Mod 1 - Site Establishment Works

please refer to attached document

I object to the amendments of the recycling waste facility. When the original project was put forward we had to put in submissions to come to an agreement for this project to go ahead. It took many months that spanned over more than a year. Going to and fro from meetings, getting signatures and appearing in court several times. Nothing has changed no houses have moved any further away from the site. Residential homes are still with in 800 meters from the site. There is still another recycling waste facility less than 10 Km from this site that will operate the hours needed without disturbing residence. The purchasers of this facility, bought the facility knowing all the restrictions that were in place, so it would be good if these restrictions were adhered to. There were over 18,000 submissions that objected to this waste facility last time and they still do object to the facility. It's just that not all 18,000 people will be notified about the changes to object.

2.4 Environmental planning instruments
The proposed modification is not compatible with its surrounds even thou it is located in a former quarry. The site itself has ecological, scientific cultural and aesthetic values. The modifications will cause material change in impacts from the Approved Development. The Approved Development is incompatible with its surrounds and will adversely affect the listed values, the modification doesn't satisfies relevant objectives in Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.
3 Approved development and proposed modifications

All of issues need to be address before any modifications are approved

* Rehabilitation of existing toxic waste needs to be placed in a Cell that is clay lined with a non- permeability barrier, not in the proposed surrounding wall.
* There needs to adequate monitoring of the site for water, airborne materials and odour. A mimuimin of Ten monitoring stations need to be place on the site boundary with monthly reporting to the EPA and site audited yearly.
* No removal of this existing volume of water (approximately 345.7 million litres). The existing on-site requires testing for any toxic chemicals and a report sent to the EPA. This waste needs to be covered to reduce odour issues.
* The existing On-site water should be stored and treated onsite. No pumping of waste water into nearby Blaxland creek or surrounding areas.
* Any boundary barrier wall runoff needs to be treaded before being released and greater sediment controls needs to be in place over and above the proposed controls as these are inadequate for the volumes of runoff.
* As boundary barrier wall is built (within 3 months of completion of each section) it needs to be planted with local native vegetation i.e. trees native grass etc to reduce the barren and ugly soil wall from the local residences and reduce runoff.
* There is no mention of a timeframe for site Rehabilitation program that is staged to bring the site back to a rural setting during and on completion.
* There has been no underground water study shown in this proposal. A greater understand is needed of what impact any leakage of toxic or commercial waste into the ground water system could affect the surrounding rural farm land.
* The proposed staged waste emplacement cells need to be reduced in size by 423 million QM. The 3 cells are too large to adequately control airborne materials and odour issues. These need to broken into 6 cells to better manage the outlined issues.
* All waste emplacement cells need to be covered with 20cm clay cap at COB each day to adequately control airborne, odour and vermin issues.


4 Impacts of proposed modifications
4.2 Noise
* The noise impact assessment for Approved development undertaken by Wilkinson Murray ( February 2012). The modelling lacks any real predicted site establishment noise levels ie reversing caution beepers on vehicles will be active 50% of the time at a 95db level.
* NSW Industrial Noise Policy (Environment Protection Authority 2000) criteria of background noise levels plus 5 dB would not be met as the extensive use of heavy plant in a rural area with a measured level of under 23 db will impact on all residences in a 1.5 km radius assessed.
* With construction periods of 18 months proposed the modification to extend the construction period is expected to have significant noise impacts. With soothly winds and low cloud cover increasing the noise levels. Also, there were a number of complaints with the filling and excavation on the ADI site off The northern rd which was used as an example.
* The site will be using noisy crushing equipment for demolition materials , concrete etc.
4.4 Traffic
* The traffic and parking assessment under estimates the number of vehicle moments, based on current site modelling. The real expected moments would be approximately 390 at establishment and will increase to 173 to 197 vehicle moments a day when the waste landfill is at capacity. Base on established landfill sites in the Sydney basin. This will have an significant impact on local traffic. Major interstation upgrade is required to reduce accidents and damage to the local rural road surface.
4.5 Visual
* The 2012 Development assessment is not relevant as the local number of residences in the area has increased. By increasing the size of the proposed development the visual effect will have significant visual impact with large earth walls closer the residential homes. This is out of scope based on the current rural landscape.
* It is not right to say that the proposed extension is not approved that the rehabilitation would not be carried out. There should be a cause as part of the condition of sale that moneys be set aside to complete the rehabilitation of the site.
4.6 Socio-economic benefits
* The proposed development has little sociol-economic benefits as the number of people employed at current NSW landfill site is about 15-20 employees. But there will be major visual, noise, airborne, traffic and vermin issues that will impact on local residences which will reduce quality of lifestyle could lead to health issues in the future.
* The site is too close to residences, a minimum buffer of 4kms. The current Eastern Creek landfill creates foul odours which can be smelled for kms around that area and on a windy day the smell is sickening.
* Impact on land values
* There are many other areas within the Sydney basin that are better serviced by this type of facility.
4.7 Other environmental matters
* The proposed modifications will affect the following:
* groundwater; no study to show what affect any waste leakage ( solid waste will break down to a liquid over time and pressure)
* surface water; major runoff will pollute the local creek system if better sill trap systems aren't applied.
* ecology; the local Bush Stone Curlew will be at risk because of a large increase of wild cats,rats /mice and birds that are attracted to large waste landfill.
* heritage; or soils and land capability. The Orchard Hills area has change but still keeps its rural setting, as set out by the Penrith LGA

5 Conclusion
* This Environmental Assessment does not support an application to modify.
* The requested modifications will potentially have adverse impacts local the residences if approved
* By amending the wording of these provisions will enable a unrealistic development to the approved.
* Doesn't satisfies relevant objectives in Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010
* The affect of altering the amount and types of waste that is authorised to be received to cause great damage to the local residences with foul smells, dust and pollution and to the surrounding area ;
* The affect to alter the physical footprint and the nature of the activities to be carried out during operation will worsen the noise, visual impacts, dust emissions and truck movements. Will cause any unacceptable impacts
* There has be little or no communication with the local community and no real consoling or listening to the residences concerns