Revesby Waste Facility

The use of two lots is excessive and favours the interests of Bells Hire Pty Ltd to the detriment of local residents who will experience a slump in property prices due to the processing of excessive wastes. Such waste processing should be done further away from residential properties as violet st is close to many residential streets. Worst case scenario, only one lot should be allowed for such processing with a maximum of 100 000 tonnes. There is little information also available on the health impact this will have on local residents too. There is also no compensation available for those whose properties or investments will be affected. This will negatively impact on the attractiveness of Revesby as an area for investment and therefore reduce the number of properties available for rent as the rental vacancy rate is already 1% which is incredibly low. Many investors will choose to sell rather than risk falling property prices which will harm local residents and housing availability.

as a long term business owners in violet st (over 40years) we have seen many changes to the businesses being conducted in the street. the submission by Bells Hire P/L to increase their operations will cause even more problems than the ones they have already created. the constant noise of trucks using their exhaust brakes coming into violet st from milperra rd & exiting onto milperra rd, with most driving the length of violet st with their exhaust brakes on, with total disregard to the noise they make, making using the phone to conduct business a nightmare. there are trucks double parked continually on both sides of the street making it hazardous to pass them, as well as trucks pulling out of the facility with no regard for other users of the street. the constant dust, mud & water being deposited onto the road by both trucks leaving the facility & the street sweepers constantly going up & down the street, blocking traffic + the mess that they make with spraying water & mud onto peoples cars parked in the street, as well as using other company driveways as U turn bays. the proposal to make the facility bigger will only impinge further on the everyday running of businesses located in the street.

I have to strongly object to expand an existing resource recovery facility because this place only about 300 meters away from my house(direct distance is less than 300 meters from residential area),and this is in a light industrial area should not be expanded to up to 250,000 tonnes wastes on this place.It will increases the more noise by the more heavy trucks stopping and taking off in front of my house which is near the traffic lights.and also it will makes plenty of unknown chemical gas and dusts overs the standard healthy limit and harms to peoples health.thank you very much considering my concerns

*This application is to increase eight fold the current amount of waste being processed. As the current amount has impacted so adversely on the environment-dust, noise and traffic an eight fold increase would be unconscionable.
the entire area is coated with dust which is a hazard for our workers' health and safety.
*The site has been found to contain asbestos waste which is in the dust we are all breathing
* The heavy truck traffic is already too great for the street without such a huge increase
* the noise from the street sweeper operating most of the
day makes it difficult to concentrate or to hear telephone conversations even whilst indoors with windows and doors
closed.
* Truck operators already leave heavy trailers parked for days in the surrounding areas and this would increase significantly
*The proposed expansion to the site is too close to surrounding properties with no possibility of a buffer zone.

Dear Sir ,Madam, We are a wholesale ceramic tile merchant operating a distribution warehouse from 26 Daisy St which is one block away from the existing 30.000 Ton facility .Our concern is the volume of dust blowing now from this facility over all our neighbours .This dust is not only a nuisance but is a health hazard, who can guarantee no asbestos particles will be part of the dust we are forced to breath in.How this type of facility could be allowed to operate in a built up area one block away from residential homes is astounding The repercussions of increasing its size eight times will cause problems into the future I don't believe any of us want.

See Attached

Revesby Resource Facility
Application No. SSD 7349


This submission serves as a way of objection to the expansion of the Revesby Recovery Facility. The following grounds of objection are relevant:

The proposal seeks an expansion of non-putrescible waste recycling volumes from the current 30,000 t/annum to 250,000 t/annum. Being an increase of 733%, this is an extremely significant expansion which is likely to cause detriments to health of residents, have negative environmental impacts and will generally reduce the current enjoyment of land of residents, animals, and plant life.
The hours of proposed operation as per part 2.3.7.1 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are from 6.00 am to 12.00 midnight, Monday to Saturday. This will cause increased noise, traffic congestion, and air pollution to neighbouring households which are in close proximity to the facility.
Part 2.3.7.2. of the EIS states that truck movements, associated with the loading and removal of recycled material from the facility, may be required to be carried out until 12.00 midnight and part 2.3.7.3 states that deliveries could also occur until 12.00 midnight. This will cause great inconvenience to surrounding homes as there will be a significant intensification in truck movements causing noise and air pollution, following the proposed increases of waste volumes which are 8 times more than the currently permitted volumes.
Part 3.8 of the EIS states that there are 5 other similar recycling facilities near the Revesby Recovery Facility, all within 3.6 to 8.6 kilometre radiuses. This submission therefore rejects the further excessive expansion of the current facility.
Section 79B(3)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) seeks consideration of a development that is likely to significantly affect a threatened species, population, or ecological community, or its habitat. The EIS report states that there are twenty seven listed threatened species including: six bird species, three frog species, six mammal species, eleven plant species and one species of reptile. The report states that during the construction phase these threatened species may be injured. The report does not state the processes in which these injuries are to be avoided and only refers to one remedy and that is reporting injuries of species to relevant authorities. This submission therefore rejects any further expansion to the facility, also noting that the increase in truck activity is likely to greatly endanger the already threatened species.
Part 5.11.2.2 of the EIS states that the facility will continue to employ 25 people notwithstanding the proposed 733% increase in recycling volumes. By continuing to employ only 25 people following such a large increase in volume of recyclable waste, it is likely that the waste will linger around the facility for longer periods than they should, as the number of employees does not correlate with the proposed increase volume of waste. This will in turn create offensive smells, and as a result this proposal is again rejected.
The EIS also states that a number of other adverse impacts may arise from the operation of the facility including runoff of contaminants and particulates having potential to pollute stormwater and downstream waterways, dust emissions from stockpiled waste, the generation of litter from users of the site, excessive accumulation of materials, and stockpile instability.

On these grounds, this proposal is firmly rejected.

Please see the attached document for our submission.

Our organisation requests that the application for the expansion of the Enviro Recycling Plant be rejected by the Minister and NSW Planning and Environment based on experience of current emissions from the plant and Health and Safety reasons.
Please see the attached submisson.

See attached

See attachment.

Please find attached our objection, prepared for Nubent Pty Ltd (land owner and landlord) on behalf of all tenants at 35 Violet Street.

Please find attached our objection, prepared for Nubent Pty Ltd (land owner and landlord) on behalf of all tenants at 35 Violet Street.

Refer attachment

See Attachment

See attachment.

I am writing to object to this Application put forth by Enviro Recycling at Revesby, due to the factors listed below:

1) The current rate and amount of POLLUTION is already at an alarming high.

2) The DUST that is CURRENTLY produced from this facility is outrageous as a direct result this pollution currently and affects the eyes and breathing passages on a daily basis.

3) The CURRENT NOISE that is polluted from this facility is shockingly dawnting and spontaneous in its nature. As a direct result of such noise pollution the ground shakes when the bangs are occurring (machinery belting the ground) and therefore shaking the surrounding buildings and causing an almighty BANG that makes you jump with shock and awe. This continuous and relentless noise pollution that erupts from this facility is above any regulatory range of acceptability. THE NOISE IS EITHER DEAFENING OR A CONTINUOUS ANNOYING DRONING HUM.

4) The excessive Pollution on the vehicles in the area due to the current amount of DUST is excessive to say the least. Upon returning to your vehicle after a day you have to wash the car windscreen down so as you can see, and you cannot use the windscreen wipers as the debri gets stuck in the wiper blades and smears the substance further. i have personally taken photos ON SEPTEMBER 23RD 2016 of this pollution which I personally witnessed to fall from the sky over the fence of ENVIRO like SNOW onto my vehicle that was parked in the neighbouring property for NO MORE than 1 hour at the most.

5) The current rate of traffic that gathers along Violet street due to the trucks delivering the rubbish TO THIS FACILITY is at an all time high. The roads are filthy due to the pollution this facility out puts and is ultimately responsible for. The continuous inconvenience of the trucks queuing in the street is intolerable on most days. As proves to be a traffic hazard, causing peak hour grid lock for the duration this facility is operational.
FEEL FREE TO COME AND SEE FOR YOURSELF THE LEVEL OF POLLUTION THIS FACILITY PRODUCES

See attached

RE: Submission opposing expansion of Enviro Recycling Plant at 57-67 Violet Street, Revesby.
Application No. SSD 15_7349

As the operator of an existing premises, the existing operations of the Enviro Recycling Plant at the above address, my business has already been adversely affected by dust emissions that are not being adequately controlled.

The air quality impact assessment is understating the extent of the dust emissions by a large factor and is inadequate for the following reasons:

1. The predicted level of existing dust deposition presented in the air quality impact assessment prepared by Pacific Environment is 0.1-0.2 g/m3/month.

This is a gross underestimate as dust is entering my building and can be readily seen on surfaces of my equipment.

When the operator is processing timber wastes, sawdust can be seen on the stairs within my building.

Our cars parked at the front of my building are covered with dust from the existing operation. None of this would be occurring if the modeled results were correct.

The future predicted levels of 4 g/m2/month are therefore grossly underestimated.

An important thing for the air assessment to show for this site is what would the dust levels be without the controls being used. The sensitivity analysis is needed to reflect what will happen when the controls are not in use. There is ample evidence in the Notices that have been issued by the NSW EPA that dust controls are frequently not used and that excessive dust emission are occurring.

2. The air quality impact assessment does not meet the requirements of the NSW EPA guidelines. It fails to consider the latest year of meteorology and fails to consider trends that may be occurring over the past five years of available weather data.

3. The air quality impact assessment uses Chullora to get background air quality data without justifying the use of this site's results when applied to Revesby.

4. The air quality impact assessment fails to use the existing high dust levels being experienced by all the industrial premises adjoining the proposed site.

5. The air quality impact assessment fails to state the level of effectiveness of the dust controls that are used in the model.

6. The operator's past history of non-compliances is not being addressed.



Appendix D at Section 2.1 states the site is currently accepting 30,000 tonnes/annum of C&D waste.

I believe weighbridge records need to be reviewed to establish if this is a correct statement. If it is found to be incorrect then the documents supporting the application are unacceptable.

Also from Appendix Q, Section 2.6, second > point, mention is made of 15 tonnes of hazardous waste being present on site. It is not mentioned that pieces of asbestos cement have been found on site by officers of NSW EPA. These aspects are detailed in the Clean Up Notice 1540623 and present a serious health risk to myself and to my employees.

Since Appendix Q was prepared there has been a penalty notice issued in October 2016 and a further prevention notice issued in November 2016.

The November Notice provides evidence of 43 complaints being received since 13 August 2015. Appendix Q completely avoids mention of this fact as does the EIS. This therefore questions whether the EIS meets the regulatory requirements of adequacy. If your Department supports my viewpoint then the inadequacies of the EIS need to be address and the EIS readvertised.

The November notice mentions problems with the dust controls and therefore my business has no confidence in the regulatory system being able to protect my business from adverse environmental impacts.

Myself and operators of other businesses nearby to Enviro Recycling believe the site is already operating without satisfactory conditions and practices being used.

My business is already being adversely impacted and the scope of the operations at more than 30,000 tonne/annum will make the use of my premises untenable.

The EIS is inadequate as is the air quality impact assessment. The application needs to be rejected.

In reference to the application by Bells Hire Pty Ltd for the Revesby Resource Recovery Facility, we are very much against the approval to increase from 30,000 to 250,000 tonne being granted for the following reasons:-

- Firstly, it is a major impediment to our business and the quality of the working conditions that our employees have to work under. When the wind conditions are not favourable to our work site there is substantial dust and there have been occasions where I have had to tell my employees to come inside the workshop and not do any more work out in the open. I know that they are under investigation by the EPA for asbestos, as they found asbestos in their stockpiles. If they have found asbestos in their processed materials, then there has to be asbestos in the dust and that dust is being blown over our property and through our workshop. I have 12 employees on site and I have an obligation under the act to provide a safe workplace for them.

- Second problem is noise. Even though our property is two doors up, there are times when the office shakes from whatever they are doing on site.

- Third problem is traffic. The traffic at times blocks the street. They have a flagman sometimes directing traffic but this does not help as the trucks are double parked trying to get access to the site. There has also been times when we cannot get in or out of our own driveway. I would say that under their present approval of 30,000 tonne pa, with the number of trucks that are coming and going from this site they would be well over their permissible limit.

- I think you also need to keep in mind that the residential area is only a short distance away along with three schools (approx. 1.5 km away) and with the right weather conditions and prevailing winds, the fine dust produced from crushing and processing material can easily be carried on the wind.

- The road is a disgrace and looks like a dirt track. We know that they have a street sweeper which is constantly going up and down the street but unfortunately this only serves to stir the dust up into the air.

The problem we have with this, is that it is having a substantial effect on our business. Customers cars need to be kept inside and if their vehicle is here for perhaps two days, it needs to be washed before we can return it to the customer and only hope on that day the dust is low.

Obviously they have an approval to do 30,000 tonnes at the moment. If the approval is granted for them to do 250,000 tonnes p.a without encapsulating the site and installing a filter system and a wheel wash, I feel that it is unfair and unreasonable for Bell Hire Pty Ltd to expect their neighbours and their neighbours employees to work under the current conditions, let alone their own employees who are working on site who would be even more directly affected by the conditions created. I also feel that it is the responsibility of the NSW Planning and Environment Department to not allow this to continue under its present conditions.

Attached are two photographs just to give you an idea of what I am talking about.