Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

Dear Commissioners,

I ask that you read my submission thoughtfully. I am a grandmother. I live on a hill looking out towards Mount Sugarloaf and from my front yard I look out at night and see the lights of coal mines. My whole life has in some way or
another been shaped by coal mining. I come from a community where industry and coal mining have set the parameters for the working lives of most men.
In years gone by, for the unskilled and semi skilled men in my community, to procure a job in the mines was considered something akin to winning the lottery. This remains the case today. Mining has never been the big employer in the Newcastle area and it never will be. Today, the divide between the wealthy and the poor is not spoken of much
in this community but it has become more entrenched. Meanwhile, there is now quite a lot of public discussion about mental health and in particular, depression. However, there is very little discussion about one of the major causes of depression in this community - unemployment. To put it bluntly, people in Newcastle have become used to the fact that a certain portion of the population will be unemployed. We have become conditioned to living with unemployment.
The fact that there are now more people doing well, with big hotels now lining our foreshore, helps to mask the situation. It is the people working in the welfare agencies who really understand how bad the problem has become.
Currently, statistics on employment mask the true level of unemployment as they depend on the fiction that one hour of work per week constitutes employment. The reality of the situation is only seen when you live in the community, and are privvy to the social problems amongst friends and family
caused by unemployment. In recent years I have seen a lot of damage done to the lives of middle aged men who can not get work, and of young people scratching to find work of
any kind. The burden of this problem no longer falls solely on the so-called labouring class, but on many people who have some training and education. It seems to me that men are the most affected by this, perhaps because many women end up working as parents or as carers. Nevertheless, the social problems arising from the poor job prospects for many people in this region are very worrying. I have seen a number of men resort to alcohol, develop problem gambling habits and spiral into depression whilst unemployed.
Amongst my friends and family there have been suicides and attempted suicides - all by young men.
As a grandmother, I am genuinely concerned about the prospects for my grandson's future, and for his generation. The current boom in mining is just that - a boom. It will not last, and the sad history of our society is that governments make decisions based on a short term electoral cycle, with little regard for the future. A generation is not actually a long period of time. It will be less than 20 years until my grandson is looking for work, and he will most likely be living here in Newcastle. What kind of job opportunities will there be for him? Will he, like his father, have to leave the state to find
work that pays a living wage? Will he be one of the "lucky"ones who manages to get a job in the mining sector? I doubt that sincerely. The international market for our coal - and I stress that it is ours - is set to decline as cheaper, cleaner and more efficient energy sources become
available. The future lies in renewable energy technologies.
I believe that any plan to expand the coal export facilities in
Newcastle is a foolish and short sighted plan. While governments focus on reaping the economic benefits of the mining boom, other industries are not being developed. In particular, jobs in clean energy and manufacturing are
not being created. There must be alternative sources of employment for people in regional cities like Newcastle. To ignore this is to sell off the future for our grandchildren.
While we continue to foster the coal mining industry, we ignore the fact that it is our grandchildren who will pay the price for this - not simply in terms of poor health, but in their inheritance of the debts they will incur as taxpayers having to support a community of people living on benefits, and through living in a society of haves and have nots, with all
the social problems this entails. The proposed "T4" facility is a poor investment in our future. I implore you to think carefully about this matter, as I am afraid that the social needs of my community will be relegated to a lesser concern as
arguments are put about the very real environmental concerns we all share in relation to this proposal. Please remember that our grandchildren do not have a voice. It is up to us all to think and act for them. Thank you for your
attention.


Yours sincerely

The expansion of coal infrastructure in Newcastle is unnecessary and as such the T4 project should not be allowed to go ahead. The short-term profits and
possible jobs it will create will be nothing compared to the damage it will cause to the environment and communities.

To continue to increase the export of coal is totally irresponsible as the burning of fossil fuels is known to be a significant on-going contributor to greenhouse gasses which are directly related to climate change & extreme weather events.

The area where it will be built is the Hunter Estuary where over a hundred varieties of shorebirds live. Many endangered species use this area and once it is gone they will be gone too, forever. Wiping out a number of species for the sake of moving filthy, polluting coal for the next 50 years is outrageous. It is ridiculous to propose that another area of wetland further inland will be put aside instead. These birds, some migratory, have lived and bred and brought up their young here for centuries. We have slowly destroyed
their habitat as Newcastle city has expanded. This is their last refuge. We do not need coal but they definitely need Deep Pond & Swan Pond in order to survive.

The added pollution to the Newcastle area will be excessive. Dust will increase from the mining, transporting & stockpiling of coal. The dust pollution, noise pollution and traffic congestion from the additional 7,000 trips of 80 wagon trains will be substantial. At the moment Port Waratah Coal
Services focus only on air quality within 20 meters of the rail corridor, but people living in Newcastle know that the black coal dust coats everything. On a windy day it turns up kilometers away.

There is no known reason for the project to go ahead. There has been a downturn in demand for coal and the renewable energy sector is becoming more competitive every day. Countries all over the world, including India & China
are investing in renewable energy solutions. Renewables now supply more than a quarter of China's electricity generating capacity. The Indian Government
has increased its renewable energy target for 2020 from 6.4% to 15%. We cannot pretend that the exporting of coal is going to support us into the future.

If this project were to go ahead, an irreplaceable wetland would be destroyed, Newcastle and Hunter residents would have to put up with increased health problems, noise & traffic congestion, and the extra coal being sent off around the world would be contributing to climate change. Within a short
period of time it would be a huge white elephant, a reminder of our short-sighted planning and lack of vision.

Submission to the Planning and Assessment Commission hearing concerning the
proposal by Port Waratah Coal Services for a fourth coal terminal in
Newcastle

Dear Commisioners of the Planning and Assessment Commission

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission of the Terminal 4 (T4)
proposal made by Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS).

I am a resident of Newcastle and work as an energy technology scientist with
a Bachelor's degree from the University of Adelaide and a PhD from the
University of Munich in Germany. I wish to express my deep concern with this
proposal.

In this letter I will demonstrate that T4 is not in the interest of the
Australian people. Coal is a limited resource, and its combustion to produce
heat and electricity is extremely damaging to the environment. The Australian
Government has the opportunity to support the development of clean, modern
energy industries, which are already beginning to displace fossil fuels in
electricity generation across the world. These clean energy industries will,
and must, form the backbone of energy generation in the 21st century and
beyond. T4 would run counter to this and is therefore a step backwards. T4
has accordingly drawn strong opposition from economists, scientific experts
and community groups.

In this letter, I will highlight the expected environmental consequences of
T4 and the troubled outlook of the coal industry and then address PWCS's T4
campaign.

T4's contribution to global climate change
The scale of the proposed increase in coal export capacity, and the
corresponding increase in coal mining and combustion that is required to
justify T4, is alarming. The proposed increase in export capacity is 70
million tonnes per year. If this capacity were to be fully utilised, the
combustion of this amount of thermal coal would result in 182 million tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year, assuming 2.6 kg of CO2
equivalent emissions per kg of Hunter Valley black coal combusted. [1] This
amount is comparable to the emissions that entire countries emit due to
energy consumption. Emissions due to T4 coal exports would literally be
similar to the emissions of countries like Argentina, Kazakhstan and Malaysia
and easily exceed the emissions of countries like Norway, Austria and
Vietnam. [2] Therefore, if T4 were to be approved and operate at full
capacity, it would damage efforts to minimise and mitigate climate change on
a global scale. The global consequences of an approved T4, especially the
economic costs of climate change mitigation, should be kept in mind when
assessing this proposal.

The outlook for the coal industry
It is reasonable to assume that PWCS is confident that the additional 70
million tonnes per year of coal can be supplied by existing and new coal
mines. It is also reasonable to assume that tentative agreements are already
in place, although this is not disclosed on the PWCS website. However, there
is a significant business risk inherent in T4, given the increase in
competitiveness in the global energy industry in recent years. This is
relevant, as it is not in the Government's interest to approve a proposal for
an unviable venture.

The global coal industry is being challenged by shale gas as well as
renewable energy, which is becoming more affordable every day. Coal can only
compete with greener energy sources if it is cheaper, but the energy industry
is undergoing rapid change, and in many locations renewable energy is already
the more affordable option. [3] Renewable energy now provides around a third
of all electricity generation capacity in Spain and Italy. In Germany, it is
almost half. [4] Such countries, and others that follow this trend of
expanding renewable energy generation, will have little or no demand for
additional Australian coal.

The top four destinations of PWCS exports are Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan,
with 52.6% and 19% of 2012 exports going to Japan and China, respectively.
[5] Renewable energy in Japan is set to increase with the 2012 introduction
of a feed-in tariff for renewable energy generation. A feed-in tariff has
proven to be an extremely effective tool for increasing renewable energy
generation in many countries, and was instrumental in the rapid rise of
photovoltaics capacity in Germany in the past decade. This policy makes an
increase in Japanese demand for Hunter Valley coal less likely.

China too, is moving to increase reliance on renewable energy. China has a
commitment to cut carbon emissions per unit of economic output by as much as
45% from 2005 levels before 2020. To achieve this, China is investing up to
294 billion USD in renewables with an aim to have 100 GW and 35 GW of wind
and solar capacity, respectively, by 2015. [6] In addition, it is also
trialling an emissions trading scheme. Therefore a surge in Chinese imports
of Australian coal would run counter to its renewable energy program, in
which a great deal of money has been invested.

This pressure from the growing renewables sector as well as the end of the
resource boom has driven down the value of coal in Australia. Spot thermal
coal prices have slumped to $75/tonne, down from $200/tonne in 2008. [7] This
has translated into a tightening of the profit margin. For example, the gross
profit margin of Australian coal mines operated by Peabody's, the world's
largest private-sector coal company, is currently at $8.25/tonne, down from
$26.08/tonne a year earlier. [8] Thus an increase in coal infrastructure in
Australia is not just environmentally unsound, it is financially unsound as
well.

Port Waratah Coal Services' T4 campaign
Port Waratah Coal Services state [9] that T4 would be located on an
industrial waste site and would agree to provide an environmental clean-up at
the cost of $100 million if the proposal is approved. The claim that T4 is to
be located solely on a waste site contradicts numerous claims made by the
Hunter Community Environment Centre about key habitats that T4 would destroy.
It is important to note that a clean-up of Kooragong Island does not
constitute an offset for the contributions to the global greenhouse effect,
and should not be mistaken as such. PWCS's environmental policies are
concerning in general, especially given that the Newcastle community is still
forced to live with air quality warnings and uncovered coal wagons passing
through residential areas.

Finally, it is important to highlight that T4 will not generate any real
increase in new jobs. Only eighty additional workers would be required for
the operation of T4, according to the PWCS website. Given that Greater
Newcastle has a population of more than half a million, 80 new jobs is hardly
noteworthy. Port Waratah Coal Services, with 415 employees as of the end of
2012, is by no means a large employer of local people. The modest number of
promised new jobs is not surprising, given that 10 000 Australian coalmining
jobs have been cut in the last year. [10]

Summary
Mark Cutifani, Chief Executive of Anglo-American, the second largest
Australian export metallurgical coal producer, recently provided an honest
summary of the status of the Australian coal industry: "Let me be very
clear, the Australian coal industry is at a tipping point for future growth
and will only survive if governments want the sector to invest in the
country". [10] As Mr Cutifani recognises, the coal industry is being
challenged by alternative energy industries that provide cleaner, and
increasingly more affordable energy. The government policies that Mr Cutifani
would like to see changed in the coal industry's favour are in place to limit
pollution and promote the health and long-term prosperity of Australians.

Renewable energy industries can and will exist indefinitely. The coal
industry, by contrast, will cease when supplies are depleted, or more likely,
much sooner when the environmental consequences of continuing coal combustion
become too severe to endure.

Dear Commissioners, by rejecting this proposal you will
1. Protect Newcastle residents from exposure to additional air quality alerts
and uncovered coal trains.
2. Prevent an enormous amount of pollution and detrimental climate change,
which as highlighted, will contribute to the greenhouse effect on a global
scale.
3. Avoid the associated economic cost of climate change mitigation.
4. Assist the Australian energy industry by preventing the expansion of coal,
and promoting sustainable energy industries that will exist and provide jobs
well into the future.

I urge you not to prop up a fading industry which is based on the combustion
of limited resources, when cleaner, sustainable technologies are already
available and cost-effective. I urge you not to approve T4, which would lead
to pollution of global proportions, and harm the local environment of a
community that doesn't want it there.

.

I oppose the T4 Preferred Project
My objections are primarily health based and are a combination of the damaging effects this project will have to
1) The residents and workers of those suburbs within 5km of the coal loader from air pollution.
2) The residents and workers within noise range and air pollution range of the rail corridor.
3) The communities of coal mines established to service the increased coal capacity.
4) The world-wide health damage from the escalation of global warming it facilitates.

It is estimated the increased capacity would allow 7000 more journeys of coal trains with 80 wagons each train.

Coal Dust effects. The project has no plans to either cover the rail wagons or the coal loader. (Both of these have been mandatory in China for 15 years). The Potent Mechanical and Industrial Co have a Bolt grid system that covers similar coal
loaders elsewhere in the world. Air Pollution and Air Particles have each recently been declared carcinogenic by the WHO. Diesel exhaust from the trains and ships is also carcinogenic.
Deaths are just the tip of a pyramid of health impacts getting very much more numerous as you descend the pyramid (Deaths, hospitalisations, emergency unit attendance, GP attendance, time off work and school, symptoms, reduced lung function etc). All the potentially affected people need to be contacted with details of possible health impacts and the health, work and educational costs estimated.
The population affected will vary with the sizes of particle, prevailing winds etc but as a guide in the UK it has been found the asthma rate in children rises above the baseline community rate when the child lives within 3miles/5km of an open cut mine. It should be assumed a similar 'At Risk' area
exists in relation to this coal loader until proven otherwise.
The Coal Terminal Action Group have already demonstrated the fact some suburbs experience PM10 pollution levels above permissible levels more days than not.
The Newcastle particle characterisation study has yet to get underway and determine the make-up of the particles in their air.
I live in Newcastle East and will be within that range. When I lived in Stockton our son, as well as another girl in his school of only16 pupils contracted leukaemia, probably from the proximity to BHP.This is just such a carcinogenic effect this project will be increasing.
Noise Effects
Noise is responsible for the greatest number of environmental pollution deaths in the world according to the WHO. It costs Europe an estimated 43 billion euros per year. I quote this to emphasise the necessity for elaborating the noise impacts in much more detail. Noise has both auditory and non auditory effects. The noise of the coal
trains have an impact both from a background 'constant' noise whilst each train passes and in addition sudden bangs which are likely to wake sleeping people and startle waking people when it involves an increase of more than 15
decibels. In rural areas this can extend more than a kilometre from the railway particularly at night and in towns it is a shorter distance. The stress this type of noise causes gives rise to increases in blood pressure,
heart rate and interferes with cognitive functioning. Noise can prevent falling asleep, cause frequent wakening, reduced sleep quality and increases next day sleepiness. the populations affected by this needs detailing and the
costs calculated. I urge anyone involved in the assessment of projects to stand near the rail corridor at somewhere like Beresfield and experience all the bangs,
screeches, thumps, rumbles etc which cover the spectrum of low, middle and
high frequency noise, each frequency having different problems associated.
Elderly people particularly find it difficult to effectively communicate with such background noise. Children's learning has been shown to be impeded both if through nocturnal noise if they live near a rail corridor or if they go to
a school sited near one. Low frequency noise is not reduced by insulation since it travels as a ground vibration as well as an air pressure wave.
Global Warming
The International Energy Agency warns that the rate of coal burning need to decline from 2016 at the very latest if we are to keep to the Kyoto goal of limiting warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Centigrade. The proposed T4 project with it's increased capacity does not come on line until 2017 at the
earliest!
Already with only one degree of warming there are increased thousands of deaths from dysentery and tropical parasitic diseases such as malaria as more lands become malaria endemic etc. Northern Australia is just starting to join
this unfortunate club. Surely we shouldn't be escalating this disaster.

Health Impact Assessment
The recent Senate Inquiry into Air Quality in Australia amongst it's 13 recommendations stated that all new projects should have a Health Impact Assessment as a mandatory condition. This includes assessing the level of
health damage already caused by the coal loader and coal rail corridor and then regularly monitoring the impact on the communities at risk in an equivalent way to the workers at the coal loader and on the railway are currently monitored and if found to be health damaged from their work are
then compensated.

I oppose the T4 Preferred Project
My objections are primarily health based and are a combination of the damaging effects this project will have to
1) The residents and workers of those suburbs within 5km of the coal loader from air pollution.
2) The residents and workers within noise range and air pollution range of the rail corridor.
3) The communities of coal mines established to service the increased coal capacity.
4) The world-wide health damage from the escalation of global warming it facilitates.

It is estimated the increased capacity would allow 7000 more journeys of coal trains with 80 wagons each train.

Coal Dust effects.
The project has no plans to either cover the rail wagons or the coal loader.
(Both of these have been mandatory in China for 15 years). The Potent Mechanical and Industrial Co have a Bolt grid system that covers similar coal loaders elsewhere in the world.
Air Pollution and Air Particles have each recently been declared carcinogenic by the WHO. Diesel exhaust from the trains and ships is also carcinogenic.
Deaths are just the tip of a pyramid of health impacts getting very much more numerous as you descend the pyramid (Deaths, hospitalisations, emergency unit attendance, GP attendance, time off work and school, symptoms, reduced lung function etc). All the potentially affected people need to be contacted with details of possible health impacts and the health, work and educational costs estimated. The population affected will vary with the sizes of particle, prevailing winds etc but as a guide in the UK it has been found the asthma rate in children rises above the baseline community rate when the child lives within 3miles/5km of an open cut mine. It should be assumed a similar 'At Risk' area
exists in relation to this coal loader until proven otherwise.
The Coal Terminal Action Group have already demonstrated the fact some suburbs experience PM10 pollution levels above permissible levels more days than not.
The Newcastle particle characterisation study has yet to get underway and determine the make-up of the particles in their air.
I live in Newcastle East and will be within that range. When I lived in Stockton our son, as well as another girl in his school of only 16 pupils contracted leukaemia, probably from the proximity to BHP. This is just such a carcinogenic effect this project will be increasing.
Noise Effects
Noise is responsible for the greatest number of environmental pollution deaths in the world according to the WHO. It costs Europe an estimated 43billion euros per year. I quote this to emphasise the necessity for elaborating the noise impacts in much more detail.
Noise has both auditory and non auditory effects. The noise of the coal
trains have an impact both from a background 'constant' noise whilst each train passes and in addition sudden bangs which are likely to wake sleeping people and startle waking people when it involves an increase of more than 15
decibels. In rural areas this can extend more than a kilometre from the railway particularly at night and in towns it is a shorter distance. The stress this type of noise causes gives rise to increases in blood pressure, heart rate and interferes with cognitive functioning. Noise can prevent
falling asleep, cause frequent wakening, reduced sleep quality and increases next day sleepiness. the populations affected by this needs detailing and the costs calculated.
I urge anyone involved in the assessment of projects to stand near the rail corridor at somewhere like Beresfield and experience all the bangs, screeches, thumps, rumbles etc which cover the spectrum of low, middle and
high frequency noise, each frequency having different problems associated. Elderly people particularly find it difficult to effectively communicate with such background noise. Children's learning has been shown to be impeded both if through nocturnal noise if they live near a rail corridor or if they go to a school sited near one. Low frequency noise is not reduced by insulation since it travels as a ground vibration as well as an air pressure wave.

Global Warming
The International Energy Agency warns that the rate of coal burning need to decline from 2016 at the very latest if we are to keep to the Kyoto goal of limiting warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Centigrade. The proposed T4 project with it's increased capacity does not come on line until 2017 at the
earliest! Already with only one degree of warming there are increased thousands of deaths from dysentery and tropical parasitic diseases such as malaria as more lands become malaria endemic etc. Northern Australia is just starting to join
this unfortunate club. Surely we shouldn't be escalating this disaster.
Health Impact Assessment
The recent Senate Inquiry into Air Quality in Australia amongst it's 13 recommendations stated that all new projects should have a Health Impact Assessment as a mandatory condition. This includes assessing the level of
health damage already caused by the coal loader and coal rail corridor and then regularly monitoring the impact on the communities at risk in an equivalent way to the workers at the coal loader and on the railway are currently monitored and if found to be health damaged from their work are
then compensated.

I submit that the T4 Coal Terminal is not needed for the following reasons:
1. Coal should be left in the ground. Global Warming is happening and the more coal that is burned puts us all at risk, both present and future generations.

2. I do not wish to see money and assets waisted on infrastructure that will not be fully utilised. I say this as by the time this facility was ready for use the public at large will not want to see coal used and therefore this facilitiy will be a total waste of resources.

If it does get used for the purpose it is envisaged for then that is a problem for all but a few that may make a profit. The jobs it generates will be insignificant compared with the overall damage to our environment and future prospects.

There are many other reason why this project is not desirable but these are the show stoppers for me.

I trust you will do what is right by your conscience and for the benefit of all.

My name is , and i am in my final year of uni studying Natural Science, majoring in Environmental Management and climate change, with sub-majors in aquatic ecosystems and water management at the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury campus.

I am writing to you today to object to the construction of the proposed Terminal 4 at Kooragang Island.

My objections are supported by the attached document, which is a report, on a twelve month research project conducted along the Hunter River in 2013.



The research project conducted along the Hunter River investigated, the current coal terminals impact on water quality and species distribution and abundance, as well as investigating the potential impacts to the Hunter River's aquatic ecosystems.



In this study it was found that there was a highly significant difference in water quality and species distribution and abundance at the site of coal terminal, in comparison to sites sampled away from the coal terminal.

Nitrates were found to be that of 3.9 times higher at the site of the coal terminal in comparison to sites sampled away from the coal terminal. Phosphates were 2 times higher, turbidity was 2.34 times higher and there was a decrease in dissolved oxygen by 25% in the Hunter River at the site of the coal terminal.

Nitrates and phosphates are suspended sediments. Coal is a suspended sediment which increases these compounds within the water body. Excessive nitrates causes hypoxia and accelerates eutrophication, as well as increases turbidity. High turbid waters affect the light penetration, restricting photosynthesis, this decreases available food and oxygen with in the water. Organisms rely on oxygen for survival. All of these impacts create poor water quality.

Water quality and species distribution and abundance are interrelated.



Highlighted in this study where water quality is poor so is species abundance. The highest number of species were found in this study at the site of the proposed T4, it was found that per meter squared was an estimated number of over 100 organisms, from molluscs to crabs to birds.



This study has found that the existing coal terminals are directly impacting upon the water quality of the Hunter River and species distribution and abundance. The expansion of the T4 would ultimately magnify the current environmental impacts, causing irreparable damage to the Hunter Wetlands.

As previously discussed, the T4 proposed site has the highest number of species found along the Hunter River, PWCS plan to clear an estuarine habitat, therefore destroying the habitat which support vulnerable and endangered species.



The T4 needs to be reconsidered and assessed as species and habitats which are detrimental to the food chain will become compromised, this will impact upon an entire ecosystem. The Hunter River's water quality will further deteriorate, this impacts all life, associated to the area.

I urge you to please take the following research, as well as many others research into consideration when making your decision on whether to approve or object to the T4. As the T4 economic benefits do not outweigh the environmental impacts.

I object to this project and believe that the negative community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts are significant and warrant this proposal being rejected.
Air quality will be further impacted by coal dust from both the stockpile and the thousands of extra train movements.

This in turn contributes to a decline in the health and well-being of the population who suffer increasingly from bronchial complaints such as asthma.

PWCS air quality report was altered to suggest no impact when the data and original report said otherwise.

Humans need to stop burning coal or we will make planet earth uninhabitable for our species. Australia can't pretend that we are not a major contributor of greenhouse gases if we are exporting these massive amounts of coal. The change has to start somewhere. There are already 3 coal loaders... Newcastle (and the world don't need another one.)

As well the area where the loader is to go is important to the waterbirds, including a number of threatened species. They will be severely impacted by having yet more of their habitat wiped out.

The claims about employment and economic benefits have not been justified and are probably false.

To consider at all the extension of a facility to expand coal exports anywhere in the world ,would appear to be an illogical thing to do. A more logical approach must be to reduce exports worldwide and hastily bring about a reduction in the burning of coal.
The international Panel on Climate Change is unequivocal in linking global warming to human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. The link of course is the burning of fossil fuels by humans and the rise of carbon dioxide (co2) and other greenhouse gases(GHG) in the atmosphere, and the GHG affect. The GHG affect has been well documented and proven many years ago by John Tyndall and needs no further input by me.
The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has,for the last 10000 years and up till the last 200 years, remained at 280 parts per million.(as determined by the paleoclimate) The level is now 400ppm and rising by about 3ppm annually. And most of the rise has occurred in the last 4-5 decades.The emissions of volcanos contributing to this rise is less than 1% of the emissions from human activity. The emissions from all volcanic action is around 300million tonnes annually. Australia's emissions are around 600 million tonnes/annum and the USA 8000 million tonnes. China has now overtaken the USA, then there is India, Europe etc. Whereas volcanic emissions are measured in millions of tonnes annually, anthropogenic emissions are measured in gigatonnes each year. There can be no doubting the link between global warming and human activity and the burning of fossil fuels.

And the effects of global warming will be numerous and have already commenced. As the temperature of our planet gets hotter more water and energy are also drawn up into the atmosphere to produce even more fierce storms.

Latent heat is the amount of energy that water vapour acquires when it evaporates from either a liquid or solid state. Evaporation requires a lot of energy, more than 500 calories for just a gram of water at normal atmospheric pressure. And when water vapour condenses, the latent energy is released as heat that is available to fuel a storm. Latent energy fuels tornadoes, thunderstorms and tropical storms such as hurricanes, cyclones etc.

While the intensity of a storm will continue to be determined by local meteorological conditions, the increased water vapour and latent energy will provide the potential for more dangerous storms and floods. Importantly the strongest storms of the future will have greater wind velocity. Important because the damage caused by wind is a function of speed. just a 10% increase in wind speed increases the destructive potential of the wind by about one third. We are already familiar with reports regarding all these weather extremes in different parts of the world. Haiyan is a taste of what is to come.
=====================

Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Apart from storms and sea level rise which is occurring annually, we face the concern of desert expansion. The major deserts of the world are mostly found between 20 and 30 degrees latitude north and south if the equator. This is due to what is known as the Hadley Cell affect. Warm moist air from the tropics rises near the equator and continues up till it reaches the tropopause.(approx. 15 km above sea level) There the air becomes cool and dry. The air then spreads north and south to the latitudes mentioned above and then some of it descends to form a warm and very dry, high pressure system. Australia of course sits right on this latitude. This is why Australia is, apart from the coastal areas and to the north, mostly desert. Global warming is exacerbating the Hadley Cell affect. Desert expansion has already been reported to the south of our country as reported in the Melbourne Age newspaper earlier this year.
====================
The average global temperature has rise by less than one degree,(0.8 centigrade)since global warming begun to be measured. Yet already the world is experiencing extremes in weather conditions that must be described as dangerous. Can we imagine what the weather will be like when the temperature reaches 2 degrees? This is the temperature predicted to be reached very easily at our present rate of GHG emissions.

The paleoclimate tells us that our planet continued to heat up as the level of atmospheric co2 continued to rise. And that when the level reached 500ppm an event occurred known as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). At this time in geological history ,there was little ice on the planet; sea levels were metres higher that today and temperatures were intolerable. At our present increasing rate of 3ppm annually, the level of atmospheric co2 will reach 500ppm in just 30 to 40 years.
Now I'm not saying that in less than 50 years there could be no ice on the planet. But there is a definite risk that we could put in place a modern day PETM event, if the rate of emissions does not begin to reduce quickly. We run the risk of reaching tipping points in global warming, which will be beyond the ability of human intervention. This is because of positive feedback affects. While the rise in atmospheric co2 is a climate forcing, it is the feedbacks that magnify the affect.

For example the melting of the ice that covers the planet has a positive feedback affect on global warming. Our planet's albedo(whiteness) helps to reflect some of the sun's rays back into space and thereby has a cooling affect. But as the ice melts(as is happening in the northern hemisphere) less heat is reflected and more dull surfaces appear. And of course dull surfaces tend to absorb heat. As the ice melts the heating is magnified.

The most likely cause of the PETM was the release of methane hydrates(frozen methane gas) from the floor of the oceans. The release of these hydrates had a rapid positive affect on the warming of the planet. As the oceans warmed the frozen hydrates melted releasing methane gas, causing a magnifying affect. Methane is approximately 24 times more potent that co2 as a GHG. There are literally billions of tonnes of methane hydrates at the bottom of our oceans and already there is evidence of methane being released.(as yet in small quantities).
=========================

The current burning of fossil fuels is leading to a world with an average temperature increase in excess of 4 degrees above pre-industrial levels. This will see world population fall from the current 7 billion to below 1 billion, caused by a combination of heat stress, escalating extreme weather disasters, sea level rise, disease, food and water scarcity, and consequent social disorder and conflict. Business in a world that is 4 degrees hotter than today is simply not possible. It is in the best interest of businesses everywhere to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels.

A rapid departure from fossil fuel use, especially coal is essential to avert an oncoming catastrophe. Removing coal as a source of energy reduces our emissions problem by 80%.

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

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

I live less than 200 metres from the train corridor currently used and am constantly aware of the the train using the corridor to access the exists three terminals due to coal dust particles settling on outdoor furniture, window sills and ledges outside the home. My home is cavity brick with tuck pointing and the white grout is permanently stained as a result of 100 years of coal dust settling on the brickwork. Yet apparently the coasl dust is of little or no significance and covering train cars is not warranted.

When trains idle in the train corridor the windows rattle for extended periods due to vibration travelling up through the home foundations embedded into the ground. On several occasions the vibrations have been so extensive as to cause large framed paintings weighing several kilos to vibrate off the picture rails they are suspended from.

Apparently shunting is not supposed to occur in the rail corridor ( as agreed by the operators of the rail facility) yet having heard it daily over the past 20 years I no longer hear it. Visitors are so shocked they expect the noise and vibration is a result of an explosion or heavy vehicle collision in the vicinity.

As a resident of Tighes Hill I object to the proposal of a fourth Coal terminal.

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 coal mines. 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.

I object to the T4 project continuing on the following grounds.

Our family lives in xxxx, and is presently very aware of the Nor-Easterly winds which bring obvious debris from the Coal stockpiles on Kooragang island. With xxxxx and I are also concerned about the health risks in addition to the dust found on our house and personal items.

If T4 were to be constructed, the length of the stockpiles would result in winds from the North, and from the North-West also bringing substantial dust across our household. Rather than a relatively limited (Nor-East) wind direction, it would substantially increase the wind directions bringing dust, and therefore, substantially increase the number of 'dusty' days my children would be breathing in potentially harmful material. My children attend a school that is very similarly located and as such, also at risk of the same increasing dust loading if the T4 stockpiles are approved for construction. Our house gets a substantial number of Northerly and Nor-Westerly winds according to my weather station and hence, the increase in dust would be substantial compared with the existing stockpiles and Nor-Easterly wind.

Having started to pay significant attention to the issues of dust and coal dust exposure, I have formed the view that a project of this nature can easily exist in conjunction with the community by taking appropriate steps to prevent dust from escaping the site during the increasingly windy days and nights, however I do NOT consider water spraying of the coal adequate to achieve this result, having seen clouds of dust blowing from the top of the stockpiles over the years in the past.

Having seen other projects both inside Australia and around the world that have built large "sheds" to cover the coal stockpiles, I would have limited objection to the T4 loader being implemented should these kinds of containment facilities be a required part of the T4 project design.

Thank you for considering my input on this matter.

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will have far outweighed any short-term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:
1.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.
2.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).
3.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.
4.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.
5.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.
6.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.
7.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.
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 coal mines. 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.

As a long term permanent resident of Newcastle I am opposed to the proposed T4 coal terminal. It would not effect me directly either in a positive or a negative way, but I believe that it would be detrimental for the Hunter Valley in the long term.

The economic analysis of the project is virtyually based on the fact that somebody wants to buy coal from New South Wales and therefore we need to provide maximum capacity to export as much coal as possible as quickly as possible.

How many extra coal mines have to be approved to feed this coal loader?

How much agricultural land has to be destroyed to construct these coal mines?

How will that effect the long term viability of the Hunter Valley Wineries and other farms in the Hunter Valley?

None of these issues are even considered at all in the decision making process.

It is absolutely crazy !!!!!

That reminds me of what happened on Easter Island a few hundred years ago. The easter islanders also desctroyed their own environment in this case to build more and more stone monuments ( we build coal mines and coal terminals ) until there was not one tree left standing.

Do we want to continue building more and more coal mines and coal terminals forever ? Or what is long term plan ?


Enough Is Enough


Regards

n the aftermath of devastating fires locally and the most severe cyclonic storm on record in the Phillipines perhaps it is time to start looking at ways to limit the carbon pollution in the atmosphere.
I understand that Australia's overall contribution to green house gas emissions is very small, but our per capita rate is one of the highest in the world. So exporting an EXTRA 70 Mega tonnes of coal will make the target of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius more difficult to achieve, and the consequent severe weather events and the associated recovery costs more likely.
When the effects on local environment are included, it is hard to see how this project will be of benefit to anyone except a small group of coal miners and exporters, who are unlikely to contribute to the cost of making good the damage.
In the light of the fact that Port Waratah Coal Services have said there is no immediate need for another coal terminal in Newcastle and in the face of probable air pollution, noise, biodiversity, traffic and toxic impacts of the project I ask that you reject this proposal.

To whom it may concern:

I object to this project.

It is imperative that we reduce the burning of fossil fuels, to protect the world's climate. This project would lead to a reckless, significant addition to green house gas emissions. This generation has no moral right to jeopardise the well being of future generations.

The present generation of residents near the railway line, will be immediately affected by increased noise and pollution, from the transport of coal through their suburbs.

I am also concerned that the construction phase will destroy more of the habitat for the native shore birds, that is already severely reduced.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Stanford.

Despite reducing capacity from 120Mt to 70Mt, Port Waratah Coal Services' (PWCS) Response to submissions and Preferred Project Report (RS/PPR) does not adequately address all of the issues raised by submissions to the Environmental Assessment (EA). The T4 project will have many long-term significant and unacceptably negative environmental impacts. I therefore object to the fourth Newcastle coal terminal (T4) being approved and built. These unacceptable impacts include the following:

1. Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add about 174Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Although not part of Australia's formal commitments under the UN climate change convention (UNFCCC), this equals 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,[1] at least a year before PWCS indicates T4 will begin operation.

2. The Hunter 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.

3. 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.

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[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.



EnvironmentT4 campaignDust and health campaign.HomeAbout
Employment opportunitiesCampaigns
T4 CampaignT4 Planning Assessment CommissionLodge your submission on the T4 Preferred Project ReportDust and health campaignCoal train 'signature' studyDust and Health CommitteeGet active!
Become a memberDonate!Email Tim and BarryResources
ReportsSubmissionsLeaflets and postersMedia
Media releasesCampaign mediaVideosContact.Search form

I give my notice as a long term resident of Newcastle to protest the development of a 4th coal loader. No one but fools should wish to deny what is happening to our mighty earth. I know that the fools would argue that we have endured extreme weather changes for centuries and it is written in the bible. However the earth now has to deal with the advancement of our modern world that in every way and everyday all of us contribute pollution that the earth has to deal with.

As a grandparent I am scared for what will our future generations be asked to deal with and in fact will our earth survive.

We do not need a fourth coal loader.

Regards