Moorebank Intermodal Precinct West - Stage 2

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
When purchasing my family home 20 years ago there was never a word about this being built in my backyard. In my aging years I don't want noise, pollution and congested roads by trucks. I purchased in this area for the parks and walking tracks - a lifestyle of being outdoors. Due to government greed my liftstyle and the lifestyles of many residents has been turned into one of poor air quality, truck fumes and noise. Why can't it wait for the airport yo be build and put closer to that infrastructure where homes aren't affected!
Yours sincerely, [email protected] Dodds Wattle Grove, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: the community and roads already struggle with traffic conjestion, this will just make it worse.
Yours sincerely, Alyce W

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
* additional thousands of trucks on a road network that can't handle them,
* devestation to the Georges river,
* the diesel emissions that will pollute our local air,
* the destruction of habitat for many of our local species.
This is a massive project that will impact thousands of families in our local neighbourhood for generations to come.
Yours sincerely, Cathy Goggi Chipping Norton, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: I am bothered about the future of my area, the traffic and pollution it will cause .
Yours sincerely, Evelyn Anunciacion Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: the traffic is already horrible around the m5 motorway and new bridge road / heathcote road And bringing more containers into the area will just make it worse
Yours sincerely, Alicia Kidd

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: I believe the effect it will have on local roads and not to mention the near by M5 will be horrendous. Air quality for the neighboring suburbs will be reduced and native flora and fauna in the area will be decimated. With more than enough container storage facilities already one has to question the reasons behind this one especially certain Government Ministers. It has to stop and if one is really needed that badly why not look at Badgery's Creek as an option? I say NO!

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
1) environmental concerns for a delicate ecosystem and the amount of pollution a project like this will bring
This is of huge concern as the Georges River is still recoveeing from pollution. The natural fauna and flora in the area which are found only in this area are under threat
2) health concerns for my family breathing in high amounts of additional polluted air
3) noise and air pollution levels will increase dramtically in a residential growth area
4) added traffic to an already overloaded road network which can barely cope with current traffic levels taking well over an hour and a half into the city at peak hour without incident
5) lack of parking with the current railway stations eg Glenfield so even if people are bullied of the roads with this project there is no where for them to park
6) residents in some parts will be directly accross from the site...huge impact!
7) added element of increasing accidents from an increased volume of road
8) Liverpool already sees the effects of drug users, this will lead to even more drug related crime such as theft
9) The Casula Powerhouse is a cultural icon and a draw card for schools, theatre companies, visitors to the area. This project will have a significant impact on this iconic venue and will destroy the enjoyment of a space set aside specifically for the cultural and social well being of the community.
There are far more auitable options for this project such as Chullora (existing site that can be expanded without massive changes and this is in a non residential area; Eastern Creek, Badgeries Creek or even to the north or south of Sydney again all more suited with limited direct impact to residents and the environment. Better still leave the current site at Port Botany. It is a port. It has always done this job. It has always been suited to this type of work.
Stop assuming that the residents of the Western suburbs are recalcitrant and should not be treated as any other suburb in Sydney would. You are about to impact tens of thousands of residents in the South West corridor and are not truly showing any concern for the social, physical and environmental concerns that residents and our political representatives have raised.
Would you want to raise your young family less than a few hundred meters away from this intermodal? Would you want this put right next door to you when you are retired and have to listen to all that noise?
What exactly is the benefit for the residents in our area because the ones given so far are not significant for us, but for the areas north, east and south of us but not us!
Yours sincerely, Duksha Hearne

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because the thousands of trucks shipping containers into the terminal around the clock will make living in this lovely community untenable. Our quality of life will be affected enormously, not to mention the devastating effect it will have on the native animals and the river. To say that they have received no objections is not true because I have lodged an objection prior to this one and it is offensive to me to basically say that my objection doesn't count - this is my home and I'm going to be the one that IS affected!
Yours sincerely, Lynette Shelley Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: Noise, traffic ,dust adverse impact to local area

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because it will cause far too much pollution and congestion in a growing suburb.
Yours sincerely, Kate Goggi Moorebank, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
I am a disability pensioner trapped by current and future circumstances beyond my control, to the extent of which deep depression and developing anxiety has damaged my life span. I hold the investors of this radical negative community development accountable.
Yours sincerely, Scott Mewett Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
The negative impact on the community and M5 will be catastrophic. The pollution, noise and quantity of large trucks in and out of the area will completely ruin the local roads and community!
Yours sincerely, David Leto Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
* additional thousands of trucks on a road netwotk that can't handle them,
* devestation to the Georges river,
* the diesel emissions that will pollute our local air,
* the destruction of habitat for many of our local species.
This is a massive project that will impact thousands of families in our local neighbourhood for generations to come.
Yours sincerely, Joseph Goggi Chipping Norton, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because: danger of polution and healt hazard for our children.Trafic kongestion and destriying our comunitu.By aloving this monstrositu to be build in our front jard our lokal state and federal goverment is troving us on the garbage tip.Shame on us fo aloving this to hapen.Same on us for electing the people that are seling us for their ovn financial and political advances.
Yours sincerely, Јим Димовски Holsworthy, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because the proposal will increase traffic in the area causing an increase in air pollution. The proposal has changed, originally the rail lines were to be on the west side od moorebank avenue but now we see they have moved the lines to the east side of moorebank ave which will impact my family much more exposing my family more noise and light pollution at night. (They have changed this and then not given any increased time to comment on the changes).
The entire proposal will degrade the quality of life to people living in the area, I will no longer be able to bike ride safley along moorebank avenue. The decreasie in the property prices in the area also reduces our future ability to support ourselves in retirement many people will not be able to sell because their mortgages will be greater than the value of their homes. Please reconsider the development and move it to where the new airport is being built.
Yours sincerely, Annette Wright Wattle Grove, New South Wales, 2173, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
I fear for the health and safety of my young family as well as myself. When we moved into the area over 5 years ago, we did not plan on this.
We would have not moved to Moorebank if we new of this proposed plan.
it is also far too congested at the moment without new trucks coming and going.
NO THANKS!
Yours sincerely, Patricio Ducaud Moorebank, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because it does not belong in our community. Liverpool is next cbd and no place for this
Yours sincerely, Vesna Aleks Mount Pritchard, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

I object to this stage and the entire project at this location because:
The feeder roads which lead to the intermodal will become congested especially from the vehicles travelling from and to Chipping Norton/Moorebank industrial areas
Yours sincerely, Aaron Trumble Mount Pritchard, New South Wales, 2170, Australia

Objection to the Moorebank Precinct West Stage 2 proposal Environmental Impact Statement.

I would like to put forward my objection to the Moorebank Precinct West Stage 2 proposal, this project remains a project which is not in the local community, state or national interest.
Poor consultation has been the hallmark of the push for the development of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal Precinct in its various forms by the Moorebank Intermodal Company (MICL) and now Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SMITA).
It stagers me that after all this time consulting and providing feedback to MICL and SIMTA they are still unable to get even small details about the local area they are intending to impact correct. I live in Wattle Grove and the name of my street is regularly incorrect in their documentation. I live in Wallcliffe Court Wattle Grove (Which is 1km from the proposed site) not the Wallcliff Court as mentioned in SIMTA's Health Risk Assessment report (Yu, Kellaghan, & Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance, 2016, pp. 13, 19).
If this small fact is wrong and repeatedly pointed out and not corrected it does not give me confidence that the larger issues will be taken seriously.
As usual consultation has meant that residents are expected to contact SIMTA for more information and consult with them.
SIMTA "graciously" provided a newsletter in July, however it mostly covered old information and little information was provide on the current Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for Stage 2 making it difficult for residents to fully identify and consult on the issues of concern. Consultation needs to be in plain English as it very difficult to follow if you must translate it to identify and consult on the issues.
Having information literacy skills I can find out what the planning and industry jargon means but a large proportion of the residents of the Liverpool Local Government Area (LLGA) have not completed high school (Liverpool City Council, n.d.) or are from non-English speaking backgrounds, so they would have difficulty engaging with the newsletter and the consultation process in general.
During my preparation for this submission, I found out there has been three newsletters in the last six months July, September and November 2016. I only recollect receiving the July newsletter and as I am acutely aware of this project and its impact for my community, I am sure I would have noticed if our household had received the other two newsletters.
It is important to note that the latter of the two newsletters were not within the period for community consultation that SIMTA took into consideration when the prepared their "Consultation Outcomes Report" (Elton Consulting, Radestock, & Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance, 2016) dated August 2016 for the EIS. So, there was no way for the community to view the September and November newsletters and their concerns included as part of the SIMTA EIS submission.
Locating such a development amid a suburban area is foolhardy at best. The works needed to build and undertake operations on the site will negatively impact the local communities of Moorebank, Wattle Grove, Holsworthy, Hammondville, Voyager Point, Liverpool, Casula, Glenfield and Chipping Norton and the wider South West Sydney area.
The topography of the local area already means that pollution takes longer to disperse adding more pollution to this mix can only increase the adverse health outcome for residents suffering with Asthma and other breathing related illness.
SIMTA's Health Risk Assessment report states that the "Liverpool area are currently non-compliant with the NEPM AAQ standards" and suggest that hard work of "wood heater compliance programs and improvements in vehicle emission standards" will bring down the ambient concentrations of air pollution to level which will mean that they are not having an impact (Yu et al., 2016, p. 17). The work towards improving the air quality in the Liverpool area is a work in progress and the area is still burdened with non-compliant air quality. It is grossly inappropriate for SIMTA to claim a right to further pollute Liverpool's air based on these improvements, considering that they are neither funding nor bringing about these improvements to ambient concentrations of air pollution.
The location of the monitoring equipment should be closer to the area's most likely to be most adversely affected so a true base line for residents boardering the proposed Intermodal Terminal can be determined. The current location does not consider that the most affected residents currently have a lot of natural vegetation that filters the air near that houses which will be lost during the development thus exacerbating the pollution related health issue for those individuals.
SIMTA's Health Risk Assessment report suggest that it is acceptable to burden the community with the "acceptable risk of one increased case per year, for premature mortality, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits associated with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases or asthma"(Yu et al., 2016, p. Executive Summary). As a wife and a mother and a reasonable human I think it is repugnant for SIMTA to know it is going to kill someone each year and to claim it is an acceptable risk. When I read these numbers I think about the impact to the families I know with loved ones who might happen to be the ones bearing the brunt of that "acceptable risk of one increased case per year, for premature mortality, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits associated with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases or asthma"(Yu et al., 2016, p. Executive Summary).
SIMTA's Health Risk Assessment report (2016, p. 51) states that "existing ambient noise levels alone exceed the WHO community guidelines" which means the local residents already suffer from annoyance, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment due to high levels of ambient noise form existing industry and infrastructure.
The SIMTA Health Risk Assessment report seem to suggest that because their noise is only a bit more noise it shouldn't bother anyone too much - "the Proposal related noise is expected to have a minimal additional impact on the noise in the local area above existing baseline levels"(Yu et al., 2016, p. 52). This is flat out ridiculous. Any logical person can reason that if someone is already suffering from annoyance, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment due to noise that more noise will cause more annoyance, increased sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment and also it will start to impact additional people who were previously able cope with the noise pollution.
As the state government has been very vocal in publicising recently, fatigue is one of the three main killers on NSW roads. SIMTA doesn't seem to care about affecting people's ability to safely drive to work, operate heavy machinery and so on, but sleep disturbances kill and SIMTA must not be allowed to have this impact on residents.
It is clear local residents will be heavily effected not only by the building of this project but also by its ongoing operations. I do not feel that this report adequately looked at how much additional noise local residence will be subjected to.
No work should be done on a site so close to people after 6pm on a week night (lots of young families in the affected area) and absolutely no work should be done on the weekend. Residents deserve a chance to enjoy their weekends and backyards in peace without the thrum and the beeping of earthmoving equipment.

Allowing 24/7 operation of this site would be criminal. It is not like everyone in the area knew there was going to be an Intermodal Terminal built here. We didn't move to an industrial area or an area slated for such an intrusive development.
Freight train movements in the middle of the night cause significant impact on sleep. Running 24/7 will just add to the already accumulating deterioration of the residents' ability to sleep and enjoy their properties that this project represents. Considering allowing SIMTA to run freight trains past the unprotected back yards on the SSFL is just not on. If they don't have any intention of fixing the existing noise problems, how can residents believe they have any intention of considering the new noise impacts they are creating.
The increase in noise due to the increase in local traffic due to the Intermodal terminal has not full been examined. If the proponents think that this is a minimal impact they need to think again. So called improvement to the M5 have led to more noise travelling through to Wattle Grove in the quietest parts of the night with this only expected to get worse with the additional truck traffic and construction this proposal will bring to our local area. Some of the proposed "best practice" for noise mitigation are unrealistic and in themselves will cause just as much noise as they proport to reduce. For example "Trucks would be turned away from facility if arriving too early" (Hall & Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance, 2016, p. 51) This just increases the noise for locals as trucks either circle the surrounding roads looking for somewhere to wait or when they park and idle in the suburb to wait, when they know they are too early. The proponents offer no assurance to residence that mitigation measures will be enforced.
On a personal note, I grew up near Enfield train yard in a suburban street in the 70's through to the early 90' and I can remember being woken at night as a child and young adult by the banging of the shunting trains and sirens. Sudden noises in the night time wake people and it makes it harder for them to get back to sleep. When we first moved to Wattle Grove I was surprised by how peaceful it was at nighttime in comparisons to where I grew up. I will be devastated to lose this night time tranquillity.
It will be too late to protect the residents right to a peaceful home environment once the Intermodal Terminal is operational. An independently monitored compliance regime needs to be put in place with penalties for noncompliance large enough to act as a genuine deterrent even for large companies.
If the proponents are so sure that they are only going to cause me minimal additional impact from noise why don't they offer to pay for double glazing now for those who feel it is necessary. Or at the very least monitor the items residents have raised as concerns as a reasonable cost of their operation.

It is unrealistic to use figures for traffic modelling that are not current. The figures from 2015 are out of date with a great deal of residential building having been completed in the areas surrounding the proposed location of the Intermodal Terminal, with more approved.
The roads in the local area are at capacity with a near gridlock happening at both the morning and evening peak. What the Construction Traffic Impact Assessment fails to make clear is that it can already take half an hour just to get out of Wattle Grove during peak time. Adding any more traffic to this would cause unnecessary hardship for locals trying to get to work. Large trucks are already doing the run through the edge of the suburb trying to avoid traffic. If there happens to be bad weather more people use the roads increasing congestion. Adding construction traffic and later operational Intermodal traffic to that makes the situation untenable. Added to this, some local roads (such as Cambridge Ave) are often closed due to flooding; another stress on the local roads.
If the proponent truly wants to minimise the impact to residents it would not start any work on the site until the local roads were upgraded and its own Traffic plan was fully developed including an independently monitored compliance regime with effective penalties for noncompliance.
In 2002, a bush fire swept through the proposed site for the intermodal and destroyed a house in my street. This was a fast-moving fire leaving me and my neighbours little time to escape to safety. The roads were clogged and fire fighters were unable to get through to save the property that burned down, and other properties in the street were only saved by Elvis the air crane. This was a frightening experience and it concerns me greatly that the very significant increase in traffic caused by an operating Intermodal would further increase the time it will take emergency services to attended to incidents in Wattle Grove, especially in times of crisis.
 

References

Elton Consulting, Radestock, D., & Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance. (2016). Moorebank Precinct West (MPW) - Stage 2 Proposal Consultation Outcomes Report. Retrieved from https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/0cfbcec96fe972fed192c38d414a9061/2016-10-25%20Appendix%20L_Consultation%20Outcomes%20Report_October%202016.pdf
Hall, N., & Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance. (2016). Moorebank Precinct West (MPW) - Stage 2 Proposal Noise Impact Assessment. Retrieved from https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/d7ef965aaebbcc9f71bce098c3f13478/2016-10-25%20Appendix%20N_Noise%20Impact%20Assessment%20&%20Best%20Practice%20Review_October%202016.pdf
Liverpool City Council. (n.d.). About Liverpool and our Community. Retrieved from http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/council/the-liverpool-area/about-liverpool-and-our-community
Yu, S., Kellaghan, R., & Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance. (2016). Moorebank Precinct West (MPW) - Stage 2 Proposal Health Risk Assessment. Retrieved from https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/a44f4a7365fa7f617d1870edefd963aa/2016-10-25%20Appendix%20P_Health%20Risk%20Assessment_October%202016.pdf

22nd November 2016

My name is Allan Corben of 13 Woolmers Court Wattle Grove 2173 and wish to lodge the following submission on the MPE Stage 2 EIS SSD 16_7709. I'm a retired transport and logistics manager who spent 48 years of my working life in the industry, including many years in the rail freight area. When I look back on my work history and the fact that I suffered 30% hearing loss whilst in the rail area of the industry, I believe I have a good knowledge of how the proposed industry can impact on people.
I hold great concerns in relation to this proposed development and the horrendous impact that it will have on the many residents living in the suburbs that surround this inappropriate development. As acknowledged the EIS there are 38,000 people living in the suburbs that surround the proposed site.
In red are my submission comments on the topics in black font.
I would appreciate confirmation from the planning department that this submission has been received.

MOOREBANK PRECINCT WEST (MPW) Stage 2 Proposal Preliminary Environmental Assessment
1 Introduction
1.4 Previous Approvals
MPW Concept Modification Page 13
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the MPW Concept Approval (SSD_5066) identified that fill material required for the development of the MPW site would be largely sourced from excavations within the MPW site and hence imported fill volumes for the MPW Project would be small. Subsequent civil design development for the MPW Project has identified that fill required to be imported to the MPW site is estimated at 1,600,000 cubic metres (m3). SIMTA has proposed to undertake additional site preparatory works, including the import, placement and stockpiling of clean fill, as a modification to the MPW Concept Approval (not Early Works) under section (s) 96(2) of the EP&A Act. In addition to the importation of fill, the following activities are also proposed to be undertaken under the MPW Concept Modification:
* Staging of future applications - alteration to the works to be included in MPW Stage 2 and future stages
* Maximum building heights - related to the importation of fill and the resulting increase in building heights, which do not comply with the Liverpool Local Environmental Plan 2008
* Land use changes - alteration to the location of key built form elements included in the MPW Project and additional parcels of surrounding land impacted by the MPW Project
* Subdivision - facilitate for the subdivision of the MPW site.
The works included within the MPW Concept Modification, as identified above, would be physically undertaken as part of this Proposal (i.e. are also the subject of this EIS).
Also included in the early works modification application was an extension of working hours during the weekday from 6.00pm to 10.00pm and Saturday from 1.00pm to 6.00pm. It also included an earlier start during the weekday from 7.00am to 6.00am. The application also included the installation of a concrete crushing machine and surprisingly enough, both these requests have gone missing from the modification application as referred in the above statement. Scrutiny of the Stage 2 EIS shows that the two missing application requests now appear in this the Stage EIS. I'm firmly of the opinion that SIMTA have deliberately removed the hours extension and the crushing machine from the 87 page modification application and inserted them into the 2500 odd page Stage 2 EIS with the view that being such a large document, these extremely inappropriate functions would not be detected by the ordinary reader. Neither should be approved.

2.3 Local context:
2.3.3 Residential Page 24
The closest residential sensitive receivers are approximately 300m west of the Proposal site, and west of the SSFL, in Casula. What mitigation will be provided to mitigate the noise impact on residents of Casula 290m and Wattle Grove 1200m

3 Proposal alternatives
3.3.2 Alternative sites Page 49
To this end, the proposed site represents an ideal position for the proposed facility as:
* There is a direct intersection linking the adjacent Moorebank Avenue to the M5 Motorway. There are a number of road intersections that will need upgrading within the local road network to cope with the increase in heavy vehicle movements from the site as of day one. One upgrade that I hear has the Government and proponents experts scratching their heads is the M5 weave and blending lanes (Refer attachment) between the Moorebank Avenue southbound on ramp and the Hume Highway off ramp. This area is currently very congested during peak hours with vehicles trying to get onto the M5 at Moorebank Avenue and through traffic trying to get off at the Hume Highway. To add additional heavy traffic to this area will certainly increase the accident stats. At this stage only one upgrade has been advised and that is to upgrade Moorebank Avenue to four lanes, but not until 2030. For the Government and proponents to ignore absolutely critical road upgrades is totally irresponsible. Even during the construction period there will be approximately 1500 truck movements a day and I shudder to think what the outcome will be when heavy vehicles attempt to enter the M5 via the southbound on ramp at Moorebank Avenue. There's that old saying, "Do it right the first Time".
* Buffers are provided between the facility and nearby residential areas. This is news to me. The only noise mitigation stated at this stage is the noise wall on the western side of the MPW site. The Stage 2 EIS will allow the operational use of the MPW site with absolutely no mitigation to those suburbs on the eastern side of the site. Even the noise wall on the western side will offer little protection to the suburb of Casula as it is elevated above the site.
* It is within the catchment for which there is a demand, resulting in shorter average delivery distances and more efficient use of road transport. There is a high probability that railing from Port Botany will increase the transit time port to door when you consider that (a) 65% of import TEUs are destined for the western suburbs not the southern western suburbs and (b) Should TEUs not be dispatched from Port Botany until after lunch they would arrive too late for delivery the same day, whereas if on the ground at Botany there would a good chance of delivery that day.
4.2.7 Urban design
Fencing and noise wall
In addition, a noise wall approximately five metres high would be installed along part of the western boundary of the site - refer to Section 8 and Appendix N of this EIS for additional detail. Not only should noise walls be provided on the western boundary of the site, they should also be included along the eastern side of the MPE rail entry line.
It was previously stated that the warehousing on the SIMTA site would act as noise mitigation to Wattle Grove/Holsworthy. This mitigation cannot be applied to the southern area of Wattle Grove as the MICL site extends some 500m further south than SIMTA's, leaving an area of sparse bush land to act as mitigation. This issue must be addressed by the proponents.

4.3.3 Construction methods
Pre-construction stockpiling
Stockpiling would be undertaken on site prior to construction commencing during the following hours:
* 6am to 10pm Monday to Friday
* 7am to 6pm Saturdays.
Firstly I must place on record my amasement that such a large remediation issue was totally overlooked during the original studies to the point that they now wish to extend the working hours. These people are supposed to be professionals yet they obviously failed to observe that the site wasn't level, or was the failure deliberate???? It also questions the validity of the overall studies.
The missing extension of hours reappears. As in my modification application I totally oppose any modification to the working hours with the exception of 6.00 to 7.00am week day mornings. The reason: (1) Many people start their working day early and to have this operation going till 10.00pm weeknights is unacceptable. (2) For most people weekends are exactly that, time for people to relax and recharge for the forthcoming week. It's selfish of the proponents to even consider extending their working hours.
A simple solution to overcome this overlooked workload is for the proponents to bring in additional equipment and staff to carry out this additional work during the existing approved time range. Pretty simple I would think.

4.3.3 Construction methods
Pre-construction stockpiling Page 76
Stockpiling would be undertaken on site prior to construction commencing during the following hours:
Bulk earthworks Page 77
The fill would be stockpiled across the site, adjacent to areas of placement works to minimise material handling. Stockpiles would not exceed ten metres in height from the final site levels, with battered walls at gradients of 1:3. There is the potential for some oversized boulders to be contained within the imported fill that would require segregation and crushing to make the materials suitable as an engineered fill. Demolition waste stockpiled after the Early Works would also be crushed at the Earthworks Compound during the Bulk earthworks period for potential reuse on the Proposal site. The missing crusher that was covered under the Stage 1 modification application suddenly reappears. This type of machine creates high levels of noise and dust and to have this operating after normal specified working hours is totally unacceptable as per my comment in Pre-construction stockpiling Page 76.
6.4 Proposal consultation
6.4.1 Consultation activities Page 142
NSW Health was contacted by telephone in June 2016 to arrange a suitable date for a meeting to discuss the Proposal. NSW Health advised that a meeting was not suitable at this time however requested they be provided correspondence to inform them of the Proposal. A formal letter was emailed to NSW Health on 7 September 2016 which included an overview of the Proposal and the executive summary of the Health Risk Assessment (refer to Appendix P of this EIS) which was prepared to address the SEARs for the Proposal. NSW Health responded on 7 September 2016 to acknowledge the letter; however no further comments have been received to date.
I'm shocked that NSW Health appears to have little interest in being involved in what is a massive health risk to local residents. The question needs to be asked as to what NSW Health does for the wages they receive from the taxpayers. Far too many government departments seem to shun their responsibilities by not becoming involved in this development to represent the interest and health of the people.
From a personal point of view, my wife and I already suffer breathing problems without the local environment getting worse. The reason for our breathing problems became evident when we recently holidayed on the north coast of NSW. Whilst away both our breathing problems disappeared. Once we returned home our problems returned which suggests to me that it's something in the local area that is causing our breathing problems.

Consultation Page 144
Mitigation measures for the Proposal include management of residents in Casula however Wattle Grove have raised concerns, is mitigation required? The Proposal site is located approximately 1km from Wattle Grove. The Proposal would not result in noise impacts above the criteria, at Wattle Grove. Notwithstanding this, a number of mitigation measures are to be implemented during construction and operation of the Proposal to minimise impacts on all surrounding.
I reject this statement based on the fact that residents living within a three kilometre radius of the Port Botany container terminal are currently suffering sleep disturbance. Wattle Grove being 1000m from the MPW the risk of sleep disturbance is high. As previously stated, I'm of the opinion that noise walls must be installed along the eastern side on the MPE rail entry line for the full distance of the rail line. This particularly applies to the area of Wattle Grove that will not have the proposed warehouse mitigation of the MPE site.

EIS Summary Introduction
Noise and vibration Refer wwwv
The Noise and Vibration Assessment also determined that the operational levels from the Proposal would comply with the relevant criteria, including relevant sleep disturbance goals. Additionally, cumulative noise levels due to the concurrent operation of the Proposal and the MPE Stage 1 Proposal are predicted to comply with the established criteria.
This being the case, why have TFNSW, EPA, Campbelltown and Liverpool Councils and an independent acoustics engineer convey concerns to PAC as to the curve radius of the rail entry line which will most certainly create high levels of wheel squeal.
Hazard and risk Refer xlii
Dangerous goods have been explicitly excluded from the types of freight that the Proposal would handle (i.e. they would not be accepted), and would therefore also be excluded from the Proposal's warehouse, freight container storage and transit areas. Therefore, there is considered to be no risks from dangerous goods in freight, transit or storage and no assessment has been undertaken. I find it difficult to accept that this facility won't handle dangerous goods being a large freight area of the transport industry. I totally disagree with this exclusion. The transport industry has seen many life threating dangerous goods spills over the years. To use the statement that they won't accept dangerous goods is just a cop out on part the proponents.
They will, in fact, transport some form of dangerous goods as they currently operate a general freight business dealing with customer's who dispatch general freight that can include dangerous goods. When a carrier reaches an agreement to carry a customer's freight it generally includes all freight and to not just pick out the cream and leave the hard to handle freight and as such the storage, handling and transport of dangerous goods must be included in the EIS studies for no other reason than safety.

7.3 Noise and Vibration
7.3.4 Further assessment Page 46 & 47: E2. Development Applications for both the IMEX and interstate terminal shall include a report to identify:
(a) The extent of wheel squeals across the fleet of rail vehicles that will frequently use the terminals. This should identify the number of occurrences of brake squeal, the typical noise levels associated with brake squeal (including the frequency content), and the operational conditions under which brake squeal occurs (e.g. under light braking, hard braking, low / medium / high speed, effects of temperature and weather, etc.);
(b) The root cause of brake squeal, including the influence of the design, set-up and maintenance of both brake shoes and brake rigging;
(c) Possible solutions to mitigate or eliminate brake squeal, including modifications to brake rigging and alternative brake shoe designs and compounds; and
(d) Any monitoring system proposed to capture brake squeal.
Additional to the above comments, wheel squeal is also created by the wheels rubbing against the curve of the rail line.
It's on record that PAC, TfNSW and EPA have concerns with the curved radius of the rail entry into the site. Concerns are as follows:
(1) TfNSW raised concern about the proposed curve radius of approximately 160m when the average curve radius to avoid wheel sequel is greater than 500m and that there was a greater probability of wheel squeal with a curve radius less that than 300m
(2) EPA also conveyed their concern at the proposed curve radius of 160m.
(3) When asked by the commission if lubricant would reduce rail wheel sequel, the EPA advised that lubricant and rail grind may help reduce wheel squeal, but it will not fully mitigate.
(4) Both Liverpool and Campbelltown City Councils conveyed concerns as to the tight rail curve radius proposed.
(5) A study carried out on behalf of Glenfield Farm by acoustics engineer Brian Marston found that data from recent academic papers confirms that excess noise, particularly loud curve squeal, will be caused by operation of the rail spur link between the Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) and the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal bridge over the Georges River. The data indicates that automatic greasing of the rail lines (made as a condition by the Planning Assessment Commission in respect of the MIC application) will not fix the problem.
As the southern area of the suburb of Wattle Grove doesn't have the proposed SIMTA warehousing along its western boundary (The southern end of the MPE site finishes some 500m shorter than the MPW site) , with residents living as close as 640m, physical mitigation will need to be provided.
In consideration of the above, I'm of the opinion that the rail entry lines will also need to have noise walls constructed along both sides for the full length of the curved rail area. This noise issue cannot be ignored under any circumstances.

8.2.3 Best Practice Review Page 230
Best practice for reducing noise from container handling equipment is to migrate from diesel powered plant to diesel/hybrid power and eventually electrically powered plant. Moderate reductions may be realised when moving to diesel/hybrid powered units as the duty cycle of the diesel engine is often significantly reduced. Alternatively, full electrification of container handling equipment is typically accompanied by significant reductions in noise emissions and is considered best practice.
There is no mention of the extremely high noise levels created when containers being handled by above equipment cause the containers to strike against each other. This very loud noise and sharp sound can result in substantial sleep disturbance. This issue needs to be addressed.
9.2.5 Best practice review Page 261
It is noted that SIMTA would have operational control over approximately 40% of locomotives entering the Proposal IMT facility, therefore control over emissions performance improvements is limited to 40% of the fleet.
Who will be responsible for the emissions performance of the remaining 60% locomotives that enter the site? This statement is giving the proponent the opportunity to ignore this issue.
9.5.2 Operation
Locomotives Page 291
* Ensure locomotives are well maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification or relevant operational plan. Update maintenance plans to include a requirement to consider air emissions and where possible improve air emission performance at next overhaul/upgrade (for SIMTA operational fleet)
Again another get out card for the other 60% locomotives not controlled by SIMTA. A process must be in place to ensure all locomotives entering the sites comply legally with best practice.
A large percentage of locomotives currently operating on the local Sydney rail network are 20 to 30 years old and emit high levels of pollution.
10.4.2 Noise Page 313
As shown above, hazard quotients are above 1 for residential receivers in Casula and Glenfield and the All Saints Senior College. These values only marginally exceed 1, which indicates that rail noise may result in a small increase in the risk of health outcomes to the community, if left unmitigated. Furthermore, when analysed in conjunction with Table 10-18, it can be seen that a similar hazard quotient is generated by ambient noise as rail noise. This suggests that additional noise impact generated by rail noise is not likely to be primarily responsible for any health impacts created by noise as part of the Proposal operation.
It would appear that the proponents have overlooked the fact that residents of Casula are already suffering from excessive noise levels. Although mention is made that mitigation will be required to reduce the noise impact on the residents of Casula, nothing is mentioned concerning the impact on the residents of the southern section of Wattle Gove which has no planned noise wall inclusion.
Summary Page 314
In summary, the noise from the Proposal operation meets the WHO community noise guidelines at most sensitive receivers. Exceedances occur for annoyance, sleep disturbance and cognitive impairment in the local communities from predicted operational rail noise, however since it is shown that the existing ambient noise levels alone already exceed the WHO guidelines, the additional noise created as a result of the Proposal is anticipated to have minimal impact on noise related health effects in the local area.
Being a resident of Wattle Grove I totally reject the above statement. At night in the current surrounding areas of Wattle Grove you can virtually hear a pin drop. I cannot believe that the proponents can make the claim that the additional noise created as a result of the proposal will have a minimal impact on noise health effects in the local. These people either don't know what they are talking about, or simply stating falsehoods. To be honest, the community is absolutely sick and tired of reading the garbage put out by these people. People seem to forget that this is Australia's largest test container terminal
Appendix I Preliminary Construction EnviromentalManagement
3 PLANNING Page 15
Whilst construction works would generally be undertaken during the standard daytime construction works hours, the importation of clean fill to the site would be undertaken over additional hours as follows:
* 6 am to 10 pm Monday to Friday
* 7 am to 6 pm Saturdays.
These changes of hours were part of the Stage 1 modification application which hasn't gone ahead. The Stage 1 Modification Application included the importation of 1.6 million cubic metres of fill, the installation of a concrete crushing machine and extension of the working hours. At the time the Stage 2 EIS was published there was advice that SIMTA had reconsidered the modification application and would only be seeking approval of the fill import. No mention was made as to the outcome of the two other requests.
I believe that SIMTA deliberately withdrew the extension of hours and the concrete crusher from the modification application and included them in the Stage 2 EIS. I believe this was done with the view that as the EIS 2 consisted some 2500 odd pages, unlike the 87 page modification application with the view that these two very inappropriate changes would possibly slip through without being detected. As you can see above, the extension of hours go well into the night and as there are 38,000 people living in the suburbs that surround the site, its unacceptable for them to be disturbed during what I term their rest and sleep time. In the case of the crusher, there is already a proposed crusher near Georges Fair that's currently in the courts due to the negative aspect of this type of machine.
Appendix N Noise impact assessment
Table 7-4 Page 36
During periods where noise levels are enhanced by meteorological conditions, LAeq, 15min operational noise levels are predicted to exceed the established night time intrusiveness criterion at the most affected receivers in Casula. At six residential receivers in Casula, the noise levels are predicted to exceed the criterion by up to 1 dB.
Surely we don't expect the people of Casula to contend with noise levels above the night time criterion. These people already endure noise levels from the rail lines that exceed the criterion as it is. The more I read the more I feel sick in the stomach particularly when I already don't have any confidence in the proponent's ethics and honesty. 8.1 Operation of the Rail Link Page 39
A detailed assessment of potential noise impacts associated with the operation of the Rail link between the MPE Stage 1 IMEX Terminal and the Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) was conducted for the MPE Stage 1 Proposal (SSD-6766). Following that assessment, Planning NSW has issued a set of recommended conditions for the operation of the Rail link. These conditions require that:
* Wagons on the Rail link incorporate available best practice technologies for reducing wheel squeal, such as permanently coupled "multi-pack" steering wagons using Electronically Controlled Pneumatic braking with a wire based distributed power system; (a) What incentive is available to the 60% trains that aren't controlled by the proponent to comply. (b) Who will be responsible to police compliance? My opinion is that once approval is obtained, the proponents won't care less, IE Not their problem. There needs to be some form of legal compliance in place to ensure that the other 60% of locomotives and wagons that may enter the Moorebank facility comply with the requirement. If not the people of the area surrounding the site will lose every bit of the lifestyle that they currently have.
* Friction modifiers and automatic rail lubrication systems are installed within the Rail link; and, It's a fact that lubrication of the lines won't eliminate wheel squeal.
* Track grinding is carried out within the Rail link to ensure the correct profile is maintained on the track to encourage proper rolling stock steering. The proponents, NSW Planning and PAC need to remember that the subject of controlling wheel squeal has raised many concerns from other experts not linked to SIMTA. In my opinion with the line curved radius of 160m nothing will reduce the wheel squeal to an acceptable level.
The above suite of measures is considered best practice for avoiding curve squeal. These measures would be incorporated into the design and operation of the Rail link for the Proposal and therefore, the occurrence of curve squeal is considered unlikely. I'm not sure if this theory will work. My opinion is based on my knowledge gained whilst working for many years in a rail container business, which resulted in a hearing loss of 30%.

11 MITIGATION
As outlined in Section 7.1.3, a large noise wall would be established along a portion of the western boundary of the Proposal site. The need for this noise wall was identified in the MPW Concept Plan EIS, and subsequent modelling in this assessment has confirmed the need for such a barrier. The indicative height and extent of the noise wall was presented in Section 7.1.3. The actual height and extent of the noise wall, and any other required noise walls, would be confirmed during detailed design. It should be noted that the height and/or extent of the noise wall could differ from that presented in this assessment.
As previously stated, I believe that a noise wall is need on the eastern side of SIMTA rail entry line.

I hereby advise that I DO NOT give permission for my property to be negatively impacted so if necessary I can take legal action or join a class action should this proposal ruin the amenity of my property.