Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre

This project will negatively impact on the local community and families in the vicinity of this project. I am very concerned of the impact this project will have on air quality in the local community. Cleanaway cannot guarantee that there will be NO toxic fumes or pollutants escaping their filtration process whilst burning the rubbish for energy. This is of huge concern to those who live in close proximity or who have children attending schools and daycare centers close by.

This is a project that needs to be undertaken at a location AWAY from a high population of local residents, schools and communities.
This project is inappropriate for the location they are requesting and would be much better considered at a rural site.

To whom it may concern,
As a long time resident of St Clair, I am objecting to having a recycle incinerator built in the local area.
The reasons why this facility should not be built in the area are:
1. Releases toxic air pollutants.
Waste incinerators produce large amounts of toxic air pollution that impact on the environment and human health. These emissions include highly toxic and carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins and furans (PCDD and PCDF), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), PCBs and brominated persistent organic pollutants.
2. Produces toxic ash.
Waste incinerators all generate ash that is contaminated with toxic heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as dioxins and furans. The levels of contamination vary according to the waste burned, the process used and configuration of the pollution controls on the smoke stack but all solid and air emissions contain contaminants, many of which can be at a level that can impact on human health and the environment depending on the disposal method and exposure.
3. Dirtiest form of energy production.
Waste incinerators have re-branded themselves as ‘green’ energy suppliers. The reality is that burning waste is the dirtiest form of energy generation both in toxic emissions and climate change gases. Waste burning facilities produce far more carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated than coal, oil or gas fired power stations. In addition to producing larger quantities of greenhouse gas per energy unit than coal, incinerators also destroy the ‘resources’ in waste that could be recovered if the discarded material in waste were recycled or reused. Much of the waste material burned in incinerators is based on petrochemicals. These include plastic bottles, bags, packaging and even electronic waste. Petrochemicals are fossil fuels and burning plastics derived from fossil fuels does not create ‘green’ energy – it is simply burning fossil fuels in another form.
4. Destroys embedded energy.
Waste incinerators destroy the resources entrained in waste including the embedded energy. The embedded energy in any given product includes the energy expended in extracting resources, refining, manufacturing and transporting the product to the point of sale. This energy is lost when a discarded product is burned in an incinerator and the whole cycle must begin again. Most of this energy is retained when the discarded product is recycled or reused. The only energy ‘recovered’ from burning a product in an incinerator is the ‘calorific’ energy of that item – in other words - the small amount of heat energy it contains. For example burning a PET plastic water bottle yields 3.22 gigajoule per tonne whereas recycling it saves 85.16 gigajoule per tonne. That means recycling a PET plastic bottle saves 26.4 times the energy that burning yields demonstrating that incinerating waste is an enormous waste of energy
5. Undermines recycling efforts.
Waste incinerators seek the highest calorific value fuels available to burn as this increases the efficiency of their energy. Unfortunately those high calorific value wastes are also highly valued for recycling. These include plastics, paper, wood-waste and cardboard. By competing for the same materials as recycling operations incinerators undermine the recycling sector and destroy valuable resources and their embedded energy.
6. Destroys resources.
When a discarded product is burned it is converted to energy, toxic emissions and contaminated ash. The discard is destroyed forever and the energy intensive process of material extraction, refining, manufacture and transport must be repeated to replace that product. The alternative of recycling and re-use of such materials retains most of that embedded energy and reduces the inputs to the production and consumption cycle. For organic materials, such as food waste, soiled paper, cardboard and timber derivatives, composting retains the valuable resource and converts it into much needed agricultural fertilisers and soil conditioners that increase productivity and save water. Anaerobic digestion of organics prior to composting also gives the added benefit of generating energy through biogas production, a ‘cool’ WtE technology. Incineration of organic materials denies the potential for these further beneficial uses.
7. Stifles innovation.
Waste incinerators require waste supply contracts that last for 25-30 years to become financially viable and to ensure their fuel supply.11 This means that local governments must supply the incinerators with a steady flow of waste at an agreed volume for that period of time. If the waste stream is locked for decades, alternative waste treatment technologies including recycling, re-use, composting and anaerobic digestion are effectively stymied. This is a significant barrier to achieving sustainability as new developments in environmentally friendly technology are prevented from accessing the resources.
8. Waste incineration costs jobs.
Independent studies have reported that waste management systems that use recycling, re-use, composting and anaerobic digestion generate many more jobs and far outstrip the few positions required to run an incinerator. In general terms waste incinerators are expensive, computer controlled, largely automated technology that only require a small workforce to operate. Conversely waste management systems based around recycling, re-use and ‘cool technologies’ have a high employment generation potential and flow-on effects throughout the community and economy. Installing a waste incinerator means that communities forego employment opportunities while squandering valuable resources.
9. Waste incineration undermines real renewable energy.
Waste incinerators are expensive to build, operate and upgrade and require public subsidies to become financially viable. By claiming to produce ‘green’ energy incinerator operators can obtain public subsidies, credits, tax breaks and transferable benefits that should be spent on assisting real ‘green’ energy projects to establish such as wind, wave and solar power. The incineration industry claim that because a fraction of waste they burn is ‘biogenic’ in origin (such as paper and other organics) they should be classed as ‘renewable’ energy generators and given access to taxpayer subsidies for green energy projects. This undermines real renewable energy and diverts funds away from genuine green energy projects. Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been directed to incinerator projects that are still in the ‘proposal phase’ in Australia.
10. Entrenches a linear economy.
Waste incineration entrenches a linear economy in our society that relies on the extraction of virgin materials and rewards consumptive and wasteful lifestyle choices. Our society needs to transition as soon as possible to a circular economy where resources are not destroyed through landfills or incineration but rather are conserved through reuse, recycling and composting schemes generally known as Zero Waste Solutions.

As projects of this nature have been previously denied as little as 1-2 years ago I am most surprised to see that the last rejected project has once more raised its head very silently. There was considerable (total) community objections to this type of project in this area and I would have thought the NSW Government listened to its constituents . Clearly this is not the case or this project would not being under consideration again. I now feel betrayed by our states leaders and vehemently suggest they take note of previous popular objection.

All lives matter and the issues that reports and documentation have provided that can and have caused health issues should not be ignored. Previous Incinerator proposal for the Western Sydney was rejected and so should this proposal. Protect our lives !!!

I have personally visited two Waste To Energy Incinerators in Japan, one in Tokyo and one in Toda during August 2018.
One facility was built in late 1950 to address Tokyo’s enormous increasing waste disposal problems, the other was built in 2015. The fist operates at a temperature of 800 Celsius while the latter operates at a temperature of around 2000 Celsius and ensures all toxic material including most toxic metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury are rendered in active or destroyed. In both facilities, there are no toxic fumes entering the atmosphere. The exhaust gas consists primarily of Carbon Dioxide, a necessary plant food, and a very small amount of carefully controlled Nitrous Oxide and water vapour, like that emitted from the average car or truck on our roads.

Particle pollution, often referred to as PM10 and PM2.5 emitted from WTE plants is considerably less than is currently contained within the Western Sydney “basin”. That information is readily available from the EPA website and their Air Quality Monitoring Stations at Liverpool and Bringelly.
Western Sydney’s particle count varies daily depending on air movement and industrial pollution generators such as Concrete Recyclers, Waste Recovery Stations and similar operations. Sadly, Western Sydney Air Quality often exceeds safe standards with the EPA issuing warnings to residents with health issues to stay indoors. Unfortunately, the media rarely publishes that information.

At last count Tokyo operates 27 such plants providing cheap electricity to their residents. Used steam produced by the incinerator is also used to heat nearby public swimming pools, hospitals, schools, community centres and green houses for agriculture use during winter months. Overall, the majority of Tokyo’s WTE plants operate within a 500m radius of residential homes, they are not confined to industrial areas as is proposed in Australia.

There are approximately 80 similar plants operating in the USA while some 200 operate in Europe. Sweden imports waste from neighbouring countries to provide cheap electricity for their residents, all operate within a few kilometres’ radius of residential homes.

Sadly, millions of tons of combustible energy containing waste is buried in landfill in Australia every week and will continue to pollute land and water tables for thousands of years. That is a far greater danger to future generations than any relatively small amount of toxic waste produced by the incinerators’ ash. The “bottom ash” from incinerators in Tokyo is used as a partial replacement for cement in the building and construction industry while recovered metals and glass is either recycled or used in road base. The small amount of toxic waste from air filters and scrubbers is buried in landfill sites in such a manner that it poses no danger to life for the foreseeable future. By comparison the “bottom and fly ash” of coal fired power stations is far more toxic than that of WTE incinerators, yet it continues to be stored above ground rendering hundreds of square kilometres around Vales Point and Liddell Power Stations useless and sterile.

From my comments above, it is obvious I am a supporter of WTE incinerators, I have carried out significant research and in my humble opinion much prefer to have a WTE plant nearby than continue burying valuable energy producing waste in nearby landfill and effectively destroying that land for all future generations.
I am also against building more coal fired power stations that produce far more toxic waste than any WTE plant in current use around the world.

Earlier this year Liverpool City Councillors were given a substantive briefing on this project. I am satisfied that this project will have no measurable negative impacts on the community or its air quality, on the contrary in my humble opinion the benefits will far outweigh any perceived negatives by preventing millions of tons of energy producing waste entering landfill sites within our region.
I also studied all the EIS reports for the previous proposed Eastern Creek WTE Incinerator and could find no significant technical, scientific or planning reason to reject the proposal. However, it was rejected purely on perceived community concerns.

To qualify my comments, my background is in Electrical Engineering, Industrial Control, Automation and Robotics. I am a retired TAFE teacher spanning some 36 years. I worked in various light and heavy industries including Aluminium, Glass, Chemical and Medical equipment manufacturing.

I am also a Member of the Liverpool Community Independents Team http://lcit.com.au/ elected as a Councillor in 2008. I am not affiliated with any other Political Group or Party. I am passionate about Western Sydney, belong to several Environmental Groups and try to be realistic in an ever-changing modern world.

My apologies for the lengthy submission, I am passionate about this issue and try to present an alternative view rather than the scaremongering that some Politicians with vested self-interests resort to in order to promote themselves.

Sincerely,
Cllr Peter Harle JP
Mb: 0412 736 956

The proposal to build the Cleanaway & Macquarie Capital Incinerator at Eastern Creek, is a recipe for disaster. The public health claims made by proponents at their citizen panel are challenged by the experiences of communities around the world where these incinerators are already operating.

A 2020 Study “The Health Impacts of Waste Incineration: A Systematic Review in Austraia” states; A range of adverse health effects were identified, including significant associations with some neoplasia, congenital anomalies, infant deaths and miscarriage, but not for other diseases. Ingestion was the dominant exposure pathway for the public.

Sydney will have high levels of pollution if five incinerators go ahead. This current Harvard Study proves regions with high levels of air pollution are more likely to have a higher death rate from COVID 19 than less polluted areas. This current 2020 study is the first to look at the link between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution (which is known to be released from incinerators) (PM2.5) And COVID 19.

There is an increased risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) even from short-term exposure to low concentrations of fine particulate matter PM2.5, such as that produced by Incinerators. This current 2020 nationwide study in Japan, chosen for its superior monitoring, population density and relative air quality, is believed to be by far the largest of its kind. It provides comprehensive evidence of the relationship between PM2.5 and cardiac arrests, using a sample three times larger than all previous research combined and demonstrating the impacts on groups such as the elderly.

This is only 3 studies out of many done on the health impacts of waste incineration near residential areas. It is surprising that any Government/Council would even consider a proposal that clearly poses such a high health risk to so many lives.

It is now established beyond reasonable doubt that particulate air pollution causes death by various means.
It is also now established that incinerators produce high quantities of ultra-fine particulates. There is no technology available to capture these 0.01PM’ which are invisible to the naked eye and are proven to cause a range of health problems.

Particulate Matter has been found to:
Increase the risk of respiratory death in infants
Affect cough and bronchitis in children
Increase death rates from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases including lung cancer and asthma.

I am writing in strong objection to the proposal for waste incinerators in Western Sydney.
I live in Schofields and therefore the Sydney Basin.
Last year during the fires we experienced many
days when the air pollution was so bad we couldn’t open our doors and windows for smoke and for many weeks we didn’t .
Living in the Sydney basin with its geography means pollution settles here and there’s little opportunity for it to disperse unless there are strong weather patterns.
That means the smog or smoke or emissions have large concentrations of particles in the air for long periods of time in the basin.

http://www.condellpark.com/bear/smogbasin.htm

Incinerators release 28 times as much dioxin than coal, 2.5 times as much carbon dioxide C02, twice as much carbon monoxide, 3 times as much nitrogen oxides (NOx), 6-14 times as much mercury, nearly 6 times as much lead and 70% more sulfur dioxides”. Many of these pollutants are poisonous in large concentrations and over prolonged periods.

A range of adverse health effects have been identified from particulate matter including significant associations with some neoplasia, congenital anomalies, infant deaths , miscarriage , increased risk of respiratory deaths in infants, the particulate matter effects coughs and bronchitis in children and there’s an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer in all the population. Ingestion is the dominant exposure pathway for the public and as mentioned is determined by concentration and exposure.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.12939?fbclid=IwAR2ThTFCW6lZpBnjVTFlv9rOxMwMmsvcnEWr_KOhevpoDyw2I9hI1s-GT9k

Sydney will have high levels of pollution if five incinerators go ahead. A current Harvard Study proves regions with high levels of air pollution are more likely to have a higher death rate from COVID 19 than less polluted areas. The study included is the first to look at the link between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution (which is known to be released from incinerators) (PM2.5) And COVID 19. Given Covid may still be a challenge over the next couple of years it would be advantageous to NOT put the population of western Sydney and the Sydney Basin at increased risk of covid by allowing such incinerators to be allowed.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/air-pollution-linked-with-higher-covid-19-death-rates/?fbclid=IwAR1_LdaARxKRmVDzXgS5Sl83QeeJff3u8gQSjTen8C1qoJbRPGzNQN-oEs8

Western Sydney is suffering many of the consequences of urban over-development , this is yet another blow to the people of the Sydney Basin who are dealing with increased daily temperature extremes created by urban heat islands, loss of vegetation, and who have zero ability to escape the pollution or temperature unless they physically leave the suburb and head to another, and given many who live in western sydney are inhabitants due to financial constraints that puts many at risk of suffering the consequences without means of an escape .
If this horrendous and toxic project must go ahead (and in my opinion it doesn’t have to) it would be reasonable to ask why a more suitable location couldn’t be found for an incinerator exuding large amounts of emissions , and to locate it within an area where those emissions can be dispersed out to sea or where ventilation can help minimise the impact of emissions , somewhere along the coast?
A valley or basin I would have thought would be extremely unsuitable as air is often trapped in these geographical locations.

The Track record and reliability of the companies involved is dubious.

Cleanaway also previously known as (transpacific) have recorded OVER
35 breaches of the EPA law and OH&S law since1995, they appear to pay the fine and move on, it doesn’t inspire confidence in their ability to take their duty of care seriously , especially when that output could have dire consequences on the western sydney growth area population and their children , many large companies cut corners in order to make larger profit margins, there can be no guarantee that this won’t happen despite the rhetoric of the companies involved , and a lot of serious breaches leading to people’s ill health could happen, will the planning department granting permission be held to account for the death and disability of people affected or just feign ignorance?, this isn’t just a company’s responsibility the dept of planning have a duty of care NOW in this initial stage to the australian people .
An excerpt from the link is included below and it highlights the kind of behaviour this company indulges in, and although they were found negligent and a fine was issued its interesting to note that Transpacific denies the event occurred (even though found guilty) remembering this is water pollution, how much harder will it be to find culpability for AIR Pollution ?

THE EXCERPT :-
“The EPA has issued a statement saying all liquids discharged to the Hunter Water sewage system must be in accordance with the trade waste agreement between Hunter Water and Transpacific.
It says it has contacted both Transpacific and AGL to express its concerns and ask for confirmation that there are appropriate arrangements in place to ensure the flow-back water is lawfully disposed of.
If either company is found to have acted irresponsibly or illegally the EPA says it will initiate regulatory action.
In a statement Transpacific denies dumping flow-back water into the sewer and rejects any suggestion it is not acting in the best interest of the community and environment.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-19/company-fined-for-dumping-csg-fracking-water-from-agl-site-in-n/5978776?fbclid=IwAR1IvRTWppe3MnunkPyA-P_btDTq5gInUcQTxeO_XzyTngUqLlxSwzyDkGk

The Macquarie Capital group have also been involved in some very dubious dealings, here’s a paragraph from one of articles I happened to find on the internet

Thames Water is regulated under the Water Industry Act 1991 and is owned by Kemble Water Holdings Ltd, a consortium formed in late 2006 and formerly owned by Australian-based Macquarie Group's European Infrastructure Funds specifically for the purpose of purchasing Thames Water. Currently the largest shareholders are Canadian pensions group OMERS (23%),[9] BT Pension Scheme (13%),[10] the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (9.9%),[11] the China Investment Corporation (8.7%)[12] and the Kuwait Investment Authority (8.5%).[13] The name of the company reflects its role providing water to the drainage basin of the River Thames and not the source of its water, which is taken from a range of rivers and boreholes.
In March 2017 a judge imposed a record fine of £20.3m on Thames Water after large leaks of untreated sewage, totalling 1.4bn litres, occurred over a number of years.[14]

The incinerator site has Warragamba Pipelines running adjacent to the southern boundary of the site that supply drinking water to Prospect Reservoir only 1.7km away.

Incinerators create toxic fly ash, which contains some of the most poisonous concentrations of substances such as dioxins and heavy metals. Incinerators actually need more landfill space than regular landfill disposal. Overseas Toxic fly ash is stored in large piles, often inches from roads, communities, and waterways, blowing ash over schools, playgrounds, rivers and streams.
How can you ensure that pollution won’t affect the prospect reservoir and the water supply and the schools and childcare centres nearby.?

Incinerators and landfills are not the answer to waste management. New technology and innovation has provided alternative options that do not affect the public health or environment in the way incinerators and landfills do:
Source Reduction. Researchers estimate that 70% of all current waste and emissions from industrial processes can be prevented at the source by using technically sound and financially profitable procedures.
New Jersey mandates pollution prevention planning based on the tracking of materials throughout each industry. Ultimately, saving companies a total net sum of $105 million per year. Recycling and Composting.
An analysis of recycling potential (including composting) found that 72.8% of waste reclamation was possible.
Recycling facilities produce more than twice the number of jobs provided by landfills and incinerators combined, as well as profitable for companies.
Other technologies that offer safer and cleaner methods exist. 45% of medical waste can be sterilized and reused through autoclaving, and the remaining materials can be treated and reduced through microwave disinfection and steam sterilization.
Biomass and household waste can be handled through a process called thermal desorption and vitrification.

This project is short sighted and not worth the health risk to the people of western sydney, their children or the possible pollution of the water supply and the local environment, all of which is a high risk probability given the track history of the proponents putting forward the project.

Please cut and paste all provided HTML links into your search tab if you need clarification or to see the source of details or information.

Thank you
Regards
Name Withheld

not unless you can vouch the safety of the community.

Risk of air & drinking water pollution far outstrips the alleged safety features

I strongly object to the building of the incinerator in Western Sydney because of the impact on the environment and the safety and well-being of residents in Western Sydney.

I object to the project on the grounds of fear for my health and the health of my family, including my 30 year old daughter and husband who are about to start a family and live close by and will also be adversely affected. Just because we live in the western suburbs does not make our lives any less worthwhile. My daughter is a successful solicitor and my son in law, a civil engineer. They have bought in Greystanes and plan to raise a family here as they love the West. They are a young couple with ambition and ability and they see the future in the west, however, they and many young people like them should not have their future health put at risk by living in the so called Sacrifice Zone. We are not sacrificial lambs, with lives that are not valued. We will never vote for a Government that treats us as second class citizens. I am not affiliated with any political party and I do not donate to any political party. I totally object to this project in the strongest of terms.

To Whom It May Concern,

My family and I lived in the nearby suburb and this project will greatly impact the health of my family and the whole community.
I OBJECT to this project as this type of facility should not be built in an area where children and families are living.
Incinerator does not have a place in metropolitan Sydney or in any area where families are living.


Regards,
Joseph

As a resident of Erskine Park, me and my family will be greatly affected by toxins that will be released by the facility if this will push through. A lot of research has already came out with the risk involve with this type of facility. Bringing a kid, mother, father, grandparents, a family, a community to a health risk by taking chance based on claims by Cleanaway which favor their company whereas this claims are contradicted by unbiased research is not enough to violate the basic human rights.

Cleanway are seeking approval from the state government to incinerate 500,000 Tonnes of rubbish per year and emit fine particulate and toxic gases into the air we breathe. This is an absurd and health destroying proposal shoved onto the people of western Sydney and greater Sydney. There have been many studies supporting the fact that there are cancer clusters and other health disorders in proximity to these incinerators where they exist overseas.
Once again there is another proposal to build an incinerator in midst of residential areas, recreational areas, market gardens which grow our food and close proximity to 2 local primary schools, 2 day care centres and more just in Horsley Park. The people of western Sydney should not be treated as second class citizens and be subjected to these absurd proposals which will poison our environment, air, and certainly have an adverse impact on the health of all the residents surrounding this monstrosity. I strongly object to this and any similar proposal and will be taking a strong stance against it

I object to this submission. No such facility should be built anywhere, especially so close to residential areas.

I object to this development. I don't want to breath in pollutants every time in step outside my home.

I am totally against the the proposed Cleanaway waste incinerator being built at Eastern creek or anywhere near a residential area. The proposed site is less than 1 kilometre away from a residential area. A short while ago a proposed waste site similar to this one was rejected by the government, this current proposal must be rejected as well. Cleanaway's technology of burning waste is dangerous and both a concern and frightening to nearby residents. As a society we should be looking at reusing, recycling and reducing waste. No matter what safeguards Cleanaway claim to have, they are burning waste which can only have a negative impact on the environment and peoples well being. There is no getting away from the fact that burning waste will create - toxic air pollutants, toxic ash and is dirtiest form of energy production. A waste incinerator should never be built within 20 kilometres of a residential area. If a government body allows a waste incinerator to be built near a residential area in the western suburbs of Sydney, that government will be totally out of favour with the voters of western Sydney.

I sincerely object to this proposed development. I fear for the health and safety of myself and my family if it is to go ahead.

Burning waste is bad technology and will lead to terrible health outcomes for those of us forced to live in the area where it will be built. We will be choking on toxic filth and our lives are in danger from this project moving forward.

I oppose living near a waste burning incinerator. It carries the same health risk as breathing secondhand cigarette smoke according to Thurston's November 2017 research.
It would regularly irritate my eyes, nose and mouth. It would would worsen asthma and lung diseases e.g. bronchitis for those with pre-existing conditions. It would increase hospital admissions and premature deaths due to diseases of the respiratory and cardio-vascular systems.
In the long term, an incinerator would reduce lung function, develop cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases and reduce life expectancy. Our children, medically compromised and seniors, like myself, would be particularly at risk.
These incinerators are unnecessary if our governments take the lead by developing a circular, recycling model of waste reduction.
Finally, if N.S.W. must have an incinerator, it should be nowhere near a growing population hub such as western Sydney where the proven adverse effects of its toxic air pollution are exacerbated by the topography of the Sydney Basin.
Rob Vail (Sydney resident for more than 60 years)