry and the protection of adjoining land and assets, the construction and operation of this facility poses no significant or difficult issues within this corridor and would therefore be considered routine in terms of constraints. It is however acknowledged that consultation with adjoining landowners and other stakeholders would be required in the development of construction management plans, including consideration of environment, access and emergency response.

Should you have any queries please advise.

Regards,

Frank De Vitis
Business Development Manager - Rail Infrastructure
Infrastructure Services

Dear Director Planning Services,

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition as well as to the further progression of the mine proposal. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

Preamble
The real fact that the proponent KORES Is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

Points of Objection

Cost/Benefits
* Page 85 of the ADA states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and improbable 28 years life of the mine is $200M, which equates to just over $7M per annum. With falling coal prices and Government concessional rebates this figure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation, particularly in the Jilliby Valley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.

Employment
* Pages 86 and 87 state job creation beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment Is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project, yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quotation during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.

* Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly Inflated and misleading.
Dust and Health and Noise

* Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.

* Pm10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual and do not take Into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events in the recent years. Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as dose 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.. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.

* Please refer to the submission by Dr. Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers In this region should this project be approved.

* 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 Blue Haven and Wyee areas are issue of concern.
Unresolved issue from the EIS 2014

* Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents ELS affect 245 homes and their infrastnjcture, 86 of which are destined to suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 12 metres fail right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes Inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jillilby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation and to long periods of separation from facilities and emergency services.

* The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year In year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.

* "The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they..." recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield". The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.

Ian & Liz Hemphill

The Director, Planning Services
Dept.of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001
Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application
I wish to Object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.
PREAMBLE
The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.
POINTS OF OBJECTION
Costs/Benefits
Page 85 of the ADA states that the royal es 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 gure is inflated. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilita on, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the popular on it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.
Employment
Pages 86 and 87 state job crea on beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job gures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This applica on states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job gures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quota on during construc on of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.
Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essen ally being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an addi onal 1605 jobs for the whole Project as con gured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not de ned and again highly in ated and misleading.
Dust and Health and Noise
Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no a empt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authori es to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that conges on toward the Newcastle terminal. The added mes of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community
PM10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual 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 respec vely from the new proposal bringing even greater problems for families in the area for both constant dust and noise 24 h/per day.
There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will suffer from emissions from the site.
Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.
Noise exceedences are admi ed 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.
Unresolved issues from the EIS 2014
Massive subsidence gures represented in the proponents EIS a ect 245 homes and their infrastructure,86 of which are des ned to su er a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley oor su ering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conserva on Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predic ons" as a PAC principal nding. The regular ooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degrada on and to long periods of separa on from facili es and emergency services.
The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the applica on.
"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on poten al catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruc on due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.
Yours faithfully

The Director, Planning Services
Dept.of Planning and Environment
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001

Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application

I wish to object to the current ADA on exhibition and also to the further progression of the mine proposal itself. The application portrays the economic benefits and job figures clearly for the whole project and does not confine itself clearly to this Amendment alone.

The real fact that the proponent KORES is withdrawing from overseas development due to massive debt ratios, as recently expressed in the Korean press tells the community that the future job prospects, development and most importantly environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation have little hope of being realised.

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. Taking into account the costs of repair and rehabilitation on, particularly in the Jilliby Vallley water catchment and Hue Hue subdivisions following subsidence, easily negates the benefits to the State and local authorities. By adding the long term cost to public health and to greater airborne diseases in the population on it begins to look like a costly enterprise for the public purse.

Pages 86 and 87 state job creation on beginning with 79 through to direct and indirect job figures in year 2 of 1,111 jobs. This application states very clearly that this assessment is only looking at this Amendment and not the whole Project yet the job figures are obviously being included for the whole project such as a larger "intersectoral linkages" job quota on during construction of 1605 direct and indirect jobs.

Because the original rail spur is not being built and will be replaced by a conveyor system (essentially being the main thrust of this Amendment) does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above. As in the original EIS the job prospects are not defined and again highly inflated and misleading.

Dust remains a real issue for health in the Blue Haven and Wyee precincts despite partial coverage of infrastructure. There is no attempt to cover coal wagons which will travel through the southern suburbs to Newcastle affecting all those communities of southern Lake Macquarie and Newcastle as has been demonstrated in the Hunter to Port line. There has been great concern about the mapping of coal dust and the lack of authorities to control those emissions. This project exacerbates the problem adding to that congestion toward the Newcastle terminal. The added times of daily rail crossing closures at Adamstown and Islington need to be disclosed to the Newcastle community.

PM10 emissions from the site are conservative as usual 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. There are many schools, pre-schools and establishments within 5 kms of the facility and they will su er from emissions from the site.

Please refer back to the submission by Dr.Peter Lewis, Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast wherein he outlines greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved.

Noise exceedance 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.

Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure,86 of which are destined suffer a metre or more drop right up to 2.3 metres and the valley floor suffering subsidence up to 1.8 metres fall right up to 2.6 metres near the Jilliby Conservation Area provokes "inevitable uncertainty concerning subsidence predictions" as a PAC principal finding. The regular flooding of the Jilliby Valley means that this proposal condemns the area to degradation on and to long periods of separation on from facilities and emergency services.

The woeful performance of the Mine Subsidence Board in refusing the vast majority of claims Statewide for subsidence year in year out does not protect residents as is claimed in the application.

"The project predicts risk of reduced availability of water for the Central Coast Water Supply" according to the PAC wherein they... " recommended there should be no net impact on potential catchment yield" .The Central Coast water catchment supply in the Wyong valleys is at real risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below.

This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.

Yours faithfully

See attached Letter of Support

I wish to raise several Points for consideration re the Now Submitted Statements these are


1 The Statements cover Air Quality however I feel they don't adequately cover the about the content of the Air Bourne Pollutants that will be discharged from the operations there within the proclaimed Mining Zones. I.e. what's actually in the air and content of the dust, asbestos, etc.? What are the levels prior to commencement of operations there v's proposed content once operations commence, also Levels that are will Exist when Mining has been fully completed. The mining will draw much air from the surrounding areas to ventilate the mine shafts and workings and at the same time discharge much air from the mine shafts and workings via exhaust stacks. It is my view that the levels that existed prior to commencement of mining of the whole area should be maintained and not exceeded during or after mining the site has fully completed, and to ensure the area restored to its prior conditions or better condition than that existed prior to the commencement of mining operations.
Known Fact Singleton has one of the highest respiratory health issues in the world. Also contaminant dust settles into water tanks via those that are not town water connected which is most of Jilliby. How are they going to report, prevent and remediate this?
Why not have a remediation surety account for claimants. E.g. like James Hardy does for its asbestosis victims. Perhaps $100 million initially and CPI increases thereafter. The money managed by an independent body appointed/chaired from the concerned affected citizens.


2 The Statements cover Air Quality however fail to cover (T.B.C) Total Bacteria Counts of Air Quality Prior to commencement of mining v's that of what will happen during and after mining has been completed. I realize that Bacteria is constantly in the Air we breathe however to what levels does it exist also what is the exact content and nature of the bacteria prior to Proposed Commencement of Operations there v's Levels that will exist during Operations I.e. list fully the types of Bacteria.
Known Fact Singleton has one of the highest respiratory health issues in the world. Also contaminant dust settles into water tanks via those that are not town water connected which is most of Jilliby. How are they going to report, prevent and remediate this?
Why not have a remediation surety account for claimants. E.g. like James Hardy does for its asbestosis victims. Perhaps $100 million initially and CPI increases thereafter. The money managed by an independent body appointed/chaired from the concerned affected citizens

3 The Statements does not seem to cover or mention Smells Odor's and or Fumes. This is of extreme concern to me and many Friends regarding the recent highlighted problems that have been noted in the media. Those emitting from the development at Rutherford in the Hunter Valley which has been for many years caused many concerns and complaints from local residents in that area and also the Development in Queensland more recently in the Media and it seems nothing much can be done once the consent for mining is approved we most certainly don't want the potential for the same or similar to happen in our area or the chances of it to happen. If the Wallarah 2 Project get the Approval to go ahead
Fumes and odours: Affecting all peoples lifestyle amenity. How will this be judged and remediated if affected
Why not have a remediation surety account for claimants. E.g. like James Hardy does for its asbestosis victims. Perhaps $100 million initially and CPI increases thereafter. The money managed by an independent body appointed/chaired from the concerned affected citizens


4 The Statements Cover Water Quality however they fail to cover area of (T.B.C.) Total Bacteria Counts contained within the Existing Steams also (T.D.S.) Total Dissolved Solids contained within the Existing Steams Water Flows again prior to commencement of Proposed Operations V's Level that will exist during Operations and Levels that will exist and remain after operations are completed in the proposed areas. Again list the content of the bacteria that exist prior to and the estimated content during operations also list estimated levels once operations have been completed and areas restored to their former condition that existed prior to the commencement of Mining Operations.
Why not have a remediation surety account for claimants. E.g. like James Hardy does for its asbestosis victims. Perhaps $100 million initially and CPI increases thereafter. The money managed by an independent body appointed/chaired from the concerned affected citizens


5 The Statements Cover High Levels of Discharged Water from mining operations and associated water treatment for that water . What are the estimated (T.B.C.) Total Bacteria Count Levels also (T.D.S.) Total Dissolved Solids contained within that excess Water extracted to allow the mining operations and the Whole Project to get the go ahead. And what to what Levels will the Water be treated to in terms of Total Bacteria levels and Water Quality will it be of Drinking Water Standards i.e. Potable Water Quality if not why not.
Why not have a remediation surety account for claimants. E.g. like James Hardy does for its asbestosis victims. Perhaps $100 million initially and CPI increases thereafter. The money managed by an independent body appointed/chaired from the concerned affected citizens


General as I am a current member of the
Residents Consultative Committee for the Wallarah 2 Coal Project


Mr. Douglas. Ford.
8 Pepper Close
Toukley
N.S.W.
2263

Contact Ph. No Home = 0243961246
Mobile = 0417405489

Email = [email protected]

Thursday, May 09, 2013

I support the project and will attach a PDF detailing my reasons.

CST (Control Systems Technology) designs and manufactures Belt Scales in Australia. In business since 1985, our weighers can be seen all over the Hunter Valley, Illawarra coal fields and Western Coalfields. Offices are in Merewether, Mackay & Perth with head office in Revesby NSW.

Please see uploaded Support Submission.

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED

I strongly object to the establishment of an underground coal mine in this area. The effect on the people and environment will be not be outweighed by any potential earnings the state may make from allowing this to go ahead.

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 :
David Holland
Graduate Diploma in Environmental Management and Bachelor of Applied Science in Environmental Planning, Charles Sturt University
Resident of Blue Haven

Date: 8th June 2013
To the Director General of the Department of Planning NSW,
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns with the building of a coal loader facility near Toohey's Road within the proximity of extensive urban areas around the proposed site.
Many existing urban areas have the potential to be affected by impacts from the proposed development as well as a high level of potential for impacts on future urban and large lot developments planned in relatively close proximity to the site.
Some assertions related to noise and air particulates as potential impacts to the surrounding environments are as follows:
* The Coal Loader as part of the Wallarah 2 Coal project is far too close to residential areas. One example is Blue Haven, which is situated less than 3 Kilometres from the proposed coal loader and head works facility.

* There is an overall hazard for airborne particulates in the form of coal dust pollution with the potential to cause health issues in the general population living, working and transiting the proximity of the proposed facility.

* The western end of Blue Haven is less than 1 kilometre from the proposed rail spur junction with the main northern line. This proximity of the Coal Loader's rail spur junction is too close to residences in the Western end of Blue Haven. Its proximity will cause interference with the ambiance of the locality by heightening noise levels.
The details of the concerns related to the impacts of the coal loader are as follows:
1. The proximity of the coal stockpiles and any open-air movement of coal would tend to create emissions of coal dust.

Even if this coal dust can be controlled most of the time, there is likely to be emissions from the site from beside stockpiles and as the material is loaded onto and transported by the coal trains. This coal dust has a potential to cause breathing problems, especially with the young and the elderly. It has the potential to cause underlying respiratory complaints not detected until latter in life. It has the potential to cause carcinogenic reactions in future life plus a range of other affects as described below.

a. Due to a coal loader being so close to the suburban areas, I believe that the property market of the area will be affected. Whether coal loader impacts are a perceived degradation of the living environment or an actual degradation, the same result of an affected property market will occur. That is that the coal stockpile facility and coal loader in the area will have a negative influence on house and land prices. This will mean that prices will tend to fall below a level that otherwise would have existed without the building of the coal loader facility.

This will mean that all those owners potentially affected by the coal loader's proximity will have a devalued capital asset. As a consequence, borrowing against that asset will be at a lower value to what otherwise would have been expected without the presence of the proposed coal loader. Blue Haven will not be affected alone, with the township of Wyee and the proposed town centre at Warnervale within the proximity of the loader facility impacts will be more widespread. In addition new developments planned west of the freeway will be affected by these price distortions.

b. The urban interfaces around the proposed facility are set to expand. Blue Haven may have finished expanding to the west but with Wyee Station just over 3 kilometres from the proposed facility, and Warnervale's proposed town centre only 1500 meters to the south of the facility, the potential for coal dust impacts are as real in Wyee and Warnervale as they are in Blue Haven. Wyee is set to expand its residential areas around the station, while Warnervale is expected to be the hub of very many new housing estates. Even with a light southerly or northerly wind, coal dust would be expected in these areas as well.

c. With the likely development of Bushell's Ridge industrial area to the north, the opportunity of having the railway so close to the suburban areas of Blue Haven, and with the expected population growth for the locality stretching from Warnervale to Gwandalan, a real possibility exists of having a bus and train interchange at Blue Haven not far from the proposed development. With the potential for airborne particulates to be in the area, greater numbers of people could be affected with health issues caused by inhalation of coal dust. In time it would be expected to see more bicycle use for commuting to railway stations like this proposed one and the proposed new railway station at Warnervale. These developments would widen the potential impacts of coal dust on the population.

(See interchange proposal at: Blue Haven Rail and Bus Interchange Proposal )

d. Currently many residents of Blue Haven have installed rainwater tanks. With the potential of particulates of coal dust landing on rooves, it is expected that tanks will tend to fill up with this fine coal dust necessitating more clean-outs of these tanks and causing new risks to the health of the cleaners. Not only would Blue Haven be affected, but also all the new subdivisions at Wyee, Warnervale and any proposed urban development areas close by, where rainwater storage units are compulsory for new homes.

e. Over the last year or so, many residents have installed solar panels on the roof hoping to save power and reduce electricity power costs. With fine coal dust falling on the panels it is expected that the available sunlight to these panels will be reduced unless cleaned regularly. In addition the savings otherwise made to residents would be far less, squandering their small effort to reducing carbon emissions, and reduce their power bills.

f. With the existing and proposed urban areas situated in relatively close proximity to the stock piling facility and the potential for prevailing winds to carry the finer particles of the coal dust several kilometres, it is likely that all out door surfaces will be affected by the dust. This will include washing hung out to dry. As a response to coal dust on washed clothing, it is expected that householders will react by installing electric clothes dryers, thus artificially increasing the amount of electricity used and the cost of the household power bill.

g. There are concerns about the unknown impacts of coal dust on the natural environment. It would be expect that after rain, much of the dust will wash off the leaves of vegetation, however some will tend to build up and persist on the leaves. The impacts of the fine dust have on insects and other larger fauna in the local areas of bushland adjacent to the proposed facility would be unknown without extensive studies. However, under longer dry spells it would be expected that coal dust coatings on leaves would adversely impact on bushland flora species. In a wet spell, rainwater would wash the fine coal dust into the creek system, causing unseen damage to the benthic biota in Wallarah and Spring Creeks.

These are all hypothetical if the proponents guarantee that there will be no dust emissions from the site. How can this be done with coal moving constantly on the site? Wetting the top layers of coal will tend to dampen the coal dust in the stock pile until the sun dries it out again, but the loading process as mentioned above should generate large amounts of coal dust. In addition the transportation of the coal has an additional potential to produce dust emissions. Thus the adjacent bushland and creeks must suffer from this potential impact in some way and all the other impacts itemised above are open to occur.

Below is a web address that shows an NBN television article on a recent study in the Hunter Valley on coal dust emissions related to coal loaders and coal being transported by rail.
http://www.nbnnews.com.au/index.php/2013/03/08/dust-data-sparks-fears-over-fourth-coal-loader/

Below is a paper from the Hunter Community Environment Centre (HCEC) making some serious points about the potential problems with coal dust in the environment.

http://www.hcec.org.au/20130417/global-coal-study-highlights-serious-health-risks-hunter

2. Noise emissions related to the operation of the coal loader facility.

When considering the rail spur's proximity to the lower parts of Blue Haven and other urban areas close to the proposed development, the noise generated by the rail trucks crossing the points as the coal train enters the main northern line will have a negative impact on residences in local streets. I believe that this impact will be felt throughout the night as well as the daytime.

a. Noise from the locomotives shunting between the rail line and the rail spur, where trucks are banging against each other as they couple, will impact Blue Haven residents. Currently as the rail line is about 500 meters from houses, freight trains can be heard on many occasions. With the operations of the coal facility and the proposed rail spur trains, residents would expect to hear bangs rather than a sound of a train slowly rising in volume and then fading away again as is the case with trains on the main line currently. Residents would expect these bangs will not only affect residents sleep patterns day or night but arouse many of the neighbourhood dogs, thus causing a great deal of anxiety for both dogs and owners.

b. Although the noise generated by the loading of each rail truck as the coal falls into the bottom of the truck is probably too far from Blue Haven residents to hear, unless under extraordinary wind conditions, it is likely that the urban and semi rural areas of Warnervale will be disturbed by this noise. This noise would be happening almost constantly. With the right wind conditions the noise would be exacerbated and again continue to bother the neighbourhood dogs in any suburb within a range of the loading facility.
All of the above will affect the current ambiance of the neighbourhoods around the proposed plant. We recognise that the land is zoned industrial, but many industrial sites in Wyong Shire do not have an intensity of open-air activity that will produce noise to this level both day and night.
3. Risk factors related to the Toohey's Road site and coal loader site.

It is my contention that the risks related to the impacts associated with the development are too high for urban areas. It is my contention that if the development were not proceeded with, the level of any additional risk would be zero. This would be an acceptable risk level.

The potential impacts related to just the issues mentioned above present a level of risk to the people living in surrounding urban areas that would not be present if the development did not go ahead.

a. The level of risk related to additional financial costs due to potential externalities to the site could be considerable.

Following is a list of the potential financial impacts that residences may have to consider.
(i) Loss of capital value to a property
(ii) Additional cost related to laundry. ie. New dryer, extra power costs, buying new clothes more frequently.
(iii) Health costs - ie. More medication for children and others. More medical practitioner and specialist expenses.
(iv) Expenses related to cleaning house external walls and rooves.
(v) Loss of water quality related to rainwater tanks. ie. The expense related to cleaning tanks. Additional risks related to workers cleaning the tanks causing increased cost associated with cleaning due to more expensive equipment needed due to potential health dangers of handling coal dust fine particles.
(vi) Loss of sunlight shining on solar panels on rooves thereby reducing returns on the investment in the panels.

b. Risk and how it relates to coal dust in urban areas

The proponent will attempt to control the dust from the development so that it is below the standard set by the EPA. It seems that the most dangerous size of particle material from coal dust is between PM 10 or 10 micrometres in diameter down to PM 2.5 or 2.5 micrometres in diameter. Particles below this size are often produced from the burning of material including hydrocarbons. For instance diesel fuels and flare emissions.

However, it seems that the majority of these PM 10 to PM 2.5 diameter particles likely to be produced by the facility are the coal dust produced by the stockpiling and transportation of coal. Recently a study was done in the Hunter Valley Coal fields of NSW that related to the measurement of particle material close to coal transport facilities. Over the 7 days monitoring period, readings exceeded the preferred standard set by the EPA for the whole time of the monitoring.

There are academic papers that indicate that some of these particles can penetrate human tissue particularly through the lung wall. It is also asserted by some experts that such particles of coal can cause free radicals in the human body. If these particles are small enough to penetrate the tissue and organs of a human body, what damage could be had if these particles of coal dust are in fact a potential cause of the production of free radicles in the human body? What risk of cancer would someone run who was in constant contact with coal dust within a coal dust affected area?

c. What level of coal Dust emissions will cause cancer?

Since we measure the development of cancer as a risk factor to the concentration of a pollutant, it is hard to quantify whom the coal dust will affect. The only result we can perhaps glean from a study of a population in an affected area is the number of cancers formed in a sample of the population. Through this we would get an approximate risk factor.

When standards are established, I would contend that it is based on a loose correlation between cancer in the community and the level a pollutant of a particular type. This same conundrum was realised when assessing the level of lead and arsenic in an orchid being studies by me as a student. The fact that we found arsenic and lead in the orchid from pest control sprays at or below the EPA guidelines did not mean that there was no risk to the workmen in the orchid.

Similarly, risk is apparent in the proximity of the coal loader from the health affects of coal dust inhalation or imbibition, cannot be quantified. Perhaps this pollutant in the environment will not affect many people. Maybe many will not show symptoms of effects for some years and the correlation between the coal dust and other environmental pollutants may be blurred. But rest assure that if a pollutant is introduced such as coal dust or arsenic into an environment, risk of health issues will be apparent.

As mentioned before, if the coal loader is not developed no risk from the development will be there to the population of the towns of northern Wyong.

4. The proximity of urban areas closer to the site than Wyong Township.

In the introduction to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Wallarah 2 project it states that Wyong is the closest town to the development with a distance of about 5 kilometres. This may be true to the closest part of the mine proposal, but the coal loader facility has several towns closer to it than the Wyong Township. Below is a list of townships and suburban areas closer to the proposed development than the small township of Wyong.

Town Centres
(A township by definition has a shopping centre)
Lakehaven
Charmhaven
Kanwal
Warnervale (Proposed New Centre)
Wadalba
Wadalba East (Proposed Town Centre)
Gorokan
Wyee
Watanobbi
San Remo

Suburban Areas
Blue Haven
Woongarrah
Hamlyn Terrace
Warnervale
Halloran (Industrial Area)
Bushell's Ridge (Proposed Industrial Area)
Jillaby Rural estates
Bruce Crescent Rural estates
Doyalson
In the introduction to the EIS section of the development application, it reads as if Wyong township is a small town having little impact from the development at a distance of 5 kilometres.
However the above list shows that a large slice of the population in the northern parts of the Wyong Shire has a greater potential for impacts from the proposed development than the township of Wyong.
I thank you for the opportunity to present a submission on this project and expect the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 will be consulted and support the disapproval of the proposed development on environmental grounds.
I also hope that the Director General of the Department of Planning, responsible for good planning outcomes in NSW will disapprove of the proposed development due to the risk of impacts related to the development of the coal loader operations and its proximity to existing and proposed urban areas and public infrastructure.

Yours faithfully,



David Holland
B.A.S Env. Plnng, Grad. Dip. Env. Mgnt.
Resident of Blue Haven
 
Appendix A
Map of the locality around the Coal Loader Facility

Picture showing the distance from Coal Loader Facility to Blue Haven and other proposed and existing urban areas.

See my attached letter.

I strongly oppose this new coal mine. This would destroy the beautiful Dooralong and Yarramalong valleys and pollute our water supply.
We need to invest into renewable energies, not fossil fuel.

Before elections, Mr O'Farell promised that it would not go ahead.