NorthConnex

Uploaded

refer attached

Please considered the attached document

Submission attached

I endorse the attached SCAPS Group submissions. I have been a resident of West Pennant Hills over the past year and my husband and mother both suffer from respiratory illness and emphysema and I am concerned for their health because of the NorthConnex proposal. I also have a 3 year old child and I am concerned"about the air pollution to our neighbourhood from the proposed south stack .

I uploaded comments as PDF file

Please find attached the submission from Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc (FOKE), PO Box 403 Killara NSW 2071

I uploaded PDF file

I uploaded PDF file

See attachment.

See attached PDF file

Uploaded see below

8 September 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Number: SSl 13_6136
Major Projecta Assessment
GPO Box 39
SYDFNEY NSW 2001

NorthConnex Application Number SSl 13_6136

I am a retired school teacher living in Lochville Street in Wahroonga with my younger grandchildren.

Please find below my submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly, I would like to state I object to the project as described in the EIS.

I am extremely concerned regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by
NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. These are:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential
area in Wahroonga and thus exposing 9300 school children to pollutants spilling out of the stack. Other similarly affected groups include multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. There are multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lunch growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have long term inflammatory effects on humans and cause the above health problems.

To address my concerns, I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. Due to the significant health concerns of the current design, I request the Department of Planning does not approve the project in its current form.

2. I request the Department of Planning require the tunnel to be extended to the industrial areas to the north of Hornsby, thus effectively moving the stack at the entrance away from heavily populated Wahroonga.

3. I also request that alternative transport options to ease congestion on Pennant Hills Road be considered such as an orbital surface route and improvements to rail-freight network thus making a tunnel link to Newcastle obsolete.


Yours sincerely,


Mr. Thio Soei Ho

Address: 23 Lochville Street. Wahroonga, NSW 2076

uploading 1810hrs 11/09/2014

11 September 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Number: SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001


NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

I strongly object to the project as prescribed in the EIS.

I am a resident in Wahroonga, only 200metre's away from the stack. My concerns are the same as every others - especially when North Connex hasn't adequately responded with meaningful answers to any of the questions with examples often described are not comparable to the current scenario.

They talk about air quality monitoring post the tunnel build but what is going to be the remedy? That they shut down the tunnel if the quality fails? Or do they then attempt to doctor the data to get it through? Like this EIS which was delayed until they think they've got the data on their side.

When North Connex and this government talks about saving cost ahead of the needs of the community, the fact is, data will be doctored to suite their needs - a good example is this EIS. The EIS needs to be produced by a truly independent 3rd party - not North Connex or Government proponents of the Tunnel.

Alternatives have not been adequately explored or discussed with the community.

The tunnel, with its high toll, is only going to drive trucks onto the Pacific Highway coming down Chatswood. Already there are a huge number of trucks taking this route to avoid the round about way of the M7/m2

This tunnel is going to be a white elephant and the government needs to explore more strategic plans as opposed to listening to North Connex so that North Connex can guarantee forcing vehicles through to the M7/M2.

My further concerns are:

I have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:

1. Placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed, as well as multiple aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes.

2. The placement of the northern ventilation stack in a valley in Wahroonga where there are often low wind speeds, which will result in poor dispersion and exposure to community to high levels of tunnel emission.

3. I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious. These include increased death from heart disease, increased risks of lung cancer, stroke, poor lung growth in children, increased asthma, and recent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant women, increased autism, and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.

4. I am concerned about the project including future provisions for portal emissions in densely populated areas, which will result in emissions remaining at ground level, and hence exposing the local population to pollutants. I am also concerned that NorthConnex's claim that there will no portal emissions from current proposal cannot be verified.

5. I am concerned about the large amount of diesel emissions which will be emitted from the NorthConnex tunnel, as it is being designed for heavy freight to bypass Pennant Hills Rd. Diesel emissions have been classified as carcinogenic by the World Health Organisation, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.

6. I am concerned about the air quality within the tunnel which is shown in the EIS to have exceedences above standards for pollutants such as NO2, and haze from particulate matter at the ends of the tunnel.

7. I am concerned about the multiple flaws in the air quality modelling of the northern stack in the EIS. These include:
a) extrapolation of meteorological data from other weather stations which do not reflect the local meteorology, local topography, and the valley location.
b) The use of a coarse topographical model
c) The failure to consider polluted intake air from the Pennant Hills/M2 interchange as part of the project contribution to air quality at Wahroonga
d) the background air quality being based on air quality at Lindfield and Prospect and the lack of any actual data on PM2.5

8. I/we am concerned that a full and transparent options assessment process was not undertaken to assess alternative designs for the project. Unlike other tunnel projects in Sydney there are alternatives for locating the stack and portals in non-residential areas.

9. I am concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is cursory and unconvincing.

To address my/our concerns I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
2. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
4. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
5. A comprehensive air quality monitoring program is developed and implemented.
6. An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
7. Portal emissions from NorthConnex in the future are banned.
8. The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.
9. The Department does not approve the project in its current form as it clearly does not meet the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as required by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.







Leonard Thio
23 Lochville Street
Wahroonga NSW 2076

submission attached.

10 September 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Number: SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.

Firstly I would like to state I object to the project as described in the EIS.

I have a very high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning. In regards to the NorthConnex tunnel, I am concerned about:
1. The lack of any measuring and modelling of Asbestos particulates that will be airborne in the tunnel from vehicles, and that will then be dispersed into the air at the proposed ventilation stacks.
These Asbestos particulates are from any cars and trucks built before 1993 and any other vehicles that have had the brakes and or clutches (fiction material) replaced prior to late 2003, which was only banned from replacement of Asbestos fiction material in late 2003. See link to a Government site.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/guide_asbestos.pdf
Also some currently imported vehicles (2 brands and several models) that also have been reported as being fitted with asbestos fiction material.

2. The lack of measuring and modelling on how much silica and other airborne particulates will be emitted to the local environment during construction, as I suspect this was the cause of the increase in resporitary complaints after the construction of the M5 and Lane Cove tunnels.
3. The base line or benchmark modelling used for all the particulate measuring as:
They were not taken from the areas where portal air intake would happen and the effect of the adjoining ventilation stack in certain weather conditions recycling the same air (although diluted) back in the intake portal.
4. Given Item 3 and that the modelling would be wrong and the particulate matter is higher that the EIS suggest. I believe a new EIS be independently completed taking into account the new baseline and a better solution be sort. See item 4 below.


To address my concerns I request that the following actions are undertaken:

1. To measure, model and continue to monitor for ever the tunnel and portal areas including the ventilation stacks with any emissions of Asbestos and to have appropriate filter systems installed to emit 0 Asbestos particulates.

2. To measure, model and monitor how much Silica and other dust particulates will be emitted and take appropriate action to reduce or eliminate any of these dust particulates during construction.

3. Remodel and use actual road level monitoring to get a correct base line of the actual air that will be used at the air intake of the portals, not some miles away in set some many metres above the ground.
And to take into consideration with this new modelling the actual weather conditions at the proposed stacks and what affect the outgoing air from the ventilation stack will have with the standard of air being taken into the intake portal, given the close proximity of the stack to the intake portal.

4. To not have a ventilation stack in a residential area, but have a relocated stack some kilometres, (say in the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park) via a tunnel (as is proposed on the south bound tunnel although shorter). And would be cheaper than moving the whole tunnel and can be positioned on a hill top.
4B. To move the North bound portal and ventilation stack to a non-residential area.

Regards Jaime Garrick
116A Coonanbarra Rd, Wahroonga

Please refer to attached PDF document.

I do not want my personal details published or madde public
My submission is attached in a pdf file

Please see attached letter