Health Impacts of Air Pollution in the Sydney Basin
Submission from: Botany Bay and Catchment Alliance (BBACA)
Chairperson: Lynda Newnam
Address: P.O. Box 77 Matraville 2036 mail@botanybay.info
www.botanybay.info
4th August, 2006
BBACA contends:
 that the State Government does not effect planning strategies to
reduce air pollution in already stressed communities. The proposal to
physically expand Port Botany with supporting intermodal terminals will
heavily impact communities located at or near the port and along major
roads and rail lines leading from the port. It is inappropriate that the
sea and air entry points for goods bound for distribution centres located
in the Sydney basin be located in one of the most congested areas of
Australia. Distribution centres and entry points could be located north
and south of Sydney. These goods are not just for Sydney consumers.
Note that the growth in sea container imports outstrips population
growth in Sydney by 12 to 1. Distribution centres repackage their
containerised goods and air/road/rail/sea freight them to other major
centres in Australia and New Zealand. It is difficult for Sydney to
compete with Brisbane in this area because on-costs are cheaper and
the design of the Freight network in Brisbane is far superior. Sydney
can only compete because the State government provides subsidies –
at the port and with portside land and by not billing the operators for the
externalities such as congestion and air and noise pollution.
 there is no attempt to assess the dimensions of the pollution problem.
There are gross differences across communities as can be seen by
comparing postcode data available from the National Pollutant
Inventory. In the following table I compare two Sydney suburbs by the
number of noxious substances, particulate matter and oxides of
nitrogen loads:
Suburb
No Substances
Oxides of Nitrogen
(kg per year)
Botany
Balmain
60
26
1,300,000
120,000
Particulate
Matter(kg per year)
76,000
14,000
Both Balmain and Botany are old established suburbs. Botany
included the site of the oldest fishing village in Australia, and both
suburbs were recognised as having a strong industrial base. Balmain
over the past 30 years has been gentrified in recognition of its proximity
to the CBD. Significant open space has been purchased or set aside in
recognition of high population density and the need for such space.
The story for Botany has been very different during that same 30 years.
The beachfront on Sir Joseph Banks park was reclaimed for port
terminals and roadway and the airport was expanded. Australia’s
oldest fishing village was no longer waterfront. The population today
face 60 noxious substances in their air and in some notable cases
significant amounts of those substances. They also face threats of
dioxin emissions from the plant which will be processing EDC
contamination over the coming 30 years. It should be noted that
Botany and surrounding suburbs are also in close proximity to the
CBD.
 there should be Pollution Plans of Management for areas of major
impact. These Plans, developed by the Departments of Planning and
Environment and Conservation and Health should provide clear
guidelines on permissible cumulative impacts of future developments.
There should be health monitoring of the population. Data should be
readily available for the public. How many people, for instance, are
aware of the National Pollutant Inventory website? How does the
public report suspicious emissions? There is no Hotline. It is assumed
that the reporter will know exactly from where the offending substance
is emanating and will know the appropriate telephone number to call.
The current reporting system is not user friendly and it makes no
attempt to educate. Areas with high and diverse impacts require
different systems to those that don’t, yet this is not part of the present
system.
 there are many causes for rising pollution levels over the past 30 years.
The city has been expanded beyond its carrying capacity. The SouthWest and North-West fringes provide precious farmlands and should
not be further developed. The transport networks are focussed toward
the CBD rather than decentralised. Major ‘soft’ infrastructure, such as
universities and cultural institutions are located within a relatively small
area of greater Sydney necessitating long commutes from outlying
suburbs. There has been no attempt to encourage work arrangements
which alleviate the problem. Add to this the growth in the number of
heavy vehicles – now at 1 in 5 and predicted to reach 1 in 4 by 2020
(BTRE figures).
 there has been no proper attempt to calculate the real cost of air
pollution and to use those costs when assessing major developments.
Despite this, there has been a cynical ‘hijacking’ of the issue. I refer
you, as example, to Para 75(b) of the recent Draft Independent Expert
Panel Report Port Botany Expansion Stage 2 produced by Messrs
Finlay and Gillespie for the NSW Department of Planning.
Para 75 (b) An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions found
that construction and operation of the Port Botany Expansion would
reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the future “‘Long
Term” operating scenario, when compared to the “do nothing”
scenario. Therefore, there are significant advantages in terms of
greenhouse emissions of locating additional container handling
facilities within Sydney.”
This is the BBACA reply to that particular statement: dated 5 July 2006-5
July, 2006
This is an example of the type of ‘findings’ which BBACA disputes.
This ‘finding’ appears in the Sydney Ports EIS. It is wrong on three
counts. Firstly, it is based on a flawed model of freight distribution
which was used by SPC to argue against port development at
Newcastle and/or Port Kembla. Port Kembla CEO, Phil McGavin,
at a Ports Seminar in June 2003 showed that containers unloaded
at Kembla could reach the south-west of Sydney in a shorter time
and with fewer emissions than freight unloaded at Port Botany. Not
long after this seminar, Mr McGavin was relieved of his position at
Port Kembla so I expect there have been no subsequent
presentations. Dr Laird, from the University of Wollongong, has
given a number of presentations to Federal and State parliamentary
committees to support the construction of the Dumbarton-Maldon
line arguing that greenhouse emissions would be reduced.
Secondly, The Sea Freight Council of NSW submitted a report to
the COI which analysed secondary container movements. This
study showed that while 85% of containers unloaded at Port Botany
were unpacked within 40km of said Port –as per the SPC EIS - the
contents of those containers were not all destined for the Sydney
market. One only has to do some simple sums using SPC
container growth figures and ABS population statistics to find that
the growth in container imports is outstripping population growth in
Sydney by 12 to 1. The reality is that Southern Sydney is a freight
hub(in competition with Brisbane and Melbourne) for the eastern
seaboard, and in some cases Oceania. The Port expansion
overscales that operation in the most congested and polluted city in
Australia; and in the most congested areas of that city. Just like
freeways resulting in more car travel the increase in berths will
facilitate greater freight activity. That means more warehouses
based in Sydney and more trucks engaged in freight forwarding
intrastate and interstate and conveying goods to KSA. Thirdly, the
export-import imbalance in Sydney results in an oversupply of
empty containers and these have become the city’s greatest export
– at 1000 a day. There is also the issue of mismatch of containers
which was the subject of another Sea Freight Council report.
BBACA would like the opportunity to explore this further in an open hearing.
Yours sincerely,
Lynda Newnam
Chairperson