To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning

I write to express my strong disappointment that once again the NSW government are building major infrastructure through the Bardwell and Wolli Creek valleys and yet doing nothing to address promises in the past to make the corridor more accessible for active transport and recreational activities.

The Bardwell Valley is largely inaccessible to older members of the community and young families as despite a plan of management being developed back in 2004 no action has been taken by successive NSW governments to resolve longstanding missing accessibility infrastructure.

Local communities have to deal with the construction, pollution and traffic on local roads created by the Westconnex project and the tolls on the M5 and regional density changes with the Arncliffe and Banksia Priority Precincts. The Government needs to deliver on their promises of green spaces and supporting active transport by delivering on the Bardwell Valley Green Link, extending the M5 Linear path through to it's intended destination at Wolli Creek and in doing so fund the Plan of Management for Bardwell Valley and make the region a National Park once and for all. This calls for:

Improved environmental and recreational links to adjoining urban areas

Establish a range of path types and loops

Importance of linear movement through the Park but acknowledging the site's sensitive

environments which may determine a variety of approaches and opportunities

Create a recreational focus for the park that has at its core the enjoyment and educational

benefits of the sites natural values

Expectations that the park will be safe and enjoyable to use without polluting impacts from

ventilation outlets

Potential for wider recreational access and use of the park via public transport

Potential for the Park to have a strong educational and interpretation role

Ensuring that recreational facilities are sited in appropriate settings within the Park

Increased focus on access to and enjoyment of the creek itself through paths, informal canoe launching sites etc

I agree that I have not donated more than $1000 to any political party, elected member, group or c andidate within this financial year.

I agree to the NSW Planning Department publishing my submission on their website, including any personal information that I have chosen to include.

To the Director, Major Planning Assessments, Department of Planning,

I am writing to express my strong disappointment that once again the NSW government are building major infrastructure through the Bardwell and Wolli Creek Valleys and but still not doing anything to address promises made in the past to make the corridor more accessible for active transport and recreational activities.

The Bardwell Valley is a beautiful oasis, rich with plant and animal life that many city dwellers are often not exposed to in their regular concrete box bound lives. This gorgeous parcel of nature is a valuable asset to the area and deserves to be discovered by more than just the nearby locals and bushwalkers.

All new infrastructure developments should require the inclusion of pedestrian and cycle friendly options to give people alternatives to the car (better for people, better for the environment). With the scale of Westconnex, including a non-car and mass transit option should be as on top of the priority list as the accommodations made for vehicles.

By connecting the last portion of the M5 Linear Park from Bexley North through to Tempe the opportunity then becomes available for to residents as far as Riverwood to ride/walk all the way to the City.

It's now time to honour previous commitments and show some compassion to the residents of the area who will suffer due to increased polution and traffic movements on local roads. By having the foresight and leadership required to do more than just generate more traffic and consciously participate in finding ways to remove cars from roads, the legacy of this white elephant may have a tiny silver lining.

I wish to lodge a strong protest against the development of WestConnect.
This is a monstrous waste of Public Money.
What we need is more light rail and public transport.
The alternative plan of building a tunnel just for trucks and Industry is better.
We DO NOT WANT the St Peters junction spewing traffic into the local area. We have the largest dresidential development going on in South Sydney already - congestion and parking are at at impossible level already. NO MORE PLEASE!!

I oppose this project on the basis that it will increase traffic congestion particularly on Euston Road leading into surrounding residential areas.

Construction of this sort of project will inevitably encourage more traffic onto the road system and result in traffic problems at discharge points. The 'Los Angeles' experience and it's flawed replication elsewhere should serve as a warning.

A more sensible goal would be to reduce the traffic burden by diverting the funds to public transport and taking measures to discourage unnecessary car trips to the centre.

M5 EIS Alexandria Landfill Appendix F

NSW EPA Clean up notice issued on 6 November 2015 for License 12594 was not mentioned in EIS. The matters raised were discussed with the EPA prior to 6 November and well before the public release of the EIS. Why wasn't this matter included in the EIS. This Clean up notice requires RMS to:
commence sampling, testing and removal of asbestos waste material in accordance with the Proposal by no later than 7 December 2015. It is essential that this compliance be reported as part of the EIS program to provide surety for the community that RMS is competently managing this contamination issue. What are the results of this testing?
must undertake air monitoring carried out for the detection of airborne asbestos fibres in accordance with the Air Monitoring Regime during the removal of any material from Stockpile 21 (asbestos stockpile). These results must be publicly released to provide residents with confidence that their health has not been compromised. RMS should disclose the results of this testing.
When sampling, testing and removal of asbestos waste in accordance with this notice is occurring Stockpile 21 must be sectioned off and access restricted to all staff or any other persons. What evidence is there that these security measures were completed in time to meet the conditions of this notice.
Ammonia is released in solid waste landfill through protein degradation under anaerobic conditions. If this landfill had been an inert waste landfill and a resource recovery facility for the last 30 years, where did these elevated ammonia concentrations come from. This is evidence that there was a significant putresible component to the waste in the past which means there needs to be a level of protection during closure commensurate with international best practice which includes the NSW Draft Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills 2nd edn JN 2015-0111.
Sydney Water's ammonia Trade Waste Limit for the site is 100 mg/L (as NH3-N). The average concentration was reported to be 127 mg/L and the maximum was 404 mg/L. Normally, Sydney Water would require an Industrial discharger to commence a project to meet their criteria. Failing to do so would mean that the discharge to sewer can no longer continue. The technology to install a simple nitrification cell is not complex and most large landfills and other industrial dischargers with high ammonia levels have these in place. It is unclear why Sydney Water has not made this a specific requirement for the Alexandria Landfill. The EIS did not identify plan B should Sydney Water cancel the discharge license. Where will the RMS dispose of 730,000 litres of leachate a day if it cannot be discharged to sewer?
Other GW contamination/Leachate Issues
Historically, total recoverable hydrocarbons was an indicator parameter used used as an inexpensive means to determine what other contaminants may be present. Testing results show that the TRH C34 to C40 concentrations were elevated. Organic contamination in this carbon range includes Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's). The EIS identified this group of compounds as one of the contaminants of concern following AECOM's Phase 2 investigation. Given this level of contamination and concern noted in the phase 2 investigation, it seems unlikely that Naphthalene was the only PAH detected in the leachate. Were other PAH's tested and identified? If not, why not?
This project's environmental consultants have contracted Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) as their accredited service provider for analytical testing. Section M3 of EPL licence 4627 requires that all testing be done by methods on NSW EPA's Approved Methods list. ALS sulfate testing is by their in-house method EN/ED041 G (Sulfate by discrete analyser method) which is not on the list of approved methods.
ALS have a variety of testing methods that are priced on the basis of detection level and sensitivity. Like many other laboratories ALS have a less expensive GCMS option for straight injection of extracted solvent in the GCMS (EP075/76) for quantifying phenol containing compounds. This method routinely under represents many compounds like pentachlorophenol as it requires derivatisation for full quantitation. As this is a more expensive option, inexperienced consultants will choose this compound. It is noted that pentachlorophenol is commonly found in leachate samples found to contain phenol.
Section 4 of EPA's Landfill Guidelines specify that the ionic balance should be ± 5 %. It was found to be up to 10 % during this assessment which is twice the guideline value. This is seen as another indicator of the poor quality assurance framework and lack of environmental expertise associated with this entire investigation.
Closure Cover.
Landfills continue to emit contamination for more than 50 years following site closure. For this reason it is essential to follow prescribed practices to ensure that public health and the environment are not at risk. Capping (the top layer of a closed landfill) is designed to inhibit infiltration of water through the landfill to ensure that leachate generation is minimised. The NSW EPA established benchmark techniques in the Landfill Guidelines for capping to ensure that all landfills are designed to control environmental emissions. The capping advocated in the M5 EIS has a greater focus on minimising the depth of the capping layer rather than meeting EPA benchmark requirements. As there is evidence that significant putresible waste was received at the facility, it is essential that the capping material meet the requirements from the guidelines that will be in place as it is closed. The EIS purports to include the Landfill Closure and Management Plan (LCMP) but the details in the EIS are inadequate to be considered as a closure plan. The EIS clearly states that the proponents negotiated with the EPA for a closure program that is well below the targets in the Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Guidelines.
Looking at the "Alexander landfill Closure Plan Typical Capping Layer as a benchmark, the following deficiencies are identified:
The Alexander Landfill cap has a re-vegetation level set at 500 mm. The EPA guideline is a revegetation layer at least 1000 mm thick and comprising clean soils and vegetation with root systems that will not penetrate into lower layers. The upper 200 mm should be a topsoil layer, which can include compost to help with vegetative establishment and growth. The revegetation layer should promote water removal by evapotranspiration and runoff; protect the sealing layer from desiccation and/or damage; and sustain microbial populations that oxidise a proportion of any methane passing up through the cap. Clearly the proposed vegetation level does not beet the benchmark.
The Alexander Landfill cap has a minimum 500 millimetre thick low permeability material layer with permeability of10 -8 metres per second. The EPA requirement for solid waste landfills is a composite sealing layer, comprising a lower compacted clay layer and an upper flexible membrane liner. The compacted clay layer should be at least 600 mm thick, with an in-situ saturated hydraulic conductivity of less than 1 x 10-9 m/s. The clay should contain no rock or soil clumps greater than 50 mm in any dimension. The Alexander landfill is 17 % less thick and the permeability is 10 times greater than the benchmark. Using simple maths (83 % x0.1), the Alexander landfill only about 8.3 % as effective as the benchmark.
The EPA requirement is for a The flexible membrane liner should be a high density polyethylene or linear low density polyethylene liner at least 2 mm thick underneath the clay.
The EPA states that it would permit a lower level of protection in two cases, no putresible waste or arid landfills. This was not the case for the Alexander Landfill.


Botany Sands Groundwater Extraction Bores.
The groundwater collected in the groundwater extraction bores from the landfill was collected in 50,000 L tanks and discharged into the stormwater. An examination of all Licences held by RMS could not locate any legal discharge licence near the Alexander Landfill. If RMS does not have a EPL discharge licence than these discharges were illegal ever since the RMS took control of the site. There is no evidence of the any contaminant assessment of these discharges nor comparison compliance with water guideline values.
Table 12 shows vinyl chloride levels as high as 485 ppb in the gas. This data in 5.6.2.2 reported without commentary. Since this compound was found at relatively high concentrations in the gas, it is likely that it will be detectable in the ground water and should be tested. Vinyl chloride comes from break down of compounds like trichloroethene and perchloroethene by dehydrohalogenation alkyl halides. For these reasons, not testing and reporting on the presence of this group of compounds (volatile halocarbons) is seen as
In Section 5.6.2.3 for estimating landfill gas generation rates it was assumed that food waste was removed from the C&I waste stream. This assumption is baseless simply given the types of gases present and the ammonia level in the landfill leachate. What were the qualifications of the team that made these assumptions. Does an new landfill EIS need to be developed?
Table 14
The Landfill Guidelines require phenols be tested by Total phenolics which is identified as the summation of 17 individual phenol-containing compounds identified by USEPA Method 8040 (USEPA 1992). This usually requires GCMS testing following derivatisation in modern accredited laboratories. Many inexperienced consultants often attempt to test for total phenol using the 4 amino-antipyrine (AATP) colourimetric method or GCMS testing without derivatisations since these options are much cheaper. The EIS does not provide details of the specific methods undertaken in this investigation. This is a serious oversight. The 4 AATP method suffers from t

As a resident of the City of Sydney in Redern who spends a lot of time in Alexandria and Newtown I am greatly concerned that the WestConnex will be a disaster for south sydney. Suburbs such as Redfern, Alexandria, Erskineville, Newtown and Green Square will be adversely impacted by a huge increase in traffic. The roads in our area are already congested and I am not convinced there has been enough planning as to how our neighbourhoods will handle the extra 40,000-50,000 vehicles a day.
NSW needs to look beyond roads as a transport solution for Sydney. I request that our Government allocates the billions of investment slated for WestConnex to public transport. This is a crucial decision that needs to be made now. I strongly object to the government wasting public money on toll road projects that will not begin the transformation of Sydney towards sustainable modes of transport.

I do not support the M5 ST. Peters interchange.

Westconnex will be a dister for local communities all around the inner west of Sydney filling already congested roads with cars, lowering air quality with unfiltered car emissions, 17 billion dollars would be far better spent on public transport.

I oppose the proposed WestConnect St Peters interchange. I believe this for-profit road expansion will negatively impact the quality of life in central Sydney and surrounds.

Money that would be spent on this project would be better spent expanding public transit, which is a greater benefit to the lower-income residents of the city, and more environmentally sustainable.

I write to object to the St Peters Interchange.
This will only serve to create more traffic in the area and the spin off effect will be a rat run of traffic through local streets to by pass the freeway.
The interchange will also create on environmental eyesore with a LA style concrete monolith overpowering the surrounding neighbourhoods, not to mention the effect it has on any surrounding park areas.
The whole Westconnex project is an outdated and vasltly over capitalised undertaking that will not only drain the state budget but deliver no long term solution to our traffic congestion, in fact the freeway and it's aesthetically unappealing interchange at St Peters will only serve to increase the congestion it's attempting to rectify.
I object to both the interchange and its parent the Westconnex freeway and as a tax payer I DO NOT concent to my tax dollar being spent on this project.
Regards
Sonia Fabbro