Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

I object to the approval of the Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 development for the following reasons:
*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 will 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. 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 site.
*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. Approving this project will not take us towards a clean energy future and contradicts the Commonwealth Government's Clean Energy Future initiative.
*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. Deep Pond is the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, yet a significant area of Deep Pond, 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. Clean and sustainable energy will provide more on-going employment opportunities that coal, as there is always going to be a future in sustainable energy. Why not invest into this industry to equip people with the skills needed for the future.

Lynette MacBain
51 William St
Singleton. NSW 2330
65722235
[email protected]

Please Note Revised Submission
Objection to Proposed Fourth Coal Export Terminal in Newcastle
Project Title: Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4
Application No: 10_0215

On behalf of my family I/We strongly object to this development application.
There is no justification for this fourth Coal Loader except to make money at the expense of the health of the communities of the Hunter and the Environment. It is a deplorable situation where once again human life and quality of life is not the first consideration in assessment.
We make the following points
* Once again where is the Health Risk Assessment for the people of the Hunter and Upper Hunter and importantly to us Singleton. It appears the Director Generals Requirements or in this case the Acting Director General's are again devoid and sadly lacking in requiring protection of health. For years we have called for all application to require Health Risk Assessments as mandatory in the DG Requirements.

* No consultation with those living in the Upper Hunter and particularly Singleton, we are not considered as stakeholders despite the massive impact Coal has on our community and the further impact a fourth loader will make.

* The size of the Environmental Assessment should have triggered a longer time for evaluation by the community and submissions. Once again we see a major project transgress a major holiday period.

* On calculation the proposal will require an additional 41 trains per day equating to one train every 4.5mins through the Hunter Valley Coal Chain. This will cause a cumulative health impact of noise, dust, diesel fumes, and vibration through the major towns and suburbs along the rail line and in particular Singleton.

* The proposal and expanded coal mines needed to supply it will put additional pressure on the health of the Hunter people; the health of the Hunter River, and the future viability of the Hunter Valley.


* The Upper Hunter environment and rural communities cannot support or survive an increase in coal production of this scale; infrastructure capabilities are just one example.

* The proposal wants to increase coal export capacity by a further 120mtpa to 331mtpa; this is unsustainable and in no way considers future generational needs.

* Port capacity has already been increased to 211 million tonnes per annum (mtpa).

* When the Minimbah Track was completed we were told the Hunter would have to put up with a railhead of 7-10mins what can we eventually really expect when as previously stated this has the potential for a railhead of 4-5mins

* The Hunter cannot afford to lose any more farmland, groundwater or biodiversity
The Federal Government is looking to expand food production but by the time NSW Planning has finished with us the Hunter Valley; one of the great food producing environments in Australia will be negated to a moonscape and devoid of life and for all intense and purposes also human life.

* The proposal will further destroy critical habitat for migratory birds and threatened species in the Hunter estuary.

* To take the previous point our fishing industry will be further impacted on is sensitive areas are destroyed.

* If the Strategic Regional Land Use Plans for Upper Hunter and New England North West are to be effective in preventing land use conflict, this large proposed expansion should not occur.

* The Upper Hunter Strategic Land Use Plan predicted that export demand through Newcastle would stabilize at about 216 mtpa by 2015 which is close to current approved capacity - an additional 120 mtpa capacity is not justified.

Once again we are disappointed in the Environmental Assessment and its process.

* A FOUTH COAL LOADER IS NOT JUSTIFIED AGAINST THE HEALTH ON THE HUNTER, ITS RESIDENTS AND ENVIRONMENT.

Sincerely,
Lynette MacBain

I absolutely object to a fourth coal export terminal in Newcastle. Port capacity has already been increased to 211 million tonnes per annum (mtpa). This proposal wants to increase coal export capacity by a further 120mtpa to 331mtpa. This is totally unsustainable. The Upper Hunter environment and rural community cannot support or survive an increase in coal production of this scale. The Hunter cannot afford to lose any more farmland, groundwater or biodiversity. If the Strategic Regional Land Use Plans for Upper Hunter and New England North West are to be effective in preventing land use conflict, this large proposed expansion must not occur. The Upper Hunter Strategic Land Use Plan predicted that export demand through Newcastle would stabilize at about 216 mtpa by 2015 which is close to current approved capacity - an additional 120 mtpa capacity is not justified. The proposal will require an additional 41 trains per day through the Hunter Valley Coal Chain. This will cause a cumulative impact of noise and dust through the major towns and suburbs along the rail line. The proposal will further destroy critical habitat for migratory birds and threatened species in the Hunter estuary. The proposal and expanded coal mines needed to supply it will put additional pressure on the health of the Hunter River, the health of the Hunter people and the future viability of the Hunter Valley.
ON top of this there is the issue of Climate Change. If we are serious about tackling this most critical issue, (and I firmly believe that it is our moral duty to do so), then we must curb our coal industry and invest instead in renewable energy as a matter of urgency.

Dear Rebecca,

Please accept this this as a submission objecting to Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) Terminal 4 proposal for Newcastle (MP10_0215. I have been involved in developing a submission from the Hunter Community Environment Center (HCEC) of which I am a member.

HCEC's submissions provides details on 30 concerns with the project and its Environmental Assessment (EA) which I share. These concerns are that:
1) There is no established need for the project, given projected demand for and supply of Australian coal port capacity.
2) Justification for the project would require a consideration of alternative locations.
3) Justification for the project would require a consideration of alternative designs for the project at the proposed location. In particular designs that do not encroach into OEH owned wetlands to the west and north of the existing main Kooragang rail line have not been considered.
4) The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) owned wetlands (both those that have recently been excluded from the Hunter Wetlands National Park and those previously slated for inclusion within the national park) are substantively misrepresented in the EA.
5) The EA documentation lacks a fulsome environmental risk assessment.
6) Heath risks to the community have not been analysed.
Treatment of soil and groundwater contamination and surface water impacts:
7) The base-case for modelling contamination impacts needs to be best practice contamination management without development.
8) The proposal does not prioritise remediation over containment.
9) The assessment of remediation options focuses on cost, time and ease of implementation rather than off-site migration risk and suitability for post-remediation development.
10) Further work is needed to understand the groundwater impacts.
11) Additional measures to minimise groundwater impacts should be included in the proposal.
12) The cumulative impacts of surface water discharges and groundwater contamination on the Kooragang wetlands and Hunter River need to be assessed.
13) Further surface water capture and treatment options are needed to account for wet years and expected climate change.
14) The EA does not include a plan to manage the waste dumps and site contamination if the development is substantially delayed or does not proceed as planned.
15) OEH owned lands that are currently managed for conservation must not be included within the proposed development.
16) The loss of Deep Pond, which is a critical freshwater drought refuge in the Lower Hunter Estuary system, cannot be compensated for.
17) The impact of the proposed development on habitat for migratory shore birds has not been adequately assessed.
18) The compensatory habitat strategy in the EA is inadequate and incomplete in relation to the impacts on threatened species and migratory shore birds.
19) There will be an unacceptable and unmitigated impact on the threatened Australasian Bittern.
20) The project needs to incorporate best practice habitat design in relation to compensatory habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog.
21) No actual mitigation is proposed for the loss of endangered endemic pondweed habitat.
22) The impacts of proposed dredging and band realignment on ecological values such as Ramsar wetlands and migratory shore birds need to be included in the EA.
23) Potentially significant air quality impacts on human health are ignored.
24) The EA misrepresents project related GHG emissions relative to total Australian GHG and global GHG emissions.
25) Impacts due to facilitating more coal mines in NSW are ignored in the EA.
26) Impacts of more trains in the Hunter and Newcastle are ignored in the EA.
27) Impacts of more coal shipping in the port of Newcastle are ignored in the EA.
28) The cumulative increase in negative health impacts due to coal mining, coal transport and burning coal, both in the region and globally, are not accounted for in the EA.
29) That there is no direct operational employment is not acknowledged in the main EA document.
30) The economic assessment in the EA does not consider the implications for the project cost benefit of altered project staging due to a substantive change in the export coal market.
These concerns lead me to the conclusion that the Department should recommend either that the project be denied approval or ask that PWCS to resubmit a new EA with substantive changes.

Best Regards,

Simon Fane

Stop development of Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 in Newcastle.

I object to the new coal mine

I object to the imposition of the T4 coal terminal on Newcastle. There will be many environmental effects associated with the site which include reduced air quality, dust and noise for nearby residents. Along with the impacts on habitat of migratory birds.

Furthermore it does not make any sense to be doubling the capacity of the port as the effects of burning coal are being seen around the world as contributing to climate change. The days of exporting coal are numbered and the T4 proposal will have little economic benefit to Newcastle due to the automation of operations.

If the proposal proceeds it will be very short sighted and does not assist Newcastle in transitioning away from being a Climate Change pariah.

1. A fourth coal export terminal in Newcastle cannot be justified
2. Port capacity has already been increased to 211 million tonnes per annum (mtpa)
3. The proposal wants to increase coal export capacity by a further 120mtpa to 331mtpa. This is unsustainable.
4. The Upper Hunter environment and rural community cannot support or survive an increase in coal production of this scale
5. The Hunter cannot afford to lose any more farmland, groundwater or biodiversity
6. If the Strategic Regional Land Use Plans for Upper Hunter and New England North West are to be effective in preventing land use conflict, this large proposed expansion will not occur
7. The Upper Hunter Strategic Land Use Plan predicted that export demand through Newcastle would stabilize at about 216 mtpa by 2015 which is close to current approved capacity - an additional 120 mtpa capacity is not justified
8. The proposal will require an additional 41 trains per day through the Hunter Valley Coal Chain. This will cause a cumulative impact of noise and dust through the major towns and suburbs along the rail line
9. The proposal will further destroy critical habitat for migratory birds and threatened species in the Hunter estuary
10. The proposal and expanded coal mines needed to supply it will put additional pressure on the health of the Hunter River, the health of the Hunter people and the future viability of the Hunter Valley.

I object to the expansion of the coal export terminal with T4. This project will have disastrous effects on the local environment including wildlife habitats in the National Park that would be lost when T4 is build on parkland. Loss of habitat and the disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population for 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.

Loss of fish habitat will also severely harm the fishing industry in the area.

Furthermore, the citizens of Newcastle will suffer increased health risks due to the increase of coal dust from larger stockpiles. The project does not plan to implement best practice for dust control measurements. Best practice would be not to have any stockpile.

There is no plan to fully remediate the heavily contaminated T4 site. The T4 proposal will therefore cause the leaching of existing toxic material into groundwater and surrounding surface waters via a `squeezing effect'. Result will be pollution of both the neighbouring (National Park and RAMSAR listed) wetlands and the Hunter River.

Finally, T4's massive expansion of coal mining in the Hunter region will have serious long term costs to the health and sustainability of the Hunter region. More mines disrupt the agricultural economy and food production necessary for a balanced local economy.

The Costs of more mining to the State include: Green House Gas generation at mines, loss of agricultural lands, blasting, noise, air quality, loss of aboriginal and non- aboriginal heritage, visual impacts, loss and pollution of surface water and groundwater, damage to aquatic ecology, flora and fauna loss.

I object to the exansion of Newcastle's coal port and T4 and recommend research and development to be invested in sustainable and renewable energy sources.

I object to the T4 coal loader. We need a container terminal instead, to allow a diversity of exports and imports into our harbour.
Our city and larger area is already suffering from too much coal, as is the whole world, coal burning being one of the biggest causes of climate change.
Our children and grandchildren need us to put the brakes on coal, and to turn instead to renewable energies.

I object to further coal expansion in my suburb. The noise and the dust created by coal is already negatively impacting on my families health and well being.

P.O. Box 9
Singleton 2330
May 7th 2012.
Rebecca Newman
Dept. of Planning
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001
This is a submission objecting to the proposed Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 development in Newcastle (10_0215).

The proposal must not be approved due to the significant and unacceptable impacts as detailed below.

In particular, the project must not be approved because of the contribution it would make to global warming, and because of significant irreversible impacts which cannot be offset, on internationally-significant wetland habitats, and because of the health and amenity impacts on Newcastle residents.

GLOBAL WARMING

Global warming is the gravest threat we face. The Environmental Assessment should consider the project's total contribution to global warming, including the impact of the `Scope 3' downstream emissions of coal exported as a consequence of this project.

The Assessment should fully consider the cumulative social and environmental impacts of these mines. The proposal will almost double the coal export capacity of the Port of Newcastle. The proposal will facilitate a huge expansion in the scale of coal mining within the Hunter Valley and Gunnedah Basin., with many more large coal mines in the Hunter Region, and Liverpool Plains, over 40 more coal trains per day in the Hunter Valley and into Newcastle, an estimated 22 more coal ships visiting Newcastle every week, and a doubling of the greenhouse pollution impact of NSW coal exports (288 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year).

The predictable costs of such a massive increase in mining to the State are frightening to contemplate. They include greenhouse emissions, damage to aquatic ecology, loss of flora and fauna values, loss of agricultural lands, health impacts of blasting, noise and poor air quality, loss of aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage, visual impacts, and loss and pollution of surface water and groundwater,

JUSTIFICATION.
The project cannot be justified because of the huge contribution to global warming which would result. It is clearly irresponsible to act other than towards phasing out energy production from coal. The Assessment's attempt to argue the project is required "to accommodate contracted and projected future coal exports" is nonsense. The Government's obligation is to reject this project in the public interest.
LOCAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The proposed development would result in loss of habitat for 23 threatened species of fauna, including the Green and Golden Bell frog and the Australasian Bittern. It would also result in disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of the population of four migratory shorebirds listed under international conservation conventions. At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties and 15 species of waterfowl (three of which are listed as threatened under the TSC Act) rely on the habitat of Deep Pond and its proximity to the RAMSAR listed wetland. Deep Pond is in fact the only freshwater drought refuge in the Lower Hunter Estuary system. Deep Pond should be protected, and its management should be coordinated with the ongoing conservation efforts in the Hunter Estuary.

An area of the development would take place on land gazetted as National Park. This area should not be part of the proposed development. Furthermore, the project site includes 18.8ha of Saltmarsh (an Endangered Ecological Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act), 28.9ha of mangrove and 27.3ha of freshwater wetland, 4ha of which are listed as an endangered community under the TSC Act.

Offsets cannot compensate for the loss of habitat at the project site. The proposed offset site at Ellalong has been identified as critical for conservation in its own right. Furthermore, the offset site is 50km away from Kooragang Island, which is too far away to provide the ecological function of Deep Pond. Deep Pond provides key foraging and roosting habitat due to its proximity to the RAMSAR listed wetlands in the Hunter Estuary.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S REQUIREMENTS
Consequently, Director-general's Requirements in relation to offsets are not met. . Additionally, the Biodiversity Offset Strategy for the project has not been finalised - the proponent has not secured any major offset site!. The Assessment states "the actual locations will be provided once the Biodiversity Offset Strategy is finalised, a process which is subject to potentially sensitive commercial transactions."
The main offset site is mentioned but not named, located or described in detail. However, it is revealed the species for which it is supposed to provide habitat were not detected there. Compensatory habitat is not provided for all threatened species impacted.

Deep Pond and Swan Pond are in the top ten sites in the estuary determined to be most significant
in an assessment by the Hunter Bird Observers' Club. Deep Pond is extremely important habitat, with great diversity and abundance of bird species. Four-fifths is proposed to be developed. Swan Pond is ostensibly protected under the NPW Act; however, the proposal involves a rail link through this important habitat. The Assessment does not adequately assess the impact of the proposal on Swan Pond, which has been identified as the third most significant site for birds in the entire estuary.

Altogether, the assessment of impacts on fauna, and proposed measures to address impacts, is abysmal. Compensatory habitat for species affected simply does not exist. The project cannot proceed.

IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH
The Environmental Assessment understates the impacts on air quality. The Assessment only considers the impact of increased coal train movements on residencies within 20m of the rail line. However, the impacts of coal dust are likely to extend fmuch further. More uncovered coal stockpiles will increase the amount of coal dust already affecting Newcastle suburbs. The health impacts of the coal industry are estimated to be around $2.6 billion across Australia. Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. The project would considerably increase negative health impacts in the Hunter region.

Health specialists from the University of Newcastle's School of Medicine and Public Health have criticised the project's air quality modelling, and conclude the impacts of dust and noise on resident's health would be significant. They find the Assessment significantly underestimates levels of pollution and the health effects of fugitive emiossins. For this reason alone, the project should not be approved. A comprehensive health and air quality study is required.

DREDGING AND WATER CONTAMINATION
There is no plan to fully remediate the heavily contaminated site. The proposal could therefore cause the leaching of existing toxic material into groundwater and surrounding surface waters via a `squeezing effect'. The result will be pollution of both the neighbouring (National Park and RAMSAR listed) wetlands and the Hunter River. The dredging will have massive impacts including the removal of aquatic habitats and impacts on estuarine habitats via changes to tidal hydrodynamics and salinity. Also, it has the potential to create stagnant deep holes, alter currents, cause riverbed erosion and release pollutants currently trapped within the bottom sediments. A study should be conducted to investigate this issue.
An increase in shipping will negatively impact harbour water quality with sediment disturbance (some of it contaminated), release of bilge water, more antifouling agents, chemicals and oil spills, and dumping of debris. It will also increase the risk of introduced species.

The proposal requires the realignment of the banks of the South Arm of the Hunter River and construction of a `swing basin'. The proposal also requires dredging of the South Arm of the river from its natural depth of 2-4m to 16.2m with 17.8m deep shipping berths along each bank. The area that will be dredged has changed significantly after the State Government gave the dredging approval. PWCS should apply for a new license for dredging, given that the proposal for dredging has changed significantly.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
After construction, the proposal will provide no additional long-term employment. Rather, the 22 extra coal ships per week is likely to push out other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other exports. It is also likely to impact commercial fishing due to the loss of fish habitat and increased contamination from dredging.

The terminal would facilitate an increase of at least 41 additional coal trains per day through the suburbs of Maitland and into Newcastle. This would increase congestion on the rail lines as well as increasing noise and dust. During the construction period, traffic congestion on roads is also likely to occur. As mentioned abopve, the project would also increase noise, light and dust pollution. Noise, vibrations and light pollution from on-site operations will occur 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.

The proponents are to be condemned for the cursory treatment, as of minor significance, of emissions, habitat, health, public interest, cumulative impacts - and the Director-General,s Requirements!

Sincerely,

Barrie Griffiths.

I object to a fourth coal loader terminal in Newcastle. I am currently living elsewhere but consider myself a true novocastrian and visit frequently. I object on the following grounds:
- 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 tonnes of carbon pollution each year and fuelling global climate change.
- This project would damage internationally important wetlands on Kooragang Island 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 National Parks, 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

The time allowed for public comment was inadequate given the volume of the material and the fact that the material was not made available to individuals in hard copy or by CD. The exhibition period should be reopened for a further 60 day period.


I share the concerns expressed by other that

The proposal could result in loss of habitat for 23 threatened species of fauna, including the Green and Golden Bell frog and the Australasian Bittern. It would also result in disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of the population of four migratory shorebirds 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. Deep Pond is the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, yet a significant area of Deep Pond, would be lost to this project.

The fourth coal terminal project could 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. We believe the Environmental Assessment downplays the impact of the project on air quality as it only considers the impact of increased coal train movements on residencies within 20m of the rail line. The impacts of coal dust, however, are likely to extend far beyond these boundaries. More uncovered coal stockpiles will increase the amount of coal dust already affecting Newcastle suburbs. The precautionary principle should be applied to potential health impacts of the T4 project. Approval for the project should not be given until a comprehensive health and air quality study has been conducted across the Newcastle LGA.

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 will threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways. We believe these are unacceptable risks.

The costs of more mining to the State include greenhouse gas generation, loss of agricultural lands, blasting, noise, air quality, loss of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage, visual impacts, loss and pollution of surface water and groundwater, damage to aquatic ecology, flora and fauna loss. T4 would provide coal for the equivalent of 15 more large power stations around the world, generating an extra 288 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and fuelling the global climate crisis. Consideration of the impact of the `Scope 3'
downstream emissions of coal exported via the T4 project should be included in the Environmental Assessment.

The proposal carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island (the former BHP Steelworks site) and in the South Arm of the Hunter River. 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 site.

The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year and fuelling climate change.

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.

Newcastle does not need more coal export and pollution. This facility will impact negatively on the future of Newcastle.

I find it hard to understand exactly why we are even considering an additional coal loader given the evidence emerging on the links between human activity and increases in CO2 emissions. The coal exported from this terminal would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year and fueling global climate change.

Not only will this coal loader increase the rate at which these emissions can be produced, it will also impact negatively on many aspects of life for Novacastrians.

There have been many concerns raised about the increase in mining and subsequent coal transport and their effects on population health. 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.

At a time when we should be decreasing coal production, this additional loader would give the green light to increasing production, facilitating many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains. This expansion not only increases emissions but also threatens 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.

This project would also damage internationally important wetlands on Kooragang Island 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 National Parks, 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.

And after we've created all these emissions, impacted negatively on population health, polluted waterways, destroyed agricultural land threatened local species? What then? 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. And no doubt become yet another Newcastle eyesore.

NO to Terminal number 4. Stop wrecking the planet please.

I strongly object to the T4 proposal on the basis of many associated health, ecological, economic and cultural concerns:

Impacts on habitat, endangered and threatened species, and migratory birds

- Part of the 4th terminal site is currently National park. The National park lands include critical habitat for migratory shore birds that needs to be protected. National park lands must not be included in the proposed development.

- The 312 ha project site includes 91ha of valuable native vegetation and 24ha of open water habitat. In particular: 18.8 ha of saltmarsh (an endangered ecological community under TSC Act) 28.9ha of mangrove and 27.3 ha of freshwater wetland of which 4 ha are listed as an endangered under the TSC Act.

- Loss of habitat for 23 threatened fauna species including Australasian bittern (Endangered, EBPC Act) and the Green and Golden Bell frog (Vunerable, EBPC Act).

- Loss of habitat and the disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population for 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.

- Off sets cannot hope to compensate for loss of habit at the site. The proposed off-set site at Ellalong has already been identified as critical for conservation in its own right. It is also approximately 50 km away from Koorigang Island, therefore fails to compensate for the loss of Deep Pond, which provides key foraging and roosting habitat due to it s proximity to RAMSAR listed wetlands in the Hunter estuary.

- Deep Pond is the only freshwater drought refuge in the Lower Hunter Estuary system. It is relied upon by at least 15 species of waterfowl of which 3 are listed as threatened under the TSC Act.

- Due to high value habitat and the protected species dependant on it, plus its key relationship with the nearby RAMSAR listed wetlands, Deep Pond needs to be protected and management coordinated with the ongoing conservation efforts in the Hunter Estuary.

Air Quality
- The environmental assessment downplays the effect the 4th terminal would have on air quality stating "The T4 project is not expected to result in any criterion exceedences on any additional days of the year" . It defies belief that the uncover coal stockpiles for a coal loader of the size of T4 will not increase the amount of coal dust effecting Newcastle suburbs.

- The project does not plan to implement best practice for dust control measurements. Best practice would be not to have any stockpile.

- The EA only considered trains to affect residencies within 20m of the rail line. This is does not represent an adequate assessment of the air quality impact of increased coal transport as a result of the 4th terminal.

- The current guidelines are outdated and fail to account for the findings of ongoing health studies which demonstrate that total suspended particles (coal dust) are of greater detriment to human health than when the guidelines were put in place.

- The precautionary principle should be applied to potential health impacts of the T4 proposal. Approval should be not be allowed until a more conclusive health and air quality study is undertaken for the Newcastle LGA.

Dredging and water pollution

- There is no plan to fully remediate the heavily contaminated T4 site. The T4 proposal will therefore cause the leaching of existing toxic material into groundwater and surrounding surface waters via a `squeezing effect'. Result will be pollution of both the neighbouring (National Park and RAMSAR listed) wetlands and the Hunter River.

- An increase in shipping will negatively impact harbour water quality with sediment disturbance (some of it contaminated), release of bilge water, more antifouling agents, chemicals and oil spills, and dumping of debris. It will also reduce access for other harbour users and increase the risk of introduced species.

- The T4 proposal requires the realignment of the banks of South Arm of the Hunter River and construction of a `turning circle' or `swing basin' to accommodate the world largest ships. The proposal also requires dredging of the South Arm of the river from its natural depth of 2m to 4m to 16.2m with 17.8m deep shipping berths along each bank.

- The dredging will have massive impacts including the removal of aquatic habitats and impacts on estuarine habitats via changes to tidal hydrodynamics and salinity. Also potential of creating stagnant deep holes, altering currents, causing river bed erosion and liberating pollutants which are currently trapped within the bottom sediments.

- The EA fails to deal adequately with the impact of the massive dredging necessary for T4. The approval for South Arm dredging, given by the previous State government, should not be relied on for a significantly different proposal.

Social and economic impacts on Newcastle and Lower Hunter

- There is no additional operational employment associated with the T4 Project

- Loss of other economic activities in the port, like tourism, fishing and other shipping.

- The project would facilitate an increase of at least 41 additional coal trains per day through the suburbs of Maitland and into Newcastle. This Increases congestion on the rail lines, noise and dust.

- Noise and vibration from site operations 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.

- Increased traffic congestion through construction period.

- Impacts on commercial fishing are expected from the loss habitat and contamination.


Impacts of increased coal mining in NSW

- The completed project would facilitate the equivalent of at least 15 more large coal mines in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool plains.

- The Costs of more mining to the State include: Green House Gas generation at mines, loss of agricultural lands, blasting, noise, air quality, loss of aboriginal and non-aboriginal heritage, visual impacts, loss and pollution of surface water and groundwater, damage to aquatic ecology, flora and fauna loss.

- Research shows the health impacts of the coal industry estimated at $2.6 billion Australia wide. Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. In the Hunter Valley this impact is all the more prevalent due to the proximity of coal mining, transport and infrastructure to communities. The 4th terminal project would facilitate a massive increase to health impacts in the region, for this alone the negative contribution of the project far outweighs any merits.

- 22 more coal ships visiting Newcastle every week, pushing out other port users and the potential investment of other port industrial, commercial, tourism opportunities.

- The 4th terminal would provide for the equivalent of 15 more large power stations around the world, meaning an extra 288 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year fuelling the global climate crisis.

Overall

- The strategic need for the project does not justify its approval. The current pace of coal mining expansion in the Hunter region is already coming at a cost to the environment and human health that far outweighs the benefit of royalties it provides in return.

- The 4th terminal project depends on further mines and expansion of existing mines that are not guaranteed to occur. The upgrading of PWCS exiting terminals and the new NCIG 3rd terminal (to 211 million tonnes total from 89 million tonnes in 2002) can already accommodate for a large increase in coal exports from Newcastle.

- To approve additional export infrastructure (to 331 million tonnes in total) and destroy the ecological values of the T4 site takes no account of the potential decrease in the commercial viability of coal sales in the future.

Yours in concern,
Nissa

To whom it may concern,

I am a local resident of Newcastle and I strongly oppose the expansion of the coal export facility in my town.

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 will 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. 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 site.

The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year and fueling 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. Deep Pond is the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, yet a significant area of Deep Pond, 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 find it incomprehensible that my government would even consider such a proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Catrina Sturmberg

As a teacher I object to the T4 proposal on a number of levels including: job creation, health impacts, climate change impacts, the loss of RAMSAR listed wetlands, as well as on the grounds of decreased food security.

We need to see a diversification of the Hunter economic and in particular or export sector.In increase in the exportation of coal through our ports here in Newcastle is a significant step backwards in achieving this goal. We need to start preparing our communities for a post coal economy by creating more jobs in the renewable energy sector right here in the Hunter. Various reports such ad the 'Just Transitions' report in attachment 1 outline some of the steps that we need to take to start achieving this goal.

The coal mining boom being experienced in the Hunter is hurting the communities living near the mines and along the rail line. The health impact associated with coal dust, coal combustion and diesel fumes are outlined in the report in attachment 2. There need to be a comprehensive Australian study conducted about the health impacts of living near, mines, coal trains, coal piles, and power stations before any further expansion of the coal industry in any of its forms are approved. As a teacher in the Hunter I hold grave concerns for the health impacts on children living near coal mines, coal trains, coal fired power stations and coal piles. As children's bodies and brains are still developing they are more sensitive to the pollutants and contaminants associated with residing near coal associated infrastructure.

The Hunter Valley and Liverpool Plains are essential parts of our Australian food bowl. These areas are set for significant mine expansions and new mines if the PWCS T4 coal loader is approved. The Department of Planning needs to take into account a long term view of food security in our region, rather than the short term profits from the mining industry. Industries are struggling and at times failing to coexist with the coal mines that are expanding across these valleys. The key differences with the agricultural sector and the mining industry are the distribution of profits that stay in Australia. With the majority of farms and farmers keeping profits and jobs in Australia as well as employing locals. In comparison with the mining sector that is majority foreign owned, the majority of profits are sent off shore and the increase in Fly in Fly out workers on the rise, along with the increased mechanisation of mining operations there are less local jobs and less jobs in mining than the majority of Australian's realise. A recent report by the Australia Institute (see attachment 3) outlines the very small percentage of people employed in the mining sector compared to other industries.

As an educator I see an increasing level of concern amongst students in the Hunter area about the impacts that they will experience from climate change in their generation. We need to be establishing renewable energy power sources in the Hunter and become a leading example for the rest of the country. The 100% renewables report by Beyond Zero Emissions outline how we can start moving towards base load renewable energy in the next 20 years (see attachment 4 for more details). The sooner that we start moving towards renewable electricity generation the smaller our harmful CO2 contributions will be.

As a teacher I strongly object to the T4 proposal for a number of reasons including: job creation, health impacts, climate change impacts, the loss of RAMSAR listed wetlands, as well as on the grounds of decreased food and water security.

We need to see a diversification of the Hunter economic and in particular or export sector.In increase in the exportation of coal through our ports here in Newcastle is a significant step backwards in achieving this goal. We need to start preparing our communities for a post coal economy by creating more jobs in the renewable energy sector right here in the Hunter. Various reports such ad the 'Just Transitions' report in attachment 1 outline some of the steps that we need to take to start achieving this goal.

I have a very slow internet connection and have sent the attached document I have referred to in the submission in an email to the appropriate ministers.

Kind Regards

Carly Phillips