Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West - Concept & Stage 1

See attached.

Submission Response to Project SSD-5066

Moorebank Intermodal Terminal

We write to express our absolute objection to the subject proposal : reference SSD-5066

Other local submission authors with professional standing in Traffic Modelling provide the unassailable facts that this proposal cannot attain the quality of Infrastructure development the nation expects from its professional public servants and associated courts, tribunals and panels in delivering government objectives.

Attached is a document containing a quick overview of facts relating to the subject site at Moorebank. We expect this EIS process to provide specific answers as to how and at what cost to the taxpayer can the proposed project with its huge trucking demand be made to fit into the river bound East Liverpool traffic corridor servicing the existing south west of Sydney, already at congestion levels, and its growth in the next decades to include a population in housing numbers and area equivalent to Canberra.

Let us state that the entire Moorebank Intermodal proposal, from the Greiner / Corrigan SIMTA to Albanese / Wong MICL, has been one of compounding error to which we will gladly speak given the opportunity. It is a story of the opportunistic greed of captain capitalists - free access to State utilities - and of lazy sloppy socialists who relied upon the enterprise of Greiner / Corrigan to build a Business Case ( heavily redacted upon release ) to commit Commonwealth river side lands.

The Objects of this project are reasonable but can be met by other locations, such as Badgery's Creek as well argued in work done by Liverpool City Council. They are not served well when the commercial viability of a Moorebank project has been questioned by Infrastructure NSW ( 2012).

Of specific concern is the Staged Approval process as per Chapter 10.4.1 of the EIS.

Postponement until a Stage 2 development approval, the "environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project", must not be supported. It will be a dereliction of duty as local knowledge highlights for all to see the obstacles ahead and that no engineering can remedy the volumes of traffic into which the 1000's of daily truck movements need to merge and then wind out to their destination. Please note that the only solution is a second traffic route east from the Campbelltown region to the east / north east. This will require alienation of existing and long used lands within the Liverpool Military Area.

Staged development approval must be rejected. This is a major infrastructure development with extensive interruption to the lives of local and regional residents, local recreational pursuits based on the Georges River and surrounds, local and regional small business through traffic congestion.

The project is a major infrastructure development and must be fully implemented as modelled and planned to attain a positive return for the major investors. Unless it proceeds to its fullest planned intention then it is to be condemned as half baked and having been agreed to by authorities knowing it alienated environmentally sensitive river lands, dumped a 24 x 7 noise, light, diesel emitting industry within 100's of metres of existing neighbourhoods, and further choked regional traffic after having been provided with the full information that exposes the compounding errors to date since 2005.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this representation.

As attached

I strongly object to this proposal for the reasons I have included in my attachment.
If the intermodal were to go ahead at Moorebank it will pose serious health and safety issues not only for the people already residing here but also for the local flora and fauna.
This proposal should never have been considered especially whe there is a better suited site at Badgerys Creek.

As attached.

28th October 2014.

Submission on Reference: SSD 5066/EPBC 2011/6086 Moorebank Intermodal

Provided by Allan Corben 13 Woolmer's Court Wattle Grove NSW 2173 P/N 0451 998 774 Email [email protected]

The PAC approved the SIMTA Concept plan on the condition that the operation could only handle a maximum of 250,000 containers per annum with an additional 250,000 containers subject to the ability of the road network to handle the volume of HV traffic. This being the case, the same restriction must be applied to the MICL proposal.

Should SIMTA & MICL operations be combined, the above limitations should apply to the overall operation, ie maximum of 250,000 + 250,000 = 500,000 containers per annum.

Under no circumstances should the two proponents be allowed to combine their maximum approved numbers of containers to achieve 1 million units per annum.

I should be remembered, that PAC has determined that the local road network cannot handle more than 250,000 containers per annum.

Please find submission attached

Submission details uploaded. GWS submission on MIC and attached completed GWS political donation form.

Submission regarding: Environmental impact Statement for Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Facility - SSD 5066/EPBC 2011/6086

See attached.

See Attachments :

1. Proforma Template Letter
2. List of Submittors x 1508

SSD 5066/EPBC 2011/6086
Moorebank Intermodal Environmental Impact Statement

It seems that approximately half of the trucks will be operating at night. I don't believe the noise from these trucks can be mittigated especially considering that the people of Botany have been suffering from noise levels higher than was predicted and they live aproximately 3km from the site. The people at Wattle Grove will be living much closer to the MICL site than that. You will be submitting the people of Wattle Grove to sleepless nights at that is inhuman! You cannot go ahead with this proposal under these circumstances.

I strongly object as a resident to the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. I have recently bought a house at Wattle Grove and do not support this terminal opening due to the increased congestion on the M5 this will cause along with the noise this terminal will generate being a 24 hour operation.

XXXX

25th June 2015

Dear Sir/Madam,

Written Submission Re Response to Submissions Report, Moorebank Intermodal Terminal EIS

Reference: Application Number SSD-5066

Introduction

This is a written submission, as invited by the NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment, concerning the Response to Submissions Report, Moorebank Intermodal Terminal EIS.

Review of "Response to Submissions" report on exhibition.

I have reviewed the "Response to Submissions" report and make the following comments;

I do not believe the response adequately answers the concerns I have raised in my submission of 8th December 2014, namely;

1. The response to submissions fails to adequately respond to issues associated with air quality due to diesel emissions and health effects on the surrounding community. Within my submission, references were made to;

i. Report from Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, released on 6 September 2011 and its significant contents, concerning the health impacts to residents of diesel emissions produced from intermodal facilities.

ii. Reclassification of diesel emission in 2012 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organisation from probable carcinogen to Group 1 Carcinogen.

iii. Declaration by World Health Organisation that exposure to diesel emissions represented the same risks as exposure to other carcinogens such as asbestos, mustard gas and arsenic.

iv. Failure to adequately state what the "safe" distance from the exposure source is.

v. Failure to adequately state what the "safe" levels of exposure to diesel emissions are.

vi. Failure to adequately address the matter of the chemical methyl ethyl ketone (contained within diesel emissions) known to cause birth defects, as reported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

vii. Failure to adequately address the matter of the effects of the highly carcinogenic chemical nitro benzan throne (contained within diesel emissions), as reported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

viii. Failure to adequately address the matter of the various cancers and numerous other chronic illnesses caused by exposure to chemicals contained within diesel emissions, including many major chronic and/or terminal ailments such as emphysema, auto-immune disorders, asthma, stroke, heart and lung conditions of all types, and the underdevelopment of children's lungs.as reported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

ix. Failure to adequately address the issue of diesel emissions caused by idling heavy vehicles and health effects on the local community.

x. Failure to adequately address studies undertaken in the United States where intermodal container terminals have been built near residential areas show an alarming trend of chronic illness and disease.

xi. Failure to adequately address the effects of ultra-fine particles as produced by diesel emissions and their effects on vulnerable members of the surrounding community, in particular babies, infants, children, the frail and the elderly.

xii. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to claims by the World Health Organisation that research is still in its early stages concerning the harmful health effects of diesel emissions and therefore it would be reckless to proceed with this project, given the potential harm likely to the health of surrounding residents.

xiii. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to claims by the World Health Organisation that it is not possible to identify what level of diesel emissions are harmful or what levels are safe.

xiv. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issue of emissions produced from idling heavy vehicle/locomotive engines, as reported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

xv. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issue of mitigation measures and the likelihood of their effectiveness or otherwise.

xvi. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issue of the proposed Air Quality Management Plant. No assurances are made to ensure emissions are within "safe" levels for residents.

xvii. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issue of raised re 17.4.2 does not state what the levels of emissions will be reduced to. Even if the stated practices contained within 17.4.2 were implemented, large quantities of diesel would still be burnt resulting in emissions to the atmosphere. "Clean fuel technology" is described within 17.4.2; Currently there are no railway operators with plans to acquire the types of locomotives as described in this section. 17.4.2 "Strategic planning and management" section proposals are for "consideration" only. The impacts of these proposals to mitigate emissions would be minimal, even if they were implemented.

xviii. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issue mentioned of remote sensors. In particular, Although remote sensors may be installed to monitor emissions, this does nothing to control the actual emissions nor to reduce their harmful effects on the surrounding community. Leading world agencies question the accuracy and reliability of current air sensing instrumentation, in particular the ability to capture the level of sub-microns within diesel emissions. The proposed instrumentation is only able to measure a small number of the harmful chemicals within diesel emissions.

xix. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issues raised re 17.5, Chapters 18 and 25.

2. Failure to acknowledge and adequately respond to the issues concerning owl and wedge tail eagle habitats within the affected area.

3. Concerning the response to the need for the site and response to alternative sites, I maintain the view that adequate alternative sites exist that will not have the impact on the local communities that the Moorebank site will have.

4. I do not believe the issues associated with the likely increases in heavy vehicle traffic congestion have been adequately addressed. In the light of evidence supplied by traffic experts, I believe the expert evidence has been ignored.

5. The issue of the geographic shape of the area and its likely effect on local air currents/localised atmospheric conditions, particularly in conjunction with the effects of diesel emission and local atmospheric contamination, have not been adequately addressed.

Summary and Conclusion

There is an enormous volume of global evidence (from the scientific research and health communities) concerning the enormously detrimental effects of diesel emissions. The Response to Submissions has failed to address the well-known and well documented detrimental effects the diesel emissions (which are considered amongst the most toxic, poisonous and carcinogenic products on earth) from the site will have on the local community. This is completely unacceptable to the residents of the surrounding area.

I have raised numerous specific issues within my submission of 8th December 2014. I do not believe these have been addressed and/or adequately responded to within the Response to Submissions report.

As stated previously, given the available expert evidence from numerous reputable sources, to proceed with this project would be extremely harmful to the residents within the local communities and would be extremely reckless.

Yours sincerely,




XXXX

See attached.