Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre

I reside with my family close to the proposed site of the incinerator- I am completely opposed to having this located near my home and so close to residential areas.
The quality of air / smell of this will negatively impact thousands of people needlessly.
Whilst I appreciate the need for renewable energy, why can't this be built in a more remote location?

Hi
Just for the record
I oppose the Incinerator project proceeding My reason is for the dangerous fumes it will emit in residential areas.
One life affected is one too many.
Please find another safer location or alternative method.
I am not against progress.

Hi,
I object to this project,'Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre'. This project poses a serious health risks to the residents of the areas nearby especially for our younger generation children living in the area.

I object to the construction of the incinerator as it will have an enormous effect on the communities around it. I am a survivor of cancer and i know many who are suffering from it. We have several schools, young families living around this area and many children and adults suffering breathing related illnesses, such as , asthma and other allergies. The gases that the incinerator would emit could be a cause for concern. I would urgently request you to find another location which is in a rural area away from cities and towns.

I strongly object to this project of the incinerator being built at Eastern Creek. This will cause a serious air pollution risking our health and lives of people living in the area. I will definitely move to a new area if this project proceeds. I cannot risk my family and my young daughter's health.

This project is going to pollute the air in western Sydney and will make it much more hazardous for the residents of the blacktown council. This project should not be allowed to go ahead.

I am totally bemused as well as horrified that this proposal is still going since it should have been rejected out of hand for health reasons as soon as it was put forward. Is there no understanding of why the Sydney Basin is called the Sydney Basin? It is called a basin because it is shaped like a basin and in common, still conditions it fills up with polluted air just like a basin. This is simple, well-established science and clearly visible already on many days when approaching the edge of the basin at an elevation, when it is visibly full of dingy brown air that just sits there. We should be actively trying to reduce this existing pollution load, but this proposal will add a whole lot more toxic pollution into it so that on many days each year it will just sit there so everyone in the basin can just suck it in. Everyone, not just in adjacent suburbs, everyone in the Sydney Basin, but especially in the more central areas where the majority of people live and work.

Please, in the interests of the health of the entire population of this city, ensure that a full and competent business case is prepared for this proposal, one that includes a government health cost recovery surcharge that will be levied back on the operators to pay in full for the impact on health this development will have if it proceeds within the Sydney Basin, and particularly at the planned location which is just about the worst place it could possibly be put in terms of accumulating pollution in the basin and maximising negative impacts on health. If those health costs are assessed competently the current proposal will fail on economic grounds, even without considering the humanitarian impact of negative health outcomes.

I do not object to the proposal in principle. The idea of a high-efficiency incinerator is a good one, but even with the cleanest of technologies the total amount of resulting air pollution will still be significant, so it must be located in an area where the pollution is rapidly dispersed, not within a major population centre that frequently acts as a natural pollution trap.

I'm writing to express my firm objection to this incinerator proposal. Cleanaway does not call it an incinerator, but that's what it is. Incinerators are not the way forward for waste management in the 21st century. I support recycling as the way forward for our city's waste management, and do not support incinerators which pump toxic fumes into the air we breathe.

Having lived at Seven Hills for more than 60 years before moving to Leura in recent years I can attest to the the pollutants and offensive smell that was emitted into the air from the Waste Tip at Eastern Creek subsequent to the operation of that facility. When a south-west breeze arose the smell and, obviously, bacteria would carry from Eastern Creek to Seven Hills and would be particularly noticeable and offending.

The same will apply with respect to the burning of waste matter from the proposed incinerator.

It is not the location for such a facility because of the vast number of people living or working near to or further away who will be adversely affected.

I strongly object to this proposal. The proposal is, in essence, the creation of a waste incinerator in the western suburbs of Sydney. Incinerators are not the sustainable future for waste management in Sydney. Further the western suburbs of Sydney are demonstrably the worst possible location for such facilities. For public health reasons such facilities must be located in regions with suitable climate and where the local air is regularly refreshed by wind. The natural basin of western Sydney with it's temperature inversion are the worst possible location for such facilities, and such location will lead to further increases in local mortality rates.
If planning do actually plan development in this state, using evidence to direct development to the areas which can best sustain it, then this facility must be located in a coastal location affording sufficient air movement - putting human health above party politics.

I currently work very closely to this proposed site and I am very concerned about the hazardous waste being emitted.
Regards,

Not happy with long-term effects on my family.

Not happy with this

The plant will emit harmful fumes that will cause long term harm to many residents in the area. The incinerator will also make nearby suburbs smell.

This is harmful to our health. I know it as an educated person who has studied chemistry and the environment. I don’t believe they would not have briefed you on the harmful effects as all good reports and proposals should clearly explain. So you (should) know very well about detrimental the fumes are. We may just be another statistic to the Government but I think you guys are power tripping. Were you not elected to help protect and serve the people? Who are you serving or protecting? Stop putting money over our lives and the environment.

The Waste to Energy industry creates a profit demand for waste. The result is that efforts for genuine recycling, turning products and their embedded resources back into products and reducing demand for virgin materials, is undermined by Waste to Energy. Efforts to rebrand Waste to Energy as 'recycling' fail to define recycling in any proper or meaningful way. The establishment of Waste to Energy infrastructure locks in the idea of burning what we throw away for decades. All efforts should be made instead to minimize waste streams through product design, legislation around obsolescence in manufactured goods, eliminating mixed material packaging that challenge recycling and building genuine recycling facilities in Australia. What is burnt in WTE facilities is largely organic waste which should be captured and composted and plastics which cannot be recycled. Burning plastic is burning fossil fuels, as the world moves toward zero emissions energy production we should not be building facilities to burn more fossil fuels that create emissions. We should instead be building circular economies that recognise waste as a design flaw, a flaw that is not resolved by burning viable resources but solved through better design in products and the systems that manage them after use. Waste to Energy is bad for recycling, bad for health and bad for the environment.

As a current university student, studying topics such as this I know that this project is a truely terrible idea. It does not take a genius to know this...

1. This does NOT solve the current waste problem being faced, we need a functioning circular economy not the current linear one. This needs to begin by looking at companies to take responsibly of product packaging and then more efficient ways of reducing, reusing and then recycling the precious materials we have.... a great start to this was the plastic bag ban! Incinerating waste does NOT fix the problem it just prolongs and ignores the bigger picture!! Even I know this, I do not know why you cant see this?!

2. We need energy from RENEWABLE SOURCES!!! Rubbish is not one! There are soo many other alternative sources - solar, turbines that are just as effective. Why not use those alternatives that won't cause further harm to the plant?

3. What about the air pollution that will be created from this?! Seriously??! Just look at the air quality in china. I have no words guys....

I honestly would like to be able to say I am proud to be Australian, but currently I am not. Australia is too far behind on sustainable activities and its just embarrassing. This project is another example of a horrendous idea that shows Australia is not moving forward at all....
NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

Dear Mayor Bleasdale,
I am writing to you to ask that you reconsider the project "cleanaway energy- from- waste facility".
While there have been examples of this being a better option and used in placed such as Japan I and many other Blacktown residents do not feel this is in our best interests. There is no way to ensure that there will be no harm to our communities health as well as the environment. The pollution alone will have serious dangerous affects that will be long lasting for generations to come. I ask that Blacktown council investigate a different means of breaking down our trash. One example is by investing in two species of waxworm, Galleria mellonella and Plodia interpunctella which have both been observed eating and digesting polyethylene plastic. The waxworms metabolize polyethylene plastic films into ethylene glycol, a compound which biodegrades rapidly. Surly this is one example of a more natural fix. Is there additional assistance our community can give our council to separate and recycle? I've also noticed other council areas have a green waste bin, however we do not. Is this something we could look into?
I would appreciate you taking my concerns seriously. I am a proud member of this community and I wish it be the healthiest community it can possibly be. I do not believe this project is the best way forward.
Please re-consider.
Many thanks,
Sonya Day

As a resident of St Marys, I do not support the Cleanaways Incinerator due to several reasons,

Cleanaways EIS Confirms Horsely Park Rural Residents Will Be Impacted
Cleanaway’ EIS States “Operation of the EfW facility will produce air emissions from the stack” (Pg 27 EIS).
Cleanaway’ EIS States the Incinerator Will Release Dangerous Ultra fine Particulates “the predominant particles being emitted by this facility are those that are less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)" (Page 63 Human Health Risk Assessment).
Cleanaway’ EIS States PM2.5 & PM10 already exceed the safety limits near the incinerator site “cumulative ground level PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, due to the existing background levels which already exceed the criteria”.

The Cleanaway Incinerator Proposal Fails To Meet The Basic principles of the NSW Energy from Waste Policy Statement - No Social Licence for Incinerator
The Incinerator fails to meet the basic principles of The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000
The Cleanaway Incinerator Does Not Meet The European Standards BREF on Incineration - No Continuous Dioxins Monitoring
The Paris Appeal Memorandum, Urged A Moratorium On Building Any New Incinerators
The Incinerator fails to meet the basic principles of the “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants


Through further reading I have developed concern over Cleanaways track record for meeting regulations regarding containing hazardous materials.

16/11/2018 - Cleanaway failed to comply with condition 330-155 of the environment authorisation 50320 in that they did not take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent dust leaving the Premises. An EPA Authorised Officer recorded failure of site operatives to use the dust suppression hoses at the site whilst handling wastes with the onsite machinery. At the same time the under roof dust suppression misters were observed not to be operating. By failing to use the appropriate dust suppression controls they have caused or permitted dust to leave the Premises in contravention of condition 330-155

These concerns necessitate my objection to this project.

Energy & Resource Recovery Centre

Let’s make no mistake this is basically a high temperature incinerator and power station. Coal fired power stations where shutdown in Sydney over 35 years ago, and these types of base load steam power stations should no longer be developed in Sydney, or any other location where there are residents nearby.

We object to this proposed development for the following reasons:

1. Increased Air Pollution
The project should only be approved if it can be demonstrated that there will be zero emissions from the plant both air emissions and prevention and elimination of any ground contamination. Currently all plants of this type overseas still produce some levels of toxic gases and green house gasses. The world is moving to zero emissions and we need to start now by not allowing any developments that emit on going pollutants into the atmosphere. If Australia is serious to moving to zero carbon emissions then the future needs to start with current projects. The project needs to adopt zero emissions technology by including sufficient wet and dry flue gas scrubbers, Electrostatic Precipitators, and sequestration to ensure there is no emissions from this plant. Technology is available today that can make these plants be totally safe and not emit any pollutants.

Increasing the air pollution in the Sydney air shed should not be allowed and the residents of Western Sydney health should not be compromised. There are residents living within 2 km of the proposed site and any prevailing wind is most certainly to contaminate the air quality at their homes.

2. Sydney’s Water Supply Contamination
Sydney’s main Water source from Prospect reservoir is only 2km away, and it would most certainly be contaminated by this proposed facility especially from westerly winds, ending up in the Sydney water supply.

3. Road Network Congestion
The submission claims the existing road network can be used for transport of the waste. The road network around the proposed plant is already congested and grid locked during peak hour traffic due to insufficient access to main roads. The M7 is also grid locked mornings and afternoon and no longer is a convenient and efficient way to travel, increasing large trucks on the road from this ERW facility will add further congestion and air pollution to the area.

Alternative Solution

Waste generated by Sydney residents and businesses is unavoidable, though efforts should be made by product providers to reduce packaging and provide more environmentally friendly alternatives.

It should be considered to build this type of plant at existing coal fired power plants that already have the infrastructure such as; turbines, switch yards, electricity grid connection, flue stacks, access roads, operating and maintenance staff, to integrate this type of plant into the existing plant. If the power stations is located in the Central coast are used then they can service all the Sydney and the central coast, and parts of the West. The capital and operating costs to integrate the EFW into the existing coal fired plants would be much less than a new plant, and the savings can be used to invest in the latest emission control technology.

Transport of waste from distribution hubs via B-Doubles can be scheduled overnight so not to contribute to the day traffic and be more efficient.

The coal fired plants already use biomass as a supplementary fuel and could possibly modify their existing boilers to accept this waste. Alternatively, the steam generated by the EFW boiler can be injected into the current steam turbines at the lower pressure stages, this would offset the steam required to be generated by coal. Another option would to have the EFW only produce hot water to act as feed water heating into the existing coal fired boilers, EFW boiler would cost much less than the currently proposed system.

Information Source: (this air quality study does not include 2019)
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Air/air-quality-study-nsw-greater-metropolitan-region-200488.pdf

1) Page 3 of this document highlights the importance of clean air. Based on a previous study poor air quality already has a significant financial cost to the government (not counting the physical and emotional cost of being sick). "Previous studies have estimated the health cost of particle air pollution in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Region to be around $6.4 billion (AUD 2016) each year or over $1000 per person (NSW DEC 2005; Jalaludin et al. 2011)"

Even if the Cleanaway proposes incinerator to be "clean", how can this help improve the air quality of Greater Sydney? How can we be certain the output of the incinerator is clean? Who should determine the safe levels of particulates and toxins that should be allowed to be released into the people around the area? Personally, I would rather find alternatives to managing waste rather than burning it.

2) Page 91: PM2.5 is the size of pollutant particulates in the air. It has been measured that power stations contributes 17% of PM2.5 in the air while all motor vehicles contribute 19%. Even with filtration systems employed by this "clean" incinerator, the release of PM2.5 particles in the air would still be significant.

3) Overseas studies shows incineration stifles waste management innovation and recycling. Incinerators are expensive to build and to ensure profitability, it must continually receive waste to burn. The danger is when there is nothing left to burn, incinerators then take in waste from outside sources and burn recyclables too.

The government must look at much better alternatives to help reduce waste rather than allowing the construction of this incinerator as an easy solution.