Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

Submission of objection to the proposed Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 development application (10_0215).

I object to the proposed fourth coal terminal because it should not proceed if the reality of Ecologically Sustainable Development is given due consideration.
Furthermore the Environmental Assessment is inadequate and fails to meet the Director General's Requirements. This project application cannot be approved. It is improper that it has even been exhibited.

This Port Waratah Coal Services project is allegedly needed to meet the future demands of the export coal industry, yet there is faulty consideration of the impact of the emissions from coal exported by this project. The DGR stipulate the assessment of "direct, indirect and cumulative impacts".

This project 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 fueling the global climate crisis. The forecast of global greenhouse pollution in the PWCS T4 assessment uses a scenario that in effect accepts global temperature rise of six degrees. This invalidates the assessment. Current International Agreements are based on the recognised need to reduce global emissions to constrain global temperature rise.

Or if PWCS is in fact in the actual world and I'm dreaming that runaway climate change can be prevented, then at the very least the EA fails to fully consider this reality. The impacts of rising sea-level and storm surges, more frequent and more extreme weather events, causing both flooding and droughts have not been assessed nor provided for in the infrastructure design. Average rainfall figures are used. The risk of accidental discharge of contaminated water from the site in to the Hunter River has not been properly assessed. The EA also fails to assess the impact of the project on the already contaminated soil and aquifers and the potential for further contamination.

The EA has not considered the indirect impact from this proposal of an estimated 15 new large coal mines in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains. These mines and their cumulative impacts has not been assessed. Existing mines already threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways. The EA fails again. This failure to consider the link between the proposal and new mines becomes particularly poignant when the fact that these mines may not even eventuate for commercial reasons.

Any short-term financial return from increased export of coal through the construction of T4 is grossly outweighed by the costs.
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.
After construction, the coal terminal would provide no additional employment. Rather, it would be likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping.

The only freshwater refuge in the Hunter Estuary is "Deep Pond". This habitat is irreplaceable. 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. Deep Pond should be protected, and its management should be coordinated with the ongoing conservation efforts in the Hunter Estuary. Destroying the habitat value of nearly 80% of this pond is totally unacceptable.
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.
The impact of T4 cannot be offset by a purported mitigation by waving an arm towards Ellalong Lagoon, over 50 km inland. The federally listed endangered Australasian Bittern requires more shorebird habitat, not less. The already approved habitat enhancement project at Hunter Wetlands Centre cannot be considered to be mitigative for any future impact. The T4 proposal threatens the viability of this species. It is outrageous.

A direct impact of the fourth coal terminal project with 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, would be the increase of dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments. The EA did not model the cumulative impact of adding fugitive coal dust and other pollutants into the air surrounding the rail corridor. Further emissions modelling is essential to report the cumulative impact of this continuous flow of trains for PM10, PM2.5, diesel combustion pollution, and concentrations of Ultra Fine Particles.

The failure of the Environmental Assessment to comply with the Director General's Requirements and the high degree of risk of impact - direct, indirect and cumulative - means that this proposal should not be approved.

Marg McLean
FalBrook Wildlife Refuge
PO Box 462
Singleton 2330
May 7 2012

To Whom it May Concern,

I am objecting to a Terminal 4 going in at the port of Newcastle, as I believe it is unnecessary. Coal is a finite source and 3 terminals suffice. I have genuine concerns for an increase in dust and noise that will impact on the residents of the area. Vital habitat for wildlife will be destroyed. I do not believe it will enhance the alternate economics of Newcastle but impede it in regards to real estate and tourism

This is a submission calling on the Department of Planning to reject the proposed Port waratah coal services Terminal 4 development in Newcastle (10_0215).

The Port Waratah Coal Services 4th Coal terminal project (project number 10_0215) presents numerous and prevalent negative impacts; environmental, social and economic, giving grounds for it to not be approved by the Panning department.

The purpose of the Planning department to properly assess and determine the feasibility of proposed infrastructure projects is presented with clear and extensive evidence both in the Environmental Assessment provided by EMGA Mitchell McLennan, and especially with the detailed and concise submissions provided by numerous sources throughout the community and those developed and submitted by professional departments and individuals external to the planning department. I expect these submissions show, in collaboration, extensive negative impacts which far outweigh any potential benefit, justifying the position to have the project rejected by the planning department.

I appreciate and see it as appropriate to have the project reviewed also by a planning assessment committee (as the department has indicated will take place) to efficiently overview the extent and details of impacts presented through this assessment period.

The Planning departments assessment and determination for this project can actively benefit the economical, social and environmental future of the Hunter region, as well as the rest of NSW, by not approving the project on the grounds that it will have direct drain on the economy through multiple sectors of state and federal government, costs to other industries and the financial wellbeing of individuals in the community. Not approving the project and instead investing in other less damaging and disruptive infrastructure and resource projects will allow the health of society and the productivity of industry strength and security for the long term future.

The range of negative impacts include but are not limited to;

* 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 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.

*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 areas and projects proposed by PWCS to offset this ecological damage fail to compensate due to their distance from the Hunter Estuary RAMSAR wetland site.

*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 Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal 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 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.

I expect all these listed and other impacts are presented in more detail with many of the other submissions presented to the department through this assessment period, demonstrating that the public is aware of the serious threats posed by this project.

The only presented merit of the project is the proposed contribution it will have to the NSW and federal economy through contribution of revenue tax, however, this merit is cancelled out by the negative economic costs on external funding sourcing and allocation for all government sectors, and costs to other industries and the community, required to manage the damage of impacts caused by the project. It is necessary for the Planning Assessment Commission overseeing this proposal to fully consider this prospect. I would encourage sourcing of economic, industry and employment experts to look at the cumulative and long term effect of such a proposed project with comparative consideration of other industries (e.g. agriculture) which would be negatively impacted by the scale of coal mining expansion that the 4th terminal infrastructure would facilitate.

Yours Sincerely,

Benjamin Latta

I oppose this development on the basis that it is not needed, and that the risks are too great and still not properly assessed to local people, global climate and the local environment and wildlife
This project would see more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland each day, which would increase health problems from dust especially fine particles, from other toxic components of coal dust, and from noise and vibrations from trains and the loaders.
The terminal would lead to the development of more large coal mines in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains areas, destroying prime agricultural land, and damage ground water systems and waterways.
Toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island are at risk of being released by development on top of them, an unacceptable risk.
The area is also migratory bird habitat and the habitat of the endangered green and golden bell frog. Part of it is National Park and is adjacent to the Ramsar wetland site.
There is no adequate plan to monitor or deal with the risks of dangerous leaks.
This development will provide no new employment in the area, but will likely mean loss of other economic activities in the port area, fishing, tourism and other shipping.
The increased export of coal will mean increased emissions of 288 million tonnes of carbondioxide each year worldwide, further endangering global climate stability.
The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements of both Federal and State agencies.
Need for the fourth coal terminal has not been clearly established, and by time of completion there is no guarantee that coal demand will as high as now projected.

Rebecca Newman
Dept. of Planning
GPO Box 39 SYDNEY
2001

I am writing as a lifelong resident of Newcastle to object to the proposed development of a 4th Coal Terminal in Newcastle Harbour.

For numerous reasons the proposed development from Port Waratah Coal Services is an inappropriate development in and of itself, and in particular an inappropriate development on the proposed Kooragang Island site.

At a time when nations, including one of Newcastle's major coal customers South Korea, are developing and introducing carbon pricing schemes to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, it makes no sense to continue to expand coal export infrastructure in Newcastle, or anywhere else in NSW.

Whilst I acknowledge the 2 week extension granted for the community to make submissions relating to this development I would like express my disappointment regarding what I believe to be an unreasonably short period of time the development proposal was on exhibition. It is unreasonable to expect community members to read, comprehend, and respond to a detailed project proposal of more than 4000 pages in a 8 week period that includes 2 weeks of school holidays. PWCS has indicated that they have undertaken community consultation for approximately 12 months, however without a detailed project proposal which outlines many of the impacts the project is likely to have this consultation is in my view little more than a 'tick the box' exercise.

Please find listed below a very brief summary of just some of the reasons why this development should not be approved:


* The 'offsets' proposed in the project's Environmental Assessment fail to compensate for the irreplaceable loss of these unique and valuable ecosystems.

* Every part of the coal chain has direct impacts on human health. Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes
to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Locally, the 4th
Terminal project would see at least 41 more coal trains through
Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems
such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.

* The EA only considers dust emissions within 20m of the coal train lines; whereas local residents know firsthand that the fine dust (PM10 and finer) spreads much further - many hundreds of metres to many backyards. The proposal would see an additional 41 coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, contributing significantly to the already unacceptable level of coal dust and associated respiratory health problems and additional noise impacts in surrounding suburbs.
* Despite the proposal's failure to link the proposed coal export infrastructure with additional coal mining in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains, the 4th Coal Terminal would inevitably result in at least 15 'mega-pits'. Current mining in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains is causing devastating human health impacts and threatens food and water security through the destruction of prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
* The risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island is unacceptable. In my view too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents.
* 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.
* 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.
The existing three coal loaders already operating 40% under capacity, there is no economic mandate for this fourth loader, and international coal demand will peak and decline within the next two decades at most.

I strongly object to the proposed building of a forth coal export terminal in Newcastle due to 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 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

I belive Port Waratah Coal Service's proposed 4th Coal Terminal (T4) will create huge neagtive impacts on human health, the enviroment, food security and climate change specifically the Newcastle and Hunter region, but also on a national and international scale.

Impacts on Habitat, Endangered and Threatened Species, and Migratory Birds:
- An area within the 4th terminal site is currently National Park. The National Park lands provides critical habitat for migratory shore birds. National Park lands must not be
included in the proposed development.

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

- Loss 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).

- 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 of deep pond and its proximity to the RAMSAR listed wetland.

- Offsets cannot hope to compensate for loss of habit at the site. The proposed offset site at Ellalong has already been identified as critical for conservation in its own right.
Furthermore, the offset site fails to compensate for the loss of Deep Pond because it is over 50km away from Kooragang Island. Deep Pond is critical because it provides
key foraging and roosting habitat due to its 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, three of which are listed as threatened under the TSC Act.

- Because of the valuable habitat that Deep Pond provides to numerous threatened and protected species and its critical function to the nearby RAMSAR listed wetlands,
Deep Pond should be protected and its management should be coordinated with the ongoing conservation efforts in the Hunter Estuary.

Air Quality:
- The Environmental Assessment of T4 downplays impacts on air quality stating: "The T4 project is not expected to result in any criterion exceedences on any additional
days of the year"1. It defies belief that extra, uncovered coal stockpiles will not increase the amount of coal dust effecting Newcastle suburbs.

- The EA 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 far
1 P243 Vol 1 Air Quality report 2 beyond this area.

- The current guidelines are out-dated and fail to account for the findings of recent health studies which demonstrate that total suspended particles (coal dust) are of greater detriment to human health than when the T4 guidelines were put in place.

- The precautionary principle should be applied to potential health impacts of the T4 proposal. Approval should 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'. The 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 the South Arm of the Hunter River and construction of a `turning circle' or `swing basin' to accommodate the world's
largest ships. 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 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 of creating stagnant deep holes, altering currents, causing riverbed erosion and releasing pollutants that are currently trapped within the bottom
sediments.

- 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 on Newcastle and Lower Hunter

- After construction, T4 will provide no additional long-term employment. Rather, T4 is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism,
fishing and other shipping.

- T4 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.

- T4 will increase noise and light pollution. Noise, vibrations and light pollution from onsite operations will occur 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.

- T4 will cause increased traffic congestion during the construction period.

- T4 is likely to have impacts on commercial fishing due to the loss of habitat and the increased contamination caused by the dredging.


Impacts of Increased Coal Mining in NSW:
- When completed, T4 would facilitate the development of at least 15 more large coalmines in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool plains.

- The costs of more mining to the State include: greenhouse gas generation at mines, loss of agricultural lands, blasting, noise, air quality, loss of aboriginal and nonaboriginal 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 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. In the Hunter Valley this impact is all the more prevalent due to the proximity to communities of coal mining, transport and infrastructure. The 4th terminal project would increase negative health impacts in the region. For this reason alone, the negative contribution of the project far outweighs any merits.

- T4 will mean 22 more coal ships would visit Newcastle
every week, pushing out other port users.

- 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.

- 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

As a life long resident of Newcastle I strongly oppose the approval of the proposed Terminal 4 coal loader. This development is a move in the wrong direction for the development of the Port of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley; and the extraordinary impacts that this proposed activity would have on residents, the environment, and the economy of Newcastle, are not justified - especially when considered along with the cumulative impact of the coal sector in this region.

It's time to draw a line in the sand and say that we already have more than enough coal-industry infrastructure with its unacceptable impacts in the Hunter Valley; and a smarter, cleaner approach to the development of the Port, the City and the Hunter Valley needs to be explored and implemented.


The air that we breathe, the noise that we experience:
I live in Islington, about four kilometers away from most of the existing Kooragang Island coal-loading infrastructure (and closer to rail lines). Even at this distance I must regularly wipe black dust from my windowsills and house surfaces. My elderly neighbour says that the very next day after he washes his white car it is covered in dust again. Friends further away in Newcastle tell the same story.

What concerns me is that this is just the dust that one can see, and while a nuisance, is not as worrying as the known dangerous health impacts from exposure to ultra-fine particles that accompany the visible dust particles that are landing on our homes in the suburbs surrounding the rail lines and coal loading facilities.

From what I experience, the dust emanating from the existing coal export infrastructure on a daily basis in Newcastle is already too much, and it is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Newcastle to read the conclusion of the T4 EA that "it is not anticipated that the T4 project will significantly affect the surrounding air quality environment". We are yet to experience the full impacts of T3 running to capacity and the cumulative impacts of all of the coal-related infrastructure in Newcastle has already crossed the line of unacceptable.

As a resident I would like more data generated and made publicly available on the current dust and noise emissions from the Port of Newcastle and feeder rail lines, and a comprehensive environmental risk assessment should to be provided with the T4 EA for impacts on human health in the Port surrounds. I believe if properly investigated with current methodologies, the additional impacts of the proposed T4 coal loader would be found to be unacceptable and not able to be mitigated. Therefore it is better to not build this facility in the first place.


Significant contribution to Climate Change:
At a time when we should be dramatically reducing global carbon emissions, the proposed T4 facility on its own would contribute coal for the equivalent of 15 more large power stations around the world, generating an extra 288 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year - remembering the current output of the Port of Newcastle as already the biggest in the world.

In this day and age it is now unacceptable to be proposing to build new infrastructure that would directly fuel the global climate crisis.

It is time to take stock of the real and significant impacts of developments such as T4 across the world and stop pretending that this can sit outside other national efforts to mitigate climate change such as the Federal carbon-trading scheme. It is safer to leave coal in the ground and non-approval of the T4 loader will be a step in the right direction for correcting our schizophrenic approach to mitigating climate change.


Impacts on passenger rail:
I am a regular user of the rail services along the Hunter line. This service is already in a derelict state with trains in poor condition and frequently late due to the priority given to corporate freight. It is difficult to see this situation improving with the extreme increase of train movements outline in the T4 proposal. When passenger rail services become dysfunctional, many rail users abandon it for private car use.

The consequence of passenger rail impacts (including increase in car use which affects carbon emissions) has not been clearly outlined in the EA.


Impacts on native wildlife habitat - including that of threatened species and migratory birds, which will contribute to species extinction.
Australia already has an unacceptably high rate of species extinctions occurring in modern times - a shameful record in fact. Species extinctions occur through a cumulative loss of habitat, site by site, and the habitat provided on the site of the proposed T4 is critical, is not able to be compensated for (as evidenced in the inadequate off-sets outline in the EA), and will contribute to species extinctions if destroyed - and is not justified to provided for an out-of-date industry which needs to be rapidly phased out.

The 312ha project site includes 91ha of valuable native vegetation and 24ha of open water habitat. The project site is home to 18.8ha of saltmarsh (an endangered ecological community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (TSC)), 28.9ha of mangrove and 27.3ha of freshwater wetland, 4ha of which are listed as an endangered community under the TSC Act.

Loss 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).

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 of deep pond and its proximity to the RAMSAR listed wetland.

Offsets cannot hope to compensate for loss of habit at the site. The proposed offset site at Ellalong has already been identified as critical for conservation in its own right. Furthermore, the offset site fails to compensate for the loss of Deep Pond because it is over 50km away from Kooragang Island. Deep Pond is critical because it provides key foraging and roosting habitat due to its 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, three of which are listed as threatened under the TSC Act.

Because of the valuable habitat that Deep Pond provides to numerous threatened and protected species and its critical function to the nearby RAMSAR listed wetlands, Deep Pond should be protected and its management should be coordinated with the ongoing conservation efforts in the Hunter Estuary.


Land use and economic planning for Newcastle and its Port
The conversion of Kooragang Island and the Port of Newcastle into a massive coal dump is already shocking in its extent. The T4 proposal is a bridge too far and is out of step with what modern development should look like as we move toward a low-carbon economy. We stand to be left with stranded assets as the world moves away from the use coal.

The aspirations of Newcastle people for the future direction of their port have not been assessed. There is no port plan, no regional plan and no economic futures plan. The local negative impacts by coal on other sectors such as the fishing industry and national impacts on other sectors such as manufacturing, tourism, education export by forcing a high dollar are unacceptable.

`Obligation to build' premise not substantiated
In the EA, it is claimed that there is an `obligation' for Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) to build T4 under the Capacity Framework Arrangements (CFA), (agreed between PWCS, Newcastle Coal Industry Group (NCIG) and the Newcastle Port Corporation (NPC), and approved under the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in December 2009).

However, the triggering condition for expansion under the CFA ie. Capacity shortfall, is not substantiated in the EA. In fact, no clear evidence has been provided that contracted allocations currently exceed, or will exceed existing capacity.

Coal industry impacts - enough is enough
"The Hunter Valley Coal Chain is the largest coal export chain in the world and currently consists of 37 coal mines owned by 16 coal producers". This is stated like it's a good thing. It isn't.

Is the Hunter Valley Coal Chain not too large already? What is the goal in terms of long-vision planning for the City of Newcastle, the Hunter Valley and indeed NSW? How much Hunter land must be excavated? How much estuary habitat destroyed? How many tonnes of carbon emissions exported? How many people made unwell?

And how many years before the work of building a truly sustainable, renewable energy economy begins?

I do not accept the extractive industries vision of arrested development and believe the NSW Department of Planning is currently failing the people of NSW by not pro-actively facilitating modern development for a sustainable future.

This ilk of development locks our society into last-century's technologies, and hampers progress toward new technologies and economic base.

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.

When completed, T4 would facilitate the development of at least 15 more large coalmines in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool plains.

The costs of more mining to the State include: greenhouse 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 would like more time to review the extensive yet inadequate EA however as a community member i have not had the time to do this.

Once again i object to the T4 proposal and look forward to receipt of this submission.

I believe that there are already a significantly high number of coal particulates in the atmosphere and there are regularly gaseous smells from the existing coal loading precinct infiltrating the CBD of Newcastle that I believe are hazardous to the health of the inhabitants of Newcastle. This is why I think the Construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Kooragang Island comprising of rail infrastructure and coal receival, stockyard, conveyor system, wharves, berths and ancillary facilities should not go ahead.

I strongly object to the proposed 4th coal export Terminal in Newcastle. Enough damage is being done to the environment, we do not need more mining. This is unsustainable. Please stop this nonsense! Save our water, our land, our birds. We do not wish an increased impact of noise and dust on various communities. You would never accept this for yourself if you lived in those places. Australia needs to become a clever country instead of destroying its own beautiful environment by digging it up to cater for the surpopulation and overconsumption of our planet.
Don't build a new monstrous Coal Export Terminal!

Please accept my attached submission, I've been having trouble finding the right email address.

Ian Moore

- 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

Please find attached my submission for the 4th coal Terminal.

Robyn Moore

I object to a 4th coal terminal at Newcastle - environmental impact unacceptable and providing acess for more dispersal of coal to overseas when the Gov hasnt addressed the issues already outstanding in regards to the increased coal production impact on agriculture, towns and people .
No No No I dont support any further support of the coal industry until a democratic balance has been established between ALL involved people.

This new coal terminal will mean more noise and dust affecting my family in our home near the train line. It will also double the greenhouse pollution impact of the coal exported from NSW.
I am very concerned about the precious fertile lands of the Liverpool Plains being destroyed to make way for more mines to feed another unecessary coal loader.

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

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

Air pollution, lung problems, highest rates of asthma in state, destruction of wildlife habitats, no extra jobs, toxic sediment stirred up