Wallarah 2 Coal Mine

The Wheat and the Chaff
The director-general, Planning and Infrastructure. Mr Sam Haddad, in a Media release dated 24 April, 2013, stated that "the Department had required the applicant to thoroughly address a range of key issues, such as the potential impacts of the mine on water resources, biodiversity, heritage, air quality, noise and traffic and transport."
The prospective miner, Kores, and its associates, has provided an extensive (and expensive) response in six bound volumes plus a collection of appendices. While some of the material presented is in line with one or other of the director-general's requirements much of it appears to make certain significant information presented difficult to find among the verbiage, especially for those who, while they have strong views about what is at risk, have limited time to plough through the wealth of irrelevant material provided.
For example, in the section dealing with the proposed mine's potential impact upon water resources, rather than looking at the impact of a mine in operation, extensive coverage is given to the environmental history of those whose land would be undermined by longwall mining, any contaminants such as chemicals or asbestos sheeting which may exist at present and what inquiries of a Government department may reveal - or usually not reveal - about present owners. All of this is completely irrelevant to the question of what contaminating activities an operating mine may present. It serves, however, to give the appearance of responding to the director-general's requirement more directly than is, in fact the case.
Representatives of the mining company have consistently asserted that the impact of the proposed mine in the areas of concern to the director-general, will be quite minimal. However:

1. Water Resources
(i)The Government's Scientific Committee, supported by excellent research, described longwall mining as "a key threatening process".
(ii) The Wyong Water Catchment has been gazetted for protection under local government ordinances; both Gosford and Wyong Councils strongly oppose mining in the catchment.
(iii) The business community, particularly the Wyong Chamber of Commerce, concerned about the adverse impact of a coal dump and loader upon the long planned Wyong Employment Zone, (WEZ), strongly opposed it; the significant number of citizens concerned about global warming opposed it.
(iv) Evidence within the E.I.S.
This evidence tends to be hidden in the verbiage of massive documentation referred to above, much of it not particularly relevant to the issues raised by Mr Haddab.
We note, however:
(a) In the Hue Hue Subsidence Area, some 150 houses, most of brick or brick veneer construction on small acreages, will be subject to subsidence estimated at one metre but recognizing that this may well increase due to the existence of Awaba Tuff strata.
(b) This exists below the mine on which the remaining pillars are supported. The E.I.S. is uncertain about the nature and caution needed in dealing with soft bedded Awaba Tuff and adaptive management is proposed as mining proceeds. The procedure proposed might well be appropriate in some outback, remote situation. It is in no way appropriate in what is, in effect, a small suburb of Wyong. "Adaptive management" with its suggestion of "playing by ear" , making changes and hoping for the best, is not good enough when what is at stake is the drinking water of half of the Central Coast.
(c) Subsidence ranging from 1 metre to 1.6 metres is stated in Appendix H to affect 245 houses and 715 rural building structures. 420 farm dams will be impacted.
(d) Subsidence will occur along 5.2 km length of Dooralong flood plain (including part of Jilliby Jilliby Creek, little Jilliby Jilliby Creek and minor tributaries) - Appendix K, Flood Impact Assessment p.(i)
(e) The hinterland of the valleys face subsidence of 2.6m . Little Jilliby Jilliby Creek at the southern end is projected to subside 2m.
(f) The main roads from the Dooralong Valley into Wyong, Jilliby Road and Dicksons Road are projected to fall 1.75 m. in places. In times of significant rain it is difficult to get through under existing circumstance. The projected fall in such times would leave residents completely isolated. The alternative route proposed, through the forest to Mandalong is itself subject to being cut off in one low-lying section. I note that no provision has been suggested to compensate Wyong Shire Council for the substantial damage to infrastructure such as roads, which the proposed mining will inevitably cause.
(g) The Northern Geoscience Report.
The Northern Geoscience Report was prepared for the Australian Gas Alliance in 1995 by hydrologist and hydrogeologist, Tim Jones.
Mr Jones was shocked that mining in the water catchment should even be considered. He stated:
January 2005 - 18 - 0105102967
The Wyong Shire pumps from the Wyong River at Woodburys Bridge Pumping Station to the
Mardi Dam. The river contributes approximately 50% of the central coast drinking water supplies. The Gosford-Wyong Councils Water Supply Report states for the year 2001, the serviced population of 285,000 drinking water demand was 34,300 ML/a, with peak demands averaging 254 ML/d (Wyong Shire, 2004).
Both the Jilliby Creek and Wyong River flow continually with sharp flow responses following
heavy rainfall events. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources (2004)
has stream gauging stations on Jilliby Creek at Wyong River (station 21101), and the Wyong
serviced population of 285,000 drinking water demand was 34,300 ML/a, with peak demands
averaging 254 ML/d (Wyong Shire, 2004).
Both the Jilliby Creek and Wyong River flow continually with sharp flow responses following
heavy rainfall events. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources (2004)
has stream gauging stations on Jilliby Creek at Wyong River (station 21101), and the Wyong
River at Yarramalong (station 211014). Data from the stream flow (HITS) database was
assessed in this study. Daily average recorded stream flows for both stations is presented in
Figures 8 and 9 and Appendix A.
The average daily flow for Jilliby Creek for the period 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2005 is
34.15 ML/day with an average annual flow recorded as 12,481 ML/year. The average daily
flow for the same period in the Wyong River is 46.0 ML/day with an average annual flow
recorded as 17,045 ML/year. The combined average annual flow over a five-year period from
the study area is recorded as 29,526 ML.
Both the Jilliby Creek and Wyong River trend line show a significant decline in average daily
stream flow over the five-year period. The reasons for this are estimated to be a combination
of evaporation losses, evapotranspiration, periods of low rainfall and groundwater abstractions
The total average annual flow for the Wyong River at the pumping station to Mardi Dam is
reported at 94,080 ML (Wyong Shire, 2004). An assessment of stream flow from the study
area reveals that the Jilliby Creek and the upper reaches of the Wyong River contribute
approximately 32% of the surface flow recorded downstream at the pumping station.
Asignificant portion of downstream flow in the Wyong River, calculated at 64,554 ML per
annum, derives from groundwater discharge into the river system between the gauges and the
pumping station. The high number of springs, wetlands and variability in water quality
confirms this assumption.

What we have here are not woolly assumptions based upon a model lacking adequate baseline material but hard, empirical data based upon visiting the site, examining the way measurements were taken by stream gauging stations and available in the records of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. These proved that the surface water available to be pumped into the Mardi storage reservoir contributed only 32% of the water which was, in fact harvested. The remaining two-thirds of the water harvested could only have come by means of discharge from the shallow aquifer underlying the junction of Jilliby Creek and Wyong River. Despite claims by Kores of impervious layers preventing the potable water aquifer simply seeping down to the mining area with its surrounding contamination, the Geoscience Report identified numerous transmission routes. More recent statements by the highly regarded Professor Phillip Pells, denied the existence of impervious layers between aquifer and mine - a denial supporting the 1999 statement by groundwater consultants, ERM Mitchell McCotter, that transient pathways allowing water to travel downwards to the coal strata were evident. Clearly the aquifer identified in the Geoscience Report as vitally significant for providing town water to approximately half of the water ratepayers on the Central Coast is very much at risk from the proposed mining.

The Cataract River example
What happened to the Cataract River further illustrates this risk. It is not necessary to mine under a water source to damage it. In the Cataract River example, after the river water had disappeared because of mining and been replaced by methane vents, able to be lit by a flame, BHP Billiton consulted its mathematical model and decided that ceasing mining operations a certain distance from the river would mean no subsidence problems. It didn't. After further consultation with its model, stopping mining a somewhat further distance back was decreed to safeguard the river. It didn't. What is demonstrating again by this example is that any model is only as good as the information fed into it. ( Indeed the Finding 11 tells us that "cessation of flow " of the Cataract River had been recorded "on over 20 occasions between June, 1999 and October, 2002." Clearly the model being used was not working well, yet the second Wallarah 2 E.I.S. very much relies upon models whose input validity can well be questioned. )

Issues raised in the Final Report of the Cataract River Taskforce, 1998.
These issues relate to what happened to the Cataract River and were published together with an attachment, Attachment A.

Section 4.2 of the `Final Report of the Cataract River Taskforce 1998:

`Longwall mining has impacted on the surface water flows in the Cataract River. In addition gases have been released that have had an impact on vegetation in some
limited areas. These impacts were not predicted and a review of the technical literature has not found records of similar developments involving longwall mining at 430 to 515 m depth.
Similarities between the disastrously impacted Cataract River and the still-to-be impacted section of the Wyong Catchment Area are noted:
The Wallarah No 2 proposal and the Cataract River mining have similarities with the proposed mining depths and geological basin. Differences include wider longwall panels up to 250m and much thicker coal seams for Wallarah No 2 averaging 6m. In essence this means a greater degree of fracturing both expressed at the surface and immediately above the mined areas. ... This cracking only needs to come in contact with any overlying aquifer, areas of existing bedding plane separation or any of the natural fractures or joints within the Triassic Sandstones to provide a potential conduit for water transmission. Additional subsidence cracking expressed at the surface would further exacerbate this potential. (p.5)

Attachment A
LESSONS LEARNT FROM LONGWALL MINING UNDER
THE CATARACT RIVER ( HAWKESBURY- NEPEAN RIVER SYSTEM)

Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining
." Mining subsidence is frequently associated with cracking of valley floors and creeklines and with subsequent effects on surface and groundwater hydrology" (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003).
8. "The extraction of coal and the subsequent cracking of strata surrounding the goaf may liberate methane, carbon dioxide and other gases ... Gas emissions can result in localised plant death as anaerobic conditions are created within the soil." (Everett et al. 1998)
11. "The most widely publicized subsidence event in the Southern Coalfields was the cracking of the Cataract riverbed downstream of the Broughtons Pass Weir to the confluence of the Nepean River. ... Reduction of the surface river flow was accompanied by the release of gas, fish kills, iron bacteria mats, and the deterioration of water quality and instream habitat. Periodic drying of the river has continued, with cessation of flow recorded on over 20 occasions between June, 1999 and October, 2002. (DIPNR 2003)

... In 2001, water in the Cataract River was still highly coloured, flammable gas was still being released and flow losses of about 50% (3 - 3.5 ML/day) still occurring." (DLWC 2001).

Attachment A concludes with a technical examination of the contribution of groundwater as baseflow . Two figures are provided, one relating to data at one particular stream gauge over a 33 year period, the second to what happens if the existing groundwater flow is changed as a result of mining:

Figure 2 presents the results of the hybase program showing the break up of stream flow into a baseflow component and quick flow (run-off) component. It may be a little difficult to visualise, being plotted on a semi-logarithmic scale, but the results indicate that the total baseflow contribution represents around 18% of the total volume of stream flow, however most importantly that for 95% of the time over this 33 year period, the majority of the flow in the river at this point is derived from baseflow. Thus the implications of modifying the groundwater flow either in quality or quantity are tremendous.
" The implications of modifying the groundwater flow either in quality or quantity are tremendous". Indeed so.


What can we learn from Attachment A ?
Given the similarities reported in Attachment A, about the area mined and affecting the Cataract River, and the area proposed for mining in the Wyong Water Catchment, there is no reason to expect that what was reported about the Cataract River at the turn of the century should not mirror what may, in future, be reported about the results of Wallarah 2 mining if its application to mine is approved.

Introductory statement of Office of Water to Kores' earlier EIS
This brief report has been prepared to accompany Office Of Water's environmental assessment requirements for the Wallarah No 2 Coal Project. The proposal could result in a significant alteration of the groundwater environment and cause a major change in

2. Biodiversity
In looking at biodiversity, It is necessary to take into accounts Australia's binding agreements
with China (CAMBA), Japan (JAMBA), and, indeed, South Korea itself (ROKAMBA). There are 19 species of avian migratory waders protected under these agreements and under Australia's own EPBC Act.
At the level of biodiversity, these acts cannot be ignored.

3. Air Quality
For thousands of residents in the northern part of Wyong Shire, in suburbs such as San Remo, Blue Haven, Warnervale, Woongarrah and Hamlyn Terrace, health concerns ranked highly - not just their own health but, more importantly, their children's health. This they see as the effect of coal dust, and especially the small and deadly PM 2.5 particles, blowing from a coal dump and loader, as well as the open carriages of coal trains, to cause asthma and other respiratory diseases. In this part of Wyong Shire, health threats from coal dust particles blown from a major coal dump and train loader are extremely worrying.
It is significant too, that in the ABC's 4 Corners programme on air pollution resulting from mining in the Hunter Valley, it was stated that "Only 4 out of 14 dust monitoring stations are capable of measuring the level of PM 2.5 particles." Suitable monitoring stations could have been included in the mine plan. I have seen no evidence that they have been.

Under the heading, Mines, dust and health, a leading article in The Newcastle Herald of May 24, 2010, we read, "It (a report by Government health authorities) declares that mines and power stations are important sources of air pollution and that the number and scale of these sources have increased dramatically in the Hunter in recent years.
It confirms a strong association between high levels of particulate exposure and some forms of illness including respiratory and cardiovascular disease."
There should be no need to emphasize that in the area reasonably close to the site of the proposed coal loader and dump, and to the northern suburbs of Wyong, there are already three power stations with associated coal dumps so there is no need to add another, larger and closer source of health risks.


The strategic inquiry into the impacts of Potential Underground Coal Mining in the Wyong Local Government Area.
While the strategic inquiry was generally sympathetic to the coal miners' case, in certain areas it did express reservations. So:
"The potential economic contribution of underground mining to the local, regional and State economy is significant. However any economic contribution by mining will need to be assessed against the economic significance of employment and economic activity likely to be generated by the adopted economic growth scenario in the Central Coast Regional Strategy (CCRS). In the assessment of any coal mining project application, the Government will need to satisfy itself that the proposal will not place the adopted growth strategy in the CCRS at risk. Future mining in Wyong LGA needs to be considered in the context of both existing development and planned growth under the CCRS." (p.4)


There is a need to recognize the need to reconcile the economic development resulting from mining, with the planned economic development described in CCPS. In particular the conflict between clean light industries within the Wyong Employment Zone (WEZ) and the proposed major coal dump and loader in Tooheys Road, a dirty, polluting industry in close proximity to the WEZ.
What then, are the lessons to be learnt from longwall mining under the Cataract River in the context of the highly professional, brave, completely logical comparative analysis reported in Attachment A and the equally brave report of the Office of Water
There are several, including:
There could not possibly be a less suitable site in which to conduct mining, and, unless money is considered to be a more important criterion than the impact upon people and the environment, there is no need to mine in (as the attachment proved) a highly sensitive water catchment.

Conclusion
(i) The likely consequences of mining as Kores proposes have, to a considerable extent, been demonstrated to fail in the ways shown during mining which affected Cataract River.

(ii) The impact upon the ever-growing community of the Central Coast would be much greater than the impact upon the community centred around Cataract River.

(iii)It is possible that, despite the evidence within Attachment A and above, it will be decided to adopt the Russian Roulette option.

(iv) Should then, permission to mine be granted, it will not be possible to say that no warning was given if things do go disastrously awry.

With the current state of economy we need more investment in our community. This project has enormous potential for jobs both directly and indirectly. The entire community will benefit from this development.

To Whom It May Concern
I have been involved with the coal industry for almost 40 years, and write in support of the Wallarah 2 project. I should declare that I worked on this project as a Mining Engineer for a short period in 2002, but am not currently employed on that project or by its owners. However, this is not to say I am disinterested in the outcomes of the planning process.
For my own benefit and in my own time, I have attended a Council meeting and community forum held at Wyong Council Chambers.
I find the anti-coal anti-development stance of not only the "professional" action groups but the local council at the time totally lacking in any factual knowledge of the coal industry, its proven positive environmental record or its importance not only to the state but to the local community. The ludicrous comments of the previous mayor, (I believe he has been replaced), as to the additional rail traffic would prevent local people getting to work were laughable. As well, to authorise ridiculous spending on "friendly" anti development consultants was an insult to the local community and a misuse of funds in my opinion. The facts are that the central coast inclusive of Wyong has severe unemployment and that the few rail movements of coal per day would present no net impact on the passenger services. This is not to say that development should occur at any cost and any impression that is what I am advocating is incorrect.
My career has seen the coal industry being at the forefront of environmental protection. The industry uses the best engineers to determine the environmental impact of their operation and modifies its plans to suit the conditions. It is very easy for the uninformed protest movement to throw up red herrings in order to delay and stymie objective debate. I know the efforts that have been undertaken on the project to protect the local environment, and the owners should be congratulated instead of demonised. The fact is that the quantity of coal located near our power stations, is limited. There are already plans to source coal from more remote sources instead of utilising the local resource. Local resources that if mined would deliver local employment and support local businesses. A mine producing 5M tonne per annum would contribute at least $250M to the local community and governments at all levels. To willingly reject the project on ideological grounds would be a travesty. Let the engineers come up with the solutions, that is what they are paid to do.
As I stated earlier, I have worked in about 10 underground mines and have never seen a more environmentally and safety aware industry. The environmental degradation that the professional activists perceive has never happened.
With manufacturing retreating, Australia needs to pursue those projects that we can do successfully and compete on the world stage. We can no longer afford irrational lobbyists whose ultimate objective is to send us back to the stone age.
I support the Wallarah 2 project.
Ross Campbell

I have attach my main submission as a PDF as directed. I have attached file from the previous EIS for this project which contains maps that show dust disposition. The dust data for both EIS submissions is identical

My child has Cystic Fibrosis and the dust from the mines is a concern for me.

I wish to make objection to the proposed Wallarah 2 Coal Mine Project - Application No. SSD 4974 - for the following reasons:

1. The original application by Wyong Areas Joint Coal Venture (Kores Pty Ltd) in 2010 was rejected by the then State Labor Government on the grounds of unsustainability (ESD principles) and the application of the Precautionary Principle. This application is not any different in its basic proposals as the previous application and therefore the current Government's Acquifers Interference Policy should nullify this application.

2. As this Government is intent on markedly increasing the Central Coast's population over the next twenty or thirty years, the plans for a new coal mine would have a severe impact regarding water supply, air quality and noise pollution on the surrounding suburbs of Blue Haven, Wyong and Warnervale/Wadalba, including the rail corridor to Newcastle.

3. The proposed mine will have an adverse impact on the migratory avian habitat, which is covered by international agreements to protect such environments with other countries.

I do not believe that the Premier's explanation at a recent Cabinet meeting on the Central Coast that (not verbatim) "I only said I would stop the mine if I were certain an area's water supply would be adversely affected" is not good enough now, when prior to the 2011 State election the Premier and all the Coalition candidates swore that a coal mine would never be permitted under their government. Where is the mandate for the Government to override this community's known objections to this mine?

We have lived at this address for 24 years and have seen the difficulties faced due to shortage of water. As this proposal would without any doubt impact on our water supply and the population relying on that water is increasing, I am TOTALLY opposed to any government body signing off on the risk involved in any mining in the area.

I believe the proof has been shown many times stronger for risk than not. PLEASE don't do this to our valley and it's delicate water supply as has been done in so many other areas that are now devastated by underground damage.

I can't believe that our council and state government would spend our money on what appears to be a successful project, pumping river water into our mountain dam and then risking losing all or even a part of that river supply. The risk of contamination has also been shown to be a real possibility in other areas.

I would like to believe my family and the people moving to this region will be able to continue to live with the safety and confidence we have enjoyed in this beautiful area.

I OBJECT MOST STRONGLY. Please do not allow this mining to go ahead. It will devastate our community. I have personally witnessed the effects of mining subsidence, often years after the 'miners' have gone. Broken homes, broken hearts and broken promises.

I object to the submission because of the negative effects on agrarian amenity (the growing of food), the natural environment (flora and fauna), our supplies of clean air and water, the built environment (homes and infrastructure such as bridges, schools), and I object to the reason for this exploitation for non-renewable energy, when we have the technology to implement and utilise renewable energy.

I am only 12 years old and would like to live a long time and have children in the future but I am concerned about what you're proposed mining will do to our beautiful valley.

I am scared that we will lose our home, our river, our wildlife and most of all I am terrified that your submission includes possible death from mining and coal dust.

Please please please don't wreck our valley that we live in.

I along with my family are frightened that your mining is going to desecrate our lives by means of subsidence,damage to the environment , possible earth quake issue like the Newcastle one many years ago , let alone our own fear that your coal dust in one of the reports says loss of life quite possible and you actually give ratios geeese that is reassuring .
I strongly object to mining in our area that also has a water catchment fed river that we may loose due to subsidence and that would affect 300,000 or so people if we were to loose that !

As a supplier of goods and services to the underground mining industry, our business relies directly upon the continued operation of existing coal mines and the development of new projects such as Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

During a recent presentation by the project at the Mining Energy and Services Council of Australia (MESCA) briefing held at Newcastle panthers in April 2013, the significance of this project to the Regional and NSW economies in terms of employment and economic stimulus became clearly evident. The approval of this project would inspire confidence and impetus for continued and expanded employment opportunities within our business market.

As a supplier of goods and services to the underground mining industry, our business relies directly upon the continued operation of existing coal mines and the development of new projects such as Wallarah 2 Coal Project.

During a recent presentation by the project at the Mining Energy and Services Council of Australia (MESCA) briefing held at Newcastle panthers in April 2013, the significance of this project to the Regional and NSW economies in terms of employment and economic stimulus became clearly evident. The approval of this project would inspire confidence and impetus for continued and expanded employment opportunities within our business market.

Dear Sirs, I am writing to protest about the proposed coal mining.
My concerns are pollution of our drinking water (we cannot get any town water) both for myself and my animals, and the possible subsidence of land when the water tables are tampered with. I would not like to get sick and also would not like my house to sink.

I object to the Wallarah coal mine proposal even though I do not reside on the central coast.
I am concerned for the health and well being of both my daughter and grandchildren that live on the coast.
The dust risks are too high and to compromise the water catchment is an irreversiable problem that mining will create.Mining in a water catchment is dangerous, once the damage is done hundreds of thousands of peoples drinking water is lost forever.

I object to this mine proposal on the Central coast.
I am concerned for the well being of the environment, the migatory birds whose habitat will be adversely affected as well as all the other wildlife.
The other huge concern is the damage to the water , this is a water catchment area for the central coast. Mining of this nature has already destroyed over 30 rivers in this country.
To even contemplate mining in a water catchment is ludicrous.
The risks are too high, you cannot fix the problem once you have damaged the aquifers as we have already seen.
Let hope common sense prevails and not mine in water catchments.

The Idea of putting the Central Coast Water Catchment as more risk to depletion and pollution is deplorable.
Know standard event for coal mines and usually under estimated in EISes.
I have family and property interests in the area and ask who will compensate fully for subsidence to properties?
Coal mining contributes to pressures on Global Warming that should be avoided. The Exports will contribute to Foreign wealth and people as far as Newcastle will suffer the overheads of coal dust pollution

My property overlooks a permanent natural billabong which covers approximately 2 hectares, and is fed by Jilliby Jilliby Creek. This is not on my property, but is on privately owned land at 32 Dicksons Road.
The billabong and surrounding trees are used as a roosting area and nesting habitat for over 200 birds year-round, including egrets, ibis, swans and ducks, and occasionally spoonbills.

The proposed Wallarah 2 coal mine extends directly beneath this body of water. I am seriously concerned that subsidence caused by the mine will result in the disappearance of this surface water, and consequently the loss of this special habitat.

Additionally, the earthquake in Newcastle in 1989 has clearly identified that this is an earthquake prone area. I am fearful that the occurrence of an earthquake in this area after it has been considerably destabilized by underground longwall mining could have catastrophic effects on the local landscape.

I object to this, on the basis that not enough research has been done into the long-term effects of this. Especially when such a large water catchment is in close proximity.

This kind of short-sighted development may ruin the land for future generations.

Maddison Safety is a 100% Australian owned and operated company. We have serviced the Mining Industry nationally for over 25 years.

Our company employs over 30 local people who work in various roles such as manufacturing, warehousing, admin, sales and marketing.

Approval for new projects such as Wallarah 2 is vital for our company to continue providing future employment and development for future years.