This terminal (T4) must be rejected. It is likely to be a stranded asset as the world realises that coal must be left in the ground if we are to have any chance of keeping within two degrees warming, the accepted 'safe' level. Solar electricity is likely to have parity with coal-powered electricity before 2020 and possibly by 2017, so the world will be turning its back on thermal coal in favour of cleaner alternatives.

Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels with not only the greatest amount of emissions when burnt, but also when mined or transported without cover, yields coal dust that carries considerable community health risks.

Coal exports are pushing the Australian dollar ever high with deleterious effects on other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing, agriculture and tourism. Many of the coal companies are either completely foreign-owned or partly foreign-owned so profits are going off-shore, rather than making Australians wealthier, and at considerable environmental cost.

If Port Waratah Coal Services says there is no immediate need for another terminal, then why have it? Surely they would know.

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.
Dear Brad Hartcher,

Justification for the project: There is no justification for the project. PWCS does not commit to building T4 and only suggests an indicative build date of 2015 with operation maybe in 2017. During a major downturn in global coal demand, Newcastle's approved coal export port capacity of 211Mt seems optimistic. Last year only 141Mt of coal was exported meaning 60Mt or 42 per cent of capacity was uninstalled.

Employment: The 120 Mt facility proposed in the EA identified no additional employment would result from its operation. The revised T4 project of 70Mt million of the RT/PPR is identified as employing 80 additional people. How is this possible? This dubious additional employment is not explained.

Economics: PWCS's claimed economic benefits to the region are based on a type of economic modelling the Australian Bureau of Statistics calls "biased" and the Productivity Commission says is regularly "abused", usually to overstate the economic importance of specific projects. The original economic assessment of the T4 project suggests its annual operating costs will only be between $45-50 million a year. Since that assessment was made, the size of the project has "almost halved", so the amount of money it will "inject" into the economy has presumably declined considerably. For the terminal to achieve its economic potential, a lot more coal has to be dug up and exported. This means that a lot more bush and agricultural land needs to be turned into coal mines. A lot more coal trains need to pass through Newcastle's suburbs. At the site of the proposal, a significant wetland would have to be destroyed. And, of course, the extra coal being burned would contribute to climate change. None of these costs are considered in the economic assessment commissioned by PWCS. (Read Rod Campbell's economic analysis here.)

Yours sincerely,

I oppose the Project in it's entirety. All mining should be stopped until the issue of climate change and global warming are addressed and reversed and then only allowed under the strictest monitored environmental conditions, with very large amounts of money deposited with a global authority to be forfieted if conditions and rehabilitation goals not met.

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.

Enough coal dust already! Invest in renewables instead. Consider our environment and the health of the local population, as well as the legacy of environmental destruction we are leaving for future generations!

I am AGAINST the building of T4 BECAUSE

It's not required
The existing coal loaders are not even running to full capacity. Please learn from the Tasmanian experience where excess environmental destruction took place and unnecessary money spent to put turbines into the Hydro Electric schemes which have never been used.

Dust
I live in a 113 year old terrace near where the old Zara St power station used to be. I accepted the fact that there was black dust that had to be removed from the roof cavity before insulation was installed 2 years ago.
I was very surprised when the pest control inspection this year left black smear marks over ceiling and man hole cover from all the black dust that has accumulated over the insulation in the last 2 years, even without The Power Station to blame. However with black dust constantly accumulating on window frames and on the floor in the house, dust in the roof should be no surprise. I live nowhere near where the coal trains travel, so pity help those who do.
I work in Stockton and some days the sweet sickly smell of air born coal dust fills the air. Some days we smell it in East Newcastle too.
Add the extra dust from T4 and Heaven knows how unpleasant and more unhealthy life will become.

Habitat destruction
I notice that all sorts of activity and track building has been going on in the mangroves east of the existing coal loaders. If T4 is built a large swathe of mangroves will be removed and habitat for birds and animals will be further reduced. The Australian Bittern is an endangered bird in the area and T4 will only add to its demise.

Global warming.
The facts are there. Listen to them. Meditate. Act for long term plant sustainability, for the welfare of land, water, people, plants and animals, NOT for the short term benefit of the Greedy Few

Kate Tuohy-Main
20-11-13

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.

We need less carbon intensive projects not more.

If as the company states there is no need for another coal terminal why would we even be considering it when there is the potential of so much more damage to the environment. The idea or the only sensible aim would be to minimise all development to keep our environment as safe as possible. anything other than this is sheer vandalism and complete lack of responsibility. It is only us humans that are capable of protecting our planet!!

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.