Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Eastern Creek Energy from Waste Facility


Current Status: Under Appeal

The Applicant has appealed the IPC's refusal of the proposal in the L&E Court. The Court has allowed the applicant to amend its application and ordered it be exhibited on the Major Projects planning portal. The exhibition concluded on 21 June 2022.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_13042022_081934

Request for SEARs (1)

SA5220-Preliminary EIS Final 311013.pdf


Eastern Creek Energy from Waste DGRs.pdf

EIS (62)

16. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX G_ Draft Plan of Subdivision...
21. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX L_ Local Air Quality and Gre...
40. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX T_ ACHAR Addendum_low res_Pa...
30. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX O_ Human Health Risk Assessm...
51. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX W_ Phase 2 Detailed Site Inv...
48. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX W_ Phase 1 Preliminary Site ...
25. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX L_ Local Air Quality and Gre...
19. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX J_ CIV.pdf
59. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX CC_ Construction Environment...
50. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX W_ Phase 2 Detailed Site Inv...
42. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX T_ ACHAR Addendum_low res_Pa...
02. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX A_ Responses to Agency ToA c...
37. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX S_ Aboriginal Archaeological...
05. 2015-04-24 APPENDIX D_ Architectural Design Repo...
60. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX DD_ Concept Design Report.pdf
39. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX T_ ACHAR Addendum_low res_Pa...
09. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX E_ Landscape Report and Plan...
53. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX X_ Community Communication a...
56. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX Z_ Preliminary Hazard Analys...
04. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX C_ Director General's Requir...
01. 2015-04-28 Environmental Impact Statement.pdf
22. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX L_ Local Air Quality and Gre...
20. 2015-04-24 APPENDIX K_ Waste Management Report.pdf
12. 2015-04-24 APPENDIX F_ Civil and Stormwater Plan...
11. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX E_ Landscape Report and Plan...
47. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX W_ Phase 1 Preliminary Site ...
35. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX R_ Traffic Report.pdf
23. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX L_ Local Air Quality and Gre...
49. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX W_ Phase 2 Detailed Site Inv...
57. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX AA_ Flood Report (Brown).pdf
34. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX Q_ Soil and Water Report.pdf
52. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX X_ Community Communication a...
24. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX L_ Local Air Quality and Gre...
36. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX R_ Traffic Report_appendices...
03. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX B_ Site Survey.pdf
07. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX D_Architectural Plans_Part 2...
00. Owners consent and political donations disclosur...
54. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX Y_ Consultation with Departm...
13. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX F_ Civil and Stormwater Plan...
10. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX E_ Landscape Report and Plan...
32. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX O_ Human Health Risk Assessm...
15. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX F_ Civil Infrastructure Repo...
14. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX F_ Civil and Stormwater Plan...
02. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX A_ Peer review letter Rambol...
46. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX W_ Phase 1 Preliminary Site ...
41. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX T_ ACHAR Addendum_low res_Pa...
06. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX D_Architectural Plans_Part 1...
43. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX T_ ACHAR Addendum_low res_Pa...
29. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX O_ Human Health Risk Assessm...
27. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX N_ Ozone Impact Assessment_P...
18. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX I_ Visual Impact Assessment.pdf
26. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX M_ Odour Assessment.pdf
17. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX H_ Flora and Fauna Report.pdf
33. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX P_ Noise Impact Assessment.pdf
45. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX V_ Heritage Impact Statement...
31. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX O_ Human Health Risk Assessm...
44. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX U_ Test Excavation Report.pdf
28. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX N_ Ozone Impact Assessment_P...
55. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX Y_ Consultation with NSW Hea...
08. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX D_Architectural Plans_Part 3...
38. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX T_ ACHAR.pdf
58. 2015-04-17 APPENDIX BB_ Bushfire Assessment Repo...

Engagements (1)

FAQs Eastern Creek February 2017.pdf

Response to Submissions (139)

Appendix S_ Visual Impact Assessment_Part2.pdf
APPENDIX U_ Non-Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Impact ...
EPA Submission_ Cover Letter_ Eastern Creek EfW RTS_...
NSW Health Submission_ Response to Submissions_ EfW...
EPA Submission_ Attachment E_ NSW EPA_ Greenhouse Ga...
EPA Submission_ Attachment D_ NSW EPA_ Human Health ...
EPA Submission_ Attachment C_ EnRiskS Pty Ltd_ Human...
EPA Submission_ Attachment A_ NSW EPA_ Energy from W...
Appendix D_Project Definition Brief_Appendix 1.pdf
Appendix CC_Letter from Urbis re Social Licence and ...
Appendix J_ MRA Feedstock Review_Part2.pdf
Appendix D_ Project Definition Brief.pdf
Appendix R_ Ozone Impact Assessment.pdf
Appendix V_ Letter_ Preliminary Hazard Analysis and ...
Appendix M_ Letter_ Best Available Technology Evalua...
Appendix O_ Human Health Risk Assessment_Part3.pdf
Appendix A_Response to Submissions Table_Government ...
Appendix O_ Human Health Risk Assessment_Part4.pdf
Appendix V_Preliminary Hazard Assessment Review_Core...
Appendix W_ Airspace Operations Assessment.pdf
Appendix E- Updated Architectural Plan Set_Part2.pdf
APPENDIX CC_ Project Definition Brief.pdf
Appendix O_Noise and Vibration Assessment.pdf
Appendix N_Human Health Risk Assessment_Part3.pdf
Appendix N_Human Health Risk Assessment_Part1.pdf
Appendix_HH6_ Part 1_Engineering Response.pdf
Appendix HH3_Flora and Fauna Response.pdf
Appendix HH1_ Community Submissions Response Table.pdf
APPENDIX X2_ Consultation with NSW Health.pdf
APPENDIX V2_ Phase 2 Detailed Site Investigation_Par...
APPENDIX C3_ Layout Elevation_Part1.pdf
APPENDIX C5_ Colours and Materials.pdf
APPENDIX E4_ Civil Infrastructure and Services Repor...
APPENDIX E3_ Civil and Stormwater Plans_Part 3.pdf
APPENDIX E2_ Civil and Stormwater Plans_Part 2.pdf
Appendix M_Ozone Impact Assessment.pdf
Appendix EE_Airspace Operations Assessment.pdf
APPENDIX Y_ Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Fire Ris...
APPENDIX T_ Aboriginal Archaeology Test Excavation R...
Amended EIS_ Eastern Creek Energy from Waste_ Volum...
Appendix GG3_Email Response_CASA.pdf
Appendix N_Human Health Risk Assessment_Part2.pdf
Appendix K_Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Ass...
Appendix K_Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Ass...
Appendix_HH4_ Soil and Water Report Response.pdf
Appendix HH2_Agency and Organisation Reponse.pdf
APPENDIX W2_ Community Communication and Consultatio...
APPENDIX X1_ Consultation with DIRD.pdf
APPENDIX V1B_ Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation...
APPENDIX V2_ Phase 2 Detailed Site Investigation_Par...
Appendix DD.4_Ash Output Quantities.pdf
APPENDIX D2_ Landscape Plans_Part 2 of 2.pdf
APPENDIX C3_ Layout Elevation_Part2.pdf
APPENDIX D1_ Landscape Plans_Part 1 of 2.pdf
Appendix FF_Plume Rise Assessment.pdf
Appendix I_ CIV Report.pdf
Appendix II_Ongoing Community Consultation and Comm...
Appendix BB_ Construction Environmental Management P...
Appendix J_Waste Management Assessment.pdf
EPA Submission_ Attachment B_ NSW EPA_ Air Quality &...
Appendix N_Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment...
Appendix BB_ Perched Groundwater and Surface Water A...
Appendix C_ CIV Report.pdf
Appendix H_ Civil Infrastructure Report.pdf
Appendix F_ Letter_ Construction Environmental Manag...
Appendix I_Plan of Subdivision_LandPartners.pdf
Appendix G1_ Bushfire Assessment Report.pdf
Appendix X_Proof of Performance_O&M Corporate Suppor...
Appendix P_ Noise Assessment.pdf
Appendix K_Asbestos Technical Memo_Pacific Environme...
APPENDIX R_ GML Aboriginal Archaeological Technical ...
Appendix GG2_Email Response Air Services Australia.pdf
APPENDIX P_ Soil and Water Report.pdf
Appendix L_Odour Report.pdf
Appendix KK_ BAT Evaluation.pdf
Appendix K_Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Ass...
APPENDIX V2_ Phase 2 Detailed Site Investigation_Par...
APPENDIX D1_ Landscape Plans_Part 1 of 2-1.pdf
APPENDIX D3_ Landscape Report.pdf
Appendix DD.6_Floc Waste Processing, Analysis and co...
APPENDIX C2_ Vehicle Movements.pdf
APPENDIX C6_ Artist Impression.pdf
APPENDIX S2_ ACHAR Addendum_Part 2.pdf
APPENDIX C1_ Architectural Design Report.pdf
APPENDIX C4_ Signage Plan.pdf
Appendix LL.2 _HZI Sequence of Testing.pdf
Appendix F_Amended Concept Plan of Subdivision.pdf
Appendix AA_ Bushfire Assessment Report.pdf
APPENDIX G_ Flora and Fauna Report.pdf
Appendix CC_Letter from Urbis re Social Licence - 11...
Appendix K_Asbestos Technical Memo_Ramboll 2017.pdf
Appendix G_ Letter_ Abel Ecology.pdf
Appendix U1_Traffic Response_Traffix 2017.pdf
Appendix X1_Proof of Performance_Job Descriptions Ta...
Appendix T1_ Concept Landscape Plan.pdf
Appendix Z_ Letter_ Contamination Assessment.pdf
Appendix E- Updated Architectural Plan Set_Part1.pdf
Appendix H1_ Civil Infrastructure Works Package_Part...
Appendix J_ MRA Feedstock Review_Part1.pdf
Appendix Q_ Odour Report.pdf
Appendix AA_ Letter_ NonAboriginal Cultural Heritage...
Appendix B_Response to Submissions Table_Community.pdf
Appendix Y_ Letter_ Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Ass...
Appendix O_ Human Health Risk Assessment_Part1.pdf
Appendix O_ Human Health Risk Assessment_Part2.pdf
Appendix G2_Biodiversity Offset Strategy_Abel Ecolog...
Appendix L_ Plume Rise Assessment.pdf
Appendix L1_Plume Rise Assessment_Ramboll 2017.pdf
APPENDIX Q_ Traffic Impact Assement.pdf
Amended EIS_ Eastern Creek Energy from Waste_ Volum...
Appendix GG1_Email Response Advice_Bankstown Airport...
Appendix_HH6_Part 2_Engineering Response.pdf
Appendix_HH5_DADI Response.pdf
APPENDIX V1A_ Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation...
APPENDIX W1_ Community Communication and Consultatio...
APPENDIX S5 _ ACHAR Addendum_Part 5.pdf
Appendix DD.5 Treated Wood Waste.pdf
Appendix LL.1_ HZI_Performance Tests.pdf
APPENDIX S4 _ ACHAR Addendum_Part 4.pdf
APPENDIX E1_ Civil and Stormwater Plans_Part 1.pdf
Appendix DD.3_ Design Fuel Mix_Concept to Definition...
APPENDIX S3 _ ACHAR Addendum_Part 3.pdf
Appendix DD.2_EfW Operating Temperature.pdf
Appendix DD.1 Reference Facilities.pdf
APPENDIX S1_ ACHAR Addendum_Part 1.pdf
Appendix Z_Browns Flood Report.pdf
Appendix H_ Visual Impact Assessment.pdf
Appendix B_ Director General's Requirements.pdf
Appendix A_ Site Survey.pdf
Penrith City Council Submission on RTS_~tment of Pla...
Blacktown City Council Submission on RTS.PDF
Appendix D_Project Definition Brief_Appendix 2.pdf
A Response to Submissions on the Amended EIS - Easte...
Appendix U_ Letter_ Traffic Impact Assessment.pdf
Appendix S_ Visual Impact Assessment_Part3.pdf
Appendix H1_ Civil Infrastructure Works Package_Part...
Appendix T_ Concept Landscape Plan Report.pdf
Appendix X2_Proof of Performance_O&M Continuous Trai...
Appendix S_ Visual Impact Assessment_Part1.pdf

Agency Advice (8)

DPE Water Advice on Amended Application - 2022
Penrith City Council Advice on Amended Application - 2022
Biodiversity & Conservation Advice on Amended Application - 2022
HNSW ACH Advice on Amended Application - 2022
WaterNSW Advice on Amended Application - 2022
Blacktown City Council Advice on Amended Application - 2022
EPA Advice on Amended Application - 2022
WSLHD Advice on Amended Application - 2022

Assessment (7)

ARUP Addendum to Eastern Creek Energy from Waste RTS...
Key queries regarding amended EIS 160317.pdf
Independent review of human health risk assessment.pdf
Independent review of Environmental Impact Statement...
EnRisks Letter Report - Eastern Creek Energy from Wa...
ARUP Eastern Creek EfW RTS Merit Review - Final - Ma...
Environmental Risk Sciences Pty Ltd_ Review of HHRA_...

Amendments (7)

Amended Application - Planning Statement
Amended Application - App A - MRA TNG Feedstock Review_V7
Amended Application - App B - HZI Review
Amended Application - App C - TNG Feedstock Review AQ L2 Final
Amended Application - App D - TNG Feedstock Review GHG L2 Final
Amended Application - App E - TNG Feedstock Review Odour L1 Final
Amended Application - App F - AECOM Ltr Removal of FLOC

Recommendation (2)

Assessment Report - 2018 - Eastern Creek EfW - SSD 6...
DOC18 219107 Instrument of Refusal_ Eastern Creek E...

Determination (3)

IPC Instrument of Refusal_ Eastern Creek Energy from...
Notice of Decision_ Eastern Creek Energy from Waste_...
IPC Statement of Reasons_ Eastern Creek Energy from ...


Showing 1 - 20 of 1706 submissions
Name Withheld
Erskine Park , New South Wales
As a local resident, I already notice the horrible smell that wafts over the reserve from the tip. Implementing further plans that incorporate "air emissions stacks" is only going to worsen this problem. I strongly oppose this proposal, and for the sake of all the residents I hope they don't proceed, it will turn our beautiful little suburb into a something you'll turn your nose up at.
Name Withheld
Minchinbury , New South Wales
First there is a recycle facility, then warehouses built. These can now be seen from our street. No additional screening, noise control etc. now another facility where our health may be compromised yet again. Let alone the eyesore of stacks that may release emissions harmful to humans. Turbines,stacks, boiler houses, "orher waste". What does this mean? The key issue is the release of substances from the proposed EfW to the atmosphere which has the potential to harm human health. i am amongst the closest of these residential areas, approximately 1km to the north of the facility. Due to the proximity of the residential receptors there is the potential for emissions to impact upon human health. This is very worrying for me and my family and neighbours. We moved into a residential area and year after year that area is compromised by one development after another. How will this affect our property prices? We invested in our future only to have one thing after another threaten that investment. I understand the need for development, but surely there are more suitable places to locate a facility such as this. Maybe more than one kilometre away from residential housing.
Name Withheld
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Here at Minchinbury, on some days, we already get putrid smells from the nearby Waste Facility. We have no choice but to close all windows and doors.
The same week that we were notified of the proposed Energy from Waste facility at Eastern Creek, I read in the Mt Druitt - St Marys Standard newspaper about a proposed waste transfer facility at Erskine Park. MORE SMELLS.
And now this proposal so close at Eastern Creek will compound the disgusting smells and the air quality.
Please don't approve this proposal.
Please "GIVE US A BREAK''.
Samia Ali
Minchinbury , New South Wales
The EIS fails to consider the following:

1. Existing air quality conditions and issues including the lasting and unresolved (for a number of years) stench from existing waste facilities in the area.

2. Commutative health effects of combined pollution from existing and proposed facilities. Often the combined impact is much more than the arithmetic sum of the two. In particular the (dioxins) carcinogenic hydrocarbons' impact on growing children is missing.

3. Social impact of falling property prices in the adjoining urban areas.

4. Institutional capacity of EIA to monitor pollution from incinerators (similar facilities) has not been discussed. This is in particular concerning because EIA has not been able to detect the sources of leaks (marked by strong widespread stench) in the area.

5. The need for such a large and polluting industrial waste incinerator surrounded by urban population of which there is no precedence in Australia.

6. Industrial waste incinerator deceptively and misleadingly termed as energy from waste facility.

Name Withheld
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Below are list of people in the neighborhood who also object to this major project.
Belinda Vlah
Natalie Vlah
Amanda Vlah
Address: 27 Columbus Ave, St. Clair

Marjan Vlah
Mariza Vlah
43 Fleur Street Minchinbury

Veseljko Frank Vlah
Angela Vlah
83 Eskdale Street Minchinbury
Peter Camilleri
Minchinbury , New South Wales
I object to the proposal as it is fundamentally a rubbish incinerator 1km from residential houses dressed up as green power production. The EIS submission fails in a number of areas.
1) The odour study indicates that modelling has been completed and claims that residents of Minchinbury will only slightly be able to smell the pollution from the plant. Besides the fact that modelling is grossly inaccurate and relies on massive assumptions in relation to the possible content of the rubbish being burned and assumes that no worker will ever deposit anything that is toxic when burned.
2) The Ministers conditions of approval state that the submission should address the need for the development. In this area there are statements about future high energy consumption developments that could be built adjacent to the plant ("such as a cold storage"). This is a clear case of the plant generating a need rather than showing that there is any actual and immediate need for the plant. The truth is that there is actually no current high power consumer in the area that would justify the need for the plant in the proposed location.
3) There does not seem to be any indication of how the visual impacts of building a 100m (equivalent to a 35 storey building) high pollution stack 1km from residential houses. There is no other development in the adjoining residential or industrial area that is allowed to be built at 35 stories.
4) Rubbish incinerators were outlawed in Western Sydney when I was still a child. I have seen no real reason to reintroduce a big one in my backyard.
5)We already have to cope with the obnoxious smell that emanates from Wallgrove Tip on a regular basis (which I am reasonably sure that the modelling would show does not happen). This smell combined with the 24/7 pollution smell emanating from the new incinerator would become unbearable. On this point is is also crucial to note that the modelling probable did not concurrency into account when assessing the smell at the residential neighbors.
6) The EIS is not on display for a reasonable amount of time. I have downloaded the complete document which is over three thousand pages. It would take the average person over a year to read understand and provide accurate comment on the content of the submission.
7) Finally I would like to close by saying that there is generally a specific reason why power stations are not built in the middle of the cities (where the highest usage customers are located), but are built in reasonably un-populated areas. We cannot accept this ridiculous development on some dressed up perceived green "benefit".
Name Withheld
Minchinbury , New South Wales
I wish to oppose this development on the grounds of contaminated air quality and health risks to humans and animals. Since the opening of the Eastern Creek Waste Facility (ECWF) the surrounding populated areas have succumbed to an offensive odour in the air. A particular government department believes the origin of this odour is from the local SITA facility but it is too much of a coincidence that this odour wasn't present until the EAWF started operations. I do not believe The Next Generation can guarantee that their will be no toxic emissions released through the emission stacks into the air during their operations. There are 9 primary or secondary schools, not to mention the preschools in the area, that could be affected by fly ash from these operations. The health of the students in these schools will be at risk of breathing in these particles, not to mention those who will playing sport on the local sporting fields in the area, and developing lung conditions.
Another concern I have with this proposal is the effect the operations will have on house values due to this facility being built.
Name Withheld
Erskine Park , New South Wales
Power station may cause radiation. it is no good for health. A lot of people are living in this area including many kids. Also, it may have some pollution in the area. It will damage the environment. We are strongly against the project.

Name Withheld
Erskine Park , New South Wales
As one of the people living in close proximity to this proposed waste facility, I want to say how disappointed I am that it is even being considered. I can't imagine that the people involved in this venture would feel the same if it was near their homes & families. We have such a huge amount of land in this country that there is no need to have something like this is such close proximity to densely populated family suburbs. You have also done nothing to make the reports that you have had done & linked to, easier for normal people to understand, so I guess you are hoping that most wont wade through the enormous amount of reading material & or will just give up. Even if this is the case & they don't put in a submission in objection to this, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve to live a healthy long life & have their families breathe in clean air every day, not this filth 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Seriously, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? I have read most of the attachments & resources provided but believe that they have been skewed towards what you want the end result to be. Have not enough mistakes been made with people's lives & health? There were times when we thought many things were safe with the limited knowledge & resources we had available but people have paid with their lives because of someone's greed & lack of care of their fellow human beings situation. Please care that many many people's lives, loved ones & quality of life will be affected by this. Once it's done, it's too late. Cancer cases in our society are raging ahead with no way of slowing it down. Let's err on the side of caution this time
Please do not make this mistake that so many of us will have to live with.
Teresa Climan
ST CLAIR , New South Wales
Having lived in the area for over 30 years now, we have to put up with the smell from the tip every week and the traffic has now increased with the new Business Park, I personally don't want the new tip to go through. Give it to a suburb that wants it. Our children should not have to put up with the smell when outside playing
Name Withheld
MT DRUITT , New South Wales
Dear Mr Ritchie,

It is with the greatest worry and concern that I am writing to you in objection to the submission for the proposed Genesis, Energy from Waste site in Eastern Creek.
I can only think that the Energy from Waste model has been proposed for consideration purely motivated by waste for profit completely sacrificing human health with huge detrimental risk for the high density residential population living in the proximity of the proposed plant.

I live in the neighbouring suburb of Mt Druitt less than 2.3 kms from the site, and my grandchildren attend a nearby Primary school, with minchinbury primary school located merely 900 meters to the site. The surrounding area is a dense residential working class community and one that i have resided in for over 30 years. The surrounding and highle effected areas are primarily made up of working class families. The closest residence in Minchinbury to the proposed site is 500 meters.

The proposal is of grave concern for all of the nearby residents, With the primary concern being the human health, ongoing health and the safety aspect of the effected residents and poor children subjected to such a catastrophic development . These effected areas spread to the neighbouring residential suburbs of Mt Druitt, Minchinbury, Erskine Park, St Clair, Horsley Park, which is expected to subject over 25,000+ residents to such potentially detrimental health impacts.
It is unclear to suggest the radius of impact although it is noted through other comparable sites, with comparable exposures such as the findings of the Wollongong cancer cluster the exposure decreases only after 20kms away from the emitting site.

Studies that have been documented to show a very high increase of cancer for people residing near waste incinerators with fatal outcomes.
With such studies available at the cost of other peoples lives, why is this even being considered so close to residential premises and exposure of long standing good community citizens that have been residing in the neighbouring suburbs all of their lives be forced to live and exposure their lives to such disturbing sites with such potentially fatal exposures.

With such information, studies an evidence available, I would have hoped that our governments act responsibly with the impact to human health at the forefront of the decision and immediately oppose to a energy from waste site in this area.

Take the Wollongong cancer cluster which was linked to the BHP steelworks, the hazardous emissions are the same.. Take Benzene - proven to the be linked to Leukaemia there is no safe level of exposure to benzene. Studies have found that the smallest doses can trigger the formation of leukaemias, with the highest risk among children, the aged and the ill. Benzene is one of the emissions noted on the Fitcher Assessment that will be emitted from the EfW site not to mention a cocktail of other hazardous substances, some of which i have noted with the potential human health effects below.

I would hope the lives that were lost in Wollongong due to exposure were not lost in vain and that lesson is learnt for all to ensure such events are never repeated.
Using Port Kembla as an example on the potential human health outcomes from hazardous emissions, there is a direct correlation of these cancer victims and the hazardous emissions from the steelworks in Port Kembla. There was a study undertaken of six postcode areas for which stable population data were available, the average rate of leukaemia was some 10 times higher at Berkeley (4 km from the Port Kembla site), than at Minnamurra, 18 km away. The cancer rate at Berkeley was 4 per 1,000 people over 22 years; and at Minmumurra it was 0.47.
These analyses, conducted by environmental scientist Chris Illert and mathematician Daniela Reverberi, confirmed the pattern detected earlier when a leading Wollongong oncologist, Dr Paul Clingan, supplied postcode details of the 1,325 cancer cases he treated from 1986 to 1996. Those results showed that the average rate of cancer was three times higher near the steelworks and the smelter than it was 20 km away.
Similar conclusions were reached by one of the largest studies of childhood cancer and leukaemia conducted anywhere in the world. Professor George Knox of Birmingham University examined the 22,000 cases of those who died before the age of 15 across Britain from 1953 to 1980. He found that children born within 5 km of an industrial source had a 20 percent greater likelihood of contracting cancer or leukaemia before reaching adulthood. The pattern persisted over three decades, regardless of population movements.
In Wollongong, further statistics obtained from the Cancer Council revealed an unusually high rate of leukaemia among children and teenagers since at least 1974. Moreover, they indicated two distinct peaks of this rare disease among young people -- from 1981 to 1983 and from 1989 to 1992.
Both these peaks followed incidents involving benzene related emissions.
In 1989 there was a six month period in which the EPA apparently ceased monitoring the emissions from the site however when asked to explain this suspicious gap in its records, the EPA director general replied that monitoring was suspended to reduce costs. Yet another six month gap occurred in late 1994 and early 1995, just before several months before the Warrawong High students were diagnosed. This proves that the monitoring of such dangerous sites is far from a adequate option to protect nearby residents.

There is concern about the technology and the ability to deliver the claimed levels of emissions and of course not to mention the poor record Dial a Dump Industries have in regard to environmental breaches.

May 23, 2012
Ian Malouf, the self-made millionaire behind the Dial A Dump rubbish empire, appeared in court today as one of his companies was fined for polluting water.

Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd, of which Mr Malouf is a director, was fined $3750 plus costs in Newtown Local Court for the environmental offence which took place last year at the Dial A Dump Industries headquarters in Alexandria.
The Environmental Protection Authority prosecuted Alexandria Landfill after discovering a pipeline on the property on March 17, 2011 which was being used to pump leachate into a stormwater canal.

The EPA alleged there were "no extenuating circumstances" that it was not a trivial matter and Mr Malouf had attempted to shift the blame for the offence to one of his employees.

21 October, 2012
IAN MALOUF'S Dial a Dump rubbish empire has been slapped with two on-the-spot fines for unlawfully receiving waste at its proposed $300 million landfill site at Eastern Creek, before it has received a licence to operate fully.

Two fines of $1500 each were issued in August and September to Dial a Dump after Environment Protection Authority inspectors discovered hundreds of tonnes of waste on the property at Eastern Creek, in Sydney's west.

Mr Malouf denied his companies had done anything wrong.

December 19, 2011
the owner of the site, Dial-A-Dump CEO Ian Malouf, was under investigation by the independent Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

"He's subject to investigation by the independent environmental agency," Mr O'Farrell said.

His comments followed reports in Sydney's The Sun-Herald newspaper that Mr Malouf was linked to companies that were being investigated for serious pollution offences.

Clearly Malouf has no respect for the laws, and has become a law upon himself.. are we really going to upgrade his license to Kill and allow him to manage and operate a site which can easily over expose nearby residents to a person that has no personal accountability or care about anyone but himself and his own empire.

You say that EPA will monitor.... and what about risks of over exposure or non compliance of emission limits?
Do we allow the potential for this to occur and record / action non compliance after this has occurred?
The operators or regulators need to report instances of `non-compliance' where conditions of the licence (including emission limits) have been breached. The regulator then has the option of taking enforcement action against the facility operator in the form of prosecution and a fine. Such as the fine of Mr Malouf contaminating water... ACT AFTER IT HAPPENS!! Many environmental reports are provided periodically to regulators resulting in long periods when pollution can be occurring undetected by authorities .

It has also been commonplace for industrial regulators to raise emission limits in environmental licenses when industry exceeds the original levels set in the permit.
Not to mention that is known that many facilities have licenses that do not include some of their most harmful emissions.
The hazardous waste incinerator burning chlorinated waste in the Port Hedland, Western Australia does not have any reference to dioxin emissions in their licence, even though these emissions have serious effects to human health.

Are we prepared to expose nearby residents - Men, Women and Children to self monitoring by an organisation that has already had several breaches including water contamination, dumping of asbestos, illegal dumping of waste before obtaining a license and other irresponsible and risky occurrences?

It is concerning that high emission technology is even being considered in a region surrounded by residential dwellings. Regardless of the claims that this new technology has reduced emissions in comparison to prior technologies.. Firstly these claims of reduce emissions are unproven and secondly these dangerous emissions will still have exposure to the nearby men, women and children.
Benzene - proven to the be linked to Leukaemia there is no safe level of exposure to benzene. Studies have found that the smallest doses can trigger the formation of leukaemias, with the highest risk among children, the aged and the ill. Benzene is one of the emissions noted on the Fitcher Assessment that will be emitted from the EfW site not to mention a cocktail of other hazardous substances, some of which i have noted with the potential human health effects below.

The release of toxic air emission from incinerators can have a significant impact on human health. Waste incinerators release a diverse range of toxic substances to the atmosphere, some are short lived whilst others are persistent and ALL have varying degrees of toxicity. Once released toxic emissions can be carried large distances. Toxic emissions have a significant lag time before human health impacts become obvious, there is a issue of latency of onset of symptoms after exposure which can take decades. Only recently have scientific studies emerge that acknowledge the scale of public health impacts directly from waste incinerators. These public health impacts directly associated with incinerator technologies have been documented by internationally recognised scientists.
The British society for Ecological medicine concluded the following in relation to incineration
`Typically this decision is based on an inexact method called risk assessment. They tend
to rely almost exclusively on this type of assessment and often have little understanding
of its limitations. Risk assessment is a method developed for engineering but is very poor
for assessing the complexities of human health. Typically it involves estimating the risk
to health of just 20 out of the hundreds of different pollutants emitted by incinerators.'

The consideration of this EfW plant has a high impact on human health creating a public health risk. This has been studied and concluded in multiple countries in the world.

Japan now has dioxin contamination levels ten times higher than any other industrialised country. Japan has identified increased symptoms associated with proximity to waste incinerators, particularly in children.
"The findings suggest that proximity of schools to municipal waste incineration plants may be associated with an increased prevalence of wheeze, headache,
stomach ache, and fatigue in Japanese children, but worse another study investigated that an area in Japan near a waste incinerator had high levels of dioxin contamination in soil and an unusually high rate of cancer in residents. This study tested blood samples from 13 women and 5 men living within 2 km of the incinerator. Levels of dioxins were raised considerably in the residents compared to background levels found in the general population. For example, women had an average blood level of 149 pg TEQ/g lipid and men 81 pg TEQ/g lipid, whereas the background level for the general population is in the range of 15 to 29 pg TEQ/g lipid. The authors commented that increased exposure in the residents was considered to be due to direct inhalation of dioxins from the stack.

A 2013 study investigating health impacts from waste incineration and hazardous waste treatment plants in Spain concluded,
"Our results support the hypothesis of a statistically significant increase in the risk of dying from cancer in towns near incinerators and installations for the recovery
or disposal of hazardous waste"
Those townships in the proximity of waste incinerators had the highest excess cancer mortality for populations of all the towns studied.

France also has a high proportion of waste incinerators compared to most other countries. Researchers conducted a study in the area of Doubs, eastern France, to
investigate clustering of two types of cancer, soft tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, near to a waste incinerator. The study was undertaken following a report of
high dioxin emissions from the incinerator. The study found highly significant clusters of both cancers in areas close to the incinerator but not in other surrounding regions.

The Fitcher Energy from Waste human health risk assessment for the Genesis Eastern Creek EfW Site, has noted
"The key issue is the release of substances from the proposed EfW to atmosphere which have the potential to harm human health. The Facility is to be located in Eastern Creek, approximately 36km west of the Sydney CBD and surrounded by the residential areas of Minchinbury, Mt Druitt and Rooty Hill to the northwest. The closest of these residential areas is approximately 1km (this is inaccurate, in fact it is 500 meters) to the north of the facility. Due to the proximity of the residential receptors there is the potential for emissions to impact upon human health.

Some of these pollutants listed in the Fitcher assessment include:

nitrogen dioxide - Irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, nausea, shortness of breath, respiratory problems, reduced oxygenation of body tissues, and a build-up of fluid in the lungs

particulate matter - Increased respiratory symptoms, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, development of chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, non fatal heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease

carbon monoxide - Chest pain, cardiovascular effects, vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, difficulty performing complex tasks, and respiratory problems

mercury- Brain, kidney, and developing fetus damage, lung damage, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, and ocular and dermal irritation

cadmium - Severe lung damage, kidney disease, stomach irritation, increased bone fragility, and increased risk of lung cancer

arsenic - Sore throat, irritated lungs, nausea, vomiting, decreased production of red and white blood cell s, abnormal heart rhythm, damage to blood vessels, darkening of skin, skin irritation, and increased risk of skin, liver, bladder, and lung cancers

lead - Adverse effects on nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and cardiovascular system, and neurological effects (especially in children)

Dioxin and furans; - Chloracne, increased risk of cancer, increased risk of heart disease, and increased risk of diabetes

Dioxin like PCBs; - Increased risk of cancer, specifically rare liver cancers and malignant melanoma, immune system damage, reproductive system damage, nervous system damage, endocrine system damage, dermal and ocular effects, and elevated blood pressure, serum triglyceride, and serum cholesterol

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). - Increased risk of cancer

Benzene - Benzene is a well established cause of cancer in humans.
1,3 The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified benzene as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).1,3 Benzene causes acute myeloid leukaemia (acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia), and there is evidence that benzene may also cause acute and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Individuals who have experienced benzene poisoning requiring treatment show a substantially increased risk of mortality from leukaemia.
3. Chronic exposure to benzene can reduce the production of both red and white blood cells from bone marrow in humans, resulting in aplastic anaemia

Dioxins are highly toxic at extremely low levels (effects have been reported in the parts per quadrillion range) making claims of `low dioxin emissions' from incinerators somewhat meaningless.
Incinerator proponents commonly claim that dioxin emissions were only ever a problem with `old' incinerators and that `new' incinerators have overcome these problems.
However, there is no definition of new or old incinerators and most current proposals are merely variations on the same technologies that have been in use for decades.
What has changed is the branding of these technologies. Proponents are now well aware that the public has a very negative perception of any technology with very good reason, called an incinerator and associate it with dioxin pollution.
In order to avoid this association the industry has been advised to use a range of new terms for incinerators including : Waste to Energy
Despite this re-branding, a range of recent studies and incidents conclude that dioxin emissions remain a problem for incinerators.

This proposal is a serious health concern to the local communities. I hope the rejection of the application in light of the human health risks are prioritised above and beyond any unstable concept that is a risky business venture with no security to succeed as seen in other EfW sites..
Brightstar Environmental's SWERF plant in Wollongong. This operation closed after 3 years of trials in 2004 without having become operational and with many emission breaches. The parent company Energy Developments Ltd lost around $160 million along with the local community investment of $1.5 million.
Harrisburg, the capital city of Pennsylvania is on the verge of filing for bankruptcy with up to US $345 million in debt mostly associated with the city's waste to energy incinerator.

Really really, are we going to consider such sites in dense residential areas.. what will you do WHEN there are cancer clusters such as the above?.. that you have been made aware of and we as residents have documented and studied?
What will you tell the parents of the ill children, the local doctors that raise concerns?
This is a fight for all of our lives... A fight we should start now to stand up and right to oppose such alarming developments, than watch my families and friends lie in their beds fighting their last breath.

Please..... we urge you as our leaders in which we put our trust and welfare.. look after our local residents, and reject such applications in Eastern Creek for the safety of these families, safety of these people, safety of these good citizens, safety of these fathers, safety of these mothers, safety of these children, and the safety of your citizens that trust you will do the right thing by them.

If you have any queries or require any additional information or assistance please feel free to write to me

Thank you

Mr T A
Name Withheld
MINCHINBURY , New South Wales
I object the proposed development due to following critical reasons;

1.The proposed site is very close to residential area.
2.Noise pollution will increase and could cause long term medical conditions.
3.The turbine vibration has the potential to damage the structure of our house and also the surrounding houses.
4.The release of chemical odours from the site will make the living conditions unbearable and unhealthy for us and also for the surrounding residents and the environment.
5.I have two sick children in the house, my daughter is asthmatic. This development has the potential to cause long term harm to her asthma.
6.The value of our residential property will go down causing enormous financial loss.
Blacktown and District Environment Group
Doonside , New South Wales
This submission is to object to the proposal to build the `Energy from Waste' electricity generation plant at Minchinbury. My Group, the Blacktown and District Environment Group, object to the proposal for the following reasons:

* We do not believe it is a good idea to place a 24 hours a day / 7 days a week rubbish incinerator so close to residential houses at Minchinbury.
* We are extremely concerned for the health of residents by the suggestion that the plant emits dioxins.
* The proposed emissions stacks, which range in heights up to 100 metres, will be a horrible blot on the landscape. This is especially so when you consider that the site is only 1km from residential houses. Constructions of this height are disproportionately out of character with others in the local area.
* It is unacceptable that Minchinbury residents will have to put up the odour identified by the study, regardless of how minimal it is purported to be. Residents of this area already have to put up with the stench coming out of the Eastern Creek Waste Management Facility and Wallgrove Tip, without this as well.
* The proposal also includes the removal of Cumberland Plain Woodland trees. With very little of this critically endangered ecological community left, we object to the removal included in this proposal.

In closing, it is interesting to note that local residents have for many years been prevented from incinerating rubbish in their own backyard. It would be unfair to now impose this industrial incinerator on those same residents.

We object to the proposal and suggest that a more appropriate site be selected for this proposal.

TEC/Boomerang Alliance
Surry Hills , New South Wales
Initial submission (further detail to come).
We object to the proposal on the following grounds:

1. It breaches the state waste recycling targets (70% recycling overall). Note waste to energy is not classified as recycling.
2. It fails to objectively demonstrate the associated facility's (MRF) recycling performance and that it can meet specific state targets in the future (C&D - 80%, C&I - 70%, MSW - 70%)
3. The EIS does not consider substantially increased recycling over the medium to long term as an alternative. This is of particular concern as waste to energy plants typically lock in potentially recyclable resources for long periods (eg, 10- 20 years) to satisfy financial requirements.
4. The material to be used (mixed C&I & C&D, shredder flock) is likely to contain serious hazardous materials which can lead to pollution spikes.
5. The proposal is seeking to change current pollution controls for chlorine and allowing toxic emissions.
Name Withheld
Richmond , New South Wales
How is the facility going to be sustainable for the20years. The sizing of the plant will detrimental to resource recovery given the feed required to maintain a plant of that size. Incinerators although widely used in Europe are now out dated given alternative methods. The health risks associated with this technology close to residents and business have not been high lighted.
The integrity of the company and it's owner are questionable, with a poor history with EPA of not following regulations. This needs to be taken into consideration.
jacob willems
Sydney , New South Wales
Size of facility
o It is much too big for Sydney: smaller stacks aren't as space intensive or resource heavy.
o sustain feeding the facility at such high volumes for its 20 year life is resource intensive for waste removal
o Other small to medium facilities that have better resource recovery outcomes would be limited opportunity over the next 20 years

- Choice of technology
o Incineration all though common in Europe and Japan is "yesterdays" technology and would stifle developments of newer and emerging technologies that can make other products besides electricity and heat.
- China has been plagued by polution and smog across its major cities.
o How does this proposal support Australian technology innovations
- Unsightly stack height of up to 100m compared to 30m for other

o Incineration emission controls is highly dependent on back end and poses higher level of risk
o Particulates are a big concern for incinerators
- more particulates in the atmosphere due to the inacpacity for bags to capture them means greater pollution and airborne material which infests persons, homes and the environment. Respiratory health concerns.
Kerri Bradbury
Minchinbury , New South Wales
I object to this proposal and so does my husband. There are a few reasons for objecting.

In 2007/08, we informed about a development proposal to make a recycling facility out of the former Pioneer Quarry site at Eastern Creek. Whilst we objected to this and stated our concerns, we were assured that it was only ever going to be for non putrescible waste and the aim was to fill in the huge hole in the ground. Despite many objections and concerns re air born pollution, ground contamination into the water table, it was approved by the Planning Minister at the time Ms Kristina Keneally. Never at any stage was there mentioned a facility to be built where waste is burned at extreme furnace temperatures with a tall chimney stack to let out the emissions. This is not needed. The quarry is not being filled at a reasonable pace as it is. A lot of waste is recycled.

We are concerned also about the type of waste that will go in this proposed facility. It will likely be putrescible waste as well as medicinal wastes and anything else that can't be recycled really.

We are concerned about the safety of the by products that will be produced like gas/exhaust missions after incinerating at such extreme high temperatures. Whilst there are filters, how do we know what will be released into the air? And who is going to monitor it? As residents who live just in the other side if the M4 we find it very concerning.

In conclusion, we strongly object to this proposed waste to energy facility. This idea was never mentioned as part of the long term plan back in 2007/08, you would have had a lot more objections otherwise. As long time residents we are concerned for the safety and health of our family. We are concerned about the emissions and what will be in them.

I would finally like to add that the idea OF consultation by TNG to send out a DVD to residents the last few days is not adequate or fair. Consultations should be done with community meetings at the local neighbourhood centres and shopping centres. This I did suggest to Ian Malouf and his consultant back in December 2013. They did try to get people to come outin December and in February 2014, however I didn't think that would attract people that way and it didn't. I told them at the time that they needed to have community meetings and set up a display table at local shops as well. It seems to me they did the bare minimum, so they can say they offered tours of the recycling facility and an information video on it.

Another note: there is a lot of technical jargon in the reports if the EIS. It's very lengthy and how can we understand this?

Yours sincerely, Kerri Bradbury
Anthony Toohill
, New South Wales
Dear David,
I am emailing you because I am against the proposed Next Generation Waste to Energy Facility at Eastern Creek.
1.35m tonnes per year - 3,698.63 tonnes per day - 142.26 trucks per day (@26mt/truck) - 5.93 trucks per hour
I am Concerned at the deception shown from the Planning and Environment Department as the original paperwork sent out to residents with the heading Eastern Creek Energy from Waste Facility Blayney Export Meats Smallstock Abattoirs and then changed in a later version? Why the dishonesty? Why the change?

-Infrastructure -EIS says roads can readily accommodate the massive increase in volumes of trucks - garbage!!! Have you driven on Wallgrove or Great Western Highway? There is no direct access from either M7 or M4

-Noise pollution -EIS says noise management will be implemented where reasonable and feasible, upon whose interpretation/criteria is reasonable and feasible? The people who have to pay for it? It is a business, the more they don't spend the more profit they make.

I do not believe Planning Department is working in the interests in the community, only self-interest, which is usually profit. The history of the grab for cash as evidenced with CSG mines, where the income from mining is a greater significance to the governments than the environment, water tables, farming and communities.

Understand these types of developments may be necessary and important however the welfare of the community is far more important. If these developments are that important move it somewhere else where the communities and their health is not affected.
We have suffered with the operation of the quarry, the noise, the trucks reverse beepers the sirens, the blasting and vibrations causing cracking around the house, the layers of dirt over everything.

Over a 10 year period at least 13.5 tonnes of waste is going to burned into the air, I am concerned what the debris is going to do to the health of my children and the children of other families in our areas.

If there are no issues with this latest insult to Western Sydney, suggest moving it to Blayney with the meat works or to a safe Liberal seat on the North Shore. We will see how long that seat remains safe. Please remember not all western Sydney voters are Labour voters.

In view of all of this please do not allow this proposed facility to go ahead.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony toohill
Phil Upton
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Dear David,
I received a letter two weeks ago at my address at 40 Bunker St Minchinbury Indicating the Proposed Development at the Honeycomb Dr Eastern Creek.
I went to Blacktown Council today and looked at the Development Paperwork on display and read through some of the material.
I do have some concerns that may have not been dealt with in some of the impact studies that have been listed.
I have been a Minchinbury Resident for 25years and seen the changes in the area take place.
The Quarry, with its blasts and eventual wound down and sold off to Malouf's Dial a Dump and then opened as a Non- Perishable waste facility.
The Expressway M4 Missing Link develop and Open from `Sharp' at Blacktown through to Penrith. The M7 Cut through from north to south. The Tip and Recycle Works at Wallgrove Rd at Eastern Creek with the burning off of Gases to generate power into the grid. The Development of Lenore Lane from Mamre Rd to Wallgrove Rd.
Now these are just some of the developments of Roads which have created Noise and Traffic Snarls on Wallgrove Rd and the Light Horse interchange and M7 and M4.
I now mention, since Wonderland went, the number of Warehousing type operations that sprung up, Bunnings, Aldi, Woolworths, Coles, Cocoa Cola, DHL, Startrack, Costa Logistics, UEA and Many more.
Now I know and understand development and expansion as I work in the Construction Industry and have done for 44 years however 55 metre high Exhaust Systems Belching Bi Products of whom knows what is a bit much. Each plant may have its own Environmental impact Study that says that their sites would only have minimal out puts of nasties but put together there will be much more.
If you divide 26tonnes [per truck] into 1.34 Million Tonnes as the burning of waste is said to be, that is a lot of trucks in and then out to retrieve more product. Just another huge concern.
The predominant wind is from the South and Minchinbury does suffer with dusts from the developing sites and odours from the Tips and Recycling Plants.
The Initial paperwork that was sent to residents indicated Blayney Meat Works Small Abattoir and that was changed with no reason given [Making One Suspious of something odd.
This also leads me to believe that to have a High Temperature Burning Facility in close proximity to a residential area is a recipe to conflict and upset.
I have spoken to many residents and businesses in Minchinbury and some in Rooty hill and so many people are just oblivious of this development taking place.
I feel that proper consultation with the local community and them having an understand is paramount.
Please don't go ahead with this project.
I await your reply.
Phil Upton
Concerned Resident, of 42 Bunker St Minchinbury 96250212
Penrith City Council
Penrith , New South Wales

I refer to your invitation to comment on State Significant Development Proposal No. SSD-6236 for a proposed Energy from Waste Facility at Honeycomb Drive, Eastern Creek.

The following comments are provided in relation to the proposed development:

* The application has not demonstrated that the proposal will not result in significant visual impacts when viewed from within Erskine Park. In this regard, the visual impact assessment has not considered the impact of the development on views from within the property boundaries of residential development sites. In particular, properties 7 - 10 Hocking Place & 167- 187 Swallow Drive, Erskine Park.
* Should consent be granted, ongoing operational air quality monitoring shall be undertaken, representative of potentially impacted residential receivers with Penrith Local Government Area, to ensure compliance with operational air quality and emission criteria.
* Should consent be granted, construction noise monitoring shall be undertaken representative of potentially impacted residential receivers located within the Penrith Local Government Area and where noise exceedances are identified, appropriate noise mitigation measures employed.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me on 4732 7705.

Kind regards,
Kate Smith
Senior Environmental Planner

E [email protected]
T (02) 4732 7705 | F (02) 4732 7958 |
PO Box 60, PENRITH NSW 2751


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Waste collection, treatment and disposal
Local Government Areas

Contact Planner

Sally Munk