Lock the Lake opposes the proposed fourth terminal on social, environmental and economic grounds.

Further investment in the coal industry in the face of overwhelming evidence of the health impacts from coal dust and mining is poor policy. We should be looking to move away from sourcing energy from fossil fuels. Energy from renewable sources is the future and where our region should be positioning itself to best take advantage of a clean energy future.

The wealth of potential jobs is a prime reason for moving away from mining and the limited jobs the industry provides.

The environmental destruction needed to build this facility is unacceptable.

The impact on people's health must be a prime consideration. Newcastle and Hunter residents are exposed to high levels of coal dust already. Putting more dust in the air is unacceptable.

The mining industry is not the community's friend and provides little benefit. The alternative is for further investment and support in the renewable energy sector. The potential benefits from renewables are many and include more employment, less pollution and significantly less community and environmental impact. To prioritise fossil fuel projects over renewables is objectionable.

The scientific community agrees that burning coal is warming the planet. It is beyond time to act on climate change. For this reason alone T4 should be blocked.

It is time to listen to the environment and listen to the community rather than bow to the vested interests of big corporations who receive massive government subsidies but still send up to 80% of their profits off shore. At this moment in history, private companies should not be allowed such a massive investment in an outmoded industry, an investment requiring decades of operating at full capacity.

We need to look to the future and transition to renewable energy and move away from a technology thought a good idea 200 years ago.

For the development of the area

I strongly object to the proposal for another coal loader in Newcastle.

The increase in open cut mines in the Hunter Valley particularly near me at Bulga is distressing. The continuous noise, dust and blasting is not what the residents of the Hunter Valley should be experiencing. The construction of an additional coal loader will place pressure on the Government and the coal industry to increase coal production by additional mines or the extension of existing mines. This approach will continue the very evident destruction of the Hunter Valley and continue the major detrimental impacts on our health and the childrens' health.

This additional coal loader must not be approved. The Government has a duty of care to the residents of the Hunter Valley and elsewhere and at present this duty of care is not evident.

Leslie Krey

I have worked within the resource sector within Australia and predominantly the Hunter Valley for almost 20 years. In that time I have personally experienced a rapid evolution to make the Hunter Coal Chain a sustainable and globally competitive supply chain.

The continued need for thermal coal within the industrial and domestic needs of expanding countries is undeniable. To not consider the future world energy consumption, including growth in thermal coal on a scale, that we have not experienced as a society over the next 30-50 years could be considered naive.

I fully support the implementation of high standard infrastructure and employment of best practice environmental stewardship to ensure the least amount of industrial and carbon footprint possible, I maintain that this can be done inconjunction with industry expansion and this has been demonstrated not only within the coal sector to date. I too have younf family and consider the future and believe this balance is an imperative.

The benefits for building and initiating T4 when global demand requires is an absolute neccesity for the economic good of the Hunter, NSW and the national GDP. Whilst exportation of services and other goods is important to a balanced Austrlian economy moving forward, it is absurd to think that this can be done without expansion to existing natural resource exportation.

PWCS have demonstrated benchmark setting environmental and safety standards over the life of operation, and have not only maintained, but fostered an improved the social licence with the community for coal loading and exportation in the Port of Newcastle. I have and will continue to support PWCS in their bid to establish the next critical step in developmnet of Coal Chain capacity in prepartion for this region to sieze upon the opportunity and demonstratably do so, in world class fashion.

I undoubtley support the construction of the T4 facility by PWCS and unashamedly acknowldge that I am and aim to continue to be directly employed within this industry, arguably the lifeblood of the Hunter.

NSW Government - Planning and Infrastructure

I am writing to express my support for the T4 Project. I have reviewed both the Environmental Impact Statement and Response to Submissions and believe that the study is an accurate representation of the project and one that has considered potential environmental, social and economic impacts.

With tightening economic conditions, I find it reassuring that PWCS are willing to invest in local communities and provide employment opportunities and long term job security.

I believe that the project offers a balanced approach to the environment with significant financial contributions to both local and state economies and I welcome the approval of this project.

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

Dear Department of Planning,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully support the proposed T4 Terminal project

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

I object to this project and believe that the community health, environmental and socioeconomic impacts will far outweighed any short-term benefits it is claimed it will deliver. These include:
Environment Issues
Global warming: The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions. The International Energy Agency predicts that to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, global coal demand must peak in 2016, at least a year before PWCS indicates T4's will begin operation.
The Hunter Estuary supports 112 species of waterbirds and nationally and internationally listed threatened species, including the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Deep and Swan Ponds: The Project will wipe out 80% of Deep Pond, which supports at least 11 species of migratory recorded and above the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population for three migratory shorebird species, and will develop part of Swan Pond which supports three species in numbers that exceed the threshold of 0.1 per cent of the Australian flyway population. The Swan & Deep ponds are also extremely important when there is a drought as they can be the only source of fresh water ponds on the East Coast in this area.
Misuse of public conservation lands: Swan Pond is public land, owned and managed by the National Parks Service under Part 11 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is part of a highly successful long-term restoration project, the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) and has been the site of significant hours of volunteer labour by the local bird watching club.
Offsets: The proposed offset is not close to the ponds that will be lost & already is used by migratory birds. I have concerns about the offset system in general but in particular if it isn't near the area being that it is replacing & is already heavily used by birds then how can it be of any use to those birds that will be displaced.
Health impacts:
As a Registered Nurse I find it very disturbing to read that your health professional stated that there is no increase in health problems from this proposal. If you are increasing the amount of dust in the air then you are increasing the health impacts. If you are increasing the number of mines, increasing the number of train movements & increasing the coal piles then you are increasing the amount of dust. It is these kind of statements that show the total disregard for the communities intelligence.
Air quality: Newcastle and the Hunter Valley communities are impacted by dust from the mining, transport and stockpiling of coal. An additional 70Mt of coal exported will mean about an additional 7000 trips of 80 wagon trains between the Hunter mines and the port and back again per year, the capacity to export coal from an additional 8 to 10 mega mines and four new 1.5km coal stockpiles will substantially add to PM10 emissions in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley.
I have lived in Newcastle all my life. I grew up in Mayfield & some other inner city suburbs of Newcastle. During his time I had to put up with the pollution from the BHP. In my early 30's I moved to Stockton which was also heavily affected by the BHP. Then the BHP closed & the difference was quite stark. Stockton became cleaner. Then gradually as the coal stockpiles grew, Stockton became just as affected by pollution as what it was when the BHP was open. We should be living with less pollution not going back to the bad old days.
Air quality modelling flaws: PWCS's air quality modelling continues to use 2010 as a base year. NSW Health has suggested that PWCS should have included "a justification for assuming the PM10 levels in 2010 would be a realistic baseline for modelling future particulate levels or alternatively use, as a baseline, average levels over a longer period of time". This recommendation is ignored in the PPR.
Other industries that are part of the coal industry: As I said I live in Stockton & have had to deal with the horrors of Orica & it's mismanagement that has caused a number of pollution incidents. They shouldn't be where they are & they wouldn't have the stockpile of Ammonium Nitrate or getting an increase in their stockpile if it wasn't for the mining industry. We now have Incitec also going for an Ammonium Nitrate storage. This is also for the mining industry.
I would like to request to send in a photo that I have showing coal dust on a poster that I have. I am currently away & didn't realise that the photo wasn't on this computer.
Particle pollution from rail transport: The PPR does not address air quality issues from rail transport returning to the Upper Hunter Valley. PWCS continues to focus on air quality impacts within 20m of the rail corridor, but there are almost 30,000 people living within 500m of the rail corridor and 23,000 students attend 16 schools in that vicinity. The submission to the EA by NSW Health noted that the contribution of coal dust from coal trains beyond 20m from the rail corridor needs to be carefully considered, but this recommendation is ignored.
Cumulative Impacts
In this proposal they claim that the extra mines & the extra trains have nothing to do with them. This is a fundamental floor of the current process that we currently must deal with. To ignore the cumulative impacts of this proposal is to ignore the terrible impacts that everyone in the Hunter must deal with. It ignores the pressure we are putting our environment under & it ignores climate change by not adding this to what we are already doing.
Net production benefits & economic benefits cannot be the sole justification for a project. This being the case, due consideration of the cumulative, incremental impacts of facilitating expansion of the coal industry which the T4 Project plans to service, must be carried out by the Proponents, something that they haven't done.
Economics of the proposal:
8. Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.
9. Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.
10. Economics: PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are based on a type of economic modelling the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls "biased" and the Productivity Commission says is regularly "abused", usually to overstate the economic importance of specific projects. The original economic assessment of the T4 project suggests its annual operating costs will only be between $45-50 million a year. Since that assessment was made, the size of the project has "almost halved", so the amount of money it will "inject" into the economy has presumably declined considerably. For the terminal to achieve its economic potential, a lot more coal has to be dug up and exported. This means that a lot more bush and agricultural land needs to be turned into coalmines. A lot more coal trains need to pass through Newcastle's suburbs. At the site of the proposal, a significant wetland would have to be destroyed. And, of course, the extra coal being burned would contribute to climate change. None of these costs are considered in the economic assessment commissioned by PWCS.
Diversifying the Port: I love living next to a working port it is one of the things that adds to Newcastle. But, I want a port that is diversified, that will keep up with the changes in industry over the next 50 years. Our port is only coal. PWCS have claimed that Newcastle is diversified but when most of your exports are coal or related to the coal industry then it is not diversified. When the coal industry is closed down & it will be, Newcastle will again have to reinvent itself just like we did after the closure of the BHP. How about we start to diversify now & not wait till the coal industry collapses.
Best Practice: Newcastle & the Hunter deserves best practice we shouldn't be treated as 3rd rate.
All train wagons must be covered & washed down. If coal was being transported on our roads it would have to be covered, why not trains.
The sprinkler system is a joke. As I have driven over the island, my car has been wet by the sprinklers, I have seen the sprinklers wetting where no coal is, at best the sprinklers hit the coal piles but never (unless it is a very small pile) get to the top of the pile & usually it is halfway or even lower. The coal piles must be covered as well as the conveyor belts.

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

Cathy Burgess
9 Hereford St Stockton 2295
0413815738