Moorebank Waste Facility

This proponent PPR is irresponsible and is against the public interest. PAC is commissioned to to decide for the best interest of the community and must do the right thing in REJECTING this proposal.

Attached are my points and references:

- Moorebank Recycler protest letter
- References
- Rebuttal against MRF report

I strongly object to the proposal that has been put up by the recycling company.

Dear Sir & Madam,

As a resident near by at the potential recycling site. I am strongly object to this proposal that are damaging the environment & the healthy way of life.

I understand every application needs to be process by the Department thoroughly but this is the only chance that the Department can support the local residents & saving the environment but not approving the proposal.

[see attachment]

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 `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 `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.

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

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 call on Mr Brad Hazzard, Planning & Infrastructure Minister, PAC members and DPI to do the right thing - REJECT this heinous proposal. Attached petition succinctly explain my points.

Thank you.

Please see uploaded pdf document

Please see attached PDF

7 November 2013

Dear NSW Department of Planning,
My grandchildren reside in the Georges Fair housing estate. I am deeply concerned about the health of my grandchildren living in close proximity to a material recycling facility. In particular, I am worried about:

* The proximity of the proposed development to the house where my grandchildren live.

* The risks associated with asbestos, silica dust and other toxins in the air.

* The increased traffic in the local area that will come with additional trucks.

* The health risks associated with this project.
I am a resident of Milperra and I do not believe that this development is in keeping with the changing nature of the local community, which has a focus on young families and children. It is irresponsible to allow a material recycling facility to be built so close to a brand new housing estate where my grandchildren are placed at risk.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Marilyn Amesbury

7 November 2013

Dear NSW Department of Planning,

My grandchildren reside in the Georges Fair housing estate. I am deeply concerned about the health of my grandchildren living in close proximity to a material recycling facility. In particular, I am worried about:

* The proximity of the proposed development to the house where my grandchildren live.

* The risks associated with asbestos, silica dust and other toxins in the air.

* The increased traffic in the local area that will come with additional trucks.

* The health risks associated with this project.
I am a resident of Milperra and I do not believe that this development is in keeping with the changing nature of the local community, which has a focus on young families and children. It is irresponsible to allow a material recycling facility to be built so close to a brand new housing estate where my grandchildren are placed at risk.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Amesbury

7 November 2013

Dear NSW Department of Planning,

My grandchildren reside in the Georges Fair housing estate. I am deeply concerned about the health of my grandchildren living in close proximity to a material recycling facility. In particular, I am worried about:

Â* The proximity of the proposed development to the house where my grandchildren live.

Â* The risks associated with asbestos, silica dust and other toxins in the air.

Â* The increased traffic in the local area that will come with additional trucks.

Â* The health risks associated with this project.
I am a resident of the local area and I do not believe that this development is in keeping with the changing nature of the local community, which has a focus on young families and children. It is irresponsible to allow a material recycling facility to be built so close to a brand new housing estate where my grandchildren are placed at risk.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours sincerely,

David Sutton

7 November 2013

Dear NSW Department of Planning,

My grandchildren reside in the Georges Fair housing estate. I am deeply concerned about the health of my grandchildren living in close proximity to a material recycling facility. In particular, I am worried about:

* The proximity of the proposed development to the house where my grandchildren live.

* The risks associated with asbestos, silica dust and other toxins in the air.

* The increased traffic in the local area that will come with additional trucks.

* The health risks associated with this project.
I am a resident of the local area and I do not believe that this development is in keeping with the changing nature of the local community, which has a focus on young families and children. It is irresponsible to allow a material recycling facility to be built so close to a brand new housing estate where my grandchildren are placed at risk.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Sutton

[see attachment]

[attached]