Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Exhibition

Eastern Creek Energy from Waste Facility

Blacktown

Current Status: Exhibition

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

** Exhibition Extended to 21 June 2022**

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.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_13042022_081934

Request for SEARs (1)

SA5220-Preliminary EIS Final 311013.pdf

SEARS (1)

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 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 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
APPENDIX Y_ Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Fire Ris...
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
Appendix S_ Visual Impact Assessment_Part2.pdf

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

Submissions

Filters
Showing 61 - 80 of 1089 submissions
Zhiyuan Wang
Object
Erskine Park , New South Wales
Message
It is totally unacceptable. The facility shouldn't be build in the Sydney Metro Area. The emission will be harmful for the health and the waste is very bad for the children.
Tianyang Wang
Object
Erskine Park , New South Wales
Message
We live very close to the premise and also a lot of other residents. How can you put the waste facility so close to the living area. We have children as well. If your children grow up in the waste facility area, what do you think? We are strongly object it.
Name Withheld
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
I clearly live in close proximity to the proposed project location within 800, I also work in the same diameter at Startrack where we also have hundreds of people are employed, I cannot comprehend why such a project of such magnitude classified as the largest one of its kind in the world has to be considered, in such close proximity to a built up area that has been there for decades, it surely will affect peoples health and lifestyle, this kind of business is will only be profitable for a handful of people and potentially affect the lives and health of thousands for a profit, please do not let the air quality in the entire Sydney basin be reduced as we require a cleaner environment for all our children as we will all be affected.
lets see if we can find better more renewable ways to make such businesses profitable other than stepping back in time using old methods.
Western Sydney is one of the largest growing areas in Australia lets not tarnish it with a giant incinerator.
Name Withheld
Object
Doonside , New South Wales
Message
Updated 30/1/2017:

I am strongly opposed to the Eastern Creek Energy waste facility to be located in the Blacktown council area.

There are many reasons to no support it some include the following:
- This part of Western Sydney needs to protect the air quality especially given we will have a second airport soon with more air polution.
- The facility is too close to urban areas.
- It is too large for the area and in doing so is too risky for this part of Western Sydney to support.
Alison Hudson
Object
Riverstone , New South Wales
Message
I am totally appalled at this incinerator suggedtion. Let's just add to the already high Asthma statistics that have Australia up the top of the world asthma list. We should be recycling as much waste as possible and investing money in recycling machinery. To return to the dark ages where burning refuse was the way to go is just ridiculous. One of the great things about Sydney is even on the worst day air pollution is so much lower than other major cities in the world. We DO NOT want this incinerator built anywhere in Australia let alone in Western Sydney.Invest in modern recycle methods and there has to be other methods for dealing with this. Asthma deaths will result if this comes to fruition.
Lee-Anne Williams
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
We oppose the build of the next generation energy from waste incinerator at Eastern Creek.
This proposal is not far from my property and I have grave concerns for the health impacts this may have on my family and self.
As it is now living living approximately 5 mms from the Rastetn Crrek tip at times the odour which omits from the site affects us now, and has had an affect on social gatherings at our home. Having this waste burner across the highway from my home we will be affected by the smoke which will be emitted, no one actually knows the long term impacts on a persons health. I do not want to have my family to closed to this type of waste, -and having been living here for the past 18 years we have not had to be concerned for our long term health.
In addition to the unknown health issues and toxins that we would be exposed to, our property values will significantly decrease. With the current pricing of housing in this state, we cannot afford to have our property value decrease.
We have worked hard for what we have and to raise our family in a safe environment, bring cautions of our sourrunds when purchasing a property.
We strongly oppose this development and would strongly advis against its approval, if approval of as granted we would pursue for the council/ government to purchase our property at the value it was prior to the development
Name Withheld
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
Why in the middle of suburbia? Less than 1km from family homes? Can you guarantee that our children will not have side effects from the small particles your enormous towers will be emitting? Would the rich people that have submitted the development live here? We have had enough. Take your dial a dump facility and put it somewhere else. There are so many other options for you.
Mark Zabel
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
It is definitely undesirable to have for our supposedly safe environment such a toxic disposal site within 5km of suberbia.Why would any one in their right mind accept further disruption to our over utilized roads,and compound already site (waste disposal)?.I feel the only acceptance of anything it would have to be a benefit to our suberb and I don't see this being beneficial to where we live.Totally unacceptable.
Narelle Kinsey
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
I wish to oppose the Application for The Next Generation Waste development plant to be built on the site proposed as it is to close to the population. Also you can not give us assurances of what the air quality is going to be. Air pollution is a big worry for me as I have friends with children that get sever asthma, air quality is a big factor. I would also like to know what the plans are for how many truck that is proposed to be using the roads in the area. I travel the M4 and Wallgrove Road every day and the truck and traffic already on the road add atleast 1 hour to my trip to work. How long is it going to take to build the plant and what is the air quality going to be whilst you are building it.
Charles ZArb
Object
MINCHINBURY , New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir, Madam,
As a resident of Minchinbury for the past 30 years I have major concerns over the development at Eastern Creek with regards to the Next Generation Waste Incinerator.
My concerns relate to the health and well being of the area both in Minchinbury and surrounding area. Minchinbury is a only a few hundred metersaway from this project. Toxic gas WILL be omitted from the complex at any one time. Only the level will change.
We had a general meeting on Monday 6Feb at Minchinbury Community Hall with representives from "The Next Generation".
I can assure you that they did not relieve me or anyone of
any their concerns. In fact it has become very clear more investigation is required into the operation and submissions.
Only today 7 Feb 2017 Origin Energy have been Fine a mere $15,000 for linking toxic material. This would be 10% of my quarterly electrical bill.
If the EPA is going to issue such missable fines for breaching air quality. What support can we have that this would happen to us.
I have children and grand children in the area. What is going the happen years or decades when they find themselves sick and its related to the incinerator.
James Hardie produced asbestos products I am sure they had no intention to kill thousands of people directly or indirectly. Including my own mother.
Then we have the 30 storey stacks. Well it was interesting
that the Presentation from Next Generation did not show any
of the stacks on the graphic presentation. Nor on the Booklet. It's plan and simply people in the area do not want this to go ahead

Regards
Charles Zarb
Billy Apoleska
Object
MULGOA , New South Wales
Message
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.

The impact has grave concerns for all residents living up to a 20km radius. The proposed plan has not taken the impact of human lives into consideration. 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 highly 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 span far past the neighbouring suburbs and poor children subjected to such a catastrophic development . The closest 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.
Advertisement

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
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.

Spain
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
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
Name Withheld
Object
MT DRUITT , New South Wales
Message
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.
Advertisement

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
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.

Spain
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
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
Name Withheld
Object
MULGOA , New South Wales
Message
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.
Advertisement

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
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.

Spain
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
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
Name Withheld
Object
MOUNT DRUITT , New South Wales
Message
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.
Advertisement

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
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.

Spain
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
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
Name Withheld
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
I am extremely concerned about the energy from waste facility proposed to be built a short distance from my home. When my husband and I purchased the land where we now live there was no such project to be concerned about. In fact the opposite was the situation. We were moving to the outer limits of Sydney, away from industry, the traffic and the expected concerns of living in the inner city.
After attending two public forums, visiting the proposed site and doing a bit of reading, I am in no way convinced there are no dangers arising from this facility.
There is no such facility anywhere in the world. There is no possible way to be sure the long term effects of such a facility. There is nothing to compare it with. It is an experiment that could have devastating consequences. My family, neighbours and myself are not guinea pigs. We do not want the risk to our health and well being just to feather the nest of greedy opportunists.
I have listened to the 'so-called" experts describe the slight possibility of danger to health. The fact is they just don't know, because there is no way of telling until it is too late. We are very near to Prospect Reservoir. The risk of water contamination is very real.
The steam plume created is expected to spread about 100 metres. How will that impact on the environment and climate? No one knows. It will be way too late when the thing is built.
Sydney has the highest population of any part of Australia but that is where this facility is proposed to be. This is madness.
The traffic is also in question. Archbold Road on the western edge of Minchinbury will be widened and become the main thoroughfare for the trucks. We currently have only three ways of entering the estate. Archbold Road is the one I use the most frequently. It is also a path taken by children to get to the local public school. How safe will it be with trucks thundering along it 24 hours a day?
When I first learnt of the plans to build this facility I thought I had misunderstood. Surely the government are not considering allowing such an experimental project to go ahead and risk the health of everyone who lives in the Sydney basin.
Gregory Jamieson
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
I am a deeply distressed resident of Minchinbury because of the proposed energy from waste incinerator project that you are now deliberating on. It just doesn't make any sense to even contemplate putting a facility in a residential area unless the major concern is financial. I have listened to all the arguments for and against and I can not be convinced or reassured that this project is in the best interest of the residents of Western Sydney.
This facility will be the largest of its kind in the world so there is no model available for this structure and models work very well in theory, however reality is quite often very different. When questioned at a forum held in Minchinbury by Blacktown Council, the so called experts could give no guarantees regarding pollution or health risks caused by this incinerator. All that they would say is that they work in Europe and Japan and that the technology is sound. As this plant will operate 24/7 there will be a continuous steam plume overhead, our clear skies will disappear. The ash produced by this incinerator will be toxic which just creates further problems. I can understand the need in Europe and Japan to put these monsters in residential areas but this is Australia which you know is mostly uninhabited. This incinerator will be less than 1 kl. from local schools and homes. It just doesn't make any sense. Please don't play around with the lives of our children and families. Our roads are congested enough without adding to the problem not to mention the extra pollution that this will also cause. Mr Malouf was quite adamant when he addressed a meeting of residents that this facility was going to happen and there was nothing we could do about it. I hope that is not the case and that you will put the health and well being of the people first. I also believe that Europe is now turning away from this technology. Our front yard is not the place for this facility so that some people can make a lot of money Our lives are in your hands, please make the right decision.
With respect,
Greg Jamieson.
Veseljko Vlah
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
The incinerator is too close to residential areas.

There is already plenty of pollution in the area from the motorway and highway. There is also pollution coming from the industrial area. This will cause even more much pollution.

What happened to reducing pollution like the polliticians are always talking about? How will this affect carbon tax?

Does it need to be near a residential area? Can it be in a remote area where I doesn't affect anyone?

How will it affect residents? Air quality will be more poor. Debris will be scattered in residential properties.

How will this affect the growing number of asthmatics and people with breathing problems? How will this affect the need for more medical resources?

Why does everything like this always happen in Western Sydney why never anywhere else?

WE DO NOT WANT THE INCINERATOR HERE AT ALL
Name Withheld
Comment
Doonside , New South Wales
Message
I am concerned that hazardous waste could be concealed in the loads and burned as photos and visual inspections seem to be a 'hit or miss' process
I am concerned about water contamination, dust and harmful air pollution.
What harmful contaminants will be emitted from the stacks? Making the stacks high just means the pollution spreads further not that there is none.
Will the emissions control be the latest technology and the best in the world? I hope tough penalties will apply for failure to meet those standards.
I hope that the long term health of the community is being protected.
the amount of extra trucks on the local roads will be a problem as trucks will be transporting rubbish from around NSW.
Generating electricity and reducing land fill are a good points
Name Withheld
Object
Minchinbury , New South Wales
Message
The health risks associated with the incinerator so close to the community have been underplayed with another incinerator in Sydney already closing due to pollution.
The structure itself will be eyesore & the owners of the company building the incinerator have proven themselves questionable by not following EPA regulations in the past.
Jenny Knowles
Object
Blacktown , New South Wales
Message
Our air is polluted enough and family's in any area or community should not have to breathe in extra toxic air than they already do. With all the environmental scientists, I'm sure they can come up with a more environmentally friendly solution!

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-6236
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Waste collection, treatment and disposal
Local Government Areas
Blacktown

Contact Planner

Name
Sally Munk