I support PWCS' proposal. Newcastle and the Hunter Region will suffer if this development does go ahead as required to meet the demand of the mining industry.

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

The T4 project will have significant and unacceptable impacts. I object to the fourth Newcastle coal terminal (T4) being approved and built. These unacceptable impacts include the following:

Climate Change:
The burning of an additional 70Mt of coal a year will add 174.2Mt of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, equal to 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions.

Air pollution:
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.

Particle pollution from trains:
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.

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.

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?

Impacts on the The Hunter Estuary:

This 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.

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.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment
Nicola Bowskill

I object to this proposal for the health of my family and for its impacts on the stability of the climate.

I object to this proposal.

I object to this proposal.

Migratory shorebirds will be adversely affected by the proposed development of PWCS' Coal Terminal 4 where proposed rail lines will occupy shorebird habitat in Swan Pond on Ash Island. Migratory shorebirds and their habitats are supposedly protected under international agreements between the Australian government and the governments of China, Republic of Korea and Japan - yet the populations of these birds continue to decline due to the inexorable removal of their habitat. We point our fingers at the removal of habitat in the vital staging area of the Yellow Sea but we must protect habitat here too - after all the birds spend seven months of every year in Australia and depend on good foraging habitat to lay down adequate fat stores to complete the first long leg of their northward migrations. It is high time that Australia demonstrated protection of migratory shorebird habitat rather than continuing to approve developments that erode and remove existing habitat.

Name withheld.
Islington, NSW

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this unwanted development proposal on the Port of Newcastle.

I made a previous submission to the proposal numbered C375 and do not feel that my objections were adequately answered, or that the Terminal 4 proposal is any more acceptable in its current version. I still do not wish to see this development proceed and ask that it be rejected and better use be made of this land - most importantly leaving the remnant habitats in tact.

And before I begin to address some of my specific objections to T4, I would like you inform the assessor that: as a community member and someone who is concerned about the stability of the earth's climate, and the health of my local environments; I am extremely tired of my time, and energy being taken up responding to and campaigning against proposals such as this being put forth by the outdated coal industry. There is a barrage of planning changes and inappropriate development proposals that require response from concerned citizens such as myself, and it is an immense drain on my productivity and that of civil society. The people of Newcastle and the Hunter have made their voices loud and clear: T4 is outdated, not wanted and enough is enough for coal. Please bury this proposal.

I will use the numerical references applied to my submission in the T4 Project: Response to submissions and preferred project report Sept 2013. Appendix A Summary. Submission C375.

Classified as "GHG/climate change" summarised as:
C375.10 Contradicts other national efforts to mitigate climate change.
I do not accept the premise that the off-shore emissions being generated from the T4 site are not considered as part of this proposal. Global warming is now happening faster than forecasted by scientists with already devastating effects being seen in communities and ecologies around the world. On this basis I deem the T4 proposal irresponsible, inappropriate and dangerous to the stability of Earth's climate.
The greenhouse pollution from coal proposed to be exported through T4 would be more than 300 million tonnes per year - more than every power station and vehicle in Australia combined, or put another way - this equals this equals 30% of Australia's total annual GHG emissions and of its own, very much higher than many countries on Earth.
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.
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),


Classified as "Justification" summarised as:
C375.1 Stand to be left with stranded assets as the world moves away from coal. S14.2
C375.4 Trigger to build, ie capacity shortfall. Is not substantiated in the EA. S14.2

Different references can be cherry picked on global economic and energy trends, but the facts remain that climate change is real, burning coal is the single biggest contribution to global warming, and that any responsible Government and society is right now, moving away from installing new coal fired energy generation at this critical point in history. Meanwhile renewable energy generation is growing exponentially and the Port of Newcastle could instead see new appropriate developments. I would not like to see this site sterilised for the inappropriate use that is T4.

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. (Coal's crippling outlook, Climate Spectator. T.Edis) They suggest that Australia's total thermal coal exports in 2017 will only amount to 194Mt; 92 per cent of currently already-approved capacity. Exxon Mobil (The Outlook for Energy: A view to 2014) suggests global coal demand will peak in 2025 and decline thereafter. BP (Energy Outlook 2030) suggests that coal's recent rapid gain in share will start to reverse soon, with a trend decline evident by 2020.

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." (US Energy Information Admin 2013 International Energy Outlook)



Classified as "Consultation/planning and policy" summarised as:
C375.2 Aspirations of Newcastle people for future direction of the port have not been assessed. There is no port, regional or economic futures plan.
There has been no change in this situation since the last version of the T4 proposal, with no planning or community consultation on the future of the Port of Newcastle in its entirety. In fact there has been a worsening of the situation and further disenfranchisement of the community with the sudden announcement that the Port of Newcastle is now up for sale, for a fraction of its long-term value.

It is not good enough to isolate this development for assessment within the margin of its footprint and out of context of the transformation of the port into one that is undiversified and heavily reliant on coal exports.
It is widely perceived by the Newcastle community that the approval of T4 serves only to artificially inflate the value of Newcastle Port Corporation and it's assets. This does not meet the broader public benefit test and is unacceptable.
Classified as "Coal industry" summarised as:
C375.6 Cumulative impact of coal industry in Hunter. Industry needs to be phased out and a sustainable renewable energy economy established. Asks what the long-term vision planning goal is.
As with climate change impacts and the cumulative impacts on the Port of Newcastle of the coal industry, I do not accept that this proposal is assessed in isolation. The many mines that would be established for throughput for this proposal and the quantity of land and water wasted in their operation has impacts way beyond the operations of T4 and are simply not addressed in the T4 proposal in the context of cumulative impacts.
There has been no change to the cumulative impact of the coal industry in the Hunter, already too much has been given over to coal, and further open cut coal mines will be resisted at every turn because this industry has gone too far. I recongnise that NSW and Federal planning laws are currently being stacked in the favour of coal mining operations, however that does not make this right.
This proposal does not fit in with my vision for the Hunter and Newcastle and is not sustainable in any way. Climate change is a reality and new industries need to be renewable.
Classified as "Air Quality" summarised as:
C375.7 Existing nuisance and health impacts of coal dust deposition on property from rail and coal loading facilities, particularly ultra-fine particles. Do not believe EA statement that T4 will not significantly affect surrounding air quality environment.
C375.8 Calls for more data on existing noise and dust emissions.
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.
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.
The RT/PPR does not address air quality issues regarding particle pollution 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.
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.
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.
Classified as "Ecology" summarised as:
C375.12 Habitat on the T4 site is critical and not able to be compensated for, as evidenced by the inadequate offsets proposed.
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.
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.
The 23 hectare freshwater drought refuge Deep Pond 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.
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

For the above and so many more reasons that I haven't time to outline, I object to the Terminal 4 proposal. It is not a modern approach to the development of our port or local economy and I would like to see better assessment requirements from the Department of Planning and better proposals such as renewable energy facilities from the public and corporate sectors.

Yours sincerely,
Name Withheld.
Islington NSW

I am a long term resident (>22 years) of the Newcastle region. I was born in this region, I own a home in the suburb of Shortland and I have been educated at the University of Newcastle. I believe very strongly that the Newcastle community needs to embrace development to grow the city and to ensure long term prosperity for its residents.

Over many years PWCS has been operating coal terminals at Carrington and on Kooragang Island. During this time PWCS has developed itself as a valuable corporate citizen through charity donations and local community participation. In addition to this, PWCS has also provided support to local apprentices and university students who wish to gain valuable industry experience. Allowing the T4 project to proceed will allow this record to continue into the future.

I strongly support the proposed T4 project for a number of key reasons:
* The project will provide thousands of jobs during construction and hundreds of additional permanent jobs during operation. This will support many local families and also bring many new families to the region. This will be a good development for the overall community.
* The types of jobs that this project will provide are highly skilled professional jobs. This includes tradespeople, engineers, supervisors, machinery operators and technicians.
* The construction and operation of the T4 site will also provide many opportunities for local businesses to contract to, bid for and participate in the economic activity which will be generated. This will increase the positive impact on the Newcastle community and economy.
* The project will improve the current condition of the Kooragang Island site by capping the contamination which was dumped many decades ago. This will allow Newcastle residents to have confidence in their long term health and wellbeing
* The project is well designed, using world's best design and operational practices for coal handling terminals with considerable measures put in place to ensure noise, water and dust impacts are kept to a minimum and well within the criteria set by government.

I believe that overall, the negative aspects of the T4 project which are commonly touted associated with this project are largely exaggerated. As someone who lives close to Kooragang Island and the Hunter Valley coal chain I am not impacted on by freight movements or by construction or operational noises. I have not experienced any evidence of coal dust or other issues which are often blamed on the coal industry despite living quite close to the operations.

Overall, I hope that you consider the proposal on its merits and consider the many benefits of the project. I also hope that the impacts associated with this project are read in the context of quantitative evidence as opposed to qualitative opinion and the relevant government standards which have been set.

Thank you.

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