Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

I OBJECT to the changes to the plans to have the mine head of wallarah 2 coal project brought to the eastern side of the railway line and much closer to the suburb of blue haven and the water way and breeding habitat for millions of fish of spring creek.
the people of blue haven deserve better . the suburb has a mixed community of retired and working people to which a lot have moved from Sydney to live a peaceful life in blue haven .
the noise and dust from the mine head will impact our lives in a negative way and for what. MONEY AND COAL.
The project I don't have any problems with as we have coal mines further nth in mannering park and the cars and housing in that suburb do get dust settled on their cars and washing.
I object to the changes on behalf of the people of blue haven.
KEEP THE MINE HEAD WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE WESTURN SIDE OF THE RAILWAY LINE. the freeway is out there already generating noise .I am not of aboriginal decent but do believe the company should pay the money asked by the land owners. after all this project will generate billions or trillions of dollars over it's life span.
the people of blue haven object to the changes to the placement of the mine head to the eastern side of the railway.

The NSW government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every year keeping Tuggerah lakes open ,clean and pristine. they have some of the cleanest lakes and beaches in nsw..
NOW YOU WANT TO PUT A MINE HEAD AT THE END OF ONE OF THE WATERWAYS THAT FLOW INTO THE LAKE.
I OBJECT
Why spend so much money to destroy it by allowing a mine head to be built on the eastern side of the railway right where spring creek starts and then flows to the lake. stop wasting our money and time and put the mine head back on the western side on the rail line.
they say they won't effect the waterway and they all say the same thing. then when it does effect the waterway it's to late.
I OBJECT TO THE MINE HEAD BEING BUILT ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE RAILWAY. Pay the money and keep it on the western side of the railway away from blue haven and spring creek which is a major breeding ground for millions of fish and flows to Tuggerah lakes.
trillions of dollars will be made from this project over it's life span. they should stop being greedy and pay the money to keep the mine head on the western side of the rail line away from housing and water ways.

I support the approval of the Wallarah 2 coal project.

Email to: [email protected]
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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.
This Amendment should be rejected and the whole project put aside due to many areas of risk.

Yours faithfully
Colleen O'Dowd

To Whom it May Concern,

Reference: Wallarah 2 Coal Project SSD 4974 Amended Development Application

I am sending this Email to strongly object to the current ADA on exhibition and also wish to voice my objection to the original Wallarah 2 Coal Mine Proposal.

After perusing the Korean media, it is my belief that claims made by Kores are not to be believed with regards to job prospects, development, environmental repair, compensation and rehabilitation of the mine.
I am also of the opinion that the claim made by Kores on Page 85 of the ADA, which states that the royalties to the State over the proposed and 28 years life of the mine is $200 Million (which equates to just over $7 million per annum), is grossly inflated given the falling coal price and willingness in the energy market to embrace renewable alternatives. In addition to this, 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.

Job figures have also been inflated and are misleading. Pages 86 and 87 state job creation, beginning with 79, through to direct and indirect job figures (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), it does not create an additional 1605 jobs for the whole Project as configured above.
As a resident on the Central Coast and an asthma sufferer, I am extremely concerned about health issues brought about by inhalable coal dust. There is no attempt to cover coal trains, 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 incapacity of authorities to control these emissions. The PM10 emissions from the site are very conservative and do not take into account the changing nature of intense wind and storm events, as has been experienced in recent years.
Dr Peter Lewis (Area Director of Public Health for North Sydney and the Central Coast) has already outlined greater risks to children and health sufferers in this region should this project be approved and
Blue Haven and Wyee townships are now as close as 200 and 400 metres respectively from the new proposal. This will mean that the threat of dust inhalation and noise pollution will be a constant burden for the families that live in these communities.

Massive subsidence figures represented in the proponents EIS affect 245 homes and their infrastructure, 86 of which are destined to suffer a drop of 1 - 2.3 metres, and the valley floor suffering subsidence between 1.8 - 2.6 metres fall 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.

This project puts the Central Coast Water Supply in the Wyong Valleys at great risk of destruction due to massive subsidence and loss of potable water to the mine area below. Therefore, this Amendment should be rejected and the whole project cancelled to ensure the ongoing security of our water resources.

Yours faithfully
Simone Griffiths

I support the submission put forward. I have no doubt the local people and businesses in and around the area will benefit greatly from such a development.

I support the wallarah 2 coal project as it will benifit the community withing the central coast with employment, as my self we are young family starting out we desperately want This project to go a head to support my family, My son has a rare gentic condition meaning plently of medical expenses meaning my self like many others need a stable job, this project will allow many family's to have a stable income providing a a future for there family. The project will also mean the local community will be supported and many small business will depend on fhese projects to allow money to go around. The central coast employment statstics will also drop, also good or bad feed back from media will mean central coast will be on the news, social media and etc allowing the central coast the be an icon to see, this project is the best thing that has happened to central coast. And with the right team it will also boost the mining industry.

Excellent alternative to the original submission, avoiding conflict.

I was born on the NSW Central Coast and have lived here for all of my life. I have worked in the mining industry now for in excess of 30 years.

My experience and knowledge gained in the industry, plus my home being very close to the Wallarah 2 planned mining area has given me an excellent opportunity to observe and assess the arguments put forward by the company and also by the opponents of the project. I have always been a firm believer in fighting for your beliefs but with the condition that any such involvement has to be on the basis of a fair fight. It has been frustrating for me to read the repeated misguided and (deliberately?) misleading arguments put forward by the Australian Coal Alliance. This letter is my personal objection to the way that they have run their campaign. I support the Wallarah 2 project as it will provide significant employment opportunities for the local area. Design and operational measures can be implemented to mitigate the risks to surface features and groundwater.

I have ticked the box to indicate that I do not want my name published in the list of submitters on the department's website. This has been done purely to protect my family from any bullying tactics that the ACA and supporters might choose to adopt. We live in the area and intend to keep doing so.

The proposal has undergone extensive environmental assessment however:

- Subsidence is a major concern as the proponent's own risk assessment has identified
- More controls need to be put in place to minimise impact of subsidence eg altered mining method, roof support
- Hansen Bailey risk assessment is content poor and offering no real controls, proponent needs to commit. The risk assessment does not show the pertaining category of consequences that each identified hazard is related to eg Legal & Regulatory, Social / Cultural Heritage

I believe there is alot more work to be done in preparation for this mine.

But once all is addressed then the mine should go ahead

My family works in the mining industry. I support the Wallarah 2 coal project. Development of this project will provide enormous economic benefit to the region and the state and have flow-on effect to many industry family's like mine.

I support this project. I'm a Newcastle boy who has worked in the local mining industry for the last 15 years. Employment opportunities in this sector have become limited. I need the Wallarah 2 coal project to proceed for me and my family.

I Support the Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

I am a local with strong family ties to the Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Central Coast areas. I strongly support this project.

It is with.much disappointment that such a huge infrastructure is to be built way too close to residents of blue haven. With such big spaces of land on the central coast and you choose to build such a noisy, busy, danget business so close to a young residential area with family's and children. NOT A HAPPY RESIDENT!!

I support the Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

I'm 100% against this project.
The Central Coast is expanding at such a rapid rate it's got no room for a coal mine, and a catchment that already struggles (yes it's full now, but that hasn't always been the case). It has enough issues of it's own, it doesn't need the burden of a mine as well. As for Blue Haven and the coal loader. I've worked in mine sites before and I don't want that any where near my suburb.

The wallarah 2 Coal Project has been assessed and recommended for approval with condition by PAC on two occasions. The Project offers significant business and employment opportunities on the Central Coast. Modelling demonstrates the project will not impact the health or amenity of the community, whist the numerous detailed studies demonstrate protection of the environment.

It's to close to suburban homes & a flat out ridiculous idea.. We have a lovely, quiet suburb & big business don't seem care one bit out that..

I am objecting to this project as a resident of blue haven., not only will it impact negatively on my property value, it will also i last t negatively on my health,