A number of residents have been told that Suez’s incinerator is a “done deal” and will go ahead irrespective of what objections are raised by residents. This is NOT the case!

So what’s the approval process??

Once Suez has submitted its Environment Impact Study (EIS), the Dept of Planning will call for residents opposing (or not) the proposal to lodge their submissions. If the Dept receive enough objections, we can apply for a hearing at the Land & Environment Court. That’s happened to TNG’s proposed incinerator for Eastern Creek.

That proposal was knocked back in 2018 and is on the way to being knocked back for a second time.

Some residents also think the new intersection and traffic lights installed just next to OPAL’s site is to allow truck access for SUEZ’s incinerator.

This is also NOT the case – this intersection is to allow access to a new warehouse complex being built in the area and has nothing to do with Suez’s proposed incinerator.

So prepare for a long fight to stop Suez and Opal’s madness and in the meantime see how to lodge objections to the relevant NSW Govt ministers and local pollies here:


  1. The rush toward reinstalling incinerators with much the same technology that spread cancer throughout Sudney from the 1930s to 1996 seems to be in response to the flattening out of the Waste Heirarchy in the ” waste to energy” policy by the EPA in 2015. The heirarchy is a device used to find the best/highest use for waste, and normally goes, in descending order of merit: 1 waste avoidance ( stop manufacturing items that quickly become waste like plastic packaging); 2 re-use waste ( second hand shops, charities that find new homes for your unwanted stuff); 3 recycle ( which is increasingly interpreted in the worst possible way like recycling plastic bottles into plastic pellets to be used as really dirty and toxic fuel, but used to mean turning old bottles back into new ones and the like); 4 recovery ( mostly now interpreted as recovering the embodied energy in waste by burning it to create electricity 3 times dirtier than coal power. could do much better here); 5 treatment ( for stuff that is too toxic or problematic to be dealt with by 2, 3, or 4; usually by burning it which doesn’t solve the problem but only spreads the poison further afield than: 6 disposal or landfilling.

    The EPA WtE policy of 2015 replaced this heirarchy with 1 waste avoidance; 2345, reuse and recycling on the same level as burning and composting (which was abandoned in 2018 due to poor sorting of inputs which could have been improved but wasn’t); 6 landfilling. Putting clean options that create more jobs and a safer environment on the same level with poisonous cancer factories has opened the door to toxic incineration on a potentially vast scale, covered by a figleaf of small scale and very expensive energy generation by putting a kettle on top of a tyre fire and calling that “green energy” when it very clearly isn’t. If the 2011 planning legislation rewrite and the 2015 EPA policy didn’t go out of their way to prioritise poisonous and polluting waste dispersal ( spreading toxins far and wide to be dumped in our lungs as microparticles), instead of getting serious about how we deal with our waste by intensifying reuse and recycling options and creating sorting centres in Sydney that employed more people, and setting up a remanufacturing sector, we wouldn’t now be threatened with cancer factories masquerading as ” waste to energy” incinerators across Sydney and beyond into the neighbouring regions, being proposed by racketeers with long records of violating waste industry and environmental standards.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: