Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

I support t4

I beleive in the economic benefits this project will bring to the Hunter and the security of jobs for the region.

* I believe the project will provide significant economic benefit to Newcastle, the Hunter region and NSW by generating local employment and business opportunity during construction of the Terminal and during future operations.
* I believe that PWCS has designed T4 to contain "state of the art" dust and noise mitigation measures, which is supported by appropriate modelling predicting cumulative levels of dust and noise as a result of T4 to remain within Government guidelines for health and amenity.
* Construction of the T4 terminal provides a significant opportunity for the private sector to fund the capping and containment of contaminants within the proposed T4 site. Without private sector funding such as that from PWCS' T4 project, the accountability for capping and containment of contaminants rests with the NSW State Government.
* I have a great deal of confidence and trust in PWCS as they have proven to be a responsible developer, operator and active member of the community in Newcastle as history shows. PWCS has been operating and expanding their business in Newcastle for over 30 years contributing greatly to the local economy. The opportunity they provide as a large employer for training and jobs for young people and security for families cannot be understated.
* The coal industry has historically made a significant contribution to the economic development of the Hunter, NSW and Australia. Approval of the T4 project continues that history and allows us to accommodate future growth in coal export from Newcastle according to resource demand.

I make the following observations:
* PWCS has apparently made a reasonable attempt to ensure that the population of the Green and Golden Bell Frog (GGBF), which is spread across the Kooragang/ Ash island areas, will be conserved.

PWCS has considered relevant aspects of GGBF biology, engaged appropriate `experts' to assist, carried out works aimed to mitigate any effects of development, planned further works, funded research, and purchased an area containing part of an existing GGBF population as an `offset' for impacts on the Kooragang/ Ash population. These are all steps in the right direction, at least as far as the frogs are concerned.

* It is, however, unclear whether the proposed works have adopted `best practice' in terms of habitat for the GGBF.

Habitat requirements for the GGBF are described, somewhat vaguely, in many places. Nowhere, however, is the issue of `best practice' habitat design addressed. Currently adopted guidelines are inadequate and out-of-date.

The documents accurately point out that the GGBF sometimes occurs within areas that are essentially human-made. However, the inference from this that it should be easy to engineer suitable habitat for the GGBF is false. There is ample evidence that we have not yet worked out what `recipes' to use when developing GGBF habitat. Furthermore, even at sites where there has been significant success in terms of creating GGBF habitat, such as Sydney Olympic Park, the proportion of `successful' ponds is low.

Missing from the documentation were scientifically-based assessments carried out by appropriate scientists. Presumably, such assessments exist, probably commissioned by PWCS and other agencies.

* The confidence, expressed in the documents, regarding the likely success of habitat creation works at Koorangang/ Ash island for the benefit of the GGBF, is unjustified.

All available evidence suggests, to me at least, that the prospects for long-term survival of the Kooragang/Ash island population are poor. It's a case of `death by a thousand cuts'.

The GGBF population requires management at a population-level, integrated across all the various agencies controlling development on a number of separate (but nearby &/or contiguous) areas. There is little evidence of this occurring.

There has been no evaluation of the viability of the Kooragang/ Ash island population of the GGBF, nor how this viability is likely to be affected by the T4 project, on its own and in concert with all the other current, pending and possible development. Such `population viability analyses' are difficult and uncertain, especially for frogs, but without any attempt to perform such an analysis, all we are left with is a lot of `arm waving' argument and much `proof by assertion'. The T4 documentation contains plenty such.

* The likely fate of the Kooragang/ Ash island population of the GGBF would be improved if the following were implemented:
- Integration of activities by all relevant and associated agencies across the entire area, and hence across the whole population;
- Population viability analysis for the entire population, coupled with priority given to steps considered most likely to promote overall viability of the population
- Analyse & review results of as many as possible of the various similar attempts to develop etc GGBF habitat and hence determine `best practice' guidelines for maintenance, enhancement and creation of GGBF habitat.

I am an employee of PWCS (and involved in the T4 project) however I am also a Newcastle resident with family, many friends and contacts throughout the entire city including in the residential areas closest to the T4 site. As such I feel my opinion is just as relevant as anyone else's.
I wish to support the proposed T4 project for the following reasons:
* The site is very well suited for industrial use and as a coal terminal. It is located within an industrial precinct with harbour access, and is serviced by an existing rail network from the Hunter Valley mines.
* The T4 project will save the NSW taxpayer millions of dollars by capping the site using private investment. The site is predominantly a toxic waste site with little current value. The well engineered design will ensure contaminants are managed and contained on site.
* The environmental offsets are considerable and address all the key ecological impacts arising from the T4 project. Very few proponents have invested as much as PWCS into ecological offsets.
* Air quality in Newcastle is good and the T4 project is projected to increase this by a small margin, with levels to be within current NSW Government standards. The dust mitigation measures proposed are leading best practice.
* The impacts will only be realised when demand requires T4, and given the historic cyclic demands for coal exports (which have increased over time) any arguments about demand and justification for the project are a moot point.
* Given the very long lead times in obtaining environmental approvals, granting approval for T4 now (despite current demands) makes very good sense.
* The project will provide considerable investment into the Newcastle, Hunter and wider economies.
* Like many I am concerned with global warming and human induced climate change however currently there are few reliable cost effective energy alternatives and with the world's population growing, I do believe everyone has a right to an improved standard of living. Curtailing exports through Newcastle and not approving T4 will only ensure Newcastle misses out on any future opportunity.
For these reasons I support the T4 project.

I firmly object to this project.

I live in Newcastle and am already feeling the impacts of coal dust in my home. I have suffered more respiratory illness since moving here four years ago. It's a fantastic community, but with all the pollution I worry about bringing up a family here. I do not think it is acceptable to approve a project that will facilitate further coal dust in the region.

I am also very concerned about the increasing impacts of climate change taking place both locally in the Hunter with recent bushfires and floods, and the international disasters that are being fueled by increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emissions that will be facilitated by the T4 project are large and arguably unacceptable. The project should be rejected on the grounds of its greenhouse contribution.

The coal industry and the NSW Government should be looking for ways to transition its capital into renewable energy developments to provide sustainable industries and employment into the future.

I believe that the negative community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Sincerely,

Naomi Hogan

I wish to support the current T4 Terminal proposal by PWCS as outlined in the Preferred Project Report.
Specifically, the reasons for my support include:
* The project will continue to allow the coal industry, and specifically, the export port facilities of Newcastle, to contribute to the region's, State's and nation's economic strength and resilience.
* the proposal will assist the economic efficiency of the coal industry as it endeavours to resist the headwinds of fierce international competition and volatile commodity prices (including currency exchange factors)
* Significant local employment will arise during construction
and operations
* The project proposal demonstrates appropriate environmental and social management initiatives, including biodiversity offsets; dust, noise and other emission controls; and managing social/community interests.
* The project will facilitate private (rather than Govt/public)funding for capping and containment of potential contaminants at the T4 site.

I strongly object to this project as I believe that the claimed short-term benefits are not worth the community health, environmental and socio-economic adverse impacts that it will cause.
The contribution to global warming that the project will create via the burning of an extra 70Mt of coal a year; this will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, when we know that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016. We should not be counting on ignoring this advice at our peril.
Ecologically, it will drastically reduce waterbird habitat for threatened and migratory species. Swan Pond in particular is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service and part of a 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. This should not be ignored or reversed.
Healthwise, Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are already impacted by particulate matter 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, and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.
Despite NSW Health's suggestion 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.
Nor does it address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley or the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m , as was recommended.
There is no need or justification for the project especially given a major downturn in global coal demand. This is most so for thermal coal, which is the Hunter's main product. New coalmines and coal power are not good economic prospects, nor jobs based on them.
Economically, the original assessment of the T4 project suggests its annual operating costs will only be between $45-50 million a year. Since that assessment was made, the size of the project has "almost halved", so the amount of money it will "inject" into the economy has presumably declined considerably.
This project is not only pointless but damaging on many levels and should be rejected.

I am an employee of PWCS and fully support the construction and operation of a coal export terminal at Kooragang Island. PWCS employs over 400 people and makes a significant contribution to the local community. PWCS also supports many community organisations which otherwise would have little or no funding. The construction and operation of T4 is important to ensure that PWCS continues to support over 400 employees, their families and the local community.

To Whom It May Concern.

I am writing to register my support for the Terminal 4 Project submitted by Port Waratah Coal Services. I have been living in the Hunter Valley for six years and in Newcastle for one year. Both my partner and I are employed in coal-related industries and separately moved here after university to pursue employment opportunities in the mining industry. Although we love living in the Hunter Valley, it is likely that without the mining industry, we would have to move elsewhere to seek employment - something we have seen many of our young, professional friends do in the last 18 months.

Context is everything, and in the context of the 50 per cent youth unemployment in Spain, millions of people displace in Syria and air pollution so bad that you cannot see three metres in front of you in Shanghai - Terminal 4 is as good as it gets on the global and local scale.

I believe there will be numerous submission for and against in regards to the environmental factors and will only touch on them briefly. I have examined the modelling for dust produced by the Terminal 4 Project and I am not concerned by the dust levels and am confident they will remain within government standards - and these standards are adequate. Newcastle has some of the best air quality in the world and the fear-mongering raised by minority groups is not justified and out context. While arguments are raised about `there is no safe level of PM2.5', no context is provided that sea salt, a natural source, is a greater contributor than industrial sources in Newcastle. We best start rationing our trips to the beach if the nay-sayers are correct. No commentary is provided to the health benefits of economic investment and employment.

I believe context must also be given to the ecological issues around the site. Yes, endangered habitats will be impacted, but they are living in contaminated waste site - a far greater threat to broader ecosystem is if the site is not managed and the contaminants leach into the wetlands and Hunter River. Something the government has neglected to do for over 10 years now. Port Waratah has committed to a substantial ecological package - the Tomago site alone will leave Newcastle with a more positive ecological assets then it has now in the T4 site.

I also take issue to the arguments against the Project about trying to shut down the Hunter Valley Coal Industry in the name of climate change. I believe that one day coal will become obsolete; however this transition will be gradual. The Hunter Valley exports a small fraction of overall global production, if we stop production China and Indonesia and other countries of the world will roar on. Why would we start this transition by closing the safest, cleanest (in terms of quality of coal), most environmentally regulated coal chain in the world?

Lastly, I would like address the fact that the Terminal 4 approval is very symbolic in terms of the confidence and future of the coal chain and NSW. To say no is saying `no' to future investment and growth in the Hunter. Due to a variety of factors, investment in the Hunter Valley is precarious. If following a merit based assessment process, Terminal 4 should be approved - the benefits far outweigh the impacts. To not approve would send a signal that NSW and the Hunter `are closed for business'. While the NSW Government for many decades have elected not to invest in the Hunter, I request that you do not stop us from having private investment generate the jobs and opportunities so desperately needed in NSW second largest city.

My family and I are supports of people and communities - sustainability need to balance the environmental, economic and social. If we only consider the environmental, we will not have any community or society to save. As a person who lives, works, pays taxes and participates in the local community I would like to reiterate that these `community groups against coal' do not speak for me and my family and humbly ask that you consider the whole of community - not just small, vocal groups when making this decision.

I believe in supporting a working harbour that provides immediate construction employment and ongoing maintenance employment. Filling our harbour front with units and restaurants that no-one can afford - as there is a massive downturn in employment in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley is not the path forward. The vast majority of contract industrial trades people have now had to leave their homes and families to seek employment (mainly fly in/out) either in WA or QLD. These state governments are showing strength in approving further expansion of projects such as Abbotts Point and Curtis Island whilst balancing environmental and social effects. Here's hoping NSW can follow this strong lead.

Essential revenue for the state of NSW and Australia and ensures our living standards. Australia is a small supplier and user of coal in world terms. China consumes 8.6 Bill Tonnes per annum and is not a major coal customer. Newcastle will export approx 140 (?) Mill Tonnes this year mostly to Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

We need to be practical and understand Australia's lifestyle depends on the revenue of resources. Farmers, miners and communities need to work together for the benefit of all. Qld is showing how it can be done. People are dreaming if they think we can supply base load power from wind and solar. We will get there is terms of 'green' power but it is not here today.

I support the ongoing investment in our region's coal industry. The sustainability and growth of our local industry and businesses is key to the prosperity of our region, our state and our country.

The sustainability and growth of jobs, both on the development projects and the ongoing long term employment that will be generated as a result of these developments, is of critical importance.

The money spent by this industry has an economic flow on that creates wealth across our region, state and our country. Every dollar spent multiplies in our economy, benefiting all Australians.

The revenue, in terms of export dollars, assists our country's balance of trade. Revenues from taxes, duties and tariffs flow into all levels of Government, which is then reinvested by Government spend and investment.

At a time when Government is reducing its expenditure on infrastructure in the Hunter Region, the reliance on the private sector Investment is even more critical.

Again, I state that I fully support the ongoing investment in our coal industry, and specifically support the development approval of the expansion of our coal export infrastructure proposed by Port Waratah Coal Services Ltd.

The coal terminal & mining operations go hand in hand and are the life blood of the hunter and NSW

To Whom it May Concern;

RE: Letter of Support for PWCS' Proposed Terminal 4 Project

I understand that PWCS' Preferred Project Report (PPR) is currently on public exhibition. I am a close resident to Newcastle Harbour and broadly support the expansion of operations within the Port of Newcastle. I am writing to express my support for PWCS' proposal to construct and operate a fourth export coal terminal (T4) on Kooragang Island.

I feel that the project will deliver economic benefits to Newcastle and the Hunter Valley by generating opportunities for local employment, through both periods of construction and future operation.

I expect that the additional export capacity that T4 delivers will provide for the expansion of revenue for NSW by generating capacity to increase royalties from the sale of coal. Additionally I feel that the approval of the T4 will improve the standing of Newcastle Port as a marketable asset for the NSW Government.

I believe that operations within Newcastle Harbour should be developed and diversified. My view is that T4 will provide a catalyst for further investment in supporting infrastructure, specifically heavy rail, to promote the Port of Newcastle as an attractive option for further diversification.

Furthermore, I see the T4 development as an obvious opportunity to have private sector fund substantial improvements to Port of Newcastle, principally through the capping and containment of contaminants within the proposed site and, the construction of a swing basin in the south arm of the river. All options for private sector funding of improvements within the port should be thoroughly explored.

Finally, my experience of PWCS is that they are a responsible and active community member. I have been employed by PWCS since April 2010; I have always been impressed by PWCS' commitment to safety and environmental concerns. I feel that PWCS will construct and operate T4 with full regard to minimising any impact on the surrounding environment and their neighbours.

Yours faithfully,
Andrew Maher

Whilst I understand and can relate to the local community concerns around the T4 construction and operation, I believe that infrastructure like this is critical to the ongoing security of Newcastle nd the Hunter Valley.

The submission demonstrates environmental and community sensitivity, and I believe that Port Waratah can continue to operate in a sustainable manner, that will provide employment and revenue for the area in years to come.

PWCS bring in much needed cash flow to our community, not to mention the support they give to many local groups/charities.
The negative domino effect that would impact on not only Newcastle but a great deal of the Hunter Valley is immeasurable should they not be able to expand and operate. Job stability, social infrastructure, schools, incomes directly and indirectly would all jeopardised.

i support growth in the region

I support growth in hunter region