Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

I object to the process of the submission period. I urge you to listen to the calls of many people demanding an extension on the submission period. Less then eight weeks submission period is not enough time for concerned people to learn about the proposal, understand the implications and respond by way of an informed, articulate submission.

I strongly object to the excising of any part of the adjacent national park reserve. National parks are created to protect wildlife. Any incursion is a breach of the protection that National Parks are meant to provide; in this case it will compromise the protection of habitat for 23 threatened fauna species including the Australasian bittern (listed as endangered under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act), and the Green and Golden Bell frog (also listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act).

It will also compromise the protection ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions. At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international
treaties rely on the habitat of deep pond and its proximity to the RAMSAR listed wetland.

I also object to the development because of the fact that it is part of a bigger plan to increase coal mining in the Gunnedah Basin and the Hunter Valley. Communities have had enough of the expansion of coal mines and don't want any more.

As a homeowner in Mayfield, living within a short distance of Kooragang Island and just metres away from the coal train line, I strongly object to the construction of a fourth coal terminal.

Not only am I concerned about the increase in traffic, noise pollution and coal dust that the extra 41 coal trains passing through my neighbourhood will create, I am concerned about the impact on critical habitat for migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell from and the Australian Bittern. I understand that the Environmental Assessment for the development fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.

Beyond these immediate local issues, I am deeply concerned about the broader environmental impact of increasing coal exports from the area. Specifically, I object to a development that facilitates the opening of more large coal mines in the Hunter and Liverpool plains. Similarly, I object to a development that facilitates coal driven power stations around the world producing millions of tones of carbon pollution, each year that we continue mining and exporting our coal to them.

These are my sincere objections to the development. Beyond the short term employment prospects that the terminal's construction will provide for some locals, I cannot see the project providing any benefits to the local community.

I strongly object to the proposed fourth coal terminal in Newcastle, the increase in trains through Maitland and Newcastle kill severely impact the health of the residents.
It will increase the development of more mining in the Hunter which is not acceptable as it destroys our agricultural land and water supplies and threatens our food security.
The impacts on our fauna and flora will be significant, we need to maintain habitat for them to survive.
Finally supplying more coal for power stations to pollute our atmosphere and exacerbate climate change is foolhardy in the extreme.

I am objecting to the fourth terminal because it is environmentally, socially and economically unsustainable. It is not in the best interests of the people of Newcastle or NSW and is promoting economic policy which is solely based on mining and the export of coal. The deleterious impact of the development on local ecosystems as well as the colossal amount of greenhouse gases which will be released into the atmosphere will significantly diminish the quality of life of future generations as well as the Earth's collective biota. The myriad of costs of this project completely dwarf the perceived and real economic `benefits'.

Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.
This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.
After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping

Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.
This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.
After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping.
There is currently insufficient monitoring of the health and environmental impacts associated with the coal industry in the Hunter.

I object to this project going ahead because of the adverse environmental and health effects. As a nation we should be investing in RENEWABLE ENERGY and NOT COAL. Coal is of the past. I am a proud Novocastrian and I object to this proposal. I also recognise that most of the profits gleaned from the coal industry are reaped by foreign companies and investors. I object to everything about this plan.

I oppose the T4 Project. The impacts on threatened species, the Ramsar wetlands, migratory shorebirds, an endangered ecological community (saltmarsh) air quality, industries affected by the terminal like fishing, the Hunter River (from dredging) are wide, deep and unacceptable.

We now know how important a healthy environment is for our health, our economy and our well being. The T4 Proposal has no advantages despite what PWCS tries to tell the community.

Kooragang Island is home to a community based wetlands rehabilitation program and now many areas of the Ramsar wetlands and the Hunter Wetlands National Park are ecologically healthy. It makes no sense to increase the industrial presence and negates all of the work done by the government agency the Catchment Management Authority and the community in restoring the wetlands.

The T4 site is currently heavily contaminated and there is no plan to fully remediate it .Heavy industrial work on the site could cause the toxic waste to leach into groundwater and river water. Increased dredging of the south arm of the Hunter River will further impact negatively on the estuary.

There is no allowance for the cumulative impacts on the health of the Hunter estuary. Numbers of threatened species will further decline as they have been declining since the 1970s. They have been classified as threatened because they are valued and yet this development would further reduce their numbers. What are our values?

There are no benefits from the rapid future expansion of coal mining. Economists show that it's unwise to depend solely on one export industry for our future economic health. Other industries - tourism, manufacturing, education are suffering. Natural resource booms typically follow boom and bust patterns, there is no reason for this one to be any different. T4 would be a huge over investment in coal. China and India show every sign of moving to alternative and renewable energy. There is no guarantee Australia will be able to sell the increased amount of coal we are developing. T4 is economically a risk and a backward move.

Coal mining and the subsequent burning of coal is a major contributor to climate change through increasing carbon emmissions. T4 is massive with 120Mtpa projected throughput. This is an unacceptable addition to carbon emmissions when every political party in Australia agrees that we must reduce our carbon emmissions. It does not make sense to approve this increase in carbon emmissions. Australia is responsible for the emmissions no matter where the coal is burnt.

After construction, the T4 Project will not provide any additional long term employment. The mining industry employs only 1.7% of the workforce. This is not a job creator. Newcastle Port would be more beneficial to the community and jobs if it supported a variety of industries such as tourism, fishing and a container wharf. T4 would push out these possibilities.

The coal industry has huge impacts on health - this has been shown over and over again even though NSW is reluctant to do any real studies. T4 would mean around 40 extra coal trains travelling throught he Hunter. This adds to noise, vibration and fugitive dust. The wagons are uncovered and all coal wagons should be covered. The proponent is not required to measure the impacts of the proposal on health. PWCS should be required to do this. If the impacts on health cannot be properly measured the precautionary principle must be implemented. That is the project should not go ahead because the impacts on health are not known.

Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.
This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk.
After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping.

Neither the Hunter Valley nor Newcastle can cope with the increased pollution, as the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
As we know in the coal Hunter, pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.

The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.

The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.

This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and I understand the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.

Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.
This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.
After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping

I am writing to object most strongly to the proposed building of a fourth coal terminal in Newcastle.
When the Government says it is trying to implement strategies to reduce carbon into the atmosphere and says it takes seriously our problems with greenhouse gases while at the same time continuing full throttle with coal mining I feel they are being highly hypocritical.
You can't have both and hope to be seen as credible.
This is the era that the Government should be switching to renewable forms of energy but sadly the political will is not forthcoming.
Meanwhile, more and more licenses for coal mining are putting huge pressures on our communities with the increase related health issues such as asthma and other respiratory problems caused from coal dust.
Surely any financial gain generated from coal mining now , will only be offset by the huge health costs for any future governments.
More coal mining will only put more pressure on our food growing regions and water resources. With a population projected to be around the 9 billion mark be 2030 we cannot seriously risk damaging the basic requirements for human existence-our clean water and food.
If this coal is exported we will be adding to the problems of carbon pollution and only exacerbating the problems of climate change in other countries.
Surely this is not the hallmark of a responsible government and would not be seen as acting in anyone's interest.
Our environments are precious to ALL Australians and while there is unacceptable risks I don't think it is a wise decision to progress with this venture.
This project is unlikely to create any real job opportunities and when you compare any gains with the potential loss of other sound economic activities created from tourism, fishing etc it does not seem logical for this to continue.
Many factors make me very wary regarding this proposal and for this reason I wish to make my objections to the building of this fourth terminal clear.

Fossil fuel use is changing the world climate, such that sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, river systems are dying, extreme weather events are increasing in intensity and frequency.

Climate change will be disastrous for the human race and all life on the planet. The costs in infrastructure damage, in rising food costs, in extinction rates and environmental damage are going to make any economic advantage from fossil fuel extraction, distribution and use pale into insignificance.

Fossil fuel extraction and use need to be phased out as soon as possible, for the sake of the world as a whole. This particular project would not only add to the damage to the environment on a world scale but would have a devastating effects on the local human and natural environments, including habitats of many already endangered species.

I very strongly object to the haste at which coal is being mined and exported to other countries. In the Hunter we already have 3 coal terminals and adding another speaks of greed and a short term outlook. It will exacerbate global warming and further destroy Kooragong Island affecting migratory birds.

Margaret Gibberd

I don't want any expansion of the coal terminal facilities in Newcastle for the following reasons:
1. It will create more pollution and traffic around the Kooragang Island/Stockton area. It is bad enough as it is.
2. It will destroy habitat for water birds and other species.
3. It will further add to the eyesore of Kooragang Island.
4. The increased number of coal trains will further impact residents living along the train line.
5. My very strong opinion is that there should be no further coal mines opened in the Hunter region. Apart from destroying farmland, it is also a moral issue; how can we allow an expansion when we know the devastating effects the burning of coal has on the planet.
6. Any positive economic benefits for the Hunter region will be very limited and not worth the adverse impact.

I have a fundamental objection based on ongoing deterioration of air quality and other amenities. I have two young children and live in the area that will impacted. I see no genuine effort to listen to the expressed views of the community and the proponents have not attmpeted the optimal solution which involves running a new rail line along Hunter River in a westerly direction. No new coal.

This new coal terminal will

Facilitate the expansion of coal mining in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains, but nearly doubling the export capacity of Newcastle
Double the dust and the noise for communities already affected by the coal trains in Newcastle and beyond
Destroy rare migratory bird habitat, endangered ecological communities and habitat for nationally threatened species
Double the greenhouse pollution impact of the coal exported from NSW.

Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.
This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.
After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping

As a resident of Mayfield I have serious concerns about the building of another coal loader. We are already subjected to enormous amounts of coal dust from the existing coal deposits and loading operations. The stock piles are a constant source of pollution to our environment and to our health. We residents cannot help but breath in this coal dust regardless of prevailing wind directions. Until the existing process is improved to the extent that residents are no longer subjected to ongoing pollution it would be negligent of the Authority to consider another coal loader.

No to Terminal 4 Coal Terminal on the grounds of cumulative impacts of additional coal trains on Hunter line; as well as facilitating increased output of coal in the Hunter through mine extensions and new mining developments. The cumulative effects on the Hunter river, groundwater systems, increased traffic congestion through mine expansion, air and noise pollution, loss of habitat, impact on Ramsar site are of grave concern - enough is enough! Coal is not a renewable resource, stop exporting our finite energy reserves and protect and begin to preserve the areas of this region not already damaged by mining.

Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tones of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.
This project would damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
An area within the site is currently owned by the National Parks service, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.
After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping