Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

I fully support the approval of the Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 project. PWCS have completed a comprehensive submission and have addressed all aspects and impacts of the project. The proposed location is an ideal use of a brownfield site amongst similar industrial operations and will provide much needed economic and employment benefits for the city of Newcastle and the surrounding region.

I support the PWCS Terminal expansion, its good for Newcastle Good for the state, Good for the country and will create good quality jobs for the Hunter region.

I support the development of the T4 Coal Terminal on Kooragang Island, Newcastle by PWCS. The Project will provide significant employment benefits during the construction and on-going operations to the people of Newcastle, the Hunter and more broadly across NSW and Australia.
The proposed location of the site and the associated environmental controls nominated are industry leading. The overall effects on the community and environment are appropriately addressed.
PWCS have proven to be an excellent business within the Newcastle region, providing strong and stable employment for local people. PWCS also provide support to many community organizations and charities within the Hunter Region.

A good way to make an environmental plus from a historically toxic dumping ground while bringing an economical bonus to Newcaslte.

I don't see anyone with $100M and a better idea for fixing the decades of neglect at Koragang Island. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue for the sake of the river's health. This project turns a contaminated waste dump into a useful piece of infrastructure, while dealing with the effects of past industrial mismanagement.

The T4 project should proceed based on its benefits to Newcastle in particular and the rest of NSW in general. It would convert a known waste dump area into safe and useable land while providing benefits in jobs and flow on effects to the whole state.
Everybody wants the government to provide infrastructure and services but the governemnt has to earn money first and T4 would be a big export earner. As long as the environmental and community issues are sensibly addressed the project should have very positive outcomes.
Let's remember what made Australia great and get on with it.

I would like to express my opposition to the T4 project.

The reasons why i oppose the development are as follows:

The proposed location for the T4 is home to a huge and diverse range of native plants, animals, and most importantly over 100 species of water birds - some of which are listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Due to extensive habitat destruction and disturbance the populations of these migratory birds and other native animals are in decline. This development will destroy a huge portion of 'deep pond' habitat which supports significant bird species. This sensitive and rare habitat supports at least 11 species of migratory birds which are considered at risk. Newcastle's delicate environmental ecosystems are already under huge strain from a whole host of other factors and will suffer greatly from the T4 development.

It is clear that climate change is a serious problem as more and more data comes to light regarding the changes in our climate. The idea of increasing carbon emissions is short-sighted and unsustainable. The effects of climate change are clearly seen all around the globe, and already is the cause of huge amounts of coral bleaching, population displacement and increases in extreme weather.

The site at Kooragang is part of the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project, and has been a success due to thousands of hours of volunteer hard work, who have worked to rehabilitate and protect it's delicate ecosystems. Is it really fair to destroy the ecosystems which have been protected though such hard dedication by the newcastle community?

Residents in Newcastle are fed up with the poor air quality due to coal mining and the transportation of coal. The community is strongly opposed to it, and the effects to public health are clear - to the point where the community has commissioned independent air quality studies which have shown that air quality standards are regularly being breached.

There is no need for T4. It will have significant impacts, causing damage to wetland ecosystems, impact air quality, public health, particle pollution, and climate change.

I object to the mining, transportation, sale and use of coal.
I object to the creation of more terminals, services and facilities that use and transport coal.
I object to the subsidisation of dirty fossil fuels.
I believe the future world our children will inherit should be free from the pollution and consequences of using fossil fuel.

I believe in divesting wealth, research and development into future, clean and safe technologies that will create a healthier and environmentally-friendly world.

Please reconsider.

Coal is not the answer nor the future.

I am making this submission for future generations.

I am a citizen not just a consumer.

To: Karen Jones, Planning
[email protected]
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=4399

Re: T4 Preferred Project Report

Request an extension for the exhibition period. At least six more weeks.

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.

The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Deep and Swan Ponds: The Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population.

Misuse of public conservation lands: Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project, the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) and has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.

Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.

Air quality modelling flaws: PWCS's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWCS should have included "a justification for assuming the PM10 levels in 2010 would be a realistic baseline for modelling future particulate levels or alternatively use, as a baseline, average levels over a longer period of time". This recommendation is ignored in the PPR.

Particle pollution from rail transport: The PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. PWCS continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor, but there are almost 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered, but this recommendation is ignored.

Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.

Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring these remarks to your attention.

Yours sincerely,
Robert E. Rutkowski

2527 Faxon Court
Topeka, Kansas 66605-2086
P/F: 1 785 379-9671
E-mail: [email protected]

I object to the proposed Coal Loader No. 4 being built.

The proposed loader is completely out of step with what the local community wants and is environmentally unsustainable on a local, state and national level.

As a Newcastle resident I also object to this region being further exploited in order to facilitate coal exports.

No more coal loaders for Newcastle!

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.

The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Deep and Swan Ponds: The Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population.

Misuse of public conservation lands: Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project, the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) and has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.

Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.

Air quality modelling flaws: PWCS's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWCS should have included "a justification for assuming the PM10 levels in 2010 would be a realistic baseline for modelling future particulate levels or alternatively use, as a baseline, average levels over a longer period of time". This recommendation is ignored in the PPR.

Particle pollution from rail transport: The PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. PWCS continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor, but there are almost 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered, but this recommendation is ignored.

Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.

Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:

Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.
The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Deep and Swan Ponds: The Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population.
Misuse of public conservation lands: Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project, the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) and has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.
Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.
Air quality modelling flaws: PWCS's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWCS should have included "a justification for assuming the PM10 levels in 2010 would be a realistic baseline for modelling future particulate levels or alternatively use, as a baseline, average levels over a longer period of time". This recommendation is ignored in the PPR.
Particle pollution from rail transport: The PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. PWCS continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor, but there are almost 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered, but this recommendation is ignored.
Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.
Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.

The wealth and future of Newcastle lies in our ports ability to maintain high export. Get on board I support the building of T4.

I fully support Port Waratah Coal Services proposed expansion "T4". This proposed expansion is a commitment to the wider Newcastle community. Port Waratah Coal Services are a very proactive company caring for the Environment and neighbouring residents. Approval of this expansion will enable many to gain employment and benefit the many businesses associated with the explansion.

I support it

I am a big supporter of this proposal. Contrary to many opinions and comments a fourth loader would bring more jobs - permanent and ancillary - as well as boost the local economy. In a time when the nation is struggling I believe it is important that we support these types of projects to help develop and stimulate the local and national economy.
Newcastle and Australia are not ready to step away from strong mining growth so it should be supported - the overall contributions to global warming for this kind of development is negligible, and yet going forward with it would make such a positive difference to the hunter region.

There is no way some of the suggested 'industries' in the hunter such as vineyards, agricultural farming and tourism could possibly provide the scale of jobs mining does and any loss of mining related employment will result in a declining population, a lack of local skills, and eventually a profound effect on all Newcastle and hunter based businesses and services, and at the end of the day we all work in the hunter.
If you believe that financial, hospitality, consulting and medical/teaching services can survive at the current size without the input of mining employees you are kidding yourselves.
The coal loader does much more than hundreds of other companies to work with the community and positively contribute. Their commitment and response to community demands as well as noise and dust reduction programs is unmatched in the industry. For the benefits of regional growth, improved local infrastructure, increased spending in the local economy, jobs and the committed improvements and contributions to the local environment in the offset nature reserves, I support this proposal.

The project will secure Newcastle future with job security and economical development. Kooragang Island already have two terminals. T4 is best suited at the location with utilization of common facilities.

Dear Ms Newman,

I object to the PWCS Terminal 4 proposal in the strongest terms due to the adverse consequences for my health and the loss of natural environments which I enjoy.
My objections are:

* Air pollution
I live on the rail corridor and any increase in traffic will adversely affect my future health.
Air quality studies by PWCS have been inadequate to assess impacts of current practices
on adjacent communities, let alone any expansions.
The upper hunter already has the worst air quality in the state. With the proposed
10 mega-mines, much of the Singleton/Muswelbrook area will be unlivable.
My friends from Mayfield already constantly have black dust constantly settling
on everything which is left outside. With T4, this will increase significantly.
Any approval would have to force coal wagons to be covered, force tough new dust
measures at mine/port, and to force the creation of a hefty compensation fund available
to respiratory disease sufferers in the area, which would be paid for by a levy on
each coal wagon passing through the port.

* No need for expansion
The current parts of the port are not operating even near their capacity, and, given that
coal mines across Australia are cutting staff and production dramatically, there is no
valid economic reason for an approval to be granted at this time.
Since the role of the government is to weigh up the interests of all stakeholders, this
point means that PWCS interests can be largely discounted for the near future.

* Climate change:
The carbon dioxide output of T4 would be more than twice the total pollution of all
vehicles in Australia. This is completely unacceptable due to the terrible long term
consequences for the viability of living in Australia.
This is probably not a concern of the current state government as any economic
impacts are in the future, and those making the decisions will be out of government,
however our children will think of this era and curse those who made such decisions.

* Impact on wildlife
I visit Kooragang wetland fairly regularly, and the expansion would remove a significant
amount of waterbird habitat, and consequently have a large impact on at
least 11 species that use the area.
Some of this is public land which rehabilitated with much effort, and should
not be ceded to a private company.

Regards,

Evan Hunter

I am in full support of this project as it will help the local economy and provide good job opportunities for many people. I have no doubt that PWCS will effectively manage all environmental issues that may arise.

This is a great opportunity for Newcastle. In an uncertain economic climate, PWCS is continuing to strive forward and provide employment opportunities for a vast number of employees, contractors and service providers. I have no doubt that PWCS will manage any environmental issues that present themselves during this process.