I 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.

I 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.
Minchinbury is already surrounded by major roads and industry and the proponent has been unable to provide assurance that the safety and quality of life of residents, including my family, living nearby will not be adversely affected.
I also do not believe the proponent has demonstrated that any potential jobs growth or financial benefits outweigh the risks to the community and environment.

I object to the construction of the Minchinbury incinerator.
- Air quality in the area is already poor as is without burning waste
- There are plenty of sites away from residential homes more suitable
- This construction is not in the best interest of the people who would be directly affected

I 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.
Given the intended location of this facility I am concerned about air quality. Here in Seven Hills we are already impacted by the strong odour emitted from the waste disposal site at Eastern Creek, especially when the prevailing wind is from the south-west.
Another concern with air quality is the occurrence of fog during the winter months throughout the Western Sydney Basin. It is not uncommon for fog to be present for a good part of the morning, including days when the fog does not lift at all. Smoke/fumes being emitted from this facility could be trapped by this fog layer and spread throughout the surrounding suburbs - not good for the health of all who live here!

This proposal is not what the Western Sydney residence want or need.

Overall we want to keep the fresh air and water. Thus please do not approve this risky incinerator.

Dear Sir
As a long time Minchinbury resident and active member of the local community, I would like to lodge my strong objections to the "Energy from Waste" incinerator that is proposed for Eastern Creek.

The proposal to build such a facility within 800 metres of homes and within a 1.5 km radius of schools, pre-schools, hospitals, nursing homes and sporting fields should mean that this proposal should rejected.

That the revised EIS states "The proposed Facility may release substances to atmosphere which have the potential to harm human health" should be enough to make anyone looking at this proposal to cease considering it as a safe or viable way to produce electricity.

The threat to the health of the public in Western Sydney cannot be gambled with. This must not be allowed to happen.
The fact that from 1.1 million tonnes of garbage there will be 45,000 tonnes per annum of fine airborne ash produced and 400,000 tonnes per annum of bottom (wet) ash produced shows that this process is not "green". You do not get rid of one problem by creating another environment disaster in its place.

The bottom ash itself is toxic. It was previously proposed to be used in road base but the new EIS has acknowledged that this is not able to be done due to its toxicity. Where do we safely dispose of this? When originally asked the owner, Mr Mallouf was not willing to provide an answer. When further pushed on the issue he stated that it may go to the SITA site at Kemps Creek. Obviously, no one really knows what we can do with an ever-growing pile of toxic ash and how it can be safely stored.

The impact from the sheer number of trucks required to bring the garbage to feed the incinerator will be huge. There are already issues with local roads and traffic congestion. Wallgrove Road, which is the main feeder road into the estate where the facility is proposed to be built, is already overloaded during peak periods.

Despite assurances from the developers that there will be minimal odours coming from the site. The fact that they are proposing to develop a site within 800 metres of local housing means that there will be impact from odours released from the garbage being dumped at the site for incineration. The facility is not air tight and will obviously release odours. Minchinbury and Erskine Park residents are already affected by odours from the existing tip that is much further away and obviously local homes will be affected by a facility much closer to them. We have now been advised that the incinerators' condensers cannot work in temperatures above 37 degrees Celsius and as such the incinerator will need to shut down until the air temperature cools. The upshot of this will means that the incinerator will continue to receive garbage and must store the waste until the incinerator can be restarted. One can only image the stench of the pile of rubbish that will need to be stored on hot summer days and nights!

The operators of this site cannot possibly screen what is being fed into the incinerator due to the sheer volume of what is proposed and will only be "spot checking" around 10% of loads. As such they cannot predict what will be produced in terms of chemical airborne pollutants and how they will affect the air quality of nearby suburbs and all Western Sydney.
It was only last month that the EPA sent out Health warnings on air quality in Western Sydney. By adding this pollution making machine to the process the air in Western Sydney will become unbreathable in still, hot summer conditions. Sydney Basin is a known air pollution trap, with little or no "flushing out" by coastal breezes. This project should not be allowed to be built anywhere in Sydney, especially in Western Sydney, due to this.

The "technology" as presented is untried on this scale anywhere in the world. The proposed facility will be larger than anything built in the world. Do we really want our city to become the world's largest science experiment -testing untried technology?

With regards to the site operators, it is public knowledge that the same owners ran a waste transfer site in St Peters and were found, on numerous occasions, to be in breach of environmental standards and were fined accordingly. Do we really want to trust a company with such a record with the health of Western Sydney?

The owners of the site tend to use deceptive language and terminology to try to minimise fears regarding the impact of the polluting effect of this site. One such ploy is to claim that they are "reducing greenhouse gas emissions" by burning waste. Whilst it is true that greenhouse gasses such as methane will be reduced, there are far more insidious pollutants, such as dioxins and chlorides that will be released into the atmosphere by this process. I'm sure that the residents of Bhopal in India believed that Union Carbide's facility was safe to live near as well - 50,000 people poisoned and 3,000 killed can attest to the fact that we CANNOT take developers word as gospel when it comes to environmental impact and safety of such facilities.

With the nearest EPA monitoring facilities being at St Marys and Prospect the nearby local community cannot be guaranteed as to the emissions and pollution in the local area. The proposal for further monitoring closer to the site and the effectiveness of the EPA to monitor this closely and in due time is a major concern. How would nearby residents be warned of any potential toxic (and possibly fatal) releases of gasses in due time? When a company is burning unknown substances how can they be sure what will be released into the atmosphere? In the event of the incinerator needing to be vented (as is the case when emergency shut downs happen) there is no telling what will be output at the time from this incinerator.

In short, this proposed incinerator cannot be allowed to be built in any way shape or form. Even a reduced version of this facility will have huge long term detrimental effects on the air quality and health of all the people in Western Sydney.
I can only pray that our government and its bodies appreciate that they are meant to represent the people of this city, state and country. They should be aware that, above all else, the health and welfare of the people is and should always be their first and main concern. Wisdom does not necessarily come from learning from our mistakes. Let's not make the mistake in the first place!

Stephen Bradbury - Minchinbury resident for over 28 years and committee member of the local soccer club for 14 years.

Dear NSW Government,
With respect, you CANNOT build this Waste Facility as it will be endangering the health and wellbeing of the people in the vicinity. This means that the toxic fumes from the Waste Facility can cause many types of cancer and trigger asthma attacks. I am a student that is within 15 km of the proposed site for the Waste Facility and believe that the NSW government should not just consider the immediate future, but the long term effects of the Waste Facility.

I have read and understood the submission by my local council the Blacktown City Council NSW which opposes the proposal to build energy generation facilities from waste At Eastern Creek. I submit that I strongly support local and scientific reasons given by BCC submission to reject this proposal to. build this energy generation facilities. I am able to articulate my submission in details if required

This facility should not be in a residential area. It also poses threats to health and the environment with the fumes that will emanate from the facility. It's disgusting and most families will move if this happens.

This facility should not be located in the Sydney Metro Area. With the growing population & urban housing sprawl there will be enough added pollution with population transport etc, without adding to it from trucks transport waste to the facility and the pollution generated by the facility. Sydney is a basin & the pollution is held down. I read recently about a lung transplant patient who was having trouble receiving lungs from available transplant donors in Sydney because of the pollution in the lungs of health no smoking adults it was still to great a risk for a transplant. This is only going to get worse as the population increases. This facility should be located in a country area & the rubbish transported by rail to it not road.