Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

"I object to this project and believe that the community's health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts far outweigh any short-term benefits it is claimed it will deliver.
These include:-
1. Global warming: Australia has just experienced the greatest increase in summer temperatures recorded and the oceans will be 170% more acidic by the end of the century. The ocean acidification is a direct result of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and is occurring at the fastest rate known over the last 300 million years. Last time this occurred there was a 95% decline in all sea life. 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 Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) 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 birds 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: The Central Coast's air quality has declined and is being further threatened by the development of a longwall coal mine that will transport its export coal to Newcastle. In the Wallarah 2 development application, the proponents admit there will be at least one death per 100 000 head of population per annum, that means currently 3 per year let alone the decline in lung capacity and quality of life for those who are adversely affected, as a direct result of the increased pollution from the mine. Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are similarly 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: PWC's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWC 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 and Central Coast. PWC 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. PWC 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: PWC'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. A true cost benefit analysis would take in to account the true cost of the environmental, social and health impacts as well now and intergenerationally. I have no doubt the economic benefit would quickly disappear.
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. The additional coal being burned would contribute significantly to climate change. None of these costs are considered in the economic assessment commissioned by PWC. Therefore T4 should not be approved."

I continue to object to the construction of a fourth coal terminal for Newcastle as proposed by Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) with their T4 development. I ask the NSW Government's Planning and Assessment Commission to reject the T4 proposal in the long and short term interests of the community of Newcastle and the people of NSW.

I am a mother two small children and resident of Tighes Hill and can attest to the disturbing amount of coal dust and noise pollution we experience here with current coal exports. Further expansion of Newcastle's coal exporting capacity, which has already doubled since 2007, is extremely concerning given the known deleterious health impacts of coal dust on the health of the young and elderly. PWCS cannot propose to mitigate these impacts as there is insufficient baseline data to establish the current impacts of coal dust and noise pollution from PWCS current export facilities.

Whilst there is no consistent baseline data for PM2.5 particles established it would seem ridiculous to expand exports at the cost of the health of Australians.

Furthermore the proposed coal exports through T4 would be an unacceptable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. It is not in NSW's short or long term interest to worsen an already unstable climate with the high costs to governments' of mitigating the impacts of global warming on our health and the environment be it bush fires or sea level rises.

By their own admission PWCS do not currently have the economic imperative to develop a fourth terminal. It would seem ridiculous for the NSW Government to lock themselves into a project that will severely impact local ecosystem, fisheries and in particular migratory bird habitat for the sack of limited economic gain.
habitat for the sack of limited economic gain.

For the above reasons I urge you to respond conservatively and reject PWCS proposal.

"I am opposed to the T4 project as I am certain that the short-term gains in terms of economic growth will in no way justify the considerable negative impacts to health in the region and to the environment.

The Air Quality Modelling used in this report is at best unreliable. NSW Health
suggests that there should be some justification for using PM10 levels from 2010 as a baseline for future air quality predictions. In order to model air quality the baseline should be drawn from a longer period of time.

Around 30,000 people live within 500m of the corridor along which coal will be transported and almost as many students attend schools in the vicinity. This project will require many thousands more journeys of coal-transporting trains through this area. NSW Health highlighted the issue of coal dust for the region and the report cannot provide realistic assurances regarding the undoubted increase in particulate levels this project will cause. I am of the opinion that the risk to public health in the area is far too great for the project to be approved.

The project would have profound environmental impacts on a local level and would undoubtedly lead to an increase in Australia's annual Greenhouse gas emissions.

At a local level, the project will have sever impacts on the Hunter Estuary, Deep Pond, and Swan Pond; all crucial to waterbirds that live in the area and to migrating species of birds including a number of species listed as endangered. Furthermore, 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 long-term restoration project - Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project - that has been very successful and has been well-supported by the local community.

On a national and global level the burning of 70Mt more of coal annually will add around 175Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equivalent to 30% of national Greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency has stated that coal demand must begin to decrease from 2016 in order to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius. At a time when the effects of global warming are wreaking havoc right on the doorstep of the area in question, approval of the project would represent a dreadful step in the wrong direction.

This report makes questionable assertions regarding local employment, uses future demand estimates that fail to take into account a shrinking market for exported coal, and uses economic modelling that has been criticised (by both the Productivity Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics) for overstating and miscalculating the economic benefits of projects such as this. More crucially, this report does not fully consider the long-term detrimental impacts of digging up vast areas of bush and agricultural land, releasing large quantities of coal dust into the air, destroying vital habitat for wildlife, and pumping millions of tonnes more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

Approving this project would cause irreparable damage to the area. I urge the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to reject this proposal for an unnecessary additional terminal in Newcastle."

Newcastle is already a large if not the largest southern hemisphere coal loading port. What NSW does not need is for its coal resources to be ripped out as fast as possible and dumped onto the world market minimising returns for our minerals.
We should allow our current, recently massively extended port infrastructure to act as a regulator to the flow of export coal, help keep prices up and maintain an industry for as long as possible for the sake of the communities they support.

Environmentally we do not need more dust, more health risks, more noise and more diesel fumes that the T4 proposal would undoubtably bring. We do not need more unique bird habitat being lost within the Hunter Estuary which is the unargueable result of covering more of Kooragang Island with mountains of coal.

Recent coal stockpile increases I was told by an engineer working on the project created the need for a massive dewatering system to be installed as the substrate of Kooragang was compressed outside of engineering design. Lets not compress more of it for who knows what result.

We have enough coal loaders and enough dust, the Hunter community does not need T4. There is enough current capacity. Say no to corporate self interest.

Trevor Murray

"Responsible countries, China included, are reducing their coal dependence.Communities surrounding Kooragang Island and rail corridors are already choking on coal dust. T4 is neither wanted nor needed."

"I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this dangerous development proposal.

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 the issues raised by submissions to the Environmental Assessment (EA). The T4 project will have significant and unacceptable 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."



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

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

If you made a submission on the Environmental Assessment of T4, we encourage you to read the response to submissions and see if PWCS have addressed your concerns. We do not think they have addressed ours.

Dear Sir

I am totally against the P4 Preferred Project on the following grounds:

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.

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. 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.

Please take my objections into consideration.

The fourth loading facility may not be required as Australia should be cutting back on mineral exports and China will be requiring less coal. For exporting food stuffs the existing loading facilities will be adequate.

Regards
Felicity Crombach
[email protected]
0467095512

We need safe, sustainable, ethical future. We need to stop the greedy consumeristic companies causing pollution and climate change.



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.
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. 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.

"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."

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am making this submission to state my concerns about the proposed T4 coal terminal.

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

These include:
Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.

Threats to our local environment: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).

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.

I look forward to hearing further on the outcome of this issue,

Yours faithfully

"I wish to object to this project and believe that the community health, environment and socioeconomic impacts will far outweigh any short term benefits it is claimed it will deliver.

I would make the following points.

On the issue of Global warming. We urgently need to limit the amount of coal WE burn, or sell for OTHERS to burn. The I.E.A. states 'global coal demand must peak in 2016; this is at least a year BEFORE T4 is projected to start operating. Clearly it should NOT be brought into production.

Pollution / Dust etc. etc. My four children went to University at Newcastle; they all felt the effects of the coal dust and pollution; coal dust was lying inches thick in the roof of the house they lived in, and sifted down into the living rooms. The air quality and particulate pollution is bad enough now; we do NOT need more coal dust and pollution being brought in by rail and handled at the port.

The Environment.

Much of the wildlife that lives in the Hunter Estuary, and Deep and Swan Ponds will be decimated if T4 goes ahead.

In addition, much of the land is PUBLIC conservation land, with the NSW National Parks carrying out valuable restoration projects, that have been supported by many hours of volunteer labour. It is totally unacceptable that development should be carried out on this valuable land.

Economics.

The proposal produces riches for a few, for a short term; do we want COAL FOR A DECADE, OR OUR ENVIRONMENT FOR LIFE ??

I strongly urge you to prevent this project from going ahead.

Yours faithfully,


Siobhan Holmes"

This project should not go ahead. It will create more coal dust and be a health hazard for local members of the community.

"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. Australia has been condemned internationally at the recent COP 19 meeting in Warsaw (https://theconversation.com/australia-makes-a-bad-start-at-warsaw-climate-change-meeting-20190) for its actions in response to climate change. Australia must stop contributing to the known consequences of climate change through the production and consumption of coal. We do not have the right to cause harm to innocent bystanders, either in Austalia or internationally, by our actions and this is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen if we don't stop extracting and consuming fossil fuels. There is no longer any substantiated argument against the notion of anthropogenic climate change so we cannot go on acting as if it is just a possibility. It will not be those who undermine the future wellbeing of the earth and life on it who will be remembered as strong leaders. They will instead, if there's anyone to remember them, be remembered as the short-sighted, narrow-minded and self-interested. The decision to proceed with this project or otherwise must be subject to the broadest context in which it is taking place because it is that context which will be impacted by any decision. A couple of relevant quotes comes to mind, ""No man is an island."" John Donne, and ""If not us, then who? If not now, then when?"" Yeb Sano.

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."

"I feel very strongly that we should NOT have another coal terminal here to further damage our unique and sensitive environment. Just for quick profits we risk serious, unknown long term effects.

Sincerely and hopefully,
Vera Yee"

I object to the construction of the T4 terminal for the following reasons:

- Concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere have reached 400ppm. The scientific consensus is that more than 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot sustain life on Earth. Life on Earth includes civilization, which includes markets, for example coal markets. The inertia of the atmosphere means that we will not feel the effects of 400ppm for about 50 years. Creating more infrastructure to increase coal export infrastructure will increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This makes no common sense.

- The T4 project is a threat to many species of birds, that are already under pressure because of climate change and habitat loss. These birds include the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

- The T4 project is an abuse of public conservation lands. The definition of of conserve is "to keep from harm or damage." Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. The NSW government has a legal duty to conserve it.

- Seven public health professions have gone public about the air quality concerns. The Hunter already has the highest rate of childhood asthma in NSW and a heavy burden of respiratory disease. It would be a breach of duty of care for the NSW government to knowingly increase exposure to particulate pollution. The impacts of the fourth terminal would have a broad impact on increasing poor air quality across the whole Hunter region given the increased rail movement of coal across the region. This would increase the burden of disease on the whole Hunter region. Again, this doesn't make sense given the economic costs of increased illness.

- There have been flaws identified by NSW health in the modelling of the air quality by Port Waratah Coal Services.

- The thermal coal market is in decline. China is capping its coal use and Korea has implemented a hefty carbon price. The international investment banks such as Goldman Sacs and the Deutche Bank are advising against further investment in thermal coal projects. The T4 is based on the assumption that alot more coal will be exported. This is at a time when the world is starting to turn away from coal as an energy source. It doesn't make sense to be putting in new coal infrastructure at this point.

- 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.

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. 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 Carrington resident I am writing to object to this project. My most immediate concern is related to air quality and community health. Carrington is already heavily polluted - my house is coated in fine, sticky coal dust that has to be washed off with detergent, and on dewy mornings when I wipe the windsceen of my car, the cloth is always coated in fine black dust. My house and car give a visual image of the air that I have to breathe each day - air that is already polluted. Carrington residents already have to put up with noise and traffic as well as air pollution associated with the existing coal loader and port facilities. From a resident perspective I think effort should be put into improving our existing conditions, not making them worse by adding another coal loader.

Another coal loader means a huge increase in train trips with the associated diesel pollution and especially the small particle pollution and its known ill-effects on human health. As an asthmatic I concur with the NSW Health observation, in their submission to the T4EA, that the 2010 baseline is not an adequate guideline for providing healthy conditions to residents. Those of us in Carrington have to deal with the combined pollution from coal trains, ships, dust from dumps, and trucks. This is in combination with other activities in the area, meaning that the T4 emission cannot be considered in isolation from the `cocktail' of pollutants that residents live with. The Department should require a comprehensive Heath Assessment from the T4 proponents, and this should include a plan for the improvement of pollution and health conditions in the port area. Diesel emissions are a known carcinogen and efforts to reduce exposure should be a priority.

On broader environmental grounds the loader does not stack up. The burning of additional coal from the T4 terminal will add significantly to Australia's GHG emissions. As an already low-lying suburb Carrington is highly vulnerable to sea level rise, and people's homes are likely to be flooded more frequently with anthropocentric global warming that will be exacerbated by extra coal from the T4 terminal.

Clearly the T4 projects has much wider effects than Carrington. The unique wetlands that provide habitat for nationally and internationally listed threatened species deserve the utmost protection, especially as habitat loss is a key threat to Australia's biodiversity. The T4 proposal will damage the Deep Pond and the Swan Pond and affect migratory birds and other species. In line with the requirements in the planning act to protect biodiversity (as part of the ESD provisions) this sort of damage should not be permitted. Australia, and NSW, already have a record of increasing biodiversity loss. Public lands such as the Ponds deserve the utmost protection so that we leave a functioning environment with all its species richness to future generations.

The downturn in global demand for coal means that the viability of the project is questionable. From this perspective the so-called economic benefits of the project cannot be assured or necessarily delivered. Even if coal demand increased, the economic benefits to the community do not stack up against the increase in dust and air pollution and hence the amount of extra funds that the community will have to pay to maintain an expanded health care system. Not to mention the public/community expense of dealing with sea level rise and other climate change effects. Such so-called `externalities' as health care should be accounted for as part of the project, not added to the community burden. If all the T4 project externalities were incorporated into project accounting, as methods such as Triple Bottom Line require, and if sustainability, especially for future generations, was taken seriously, then the cost benefit analysis for the TA would be heavily in the negative.

Overall, I find the impacts of the T4 proposal to be unacceptable. It's time that the planning system worked towards delivering sustainability and community well-being in its widest sense. Economics are important, but they are only one element of what constitutes well-being. Issues around health and biodiversity need to be given the high propriety they deserve in deciding the T4 proposal.

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 "Terminal 4 project claims don't stack up" By ROD CAMPBELL Oct. 14, 2013 Newcastle Herald)

It is likely that giant steps will soon be taken to make renewable energy a substitute for fossil fuel. I have read and listened to experts who are of the opinion that, given political will and public support, this is actually already possible. And given the current increase in intense and savage weather events now being witnessed it will surely not be too many years before the pressure to move to renewables becomes impossible for politicians to resist.

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

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