NorthConnex

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXX


11 September, 2014

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


To Whom It May Concern:

Re: NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

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

Firstly I would like to state my strong objection to the project as described in the EIS.

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 from 17 local schools, as well as 5 aged care facilities and 2 hospitals, all within one kilometre radius of the stack, will be exposed to the toxic discharge of the fume from the stack.

2. The large number of growing children whose will be adversely affected as they spend a large proportion of days outdoors. In addition, they will be prone to lung cancer and other forms of related cancers after exposure to cancer-causing agents from the portal emissions that are not filtered nor will be properly dispersed into the atmosphere.

3. 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.

While the EIS contains a modelling of the air dispersion of various fine particulate particles (in particular, Particulate 10 and Particulate 2.5), the wind and other weather data used in such exercise is taken from the localities of Terrey Hills and Sydney Airport, both of which are at least some 20 km away from the Wahroonga local area. Anecdotal evidence shows that, on a typical day at Wahroonga, the wind speed will normally reach a maximum of approximately 5 km/h, well short of those wind speeds contained in the data of Terrey Hills and Sydney Airport used in EIS. Hence, any conclusion reached by the EIS based on these wind and weather data are dubious to say the least, and should be considered entirely invalid and preposterous.

4. 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, and 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.

Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to the following two research papers demonstrating the harmful impact of those living in the vicinity of a pollution stack:

* "Respiratory Health Before and After the Opening of a Road Traffic Tunnel" by Cowie, Rose, Ezz, etc. published in November 2012. The source of the paper can be found at:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0048921

This particular study shows that, during the two years (2007-2008) after the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel in 2006, the residents living near the ventilation stack of the tunnel experienced decreases in lung capacity and function.

* "The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development on 10-18 Years of Age" - The New England Journal of Medicine published on September 2004. The source of the paper can be found at:

http://mail.ictf-jpa.org/publiccomment/Documents/Gauderman%202004.pdf

This study shows that children are specifically susceptible to the damages caused by the pollution from the stack. Specifically, it demonstrates that exposures of children to the pollution will cause permanent and irreversible damage to growing lungs.


5. 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.

6. 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 Organization, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.

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

8. 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

9. I 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.

10. I am concerned about lack of consideration to any toxic fumes that will be emitted in case of major accidents or major fire incidences. They will be emitted unfiltered straight into residential zones.

In the year of 1999, in the Mont Blanc tunnel crossing from Italy into France, there was a major fire involving a truck carrying flour and margarine, which caused black fire and toxic smoke burning for over 3 days. Emergency personnel were unable to access the area due to 1000 deg Celsius heat and toxic fumes. There were 38 deaths in this incident.

They later installed an inspection bay to check all freight trucks before entry. Will there be any inspection points before this tunnel to check for hazardous vehicle contents?

What are the existing plans and tunnel designs that the operators of NorthConnex have to avoiding a similar accident that will cause deaths and impact on the health of nearby residents?

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

To address my 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. In particular, I noted that the official submission of the Ku-Ring Gai Council for the EIS has strongly recommended the stack be moved northward to an industrial and bush area and I strongly endorse this view.

The Ku-Ring Gai Council's submission can be found here:

http://datracking.kmc.nsw.gov.au/infocouncil.web/Open/2014/09/OMC_09092014_AGN_AT_WEB.HTM

3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration. Adequate filtration must be provided and operated to prevent the escape of toxic fumes. The additional costs should be borne by vehicles travelling through the tunnel.

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.

10. Vehicle inspection bays be installed and operated before tunnel entry points to direct vehicles carrying banned goods that will cause major fire incidents from entering the tunnel.

Name: XXXXXXX

Address: XXXXXX

Phone: XXXXXXX

Email: XXXXXXX

15/75-79 Florence Street,
Hornsby,
2077 NSW.


11 September, 2014

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


To Whom It May Concern:

Re: NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

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

Firstly I would like to state my strong objection to the project as described in the EIS.

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 from 17 local schools, as well as 5 aged care facilities and 2 hospitals, all within one kilometre radius of the stack, will be exposed to the toxic discharge of the fume from the stack.

2. The large number of growing children whose will be adversely affected as they spend a large proportion of days outdoors. In addition, they will be prone to lung cancer and other forms of related cancers after exposure to cancer-causing agents from the portal emissions that are not filtered nor will be properly dispersed into the atmosphere.

3. 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.

While the EIS contains a modelling of the air dispersion of various fine particulate particles (in particular, Particulate 10 and Particulate 2.5), the wind and other weather data used in such exercise is taken from the localities of Terrey Hills and Sydney Airport, both of which are at least some 20 km away from the Wahroonga local area. Anecdotal evidence shows that, on a typical day at Wahroonga, the wind speed will normally reach a maximum of approximately 5 km/h, well short of those wind speeds contained in the data of Terrey Hills and Sydney Airport used in EIS. Hence, any conclusion reached by the EIS based on these wind and weather data are dubious to say the least, and should be considered entirely invalid and preposterous.

4. 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, and 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.

Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to the following two research papers demonstrating the harmful impact of those living in the vicinity of a pollution stack:

* "Respiratory Health Before and After the Opening of a Road Traffic Tunnel" by Cowie, Rose, Ezz, etc. published in November 2012. The source of the paper can be found at:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0048921

This particular study shows that, during the two years (2007-2008) after the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel in 2006, the residents living near the ventilation stack of the tunnel experienced decreases in lung capacity and function.

* "The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development on 10-18 Years of Age" - The New England Journal of Medicine published on September 2004. The source of the paper can be found at:

http://mail.ictf-jpa.org/publiccomment/Documents/Gauderman%202004.pdf

This study shows that children are specifically susceptible to the damages caused by the pollution from the stack. Specifically, it demonstrates that exposures of children to the pollution will cause permanent and irreversible damage to growing lungs.


5. 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.

6. 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 Organization, and also contain a larger number of fine particles which penetrate deep into lung tissue and remain there causing inflammation.

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

8. 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

9. I 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.

10. I am concerned about lack of consideration to any toxic fumes that will be emitted in case of major accidents or major fire incidences. They will be emitted unfiltered straight into residential zones.

In the year of 1999, in the Mont Blanc tunnel crossing from Italy into France, there was a major fire involving a truck carrying flour and margarine, which caused black fire and toxic smoke burning for over 3 days. Emergency personnel were unable to access the area due to 1000 deg Celsius heat and toxic fumes. There were 38 deaths in this incident.

They later installed an inspection bay to check all freight trucks before entry. Will there be any inspection points before this tunnel to check for hazardous vehicle contents?

What are the existing plans and tunnel designs that the operators of NorthConnex have to avoiding a similar accident that will cause deaths and impact on the health of nearby residents?

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

To address my 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. In particular, I noted that the official submission of the Ku-Ring Gai Council for the EIS has strongly recommended the stack be moved northward to an industrial and bush area and I strongly endorse this view.

The Ku-Ring Gai Council's submission can be found here:

http://datracking.kmc.nsw.gov.au/infocouncil.web/Open/2014/09/OMC_09092014_AGN_AT_WEB.HTM

3. To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration. Adequate filtration must be provided and operated to prevent the escape of toxic fumes. The additional costs should be borne by vehicles travelling through the tunnel.

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.

10. Vehicle inspection bays be installed and operated before tunnel entry points to direct vehicles carrying banned goods that will cause major fire incidents from entering the tunnel.

Name: Linda Phengkhamsri

Address: 15/75-79 Florence Street

Phone: 0497 819 388

Email: [email protected]

11 September 2014
4 Anulla Place
Wahroonga
NSW 2076

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.

I would like to record my objection to the project as described in the EIS. I have a high level of concern regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex and the Department of Planning.

My concerns are
* The justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is cursory and unconvincing.
* 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.
* 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.
* I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious.
* 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 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.
* I 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.

I request that the following actions are undertaken:
* The air quality and human health impact assessment need to be revised to address the issues raised above.
* An independent options assessment be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
* To undertake a Life Cycle Analysis and assessment for the provision of filtration
* An independent review of the ventilation system is undertaken to ensure that NorthConnex's claim of no portal emissions is justified.
* The Submissions Report/Preferred Project be exhibited to allow the community to respond to the revised information contained in the report.


Yours sincerely


Dominic Curtin

11th September 2014

Director - Infrastructure Projects
Department of Planning and Environment
Application number - SSI 13_6136
Major Projects Assessment
GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

Ref: Northconnex Northern Interchange


Dear Sir. Madam

We are the owners of a property that is very near to the proposed construction compound including the substation, water treatment plant, double stacked office buildings and associated roadways.

From the outset let us say that we are broadly in support of the project and therefore we are not seeking to hinder its approval but am only writing to seek some solutions to what we see are serious impacts flowing from the construction phase of the development.

We have a large family with a mix of primary, high school and university students. As with most families we have a some heavy sleepers and light sleepers and have become accustomed to the back ground noise of the M1 and Pennant Hills road traffic as it is largely background noise unless the odd truck driver decides to hammer the exhaust brake.

The flat nature of the roadway in the area doesn't require the trucks and cars to accelerate or decelerate all that often which leads to a general background rumble during the day which subsides to something much less at night.

From what we can glean from the EIS and associated material is that this construction compound will be at the very heart of the Northconnex project and that up to 1440 heavy vehicle movements and 200 car movements per day will occur within metres of our house as well as a small office complex with up to 40 odd people coming and going and most of this occurring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Whilst we are willing to take a reasonable share of the human costs of the project like most other people, I find it hard to see how any mitigation measures could be implemented that would result in limiting the serious noise, dust and other impacts to a satisfactory level.

The noise from the construction phase of the project will become foreground noise as distinct from the current background noise that we currently have.
According to the information available we will 1440 movements a day of trucks braking into the acoustic shed and then accelerating and gear changing around the 3 bends before exiting onto the M1.

These constant movements of heavy vehicles will have a huge impact on the amenity of our property and the sleep and health of our family. As you can appreciate living with a household of 11 people is already a challenge in accommodating all of the individual needs and timetables and therefore having a sustained and significant construction activity virtually under our nose will cause considerable harm to the well being of our family over an extended period.

The amount of noise will be the most significant factor and in particular during the night where we have windows open for ventilation and temperature control, the sounds will no doubt cause significant disruption to the sleep of our family.
At other times we will have the impact of the workers, workshop, car park and office facilities that is analogous to having our home relocated to the middle of some commercial or industrial precinct.

In terms of possible solutions, we would see the following in order of preference:

1. Relocate the entire compound to an entirely different location greater than 1km from the current proposed.

2. Relocate the entire compound due north so that the compound occupies the land adjacent to the M1 where it bends around towards Pennant Hills road and extending the acoustic shed into a horse shoe shape that provides an above ground acoustic tunnel for all trucks entering and leaving the compound and building a 4 metre acoustic fence around the entire compound so as to minimise the noise and dust impact from the entire site.

3. Relocate our family to alternative equivalent accommodation in the area for the duration of the project.

We understand that the project needs to comply with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline and other controls so the exact impact of the current proposal may not be fully known or yet assessable however we do wish for our concern to be registered and dealt with in due course.

We would appreciate receiving a confirmation of receipt of our submission and look forward to hearing back from you in due course.


Your Sincerely

7 Neville Street Willoughby NSW 2068


11 September 2014


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

Dear Sir/Madam,

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 that 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. 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. 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.

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

a) Due to the significant health concerns of the current project design, I request the department of planning does not approve the project in its current form.

b) I also request that alternative transport options to ease congestion on Pennant Hills Road be considered such as an orbital surface route





John Virgona, Resident

Please find below our submission in response to the exhibition of the EIS for NorthConnex.
We would like to state we OBJECT TO THE PROJECTas described in the EIS.
We are highly concerned regarding the following issues and request that these be considered by NorthConnex tunnel
Placement of the north ventilation stacks in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where 9,300 school children will be exposed as well as many aged care facilities, homes, businesses and hospitals.
I am highly concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollution on health are serious. These include death from hear disease. increase risk of lung cancer, stroke, por lung growth in children, increase asthma, and resent research suggesting low birth weight for pregnant woman, increase autism and congenital heart defects. These studies confirm air pollutants have prothrombotic and inflammatory effects on humans which cause the above health problems.
To address our concerns of the current project design I request the department of planning does not approve the project in its current form.
I also request that alternative transport options to ease congestion on Pennant Hills Rd be considered such as an orbital surface route
Elisa Ajuria (and family including primary school children)
19 Lister Street
North Wahroonga
NSW 2076

We would like to state we OBJECT to the project as described in the EIS statement. I am a critical care registered nurse and my husband is a Surgeon.

Firstly, I am concerned about the health aspects for my family and the community around Wahroonga. as a whole. Wahroonga is a dense suburb and many people will be affected from the concentrated exhaust fumes emitted from the stacks. The poisonous gas fumes from the exhaust of vehicles are dangerous to the health of everyone in proximity to those stacks and you can not tell me otherwise. The facts are self evident. There are a myriad of research papers that tell of the effects of air pollution and the effects it has on the health of people. To state otherwise is deceptive and manipulative. Put yourself in our shoes - would you want to live next to a smoke stack? We are talking about the quality of life for many people, children and elderly that live in the area. Many people who have allergies will have to deal with exascerbated respiratory distress with complications from Asthma and COPD. Only God knows who or what corporation will end up buying the tunnel in the future and who is to say they will maintain the integrity of the emissions. I have no confidence that the future maintenance of the smoke stacks will be maintained.

Secondly, I am concerned about the secondary effects of traffic congestion on our roads around Wahroonga and it's neighboring suburbs. Wahroonga is known for the quiet, leafy, suburban enviornment which it provides. Suffice it to say, most people who live here chose to live here because of this desirable fact. The tunnel will deface the character of the surburb and and also compromise the safety of our streets because the tunnel will inevitably lead to more traffic in the area. There are at least half a dozen schools near the area where the entrance/exit to the tunnel is planned - to name a few, Barker College, Abbotsleigh, Knox, St Lucy's, Wahroonga public and numerous other independent Catholic primary schools with children, parents and carers crossing the roads. You approach these road with much caution because of the children in the area and more traffic increases the risk to these people/children walking these roads. In addition, there are numerous churches in the area that will also be effected.

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

I 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

I am concerned that the justification for not providing filtration for the stacks is completely unconvincing and irresponsible. The dispersion of the fumes will be dependent on the weather and if there are winds strong enough that can disperse the concentrated plumes of pollution. Frankly, that solution is JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The solution for the fumes should NOT be dependent on other factors, but stand on it's own merit irrespective of other factors.

To address my 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.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXX

Please locate the smoke exhaust stack 2 kms North of Pacific Highway near the Hornsby Industrial area. This will avoid releasing unfiltered fumes in the residential area of Wahroonga close to schools, hospitals and homes. Do it properly in the first place to avoid costly rectification down the track as other similar projects have proved.
yours
Edward kennedy

I object to the NorthConnex project described in the EIS .
The proposed Northern Interchange shaft,ramps ,spoil storage and removal adversely affects me and the residents of local streets i.e.Lucinda,Eastbourne,Exeter,Seton,Hewitt,Havilah,Hinemoa during construction and operation by restricting access to Hornsby shopping and medical facilities,emission of ventilation gases,silica dust,diesel particulates and 24 hours of noise for 5 years.
This Interchange should be deleted as non-essential.

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

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my/our 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 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 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.

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

1. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
2. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
3. 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.

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

11 September 2014

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

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my/our 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 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 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.

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

1. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
2. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
3. 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.

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

11 September 2014

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

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my/our 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 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 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.

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

1. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
2. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
3. 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.

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

11 September 2014

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

Via online form: http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6136

NorthConnex Application Number: SSI 13_6136

Please find below my/our 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 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 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.

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

1. An independent options assessment process should be undertaken to assess alternative locations for the ventilation stack and portals.
2. A long term health study on children and residents in areas impacted by stack discharges be included as part of the conditions of approval.
3. 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.

XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

I will express my views in the following point form:
1. I am not averse to change or to progress which follows, however I am averse to trading off the health and welfare of the community for the benefit of business and government cost-cutting measures.
2. The filtration of the suggested stacks and their location away from residential areas should be of paramount importance and should be the conceptual starting point for any designs/construction plans. The government should insist and provide the safest possible outcome for the community taking into account that there are many asthmatics among the residents, that there are a number of pre-schools in close proximity, young families and the elderly. To do otherwise is to avoid responsibility for the health of the present and future community.
The solution is to use the best filtration systems available regardless of the initial cost and to continually monitor all emissions.
3. The suggested route for construction traffic via Aiken, Oakes, Eaton & Karloon roads is untenable. Firstly, these roads already struggle with normal residential traffic in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Traffic from Castle Hill Road and County Drive also pour into these roads to try and gain faster access to various points of Pennant Hills Road and North Rocks Road. Secondly, these roads are designed for residential use. Consequently they are narrow and the suggested widening will still not change their lack of suitability for large construction trucks.
The suggested route cannot be thought of as being a viable option. All construction vehicles must be contained to Pennant Hills Road and the M2.
4. The leafy aspect of our "garden shire" must be maintained by appropriate landscaping.
5. The community's reasonable concerns should help shape the development of the proposed NorthConnex project and not be disregarded.

My submission is that I live on the top of Kerribee Place, over looking M2..I have at my own expense put Magnetite Windows on the bedroom to reduce noise in 2005. However due to increase in Trucks. Noise has increased. My concern is if you are lowering the sound wall i will be looking on to traffic as well increase noise Please give some consideration to all that are over looking the Ramps and leave the same if not higher.

Thank you kindly
Therese Greig.
T

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

I live in XXXXXX from the proposed stack and have XXXX with another on the way.

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

I am extremely concerned about 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 placement of the northern ventilation stack in the centre of a densely populated residential area in Wahroonga, where school children will be exposed, as well as aged care facilities, hospitals, businesses and homes. At the public forum held by NorthConnex at Hornsby RSL on 29/7/2014, NorthConnex's own independent air quality expert, Dr Gerda Kuschel, admitted that placing a ventilation in a residential area was not best practice.

2. I am very concerned about the multiple large scale research studies that suggest the impacts of air pollutants on health are serious.

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

1. Due to the significant health concerns of the current project design, I request the Department of Planning to disapprove the project in its current form.

2. I request that the project only be approved when the northern ventilation stack is located in an industrial area. This is an option which is available, unlike other tunnels in Sydney.

3. I request that the Equilibria Proposal to amend the tunnel so that is is a horizontal tunnel be given serious consideration.

I believe that the lowering of the sound wall at Coral Tree Drive will cause visual pollution & allow much greater noise pollution.
The planning needs to be reassessed & the impact on residents considered with more attention to a consideration for their health & well-being.

The exit from the tunnel of the north connex should be further south west near Barclay Rd. The present proposed exit at Coral Tree Drive puts those 5000 trucks in the backyards of residents on the low ramp. This is outrageous with no concern for health & well-being. This design must be redesigned.

I support the tunnel.

However I recommend the NSW Dept of Planning & Environment adopt these generic policies to help minimize pollution:

1. Eliminate traffic lights on entry or exits from the tunnels: To reduce pollution from cars & trucks stopping and starting (eg in Wahroonga)
2. Prohibit old and/or smoky trucks in the tunnels: Force older trucks onto surface roads (eg. Pennant Hills Rd) and make them pay extra tolls.
3. Trucks encourage to update to latest models: Current model new trucks (and future models) have advanced pollution reduction mechanisms (eg. Daimler Benz Blue Tec introduced 2006). European cities and USA states are forcing lower emissions and thus there are constantly improving technologies for trucks. London and many other European cities already have "low emission zones" that only let vehicles of clean emission standards in, and many cities in the UK are looking to follow suit.
5. Increase tolls & registration fees for older trucks: Penalise older trucks used within major cities. Encourage new trucks purchased for city use, and old trucks can be sold to country towns / farms / rural use.
6. Ban wood fireplaces in LGA's near tunnels: To minimise pollution overall (eg. in Kuringgai & Hornsby LGA's).
7. Use filters on the tunnel stacks where applicable.

The proposed south-west exit ramp onto the M2 is not acceptable. It is virtually in the backyards of residents of Coral Tree Drive. Emissions would be extremely detrimental to the health & well-being of everyone. It is foolish to believe that standards would be adhered to. Virtually 5000 trucks will be travelling in peoples' backyards if this design goes ahead. It must be re-assessed.