Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre

Strongly object to this project due to the health issues it caused
Waste incinerator exposure and neoplasia risk
Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma. Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma has been associated with waste incinerator exposure. ...
Soft tissue sarcoma. Soft tissue sarcomas have also been linked to exposure to waste incinerator emissions. ...
Bowel cancer.

Strongly object to this project due to the health issues it causes
Waste incinerator exposure and neoplasia risk
Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma. Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma has been associated with waste incinerator exposure. ...
Soft tissue sarcoma. Soft tissue sarcomas have also been linked to exposure to waste incinerator emissions. ...
Bowel cancer.

It will create pollution

I would like to object to this project as in my view it will emit fumes that's harmful to the environment as well as the health of my family and the residents to the neighbouring suburbs.
We should be aiming for a more clean energy production.

I am totally opposed to the incinerator and feel my health & that of my family will be compromised.

This will cause smoke and pollution to be pumped into the air and will cause not only damage to the environment, but also cause unknown and possibly life threatening damage to the health of people in the surrounding suburbs. It will also create a terrible smell which will be unbearable.

To whom it may concern,

I have been a resident of Rooty Hill for 16 years and resident in the seat of Chifley my whole life (25 years) and have seen this suburb and the surrounding area go from strength to strength. It does not seem congruent with the logical progression of this suburb/ surrounding area to build a large incinerator. This not only being said as a matter of concern regarding the health of the society around the incinerator but also in regard to the lasting environmental impact. Having studied Zoology for 4 years, I am aware of the dangers/ that any development can bring let alone one which deals with burning refuse. If this were to be built then it would have a lasting impact on the quality of living of surrounding neighbourhoods and on the already battered ecology of the region. Furthermore, this would act as an enormous deterrent for future tourist industries, negatively impacting current and upcoming tourist attractions, such as Sydney Zoo, Raging Waters Theme park, Blacktown Olympic park, Eastern creek quarter future developments, etc. This project would be to the detriment of the community in more ways than one. Finally, such and eye sore would be hard to conceal and the smell which it would give off would be unbearable; further exacerbating the issue of driving away tourists and becoming a hassle for locals and especially for the house prices in the area. Please reconsider this project and use your rational thought.
Kind regards,

I am against this project. Take this elsewhere. Why does Western Sydney always have to suffer.

There are a number of reasons why this proposal should not go ahead that include a combination of the following:
1) Previous application to have a large incinerator was ruled by law to be not permitted and many of those reasons still exist! The body reviewing this information should review the previous reasons why a large incinerator on this site is a bad idea and not in the interests overall for the health of those in Western Sydney.
2) Overall it is too close to residential areas and local employment precinct.
3) Increasing pollution levels, noise and discusing smells.
4) The buildings proposed will be too large and stacks ugly.
5) There has been minimal if any good community focus groups/ public forums by the owner to the local community to rely any positive points and mitigate any risks/ concerns.
6) Due to the poor community consulting by the owner and applicant of this proposal this has caused increased axiousness amounts locals.
7) Will potentially decrease local real estate prices in the surrounding 10 km. Assume no compensation provided to locals for this reduction!
8) Dangerous for school kids in local schools within the 10km radius as well as the local tourist attractions like Sydney Zoo.
9) Potential to cause harm to the health of those working closely or within the downward wind of this site. This potentially causing irreversable harm.
10) If the site blow up would cause considerable mess and harm to the local area.

Please consider these points carefully as a lot of people will be adversely impacted.

All applications should be kept in contact for the full process and allowed to comment should any item change.

I object to the project as a resident within the surrounding community of the proposal. As well as being a resident, as a project manager in the
construction industry with over 15 years experience I witness on a daily basis the practical or physical output of development proposals. a specific regulatory framework for energy from waste or thermal treatment facilities does not currently exist I believe it is imperative that a strict and enforceable regime be developed prior to approval of any development of this kind. Not wanting to overstate or sensationalise, the recent United Kingdom resident tower fire (building cladding) and similar incidents show what can happen at one extreme of the scale when regulations are either not in place, not adhered to or not enforced. I would like to point out that my primary objection is aimed at thermal treatment or incineration of waste to produce energy. I do not have the same strong objections to alternative methods of energy from waste such as anaerobic digestion or extraction of gas from landfill. The common denominator in all of these, however, is that they should not be placed next to residential properties.

As a side issue, I would like to note in my personal opinion that the term "energy from waste" when referring to thermal treatment is a misnomer. When you examine it closely, the process is actually either gas- or diesel-powered electricity generation with waste disposal added on to that process. Evidence from elsewhere in the world suggests energy from waste 'incinerators' have worked directly against targets to improve rates of recycling, as it provides a 'cheap and easy' alternative to actual recycling. The Stockholm Convention—being the United Nations "Guidelines on best available techniques and provisional guidance on best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2007"—in its summary on waste incinerators concludes that priority should be given to alternatives to waste incinerators including improved recycling and the prevention of the formation and release of persistent organic pollutants. Energy from waste using thermal treatment or incineration does not meet or attempt to comply with either of these goals. European evidence has shown that the alternatives, being increased re-use and recycling of waste are in fact adversely affected by waste incineration. The proposal does not offer or provide best environmental practices.

In closing, my objections as an adjacent resident are founded on concerns relating to the unacceptable level of risk (environmental outputs) with this type of proposal being situated close to residential and built up urban areas. It does not represent industry best practice and appropriate and specific environmental guidelines and legislation are not in place in NSW to protect its citizens from energy from waste proposals. On these grounds I object to this proposal.

No incinerator in western sydney. We are becoming more populated here could it not move else where. It will contribute to the damages of global warming, and pollution, it will have a negative impact on our environment. Not to mention the impact on health, air quality, gas emissions. Dioxins, the highly toxic chemicals produced by waste incineration. Its also going to lock in long term and expensive contracts between Cleanaway and the government.
Surrounding communities will be effected.

The project is a great danger to residents' health.

Strongly oppose the new incinerator project at Eastern Creek

The location is acceptable as it is already near a landfill site, however I have read into the proposed system and it is just a more advanced incinterator with better filters.
A better solution would be to use plasma arc waste recycling. You can read more abouy it here - https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/plasma-converter.html.
The main benefit is that it is a cleaner way to dispose of waste and is capable of extracting metal which can then be sold off, generating more revenue.
Thank you

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.

I dont want the incinerator it will damage the atmosphere & cause problems for the community

The Incinerator would be a detriment to Australia's pollution content

I care because it will affect people’s health. I care because I’m a mother. An incinerators lifespan is a minimum of 30yrs, so once they are built there is no going back. There are alternatives to landfill, and incineration, that will create many more jobs than either of the above methods. Look beyond the waste industry’s promotional material & do a bit of research. Then you’ll see the real truth.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Please find attached my submission objecting to Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre's Development at Eastern Creek.
It is critical that the NSW Government rejects this proposal in order to preserve the quality of life within this growing and essential economic region for Sydney, NSW and Australia.

I live in Eastern creek in one of the residential streets.it is not wholly an industrial area.prevailing winds come from the direction of your project.this sort of facility is not suitable for a built up area which is continuously growing.I already smell the dump regularly on the wind .this is annoying but probably not toxic .burning rubbish is toxic .I have to trust for profit business to filter these toxins. No way . Asbestos was once approved.fumes which cause silicosis was approved once apon a time.thalidomide and China had covid under control ?
The risk is not worth it .build it away from population areas .build it in Scott Morrison’s electorate if it’s so safe.
Go ahead with this and I would blockade the first trucks Turning up.maybe a class action to compensate for lost property value .
Don’t do it