Please refer to attachment

A Public Meeting was held at St Paul's Church Hall, Moss Vale. I object
to the SSD 6334 EIS which contains fundamental flaws and technical
issues; average values do not stack up. There is science behind my
objection. This is a very long term and large resource project; works
will go on for up to 7 days a week for many decades - 40 years leaving
a massive hole - a 47 hectare pit to a depth of 39 metres below the
current water table! I object to removal of the sandstone. It plays a
critical and fundamental biological role in filtering water. I object
to the planned or prospective dumping of 8 million cubic metres of
Sydney fill and rubbish to fill the pit. I object to the project's
polluting and damaging dust of Long Swamp and its aquifer which clean
and supplies Sydney's Nepean water catchment by overflow, and the
subsequent pollutants, leaching mud and finings from the pit. I object
the adverse health effect of airborne dust (asthma, silicosis,
fibrosis, cancer) that will be carried by prevailing winds across the
population centres of the Southern Highlands. I object to the air
pollution and dust impact, becoming the next medical `asbestos'; and I
object its debilitating effects and extreme stresses on flora and
fauna and entire ecosystems. I object to the lowering the water table
at Sutton Forest will adversely affect the bores on which so many
locals depend for agriculture and life. I object to the land clearing
of 63 hectares of native bush to critically narrow the most fragile
section of the Great Western Wildlife Corridor, harming the native
flora and fauna, including endangered species. I object to the noise
pollution, blasting and light pollution 24/7 for 30 years destroying
this critical habitat. I object that to operational lighting for 24/7
operations and impact study not done. I object to the impacts on the
biodiversity corridor - noise, vibration, light & movement - too
narrow a land strip would remain for native animals in the Great
Western Wildlife Corridor I object to the disruption of the peace and
tranquillity at `The Shrine of Our Lady of Mercy - Penrose Park',
which attracts 10,000 tourists per year; and the Victoria Cross War
memorial rest stop nearby will not be restful. I object to the entire
destruction of `Remembrance Driveway memorial to Bruce Kingsbury VC, a
much used area commemorating a great and heroic Australian. I object
to the dramatic increase in heavy trucking on the Hume Highway ( > 400
trucks per day) and the maintenance costs that will make their way to
taxpayers, the increased risks to the general public of driving on
truck laden highways, the noise and pollutions including dust!! I
object to the commitment that is needed made by the Wingecarribee
Council to maintain a new Hume Highway overpass and local access road
for a private venture. I object to the proposed rock crushing site
with residents living less than 100 metres away. I object to 6-12
blasts per year and high pitched water driven sandstone rock sawing.
Permeability of sandstone will be compromised resulting in
consolidation due to mining vibrations therefore restricting
groundwater filtration. Long Swamp Creek/sandstone filter (100 metres
away) is at great risk and will be contaminated and subsequently
impacts water quality in the region and for Sydney Water? Massive
water usage - 100 million litres short of water licence already
allocated. I object to the applications subsequently requiring more
water and having to obtain more water licences (from others). The
harvestable right of groundwater needs to be looked into thoroughly
and honour Governments requirement of worst case scenarios - the
applicant has presented only averages. The proposed mine sits in a
vital link. The Giant Dragonfly lives in this sandstone country above
600 metres. Surrounding property values will plummet. We do NOT want
to go the way of the Hunter Valley. This matter needs to be referred
to the Commonwealth Government re the water impact. There needs to be
consultation with the Australian Pipeline Authority. This proposal is
flawed in fundamental ways. I object. There is history and what should
be `lessons learned' from other dreadfully damaging major projects in
this and all states. I do not believe true regard to the risks and
outcomes of this proposed major planning project is given in the EIS.
Thank you for accepting my objection.

I oppose this proposal. Please see attached PDF document.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached my submission (first document) and supporting
document (1 additional document)
Regards
James O'Reilly