Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

The benefits of any development to the community in general must be considered and evaluated in conjunction to any costs to specific sectors of the community.

To see people without work losing their homes and living in poverty or unsafe circumstances is a serious comparison to someone with a lesser disadvantage due to the development being considered.

We must pay a high degree of respect to the economic and social needs of the broad community and to this end we must accept change and development subject to our usual checks and balances that are already in place

I am in full support of the proposed expansion.

Aust.Coal Alliance (Wyong) has consistently opposed a new T4 Terminal at Newcastle based on the fact that coal itself, whilst sustaining a peak in Newcastle will suffer a large decline as a resource in the world in the neare future. There is currently a downturn in the industry therefore allowing current and immediate increases in production and export to be shipped from port using current infrastructure. We say that it would be economic folly to build another terminal due to an uncertain climate. The true economics that exposes the downside of further coal stockpiling and movement in the port is the effect upon the local inhabitants. Governments and corporations continue to minimise and marginalise efforts by local community organisations and medical research that oftem shows up dramatic peaks in coal dust emanation from stockpiles or train movements. Human health continues to be regarded as marginal in the equation put forward by proponents of T4.. Wallartah 2 mine for instance m inimises any projected problems of coal dusty from train movements between Wyong and the Port of Newcastle.The impact on subur bs along this line have not been adequately debated. We oppose T4 being rushed along and would prefer a longer, more embracing study being held, bringing in all of affected suburbs etc. Please delay a decision on T4 to allow broader community participation.

I fully support the T4 project. It will be good for Newcastle and secure long term employment and growth.

I SUPPORT IT

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001


Dear Sir,
Re: Letter of Support for PWCS' Proposed Terminal 4 Project
I understand PWCS' Preferred Project Report (PPR) for the proposed Terminal 4 (T4) is currently on public exhibition. Accordingly, I wish to submit my support for the project for the following reasons:
* 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.
* PWCS has delivered a significant biodiversity offset package (approximately 850 ha) with land secured at Tomago, Ellalong and Brundee, as well as investing in captive breeding and research programs for the Green and Golden Bell Frog. The committed offset initiatives more than adequately offset the environmental impact on the T4 site as a result of construction of the terminal.
* 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.
Yours faithfully

Signed: Neil Hutchinson
Date: 21/11/2013

I understand PWCS' Preferred Project Report (PPR) for the proposed Terminal 4 (T4) is currently on public exhibition. Accordingly, I wish to submit my support for the project for the following reasons:
* 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.
* PWCS has delivered a significant biodiversity offset package (approximately 850 ha) with land secured at Tomago, Ellalong and Brundee, as well as investing in captive breeding and research programs for the Green and Golden Bell Frog. The committed offset initiatives more than adequately offset the environmental impact on the T4 site as a result of construction of the terminal.
* 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.

The coal industry (from the face to the ships) can operate to the required compliance guidelines while showing respect to near neighbours, land holders and environmental agencies. The Hunter Valley is the place I choose to live in and raise my family. Without a healthy, sustainable mining industry in the valley, miners, heavy industry support contractors and suppliers (along with 1000s of employees) will leave the area and work in other locations.

The proposed coal terminal and associated activities would cause particle pollution with unacceptable health impacts on people living near it and the railways serving it. It would have unacceptable impact on habitat and species in the Hunter estuary. Ground and surface water will be affected. No justification or explanation is given for the claims of additional employment arising from the project.

North East Forest Alliance
NEFA
HUNTER REGION
P.O. Box 9 Singleton NSW 2330
phone: 02- 6577 3105
email: [email protected]



The T4 Project: the Response to Submissions and Preferred Project Report.

We object to this T4 Project proceeding, principally because it will have a significant effect on global warming and climate chaos, and because of many other unacceptable impacts. We do not consider the Response to Submissions and Preferred Project Report (RS/PPR) adequately addresses the issues raised by submissions to the Environmental Assessment (EA).

Global Warming and the Climate Crisis.
It is totally irresponsible to be expanding the coal industry at such a time of climate crisis. The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add about 174Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which is 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. If we are to contribute to the global effort to reduce emissions, we must immediately begin the process of rapidly phasing out reliance on coal. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016,[1] at least a year before PWCS indicates T4 will begin operation.

The Hunter Estuary Wetlands.
T4 is proposed to be built on the edge of the Hunter Estuary National Park, 18.5ha of which was removed from the Park to facilitate this project. The project will also develop lands held by OEH under Part 11 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which is supposed to be managed for conservation. This area includes Swan Pond. The Response to Submissions does not address the conflict and possible illegality of using lands owned and managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act for industrial development. We are aware that negotiations were underway to give or sell this land to the Port Corporation. No update on this process is provided. The Hunter estuary is an internationally recognised wetland protected by the Ramsar Convention[2]. The estuary is already heavily impacted by industry. The offset strategy proposed by PWCS cannot compensate for T4's proposed impacts.

Endangered Species:
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), green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea), listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and known to breed in the Ramsar site, and the estuary stingray (Dasyatis fluviorum), listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Important habitats that will be impacted by T4 include Deep pond, Railway pond, Bittern pond and Swan pond.

Deep Pond: The 23 hectare freshwater drought refuge 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, with 600 sharp-tailed sandpiper, 450 curlew sandpiper, and 270 marsh sandpiper recorded. T4 will destroy 80 per cent of Deep Pond.

Swan Pond: 2.3 hectares of Swan Pond will be destroyed by T4. Swan Pond also exceeds the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, including records of 1,482 sharp-tailed sandpiper 152 marsh sandpiper and 78 common greenshank. 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.

Offsets: T4 will destroy 28ha of habitat known to support a population of the Nationally threatened Australasian bittern. The PPR proposes a highly experimental proposal to build and create habitat for both the migratory shorebirds and Australasian bittern. Though creation of new habitat has been seen to work for Green and golden bell frogs, it is not known if this will succeed for the birds. It is crucial that no clearing or construction begins before this offset site is established, and shown to be used by the species concerned. SEWPaC (The Commonwealth environment department) state in their submission to the EA that avoidance and mitigation are the primary strategies for managing potential impacts of a proposed action and while offsets can help to achieve long term conservation outcomes, they are not intended to make proposals with unacceptable impacts acceptable.

The proposal to acquire habitat areas at Brundee (near Nowra) and Ellalong Lagoon (near Cessnock) does nothing to offset impacts on species occurring in the Hunter estuary and only serves to further degrade their status on a broader scale. The proposed Ellalong Lagoon offset area as proposed in the EA, is 40km from the project area & is recognised as providing different habitat attributes to those occurring in the project area. The proposed Brundee offset area is located approx. 250km from the project area so cannot contribute to the conservation of biodiversity values present in the Hunter estuary or offset impacts on them. The proposed Tomago offset area currently provides suitable wetland habitat attributes so it's acceptance as an offset area as a result of the T4 project will further contribute to the net loss of wetlands in the Hunter estuary, which is already recognised as significant. Any proposed species habitat restoration in offset areas, such as Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat creation in the proposed Tomago offset area, should be demonstrated to be effective before any impacts on existing habitat areas should be considered.

The reservation of suitable habitat for respective species elsewhere does nothing to protect these species or ecological communities in the Hunter region where they are significant in a local and regional ecological context and only contributes further to overall loss across the distribution range or extinction risk. The same principles apply to migratory shorebirds, Australasian Bittern, threatened aquatic bird species, endangered ecological communities, other species and the loss of habitat generally as a result of the T4 project.

Green and Golden Bell Frog: The T4 project area covers a significant proportion of the extant (existing) Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat in the Hunter estuary and it is highly likely that the majority of the population in the project area will be adversely impacted due to removal of key habitat for this species. There is no certainty that the proposed management measures for Green and Golden Bell Frog within the T4 site or habitat creation at the proposed Tomago offset area will be effective in protecting the species in the region. Establishment of a research program is an adjunct to conservation and does little to conserve biodiversity in situ while habitat is being lost from direct impacts. Either the proposed mitigation measures should be implemented and demonstrated to be successful in preserving a viable population of this species in the Hunter estuary prior to any impacts on extant habitat areas or the precautionary principle should apply and key habitat areas be protected from any impacts.

Ramsar wetland values: Little has changed between the Environmental Assessment and the PPR in terms of the proposed degradation of Ramsar wetland values through the removal of existing estuarine habitat. Significant habitat is known to be present within the T4 project area and this cannot be adequately compensated by the proposed mitigation measures and offset strategies.

Ground and surface water
There is substantial uncertainty around the impacts of proposed ground and surface water management during construction and operation due to contamination issues or inherent differences in water quality between/within the site & surrounding habitats. The precautionary principle should apply to management of these aspects if certainty cannot be provided.

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 roughly 7,000 additional trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again, 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.

a. Number of PM10 exceedences: The RT/PPR air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. The submission to the T4 EA by NSW Health suggested that the EA 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 RT/PPR. During 2010 only one daily PM10 exceedence occurred and only one day did PM10 levels exceed 45ug/m3. In 2012, PM10 levels exceeded 45ug/m3 nine times (one of these was over 50ug/m3). Since 2005, when PM10 monitoring began in Newcastle, there have been 20 exceedences and 17 days above 45ug/m3. This is an average of 2.5 exceedences a year and 2.125 days over 45ug/m3; more than twice the number as in 2010. If an average baseline was used rather than 2010, the additional particle pollution associated with construction and operation of T4 could result in levels exceeding the national standard an average of 4.6 days a year.

b. Particle pollution from rail transport: The RT/PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. It has been shown clearly by CTAG that significant particle pollution is emitted by empty coal wagons returning to mines.

c. Air pollution close to rail corridor: The RT/PPR continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor. Only about 100 homes fall within this area between Muswellbrook and Newcastle. There are over 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools. 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. This recommendation is ignored in the RT/PPR.

d. Diesel exhaust emissions from ships and coal trains. The additional 7,000 return train movements and more than 700 return ship movements necessary to deliver 70Mt of coal to and from T4 will significantly increase diesel emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter. Diesel emissions are listed as a known carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted the failure of the EA to address diesel exhaust emissions and recommended a comprehensive health assessment. The RT/PPR ignores this recommendation.

Socio-economic Impacts
T4 will generate some economic advantage but will also have significant impacts on existing Newcastle and Hunter businesses and communities. These impacts are not adequately offset by the proposed economic benefits of T4.

a. 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. During 2012, only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.

b. 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.

c. Alternative industries: Exxon Mobil [3]suggests global coal demand will peak in 2025 and decline thereafter. BP[4] suggests that coal's recent rapid gain in share will start to reverse soon, with a trend decline evident by 2020. Goldman Sachs suggests that coal will never recover from its current downturn, expecting average annual growth of one per cent b 2013-17, compared to seven per cent in 2007-12.[5] They suggest that Australia's total thermal coal exports in 2017 will only amount to 194Mt; 92 per cent of currently approved capacity. New industries will be required to replace coal in the near future. These industries will require export facilities that may include the T4 site.

d. Dutch disease and the economic risk of relying on coal exports: Coal is by far the Port of Newcastle's largest trade commodity, representing around 95% of the total port throughput in mass tonnes and $20 billion in 2010-11, half of which is to Japan. The US Energy Information Agency (EIA) suggests that "Although the nuclear power plant shutdowns after the Fukushima disaster necessitate an increase in coal use in the near term, a shift toward renewable energy and natural gas for electricity generation weaken electric power sector demand for coal in the long run. Japan is currently the world's second-largest steel producer, but its steel production declines after 2020 as its population and domestic demand both decline."[6]

e. Privatisation of Newcastle Port: The heavy reliance of the Port on coal exports may give rise to unique diversification risks. [7] It is acknowledged that the value of Newcastle Port Corporation will increase substantially after approval of T4. But approving a major development so as to artificially inflate the value of an asset cannot be justified when it fetters future discretion on available limited port land and the opportunities this land may present to those alternative proposals.

Yours sincerely,


Barrie Griffiths.


References

[1] IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011.

[2] Hunter Estuary Wetlands (21/02/84). New South Wales, 2,969 ha

[3] Exon Mobil (2013) The Outlook for Energy: A view to 2040

[4] BP (2013) Energy Outlook 2030

[5] T. Edis (31/7/13) Coal's crippling outlook, Climate Spectator

[6] US Energy Information Administration (2013) International Energy Outlook

[7] Dr Martyn Taylor, Nigel Deed, 2013. Privatisation of Port Newcastle, Australia.

I support the development and improvement.
It will encourage to the Newcastle district business.

I fully support this project and the potential it will unlock for the future of the Hunter Valley Coal Industry as a whole.

I fully support this project and the potential it will unlock for the future of the Hunter Valley Coal Industry as a whole.

I support the T4 Project.

I wish to submit my support for the project for the following reasons:

*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 fully support the T4 terminal, I've worked in the coal industry for more than 20 years, Newcastle need this industry to be successful to provide an income for the thousands of people relying on this industry

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will far outweighed any short-term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:
Environment Issues
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. The Swan & Deep ponds are also extremely important when there is a drought as they can be the only source of fresh water ponds on the East Coast in this area.
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.
Offsets: The proposed offset is not close to the ponds that will be lost & already is used by migratory birds. I have concerns about the offset system in general but in particular if it isn't near the area being that it is replacing & is already heavily used by birds then how can it be of any use to those birds that will be displaced.
Health impacts:
As a Registered Nurse I find it very disturbing to read that your health professional stated that there is no increase in health problems from this proposal. If you are increasing the amount of dust in the air then you are increasing the health impacts. If you are increasing the number of mines, increasing the number of train movements & increasing the coal piles then you are increasing the amount of dust. It is these kind of statements that show the total disregard for the communities intelligence.
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.
I have lived in Newcastle all my life. I grew up in Mayfield & some other inner city suburbs of Newcastle. During his time I had to put up with the pollution from the BHP. In my early 30's I moved to Stockton which was also heavily affected by the BHP. Then the BHP closed & the difference was quite stark. Stockton became cleaner. Then gradually as the coal stockpiles grew, Stockton became just as affected by pollution as what it was when the BHP was open. We should be living with less pollution not going back to the bad old days.
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.
Other industries that are part of the coal industry: As I said I live in Stockton & have had to deal with the horrors of Orica & it's mismanagement that has caused a number of pollution incidents. They shouldn't be where they are & they wouldn't have the stockpile of Ammonium Nitrate or getting an increase in their stockpile if it wasn't for the mining industry. We now have Incitec also going for an Ammonium Nitrate storage. This is also for the mining industry.
I would like to request to send in a photo that I have showing coal dust on a poster that I have. I am currently away & didn't realise that the photo wasn't on this computer.
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.
Cumulative Impacts
In this proposal they claim that the extra mines & the extra trains have nothing to do with them. This is a fundamental floor of the current process that we currently must deal with. To ignore the cumulative impacts of this proposal is to ignore the terrible impacts that everyone in the Hunter must deal with. It ignores the pressure we are putting our environment under & it ignores climate change by not adding this to what we are already doing.
Net production benefits & economic benefits cannot be the sole justification for a project. This being the case, due consideration of the cumulative, incremental impacts of facilitating expansion of the coal industry which the T4 Project plans to service, must be carried out by the Proponents, something that they haven't done.
Economics of the proposal:
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Economics: PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are based on a type of economic modelling the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls "biased" and the Productivity Commission says is regularly "abused", usually to overstate the economic importance of specific projects. The original economic 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. For the terminal to achieve its economic potential, a lot more coal has to be dug up and exported. This means that a lot more bush and agricultural land needs to be turned into coalmines. A lot more coal trains need to pass through Newcastle's suburbs. At the site of the proposal, a significant wetland would have to be destroyed. And, of course, the extra coal being burned would contribute to climate change. None of these costs are considered in the economic assessment commissioned by PWCS.
Diversifying the Port: I love living next to a working port it is one of the things that adds to Newcastle. But, I want a port that is diversified, that will keep up with the changes in industry over the next 50 years. Our port is only coal. PWCS have claimed that Newcastle is diversified but when most of your exports are coal or related to the coal industry then it is not diversified. When the coal industry is closed down & it will be, Newcastle will again have to reinvent itself just like we did after the closure of the BHP. How about we start to diversify now & not wait till the coal industry collapses.
Best Practice: Newcastle & the Hunter deserves best practice we shouldn't be treated as 3rd rate.
All train wagons must be covered & washed down. If coal was being transported on our roads it would have to be covered, why not trains.
The sprinkler system is a joke. As I have driven over the island, my car has been wet by the sprinklers, I have seen the sprinklers wetting where no coal is, at best the sprinklers hit the coal piles but never (unless it is a very small pile) get to the top of the pile & usually it is halfway or even lower. The coal piles must be covered as well as the conveyor belts.

So in conclusion, I would like to say I am objecting to the proposal & hope that you realise that this should not go ahead for the reasons that I have stated.

Cathy Burgess
9 Hereford St Stockton 2295
0413815738

I support the T4 EA and Submission on the grounds that I believe the project will contribute to the Hunter Valley significantly. I believe the Submission represents an excellent economic opportunity for the community, providing jobs and increased opportunities for other services in the area. Further, I consider the proposed location and extent of the project to be satisfactorily located so as not to disrupt the community.

I fully support the proposed T4 Terminal project

Dear Department of Planning,

I wholeheartedly endorse the submissions by environmental organisations in Newcastle and Hunter region that fiercely oppose this project. The flimsy and imagined justification for it that was put forward in the initial Environmental Assessment appears to have evaporated: all that is left is the terrible costs borne by communities and biodiversity.

Production and consumption of thermal coal by the world's biggest producers is falling: China's production was down 3.7% and US production down 4% in the first sixth months of 2013. Coal use by China's electricity sector dropped in 2012 and total US coal consumption has also dropped. Demand in Japan has plateau and in South Korea and Taiwan has decreased.

Australian Governments are in denial about this structural change, and are in denial about the unjustifiable cost that our coal export industry inflicts through its contribution to climate change. The suffering and damage being wrought by climate change is already very great, but it will get worse. Even were coal demand booming again, which it is not, we would have no justification for building this project, because nothing ould outweigh the risk, the damage and the irreversibly of the future coal is making for us. As it is, changes in air pollution policy and real constraints on water availability are already driving down coal demand in China, and are likely to do the same in India.

It is well known and has been clearly explained to Port Waratah Coal Services and the Department of Planning that Swan Pond is one of the most important places in the estuary for migratory birds.

Despite all that we know about climate change, about the impact of mining on the Hunter Valley, about the loss that will be inflicted on precious remnant wetlands of our beloved estuary, we are faced with this ridiculous and reckless proposal.

I made a submission to the Environmental Assessment, and my comments were poorly addressed. I will be making another submission to the Planning and Assessment Commission, and hope to appear in person to the Commissioners, and show them how perverse further expansion of coal exports is in the present day. I know it is futile to present properly reasoned arguments to the Department of Planning, as we have, as a community on so many occasions in the past, and so, can only plead: do not recommend approval of this project. We don't need it, or want it, and will fight you every step of the way.

I like birds more than coal, and clean air more than money. Go away, we don't want it.