I object to the project because it is located too close to local residences and community facilities (schools / childcare facilities etc). There is also going to be an increase in the local road deterioration due to heavy trucks entering & exiting the facility thereby damaging local roads. The facility could also end up being a 24/7 operation thereby creating unnecessary noise pollution. This increased activity and the exhaust from the facility would also be a health issue for the residents of Western Sydney.

People’s health is more important than money, our children and grandchildren deserve clean air. Why not built in isolated areas Australia has desert land if it’s a necessity to built, there is no excuse for this.

I am objecting to this proposal as I have had no formal consultation in relation to this proposed project and I firmly believe that this type of technology will provide a toxic environment for the residents of Minchinbury. It is undeniably irresponsible to build this type of facility close to communities.

Please accept my submission for the inquiry into The Cleanaway Incinerator Blacktown, which expresses my opposition and objection to the proposal. After a careful reading of the facts, I can only come to one conclusion; that is that this incinerator is not good for the environment and definitely detrimental to the health of all living in the vicinity and even beyond. To allow the construction so near to homes and schools is an abrogation of responsibility in keeping the adults and children living in the area safe from harm. There are alternatives to incinerators and one has to ask if these technologies have been looked into and considered, and if not, why haven't they been?

HEALTH EFFECT STUDIES:

There is an increased risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) even from short-term exposure to low concentrations of fine particulate matter PM2.5, such as that produced by Incinerators. This current 2020 nationwide study in Japan, chosen for its superior monitoring, population density and relative air quality, is believed to be by far the largest of its kind. It provides comprehensive evidence of the relationship between PM2.5 and cardiac arrests, using a sample three times larger than all previous research combined and demonstrating the impacts on groups such as the elderly.


A study by Dr George D. Thurston of New York University School of Medicine in November 2017 found that living near a waste to energy incinerator carries the same health risks as secondhand smoke. “The increase in lung cancer from long-term exposure to fine particulate matter is roughly the same as the increase in lung cancer of a non-smoker who breathes passive smoke while living with a smoker, or about 20 % increase in lung cancer risk”. 


Waste-to-energy incineration is also a source of mercury emissions. The increased mercury levels have been recorded in fish living in the reservoirs for hydroelectricity. The adverse effects of mercury exposure on human health have been indicated in a number of studies, and there seems to be no ‘zero effect’ exposure level. As a result, the mitigation of mercury emissions is gaining more and more attention. The danger of mercury pollution drew widespread attention after the cause of the Minamata disease (Ekino et al., 2007) was identified as a severe case of mercury poisoning. Mercury compounds are generally more toxic than the compounds of other nonradioactive heavy elements (Pushie et al., 2014). Mercury can easily vaporise in combustion processes and be released into the atmosphere as mercury vapours. Moreover, combustion temperatures are usually high enough to decompose mercury compounds and release Hg0 vapour (metallic Mercury).
Elemental mercury has a very low solubility in water, which makes it challenging to remove elemental mercury by commonly used methods for flue-gas cleaning. Human exposure to metallic mercury takes place mostly by swallowing contaminated foods or drinks or breathing in mercury vapours. When ingested, only a very small amount of metallic mercury (less than 0.01% of the dose) is absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract (Da Broi et al., 2017). Inhaling of mercury vapours is much more dangerous as mercury enters the bloodstream through the lungs. The density of saturated mercury vapour strongly depends on the temperature. Charvat. P ‘et.al., 2020, ‘An overview of mercury emissions in the energy industry - A step to mercury footprint assessment’, Journal of Cleaner Production, ScienceDirect, Volume 267, No 122087


EPA VIOLATIONS

16/11/2018 - Failed to comply with condition 330-155 of the environment authorisation 50320 in that you did not take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent dust leaving the Premises. An EPA Authorised Officer recorded failure of site operatives to use the dust suppression hoses at the site whilst handling wastes with the onsite machinery. At the same time the under roof dust suppression misters were observed not to be operating. By failing to use the appropriate dust suppression controls you have caused or permitted dust to leave the Premises in contravention of condition 330-155.

June 2010 – Transpacific (old Cleanaway) fined for supplying false information – whiting-out emission test results (the subject of the above breach) in its annual return for its oil recycling facility to NSW EPA 

Since Nov 2010 – VIC EPA has issued 18 Pollution Abatement Notices in an attempt to address odour impacts on the Clayton / Dingley area of VIC administered by Kingston City Council. Of these, 8 were issued to Transpacific (Cleanaway) companies (TWM & Baxter Business P/L). 


In Aug 2011 Transpacific (Cleanaway), in contravention of its EPA licence, set up a treatment trial to deodorise “Elf Atochem Spotleak” an odorous compound added to natural gas and LPG. The offensive odour was discharged beyond the boundary of the company’s Portland site and reported by 130 residents who complained of nausea, throat irritation and general illness. Fined $80,000 and Court costs $10,000. 

Feb 2011 – VIC EPA Notice of Contravention Transpacific (Cleanaway) Deals Rd Landfill (Clayton South), putrescible / municipal waste – off-site odour (landfill closed 2010, matter ongoing)

THE INCINERATOR IS TOO CLOSE TO HOMES AND SCHOOLS

This site is very close to homes, schools and preschools. Horsley Park Public School is around 2 km south of the site. A childcare centre is located only 1 km to the west of the site, while homes are located only 1km away.

A Study was completed; "Relationship Between Distance of Schools from the Nearest Municipal Waste Incineration Plant and Child Health in Japan" In Japan, the main source of cancer causing dioxins are incinerators. This study examined the relationship between the distance of schools from waste incineration plants and the prevalence of allergic disorders and general symptoms in Japanese children. Study subjects were 450,807 elementary school children aged 6–12 years who attended 996 public elementary schools in Osaka Prefecture in Japan. The study showed that a positive association with fatigue was pronounced in schools within 4 km of waste incinerators. The findings also suggested incineration near schools may be associated with an increased prevalence of wheezing, headaches, stomach ache, and fatigue in Japanese children.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-005-4116-7

ALTERNATIVES TO INCINERATION

Incinerators and landfills are not the answer to waste management. New technology and innovation has provided alternative options that do not affect the public health or environment in the way incinerators and landfills do:
Source Reduction. Researchers estimate that 70% of all current waste and emissions from industrial processes can be prevented at the source by using technically sound and financially profitable procedures. New Jersey mandates pollution prevention planning based on the tracking of materials throughout each industry. Ultimately, saving companies a total net sum of $105 million per year.
Recycling and Composting. An analysis of recycling potential (including composting) found that 72.8% of waste reclamation was possible. Recycling facilities produce more than twice the number of jobs provided by landfills and incinerators combined, as well as profitable for companies.
Other technologies that offer safer and cleaner methods exist. 45% of medical waste can be sterilized and reused through autoclaving, and the remaining materials can be treated and reduced through microwave disinfection and steam sterilization. Biomass and household waste can be handled through a process called thermal desorption and vitrification


I am concerned about the previous submissions for exactly the same incinerator. After NSW Health advice deeming it detrimental to people's health. Our air quality, once the airport is up and running, will be bad enough without adding this on top. This is not 'clean energy just look at the cases overseas for incinerators. I urge you to reconsider this submission and vote against it.

I want ot lodge my submission opposing this project. I am against any incinerator in Western Sydney.

I object to the above proposal to build and operate an incinerator at Eastern Creek on the grounds that my family and myself have lived in this area for over 38 years. We have raised our children here and they too have settled in this area. We are located at the foot of the Blue Mountains and as such have experienced pollution in high volumes gets trapped in this area this causing a range of illnesses eg asthma, skin allergies and other illnesses causing upper respiratory problems. We do not need anymore pollution in our area and I’m sure there are many other sites not in residential areas in NSW than can be used for this purpose.

As a resident approximately 3km from the proposed facility I object to this proposal.
The eastern creek landfill site (close to the proposed site) exudes noxious smells throughout summer and to a lesser extend over cooler months.
I am concerned that winds from the same general direction will carry stack exhaust across Minchinbury and surrounds in a similar manner, imposing unwanted smells or micro particles of burnt gases across our suburbs.
In addition, the condition of Walgrove road and its traffic burden is already unsafe. Adding additional trucks to bring in the garbage, remove the captured metals, bottom ash and the cleaning stack ash will add unwanted traffic to the surrounding road network which is in disrepair.
This type of energy from waste is untested in Australia, and relies on a steady (or increasing) source of waste, leading to lower incentive for residents, businesses, councils and governments to increase recycling efforts and reduce waste. In turn, more "new" sources of waste (i.e. new production of plastics etc) is required.
Rather than burn waste, I would encourage greater emphasis on minimising packaging of products, improved access to viable recycling programs, community education, and making product packaging from more easily recycled content.
Bottom ash is a concentrated form of waste which is very toxic and would add to the dangerous goods being moved by truck to a suitable secure landfill site.
If the purpose of this proposal is to create energy, we should be looking at renewable energy sources rather than "waste creating" solutions that rely on maintaining existing MWS volume.
If the purpose is to reduce waste going to landfill, better waste minimisation strategies should be employed (green waste bins, split bins for hard/soft plastics to make recycling soft plastics more accessible).

I live in Minchinbury and object to this proposal. This should not be close to residential areas. The long term impact on health and safety is unknown but the short term is poor. We already have a strong and offensive odur coming across our community regularly from the existing rubbish tip and industrial area. There is noticable effects on people with headaches and breathing difficulties when this odur is around. We don't need anymore. This new proposal will not solve the problem, the small particles that it produces are not good for people. The community of western Sydney don't need to have this here. I think it is concerning that this project is considered so close to residential areas as well as the industrial area that is growing at eastern creek where people will work daily. The area the fallout from the proposed site covers thousands of people and I don't think it should be built in any residential/high industrial area. There are alternatives to managing our waste that aren't as harmful to the community. Please do not allow this

It is bad enough that Western Sydney residents are going to cop the brunt of the Nancy Bird Walton pollution.

This incinerator will further compound the pollution concerntration in the Western Sydney basin.
Western Sydney continues to be the dumping ground of Greater Sydney.
If this project is approved, an ICAC investigation is warranted and will be requested.