Port Waratah Coal Services - Terminal 4

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the proposed 4th coal loader due to the following:

1) 41 more coal trains through Newcastle increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory diseases.
2)The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants from the former BHP site into the Hunter River. Not only is little known about the contaminants but the proposal does not plan to fully remediate the site before construction.
3)The project will impact internationally (RAMSAR) wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds and threatened species like the goldern bell frog and australasian bittern.
4)The coal terminal does not provide any additional employment and is likely to limit other economic activities in the harbour like tourism, recreation and fishing.
5)The assessment fails to take into account the cumulative impacts of the existing coal loaders.

Thank you for consideration.

Yours sincerely,
Matt Targett

We need to stop this crazy race pulling more and more coal out of the Hunter Valley. I am woken at night by the sound of coal trains-and you may note I live in Tenambit!!! I used to live a lot closer to the rail line in East Maitland but that was 16 years ago and so much has changed since then-for the worse. How many coal trains per hour is it now?? One every 8 minutes I've heard. You risk damaging both land and water that we have relied on for centuries, please if you have a conscience, use it now. The old "more jobs, more blah blah" arguments don't work on the community anymore-we just want to live in a safe and healthy environment. And I really want my grandkids to see wildlife native to this area-you know mining destroys all that, habitat for birds. Does anyone read this? Does anyone care what we think?

Newcastle has managed to start to find it's feet with service industries as a tourist destination, as a centre of health and energy research, as a univeristy town and other manufacturing and engineering industries also support the economic and social capital of this city. It is ridiculous to continue to invest in further capacity to increase the speeds at which coal is mined and exported, from a local, national and a global perspective.

Firstly from a local perspective - the area planned for the terminal if a beautiful and sensitive site - and there is little doubt that the ecology of the area will be drastically disturbed by the terminal. The terminal will also impact on the lives of the people in the city as it will increase the quantity of coal moving on trains and through the habour - the coal dust from the train impacts severely on people's health, the trains disturb both road traffic and passenger rail in a city which already has transport problems. The city should be embracing it's natural assetts to attract tourists and residents rather than destroying them for immediate state revenue. There will be very few jobs created once the terminal is built and it will therefore not contribute to the welfare of Novacastrians.

At a national level, it is important that the rate of mining and exporting minerals does not get out of control. The mining boom temporarily inflates the australian dollar and makes other export industries less viable, including tourism. It is important that appropriate investments are made with the money from mining industry (in a similar fashion to Norway), but with irresponsible spending from mining revenue, it doesn't makes sense to carry on taking a non-renewable resource from the ground and directly offshore. It is vital that more creative industries which add value with low levels of energy or resource consumption are developed, rather than a continued addiction to quick (but dirty) money through mining. This will make us more resilient to future economic, environmental and social instabilities.

Finally, at a global level, this coal is being used to keep dirty power stations running. While a level of coal is required by countries before they transition to other alternative sources of power, local coal should be used and coal exports should be limited. Coal is crude by nature, and the transport of such a cheap material makes little sense. Our shipping ports and rail should be used for transporting higher quality products - as oil increases in price, the cost of shipping will go up and it will make little sense to be shipping such a cheap and bulky product as coal.

I urge you to consider this project in a pragmatic way, and not to fall victim to a sense of fear that the mining industry is using to make every Australian believe they owe their life to the industry. Resilience is created through a diverse economy, a well kept environment and a strong sense of community - these are all aspects of life in newcastle that would be compromised by building the 4th coal terminal.

Burning coal as part of the energy generation process is a dangerous and destructive technology.
Particulate emissions and the related destruction of land through mining is an unacceptable practice in the 21st Century.
Surely the time has come to invest in renewable methods of energy generation.
Kooragang Is. is an ideal location for the placement of wind turbines, not coal loaders.
The zeal with which certain parts of Australia are ripped apart for this commodity is most disturbing.

Phil Graham

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

As a local doctor I am concerned about the many adverse implications of the proposed 4th coal loader, both health and environmental. I am concerned about
- the local health impacts (such as increased asthma and other lung diseases) from the increased coal mining in the Hunter to support the mine
- the increased coal dust and interruptions to transport in Newcastle and Maitland from the increased number of coal trains daily.
- the lack of a need for this 4th loader (as the other loaders are not reported to be operating at full capacity)
- the climate change that we as a city are exporting to the world. We are already causing enough harm, lets not increase it.

There is no justification for this loader. Once constructed it is not going to even bring extra employment to the region. Just another shameful, polluting eyesore to put into an environmentally sensitive part of our harbour.

A further investigation is required of whether it is necessary to expand exports from the largest coal port in the world. Regardless of the high demand, we must consider the impacts on our future generations. Is this a sustainable move?

No expansion should take place until a new Safety Assessment has been made for Kooragang/Newcastle and district for the following reasons:
1. As the expansion allows for another 120 million tonnes of coal to be shipped, there is a requirement to expand the Orica ammonium nitrate (AN) plant to allow for hundreds of thousands of tonnes more ammonium nitrate to be manufactured to remove the overburden to get at the coal.
2. As Orica policy states that they do NOT fight an ammonium nitrate fire, they evacuate, ther is no evacuation plan for Newcastle, Stockton and surrounding areas.
3. The blast zone for the quantities of AN currently stored and produced at their plant would, in case of fire, already devastate much of the surrounding area. This should not be allowed.
4. The worst industrial accident in US history is still the 1947 AN blast aboard a ship in a Texas harbour. The AN caught fire by spontaneous combustion and can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster
5. No recent study has been done to ascertain the expected loss of life and destruction to property of current AN manufacture and storage at Orica's plant on Kooragang.
6. Any fire and consequent explosion would cause a Bopal/India type of disaster for Newcastle because of the surrounding chemical manufacturing on Kooragang in vicinity of the Orica plant.

I cannot understand why we need T$. The other 3 are not working to anywhwere capacity. I think it further locks Newcastle into exporting even more filthy coal. Get creative and work on other sustainable ways of using this site and discouraging more huge scars on the landscape. Short-term greed with any consideration for the long -term integrity of the state of NSW. I'm very disappointed with our elected representatives for being so short-sighted about our environment.

I wrote my submission against the proposal on a previous occasion, but forgot to state my view in the drop down box below, so I have come into the site again to do that.
Can I also suggest you refine the security code field, or is it your way of thwarting the objection process. It took me a few attempts to get past that field because half the text was quite obscure.

My wife, Carylyn, and I strongly oppose the proposed T4 coal terminal for the following reasons:
T4 will encourage further large coal mines to service the loader. This in turn means more coal trains and road trucks with inadequate infrastructure.
Exporting more coal for short term gain fuels the global climate change.
What happens when coal supplies dwindle or when other more enlightened countries cease burning coal and switch to renewable energy?
However our main concern is environmental degredation and destruction.
It is claimed that there is an unidentified (as yet) area of land set aside as an environmental offset.
In our opinion an adequate offset is impossible. How can a mangrove wetland suddenly be invented or imagined to be present as a suitable offset. This is absolutely, in our opinion, impossible.
Why has the offset not been made public?
We understand part of the area to be destroyed is part of the Hunter Estuary National Park. If so how is this to be permitted? We understood National Parks to be sacrosanct.
Also the area, as we understand, is part of a Ramsar Wetland. If so, this is against the International Ramsar guidelines to which the Australian Government subscribes.
We frequently bird watch on Ash Island. Migratory waders frequent the ponds including Swan Pond and Deep Pond. The very rare Yellow Wagtail is often seen along Wagtail Way and would be adversely effected by T4 proposed destruction of the ponds. We also see various vulnerable birds such as White-fronted Chats, migratory Sharp- tailed Sand[pipers and many more. There is a huge diversity of birds on Ash Island. The preservation of their environment is essential if our children and grandchildren are to have their diversity in the future.
Australia is a signatory to the CAMBA and JAMBA migratory bird pacts. Surely this in itself prevents the destruction of the south arm of the Hunter and the wading ponds and shorebird habitat of Ash Island as well as Deep pond on the south side of the current railway lines.
Apart from the obvious ecological destruction, further degradation of our environment will eventuate as follows:
Increased suburban noise and dust. Mayfield residents are only just enjoying their BHP free environment. This will be severely impacted in a negative way.
Dredging of the Hunter south arm will have negative impacts on tidal flow, flood mitigation and salinity of residual wetlands.
The fishing industry will obviously be impacted as will other harbour users.
Toxic materials on the mud floor of the south arm left undisturbed from previous BHP activities may be mobilised and will potentially impact the Hunter River and it's wetlands.
As long term residents, environmentalists and conservationists we strongly oppose the proposed 4th terminal.

I strongly oppose the development of the new coal export terminal.
I am a resident of Newcastle and have significant concerns about the proposed development, and the expansion of the coal industry more broadly.
I understand that the proposed new coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments. As a GP, I am aware of the real impact of coal dust pollution.
The proposed terminal would see an expansion of the coal industry, a leading cause of climate change. It would facilitate many more large coal mines in the already irrevocably scarred Hunter Valley which would further damage prime agricultural land, ground water systems and waterways.
Furthermore, this project would potentially damage internationally important wetlands that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species.
I understand that the Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk.
Thank you for your consideration of this submission.

I object to this. For many reasons such as the interference with the rare migratory birds in such a sensitive ecological setting. I object to it on the grounds it will impact the local area with increased dust and traffic congestion. Why don't we put more resources into solar and make money that way? Pipe it to other places - get them to pay for our sunshine....

Please do not approve another coal loader at koragang island,I am concerned About pollution into the habour and atmosphere,marine life,coal dust, traffic conjestion and road destruction.we need to consider our children and generations to come- lets protect the local Beauty of the area and not destroy.

-Locally, the fourth coal terminal project would see 41 more coal trains through Newcastle and Maitland every day, increasing dust related health problems such as asthma and other respiratory ailments.
-Pollution from coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality.
-The Fourth Coal Terminal would facilitate many more large coal mines (the equivalent of at least 15 'mega-pits') in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains which threaten food and water security by destroying prime agricultural land, irreversibly damaging ground water systems and polluting waterways.
-The existing three coal terminals currently do not run anywhere near capacity - there is no need for a fourth coal terminal.
-The proposal also carries the risk of mobilising toxic contaminants on Kooragang Island, the former BHP Steelworks site, and in the South Arm of the Hunter River, and too little is known about the risks to ensure the communities of Newcastle will be protected from toxic accidents, seepage and accidents. There is no plan to fully remediate the sites.
-The coal exported would provide the capacity to feed at least 15 more large power stations around the world emitting 288 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year and fuelling global climate change.
-This project would damage internationally important wetlands on Kooragang Island that provide critical habitat for protected migratory bird species and nationally threatened species including the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Australasian Bittern.
-An area within the site is currently owned by National Parks, and provides irreplaceable habitat for migratory shore birds. The proposal will mean loss of habitat and disruption to an ecologically significant proportion of a population of four migratory shorebird species listed under international conservation conventions.
-At least 11 species of migratory birds recognised by international treaties rely on the habitat at "Deep Pond" and its proximity to the Hunter estuary Ramsar site. Most of Deep Pond, the only freshwater refuge in the Hunter estuary, would be lost to this project.
-The Environmental Assessment fails to meet the requirements set out by both the State and Federal agencies, and the proposal represents an unacceptable risk to the Australasian Bittern.
-After construction, the coal terminal will provide no additional employment. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping

The Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) is a special interest group of Birdlife Australia. This submission on the PWCS T4 Environmental Assessment 2012 (EA) focuses on the effects of the T4 development on shorebirds (waders).
We found the EA thorough, detailed and accurate, but would like to emphasise the following matters. The Hunter Estuary is an extremely important area for migratory and resident shorebirds. It is recognised as the most important area in NSW for shorebirds [Smith, P. 1991. The biology and management of waders (Suborder Charadrii) in NSW. NSW NPWS Species management report number 9 (unpubl.)], and is the only site in NSW that has been designated as internationally important for migratory shorebirds [Bamford M, Watkins D, Bancroft W, Tischler G and Wahl J. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway: Population estimates and internationally important sites. Wetlands Inter¬national - Oceania. Canberra, Australia]. Australia is signatory to several international agreements which underpin our obligations to protect the 19 migratory shorebird species recorded at the site (EA Table 10.7) and their habitat, encapsulated in the protection of birds listed as Marine and Migratory under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Bonn Convention provides a multinational framework for the conservation of migratory species, and Australia has signed bilateral agreements with Japan, China and the Republic of Korea relating to the conservation of migratory birds. In addition, one of these species, the Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), is listed as Endangered and two others, the Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) and Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris), are listed as Vulnerable in NSW and protected under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. A resident shorebird, the Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris), is also listed as Endangered in NSW. Moreover, The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 [Garnett ST, Szabo JK and Dutson G. 2011. The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood] assesses the conservation status of the entire population visiting Australia as Vulnerable for four of these species (Bar-tailed Godwit, Eastern Curlew, Red Knot and Curlew Sandpiper) and a further species (Black-tailed Godwit) as Near Threatened. At an international level two of these species are Near Threatened (Great Knot and Eastern Curlew), two are declining globally (Bar-tailed Godwit and Grey Plover), and the Whimbrel is declining regionally. [Amano T, Székely T, Koyama K, Amano H and Sutherland W. 2010. A framework for monitoring the status of populations: An example from shorebird populations in the East Asian- Australasian Flyway. Biological Conservation 143: 2238-47].
The Hunter Estuary functions as a single, highly interactive ecological system. The ecosystem is already severely impacted by commercial development and such challenges as the recent releases of toxic chemicals from the Orica plant as well as incremental losses of habitat on Kooragang Island. Moreover, as noted in the EA, the PWCS T4 development will not only remove existing estuarine shorebird habitat but also has the potential to result in increased edge effects for the Hunter Wetlands National Park and Hunter Estuary Ramsar site. In this context, we agree with the EA that direct loss of approximately 1.7% (21.5 ha) of the Hunter Estuary coastal saltmarsh and 7.5 ha of mudflats will have a significant impact on the known habitat of protected shorebirds.

We are very pleased to note the agreed Biodiversity Offset Strategy linked to the PWCS T4 development, but have the following comments on the Strategy.

Deep Pond
The EA comments that `For shorebirds, measures have been incorporated into the project design to retain approximately 3 ha of open water habitat around the southern side of Deep Pond. This area provides known habitat for a range of threatened shorebirds.........' (Section 10.4.1). However, while discussing protection under the EPBC Act it later comments that `The southern retained portion of Deep Pond is unlikely to be utilised by migratory shorebird species due to the proximity of the T4 Project components, impacts from noise, lighting, and the lack of broad sight distances that provide the migratory shorebirds protection from predators. Mudflat habitat associated with Deep Pond is considered to be important habitat for migratory shorebirds............ Expected loss of mudflat and saltmarsh habitat is expected to disrupt feeding behaviour of these species' (Section 10.4.5). The conclusion of the EA would therefore appear to be that, as far as shorebirds are concerned, retention of part of Deep Pond is irrelevant.

Land-based offset site
The plans to purchase and restore estuarine habitat on a land-based offset site are crucial if the PWBC T4 development is not to have a destructive effect on Hunter Estuary shorebird habitat. However, this site is not identified in the EA and we are therefore unable to comment on its suitability. We submit most strongly that in order to comply with the legislated requirements to protect the threatened resident and migratory shorebirds identified above as well as all migratory species recorded at the site of the T4 development, the following criteria must be met by a land-based offset with the following characteristics:
1. It must comprise as large an area as possible in order to attract shorebirds to a new site.
2. Rehabilitation must include a range of habitats, including ponds, mudflats and saltmarsh.
3. Rehabilitation must be conducted as quickly as possible, and prior to the loss of Deep Pond.

Facilitate the expansion of coal mining in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains, by nearly doubling the export capacity of Newcastle. 15 new super-pits will be needed to supply coal for the terminal
Double the dust and the noise for communities already affected by the coal trains in Newcastle and beyond
Destroy rare migratory bird habitat, endangered ecological communities and habitat for nationally threatened species on Kooragang Island
Double the greenhouse pollution impact of the coal exported from NSW.
After construction, the terminal will not provide any additional employment. This is stated in the EA. Rather, it is likely to result in the loss of other economic activities in the port, such as tourism, fishing and other shipping.

The existing three coal terminals currently do not run anywhere near capacity - there is no need for a fourth coal terminal, but the NSW Department of Planning is fast-tracking the approvals process for T4.

1. T4 will nearly double the export capacity of Newcastle, but the existing terminals are not at capacity.
2. Some of the current pollution levels already exceed WHO guidelines (as I previously notified to EPA) and have not been fully investigated. The community is already greatly affected by the dust and the noise of the existing operations, and this approval is being sought even before the trial monitoring of the coal trains has been setup, and some objective results have been assessed.
3. Kooragang Island is a RAMSAR internationally protected wetlands, and pollution from this proposed terminal will threaten rare migratory birds by damaging their habitat.
4. After construction, the terminal will likely lead to a net loss in jobs, once the economic effect on tourism, fishing and other shipping is taken into account.
So, I do not understand the need for a rushed approval process.
Also, I would like to ask the owners and stakeholders of this venture if they themselves would live in the area around T4?

The proposal for the fourth coal loader at Newcastle should be abandoned and the money and effort that would have been expended on this ought to be urgently applied to bringing more sustainable energy projects to fruition in the Hunter. With the urgent situation with climate change continual mining of coal is nothing short of criminal.