Newcastle Logistics Precinct - Intertrade Project

This disastrous infrastructure proposal represents a totally unacceptable risk to local safety, national security, and economic stability.

Therefore, I absolutely and totally oppose this Newcastle Logistics Precinct (Intertrade Project) con job in its entirety based on the following grounds:

1. Severe Public Safety and Environmental Hazards
The proposal to use extensive hardstand areas for the storage of Battery Energy Storage System units poses an unmitigated hazard to the Newcastle and Mayfield North communities.

Thermal Runaway and Fire Risks:
BESS installations are notorious for volatile thermal runaway events.
A fire at this scale within a major port facility would release highly toxic gases, threatening dense urban populations and surrounding waterways.

Toxic Chemical Risks:
The facility acts as a high-density hazardous storage centre.
The potential for toxic runoff into the local environment during an incident presents a severe ecological threat, contradicting any claims of environmental sustainability.

2. Regulatory Failure and Hazardous Materials (Asbestos/PFOS)
There is a profound lack of oversight regarding the components intended for storage at this site.
Importation Risks:
Official feedback from the Australian Border Force (Reference: IMMI-26-00117-1)highlights a critical lack of stringent, proactive regulation regarding the importation of toxic contaminating, unethical RUIN-A-BULL JUNK coated in and containing banned substances.

Contamination Threat:
Without essential risk research, due diligence and ironclad, independent testing at the border, this precinct will be receiving and storing components contaminated with banned materials, including PFOS, PFAS, and asbestos.
The proponent cannot guarantee the chemical safety of the equipment being loaded, unloaded, and stored.

3. Critical Infrastructure and National Security Risks
Positioning a centralised logistics hub for such destructive, Chinese controlling junk that nobody in rural Australia wants HERE, THERE or ANYWHERE is a fools errand.
As is typical of dodgy EnergyCo, this CCP dumping site for incapable, toxic contaminating components at the Port of Newcastle creates yet another highly vulnerable point of extreme failure.

Vulnerability to Sabotage:
Concentrating vital energy assets, interconnected infrastructure, and large-scale battery systems in one open precinct creates an attractive target for domestic or foreign sabotage.

Geopolitical Alignment:
This project locks New South Wales into a reliance on supply chains heavily controlled by foreign entities, specifically aligning with controlling globalist energy agendas and hostile state infrastructure plans like the ASEAN Power Grid agenda.
This compromises Australia's sovereign energy independence and transfers control of our critical electricity grid to bad actors with hostile, controlling interests.

4. Unreliability and Economic Infeasibility
The "RenewaBULL" energy projects this facility aims to facilitate represent an uneconomical and unreliable distortion of the energy market.
Grid Instability:
Forcing a reliance on intermittent, unstable power backed by hazardous and incapable, Chinese battery systems threatens the baseline power security of NSW.

Vested Interests:
The project serves the financial interests of subsidised corporate entities and globalist planners at the expense of Australian taxpayers and local consumers, who will face ever escalating, torturous costs - causing hardship and austerity resulting in Government inflicted cost of living crisis and systemic grid insecurity.

Conclusion
The NSW Government is failing its highest priority to protect its citizens as this hazardous and insecure project is nothing but a Trojan horse for socialism masquerading as environmentalism - to advance an unsafe, unregulated, and geopolitically insecure energy agenda to fulfil China’s energy dream.

This untrustworthy EnergyCo scam introduces life-threatening public health and safety risks from severely hazardous BESS leakage and chemical fires with lethal hydrogen fluoride gas plumes that will be billowing for many kilometres as well as presenting a totally unacceptable national security nightmare for the Newcastle/NSW/Australia without ever delivering any genuine, reliable public benefit.

The incompetent and cruel NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces must stop continually failing and harming the NSW public and refuse consent for SSI-82049456.

As a NSW resident, I object to the significant public funding committed to the Newcastle Logistics Precinct without a transparent comparison with alternative investments. The money could instead be considered for maintaining existing reliable generation, upgrading power stations, developing dispatchable generation or improving existing electricity infrastructure.
Where is the independent cost comparison showing that this expenditure provides greater value to NSW taxpayers than alternative energy investments?

I object because the project appears to support a policy of retiring coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable generation. Coal-fired generation has historically provided dependable electricity to NSW. I believe reliable generation should not be removed before replacement capacity has demonstrated that it can provide equivalent reliability during periods of high demand and low renewable output.
Why should NSW retire dependable generation before proving that replacement generation can deliver the same level of reliability?

The planning assessment should examine the full system cost of the project rather than treating the logistics precinct as an isolated facility. Renewable projects require transmission infrastructure, roads, storage, backup or firming capacity and other supporting infrastructure. These costs ultimately affect taxpayers and consumers. What is the true whole-of-system cost of the renewable-energy infrastructure that this facility is being built to support?

I am concerned that communities along the proposed transport routes could carry significant impacts without receiving a direct benefit from the project. Large renewable-energy components may travel substantial distances from Newcastle to projects elsewhere in NSW. The assessment should consider the cumulative effect on every major transport corridor used by these components.
How has the proponent calculated the cumulative impact on communities, roads and infrastructure along the complete transport routes?

I object because the project could increase industrial air pollution from diesel trucks, cranes, reach stackers, forklifts and other mobile equipment. This should be assessed together with existing port and industrial emissions. The operator should minimise unnecessary engine idling and use lower-emission equipment where reasonably practicable. What measurable reduction in diesel emissions will the proponent guarantee over the life of the project?

I am concerned about dust during construction, particularly because the site has a long industrial history. Earthworks and construction of extensive hardstand areas could generate dust and potentially disturb contaminated material. The project should include appropriate dust monitoring, suppression measures and controls on contaminated soil.
Will independent real-time dust monitoring results be made publicly available throughout construction, and what level will trigger an immediate response or suspension of work?

The NSW Government is failing to protect its citizens with this dangerously toxic and treacherous, CCP based plan.
As predatory EnergyCo is outrageously wrecking NSW with their plethora of catastrophic failures wherever they go - any sudden failure within the toxic BESS infrastructure will release highly suffocating clouds of dangerous gas directly into adjacent neighbourhoods which poses an immediate, unmitigated health crisis for thousands of surrounding residents and our essential soil and water systems.

EnergyCo are eroding energy independence and sovereignty.
Transitioning from a sensible, self-contained, reliable, affordable and secure Australian coal based power model that works 24/7 to a complex web of foreign-dependent, fragile, intermittent, pile of experimental Chinese junk destroys national security.

This system is diabolical as it leaves the local community and Australia completely exposed to external grid manipulation and geopolitical blackmail.

There is a Border Enforcement Vacuum of Unregulated, Unethical, Unchecked Imports which ENERGYCO are addicted to and reliant on for this damaging, anti-Australian scam.

Official regulatory gaps mean foreign-sourced equipment arrives with zero proactive screening for dangerous substances. This complete lack of oversight allows unverified, high-risk hardware to be funneled directly into the regions AGAINST OUR WILL with NO SOCIAL LICENCE!

EnergyCo’s disaster is all about Consumer Price Gouging and Extortionate Tariffs!
Forcing inefficient, weather-dependent hardware onto the market drives consumer electricity bills to ever escalating, torturous highs and wrecks Australia’s economy.
This structural shift penalises everyday Australian households while enriching offshore corporate cartels.

Prioritise AUSTRALIAN COAL NOT CHINA’S
RECKLESS RUIN-A-BULLS!

->continued …..

👉🏻REFERENCE:->
Response from Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF) - regarding Importation of Banned PFOS & ASBESTOS in Solar/Wind/BESS Components -
FEEDBACK (IMMI-26-00117-1) [SEC=OFFICIAL] OFFICIAL - 03/02/2026

Dear ..............
Thank you for your feedback (Ref: IMMI-26-00117-1) to the Department of Home Affairs Global Feedback Unit on 3 January 2026 concerning PFAS/PFOS, Bisphenol A and asbestos contained in imported goods by Renewable Energy Companies such as; solar panels, inverters, wind turbine components, electrical wiring and lithium ion batteries – and including the contamination caused by disposal of these products.

Your feedback has been forwarded to my section, the Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF) for a response and advice.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is Australia’s lead policy and regulatory agency for the management of hazardous industrial chemicals, which is implemented through the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS).

IChEMS establishes nationally consistent standards for managing the import, export, manufacture, use and disposal of industrial chemicals to reduce impacts on the environment.

While PFAS chemicals, including PFOA, are not yet prohibited at the Australian Border, they are listed in IChEMS as a high risk chemical group, and are regulated domestically within Australia.

Bisphenol A is also listed in IChEMS and is being considered for scheduling by DCCEEW but is not a prohibited chemical at the Australian Border.

We have received the below advice from DCCEEW on the PFAS regulations for your consideration:

● The Australian Government expects that introducers, exporters and users of PFAS comply with the standards set out in IChEMS.
● Regulation, or enforcement, of standards is reliant on adoption by the Commonwealth, states and territories into their own environmental laws.
● Jurisdictions are at various stages of incorporating the IChEMS into their own regulatory frameworks.
● The Commonwealth is exploring its legislative options for enforcing the prohibitions and restrictions on importation and manufacture and use in Commonwealth areas as prescribed in the standards.
The Commonwealth will work with introducers and users as it develops implementing legislation and considers the practicality and appropriateness of different operating models.
● Until new legislation is available there is a unique opportunity for industry to establish compliant supply arrangements and business practices without penalties applying.

For further information on what the Australian Government is doing in relation to managing and restricting the use, import, manufacture and disposal of PFAS containing products, please visit the DCCEEW website at Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) - DCCEEW.
You may also wish to contact DCCEEW by email at [email protected]

In regard to your concerns for asbestos, the ABF is responsible for enforcing border controls for very high volumes of goods that cross the Australian Border every day, and every effort is made to identify and prevent goods containing asbestos from entering Australia.

● Australia is one of the few countries in the Asia-Pacific region that has a comprehensive ban on all six types of asbestos.
● In many countries, despite the known threat to human health, local standards allow manufacturers to use low levels of types of asbestos.
● Goods manufactured outside Australia might be labelled asbestos free and still contain low levels of asbestos.
● It is the responsibility of importers and exporters to ensure they do not import or export prohibited goods such as asbestos.

The ABF must be assured that asbestos containing goods are not unlawfully crossing the border.

Regarding your concerns for unregulated and no accreditation body to determine the toxic public health and safety risks of renewable infrastructure and the contamination to the environment by the disposal of such renewable energy products, please also visit the DCCEEW website at the following links, for further information on how the Australian Government is managing these issues.
Home - DCCEEW

Renewable energy developments and environmental protection - DCCEEW

Exporting, importing or transiting hazardous waste - DCCEEW

Thank you for your feedback.
(redacted)
OFFICIAL
..................

👉🏻Our Assessment of the Response from Environmental Goods and Product Safety Section within the Australian Border Force (ABF) - regarding Importation of Banned PFOS & ASBESTOS in Solar/Wind/BESS Components:

What it confirms clearly
• There is no effective border-level prohibition on PFAS/PFOA or Bisphenol A in renewable energy components.
• The system relies on voluntary industry compliance and future legislation, not enforceable controls.
• Responsibility is fragmented and deflected between agencies (ABF → DCCEEW → states/territories).
• Importers are effectively given a regulatory grace period to “establish compliant practices” without penalties.
That last point is the most damning.

What the letter unintentionally admits
• Australia is knowingly allowing high-risk chemicals into the country while acknowledging their environmental and health risks.
• Enforcement is aspirational, not operational.
• The Commonwealth currently lacks the legal tools it claims are necessary, yet continues to permit imports.
• Renewable energy infrastructure is being treated as a regulatory exception zone.

This is classic regulatory capture by delay:
“We agree it’s dangerous, but we’ll act later.”

Structural failure exposed
• No independent accreditation body for toxicological risk of renewable infrastructure.
• No lifecycle regulation (import → use → disposal).
• No precautionary principle applied, despite PFAS being globally recognised as persistent, bioaccumulative toxins.
• No mandatory disclosure requirements for chemical composition of components.

In plain terms:
The system is built to facilitate rollout first, and manage harm later, if ever.

Strategic value of this document:
• It documents official knowledge of risk.
• It establishes foreseeability of harm.
• It shows government awareness without enforcement.
• It weakens any future claim of “unanticipated consequences.”

Bottom line
The letter is polite, procedural, and calm — but substantively it is an admission of regulatory failure.
Not incompetence. Not ignorance.
Choice.

I object because the proposed storage and handling of BESS units creates a different level of industrial risk from ordinary freight. Lithium-ion battery incidents can involve thermal runaway, intense heat, hazardous gases and re-ignition. The Department should establish maximum battery quantities, battery state of charge, storage duration, separation distances and emergency procedures before allowing the facility to operate.
What is the maximum credible BESS fire scenario considered by the proponent, and what would be the consequences for surrounding areas?

I am particularly concerned about the consequences of a major battery fire. A serious incident could require extensive firefighting and produce contaminated water and hazardous smoke. The project should demonstrate that sufficient firefighting water, emergency access and containment capacity are available for the worst credible incident and that contaminated water cannot enter surrounding drainage systems or the Hunter River. Where would all contaminated firefighting water go if the largest credible battery fire occurred and the containment system reached capacity?

I object because the emergency response requirements of this project have not been adequately demonstrated. A large battery or dangerous-goods incident could require Fire and Rescue NSW and other emergency services to remain at the site for an extended period. Before approval, the Department should establish that appropriate equipment, water supplies, access, training and emergency procedures will be available.
Have the relevant emergency services confirmed that they have the resources and equipment necessary to deal with the worst credible incident at this facility?

I am concerned about the proposed 24-hour operation and the effect of heavy vehicles and industrial machinery during the night. Trucks, cranes, forklifts and reach stackers can create noise, while oversized loads may require night-time movements. Noise from engines, alarms, loading and unloading can be particularly disruptive during sleeping hours.
Why should nearby communities accept additional night-time industrial activity primarily required to support the wider renewable-energy program?

I object because oversized and overmass renewable-energy components will have to travel through the road network from Newcastle to other parts of NSW. These vehicles can require additional road space, special traffic arrangements and escorts. The assessment should consider road safety, intersections, bridges, traffic congestion and other road users across the full transport routes. Who will ultimately pay for the additional road maintenance and infrastructure upgrades required because of these oversized movements?

As a local resident in Kitchener Parade, I am concerned regarding heavy vehicles using George street to access or depart the facility. The section of George Street between Industrial Drive and Ingall street is a residential area and not suited to heavy vehicles, like wise Kitchener Parade.
I am also concerned regarding vehicles from the site accessing McDonalds and the Take away shop between Industrial Drive and Kitchener Parade and using Kitchener Parade as a short cut to regain access back onto industrial drive. There is already issues now with vehicles using Kitchener Parade as a runaround for McDonalds, the proposal without traffic restrictions will only exaserbate the problem. Additionally there has been occasions where trucks have participated in the practice and damaged the trees while traversing Kitchener Parade.

There should be Right Turn only when departing the facility from both exits at George Street and Ingall Street, and no parking of heavy vehicles on either side of Industrial drive between George street and Ingall Street.

My concern with this project is with the construction and operational noise generated from the project area. Since living in Mayfield we believe the background noise levels appear to have increased since 2024. While the EIS has made an assessment of the predicted noise levels to generally fall within acceptable limits, my concern is that the actual noise together with the existing industrial /road noise will increase in our neighbourhood once this project commences. I have purchased a noise monitoring device and intend to capture some noise data ahead of the project commencing to form a baseline for comparison once the project commences.

Anything we can do it help facilitate the roll out of renewables is well worth doing. The roll out is a multi-year long process and very important to our country and eceonomy so anything that can be done to make the roll out quicker and more efficient should be done.