support the submission by Blacktown City Council, which opposes the construction of a large energy from waste incinerator at Eastern Creek.
Like Council, I believe there are still significant information shortfalls in the Environmental Impact Statement, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be appropriately sorted.
I also believe the current state environmental legislation will not provide the community with sufficient protection from its likely emissions.

support the submission by Blacktown City Council, which opposes the construction of a large energy from waste incinerator at Eastern Creek.
Like Council, I believe there are still significant information shortfalls in the Environmental Impact Statement, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be appropriately sorted.
I also believe the current state environmental legislation will not provide the community with sufficient protection from its likely emissions.

support the submission by Blacktown City Council, which opposes the construction of a large energy from waste incinerator at Eastern Creek.
Like Council, I believe there are still significant information shortfalls in the Environmental Impact Statement, including the source of the waste and the inability of the applicant to guarantee procedures and processes that satisfactorily demonstrate how all waste will be appropriately sorted.
I also believe the current state environmental legislation will not provide the community with sufficient protection from its likely emissions.

What a joke how is this sustainable for the future of this planet let alone the actual people living on it. You need to seriously rethink your company's plan and desires to make money over the cost of a families loved one.

Please do not allow the construction of this incerator. The pollution and odour over Erskine Park will be intolerable. The constant smell of smoke is disgusting and dangerous. Erskine Park constantly already cops the smell from the tip sometimes on a daily occurrence and this incinerator is even closer.

I OBJECT to the construction of the Blacktown incinerator for the following reasons:
- health hazards to residents due to air pollution. I just had a baby and now I am deeply concerned that with the incinerator, our environment will not be as safe for families, young children and the elderly.
- insufficient report on the effectiveness of building an incinerator. It is not worth putting the the suburban communities at risk. If a waste management infrastructure is inevitable, it should be built away, FAR AWAY from residential communities.
- environmental impact. Australia should be leading the way in environmental initiatives. There should be more research done to look for alternatives to manage our waste than spending it on building an incinerator that will affect the natural landscape of communities.

I object to this propsal due to concerns about how close to residential areas. There is already a waste facility near the proposed site which has air pollution concerns.

I have attended two meetings to hear the proponents and see their presentation of the proposed facility.

The guarantees that were offered seem to have many flaws, and did not account for human error, or intentional breaches of procedure.

For instance:

1. The air quality is not constantly monitored, but samples are taken only periodically from the exhaust stacks. This allows dangerous fumes to pass through - which may or may not be detected by the EPA. And at any rate, once the damage is done, it's too late.

2. There can be no guarantees that toxic rubbish such as asbestos will not find their way into the incinerator.

3. The highly toxic ash and captured particulates that are produced cannot be 100% contained, and there are no measures proposed to monitor them entering the environment. Encasing the ash in concrete is expensive, and so will most likely be transported interstate to be buried. When the inevitable truck accident occurs, the spilled ash will result in a major environmental disaster. Even if the ash is buried on-site, by it's nature, like any dust particles, it will be impossible to contain within the facility. Either way, the ash will eventually find it's way everywhere, and end up in our water ways.

4. Nano particles cannot be filtered, but will fill the air we breathe. There needs to be more research done on what type of nano particles will be produced and their effects on human health. At any rate, there is no way of filtering these particles, and they cannot in any way be deemed harmless.

I find that the proponent's "guarantees" should be more properly referred to as "promises". As a resident living close to the Erskine Park Business Area, I can attest to many environmental promises being broken all the time. From 24 hour noise, smells, and excessive amounts of trucks which are often seen speeding and end up in horrific accidents. These are all difficult to control and from my personal experience, the EPA has not been helpful or effective in resolving these issues, and won't be able to keep this facility in check.

This facility is also an embarrassing and tragic departure from true green energy production and recycling efforts which are proving to be truly effective.

To summarise, I find there are too many risks involved in this facility and it represents a huge step backward for Sydney, and Australia. I therefore believe this proposal should be denied outright.

I am objecting to the building of the proposed incinerator at eastern creek due to health risks to residents in residing suburbs. I am concerned on the pollution risks and how that will impact on property value.

I object to the proposed development.
It is beyond belief that such a development even be considered being built so close to residential areas. Our home in Minchinbury is within 1km of the proposed incinerator.
There is a primary school as well as several pre-school day care centres within our suburb. Prospect Reservoir (Sydney Water's back-up water supply) is approx 6 kms away.
TNG admit in their EIS that there will be low toxic emissions within safe limits but how can anyone beleive this when their figures are based on modelling - using information from much smaller developments overseas. This intended development is far bigger than any that has so far been built anywhere before.
The figures based on their modelling cannot be guaranteed to be achievable and we all know that modelling can be flawed.
Whilst there is any doubt as to the impact of the emissions on the health of nearby residents (indeed the whole of Western Sydney) the potential risk far outweighs any benefits of their so called "green power".
TNG have referred to waste to energy incinerators operating in Western Europe and use them and their technology as the basis for this proposed development.
However the European Commission's recent communication (26/1/17) on the role of waste to energy in the circular economy is a clear signal for Central and Eastern European authorities (who have virtually no incinerators) that the priority is now prevention and recycling and not waste incineration.
We here in Australia should take heed of this direction, re-evaluate our recycling processes and not develop any incinerators.
TNG is proposing to spend millions of dollars on a development the likes of which the Europeans are now moving away from. A development which is totally inappropriate for our area and should not be any where near residential areas.