Erskine Park Waste Facility

I object to a new waste managment facility being approved in my suburb when we are already surrounded by 4 tips. We are literally the dumping ground for Western Sydney and it's not fair!

I object to the waste transfer facility being built when the existing odour from the surrounding tips is out of control. Fix that before a new one is approved. Don't contribute to an existing problem.

I onject to the fact that the EIS does not take into consideration to surrounding schools such as Mamre Anglican, trinity primary and Emmaus High School. These schools have around 2,000 students in total and have conveniently been left out of the study, yet the retirement village on the same land is included. How does that make sense? It doesn't.

I object to the increased traffic on already over crowed roads in the area. Fix Erskine Park and Mamre Rd BEFORE approving any new facilities such as this.

I object to the company claiming they have no control over incoming trucks. This is simply not true. This can be a condition of the approval and a part of their contract with these companies as the contracts are yet to be confirmed.

I object to no air quality monitoring after the first 12 months. Then what?

I object to Transpacific being allowed to operate for 1st year without air pollution mechanisms in place. Don't allow them to open unless these mechanisms are in place from day 1. If not then we will suffer the smell. If they say there will be no smell then why are they building scrubbers in the first place?

I object to the 24 hour operation of the WTS.

I object to the odour, noise and traffic impacts this will have on our small residential community. Think of the locals and do not approve this facility. Let them find another location that is not within 700 m from residents, child care centres and schools.

I object to a new waste managment facility being approved in my suburb when we are already surrounded by 4 tips. We are literally the dumping ground for Western Sydney and it's not fair!

I object to the waste transfer facility being built when the existing odour from the surrounding tips is out of control. Fix that before a new one is approved. Don't contribute to an existing problem.

I object tot the EIS not considerinh the surrounding schools such as Mamre Anglican, trinity primary and Emmaus High School. These schools have around 2,000 students in total and have conveniently been left out of the study, yet the retirement village on the same land is included. How does that make sense? It doesn't.

I object to the increased traffic on already over crowed roads in the area. Fix Erskine Park and Mamre Rd BEFORE approving any new facilities such as this.

I object to the company claiming they have no control over incoming trucks. This is simply not true. This can be a condition of the approval and a part of their contract with these companies as the contracts are yet to be confirmed.

I object to no air quality monitoring after the first 12 months. Then what?

I object to Transpacific being allowed to operate for 1st year without air pollution mechanisms in place. Don't allow them to open unless these mechanisms are in place from day 1. If not then we will suffer the smell. If they say there will be no smell then why are they building scrubbers in the first place?

I object to the 24 hour operation of the WTS.

I object to the odour, noise and traffic impacts this will have on our small residential community. Think of the locals and do not approve this facility. Let them find another location that is not within 700 m from residents, child care centres and schools.

I object to a new waste managment facility being approved in my suburb when we are already surrounded by 4 tips. We are literally the dumping ground for Western Sydney and it's not fair!

I object to the waste transfer facility being built when the existing odour from the surrounding tips is out of control. Fix that before a new one is approved. Don't contribute to an existing problem.

I onject to the fact that the EIS does not take into consideration to surrounding schools such as Mamre Anglican, trinity primary and Emmaus High School. These schools have around 2,000 students in total and have conveniently been left out of the study, yet the retirement village on the same land is included. How does that make sense? It doesn't.

I object to the increased traffic on already over crowed roads in the area. Fix Erskine Park and Mamre Rd BEFORE approving any new facilities such as this.

I object to the company claiming they have no control over incoming trucks. This is simply not true. This can be a condition of the approval and a part of their contract with these companies as the contracts are yet to be confirmed.

I object to no air quality monitoring after the first 12 months. Then what?

I object to Transpacific being allowed to operate for 1st year without air pollution mechanisms in place. Don't allow them to open unless these mechanisms are in place from day 1. If not then we will suffer the smell. If they say there will be no smell then why are they building scrubbers in the first place?

I object to the 24 hour operation of the WTS.

I object to the odour, noise and traffic impacts this will have on our small residential community. Think of the locals and do not approve this facility. Let them find another location that is not within 700 m from residents, child care centres and schools.

I object to another tip being built when there are so many around this suburb already. The smell is already putrid so fix that before adding to the problem. Think of the residents and the children. They shouldn't have to close Windows and lock doors to keep the stench out

I object that the 4 odour producing facilities in the area have not been sufficiently taken into consideration. We already encounter horrific smells from the SITA Waste Management Facility on Elizabeth Drive Kemps Creek on a regular basis and are extremely concerned that the odours from this Waste Transfer Facility be will only add to the existing odour issues. This new facility is 700m from residential properties.

The number of times we have had to put up with the odour from the existing facilities are just too many to count, let alone adding another facility to add to this existing problem in our area.

I travel to/from work by train and on these times the odour hits you in the face as soon as the train doors open and just 'sits' over the surrounding suburbs, which is extremely unpleasant.

The issues with the existing facilities also means we are unable to utilise our own homes as we should - we are forced to keep doors and windows closed as well as restrict use of ourdoor areas on impacted days.

Even with work completed with these existing facilities in recent years, we are still continually impacted by issues with the odours. Adding another facility to this area and adding to this existing problem is a complete disregard for the community, especially given existing issues have been reported for years.

I object that the 4 odour producing facilities in the area have not been sufficiently taken into consideration. We already encounter horrific smells from the SITA Waste Management Facility on Elizabeth Drive Kemps Creek on a regular basis and are extremely concerned that the odours from this Waste Transfer Facility be will only add to the existing odour issues. This new facility is 700m from residential properties.

The number of times we have had to put up with the odour from the existing facilities are just too many to count, let alone adding another facility to add to this existing problem in our area.

The issues with the existing facilities also means we are unable to utilise our own homes as we should - we are forced to keep doors and windows closed as well as restrict use of ourdoor areas on impacted days.

Even with work completed with these existing facilities in recent years, we still continue to be impacted by odours from these. Adding another facility to this area and adding to this existing problem is a complete disregard for the local community, especially given existing issues have been reported for years.

Please find following my submission to the EIS for the Erskine Park Resource Management Facility Project at 50 Quarry Road Erskine Park.

I strongly object to the Stage 1 Waste Transfer Station (WTS) EIS and request that the Minister reject this planning application. In particular, I strongly object to:

* The two stages of Transpacific's waste project being dealt with in two different EISs. This means that the community does not see or get the chance to comment on the total impacts.
* The EIS's failure to account for the 3 schools also in the same location as the Retirement Village: Mamre Anglican School (over 500 students), Trinity Catholic Primary School (over 350 students) and Emmaus Catholic College (over 1,000 students and teachers). This is a gross omission given the impact the odour, noise, increased traffic and potential contaminants these children would be exposed to if this facility was built.
* The EIS's failure to assess the extensive impact of odour, noise and increased traffic from trucks on residential area in Erskine Park and St Clair.
* The traffic impact assessment's claim that the additional traffic generated by the WTS is within capacity. This report only considers the traffic impact on 3 very close intersections (Erskine Park Rd and Mamre Road, James Erskine Drive and Mamre Road, and Quarry Road and James Erskine Drive). It fails to consider the entire length of Erskine Park Road, which has 8 intersections. This is one of the main thoroughfares that the Cleanaway trucks will use to bring waste into the WTS. Turning right out of any of these intersections is extremely dangerous and time consuming. Accidents are a frequent occurrence as motorists attempt to turn right. If this WTS was approved, Erskine Park Road and Mamre Road would need to effectively handle the additional traffic at all times, not just during peak periods.
* The route inbound trucks will take into the WTS. The EIS states the direction in which the outgoing vehicles will take, but claims the proponent would have no control over the direction the inbound trucks will take to the WTS. Sections of Erskine Park Road and Mamre Road are single-lane, in disrepair, and back directly onto residential properties. These residents are currently experiencing noise disturbances and vibrations due to the current truck traffic, and we expect the increased level of traffic would only heighten this situation. We demand the EPA stipulates as part of its authority under the Pollution Control license that inbound trucks do NOT travel along Erskine Park Road and Mamre Road to the WTS.
* The EIS's failure to assess the cumulative impact this WTS would have given similar odour-producing facilities already exist in the area. Residents currently encounter horrific smells from the SITA Waste Management Facility on Elizabeth Drive Kemps Creek on a regular basis, and are extremely concerned that the odours from this WTS be will on par or even worse, despite the measures proposed, due to the close proximity to residential properties.
* The Air Pollution control device being bypassed in the early stages of the operation, being at 90% capacity and 270,000 tonnes per annum, without it affecting local residents. The implementation of the completed/functional air filtration system needs to be non-negotiable from the first day of operation. Anything else isunacceptable.
* The odour control measures proposed by Cleanaway on the basis that:
- Cleanaway plans to rigorously monitor the odour for ONLY the first 12 months of operation, subject to a planning condition. Why only the first 12 months? What will this planning condition entail? Should the government consider approving this poor project, residents ask for an opportunity to review all planning conditions and for provision to be made for ongoing information provision and consultation before ANY approval is granted.
- Follow-up monitoring NEEDS to occur on a frequent and consistent basis. Cleanaway NEEDS to be held accountable by the EPA for any breaches, as well as a timeframe set out which the breach must be rectified. This monitoring and ANY breaches should also be made available for public record. Currently air monitoring by Cleanaway for the Erskine Park landfill site is on a 2-yearly basis without any reporting obligations to any authority. This is UNACCEPTABLE for this new facility.

I ask that you provide a written response to all of the concerns I have raised in your response to my submission.

We do not need a tip the one we have is bad enough.

1. I object that the 4 odour producing facilities in the area have not been sufficiently taken into consideration. We already encounter horrific smells from the SITA Waste Management Facility on Elizabeth Drive Kemps Creek on a regular basis and are extremely concerned that the odours from this Waste Transfer Facility be will only add to the existing odour issues. This new facility is 700m from residential properties.


2. I object that only the 90 place Childcare centre the Retirement village in Erskine Park are addressed in the EIS, but it fails to take into account the 3 schools also in the same location as the Retirement Village. These schools are:Mamre Anglican School with approximately 526 students, Trinity Catholic Primary School with approximately 350+ students and Emmaus Catholic College with approximately 1086 students and teachers.

I object to this proposal.

I am making the submission to the Resource Management Facility proposal in the expectation that this and all submissions will be published after the end of the exhibition period along with the name and suburb of each submitter unless submitters have explicitly requested confidentiality.

I object to this proposal.

I have visited this site although I have not entered it. I am familiar with the surroundings and have met a number of residents living in the area, although I live in Newtown. This meeting occurred in relation to my capacity as a journalist and supporter of residents concerned about the conditions under which asbestos has been removed from the Alexandria Landfill. I was present when a representative of the company that has submitted this application understated the risk of asbestos waste including by saying that the asbestos could not be seen. Since then the company has stated that it relies for damping the material containing asbestos dumped at the Erskine Park landfill on moisture that is applied a 44-kilometre drive away at St Peters. I have personally observed that such moisture is not always applied and in any case, this is surely an inadequate way of ensuring there is no distribution of asbestos beyond the landfill. I state this to explain how I came be to be aware of the concerns of the community about the waste disposal industry including the Transpacific site. I realise that this information is not strictly relevant to this application. However it adds to my concern about the lack of information and consultation with residents about this application.

It is matter of public record that residents in Erskine Park and other parts of the outer Western Suburbs of Sydney are very concerned about problems to do with waste dumps and facilities. Hundreds of residents including those affected by this proposal recently sign a petition about their serious concerns that was tabled in parliament.

In the light of these concerns and the size and potential impact of this proposal, I consider that 30 days is not nearly long enough for residents to be able to fully absorb the information in this EIS and to seek independent advice about statements that are made in the EIS. The exhibition period should be extended to at least three months.

As it currently stands the proposal should be rejected. If this does not occur, it must be sent to a hearing where concerned residents can more fully put forward their objections to the proposal and where the evidence that is in the proposal can be more fully explored.

I object to the fact that the two stages of this proposal are not being dealt with at the same time. There is insufficient information about the second stage to be able to consider the cumulative impacts on residents. Although some information is available about the second stage, it is not clear what waste, truck movements and odours could be involved.
Odour

I believe that the odour testing for this EIS is far from what should be expected for a facility of this scope when there is already a high level of concern in the community. The testing was done on only 9 days and due to 'meteorological conditions' some locations recorded very few observations. (Table 16 page 59).

On several different occasions I have been told that in very recent times overpowering odors occur in the surrounding neighbourhoods. While is not suggested that most of these come from Erskine Park Landfill, they do indicate that for some reason the survey did not pick up what is a serious problem for residents. This suggests there could be a problem with the sampling or data. More research is needed.

I also note that a number of the odours that were detected through the field study were associated with Transpacific trucks and also a landfill. This tends to confirm the residents' apprehension that another waste dump is bound to produce more unpleasant odours.

There is a reference to a Western Regional Odour Study. It is clear from the description of this study that it is recognised that more work is needed. Before the NSW government allows more major waste facilities in this area, more research needs to be done into the source of the odours and also the impact on the health and amenity of residents.

There is insufficient reference to the health impacts of odours, particularly on those who are more sensitive to smells.

Traffic

My understanding of the traffic data is that it is being asserted that the impact of scores of extra heavy trucks a day on surrounding communities in negligible. There is no consideration given to how residents will experience an increase of a heavy truck every two to three minutes during some periods of the day. Level of service figures suggest that the traffic should continue to flow smoothly but from residents and local drivers' points of view this is not the only relevant consideration. I note that the level of service for pedestrians in poor.

Once again there is little or no consideration of the situation that will result from the residents' point of view. Some members of the community already are concerned about the impact of heavy vehicle movements. To read this EIS, you would think that there is no problem.

It is also strange that if the community consultations were adequate for this proposal that more concern was not picked up in the community. It would seem that communications with residents were not comprehensive or clear enough.

I have also read the EPA's request for information and do not think the information required about the nature of the waste being brought to the Facility and other issues is sufficiently clear in the EIS.

For these and other reasons, this proposal should be rejected.

See attatched

See attatched

see attached

I am 9 years old and hate the smell in erskine park. I have drawn a picture showing the smell.

I am 5 years old and have drawn a picture for you. It smells really bad in Erskine Park.

see attached

see attached

see atached

see attached

see attached