Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility

I am writing to provide a very strong objection to the Plastics project planned for moss Vale. The proposal is full of hearsay an unsubstantiated suggestive procedures protocol and suggested machinery that may or may not be supplied and installed. In other words, the council would have little or no guarantee from the applicant that the machines and the output from them will genuinely meet an appropriate health standard. rendering the council and the supplier liable in the future for any health issues that people may experience in the future.
if this is to be done properly then a study should be commenced on an existing factory to gain real facts and figures on the pollution and output for the factory prior to submission.
The parts per million that are suggested are not guaranteed to be a minimum or maximum, either way this level of pollution is unacceptable for the people living in the areas and the environment that surrounds Moss vale.

furthermore, the planned trucks accessing the areas are too big and will greatly impact the road infostructure and the people of moss vale, increasing traffic risks for adults and children alike.
I strongly oppose this suggested development on health and safety of me and my family.

I am writing to express my extreme opposition to the Plasrefine proposal in Moss Vale. As a long-term local resident of over a decade who relocated from Sydney seeking the pristine and rural lifestyle that this region offers, I strongly believe that this proposed facility threatens the very essence of our community and its natural surroundings. My Family resides on a property that directly overlooks the proposed site, and I have witnessed firsthand the significant concerns associated with this project.

The rural environment around their property, which initially attracted me to this area, will undoubtedly be decimated if this facility is approved. I contend that this site is wholly inappropriate for such a development, given the manifold negative impacts it would bring. These detrimental consequences encompass increased traffic, visual disruption, noise pollution, odorous emissions, water contamination, and severe social and environmental repercussions that far outweigh any potential public benefit.

The proponent, GHD, has displayed a concerning lack of engagement with and understanding of our local community throughout the proposal process. Their approach has been marked by rudeness, ignorance, dismissiveness, and offense, indicating a significant disconnect with the values and needs of our community. It appears that they have neglected to consider the nature of this site adequately at the time of its purchase. Consequently, I firmly believe that this location is entirely unsuitable for a project of this nature, both at present and in the foreseeable future. The current development submissions are riddled with flaws and will, I am confident, be deemed inappropriate and negligent for a facility of this nature in this proposed location.

Our area is home to a substantial number of permanent residents, whose lives and property values would be adversely affected by the approval of this proposal. The expected surge in traffic, including staff vehicles and heavy haulage trucks, would compromise the health and safety of residents in what is currently a peaceful country community. The visual impact, with immense buildings ill-suited to the site, would irreparably mar the picturesque rural landscape that has defined this region for generations. Furthermore, the environmental consequences are deeply concerning, with the release of excessive light, noise, and toxic pollutants into the air and water systems. This poses a direct threat to the Sydney water catchment area, which is interconnected with the proposed site. Thousands of residents and students to the east, who depend on this water source, would be exposed to airborne and waterborne pollution. Moreover, the site's proximity to the Wingecarribee River, which ultimately feeds into Sydney's drinking water, is a matter of grave concern.

Moss Vale and the broader Southern Highlands region are thriving residential and tourism communities. However, the implementation of this proposal would overwhelm the already stressed and congested road networks, adversely affecting local businesses and the livelihoods of thousands of people.

In light of these concerns, I implore local and state authorities to exercise due diligence in safeguarding our communities by halting any further progress on this or similar projects that are manifestly ill-suited to the proposed site. Our own NSW GOVERNMENT SITE: visitnsw.com states that “the Southern Highlands have long been a draw for travelers, known for their lush landscapes, charming villages, and a burgeoning community of food producers, winemakers, retailers, and hoteliers. These factors continue to make our region an ideal destination for rest and rejuvenation”. Again, this proposal is in juxtaposition to the socioecological, socioeconomic general nature of the Southern Highlands, as stated by our own State Government who will ultimately make this decision. Surely to approve any such development would be to be in contra to their own claims about our area! This must be acknowledged and actioned accordingly by the people entrusted to make the correct decision for the people of the Southern Highlands. This proposal must be denied and not consume any more time or energy, or cause any more distress to the local and broader NSW community!

I appreciate your attention to this pressing matter and trust that you will consider the best interests of our community and our environment in your decision-making process. Our region's well-being is in your hands, and we are relying on your commitment to our community's future.

Burning plastic releases harmful pollutants and emissions into the environment throughout every step of the process. Diesel trucks haul enormous amounts of plastic to an incineration facility, where, when burned, releases billows of greenhouse gases to the air. Not only is the smoke from burning plastic filled with climate change-accelerating gasses, but it also contains carcinogens.

The toxic chemicals released during burning include nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and polycyclic organic matter (POMs). Burning plastic also releases heavy metals and toxic chemicals and toxic gases like dioxins, furans, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (better known as BCPs) into the atmosphere, and poses a threat to vegetation, and human and animal health.

Plastic fumes can lead to an increased risk of heart disease, respiratory side effects such as aggravated asthma, skin irritations, headaches, nervous system damage, and other organ damage such as the kidney, liver, and reproductive system.

Burning plastic is not a recycling solution; it’s more pollution.

I can’t believe we are even contemplating this in our beautiful community, so close to residential areas, animal habitats and the Gavin intuition.

I object to this project. Please see attached document for more details.

The project is not appropriate for the location for many reasons.
My major concern is contamination of Sydney Water supply.
The project is less than 2km from the Wingecarribee River which directly flows into the Sydney water supply.
Highly toxic waste water will be stored on sight and will likely leach into tribrutary creeks and into the Wingercarribee river thus contaminating Syndey Water Catchment areas.

I vehemently oppose the proposal for the 'Plasrefine' development in Moss Vale!

The site is situated within the town boundary of Moss Vale and not 2.8km North of Moss Vale as stated and is completely unsuitable for this kind of development. It is within 50m of existing homes. Moss Vale and the Southern Highlands are tranquil, quiet locations, attracting residents who appreciate the rural ambience and wish to move away from cities and large-scale industrial sites. The proposed buildings (of which there are only concepts provided, no detailed architectural drawings) have an extremely large footprint, taking up 6 hectares out of 7.7 hectares. This is an overdevelopment of the land and leaves little room for any type of landscaping to screen the buildings, given the riparian zone restrictions. As a result, the scenic quality of the existing rural landscape will be forever lost. Not the Right Site.

The development jeopardises local road safety. The roads proposed for use whilst construction of Braddon Rd is underway are not suitable and the estimation of two months for the construction of Braddon Rd seems immensely unrealistic. The roads in the vicinity of the site are narrow, do not have paved footpaths for pedestrian traffic and are mostly without formed concrete guttering. Pedestrians use the roadway in these streets, namely Beaconsfield Rd and Lytton Rd. The traffic study fails to take account of the school bus routes. Bus stops in the Southern Highlands are mostly unmarked (unlike big cities), and there are several stops along Lytton Rd (not just at the intersection with Berrima Rd). Children use these streets to walk to their homes to and from the bus stops, with parents also dropping off/picking up in their vehicles. Lytton Rd and Beaconsfield Rd are direct walking/cycling routes to St Paul’s Primary in Garrett St, with parents with prams needing to walk along the road due to the lack of paved footpaths. There is a long day-care centre in Beaconsfield Rd, near the intersection with Bulwer Rd. The report mentions these roads would be used for site access, if there are delays to the building of Braddon Rd. The traffic report fails to take account of the school bus route using Lackey Road. The report mentions that construction vehicles will use Berrima Rd, Lytton Rd and Beaconsfield Rd, but does not make any mention of how these vehicles will arrive onto Berrima Rd Argyle Street Moss Vale (the main street) is already heavily congested during morning, lunchtime, and afternoon peaks, and there is no capacity for further traffic adding to this, in order to access either Lackey Rd or Waite St/Berrima Rd. The population of the area, and subsequently the traffic, have increased significantly due to Sydney migration during COVID – the traffic study was undertaken during COVID times when residents were working from home, and traffic flows would have been less than usual.

The proposed development will negatively impact water and air quality. The volume of increased traffic, both during construction and in operation of the facility, will have a direct input on our air quality, due to increased exhaust emissions. No assessment has been undertaken on light spill. There are inconsistencies within the report with regards to how much waste will be processed into the local sewage system. The amount of water required for the daily processes of the facility is unacceptable for a rural area often facing water restrictions in time of drought. Emission levels in the report are models only. No details have been provided on the proposed air filtering system and residual levels of plastics in the exhaust emission. The local waterways find their way into the Wingecaribee River, which flows to Warragamba Dam and Sydney’s drinking water.

The noise and vibration on the development site will have an adverse effect on the surrounding area and residents. The proposed 24hr operation over 7 days of the week, 44 weeks of the year, with the nearest resident only 150m away, is unfair and detrimental. Furthermore, it would be directly next door to a noise sensitive scientific research facility.

Opportunities for local employment are not quantified, nor the extent of untrained/specialised roles available. The forecast 140 fulltime jobs is projected to take “a number of years” to achieve. The construction itself would likely be undertaken by specialised builders from Sydney, and the opportunity for local employees is not quantified. No Social Impact Statement has been undertaken. The proposed benefit to the community from “increased business” is not quantifiable and is speculative at best.

The representatives of this development have not made serious attempts at community engagement. Early community meetings were highly dictated, with residents not being allowed to ask questions in a public forum. Further community meetings held during the exhibition stage were held in the town of Exeter, in the middle of a significant weather event. This had a direct impact of the ability of Moss Vale residents to attend, especially those who work full time.

The proposed site is Not the Right Site for this type of development, given the lack of easy access, and its immediate vicinity to residential housing. The proponents have shown scant regard for the local residents, community, and Southern Highlands as a whole, and appear to have done little research into our community and its values.

My husband and I have recently moved to Moss Vale from a smaller rural town thinking that we could still enjoy beautiful rural living without polluting industry such as Plasrefine on our doorstep. We are extremely worried about this development for a number of reasons.
This proposed evelopment would sit within the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment on riparian land and a watercourse that runs directly to the Wingecarribee River. There will never ever be a total guarantee that this land and water will not suffer from contamination. Human or mechanical errors do occur and will again yet with this type of industry the results will be disastrous for our water, farm, unfarmed land and residents.

The proximity of this development to Moss Vale, Burradoo and Berrima residents and surrounding rural properties with farm animals is unacceptable. There is a significant risk to air quality (toxic emissions) and odour. With the strong winds we experience any emissions will be impossible to avoid in our towns and schools.
The technical director of Plasrefine has a long history of environmental sanctions in China. How can Naxi Zheng (his nephew) be trusted to operate any differently here in Australia? I have no faith, as time and again we hear of companies covering up spills, hiding problems or delay reporting, where the environment has been impacted.

Noise from the large volume of truck movements for a facility open 24/7. No acceptable road access. The bulk and scale is too big for the site and exhaust stacks are an eyesore in this largely rural and residential area. Light pollution detrimentally effecting our nocturnal wildlife.
The Southern Highlands drew us to Moss Vale in particular because it is a region known for it's beautiful rural landscape, wineries, natural reserves, waterways and tourist activities. A region that is known to every Sydneysider as a tourist destination. A plastics refining industry (and all that entails) does not fit within this locale and would be a total aberration.

At 70 and 64yrs of age we now worry about this proposal and our days are much less joyful. We worry not just for ourselves but for all children and families, farmers and local businesses who live in this beautiful rural landscape and the impact it will have on their lives and livelihoods.

This proposal between a creek and a river, in a floodplain, on riparian land, represents unintelligent planning. Sydneysiders would end up drinking their own plastic nanoparticle waste. The Warragamba Catchment supplies 80% of water to Sydney and Wollongong (also Goulburn in times of drought). Polluting the water source from the top down because the land was cheap, will create a generational biohazard and a disaster for SydneyWater. Clean water is the basis of living organisms, which requires us all to be its protectors.
It would be anathema to be seduced by the idea of recycling, and to evade the latest research, the science is known, plastic nanoparticles are able to pass the blood brain barrier and cause “Scientifically-proven health effects include causing cancer or changing hormone activity (known as endocrine disruption), which can lead to reproductive, growth, and cognitive impairment. Many of the toxic chemical additives have several other known health impacts, persist in the environment, and bioaccumulate in exposed organisms. Research also revealed that microplastics can harm our health, and act as vessels for pathogens to enter our system, increasing the spread of diseases.” (Geneva Environment Network). There is no such thing as a closed system with petrochemical plastic, as toxic chemicals are added at each stage of the “recycling” process.

I would like to lodge a strong objection to the plastic waste recycling factory being proposed for Moss Vale.

The litany of health risks associated with such a plant are frightening. Toxic compounds released by the plastic refining process will find their way into the air, soil and water catchments of the Southern Highlands. It is an environmental, social and cultural disaster waiting to happen if approved. The proposed site encompasses an area of rural and residential areas. It is very close to schools and a day care centre. We cannot risk the health of locals and their families just so a huge corporation can rake in some profits.

Moss Vale is the fastest growing region in the Wingecarribee shire. Families are moving here in unprecedented numbers. With population and development booming, it makes no sense to build a massive plastic recycling plant just a five-minute drive from the main street (Argyle).

The background and business practices of those behind Plasrefine are highly questionable. They have no interest in serving and collaborating with the local community. The owners of the company have a history of environmental breaches on their resume.
The community engagement on the project has been pitiful. It has been extremely difficult to have any conversations with Plasrefine. For such a huge project that will impact so many, there has been a disturbing lack of transparency throughout the entire process. It is very hard to argue that the building of this plant will contribute in any meaningful way to the local economy. On the contrary, it has the potential to do irrevocable harm to businesses and industry across the Southern Highlands.

The micro-plastics and toxins entering the air, land and water, the ever-present risk of fire at the plant, the hundreds of trucks and heavy-vehicles clogging up local roads, the potentially devastating effects on the local economy, the livelihoods threatened of the thousands who work in thriving tourism, agriculture and hospitality industries. The Southern Highlands is not the place for this factory.

We beg you to consider the welfare and health of Southern Highlands communities who will be impacted by this plant. There are just too many potential health risks and massive disruptions to allow a factory of this scale and operational methods to proceed.
It is the wrong site in the wrong town.

I appreciate you giving my objection serious consideration.

Sincerely, Jeremy Waters

Refer attached document for comments

I am making a submission in strenuous opposition to the Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility SSD—9409987. I write as a local resident of the southern highlands and also as a person who has used Beaconsfield Road on a regular basis for the last few years.

I have a great many concerns with regard to the impact to the community and the environment. I have been surprised by the lack of consultation within the community by the consulting company GHD, and what would seem to be a lack of genuine desire to understand the social impact of this development on the community. It is abundantly clear the community object to this proposal.

I am also concerned that by the director’s own admission, she has no experience in plastic recycling and nor does the Chief Technical Operator, Mr Lyu Yalin. Also the fact that this site was selected mainly due to the fact the land was for sale and “affordable”? I believe that the Director of Plasrefine, Nanxi Zheng, admitted that she and her uncle Mr Lyu have only visited recycling facilities in China, this is their only experience of the industry. This lack of experience does not give confidence to the community that the proponents are capable of the successful construction and operation of such a contentious and potentially harmful facility, never mind the impression of corruption or money laundering.

The scale and purpose of the proposal is highly unsuitable for the site, situated adjacent to sensitive land uses such as the Garvan Institute, residential homes, childcare centre, a school, and on cattle farming land. I use Beaconsfield road frequently and it is tree lined and narrow it will require widening and the removal of habitat trees to allow for this. Of concern to me is the road and transport access. If approved, this project will have up to 200 truck movements per day in a residential area along narrow, unsurfaced (in places) country roads that service multiple residential properties. The proposal advises that a new access road be provided that extends from the plastics recycling and reprocessing facility site to Lackey Road via the currently unformed Braddon Road traversing Lot 1 DP 26490 (77 Beaconsfield Road) and Lot 10 1084421, owned and occupied by the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

I also note that the proposal requires an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) to be obtained, and although this determination is separate to the DA process, consideration must be given to whether the applicant is considered to be a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

The Garvan Institute employs many locals and provides a vital service to research institutes across Australia and around the world. Any adverse exposure to any of the factors on this facility could have long lasting impacts on the vital research these institutes are carrying out. It is concerning that Plasrefine and their consultant GHD have left out any mention of Garvan Institute from their consultation strategy and subsequent materials.

With no detailed site surveys included in the EIS, it is difficult to understand how the proposal will navigate the difficulties of this site without causing significant and ongoing impacts on surrounding land uses, and the water table. I believe there are claims it will do it’s own water harvesting from the roof, but as we are heading into an El Niño weather pattern I am not sure how they are going to satisfy their water needs, never mind the inevitable toxic waste water.

Finally, I am deeply concerned that anyone can propose a hazardous project on the cheapest land they can find, in the most inappropriate location. The negative impacts of the development, including traffic, visual, noise, odour, water and the social impacts on community far outweigh any other public benefit that such a development can offer and which can be better utilised on a site more suitable in an already industrial area with suitable transport corridors. Obviously we need to use far fewer plastic resources and to recycle the very difficult to avoid plastic we are already using, however I think we need to find a far more suitable site. Given what we know so far I oppose this development and ask the proposal be refused for the reasons cited.

Dear Emma Barnet (Industry Assessments),
RE: Proposed Plasrefine Plastics Recycling Facility 74-76 Beaconsfield Rd Moss Vale NSW 2577
 SSD Application No – 9409987

I am making a submission in opposition to the above-mentioned State Significant Development by Plasrefine Recycling Pty Ltd.

I live in the Southern Highlands, near Moss Vale, and I am very concerned about the proposed toxic Plastic Waste Facility at 74-76 Beaconsfield Rd Moss Vale.

I object the proposal Facility on a number of points:

1. Lack on details regarding community and indigenous impact assessment. Being only 200 metres from residences, the impact from dust noise, vibration, smell, toxic fumes, traffic, light polution, wastewater, needs to be properly undertaken.

2. Lack of details on environmental impact assessment. Insufficient details on impact to ground water, wildlife, native vegetation. Massive use of water in the facility processing is totally unacceptable.

3. The Southern Highlands is an ecologically sensitive area. It has large riparian land and watercourse that flows directly to the Wingecarribee river and into the Sydney Water Catchment. There is potential for irreversible damage to the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment. There is a lack of detail on process water outputs.

4. The Southern Highlands is a beautiful region that relies on tourism for it's economy. The scale of the facility is a ridiculously large and completely inappropriate for such a region of renowned beauty. 22m high exhaust stacks will be an eyesore, apart from the disastrous environmental impacts.

5. The proposed operator of the facility has no corporate history/experience in plastics recycling. One of the key parties involved, Beijing-based businessman Lyu Yalin owns companies that have been censured by Beijing’s Environmental and Ecological Bureau. Are these the kinds of people we want to run a toxic recycling plant in an environmentally sensitive area?

6. Highly toxic emissions in a populated and agriculturally productive area. Emissions containing microplastics and health impacting chemicals will lead to a bioaccumulation of toxins in the environment. Toxins in the plastic dust, toxics in water, potential for spills and accidents, lack of details about the 'deodoriser' proposed to wash plastic all require careful analysis, and detailed impact assessment.

I am extremely concerned about this proposed plastic waste project. I can't even begin to fathom how a large scale plastics recycling plant is being proposed in a beautiful town like Moss Vale, in the renowned beautiful pristine area of the Southern Highlands. If Sydney needs its plastics recycled, why doesn't it build a large high emissions facility in its own back yard? No one wants Sydney's plastics recycled in the Southern Highlands!

Instead of a recycling plant, what about reducing plastic production in the first place. Stop use of plastics at the source?! The NSW and Federal governments need to change laws to make manufacturers move to biodegradable and composable 'plastic alternatives' asap. Phase out plastics - move to bio-friendly alternatives asap. The sooner this is done, the sooner we won't even need to deal with a growing plastics issue.

Recycling plastic is not the answer. Reducing plastics and innovation to non-toxic biodegradable 'plastic alternatives' IS the answer.

Yours sincerely,
Leesa Daniels

There are many reasons to object to this project, and there have already been some good submissions outlining the reasons why it should be rejected.
We all agree it is a necessary project - its just being located in the wrong site.
This sort of facility should be built within or adjacent to an existing waste recycling and sorting plant, to reduce transportation of plastics.
It is ludicrous to build a facility to assist with recycling and yet locate it hundreds of kms away from the source of the recycling material, requiring hundreds of large diesel trucks each day to transport plastics to the facility, and then another set of trucks to carry the plastic pellets away from the factory.
Technical Report#9, in the EIS, is reason alone to reject this project.
It highlights the fact that there will be an estimate of 200 trucks a day transporting plastics in both directions, as the same truck can't deliver plastic and take away product.
Their conservative estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from the trucks alone is 18,294 tCO 2-e per year (which I believe is an under estimation).
NSW total emissions are 141 mill tCO 2-e per year, which they are hoping to reduce to 78 mill by 2030.
The emissions from the truck movements of this project alone, let alone electricity etc, will make up a significant amount of the total NSW emissions, which is a huge percentage for something that could be avoided by sensible choice of location.
It is also unlikely that the truck movement projections are either accurate or correct.
There is no policing of the directive of a maximum of 10 trucks in peak hour, and it is unlikely that truck movements will not occur on weekends despite claims that they will only transport monday to friday - the facility will be operating 24 hours a day, and one would assume, like most companies, there will be a desite to push the boundaries.
The traffic route selected, which has been changed multiple times, is still unsuitable for the massive number of large trucks that will be using it. The road surfaces are already poor and they are not suitable for a continual parade of large haulage trucks.
There are several rail crossings to be made, some of which can result in delays when trains are operating. It is not unreasonable to assume that there will be delays in truck arrivals and, with 200 truck movements a day, potential traffic issues with trucks backed up and waiting.
This project does not comply with NSW Govt DPIE's Net Zero Plan - it is ridiculous that we are even considering carrying plastic waste from Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra and transporting it in diesel heavy vehicles through narrow country roads constantly for 11 hours a day, and then bringing separate trucks in to pick up the plastic pellets and ship them back to manufacturing plants in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra.
The CO2 emissions alone negate any benefit that will arrive from plastic recycling.
1 tonne of PET recycling equates to a reduction of 1.2kg CO 2-e .
Therefore, the facility won't even break even from a carbon reduction viewpoint until they are operating at over 75,000 tonnes a year of plastic, which is not guaranteed.

This recycling plant is a great idea - if it is located adjacent to a sorting facility within a capital city where the waste is mainly generated. It is a secondary processing facility, and by definition needs to be located within an existing industrial area close to a plastic recycling source. If it was close to a primary recycling facility, you would minimise truck movements and vastly improve the environmental benefits.

I am making a submission in strenuous opposition to the Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility SSD—9409987. I write as a local resident of the southern highlands and also as a person who has used Beaconsfield Road on a regular basis for the last few years.

I have a great many concerns with regard to the impact to the community and the environment. I have been surprised by the lack of consultation within the community by the consulting company GHD, and what would seem to be a lack of genuine desire to understand the social impact of this development on the community. It is abundantly clear the community object to this proposal.

I am also concerned that by the director’s own admission, she has no experience in plastic recycling and nor does the Chief Technical Operator, Mr Lyu Yalin. Also the fact that this site was selected mainly due to the fact the land was for sale and “affordable”? I believe that the Director of Plasrefine, Nanxi Zheng, admitted that she and her uncle Mr Lyu have only visited recycling facilities in China, this is their only experience of the industry. This lack of experience does not give confidence to the community that the proponents are capable of the successful construction and operation of such a contentious and potentially harmful facility.

The scale and purpose of the proposal is highly unsuitable for the site, situated adjacent to sensitive land uses such as the Garvan Institute, residential homes, childcare centre, a school, and on cattle farming land. I use Beaconsfield road frequently and it is tree lined and narrow it will require widening and the removal of habitat trees to allow for this. Of concern to me is the road and transport access. If approved, this project will have up to 200 truck movements per day in a residential area along narrow, unsurfaced (in places) country roads that service multiple residential properties. The proposal advises that a new access road be provided that extends from the plastics recycling and reprocessing facility site to Lackey Road via the currently unformed Braddon Road traversing Lot 1 DP 26490 (77 Beaconsfield Road) and Lot 10 1084421, owned and occupied by the Garvan Institute of Medical Research.

I also note that the proposal requires an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) to be obtained, and although this determination is separate from the DA process, consideration must be given to whether the applicant is considered to be a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

The Garvan Institute employs many locals and provides a vital service to research institutes across Australia and around the world. Any adverse exposure to any of the factors on this facility could have long lasting impacts on the vital research these institutes are carrying out. It is concerning that Plasrefine and their consultant GHD have left out any mention of Garvan Institute from their consultation strategy and subsequent materials.

With no detailed site surveys included in the EIS, it is difficult to understand how the proposal will navigate the difficulties of this site without causing significant and ongoing impacts on surrounding land uses, and the water table. I believe the plant will do it’s own water harvesting from the roof but as we are heading into an El Niño weather pattern I am not sure how they are going to satisfy their water needs.

Finally I am deeply concerned that anyone can propose a potentially hazardous project on the cheapest land they can find, in the most inappropriate location. The negative impacts of the development, including traffic, visual, noise, odour, water and the social impacts on community far outweigh any other public benefit that such a development can offer and which can be better utilised on a site more suitable. I realise we need to use far fewer plastic resources and to recycle the plastic we are using however I think we ned to find a far more suitable site. Given what we know so far I oppose this development and ask the proposal be refused for the reasons cited.

We object strongly to the proposal . Please refer to attachment.

l am making a submission in opposition to the above-mentioned State Significant Development by Plasrefine Recycling Pty Ltd.

I live in Moss Vale, and I'm hugely concerned about the proposed Plastic Recycling Facility at 74-76 Beaconsfield Rd Moss Vale.

Firstly because the proprietors readily concede that they have no experience in this area and did not consider the adequacy or appropriateness of this site when purchasing - just that it was the right size and zoning. This is still a country town.

The lack of experience is extremely evident from the number of submissions required by Plasrefine, the amount of time taken to respond to key issues and the lack of detail still remaining at this stage. GHD the consultant also appear to be just carelessly ticking boxes for their client rather than actually thinking about the impact this huge and hazardous facility is going to have on our small town (eg the proposal which has since been revised, to put an access route for trucks on a school road!). It is extremely alarming that details are still being firmed up by Plasrefine on levels of noise, dust, smell, traffic, employees, pollution, toxicity.

The directors of Plasrefine and the company itself are all heavily involved and related to companies sanctioned in China for environmental infringements. The technical director of Plasrefine shares directorship with their uncle (a known corporate polluter in China) of a company that holds the patent for the Plasrefine logo, and the deodoriser proposed to wash the plastic in.

This is our life. Our children’s lives. Our businesses, schools and livelihoods. The long term health effects of this activity are not yet known - just because we don’t live in the city doesn’t make our health less important. Cancer and respiratory diseases in particular are a big worry with the fumes being created. Please do not condemn us to having this toxic and hazardous facility in our backyard. This is truly not the right site.

Even if there is little concern because we are a regional town and far enough away from Sydney for decision makers to dismiss - this is still a Sydney water area.

If Plasrefine get this wrong (which is likely with no experience and a box ticking consultant)… even one mistake will cause catastrophic damage which is irreversible. It will be irreversible not just due to the nature and volume of chemicals being used and created at this facility, but also because we are still a regional town and our emergency response resources and teams reflect this. We do not have dedicated HAZMAT resources in the WSC local government area and no permanently manned fire stations - they are on call! So if an emergency occurs - we are not adequately prepared to respond to something of this nature - efforts to prevent and contain will be too late.

We will be stuck with toxic land, waterways and fumes, fire hazards (plastics recycling facility fires have been relatively frequent over the last 12 months) and roads which are even more congested.

I would urge any decision makers to take a drive through moss vale on any given day - it is already extremely busy. Adding numerous trucks per day is going to exacerbate that terribly.

In addition to negatively impacting our health, community, traffic, tourism, safety and amenities - it’s difficult to see how this wouldn’t also negatively affect our land values (smell, dust, 24/7 operational noise - all proven to adversely affect land prices) and for what - so that a select few business owners can profit at the expense of an entire community? The buildings are disproportionately large to their surrounds without sufficient landscaping/screening - 22M EXHAUST STACKS!

In my view, it would be absolutely insane and reckless to gamble with the future of our town and its residents by allowing this to progress further. We are a popular tourist destination known for our beautiful environment, wildlife, agricultural activities, wineries and small communities/villages - this development is really not in keeping with any of that, because it is not the right site.

Please do not subject us to this - the thought of this being approved is absolutely horrifying.

Please see attached

See attached document

I request my name be withheld .

As a long term Wingecarribee Shire resident and also a small business owner with food production facility within short distance of the proposed plastics recycling facility, I hereby submit my strong objections to this development on a number of grounds:

Not the right Site
1. The sheer scale and size and impact of this facility is completely out of place with respect to what is meant to be a buffer zone between residential and rural zonings and nearby industrial land. A facility that will be one of the largest of its kind in the country simply should be well separated from rural and residential land by kilometres, not mere metres. The impact on nearby residents and businesses of such a huge sale commercial operation is simply unacceptable. It follows that such a facility, while possibly a worthwhile and value adding entity, should be established at a site where impacts on neighbours, the environment and the amenity of an area are minimised beyond any doubt.
2. Contamination of Sydney’s drinking water and the riparian zone, is an unacceptable risk to millions. The site in question is a collection area for local watercourses that flows into catchment. The risk of microplastics and worse from operations leaching/escaping into the surrounding areas is exceedingly high.
3. Possible contamination of surrounding farms, vineyards and businesses through emissions that have not been specified as to how they will be controlled. With many light industrial businesses in the vicinity, including some producing food, the risk of toxic emissions and particulates once again cannot be justified from a site perspective. These businesses are an integral part of the backbone of the local economy and may be severely compromised by the impact of 24/7 emissions, irrespective of how high an emissions stack may be. Food production areas may be easliy containated by emissions and who is going to be responsible for any health consequenes should this occur?
4. An important local facility is the Garvan Institute with its critical medical research, dependent on clean air and a low noise/vibration environment. Mice (used extensively in this facility) are susceptible to vibration & noise levels above 60 decibels. Heavy trucks measure 80d and will be operating almost continuously should the development proceed. In the construction phase this will be even worse - with excavators, compactors, heavy machinery etc. and considerable dust impacting Garvan operations only 30 m from the site and an approved DA for expansion puts it even closer on the border.
5. The area is subject to prevailing westerly winds which would carry any emissions towards Bowral and Burradoo, with increasing populations, schools, hospital, etc.

Not the right proponent

1. The operational and safety success of this facility is reliant on adherence to the safety regulations by a proponent already fined in China (apparently multiple times) for pollution and building code breaches. This track record should not inspire the confidence of the NSW government that Plasrefine is likely to do the right thing by the people of NSW.
2. Many of the chemicals used to make plastic “…are recognised internationally as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP’s) with the potential to cause serious environmental harm if not managed properly.” Plasrefine , as a new entity and its proponent, has admitted to having NO EXPERIENCE in operating a plastics recycling facility, but has admitted to visiting some of these in China. It seems beyond imagination that an entity with nil track record or relevant experience should be entrusted with abiding by local and state pollution requirements, without any proof of capability being submitted.





Not the right Planning
1. Overall, the detail ( or lack thereof) of planning, contingency planning and safety planning appears at odds with even a local government’s standard requirements, let alone a state Government.
3. There is no plan for the safe removal of 9,000 tonnes of dewatered sludge and no destination specified for this highly toxic waste. Is this something the proponent will just “figure out “when the need presents itself? Clearly the people of NSW deserve a well-researched, practical, environmentally safe and realistic plan for dealing with this significant issue BEFORE any approval is potentially given to proceed with the development
4. There is potential for the operation to be a massive drain on our town’s daily water supply - especially during droughts and bushfires.
5. Local infrastructure risk of failure. For example the transfer of large quantities of wastewater to our sewer system that has not been upgraded as yet to cope with the significant throughput increase
6. There appears to be no survey of the site in any documents presented thus far – with many negative site issues already becoming apparent ( large cut and fill and associated impact, impact on drainage and watercourse management).
7. According to documentation“…all captured air would be piped to air pollution control for treatment prior to being emitted from a stack above the roof.” No mention of what that specific treatment is or whether it’s been tested or approved for use in Australia
8. According to documentation “When the air flow enters the high-voltage electrostatic field, the oil fume gas is ionized, the mist is charged, and MOST of it can be degraded and carbonised. Ozone is generated in the air in the electric field to remove MOST of the odours in the emissions.” Use of the word “ Most” is vague and unspecific where it should be the opposite to ensure that residents, neighbours both near and far away are not endangered or disadvantaged by the facility operations.
9. Of most concern are these statements – “would be complied with DURING operation” and “will be developed AFTER construction”. What are the ramifications if these things ore not complied with ? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be way too late to prevent so called “environmental accidents” affecting nearby towns and populations
10. In the event of a fire, no combination of o local fire brigades are sufficiently well equipped with the gear/personnel required to fight a huge chemical fire in a recycling facility. Such a fire in Picton, Sydney on 23rd Oct. 2023 required an aerial appliance and specialist hazmat operators to control, taking more than 4 hours and 50 trucks to extinguish. This site was 40x70m The Plasrefine building footprint is 8 acres – more than 10 times the size, with huge fuel loads. There would therefore be a significant risk of fire spread also owing the site scale and neighbouring grasslands and open, wind prone areas.
11. There is a significant lack of detail in RTS documents and a lengthy list of anomalies, contradictory statements and unsubstantiated figures Constant reference throughout the documents of critical control components that will be addressed during detailed design. Approval without such detail, given the track record and lack of relevant experience of the proponent is an invitation to a degraded local amenity, decrease in local area liveability and the potential negative impact on the livelihoods and lives of the entire southern highlands population.

This project is not at the right site. It is too close to the residential properties, schools and town centre
1 minute drive to a childcare centre
3 minutes drive to a primary school
4 minutes drive to a college
4.5 minutes drive to another primary school
5 minutes drive to another childcare centre
5 minutes drive to the town centre
Close to all other residential properties within 5 minutes
The polluted air will affect people’s health . It will affect all people living in Moss Vale including surrounding communities in Southern Highlands because we have lots of windy days.
Southern Highlands is a popular destination for the tourists. It will impact our local business and tourism industry.