Moorebank Waste Facility

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
This so-called "preferred project" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.
PROXIMITY TO RESIDENCES: The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this recycling facility to the nearest affected residential house. Residences in Conlon Ave and some portions of Brickmakers Dr. are located at a linear distance of about 200m. Conlon Ave road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant with very little bushes and trees in between. This information is convenient missing entirely misleading the public and PAC assessors on how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses is. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
Further, statement at clause 1.1 has misleading and untrue information that only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there are already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair!! This number does not even include the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Dr.
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
Clause 2.4.2.7 talks of poor standing promises such as performing asbestos screening without stating how the implementation and monitoring will be ensured. Taking into consideration the massive capacity of 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point. Therefore, with the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
NO PROPER MONITORING: The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of an assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that there will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It means that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored. In my view, polluting industries should never be erected any were near a residential community unless monitoring and controlling devices are installed that will shut down the plant if pollution exceeds the acceptable limit, especially when the limit itself keeps decreasing with time as we gain greater awareness of their health impacts.
TRANSPORTATION: Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mentions the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation. The to and fro movement of 324 trucks per day will create huge dust clouds if one goes by what their trucks were shown to do in an ACA report on Channel 9 titled "Housing dream shattered".
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transportation of the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
LONG OPERATIONAL TIMES: The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operate on Saturdays whereas the working residents nearby mainly spend the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean it will not impact the residents, as many family still spending their time at home, especially the retirees, preschool children, and home maker mums. RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.
SILICA: The response of the recyclers on the subject of silica dust is highly inadequate and misleading. The harmful effects of silica dust are realised over a long period of time and since Industrialists generally avoid building sources of crystalline silica emissions close to communities, there may not be much information available for such situations. Moorebank Recyclers somehow appears bent on building in the midst of residences with utter disregard to people's health with their phoney arguments.
As pointed out in earlier objections the data on general public is not available because no systematic studies have been carried out. Moreover, the term "general public" often appears to exclude those who live in the vicinity of identified source of crystalline silica emissions, as the following paragraph suggests. "The California monitoring data (California OEHHA 2005; Richards et al. 2009) and US EPA (1996) and Environment Canada (2011) reports generally do not indicate the existence of any wide-spread significant concern about airborne crystalline silica exposures to the general public. (Note: "general public", as the term is used here, means individuals not living near an identified source of crystalline silica emissions.) However, US EPA (1996) stated that "some potential exists for environmental silicosis to human populations". Exposures of potential concern may be more likely if populations are close to large sources of uncontrolled emissions. Data from other air pollution control agencies shows that some emissions from industrial facilities could result in air concentrations above a level of concern for people living near these sources.

Non-occupational risks and how far the effects can be felt has been dealt with by Bridge 2009 who says the following:

"The question of non-occupational risk associated with communities living adjacent to peak sites requires examination. Community exposures to respirable crystalline silica (including freshly fractured, iron contaminated crystalline silica) in the near field of a quarry (for example) are likely to lie between ambient concentration and occupational concentrations in the ambient air. The available literature suggests ambient crystalline silica levels can be significantly elevated downwind of sites that may release silica particles. For example, Holmen and Shiraki 1991, confirm that crystalline silica in the respirable range downwind of a peak source can be significantly elevated above ambient concentrations."

"Further, the study by Holmen and Shiraki (2001) examined particulate concentrations downwind from a sand and gravel plant, including LIDAR measurement of plume height and downwind extent as well as particulate monitoring including analysis for crystalline silica. The technique used included collection of particulate on a cellulose substrate and subsequent laboratory analysis using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction. The findings of this study were that crystalline silica concentrations were significantly elevated downwind of the site as were both PM10 and PM2.5."

"In a similar case community monitoring in an area next to a steel plant (in Claymont, DE) that also recycles scrap metal showed high levels of PM pollution, including particularly toxic heavy metals like lead and mercury. This community is located much farther (more than 1 km) whereas the people living on Conlon Ave and the northern part of Brickmakers Dr. would be only ~250m from the recycling plant.

"More recently Shiraki and Holmen (2002) monitored silica concentrations in PM10 near a sand and gravel facility in central California. One upwind monitor and four downwind monitors were deployed. Upwind silica concentrations in the PM10 particle size fraction were found to be 4.6 ug/m3, whereas downwind concentrations ranged from 9.4 to 62.4 ug/m3. The higher concentrations were found closest to the source. These concentrations are well above the California OEHHA (2005) health benchmark of 3 ug/m3. The percent of crystalline silica, by weight, as a percent of total particulate weight, decreased with increasing distance from the source. However, the impact from this source was still evident, even at the furthest downwind monitor - 745 meters away. PM2.5 measurements were also attempted, but all values were below the method detection level used. Therefore no data was reported for PM2.5 size fraction silica concentrations."

"Although the risk of silicosis is regarded as negligible in the ambient environment, cases of non-occupational silicosis are recorded within the literature. The risk of silica related disease is a function of the cumulative dose, and environmental exposures to respirable crystalline silica can be significantly elevated downwind of industrial sources including industry, quarries and sand mining. Increasing the concentration of respirable particles containing crystalline silica near industrial sources increases the level of risk of silica disease in exposed populations."

"The current occupational exposure levels are shown to result in morbidity and mortality in workers and do not offer protection to communities (and associated sensitive sub-groups) exposed near peak sites."

"The risk associated with peak sites is exacerbated in situations where the community (including sensitive sub-groups) would be exposed to freshly fractured silica particles especially in the presence of iron. A typical example of this situation would be downwind of a quarry where rock is blasted and crushed."

Ecology is listing respirable crystalline silica as a toxic air pollutant (TAP) on the basis of work conducted by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). OEHHA is internationally recognized and accepted within the field of toxicology. OEHHA developed a Chronic Reference Exposure Level (CREL)
for respirable crystalline silica of 3 μg/m3 in 2005."

"A limit of 3ug/m3 (respirable crystalline silica) would protect communities, who are potentially exposed, in the vicinity of these peak sources. This would be a total exposure limit and include background ambient levels, and the cumulative exposure due to all industrial sources near the affected community."

Building products especially contain high amounts of silica and there is no known way of containing them completely, as the above extracts from literature as well as several submissions now and earlier have shown. They also show that Moorebank Recyclers has been providing very selective and misleading information to support their application. As mentioned above, the International community has already specified a limit of 3 μg/m3 for the respirable silica dust whereas the application is still talking in terms of a PM10 limit of 3 μg/m3 despite knowing that a significant portion of dust emerging from crushing of building products contains silica dust.
If the Department of Planning has any concern for health and well-being of the communities the proposal of Moorebank Reyclers should be rejected.


California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (California OEHHA). 2005. Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) for Silica (Crystalline, Respirable. (California Office of Health Hazard Evaluation.
- www.COEHHA.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/silica_final.html).

Environment Canada. 2011. Quartz and Cristobalite: Draft screening assessment for the challenge. Environment Canada and Health Canada.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/1EB4F4EF-88EE-4679-9A6C-008F0CBC191C/batch12_14464-46-1%20%26%2014808-60-7_en.pdf

Holmen B.A., and Shiraki R, 2001 Near source measurement of crystalline silica concentrations in California: Pilot study Interim Report to California Air Resources Board, University of California, Davis.
Richards, J.R.; Brozell, T.T.; Rea, C.; Boraston, G.; Hayden, J. (2009). PM4 Crystalline Silica Emission Factors and Ambient Concentrations at Aggregate-Producing Sources in California. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 59: pp 1287-1295.

US EPA (1996) Ambient Levels and Non-cancer Health Effects of Inhaled Crystalline and Amorphous Silica: Health Issue Assessment. EPA/600/R-95/115. November 1996.

Moorebank Waste Facility (MP 05_0157)

Objection to Preferred Project Report which is simply a rehash of the original report that doesn't address any of the issues with 100% guarantees. Due to plant location close proximity to residential housing it is reticulates to state there will be no impact on residents.

The pure nature of proposed plant means noise, effects on air quality, effects on property values, etc. It is simply naive to state there will be no impact or there is no relevant proof of said impact which is the underlying argument put forward within the report. All the proof needed is refer to how many times other waste facilities have been fined by the EPA for breaches. It is all well & good to fine these facilities but that does zero to compensate the people effected by those breaches.

Common sense just seems to be lost when some developer has enough money to push forward there proposals. This proposal is simply not suited to the demographic that now exists in the area & a simple question to anybody thinking to approve this development, "would you want to live next to a waste facility plant".

I strongly object to this development next to a large residential area full stop.

Roy Wilson

NSW DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITH REFERENCE TO THE `PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT',
I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

NSW DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITH REFERENCE TO THE `PREFERRED PROJECT REPORT',
I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

NSW DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
WITH REFERENCE TO THE ÃÂ,Ã,Â`PREFERRED PROJECT REPORTÃÂ,Ã,Â',
I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned ÃÂ,Ã,Â"residentialÃÂ,Ã,Â", because there is no ÃÂ,Ã,Â"guaranteeÃÂ,Ã,Â" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no ÃÂ,Ã,Â"guaranteeÃÂ,Ã,Â". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, ÃÂ,Ã,Â`Construction and Demolition Waste Status ReportÃÂ,Ã,Â', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The ÃÂ,Ã,Â`Preferred Project ReportÃÂ,Ã,Â' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The ÃÂ,Ã,Â`Preferred Project ReportÃÂ,Ã,Â' states ÃÂ,Ã,Â"all aggregates will be kept dampÃÂ,Ã,Â". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the ÃÂ,Ã,Â"inherent moisture of the materialÃÂ,Ã,Â". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOOREBANK WASTE FACILITY (MP 05_157) PPR

This so-called "preferred project" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.

A few protest points I would like to point out:
1. The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this polluting factory to the nearest affected residential house. I live in Conlon Ave where the distance is one of the closest to this plant (linear distance about 200m). This road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant. This information is convenient missing and entirely mislead the public and PAC assessors on of how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
2. Statement at clause 1.1 having misleading and untrue information in regards to only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there is already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair?!! This number has not even includes the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Road.
3. Taking into consideration such a massive capacity 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. With the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
4. The report is clearly stated that the recycled material consist of concrete, brick, asphalt, sandstone and sand. By all means, all these materials are actually very hazardous to human. Reference 1 & 2 clearly stated the danger of Asphalt and breathing in silica dust.
5. Poor site maintenance practise may incur mosquitoes, weeds, pests or vermin which will subsequently impact the Georges River environmental condition.
6. Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mention the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or material and handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation.
7. The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operating on Saturdays whereas the residents nearby are mainly spending the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean will not impact the resident as many family are still spending their time at home especially the retirees, preschool children, and home makers mum.
8. Section 2.3.2.3 comparing the additional traffic 1-2 trucks every 2 minutes should not be considered equal to the vehicles addition as the pick up speed of the truck is entirely different from a normal passenger car vehicles. Addition of 1-2 trucks in such a short time will definitely cause the massive traffic disturbance without considering the massive size of the truck, the pick up speed of the truck, hazard of the truck bring into the road safety, smoke of the truck exhaust due to most truck are poorly maintained and damage on the road condition.
9. Clause 2.4.2.8 taking a general statement from a Senate inquiry without the detail of the scientific aspect and detail of the issues of the inquiry to argue that silicosis is not a community problem is totally unacceptable as the evaluation should be case to case basis.
10. Clause 2.4.2.7 Poor standing of promises stated in the report such as performing asbestos screening without stating how to ensure the implementation and monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point.
11. Clause 2.14 stated that the land value of the residential area is not a consideration of the assessment is absolutely contradicting with the point that Moorebank Recycling Plant raise to support the 25 number of local jobs created. The damage of the local economy due to polluted suburb reputation, community being constantly exposed to health pollutant hazards and subsequently depreciation of property values is definitely far more devastating than just a mere number of jobs created.
12. The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It mean that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored.

In conclusion, this PPR report is entirely nonsense and biased towards supporting the building of this construction waste recycling plant.

Reference:
1. :Alsphalt Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0170.pdf
2. :The Dangers of Breathing Silica Dust http://www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/20 ... 09_04.html

3. Danger of disposal of Copper Chrome Arsenate Timber pg 2 (Attached Reference 3)

4. Health effect caused by cement. (Attached Reference 4)

5. Effect of Chronic Cement Dust Exposure on Lung Function.. (Attached Reference 5)

6. Impact of Dust Emission on Plant Vegetation in the Vicinity of Cement Plant.
(Attached Reference 6)

7. When People and Industry Live Side-by-Side: Health Impacts of PM Pollution
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal ... -side.html

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOOREBANK WASTE FACILITY (MP 05_157) PPR

This so-called "preferred project" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.

A few protest points I would like to point out:
1. The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this polluting factory to the nearest affected residential house. I live in Conlon Ave where the distance is one of the closest to this plant (linear distance about 200m). This road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant. This information is convenient missing and entirely mislead the public and PAC assessors on of how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
2. Statement at clause 1.1 having misleading and untrue information in regards to only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there is already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair?!! This number has not even includes the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Road.
3. Taking into consideration such a massive capacity 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. With the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
4. The report is clearly stated that the recycled material consist of concrete, brick, asphalt, sandstone and sand. By all means, all these materials are actually very hazardous to human. Reference 1 & 2 clearly stated the danger of Asphalt and breathing in silica dust.
5. Poor site maintenance practise may incur mosquitoes, weeds, pests or vermin which will subsequently impact the Georges River environmental condition.
6. Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mention the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or material and handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation.
7. The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operating on Saturdays whereas the residents nearby are mainly spending the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean will not impact the resident as many family are still spending their time at home especially the retirees, preschool children, and home makers mum.
8. Section 2.3.2.3 comparing the additional traffic 1-2 trucks every 2 minutes should not be considered equal to the vehicles addition as the pick up speed of the truck is entirely different from a normal passenger car vehicles. Addition of 1-2 trucks in such a short time will definitely cause the massive traffic disturbance without considering the massive size of the truck, the pick up speed of the truck, hazard of the truck bring into the road safety, smoke of the truck exhaust due to most truck are poorly maintained and damage on the road condition.
9. Clause 2.4.2.8 taking a general statement from a Senate inquiry without the detail of the scientific aspect and detail of the issues of the inquiry to argue that silicosis is not a community problem is totally unacceptable as the evaluation should be case to case basis.
10. Clause 2.4.2.7 Poor standing of promises stated in the report such as performing asbestos screening without stating how to ensure the implementation and monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point.
11. Clause 2.14 stated that the land value of the residential area is not a consideration of the assessment is absolutely contradicting with the point that Moorebank Recycling Plant raise to support the 25 number of local jobs created. The damage of the local economy due to polluted suburb reputation, community being constantly exposed to health pollutant hazards and subsequently depreciation of property values is definitely far more devastating than just a mere number of jobs created.
12. The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It mean that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored.

In conclusion, this PPR report is entirely nonsense and biased towards supporting the building of this construction waste recycling plant.

Reference:
1. :Alsphalt Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0170.pdf
2. :The Dangers of Breathing Silica Dust http://www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/20 ... 09_04.html

3. Danger of disposal of Copper Chrome Arsenate Timber pg 2 (Attached Reference 3)

4. Health effect caused by cement. (Attached Reference 4)

5. Effect of Chronic Cement Dust Exposure on Lung Function.. (Attached Reference 5)

6. Impact of Dust Emission on Plant Vegetation in the Vicinity of Cement Plant.
(Attached Reference 6)

7. When People and Industry Live Side-by-Side: Health Impacts of PM Pollution
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal ... -side.html

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOOREBANK WASTE FACILITY (MP 05_157) PPR

This so-called "preferred project" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.

A few protest points I would like to point out:
1. The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this polluting factory to the nearest affected residential house. I live in Conlon Ave where the distance is one of the closest to this plant (linear distance about 200m). This road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant. This information is convenient missing and entirely mislead the public and PAC assessors on of how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
2. Statement at clause 1.1 having misleading and untrue information in regards to only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there is already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair?!! This number has not even includes the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Road.
3. Taking into consideration such a massive capacity 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. With the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
4. The report is clearly stated that the recycled material consist of concrete, brick, asphalt, sandstone and sand. By all means, all these materials are actually very hazardous to human. Reference 1 & 2 clearly stated the danger of Asphalt and breathing in silica dust.
5. Poor site maintenance practise may incur mosquitoes, weeds, pests or vermin which will subsequently impact the Georges River environmental condition.
6. Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mention the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or material and handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation.
7. The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operating on Saturdays whereas the residents nearby are mainly spending the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean will not impact the resident as many family are still spending their time at home especially the retirees, preschool children, and home makers mum.
8. Section 2.3.2.3 comparing the additional traffic 1-2 trucks every 2 minutes should not be considered equal to the vehicles addition as the pick up speed of the truck is entirely different from a normal passenger car vehicles. Addition of 1-2 trucks in such a short time will definitely cause the massive traffic disturbance without considering the massive size of the truck, the pick up speed of the truck, hazard of the truck bring into the road safety, smoke of the truck exhaust due to most truck are poorly maintained and damage on the road condition.
9. Clause 2.4.2.8 taking a general statement from a Senate inquiry without the detail of the scientific aspect and detail of the issues of the inquiry to argue that silicosis is not a community problem is totally unacceptable as the evaluation should be case to case basis.
10. Clause 2.4.2.7 Poor standing of promises stated in the report such as performing asbestos screening without stating how to ensure the implementation and monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point.
11. Clause 2.14 stated that the land value of the residential area is not a consideration of the assessment is absolutely contradicting with the point that Moorebank Recycling Plant raise to support the 25 number of local jobs created. The damage of the local economy due to polluted suburb reputation, community being constantly exposed to health pollutant hazards and subsequently depreciation of property values is definitely far more devastating than just a mere number of jobs created.
12. The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It mean that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored.

In conclusion, this PPR report is entirely nonsense and biased towards supporting the building of this construction waste recycling plant.

Reference:
1. :Alsphalt Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0170.pdf
2. :The Dangers of Breathing Silica Dust http://www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/20 ... 09_04.html

3. Danger of disposal of Copper Chrome Arsenate Timber pg 2 (Attached Reference 3)

4. Health effect caused by cement. (Attached Reference 4)

5. Effect of Chronic Cement Dust Exposure on Lung Function.. (Attached Reference 5)

6. Impact of Dust Emission on Plant Vegetation in the Vicinity of Cement Plant.
(Attached Reference 6)

7. When People and Industry Live Side-by-Side: Health Impacts of PM Pollution
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal ... -side.html

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned Â"residentialÂ", because there is no Â"guaranteeÂ" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no Â"guaranteeÂ". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, Â`Construction and Demolition Waste Status ReportÂ', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The Â`Preferred Project ReportÂ' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The Â`Preferred Project ReportÂ' states Â"all aggregates will be kept dampÂ". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the Â"inherent moisture of the materialÂ". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOOREBANK WASTE FACILITY (MP 05_157) PPR

This so-called Â"preferred projectÂ" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.

A few protest points I would like to point out:
1. The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this polluting factory to the nearest affected residential house. I live in Conlon Ave where the distance is one of the closest to this plant (linear distance about 200m). This road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant. This information is convenient missing and entirely mislead the public and PAC assessors on of how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
2. Statement at clause 1.1 having misleading and untrue information in regards to only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there is already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair?!! This number has not even includes the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Road.
3. Taking into consideration such a massive capacity 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. With the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
4. The report is clearly stated that the recycled material consist of concrete, brick, asphalt, sandstone and sand. By all means, all these materials are actually very hazardous to human. Reference 1 & 2 clearly stated the danger of Asphalt and breathing in silica dust.
5. Poor site maintenance practise may incur mosquitoes, weeds, pests or vermin which will subsequently impact the Georges River environmental condition.
6. Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mention the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or material and handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation.
7. The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operating on Saturdays whereas the residents nearby are mainly spending the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean will not impact the resident as many family are still spending their time at home especially the retirees, preschool children, and home makers mum.
8. Section 2.3.2.3 comparing the additional traffic 1-2 trucks every 2 minutes should not be considered equal to the vehicles addition as the pick up speed of the truck is entirely different from a normal passenger car vehicles. Addition of 1-2 trucks in such a short time will definitely cause the massive traffic disturbance without considering the massive size of the truck, the pick up speed of the truck, hazard of the truck bring into the road safety, smoke of the truck exhaust due to most truck are poorly maintained and damage on the road condition.
9. Clause 2.4.2.8 taking a general statement from a Senate inquiry without the detail of the scientific aspect and detail of the issues of the inquiry to argue that silicosis is not a community problem is totally unacceptable as the evaluation should be case to case basis.
10. Clause 2.4.2.7 Poor standing of promises stated in the report such as performing asbestos screening without stating how to ensure the implementation and monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point.
11. Clause 2.14 stated that the land value of the residential area is not a consideration of the assessment is absolutely contradicting with the point that Moorebank Recycling Plant raise to support the 25 number of local jobs created. The damage of the local economy due to polluted suburb reputation, community being constantly exposed to health pollutant hazards and subsequently depreciation of property values is definitely far more devastating than just a mere number of jobs created.
12. The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It mean that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored.

In conclusion, this PPR report is entirely nonsense and biased towards supporting the building of this construction waste recycling plant.

Reference:
1. :Alsphalt Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0170.pdf
2. :The Dangers of Breathing Silica Dust http://www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/20 ... 09_04.html

3. Danger of disposal of Copper Chrome Arsenate Timber pg 2 (Attached Reference 3)

4. Health effect caused by cement. (Attached Reference 4)

5. Effect of Chronic Cement Dust Exposure on Lung Function.. (Attached Reference 5)

6. Impact of Dust Emission on Plant Vegetation in the Vicinity of Cement Plant.
(Attached Reference 6)

7. When People and Industry Live Side-by-Side: Health Impacts of PM Pollution
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal ... -side.html

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOOREBANK WASTE FACILITY (MP 05_157) PPR

This so-called "preferred project" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.

A few protest points I would like to point out:
1. The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this polluting factory to the nearest affected residential house. I live in Conlon Ave where the distance is one of the closest to this plant (linear distance about 200m). This road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant. This information is convenient missing and entirely mislead the public and PAC assessors on of how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
2. Statement at clause 1.1 having misleading and untrue information in regards to only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there is already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair?!! This number has not even includes the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Road.
3. Taking into consideration such a massive capacity 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. With the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
4. The report is clearly stated that the recycled material consist of concrete, brick, asphalt, sandstone and sand. By all means, all these materials are actually very hazardous to human. Reference 1 & 2 clearly stated the danger of Asphalt and breathing in silica dust.
5. Poor site maintenance practise may incur mosquitoes, weeds, pests or vermin which will subsequently impact the Georges River environmental condition.
6. Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mention the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or material and handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation.
7. The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operating on Saturdays whereas the residents nearby are mainly spending the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean will not impact the resident as many family are still spending their time at home especially the retirees, preschool children, and home makers mum.
8. Section 2.3.2.3 comparing the additional traffic 1-2 trucks every 2 minutes should not be considered equal to the vehicles addition as the pick up speed of the truck is entirely different from a normal passenger car vehicles. Addition of 1-2 trucks in such a short time will definitely cause the massive traffic disturbance without considering the massive size of the truck, the pick up speed of the truck, hazard of the truck bring into the road safety, smoke of the truck exhaust due to most truck are poorly maintained and damage on the road condition.
9. Clause 2.4.2.8 taking a general statement from a Senate inquiry without the detail of the scientific aspect and detail of the issues of the inquiry to argue that silicosis is not a community problem is totally unacceptable as the evaluation should be case to case basis.
10. Clause 2.4.2.7 Poor standing of promises stated in the report such as performing asbestos screening without stating how to ensure the implementation and monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point.
11. Clause 2.14 stated that the land value of the residential area is not a consideration of the assessment is absolutely contradicting with the point that Moorebank Recycling Plant raise to support the 25 number of local jobs created. The damage of the local economy due to polluted suburb reputation, community being constantly exposed to health pollutant hazards and subsequently depreciation of property values is definitely far more devastating than just a mere number of jobs created.
12. The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It mean that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored.

In conclusion, this PPR report is entirely nonsense and biased towards supporting the building of this construction waste recycling plant.

Reference:
1. :Alsphalt Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0170.pdf
2. :The Dangers of Breathing Silica Dust http://www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/20 ... 09_04.html

3. Danger of disposal of Copper Chrome Arsenate Timber pg 2 (Attached Reference 3)

4. Health effect caused by cement. (Attached Reference 4)

5. Effect of Chronic Cement Dust Exposure on Lung Function.. (Attached Reference 5)

6. Impact of Dust Emission on Plant Vegetation in the Vicinity of Cement Plant.
(Attached Reference 6)

7. When People and Industry Live Side-by-Side: Health Impacts of PM Pollution
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal ... -side.html

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THESE REASONS:
TRAFFIC: Multiple issues remain with the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site, both during construction and (if approved) during operation. During construction, trucks will access the site by turning left from the right lane of a three-lane road, daily, from 10am-3pm. These times will be unpoliced and will impact on a major arterial road. Medium rigid vehicles are expected to turn from the centre lane of a three-lane road to access the site, without escort. This is unsafe with multiple vehicles travelling in the left lane to turn into Brickmakers Dr. No warning will be given to vehicles that a large truck will cut them off a dangerous manner. Brickmakers Dr has a 5-tonne limit on the entire road. Trucks intending to access the facility are not permitted to use any portion of Brickmakers Dr. Trucks exiting the facility will use Brickmakers Dr via a stop sign. Heavy vehicle movement, at speed, under stop sign conditions, is blatantly unsafe and unpredictable for vehicles travelling along Brickmakers Dr and local pedestrians. No protective measures can be implemented to ensure heavy vehicles do not turn from Nuwarra Rd or Maddecks Ave into Brickmakers Dr. Traffic studies assume 5-6% heavy vehicle traffic on Brickmakers Dr. This road now has a 5-tonne limit and heavy vehicles are not permitted passage.
NOISE: Moorebank Recyclers argues that the current Benedict Sands site (Tanlane) should not be considered residential, even though it is currently zoned "residential", because there is no "guarantee" the area will be residential in the future. Plans for the Marina and residential development are currently with Liverpool City Council, which thoroughly supports the residential development. It is insufficient for Moorebank Recyclers to argue that there is no "guarantee". The zoning is relevant rather than approval for a particular development. The revised Acoustic Impact Assessment admits that there will be an increase in traffic noise (to an area with significant traffic noise already). Construction noise levels for the shorter term upgrade of the driveway and ramps will exceed criteria at future residences within Georges Fair and Tanlane. The projected noise level data should be ignored, as the levels predicted have all been exceeded in current/actual figures.
SILICA DUST (HEALTH RISKS): Published information shows serious health risks caused by continual long term exposure to small dust particles, particularly for children. Containment of dust particles cannot be adequately managed manually by watering stockpiles and truck tyres. The crust on stockpiles is easily eroded in medium to high winds and dust will be spread across Georges Fair and the Georges River. Dust spread from the high volume of trucks moving around the site on a crushed concrete surface, along with excavators shifting stockpiles, will spread dust which will not be contained simply by watering.
EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES: Studies on other potentially hazardous surrounds (such as high transmission power lines) to residential properties reveals discounting of up to 30% of market value. Such a decrease would have devastating financial impact on all residents. Part of the site will be visible from the Georges Fair housing estate and this will have a negative impact on property values.
ASBESTOS (HEALTH RISKS): Government waste policies state the detection of asbestos is an ongoing problem and challenge for the C&D waste recovery market. It warns that "recovery operators who adopt the most stringent testing regimes and make all possible effort to avoid any asbestos coming onto their sites cannot fully guarantee there is no asbestos fibres in their final products" (Department of Environment, `Construction and Demolition Waste Status Report', 2011).
SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: The `Preferred Project Report' falsely claims there is no evidence that Benedict will cease operations, despite a DA submission indicating their intention to cease operations. Liverpool City Council has determined that having a materials recycling facility at this site is not compatible with the existing and future land use pattern, which is predominantly residential development, environmental conservation and public open space. Moorebank Recyclers has had a materials recycling facility approved less than 20km from this site, in a zoned industrial area in St Peters, which negates the need for this facility. The facility has the potential to expose residents to odours, silica dust, asbestos and other dangerous particles. Moorebank Recyclers commits to "operate the MRF in a manner which is sympathetic to the amenity of the area". However, it is impossible to operate the facility in such a manner, given its residential and recreational areas.
STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT: The `Preferred Project Report' states "all aggregates will be kept damp". This is impossible to achieve at all times. The report claims spraying water on stockpiles will prevent dust emissions. The site is in a strong-wind area. Video will be shown at any future PAC meeting demonstrating the impact of strong winds on stockpiles. The report fails to address the risks with transporting the stockpiles around the facility and to and from the facility. The report refers to the "inherent moisture of the material". It is absurd to suggest that building material is inherently moist when it is generally dry material that is likely to be blown around during windy weather.
RECREATIONAL USE OF THE GEORGES RIVER: This project is inappropriate for the local area, now and in the future. There is no intention by Moorebank Recyclers to develop and open up the foreshore for public use. This facility will destroy the amenity of the local area whereas the Marina proposal will beautify the foreshore and is in keeping with the residential nature of the area.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOOREBANK WASTE FACILITY (MP 05_157) PPR

This so-called "preferred project" report is absolutely biased for Moorebank Waste Recycling Plant and should not be used as evidence to support its approval by the PAC.

A few protest points I would like to point out:
1. The project preference report does not indicate the closest distance of this polluting factory to the nearest affected residential house. I live in Conlon Ave where the distance is one of the closest to this plant (linear distance about 200m). This road is in direct line of sight of this pollutants generating plant. This information is convenient missing and entirely mislead the public and PAC assessors on of how extremely close the distance between the plant and residential houses. If this plant is being approved, it would be one of the first ever construction waste recycling plant closest to residential houses.
2. Statement at clause 1.1 having misleading and untrue information in regards to only a small section of residential area is near to the site. How can this statement be put into the report as there is already 1000 houses built in Georges Fair?!! This number has not even includes the long existing residential area next to Georges Fair between Newbridge Road and Brickmakers Road.
3. Taking into consideration such a massive capacity 500,000 tonnes per annum, this waste recycling plant is expected to process 1602 tonnes per day, 6 days a week, 11 hours a day from 7am to 6pm. With the limited number of workers onsite and without mentioning about other machinery resources to prevent asbestos being processed at the facility, how can Moorebank Recycler assure that all the waste materials are free of asbestos?
4. The report is clearly stated that the recycled material consist of concrete, brick, asphalt, sandstone and sand. By all means, all these materials are actually very hazardous to human. Reference 1 & 2 clearly stated the danger of Asphalt and breathing in silica dust.
5. Poor site maintenance practise may incur mosquitoes, weeds, pests or vermin which will subsequently impact the Georges River environmental condition.
6. Clause 1.4.3 never consider and mention the impact of the dust generation, air contamination when the recycling material is exposed during transportation or material and handling of the materials between the crusher and machinery throughout the whole operation.
7. The operating hours are ridiculously long and even operating on Saturdays whereas the residents nearby are mainly spending the weekend as family day. In addition, operation hours during the weekday does not mean will not impact the resident as many family are still spending their time at home especially the retirees, preschool children, and home makers mum.
8. Section 2.3.2.3 comparing the additional traffic 1-2 trucks every 2 minutes should not be considered equal to the vehicles addition as the pick up speed of the truck is entirely different from a normal passenger car vehicles. Addition of 1-2 trucks in such a short time will definitely cause the massive traffic disturbance without considering the massive size of the truck, the pick up speed of the truck, hazard of the truck bring into the road safety, smoke of the truck exhaust due to most truck are poorly maintained and damage on the road condition.
9. Clause 2.4.2.8 taking a general statement from a Senate inquiry without the detail of the scientific aspect and detail of the issues of the inquiry to argue that silicosis is not a community problem is totally unacceptable as the evaluation should be case to case basis.
10. Clause 2.4.2.7 Poor standing of promises stated in the report such as performing asbestos screening without stating how to ensure the implementation and monitoring the effectiveness of the implementation. The site safety plan on the inspection process is poorly described without clearly stating how to manage the inspection of 1602 tonnes material per day. If only sampling inspection is performed, this also means that there is a risk that asbestos material will slip through and get into the recycling. Again, how can a normal staff differentiate asbestos from all the powdery substances of incoming construction wastes? Gyrock, crushed rocks, sands all mixed up even with asbestos cannot be visually differentiated at the incoming point.
11. Clause 2.14 stated that the land value of the residential area is not a consideration of the assessment is absolutely contradicting with the point that Moorebank Recycling Plant raise to support the 25 number of local jobs created. The damage of the local economy due to polluted suburb reputation, community being constantly exposed to health pollutant hazards and subsequently depreciation of property values is definitely far more devastating than just a mere number of jobs created.
12. The numerous numbers, tables and graphs churned and displayed in the report are merely theoretical, especially the dust and noise aspects. These are generated based on estimation models without any actual continuous monitoring of a similar operating plant. Merely stating that these numbers are acceptable is too much of assumption to make. In fact, there is no plan stated in the report that will be some hazard monitoring program in future. It mean that this project can be approved based on theoretical estimation of models and the actual hazard monitoring can be totally ignored.

In conclusion, this PPR report is entirely nonsense and biased towards supporting the building of this construction waste recycling plant.

Reference:
1. :Alsphalt Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0170.pdf
2. :The Dangers of Breathing Silica Dust http://www2.worksafebc.com/i/posters/20 ... 09_04.html

3. Danger of disposal of Copper Chrome Arsenate Timber pg 2 (Attached Reference 3)

4. Health effect caused by cement. (Attached Reference 4)

5. Effect of Chronic Cement Dust Exposure on Lung Function.. (Attached Reference 5)

6. Impact of Dust Emission on Plant Vegetation in the Vicinity of Cement Plant.
(Attached Reference 6)

7. When People and Industry Live Side-by-Side: Health Impacts of PM Pollution
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-heal ... -side.html

As Per Attachment

As Per Attachment

As Per Attachment

As Per Attachment

As Per Attachment

As per attachment

As per attachment

As per attachment