New South Wales
I oppose the `The Next Generation' waste facility incinerator that's proposed for the Eastern Creek business park for the following reasons;
* This would be the largest and only facility of its type in Australia. This question as to what resources the EPA has to be able to monitor proactively this facility effectively in the surrounding areas. As this facility is the first one in NSW, does the EPA have effective legislation to impose strict emission controls? The monitoring proposed within the EIS seems to be more for record and historical purposes, rather than some dynamic measurements that enable the EPA to close the facility if emissions exceed the stated values.
* Similarly, does the TNG management have the expertise and experience to manage such environmentally dangerous plant located in very close proximity to large population centres, as well as critical infrastructure sites such as the nearby Prospect reservoir that supports Sydney's water supply?
* The EIS admits that dioxins, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals are emitted into the atmosphere, as well as particle matter. Over the 11th, 12th of February this year, the EPA admitted that the Ozone levels in Sydney were very high. Would the EPA close this facility when the atmospheric conditions are such that the additional emissions of this facility would pose an additional health risk to the western suburbs inhabitants?
* The EIS documents do not include any details of the plume direction of emissions for the climatic conditions that exist in that location in a manner that can be understood by the average layman.
* The EIS does not consider the exposure pathways that may exist with the use of both domestic and commercial rainwater tanks against climatic conditions (wind, rainfall frequency etc.) for the surrounding locations .I would have thought that the contaminants would be concentrated within these tanks over time, and with use in any agricultural activity on ground that is already exposed, or topping up swimming pools that could further increase the level of contaminants. The EIS does not appear to take into the accumulative effect of the containments on human health in this situation.
* Within the Eastern Creek precinct, there are food manufactures and food processers. The EIS does not mention any impact to these companies, e.g. Arnotts. These companies' employ large numbers of local people, and if these companies had to close/relocate due to any risk to their manufacturing process, would result in less employment opportunities than what the TNG facility proposes.
* During the 24hour, seven day week construction activity, the noise overlay maps show some areas of Erskine park will experience low level of noise (approx.. 40dbA). However this is assumed that the noise control is partly mitigated by the use of vehicles using `Smart' reversing alarms. In the real world, how many vehicles that is required to deliver material from a large number of suppliers will have these fitted. The EIS noise mitigation is only a recommendation, so has no mandatory status, thus proving an infective and misleading statement.
* The noise sources listed in the EIS for the 24 hour operations of this facility makes no mention of the conveyer systems that feed material from the adjacent Genesis facility. This should be described in detail as to the level of noise and the frequency range of the noise.
* In the event of an emergency situation that resulted in release of contaminants into the air, the EIS does not include any plan to advise the local population of any precautionary steps to take, or how this advice is to be conveyed.