Eastern Creek Energy from Waste Facility

Hi, just been looking at the AEMO website in relation to recent power problems circa 2017-02-10 17-30 hitting the $14,000 cap, and 2017-02-11 15-00 to 15-05 hitting $-999.99, ie near the $-1000 cap.
At the meeting 2017-02-06 there was discussion, either on video, or by a panel member suggesting that the plant will provide electricity to be fed back into the grid.
Just wondering if the plants electricity feed in will be based on a contract price, or spot price.
If it is a spot price arrangement, and the AEMO 5 minute spot price becomes a negative value, meaning that the EfW plant will have to pay to export electricity to the grid - the question is - will there be anything in place to prevent electricity export at negative feed in prices ???

This will cause excessive smells in the area being so close to homes. We have many pre-schools, primary and high schools in the area. It will affect children and adults with health conditions such as asthma. It should not be built!

Hi, one of the EIS's says that radioactive materials are prohibited in the facility.
Is there going to be any detectors so that if a terrorist, etc wants to throw radioactive waste in the bin to make life chaos for everyone, that such items can be detected before contaminating everything and everybody else ???
If there are detectors, what are the thresholds for alpha, beta and gamma radiation going to be ???
Wiki says that cobalt 60 has a high gamma emission, so I suspect that it would be hard to shield it to prevent detection. What about alpha emitters which could easily be shielded and possibly enter the plant ???
Also, insurance. Household / personal insurance often has an exclusion clause for radioactive incidents. If there is a radioactive incident at the plant, is there insurance to cover such an event. What are the parameters / clauses / radioactive emission thresholds for such insurance ???

20 years & 8 months I have lived in St clair.I have raised my 5 children here and dug in to keep my home until i'm old & that will be way down the track.I object to the proposal of any incinerator/s within the proposed area.The pollution will be life changing and a threat to everyones health exposed to it. It gives the impression that the residents of St clair,Erskine Park and other adjoining suburbs are disposable.Why here and not in Sydney?This would be a giant a step backwards for the environment.My family and I are in great health and are happy where we live.Make Mr.Malouf reside in the affected suburb to breath in the toxins if it is passed,that should be law.
We are expecting an airport and a science school to commence construction soon which finally puts us on the map for the good.This proposal would lower the value of affected properties significantly.I STRONGLY OBJECT !

We believe that the concept is a good idea as long as it operates as per The Next Generation video.

However we would like to know if the trucks delivering the waste will be using Erskine Park Road.
If so then we would object, that road divides the residential suburbs of Erskine Park and St Clair.
The number of heavy vehicles has increased dramatically due to the new industrial area and the avoidance of toll fees. The traffic is extremely loud for those in close proximity, this goes on all day and quite often throughout the night.
They also travel a lot of the time at unsafe speeds and police are only there on occasion.
We would like a heavy vehicle restriction between the residential areas but that suggestion has been swept aside by the government.

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.

We oppose the construction and implementation of the waste to power incinerator at Eastern Creek.
This is planned to be built within 800 metres of my home and I believe that my family and our home will be affected by this incinerator.
Can the government guarantee that our health wil not be impacted and our homes will not be constantly smoked or ashes out.
The incinerator will be constantly active and burning which causes smoke and ash. This will have a long term affect on our health, increased traffic noise with the constant in and outs of the trucks, and if this is a 24 hour operation the ongoing noise will affect us.
We brought our home 18 years ago and no planning of this type of construction was thought for the area, and I strongly believe this is not the right location for such a plant.
Put the plant were it will not affect fa,iLife's and our homes in the middle of the outback.
Can you guarentee our health and property values not be affected. We have worked hard to have our home and we strongly believe that this will drastically decrease the value of our homes. Will you provide us with compensation so if we choose to move to cover our loss?
If this incinerator goes ahead I strongly think the government should financially compensate us that are most affected and relocate our families.
No family should be made to live near such a health. And environment hazard, and defiantly did not choose to live near one, so please do not agree to this submission and allow our area to be affected by this plant.
How would you like if this plant was to go in your backyard? I'm quite sure you wouldn't like it, and neither do we.
Please decline this submission and place it in an area that will have no/ little impact.
The man/ company that owns the land has a long record with the environmental authorities for mis conduct. And illegal dumping of aspects and other highly comtambale material. Please do not allow such a law breaker that has no regards for the law and policies and processes of rubbish removal to have such a plant, who is to any that they will not burn harmful material and by the time it is identified, our health is already impacted.

I am very strongly opposed to the Minchinbury incinerator. We are already surrounded by a freeway and a highway, which we can both hear and smell car and truck fumes from daily. With the Eastern creek waste facility close by, we also get the smell from the tip coming over. With regards to these issues I have mentioned here in my submission I am completely against any other form of pollution coming our way here where I and my family live. I truly can't believe such a thing as this incinerator could even be considered to be built here!

My apologies for the lateness of this submission but it has just been brought to my attention that the Soil and Water component of the revised EIS for the proposed development both includes and draws upon material produced by IGGC to which the proponent has no ownership nor right to make use of. This includes the report referred to as IGGC, 2015 and associated spreadsheet models, interpretive drawings, collated data and results from other modelling and assessment.
IGGC is currently in a commercial dispute with TNG and its parent companies over matters particularly in relation to non-payment of fees, including those for all of IGGC's work on the revised EIS.
This material remains IGGC's copyright and no approval for its use has been sought or granted.
The Soil and Water chapter of the EIS is heavily based on IGGC's draft report, with many section lifted from IGGC's draft with no apparent verification or editing. IGGC can provide no assurances regarding the accuracy or fitness for purpose of any of this material as the review and quality assurance process was not completed.
Finally, I have only had the opportunity for the briefest review of the revised EIS but have noted a number of errors, some of which relate directly to IGGC's work.
Please let me know if you I can provide any further information.

We as a family are extremely worried about the harm that this plant will cause,Poor air quality,the noise of traffic as that will increase,particles floating around which my kids can inhale and who knows what that can do to their health and also the major impact on our property values because of the ghastly 100 metre stacks that will be an eyesore and decrease property values. We don't need another dump in our area,there are several already and we get the odours from those.We don't need to add more pollution to our beautiful suburb and surrounding areas.
Ian Malouf (Next Gen) doesn't care about the local communities that this will affect,he's just in it for the money. Please DO NOT ALLOW this to go ahead!

I have concern about the stated emissions level of the facility being proposed in the Blacktown area.
Also no entry off the M4 does provide concern to traffic flow in an already congested area.
Why isnt recycling being used instead of burning its such a waste of rescources.

On behalf of the Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group, I wish to object to the proposed Energy from waste facility that has been proposed by Next Generation Energy.
We would like to identify our concerns as being
1. Increased truck movements on Western Sydney roads that will contribute to air pollution, traffic congestion and exacerbate the 'heat sink' phenomenon in Western Sydney.
2. Lack of information on where carbon/methane by products will be disposed of.
3. Lack of accurate predictions of health and environmental impacts considering other comparative developments have occurred in Europe where the climate is significantly different to that of Western Sydney.
4. Lack of proponent to identify the CUMULATIVE impacts of this heat generating activity with that of the approved Badgery's Creek airport - another significant heat generating development occurring in Western Sydney along with the CUMULATIVE impacts of traffic generated by this, an airport and other developments already occurring in Western Sydney will render our roads impassable.

In summary, the Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group objects to this proposal. Developments such as this combined with the construction of an airport in Western Sydney will seriously compromising the health and amenity of the residents of Western Sydney.

Sincerely
Lisa Harrold, President
Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group

I am writing to say please do not approve the application to build the waste-burning plant at Eastern Creek.
I bought in Minchinbury over 10 years ago with my wife to have a family and live there while they grew up, now I have 2 kids aged 7 and 6 one of which has asthma and both my kids attend Minchinbury Public school. I am a lifelong liberal voter and a health and safety professional.
I believe the plant will produce the following risks;
* Increased Risk of cancer to those within a 7 km radius.
* Increased Air pollution to a suburb which already has some of the highest levels of respiratory issues in NSW.
* Increased pollution and Dust.
* Increased traffic especially after stage 1 as more rubbish will be required to be brought to the plant.
* Increased Noise levels both via the 24 hour construction schedule and once completed.
* Introduction of Ammonia to the area which according to US guidelines requires an evacuation of over 2km down wind, meaning that if there was an ammonia leak, Minchinbury would be within that radius and this could potentially cause injury or death to persons not indoors.
* Risk of contamination via air born contaminants to the prospect reservoir, Sydney's water.

As I said earlier, I am a Health and Safety advisor and I believe the risk assessment made by the applicant is inadequate for the residents in the area and of sydney.
The reason is that the Risk of this plant is an unacceptable risk as it can cause long term or fatal harm to both workers and the public and based on examples of other plants in the world and the history of the company making the application, the probability of these things going wrong is high.
The 6 steps of the hierarchy of control starts with eliminating the risk.
The risk assessment from the company does not even attempt to use this as they are looking at the risk assessment from a business perspective where they are going to do the task regardless of the risk.
I suggest that the hierarchy of control is to be correctly used and that the risk is ELIMINATED.
The community and workforce is best protected this way as this method of dealing with waste is not safe and is being phased out in other countries with stricter air controls than Australia's.
The impact this will have on the health of western Sydney's communities will cost significantly more than the benefits of building it via cancer treatment and respiratory issues.
If power is the issue, use Coal or Gas or solar, not this dangerous method.
If Rubbish is the issue, look at a map of Australia, there are massive amounts of desert where this land fill can be placed which won't impact hundreds of thousands of people's health and lives.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and please know that I will do everything I can to ensure that this issue is on social media, talk back radio and anywhere else that will listen to demonstrate that the state government does not care about the health and safety of tens of thousands of its people. If this is approved, I will never again vote for any liberal party / locally, state or federally and I will do my absolute best to persuade all of my family and friends to do likewise.
Tim Whitham.

Please DON'T allow the plant to go ahead. I work at Rooty Hill, my sister and her young family live in Minchinbury and I live in Dharruk. I visit my sister 3 times a week. It already smells. The air is filled with the smell of the tip that accepts green waste. Some nights I feel like gagging.
By putting such a polluting thing in our area shows such little regard to the children and families that live here. Plus we all know that the breezes blow all pollutants towards the mountain (which blocks it from dispersing), so you are also polluting more people. It's just not on.

Surely we had the right to expect to live without fear of carcinogenic fumes and traffic chaos, when we chose to live in minchinbury 27years ago. Surely we had the right to expect the government no matter which party is in power to protect our air as hundreds of children play in our local parks ,attending our public school and kindergartens and generally being entitled to go about our community without fear. This is private enterprise generating profit for the few. This is also an action that could be responsible for deaths and illness generated by traffic and air pollution. we strongly disagree with the location.

I believe that the concept is a great idea for the area.

This incinerator will be Australia's first without any models in Australia. If we are going to build one why in such a built up area? This incinerator is a test on our community and needs not to be build in Western Sydney. Build it somewhere that is not so populated and definitely not near a food factory.
( Sargent pies).
The health effects are unknown for our Australian residents , not to mention it is in close proximity to our water reserve at prospect. This will be polluted for us all to then drink. Minchinbury residents are very distressed to think such a construction would even be considered in their area that already has high cardio vascular disease rates. This area is still being developed and more people will be calling this home. We can not build this Garbage monster.
As this proposed incinerator is modelled on Europe incinerators we cant possibly know the effect on Australian residents with our hotter than ever weather and already battling pollution. In winter our air is full of thick smoke from fires and we don't need 2 stacks that are 100meters high to add to the pollution. Where will the carbon bags be disposed of? These bags will be full of harmful chemicals and pollutants.
I totally am opposing this development and cant see why when Europe is phasing out incinerators why we in Australia would build such a polluting machine near residents and families. The site which this is proposed to be built on will have animals and trees on this said land and this developer will clear beautiful native trees and our native animals for an unsightly , polluting garbage beast. Shame, Shame, Shame.
There are many reasons why not...As we only dump 16% of our waste as we recycle and all take our time to sort our garbage. Why such a large development. This is a huge beast.
With 504 truck movements per day our already congested western Sydney roads will be choked . ( already noted to be increased over time.)
We need to build one away from suburbia and have a train filling this garbage beast if we really need one at all?
If this is built it will be a massive health concern to all local residents and again WHY Western Sydney? Why build up area next to our water supply and food factories?
With our Western Sydney Airport proposal what about the pollution already burdened to Western Sydney and now talk of more pollution, heat and concern for residents.
Please stop this development application from being approved as many will suffer with bad health and stress of this construction will effect many residents their daily lives will be changed forever. This development must be stopped and not given an approval. I highly object to this development.
Thankyou

Already enough smell coming from wallgrove road tip. No need for more, I'm strongly opposed to this.

Please consider our health and the health of our next generations!we need fresh air!

I am disgusted that this is even being considered so close to a heavy populated area which mainly consists of young families. Because of the large population there are many schools extremely close to this site. How can we put our kids at risk like this especially when the emissions are only an estimate and can not be guaranteed?