Anyone building at George's Fair, Moorebank?

Hi all

Welcome to the new forum members and congratulations to all the new residents in Georges Fair

Thanks to all that answered my post about internet etc.

Hi all,

Below is my protest letter:

I submitted both my own and the community petition. This Friday, 8th Nov, is the closing date to voice our objection. Let me know if you want the reference files.

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

Hi Fifi,

Do we have any template for PPR objection this time? Could you please send me one if you get any? Thanks.

Hi All,

Can anyone tell us what you paid for window flyscreens please? We have been given a price of $35 each by a couple of people, just wondering if anyone has done it cheaper than this, and if so, who with?

Thanks.