Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre

I totally object to the incinerator as the health & well being is far more important & the fumes from the incinerator will be detrimental to any community , their health & well being.

I totally object as i am concerned that the incinerator will affect our well being ,& health of my generation & the generations to come.

Please listen to what we say as we are concerned & don't want any further pollution to our environment in Western Sydney.

I totally object to the incinerator.
I have allergy issues. This will further impact on my well being and many other people in Western Sydney both young & old.

This is an unsustainable solution that will reduce recycling and cause significant air pollution. We need a circular economy, not a 'make, use and burn' one

I object to this project due to health concerns i have for myself and my family,economic concers, and environmental concers. I live within 1KM of the planned site and have 2 young children aged 5 and 8. I also work locally.

eastern creek/western sydney is the " go to " spot for these type of things and it is totally unacceptable, we cop the smell from the exisiting landfill site, the noise from the racetrack and industrial area as it is. I understand that another racetrack has been earmarked for eastern creek along with this project. So we would have 3 racce tracks, 1 landfill, possible 2 incinerators and the existing industrial area.

The location of this project is also EXTREAMLY close the the prospects reservoir, and that means not only the air we will breath, but the water we drink will be contaminated.

HEalth aside, I my property value will drop as people will be very reluctant to purchase a home so close to one of these.

I appose to this type of energy manufacturing in its entirety, it's 2020, burning garbage shouldnt even be up for consideration.

I object to the cleanaway incinerator Blacktown due to the negative effects and impact it will have on the health of my young children who suffer from asthma and other respiratory issues. We live and they attend school in the smoke zone and this will cause them greater health ailments in the years to come. We already live with so much pollution we need to ensure we are not further contaminating the air we breathe everyday. We do not know the long term effects of this incinerator and should not be gambling with children’s health.

Dear Major Projects,
I think this project is irresponsible and could potentially harm residents health. I think renewable clean energy (I.e. solar or wind) is much more responsible and clean. I believe having and incinerator in Western Sydney will decrease land prices and the desirability of the area. I think it is extremely ill-judged to put a garbage disposal incinerator in an area with low socioeconomic status and low educational levels who may not be aware of ways to petition deleterious changes to their suburb. I urge you to reconsider and prioritise people's health and well-being over commercial greed.
Thanks, Elise Harding

We do not need an incinerator in Western Sydney. We already have high pollution and a higher proportion of respiratory illness than the rest of the state.
It makes no sense that government wants to make that worse.
The incinerator poses risk to our health but as it is within proximity to our water catchment areas it could also impact our water supplies.
Our homes values will be impacted.
Again why is ok to do this to our area. Surely the airport will have a significant impact due to flight paths affecting our values and the envirinmental impacts qull impact our health surely another area is more appropriate or an alternative to this form of energy is available without the toxic output. We already have to tolerate the stench of the tip!
The EU and US have already determined incineration is not efficient and are decommissioning plants - why would we introduce a technology that is already regatded as toxic and cancer causing!
Western Sydney deserves clean air the same as other areas of Sydney. We are just as important and we dont want an incinerator. The health impacts alone should be enough to say No Way!

I object to the project and the potential effect on the residential areas nearby. The project will have adverse affect to the livelihood of the residents of nearby Fairfield Council.

The proposal was proposed before and there for was rejected due to health hazard.
I am concerned about my children's and family future due to the pollution

I have resided in Western Sydney my entire life and am raising 3 children and am completely against this development to protect the health and safety of my family.
I worry how it will affect myself and my 3 daughters regarding Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [Miller K.A., Siscovick D.S., Sheppard L., Shepherd K., Sullivan J.H., Anderson G.L. and Kaufman J.D. Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. New England Journal of Medicine 356 (2007) 447-458]
I like to run and keep fit outdoors and I can't help but worry how this will negatively affect that and my local parkrun and running events held in Western Sydney like RunWest in Eastern Creek & the Western Sydney Marathon in Penrith regarding Respiratory, immunological, haematological, neurological and reproductive / developmental problems, sometimes with long time-lags between exposure and health effects [Curtis L., Rea W., Smith-Willis P., Fenyves E. and Pan Y. Adverse health effects of outdoor air pollutants. Environment International 32 (2006) 815-830].
I already have a history of many varied cancers in my family let alone to be concerned that the air and water could lead to lung cancer. Every 10 µg/m3 increase in fine particulate levels was associated with a 4% increase in deaths from all causes, a 6% increase in deaths from cardiopulmonary illness and an 8% increase in lung cancer mortality [Pope C.A., Burnett R.T., Thun M.J., Calle E.E., Krewski D., Ito K. and Thurston G.D. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (2002) 1132-1141].

Please reconsider having this death causing project rejected.

I have 3 children and I am worried about their ability to have kids one day with the risk of this development: Respiratory, immunological, haematological, neurological and reproductive / developmental problems, sometimes with long time-lags between exposure and health effects [Curtis L., Rea W., Smith-Willis P., Fenyves E. and Pan Y. Adverse health effects of outdoor air pollutants. Environment International 32 (2006) 815-830]
If they are able to have children then there is particular concern about the effects of particulate pollution on infants. Increases in infant deaths from respiratory causes with a 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5s have been identified [Woodruff T.J., Darrow L.A. and Parker J.D. Air pollution and postneonatal infant mortality in the United States, 1999-2002. Environmental Health Perspectives 116 (2008) 110-115]. A 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5s was related to a 5% increase in the risk for wheezing bronchitis [Pino P., Walter T., Oyarzun M., Villegas R. and Romieu I. Fine particulate matter and wheezing illness in the first year of life. Epidemiology 15 (2004) 702-708]

I'd like to make a submission to oppose the building of this, the first of the five incinerators, suggested for Sydney.
I live in the innercity, and as you know, we already face massive air pollution with the westconnex building exhaust stacks near our dwelling at Annandale.
Sydney's air does not have a postcode and so, I feel quite justified in lodging this submission.
Our airis one of the most important things we all share - without fresh air and fresh water people die. I feel we have a responsibility to protect both air and water. The incinerator would be detrimental to all of us.

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.5 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.

I thank you for receiving my submission
Patrick Harte

My family and I are opposed to the proposed Energy facility.
We have grave concerns over Cleanaway's previous track record of environmental damage. Another example of profits over protecting the environment and an example of bad management. What will be the difference now?
Residents' health will be at risk on a daily basis for decades or hundreds of years. Who will guarantee the facility is run safely? We certainly don't trust Cleanaway.
Western Sydney already had the highest level of air pollution and this will add more toxins into the air, contributing to cancers and other disorders.
The facility is to close to residents and should not be approved to go ahead.

.

We don’t want the toxic fumes in our community

I live in Blacktown .
Incineration is not the solution to our waste issues . Look at what happened with the SWERF in Wollongong , it was established , and then it could not meet strict emission standards ,and was not economically viable to sort the waste further so it closed .
Here are the other local reason I feel strongly about
1) air quality : Thai is not proven technology to produce clean air , with Australia’s mixed waste and contaminated waste streams , it will still release a small amount of dioxins PbC’s etc , It wrong location so close to residential housing when u consider the air / wind flows .
2) one proposal for a similar location was just knocked back and actively petitioned against by council with similar technologies - why is this one any different ?
3) the amount of energy produced is not significant . Investment in local jobs , and sustainable energy could and should be made instead .
Here are the more generalised reason I agree with
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.

The negative and side health effects impact a great number of people in the Western area as well as all of Sydney from the plumes. With proven health problems around the world from other incinerators I have major concerns for myself, my children, my grandchildren and other family and friends. Please do not allow this to go ahead. I strongly object.
I believe Cleanaway are only thinking of profit gain and not the well being of the general population.
To allow this type of incinerator to be built and operated would be disastrous to our health. We already battle other carcinogens but this would be the worst.
I do not hold any faith that this company would stand by Australian Standards and ensure the filtering system is working at a safe level.
I object, I object, I object and cannot stress enough my fear and concerns of the nightmare that will enfold should this proceed.

Having several residential suburbs within the Sacrifice zone for this facility is simply unacceptable. When a nearby facility had a fire our yard and pool was covered in ash. What do you think will happen when they are burning stuff 24/7. I have grave concerns about the size of the PM10 and PM 2.5 emissions. They are quite large and close to the acceptable limits, especially when they consider another incinerator wants to build here too. It is quite inconceivable that a government whether local, state or federal would be willing to make their tax payers suffer by building this facility. This facility does not belong so close to residents, or the states back up water supply

To whom it may concern,

Why is it ok to dump this damn incinerator in our backyard? I have been a resident of Erskine Park for the last 7yrs; we already have the highest measure of pollution then anywhere in Sydney. I greatly oppose this incinerator and any future incinerators being built in Eastern Creek. We value the air we breathe; we do the best to reduce our toxic load on our bodies and the environment. Are you willing to allow multiple incinerators in Western Sydney after the Parliamentary enquiry outcome shows it would cause adverse health effects for the people of Western Sydney? What a joke, why are we not being protected against our basic right to clean and safe air where we live.
Zero waste projects would create so much needed jobs in this area; it would be environmentally sustainable and has no effects on human health.

SAVE US BY NOT APPROVING THESE INCINERATORS!!!
Some more reasons to not build any incinerators;

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.

Kind Regards,
Concerned resident of Erskine Park