Traffic pollution and the Lane Cove Tunnel: ‘World’s Best Practice’ not perfect

Did you know that twice as many people die from air pollution in Sydney than from road accidents?

This statistic, from the Australian Bureau of Regional Economics Report 2003, is just the tip of the iceberg in identifying the health impacts of pollution in Sydney.

If Australia has world’s best practice air quality standards and measurement, as argued by the government, then why are there so many deaths?

There is growing evidence that Australia’s air quality standards, measurements, and monitoring, crucial tools in minimizing the health impacts of pollution, are insufficient. There are currently no monitoring stations operating in Sydney’s Central Business District (CBD), and limited sampling of air quality. We currently do not have accurate information to determine the quality of the air we breathe and thus cannot effectively minimize health impacts. Additionally, Sydney’s increasing reliance on car use is offsetting any improvements that have been made in air quality recently.

Jeff Angel, Director of the Total Environment Centre New South Wales argues that it’s important for Australia to have world's best practice air quality standards "because our cities are so car-based and therefore we’re more prone to the risk of serious air pollution and ill health consequences… it’s important for Australia to move as fast as the more advanced countries, not be several years behind like we are currently."

Dr Ray Kearney, Professor of Infectious Diseases at the University of Sydney and Chairperson of Lane Cove Tunnel Action Group, is concerned that Australia’s air quality standards, set by the National Environment Protection Council and based on World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines, are not good enough. "The standards in heavily populated cities such as Sydney are inadequate", Dr Kearney said. "They are designed for interests of economic growth and not about minimizing health risk."

Mark Curran from Residents Against Polluting Stacks agrees that the standards are not protecting the community; "The standards appear to be predicated too much on what is achievable not what is desirable and seem also to be designed not to embarrass governments rather to produce the best outcomes". He believes that Australia is having trouble keeping up with the "explosive" growth of knowledge about the potential ill effects of pollution; "There seems to be complacency about the need for continuous improvement. More than half of the ill effects which occur in Australia are said to occur at levels lower than the NEPM (National Environment Protection Measures) standards."

CSIRO Deputy Chief of Air Science Dr Peter Manins also believes that there is room for improvement with air quality standards; "Perhaps the most obvious is a lack of success in regulating motor vehicle particle emissions. European practice is very effective and Australia is over four years behind".

Motor vehicles are a significant source of air pollution in urban areas, emitting dangerous pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and benzene into the environment.

Sydney accounts for 40 per cent of pollution deaths and illnesses in Australia each year, according to the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics study 2005 (p.90). Pollution is prematurely killing as many as 2000 Australians each year, causing 2000 asthma attacks, 4500 cases of cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases and bronchitis, and 4500 hospital admissions each year. This costs Sydney over $1 billion every year, and the figure is rising.

As Mr. Angel says; "The health effects of air pollution on the elderly, the young and those with respiratory problems have been an enduring problem for Sydney".

Numerous studies have linked vehicle pollution with poor health. Short term exposure to pollution can cause asthma attacks, headaches, nausea, coughing, wheezing, dizziness, chest pain and eye irritation. Long-term exposure can cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, anaemia, leukaemia, hypertension, pneumonia, lung cancer, increased risk of hospitalisation and premature death (Pope et al. 2002; Nafstad et al. 2004). Health department research in Sydney during 2005 also supported international findings that women living in highly-polluted areas give birth to smaller babies.

There are many more hidden cases of health impacts due to the difficulty in determining whether illnesses can be directly attributed to pollution. Mr. Curran argues that this is a major part of the problem as "most impacts are delayed and insidious".

Although pollution affects everyone, a significant and growing proportion of Sydney’s population is considered at risk of dangerous health impacts from pollution. At risk groups include unborn babies, children, the elderly, asthmatics, those with cancer or pre-existing heart or lung disease, the immunologically compromised and those near busy roads or tunnel stacks. The number of people at risk is growing due to Australia’s aging and increasing population, and the increasing number of asthmatics, of which Australia currently rates second highest in the world at 12 per cent.

Electrical Engineer William Paniagua is an asthma suffer from Sydney whose health has been deteriorating as pollution rises; "Pollution is giving me worse asthma, and often makes me feel nauseous. I notice that my health improves dramatically when I travel away from Sydney to the country."

Professor Guy Marks, Head of the Epidemiology Group at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, is currently conducting research into how pollution affect’s children’s health and argues that health impacts from pollution are alarming. "There is fairly consistent evidence that traffic-related air pollutants have quantifiable adverse effects on respiratory and cardiovascular health," Professor Marks said. "More worrying, but less certain, are the longer term effects. There is emerging evidence from international studies that prolonged exposure to traffic-related pollutants has an impact on growth in lung function in children and on the risk of being diagnosed with asthma."

Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to minimize these health impacts, as the Department of Environment's air monitoring system shows that pollution is on the rise. For the six months to March this year the number of days with pollution above acceptable levels was 25 per cent higher than 2005-06. Additionally, Sydney has smog levels almost 10 times those of other Australian cities, according to a National Environment Protection Council report. Air pollution last summer was 75 per cent worse than the previous year, warning of worse pollution to come.

This increase in pollution is partly due to the fact that Sydney is becoming increasingly car reliant. According to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), vehicle kilometres traveled through Sydney are increasing at twice the rate of the population. This concerns Mr. Angel who argues that car use needs to be reduced to improve air quality. "As car use increases and congestion increases you tend to neutralize air pollution gains made with the new generation of emission controls," he said. "If traffic and congestion increases you’ll have a compensating increase in the other pollutants."

There has been ongoing debate about how best to measure vehicle pollution. Currently there are no nationally consistent ambient air quality standards for vehicle pollution in Australia (see p.5) and monitoring has been limited (see p.27). We have flexible standards with no date by when levels have to be complied with.

Fine particles cover the windscreen of the car while travelling through Sydney's tunnels.

The main pollutant of concern at the moment is fine particles, PM2.5s, emitted through vehicle exhausts, of which current standards and monitoring is insufficient. The focus had been on the larger particles, PM10s, however recent research has strongly identified PM2.5s as more dangerous then PM10s.

Particles are classified in three groups: larger particles called PM10s, fine particles called PM2.5s, and ultra-fine particles PM0.1s. Fine particles, PM2.5s, can lodge deep into the lungs, causing asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, coughing, phlegm, irritation of eyes and upper airways and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. Long-term exposures have been associated with heart attacks, cancer, reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis, and premature death. Hospital admissions of elderly people with cardiovascular disease increase by 10 per cent on days of high particle pollution in Sydney (Jalaludin and Morgan, et al. 2005).

It’s crucial to measure fine particles accurately as there appears to be no level below which effects disappear, as argued by Dr Kearney; "There is no level of particles that can be regarded as safe. This means that people are being killed by air pollution levels well within existing National Air-Quality Standards. Mere compliance with National standards does not protect the public."

Dr Manins is also concerned about the health impacts of fine particles. "The real problem with fine particles is that we seem to have recently established that they can lead to long-term deaths with high concentrations, and also to short-term deaths. They get you at both ends of the spectrum."

CSIRO Atmospheric Research Scientist Dr Melita Keywood argues that fine particles are deadly; "There is a really strong correlation between particle pollution, or the level of pollution, particles in the atmosphere, and the rates of death in the population".

Experts are concerned that Australia is not measuring fine particles correctly. "We should be changing our focus to PM2.5, not just PM10," argues Chris Winder, Professor of Applied Toxicology School of Safety Science at the University of New South Wales.

Lee Rhiannon from the Greens is also concerned, "Australia’s air quality standards falls down in regard to particulate matter. We are not measuring fine particles correctly."

There is also concern that the measurements are focused on the wrong pollutant. Current monitoring bases measurement of fine particles through the measurement of large particles, PM10s. However a recent study by Professor Lidia Morawska (et al 2004) found that PM10 is irrelevant to vehicle emissions as it’s not a measure of what comes out of vehicle exhausts but results from mechanical processes such as the wear and tear of tyres.

Professor Morawska also argues that our current system of measuring particles by weight is inappropriate for determining health risk; "The primary determinant of the effect of ultrafine particles is their number and their surface area and not the weight of particles present. This means that the traditional use of PM weight measures is inappropriate in evaluation of the likely biological effects of ultrafine particles."

The elderly are particularly at risk of health impacts from pollution

The larger particles, PM10s, still remain a concern. The World Health Organisation (WHO), on which Australian standards are based, recently called for a reduction in PM10 to 20µg/cm, levels that are regularly exceed in many areas of Sydney. However, actions to reduce PM10s can increase the number of smaller PM2.5 particles. Mr. Curran and Dr Kearney argue that an example of this is that improved diesel engines haven’t reduced the number of particles and have instead made them more harmful. "Better diesel engines haven't reduced the number of particles, just made them smaller and more harmful. Weight for weight, diesel is becoming more harmful, though there is less of it. That's why people are getting sick but there's nothing obvious in the monitoring to show why" Mr. Curran said.

"The problem with the Euro standards is that they relate to PM10 and actions to reduce PM10 levels in exhaust leads to increased numbers of much smaller particles. The overall impact may be that diesel exhaust-per-vehicle may become more harmful with full compliance with the EURO rules," Dr Kearney said.

Concern has also been expressed about the pollutants benzene and butadiene, which are linked to a range of health problems including the suppression of bone marrow, anaemia, respiratory illnesses and cancer. A recent NSW Environmental Protection Agency study measured over 80 air toxic compounds and declared benzene, 1,3-butadiene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as the compounds of most concern for Sydney.

While WHO warns that no safe level of benzene can be recommended, our recently implemented standard for benzene is three times less stringent than in the United Kingdom. Although Professor Donald White, Chairperson of the Nature Conservation Council NSW and an Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering at the University of Sydney argues that benzene limits are "reasonable", Mrs. Rhiannon, Dr Manins and Mr. Angel argue that benzene emissions need to be limited as it can cause cancer.

"As it is carcinogenic benzene clearly needs to be limited more than it is" said Mrs. Rhiannon.

Dr Manins agrees that we should have stricter limits for benzene as "benzene is a known carcinogen and needs to be managed. Australia has a reporting standard for benzene. This needs to be converted to a regulation standard and tightened. Some countries have much stricter limits than apply here."

Mr. Angel agrees; "If industry says the cost of getting lead out of petrol is more benzene we should push the industry to do better."

Professor Winder argues that the main problem with standards for PAHs such as butadiene is that the Commonwealth can't get agreement. As Dr. Manins argues, this is because measuring air toxics (also referred to as air toxins) is difficult. Mr. Curran agrees; "There are real technical difficulties in real time monitoring mainly because they are so dilute. This means that source identification is difficult."

Thus we are left with no measurement or standards for butadiene, which is dangerous. As Dr Kearney argues; "None of the carcinogenic PAHs are routinely measured. Is this to prevent litigation by persons affected by such toxins?" Mrs. Rhiannon asserts that it’s "extremely dangerous" not to measure these air toxics, "We are calling it the asbestos of the 21st century"

Monitoring remains a problem. Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore has expressed concern about the lack of monitoring sites operating in Sydney’s Central Business District. She argues that monitoring of the CBD is crucial in order to gain accurate information about the quality of Sydney’s air. This is important as concentrated levels of toxins are being emitted in the air, particularly in the inner city, damaging the health of Sydney residents.

The NSW Asthma Foundation is also concerned at the lack of monitoring in the CBD and also that the monitoring equipment used in other parts of the city is only capable of registering PM10. "While pollution levels in the Sydney Basin may not be high by international standards, the same patterns of ill health, high health costs and fatalities are already evident and will continue to rise, unless urgent remedial action is taken," Ms. Mimi John-Austen said in their recent submission to the health inquiry.

Also worrying is the Total Environment Centre’s finding that the Department of Environment and Conservation’s sampling levels dropped from 1500 to 450 in 2004, thus reducing the accuracy and veracity of air pollutant data. The NSW Audit Office is reviewing this.

Additionally, there is currently a review of the NEPM's with strong support for many changes.

What more needs to be done?

Dr Manins argues that accurate measurement is crucial to identify problems early; "The need is more of maintaining adequate surveillance of the pollutants to catch issues before they become serious."

We need monitoring stations in the CBD, strict standards for fine particles, benzene, butadiene, and other air toxics. We also need improved public transport services, and the adoption of cleaner fuels by replacing diesel and petrol with clean renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, LPG or electric.

We also need a nation-wide approach with strict guidelines and enforcement. Dr Kearney argues that "The standards that are set nationally (NEPM's) are left to the State jurisdictions to interpret and apply. This must not happen."

Gladys Berejiklian MP, Member for Willoughby says "We definitely need to be constantly vigilant about improving air quality in Sydney. There needs to be a holistic approach to this very important issue."

Professor Winder highlights the importance of quick action from the government "I strongly feel that over 11 years of backpedaling on the environment by the Commonwealth government has made things much worse than they could have been."

The NSW Government declined to comment.

The Hon Robyn Parker MLC, Chair of the committee into the health impacts of air pollution in the Sydney basin last year, identified several problems with Sydney's air quality monitoring. "Despite evidence that air pollution has improved over the last 30 years, these improvements are offset by Sydney’s growing population… An increasing reliance on private motor vehicles, made worse by inadequate public transport infrastructure, is also a major challenge…

"The NSW Government’s closure of air quality monitoring stations and the cessation of air toxics monitoring is unacceptable, and the Committee has recommended that monitoring stations be reinstated," she continued. "The public are entitled to be aware of the quality of the air they breathe, and at present, they are being denied this vital information."

It is crucial for accurate information to be available about Australia’s air quality in order to effectively determine how to reduce the damaging health impacts of pollution, especially in heavily populated cities like Sydney.

There is sufficient evidence to suggest that we need to be concerned about how pollution is affecting our health. Appropriate solutions to the deficiencies in Australia’s air quality standards, monitoring and measurement need to be formulated immediately as thousands of people are suffering preventable and avoidable health impacts from pollution every year.

At the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel in March residents voiced their concern about the quality of Sydney's air

By Kate Schneider

11-06-2007

Published in the July edition of Reportage

Hazardous pollutants and their effects

The most important air quality issue for non-metropolitan areas of Australia is airborne particles (Manins et al. 2001). Particles have also been linked to the deaths of up to 2,400 people a year in Australia, carrying an associated cost of $17.2b (EA 2001c).

We need to protect our picture perfect city from pollution. Photo: Sophie Schneider

People at risk

- Residents close to sources of pollution Effects include sensory irritation and respiratory effects based on exposure to pollution, and toxic effects dependent the individual or interactive effects of exposure to specific pollutants.
- Children & infants There are higher rates of leukaemia in children living near busy roads.
- Asthmatics People with respiratory sensitisation and allergy are more prone to respond to environmental pollution. They are also likely to respond to lower levels of exposure. Effects would be increasing incidence of asthma, and increasing severity of asthma when it arises.
- People with respiratory diseases especially bronchitis and emphysema. Effects would be increasing incidence of respiratory problems, and increasing severity of respiratory problems when it arises, perhaps leading to death.
- The immunologically compromised as they have no defence system.
- The elderly The ability of people to builogically respond to chemical exposures both decrease with age and decrease with increasing body burden of chemicals bioaccumulated in life.

Source: Associate Professor in Applied Toxicology Chris Winder's answers to Inquiry into the health impacts of air pollution in the Sydney basin.