Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

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

Not happy bout this proposal

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

My family and I strongly object to the new coal loader.
we are increasingly concerned about the amount of coal being exported without seriously weighing up the effects of its use and the long term impact on the land being mined

we will not need more coal, because albeit slowly we are moving to renewables.....

and think about the lungs of the children in the Hunter..,, shame on you..

we will not need more coal, because albeit slowly we are moving to renewables.....

and think about the lungs of the children in the Hunter..,, shame on you..

Objections to the Fourth Coal Terminal proposal

I totally oppose construction of a fourth coal terminal in Newcastle - or expansion of any of the present ones - for at least several decades.

My prime objection is an economic one.
I can see several possible futures:

1 The present concerns about atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change turn out to be exaggerated.
If this turns out to be the case, as indeed I hope, then there will be long term future demand for coal, including Hunter coal, and prices will escalate dramatically as demands start to outstrip world supply. The Hunter will become a gold mine for our descendants. Moreover the employment benefits will be greater if spread over a longer period rather than in the go-halt fashion that would occur if extraction would proceed post haste now. Under this future scenario there is no chance that demand for coal will cease completely, and hence any remaining unmined coal `wasted', as coal will always be a valuable raw material for the petrochemical industry.

2 If, on the other hand, carbon dioxide levels do continue to rise with dramatic climate change and sea- level rise in its wake, then future economic costs will vastly outweigh any present benefits and we will justly deserve the opprobrium that our descendants will heap on us for not doing the obvious, and prudently minimising CO2 emissions till our picture of the future became clearer. And that picture will surely be very much clearer in 20 years or so.

Under neither of the above scenarios would there be the remotest risk resulting from waiting, that is from deferring the fourth coal terminal for decades. No harm will come to the coal while it quietly lies underground for millenia

I add that deferment would also result in a more appealing and probably healthier environment for Newcastle in terms of dust and noise both from operations and delivery systems along rail and truck routes.

Bob Berghout

I object to the proposal as it will expand coal mining at a time of global warming. We should stop fossil fuels and move to renewable energy sources.
The area is owned by National Parks and migratory bird species listed under international conservation conventions will lose their habitat.

The cost to the environment, peoples health, disturbance with added noise from trains, etc, increased large traffic on the roads,the diminishing food growing areas, increased moonscapes replacing beautiful landcapes, PLEASE NO MORE COAL LOADERS.

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

The proposed coal loader construction will severely damage the habitat for migratory birds. But more importantly, the environmental cost is not worth it. More trains through Newcastle wil mean higher rates of asthma, there is an increased risk of mobilising toxic contaminants that would affect the residents of Newcastle. Also, by expanding such a facility, there will be more coal mines established that will further damage the water and rich agricultural land of the Hunter and Liverpool Plains.

To NSW Planning and Infrastructure Department,

I am of the understanding that the 4 th terminal will ultimatley have a negative impact on the environment and surrounding areas. Some of the points below highlight my concerns. I really find it hard to believe that we are not heading more seriously in the direction of Renewable Energy, and instead continue to prop up an outdated industry. Climate Change is looming heavily and seriously in the direction of humanity as we speak. Renewable Energy will help us move in the direction we need - A 4th Terminal will

*Facilitate the expansion of coal mining in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains and nearly double the export capacity of Newcastle.
*Double the dust and the noise for communities already affected by the coal trains in Newcastle and beyond.
*Destroy rare migratory bird habitat, endangered ecological communities and habitat for nationally threatened species.
*Double the greenhouse pollution impact of the coal exported from NSW.*Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
*Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality
*The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains, which 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.
*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.

Lets think long and serious about this. Lets make the changes wee need to. I am concerned by this proposal and seek you consideration.

As I resident of Mayfield, rate payer, mother, asthma sufferer, and concerned citizen, I strongly object to the Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 application on the basis of the following:
-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. As an individual with asthma and mother of child with astham, I am conscious that an decrease in the air quality (often visibly measurable by an increase of coal dust in and around my house as well as strong smells), will have an immediate impact on our respiratory health.
-Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This knowledge alone is enough to object to increasing the amount of coal in the Mayfield and Newcastle environs.
-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. This is not what I support!
-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. Enough information right here to reject PWCS' application!
-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.
My family are preparing to move if the PWCS T4 goes ahead. The potential effect on our physical and psychological health, the local and global social and environment implications, and our future wellbeing and security is not worth the risk.
In no way do I support this application. I call on the Federal, State and Local Governments to demonstrate their conviction to the community members of the Hunter and Australia that they are prepared to put the safety and health of the general public and the protection of the environment above economic rationalism and bullying tactics.

I strongly object to the proposed Terminal 4 development as I believe the negative impacts it will have on Newcastle's environment and it's people far outweigh any projected benefits.

Firstly, I object on the grounds of its impact on habitat, native species and migratory birds. its location, with its proximity to RAMSAR listed wetlands needs to be considered. The site itself contains important mangrove(28.9ha) and saltmarsh(18.8ha) areas. The value of these areas in environmental terms is well known and any loss of habitat for species dependent on these areas should be avoided at all costs. In particular,Deep Pond must be protected. It is the only freshwater drought refuge in the Lower Hunter Estuary system. At least 15 species of waterfowl, three of which are listed as threatened under the TSG Act, depend on this resource. In addition, eleven species of migratory birds also depend on this resource. Deep Pond needs to be protected because of its relationship to the nearby RAMSAR listed wetlands, as an important roosting and foraging area for birds dependent on the wetlands.
The project will destroy habitat for a number of threatened species including the Australian Bittern (Endangered, EBPC Act): it covers not only the saltmarsh and mangrove ares already mentioned, but 91ha of native vegetation. At a time when the importance of such habitat loss is common knowledge any project impacting on such a critical site as the Lower Hunter Estuary should be rejected unless it can be shown that it is necessary; for example, for purposes of national security. The Terminal 4 project is unnecessary, and is only proposed as a commercial enterprise to support the increased export of coal. there is therefore no justification whatsoever for building this project at this site.

Secondly, I object on the grounds of the damage that this project will do to the harbour and associated wetlands due to the impacts of the dredging required, pollution released in construction and to the increase in shipping within the port. A very large dredging operation will be needed to create a turning circle for large ships. It is proposed that dredging of the South Arm of the Hunter River will be needed to increase its depth from 2m to 4m to 16.2m to provide 17.8m shipping berths alongside both banks. The terminal 4 site itself is heavily contaminated, as is the harbour bed. The release of these pollutants from the dredging operation will endanger aquatic life in the harbour and adjacent wetlands and remove habitat. The impact of such deep incursions into the harbour bed may affect tidal flow and alter the Hunter River bed.
The Terminal 4 site is heavily contaminated. Any large construction on this site is likely to pollute the Hunter River and the adjacent wetlands due to the danger of pollutants leaching into groundwater and surface waters.
The envisaged increase in shipping will place a further environmental burden on the harbour due to the disturbance of contaminated sediment, release of blige water and anti fouling agents, as well as increased risk of introduced species carried by these ships.
The damage likely to result due to these impacts will in turn threaten the viability of the estuary as an important breeding habitat for fish, and impact on our fishing industry.

Thirdly, I object to the project on the grounds of air quality. The creation of a uncovered stockpiles for this large terminal, as well as increased rail transport of coal, again uncovered, presents an unacceptable health hazard to residents. The impacts of coal dust as a danger to human health have been understated by previous NSW governments. Any such project should address these impacts first. A comprehensive health and air quality study should be undertaken before any further consideration of this project in view of the possible effects it will have on the Newcastle community.

Fourthly, I object to the proposal because of the proposed increase in shipping will inhibit the development of our port as a tourist destination and a local recreational resource. Tourism as an industry presents a long term source of income for Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. The harbour is an essential component of this industry, and its development as a potential port of call for cruise ships, as well as a sightseeing port needs to be protected. Recreational activities including fishing and sightseeing tours will be further affected by increased coal shipments.

Lastly, I object strongly to this proposal as its only justification is to support an unprecedented expansion of coal mining in the Hunter Valley: the massive increase in mining currently underway is strongly opposed by residents of the Upper Hunter and Liverpool plains due to its unacceptable impacts on the environment and on human health. The huge expansion of coal mining envisaged for these regions will incur massive costs to the communites affected, but also to the people of NSW, in terms of green house gases generated, loss of habitat, loss of agricutural lands, visual impacts, damage to flora and fauna, air pollution and likely damage to surface water and grounwater, with potential damage to aquifers. There is no justification for this rush to exploit coal reserves. The upgrading of exiting terminals and the new Terminal 3 already allow for a large increase in coal exports.

In summary, I object very strongly to this proposal as its proposed benefits in no way justify the likely damage it will inflict of Newcastle, its harbour and adjacent RAMSAR listed wetlands. There is no need for this terminal. Its only purpose is to further the immediate commercial interests of the coal industry and, through royalties, the NSW government. The port of Newcastle is already the largest coal shipping port in the world, and the impacts of coal mining and transportation throughout the Hunter are currently causing distress and anxiety to residents. Any consideration of this proposal should be halted until there are comprehensive enquiries conducted into the likely health and environmental impacts of this project. Then, I submit, a lengthy period of public debate should be proposed, with all these findings on the table for Newcastle residents to consider. There is at present no reasonable justification for this project to proceed and I urge your Department to reject this proposal.

I am already appalled by the amount of atmospheric pollution caused by the first three coal loaders without there being a fourth to substantially increase the health hazards already caused to the people of Newcastle. This is without considering the environmental impact of the burning of the coal at power plants around the world, especially in China, in increasing the dangers of global warming. Ironically, some of the parts of Newcastle which will first be affected by the subsequent sea level rises will be Kooragang Island and Stockton.

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.
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.

This is a submission objecting to the proposed Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 development in Newcastle (10_0215). The T4 proposal must not be approved due to the significant and unacceptable impacts as detailed below.

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 previously 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.

IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH
The Environmental Assessment downplays the impact of the project on air quality. 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 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 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 4th terminal project would increase negative health impacts in the Hunter region. For this reason alone, the project should not be approved.


DREDGING AND WATER CONTAMINATION
There is no plan to fully remediate the heavily contaminated T4 site. The T4 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 of creating stagnant deep holes, altering currents, causing riverbed erosion and releasing pollutants that are 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 T4 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.

LOCAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
After construction, the T4 proposal will provide no additional long-term employment. Rather, the 22 extra coal ships per week that the T4 project will bring 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. 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. During the construction period, traffic congestion on roads is also likely to occur. The T4 project would also increase noise, light and dust pollution (mentioned in `Air Quality' above). Noise, vibrations and light pollution from on-site operations will occur 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. IMPACTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCREASED MINING The T4 project would facilitate the development of at least 15 more large coalmines in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool plains. The EA should consider the cumulative social and environmental impacts of these mines. 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.

Sincerely,

To whom It May Concern,
This is a submission objecting to the proposed Port Waratah Coal Services Terminal 4 development in Newcastle (10_0215). The T4 proposal must not be approved due to the significant and unacceptable impacts as detailed below.

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 previously 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.

IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH
The Environmental Assessment downplays the impact of the project on air quality. 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 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 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 4th terminal project would increase negative health impacts in the Hunter region. For this reason alone, the project should not be approved.

This point is of particular importance to my family and I as our house backs on to the railway. We currently see a lot of trains pass our house and we are worried about the impact of more. We play outside everyday, grow vegetables and have tank water. Every day we are breathing in the diesel and coal dust from these trains with no idea abot what the long term effects will be on our health. it is unacceptable for people in Australia to be living like this.


DREDGING AND WATER CONTAMINATION
There is no plan to fully remediate the heavily contaminated T4 site. The T4 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 of creating stagnant deep holes, altering currents, causing riverbed erosion and releasing pollutants that are 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 T4 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.

LOCAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
After construction, the T4 proposal will provide no additional long-term employment. Rather, the 22 extra coal ships per week that the T4 project will bring 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. 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. During the construction period, traffic congestion on roads is also likely to occur. The T4 project would also increase noise, light and dust pollution (mentioned in `Air Quality' above). Noise, vibrations and light pollution from on-site operations will occur 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. IMPACTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND INCREASED MINING The T4 project would facilitate the development of at least 15 more large coalmines in the Hunter Valley and Liverpool plains. The EA should consider the cumulative social and environmental impacts of these mines. 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.

Sincerely,
Tracey McHugh

I object to the 4th coal terminal on the basis that Autralia has a responsiblity to not export increasing amounts of coal. on the grounds that it is morally wrong to think the world can aford increasing burning of coal . Like a drug dealer is morally wrong in suppling drug addicts. The 4th terminal is all about increasing the rate of coal usage globally.

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