HumeLink

I have reviewed the Humelink EIS. While I have concentrated mostly on information relevant to the small area of the project footprint where I live, I have found that even these small portions of the large document contain many instances of poor methodology and inconsistent methods of calculation and assessment that have the effect of invalidating or reducing the reliability of many of the conclusions of the EIS. If this number of errors is evident in the sections related to the area I live and the issues with which I have familiarity, it is highly likely these go across many more areas. Transgrid has tried to simplify and summarise to much for such a large project,so rather than put the time and effort into doing the studies properly, they appear to have rushed the process for the sake of keeping the project moving to save money.
I have presented my submission in the form of a table that identifies the document and section together with the actual section and of the document. I have highlighted my concerns and reasons for the concerns. I have had a lot of technical issue with accessing the eportal and uploadin my information, and as I have spoken to the Department staff about today I will follow up my submission with missing supplementary information tomorrow. I could not get it all up[.

See attached.

I would like to add a few small things I have found as I read the EIS.
20. Traffic, transport and access.
1. Why aren't all council roads written in the EIS for the purpose of the EIS. if they aren't on the EIS does that mean Transgrid don't need to use the road.
2. The EIS states that only 4 unsealed roads. what about Westwood road?
3. Public transport. the EIS says that Snowy Valleys Council don't have any Bus Services. What about School Bus services. The Yaven Creek Road is very narrow and the safety of my children is paramount. How will I know and feel safe when I know that a 200t crane and hundreds of cement trucks could pass on a hair pin blind corner. How will TransGrid mitigate the safety of road users in the rural and regional areas of the project?
4.Compound Locations
a). I read that the compounds should be within 2 km or the transmission lines. both Snowy Mountains and memorial ave and snubba rd are all further than that away on the map.
b) I drive past the snowy mountains Compound and I have seen earthworks being done. I spoke to the Snowy Valleys Council and there was no details of Transgrid doing work there. If it is a Transgrid job, Does the community know that they are doing earthworks already?
c) rumours around town that Transgrid employees have been asking rural unaffected landowners about another compound being built. How come they can publish an EIS when the project hasn't be completely organised and the exact route and locations not finalised.
4. Worker Accommodation - Transgrid employees door knocked the area trying to find someone to pay so they can get workers accommodation compound set up. They showed up at a family member house without introducing themselves, no uniform and no marked car. asking questions and probing to find an unexpecting community member. the community don't want Humelink above ground. I think Transgrid need to realise the community backlash is real and the best option is to go under ground
Please add to my other submission

Jessie Reynolds

See attached.

Please find objections to Humelink in the submission attached.

Please see attached.

pdf attached

Attached is my submission

Whilst we agree in principle with the idea of increasing power availability, we object to the current Humelink proposal on a number of grounds.

See attached.

attached is submission

Please see attached.

The Orchid Society of Canberra Conservation Group has concerns regarding the orchids potentially endangered by this project and makes the attached submission.

We hereby submit this response to the HumeLink Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) report.
Please see the attachments.

During the black Summer fires of 2019/20, Transgrids own report indicated 65 network outages due to fire in the southern part of NSW. Transgrid also reported 5 planned outages due to back burning operations proposed by NSW RFS. There were NO outages as a result of direct fire fighting activities.
As a volunteer in the RFS, we are trained to not go within specified distances of powerlines due to risks associated these powerlines. As Group Officer and incident cotroller with the RFS, I have yet to have a request to turn high voltage powerlines turned off approved by Transgrid. This leaves a very big risk with Transgrid and the RFS.
Further to this, Transgrid has not at any point in it's EIS, described how any firefighting agency (RFS, NPWS, Forestry Corp or Fire & Rescue) should attempt to control fires under high voltage powerlines given that even if these powerlines may be isolated, they may still have a residual current in them, posing a significant risk to fire fighters. This problem is made even worse with powerlines running parallel to each other, which may induce a current in an isolated line causing potential electrocution.

Turning both of these lines off at the same time will also cause problems with the whole network. Something Humelink is supposed to do:-"Improve the resiliance of the NEM" How can this be possible when the answer to fire fighting is to turn the powerlines off. Transgrid to date has not done this unless forced through outage or planned for back burning. They are putting lives at risk.

To date, the visual impact of the Humelink project has been kept very quiet. Transgrid has made many promises over the years to show those affected by the powelines, how they will look in the local landscape. None of these promises have been fulfilled and many 'hosts' of HumeLink are still not aware of the extreme visual impact that it will have on local environs.

Within the EIS, Transgrid also claims that the powerlines do not cross any high pressure gas pipe line. There is a gas pipe line running between the Visy paper mill and Tumut towship.

Questions need to be asked about the viabilty of the project given the already increased project cost from $3.3 bn to $4.8bn. The RITT process had a net positive value to consumers at $3.3bn. With the increase in cost of the project, this net positive value will become a very big net cost to consumers. Who will pick up the tab on this? This RITT process needs to be re-applied to the project, given the increase in cost that has occurred, and should also include a factor for any further increases in cost.

Community consultation about this project has been deplorable. As a member of the Community Consultative Group, Transgrid had a very 'one way' type of consultation in that they continually told us what they were doing and showed very little regard for issues that were raised by any members attending these meetings. Simple things like we were told at one meeting that it was a requirement of the EIS process that a cultural walk along the entire length of the Humelink project would be required to identify any areas of cultural significance. At a later meeting this was not the case and that a high percentage of the line was required. How can this change and what will be the consequences if areas are found along the route after the EIS process is concluded given that many landholders have denied Transgrid access?

Given the significant impact to those 'hosting' Humelink, why was a hard copy of the EIS not sent to all impacted landholders?

Transgrid has also indicated that a route to the west of Batlow is also being considered although not necessarily declared in the EIS documents. This route has had no consultation with landholders whose property adjoin the public land that this route will be on. Absolutely none. Yet these properties will in some cases have gigantic powelines running down their boundaries without Transgrid even having the decency to let them know what is happening right beside their boundary.

Transgrid has, in my opinion, failed to identify through quantifiable values, the reason why Humelink is needed. Words like 'reinforce stability and reliability in the network' does not give a quantifiable need for such expenditure or environmental vandalism given the nature of the project.

The key benefits of the project are not quantified in any way. They are assumed benefits with little long term values placed on them. Only short term job creation is listed.

Why was the Snowy Connect project not included in Humelink given both projects are as much about connecting Snowy 2.0 to the grid? Without Snowy Connect, Humelink would not connect to Snowy 2.0 to the grid. They are projects without each other, Snowy 2.0 would not be able to connect unless the Transgrid 02 line running directly over Lobbs hole where Snowy2.0 is could have utilised. Which leeds to why existing infrastructure was not upgraded to handle increased load without the need to construct new infrastructure.

There is a solution to many of the issues listed above. Direct Transgrid to put these powerlines underground. Simple. Removes the risk and visual pollution that overhead powerlines create.

Transgrid in its development of this project, has failed to give credible investigation to all methods available to transfer electricity. Some of which will be better for the environment, make the network more resilient, and make the network more reliable by removing many environmental factors which currently limit the existing network. It has also failed to disclose the ongoing maintenance issues with overhead powerlines. The risks associated with working at heights, ongoing vegetation management and the risk of injury or death associated with overhead powerlines.