Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Response to Submissions

Cleanaway's Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre


Current Status: Response to Submissions

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

The purpose of the proposal is to build an energy-from-waste facility that can generate up to 58 megawatts of power by thermally treating up to 500,000 tonnes per year of residual municipal solid waste and residual commercial and industrial waste.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

WSERRC - Notice of Exhibition

Request for SEARs (1)

WSERRC Scoping Report - 13 Nov 2019

SEARs (1)


EIS (25)

WSERRC - Volume 1 Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix D Statement of CIV
TR A AQ Impact Assessment
TR B Human Health Risk Assessment
TR C Waste and Resource Management Report
TR D Best Available Techniques Assessment Re
TR E Waste Flow Analysis for Greater Sydney
TR F Soils and Water Assessment Report
TR G Detailed Site Investigation
TR G1 Factual Report on Geotechnical Investig
TR G2 Remediation Action Plan
TR G3 Due Diligence Contamination Investigati
TR H Hydrology and Flooding Assessment Report
TR I Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
TR J Preliminary Hazard Analysis
TR K Traffic and Transport Assessment
TR L Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
TR M Social Impact Assessment
TR N Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency As
TR O Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment
TR O1 Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage
TR P Utilities and services assessment report
TR Q Biodiversity Development Assessment Repo
SIDRA WSERRC scenario v3-7 for EIS v2
MUSIC W2E Site WQ Model

Response to Submissions (1)

Cleanaway WSERRC - Request RTS - Signed

Agency Advice (12)

Endeavour Energy SEARs - WSERRC
Sydney Water SEARs - WSERRC
Blacktown City Council SEARs - WSERRC.pdf
Fairfield City Council SEARs - WSERRC


Showing 621 - 634 of 634 submissions
Sydney Water
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Please see the attached response
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Please find attached WaterNSW response
Department of Transport
Chippendale , New South Wales
TfNSW Response
Name Withheld
ST MARYS , New South Wales
Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to this submission with every fibre of my being.

I've lived in Oxley Park with my husband and 2 children, where I have grown up since birth, 45 years ago. My parents and other family members also live in the area.
My children go to the local schools, Clairgate Public School and Erskine Park High School, where along with withSt Clair High School, James Erskine and Blackwell Public school, approximately 3800 students will be affected by this proposal, not to mention the other 3 schools and child cares in the area who will also be affected by this proposal and the others like this. The Erskine Park Industrial area is also in our suburb which means thousands of workers will be exposed to pollution every day, risking their health and wellbeing also. We are extremely concerned for our health, that of our children and our community . Western Sydney is already considered the dumping ground for waste and we do not want anything else that will harm our health built here. House prices will also decline as the popularity of our suburb will diminish. It will no longer be a desirable suburb to live as no one will want to live near a waste incinerator.

I OBJECT strongly to this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Health Risks - This proposal is for a "Waste Incinerator", despite the name you have given it. Waste Incinerators produce toxic pollution that will impact the environment and our health, as proven in several other countries who are now CLOSING theirs down due to the effect on the population. These emissions include highly toxic and carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants. There is scientific evidence that those who live within a 5km radius of waste incinerators are at most risk health wise and it has been deemed "the sacrifice zone". Those with asthma are particularly at high risk, as they already suffer from the emissions from the current SITA waste that lets of a pungent smell into the community on a regular basis. This will absolutely place pressure on our already over crowded and underfunded local hospitals. Will an increase in medical funding be provided if this gets approved? I know that I plan to sue the government should I or my children and husband be further affected by this waste incinerator if it is approved. We are all asthmatics so absolutely opposed to further toxins in the air. The airport will also be adding to pollution in the basin.

2. Environmental Concerns - Waste incinerators all generate ash that is contaminated with toxic heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as dioxins and furans. 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. The level of toxic ash, in addition to the airport and the current FIVE waste disposal centres in this area, will be suffocating.

3. Dirty Energy - Whilst Cleanaway has labelled this waste incinerator as an energy supplier , it is not green energy as they claim. The burning of waste produces 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 actual 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. To put it bluntly, burning waste just changes it from a land fill issue to an air pollution /environmental issue. There are more environmentally friendly ways to generate income, then burning waste. The lives, health and wellbeing of the residents should surely be considered a priority rather than a false economy as proposed. Swapping one problem for another is not the answer.

4. Undermines recycling efforts - Waste Incinerators need waste to burn and it is in the business’s best interest to obtain products like plastics, paper and cardboard as it increases the efficiency of their energy, going against the Penrith City Council’s already establish recycling plan. These materials are also highly valuable to the recycling sector and by encouraging waste incineration it discourages recycling.

5. Stops innovation - Waste incinerator companies need contracts that last for approximately 30 years in order to be financially viable. In order for that to occur, 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 stifled. The government cannot look at new ways of reducing waste when they have locked themselves into supplying an agreed amount of waste to this company for many years, which impacts on the ability to seek other technologies that are safe and green.

There is sufficient evidence that proves Incinerators are a danger to the environment and to human health, as identified in other countries already. Why are we introducing something that other countries are finding is failing their health of their citizens? Why is the local government in low socioeconomic areas even considering it? I would suggest trying another LGA such as the northern beaches and see if they are OK with this. Perhaps near Kirribilli House? Waste Incineration is NOT the solution to landfill that Cleanaway are claiming it to be. This is a money making development for Cleanaway but they are trying to convince the community it is in their best interest as it will reduce landfill and produce electricity. We are not buying it! Shame on you for trying to have this pass into a low socioeconomic area with low education and so many vulnerable people.

A proposal for a Waste Incinerator in the same area has previously been rejected by the Department of Planning based on health concerns. Waste Incinerators should NOT be approved near residential areas anywhere within Australia. If politicians would not want it near Parliament House, then it should not be placed in residential areas where children are exposed to such pollutants.
Kerri Bradbury
MINCHINBURY , New South Wales
Pamel May Evans
LITTLE BAY , New South Wales
A weed is a plant growing where it isn't wanted.
Just so, waste, is something we have no use for in that particular time and place.

As the world transitions to renewable energy it is not the time nor place to build an incinerator to produce non-renewable energy and pollution whilst not even resolving the waste problem. In fact it will make waste that is more toxic and so extremely difficult to deal with.

As an aging member of society I had looked forward to my family, and all the other valuable members of society, reaping the benefits of the marvellous ingenuity of human kind. Yet it is not to be so. This ingenuity is continuing to be used to degrade the environment such that species are becoming extinct, polar ice caps are melting.... In fact, this anthropocene age is destroying the very ecosystems we need to survive.

Water is extremely basic for existence. There is no storage system that will not eventaully leak out of its confines.
1. The proposed Cleanaway incinerator site is adjacent to pipelines from Warragamba Dam lto Prospect Reservoir. Leakage here would directly compromise this drinking water supply. Cleanaway's jown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states it's sediment has the potential to impact Reedy Creek and Eastern Creek and their associated aquatic environments via sediment runoff. (Ref EIS pg 29).

2. 25% of the waste burnt becomes toxic fly and bottom ash. It is most likely these will go to the facility in Wallacia which accepts contaminated ash, to use in construction and road base. This action does not remove these contaminants forever, it just changes their location. Especially in the case of road base it will not be a permanent change of location. Nowhere in the world does one find roads that don't gradually wear out and develop pot holes. Here in Australia, with our hot summers, which will only be getting hotter, even more leaching will occur. Not to mention that the Wallacia facility itself is in a flood zone and on the banks of the Nepean River.

Air is also a basic necessity. We have even less choice what air we breathe than what water we drink, it has by necessity, to be the air surrounding us, ,even in the knowledge it is polluted. The filters in the chimney stacks only capture the larger particles. These then become potential water polluters as per my objection above. The particles smaller than the filters now become air pollutants.
1. There is a long list of air pollutants which include nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, mercury, lead, dioxans and furans. The known adverse health effects of these include cancer risk, respiratory illness, cardiac disease, devevolpmental and neurological problems, even miscarrige.
2. The ultrafine particulate matter, which is too fine to be filtered out, is involved in respiratory disease no matter what it is made of.
3. The cost to the community of air pollution, both health and financial, is unacceptable.
Greenhouse emissions of CO2 are higher from incineration of waste than from burning oil or coal. The studies showing this, in both the UK and the USA, have measured without removing the organic waste, if this was done the difference would be even greater. Therefore waste to energy by incineration is defintely a move in the wrong direction in our times of climate change.

There are so many alternatives to utilisation of waste developed at present. If these are undertaken, the small amount left could be stored in landfill while we develop ways to utilise it. In the meantime we need to move forward to build that better future our inheritors should claim where there is zero waste, renewable energy, a circular economy and a stable climate wherein ecosystems are recovering.

Why should people be considered collateral damage to industry?

Reuse and recycling make rubbish a resource.

Incineration removes nothing, it only changes it's form.

We, the human race, have to stop being a weed in our own world.

Like nature, we need to build a circular economy with zero waste.

Yours Sincerely
Pamela Evans
Name Withheld
COLYTON , New South Wales
My objections are listed in the file attached.
Name Withheld
Please do not publish my suburb or submission at this time.
The Greens
Sydney , New South Wales
Western Sydney Planning Partnership
Parramatta , New South Wales
NSW Health Service - Health System Support Group
Please find attached submission from WSLHD.
Parramatta , New South Wales
Request for further information
Water Group
The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) - Water and the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) have reviewed the Western Sydney Energy & Resource Recovery Centre EIS and have provided comments in the attached.


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Electricity Generation - Other
Local Government Areas

Contact Planner

Sally Munk