Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility

Please see attachment below stating my OBJECTION

I object to the proposal due to the proximity to homes and the toxics that would be emitted from the facility. Also the non stop trucks that would be allowed to pass by a school and within a small country town that does not have the infrastructure to sustain this traffic.

I am 100% opposed to this project.

This facility poses a great health threat to the residents of and visitors to the entire Southern Highlands region. This is not the kind of infrastructure project our local council should be supporting. It’s presence would seriously damage the area, in innumerable ways. I am one of many who feels very strongly that we do not wish for this project to be approved. Please consider the negative impact it would have on those of us who breathe the air. Thank you.

The location for this business will have major impacts on the community. Our roads already dont have the ability to deal with local traffic. The main road in moss vale is already at a stand still every day. We have had many new housing developments approved a completly lack the infrastructure to accommodate the traffic for existing residents and businesses.
The proposed location has trucks consistently driving by schools on already congested roads. Roads that are always potholed and flood. The trucks will have to pass by sporting fields creating additional risks. This facility has no benefits to our community only poses many risks.
Please listen to the community we not only dont want this business in the area more importantly it cannot get its products to and from the location without major detrimental impacts for the local community.

PART 3 /3
8. Plastic recycling
Excluded wastes Putrescible waste, liquid waste, clinical waste, hazardous waste, asbestos and other chemical waste would not be accepted at the facility
Figure A8 implies that all waste will be accepted at the facility and then sorted. What if all the above excluded wastes would be present in significant amounts. Where they will be stored? Where they will be returned to? What would be the risk to the public? What if asbestos will be present?
Plastic Recycling Schemes Generate High Volumes of Hazardous Waste | IPEN
The report Plastic Waste Management Hazards is the first study providing a detailed account of how current investments in recycling schemes, both mechanical and chemical, will have very little impact on a growing, worldwide plastic pollution problem and will increase exposure to toxic chemicals in the communities where they are located.
The report concludes with three recommendations:
1. Governments must acknowledge and immediately move to limit the growing amount of hazardous waste generated from plastic waste by dramatically reducing the amount of plastic industry can produce. An international treaty can achieve this.
2. Governments must manage existing stockpiles of plastic waste (controlled, uncontrolled, and landfills) in an environmentally sound manner.
3. Governments must drive industry to develop an environmentally sound, sustainable management system for any plastic produced in the future. This must include implementation of design, production, and end-of-life management systems that maximize non-toxic polymer reuse and recycling in low-income countries as well as wealthy countries.

9. Process wastes
About 10,000 tonnes per year of residues from the sorting process would require off-site landfill disposal and a further 9,000 tonnes per year of mostly filter cake residue from the on-site wastewater treatment plant would either be converted to product onsite or otherwise disposed at landfill.
This statement is incorrect as no waste from plastic recycling facility can be disposed at any landfill but a special landfill in Sydney (Lucas Heights?).




10. Appendix C Updated mitigation measure
Impacts on artefacts
An attempt would be made to locate the isolated finds MVRec IF1, BR IF1, and BR IF2 before the commencement of construction. This would be undertaken with the assistance of the Aboriginal community and all visible artefacts would be collected.
I can only imagine how this statement would be insulting to the local Indigenous community.
None of the areas below have been addressed either:
Excess waste generation, construction waste management, General soil and erosion management, Riparian vegetation management, Embankment stability, Soils and water quality, Unexpected finds, Managing the potential for noise and vibration impacts during construction, Noise and vibration impacts during operation, Compliance with building codes, fire safety, Avoiding and minimising impacts on Aboriginal heritage, impacts on artefacts, Managing the potential for biodiversity impacts during construction, Introduction of weeds and pathogen, Greenhouse gas emissions during operation, Construction waste management, Operational waste management, Water quality impacts during operation, Alternative transport, General impacts of operation activities on traffic, transport, access, pedestrians and cyclists, Noise impacts during operation, Visual amenity, General biodiversity impact, fire risks, Operational air emission, Operational hazards.

Fire safety the fire safety system for the proposal would be refined during detailed design and developed in consultation with FRNSW.
There is nothing to refine here as the as the proponent has not demonstrated at all that the proposed facility will have an adequate fire protection. The NSW Fire and Rescue is fully aware of the dangers of Plastic Waste Recycling as per their letter to DPIE in March 2022. Sprinklers will not be enough. It is totally irresponsible and scary that if a fire will break out in Plasrefine of such magnitude could happen 100 metres from the closest back fence while there are no fire fighting units able to tackle something as such available locally. The Southern Highlands fire brigades do not have the specialist’s equipment, staff or training to fight a plastics recycling fire. The closest first responders are approximately 45minutes away, if they are ready and have available units to send.
The toxins and carcinogens released are frightening and if we can’t get first responders on scene for about an hour, it could be catastrophic especially for the Garvan Institute less than 50 metres from the boundary of this site or residential only 100 m away.

11. Appendix D Summary of topics and issues raised during the community update briefings in June 2023
Chemicals used for operation of the wastewater treatment plant would include: – polyacrylamide (PAM) – polyaluminium chloride (PAC). PAM and PAC are two types of water flocculants, and neither are classed as dangerous goods under the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road & Rail.
Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a water-soluble polymer formed from acrylamide sub-units. PAM is most often used to increase the viscosity of water or to encourage flocculation of particles present in water such as general industrial wastewater and all kinds of municipal wastewater and sewage.
Generally higher toxicity relative to anionic PAM due to its exhibited higher toxicity to fish than anionic PAM. Evidence of higher anionic PAM toxicity to aquatic invertebrates than to fish, with wide variation according to species. Oil-based emulsions of anionic PAM demonstrated higher toxicity.
Polyaluminium chloride (PAC)
Use of PAC is of concern, use of it in operation of the wastewater treatment plant I does not mean it safe or in conjunction with other chemical used. Ecotoxicological Information: fish toxicity: 10000 µg/L 24 week(s) (Mortality) Coho salmon, silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Persistence and Degradation: No data available
Any microplastics present in the process water would be continuously removed by the wastewater treatment plant processes. The sludge would be dewatered and disposed of to an appropriately licenced waste facility. Air emissions control systems would be fitted to machines that have the potential to produce microplastics, and wet cutting of plastics would also be considered.
As discussed on the number of occasion in my submission there is no technology available to remove totally microplastic from the air, soil or water. Our air, soil, water, and our bodies is already loaded with microplastic and plastic recycling facilities are not the solution and do not encourage governments, plastic manufacturer or consumers to stop producing and using plastic.
Recycling can release huge quantities of microplastics, study finds | Plastics | The Guardian
Scientists Find Microplastics in Cave Sealed Off From All Humans (futurism.com)
Scientists Puzzled to Find Plastic Fragments Inside Human Hearts (futurism.com)
“Ubiquitous” – Scientists Discover That the Oceans Release Microplastics Into the Atmosphere (scitechdaily.com)
What is the depth of the Mariana Trench and what did divers find at the bottom? (ladbible.com)

For social impacts that have been identified, Plasrefine Recycling has made substantial and significant efforts to resolve and amend the proposal to alleviate the community concerns that have been shared throughout the course of the proposal
The whole public consultation process was carefully choreographed and controlled by the GHD which was not interested in the community views and concerns. The community has totally lost trust in the GHD.
12. Appendix E Updated responses to community submission
The GHD response to community concerns in the whole Appendix E is insulting, insensitive and does not provide real solutions.
In Summary
It is evident that the proponent/consultants have limited knowledge about the technology of plastic recycling, no experience in that area and what is at stake. The Community concerns have not been addressed but rather ignored. There are no studies/research to back up any of the theories in the EIS.
There is too, much at stake in any plastic recycling like microplastic in our drinking water and our bodies, emission of toxic gases, traffic just to mention a few. This is another reason why plastic recycling does not make any sense and creates more problem short term and long term for 500 years at least.
Therefore the subject site is no suitable for plastic recycling facility.

PART 2
4. Rain water tanks
Rainwater tanks to capture roof water (minimum 150 kilolitres) are proposed, however there is no guarantee and rather unlikely that there will be sufficient rainfall to fill in those tanks. Goulburn is also supplied with our water during periods of drought from here as they rely on our rainfall, specifically Moss Vale (which has a higher rainfall in comparison).
During drought time, which is on the forecast for this year, Plasrefine would also be exempt from water restrictions being a factory, which would apply to everyone else in the community. So they still continue to operate 24/7 and suck up our valuable resource which would also be needed in the case of fires. Therefore, Plasrefine will be stealing our valuable resources.
About 80 percent of net water demand could be sourced from rainwater and ground surface runoff.
The above statement is naïve. How GHD consultants can’t estimate or guarantee that 80% of water demand with come from rain water when there is a forecast for a drought and global warning?
5. Microplastic
Please also see my comments through the whole submission
Wastewater treatment plants and sewage treatment plants are the primary sources of primary microplastic, What Are Microplastics and Why Are They Bad? - WorldAtlas
Is plastic manufacturing & recycling a wise solution or should we think renewable? - DH – Natural Medicine Clinic (dh-naturalmedicine.com.au)
There is already safe technology of ‘plastic” made from seaweed. Please see below (please translate from Polish to English)
It dissolves in water and can be eaten. Can replace plastic (businessinsider.com.pl)
6. Air pollution
The Southern Highlands are well known for its windy conditions at any time of the year as the presence of old pine tree wind brakes demonstrates. It is irrelevant in which direction wind blows from the subject site. There are residential, rural, and industrial areas surrounding the subject site. The 15 meter high stack will release into the air 45,08407Nm3/h consisting of particulate matter from mechanical processing of plastic ( PM) , total volatile organic compound (TVOC), Benzene, toluene and styrene. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene causes cancer in humans. Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene in the air can cause leukaemia, cancer of the blood-forming organs. All gases released are toxic and harmful to human and unborn child. Those gases released maybe within the EPA guidelines, but how can we trust the proponents, the GHD consultants and, monitoring systems. There can also be failure of the equipment and monitoring system. What about combining effect of all industrial pollution into the area (Table 4.2) Technical Report 3 – Air Quality and Odour? All gases released are toxic and harmful.
• CDC | Facts About Benzene
• Toluene (methylbenzene) - DCCEEW
• Styrene Gas | What is Styrene Gas and how it affect s to your health: Vizag Chemical Gas Leak | Health Tips and News (timesnownews.com)


7. Fire Management
As I have mentioned in my 2 previous submissions, fires are real threat in any plastic recycling facilities and the fumes are deadly, toxic and carcinogenic. The closes dwelling is situated only 100 meters from the boundary of the proposed development but if Plasrefine will catch a fire the entire Region will be affected: residential, rural areas, tourism, wine and honey industries. Plasrefine is an unacceptable risk for our community - this is right on our doorstep and our local firefighters would have no hope against such a huge, hazardous fire contaminating our water, soil and air.
One of the manufacturing stages would involve heating the plastic to its melting point, less than 280°C, and reforming it into the desired shapes. Such high temperature and the fact that Plasrefine has no experience in plastic recycling and poor reputation In China is of great concern.
The proposed fire management for this facility (one tiny water tank and one parking space for fire truck is grotesques.
The statistics of fires at plastic recycling facilities below are shocking. The fire risk is very high as the fire in Picton Recycling facility on 22 October 2023 demonstrates.
Advice from the NSW RFS Southern Highlands: Recycling Facility Fire, Picton on 23 October 2023
Multiple brigades from the NSW RFS and Fire & Rescue NSW responded to reports of a fire in a Recycling facility in Picton shortly after midnight. It took firefighters a number of hours to bring the fire under control. Due to the types of materials burning, specialist firefighters from FRNSW Hazardous Materials team assessed the smoke and runoff which bought back neutral readings.
Smoke from this fire may linger overnight and throughout the morning. Residents nearby should close windows and doors and turn off air conditioners.

Fires at Plastics Recycling Facilities since 2019:
AUSTRALIA -
Plastics Recycling Facilities

Australia: Close the Loop PTY Ltd. Melbourne - June 8, 2022 Fire at plastics recycling plant
Australia: Kilburn Plastic Recycling Fire - November 12, 2020 Fire at plastics recycling plant
Australia: Plastic Recycling Cambellfield - August 3, 2021 Fire at plastics recycling plant
Australia: Refresh Plastics Pty Ltd - February 8, 2023 Fire at plastics products plant that recycles plastic waste
Australia: SKM Recycling Melbourne - July 19, 2019 Fire at plastics products plant This recycling facility has had multiple fires
Fires at Plastics Sorting and Reprocessing Facilities since 2019:
AUSTRALIA:
Australia: Benedict Recycling Belrose – June 30, 2022 Major fire at waste recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste
Australia: Cleanaway Artarmon Resource Recovery Centre - December 5, 2022 Major fire at waste management facility fuelled by plastic waste
Australia: Cleanaway Bohle Solid Waste Services - October 28, 2021 Major fire at waste management facility with explosions on site
Australia: Cleanaway Brooklyn Resource Recovery Centre - January 24, 2021 Major fire at waste recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste
Australia: Cleanaway Kwinana Technical and Environmental Services - January 7, 2020 Major fire at waste recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste Fire and Emergency Services issued a hazardous substances alert
Australia: Cleanaway Perth MRF - November 25, 2019 Multiple fires at this facility
Australia: Cleanaway Rockdale Resource Recovery Centre - June 11, 2022 Major fire fuelled by stockpiled plastic waste destroys MRF
Australia: Instant Waste Management - September 8, 2021 Major fire at recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste
Australia: Kriaris Recyclables Processing (MRF) Kunwarara QLD - August 29, 2020 Plastic-fuelled fire at material recovery facility
Australia: SEQ Waste & Recycling – No date provided Fire at recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste
Australia: Ophir Road Resource Recovery Centre - February 18, 2023 Fire at recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste
Australia: Veolia Welshpool Resource Recovery Centre WA - March 1, 2023 Major fire at recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste Multiple fires at this facility
Australia: Re.Group - December 26, 2022 Major fire at recycling facility fuelled by plastic waste
NOTE: The closest hazmat crews equipped to deal with a plastics facility fire in Moss Vale, are located at: Campbelltown, Shell Harbour and Oran Park, 45 minutes away…if they are ready and available.
These are alarming statistics.
Toxic substances detected by the EPA at the recent fire in Richmond Indiana, April 14th, 2023 (photo) included hydrogen cyanide, benzene, chlorine, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.
This could be a real scenario for the Plasrefine factory, if approved. Over 70 fires in plastic recycling facilities worldwide since 2019. Wingecarribbe Fire Brigade does not have the specialist hazmat equipment locally to combat a fire of this nature. First responders with the necessary equipment are at least 45minues away. In the meantime, we could be exposed to carcinogenic chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide, benzene, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. It happened at Richmond, Indiana in April this year.

I object to the project. Please find attached my submisssion .
25 October 2023
3rd submission on Application SSD-9409987 the Plastic Recycling Facility, Moss Vale from Danuta Hulajko, Moss Vale
I Danuta Hulajko, Manager or the DH Natural Medicine Clinic object to the proposed Plasrefine Plastic Recycling Facility in Moss Vale.
The proposed development should be refused on the following grounds:
1. The proposed recycling facility is potentially hazardous industry and potentially offensive industry therefore it is not permissible in the General Industrial Zone under LEP of the Wingecarribbe Council (as discussed in details in my submission #1 and #2). The Wingecarribbe Council does not support the proposal.
2 The development is potentially hazardous and offensive Development under SEPP33 and has not been assessed under the SEPP33.
3 The EIS and Appendices, versions 1, 2, and now version 3 are inadequate and full of inconsistencies. Many statements in the EIS’s are not incorrect, or misleading.
4 The real facts and data about the environmental, social and economic impact of the proposed development are not addressed while other facts are “watered down”.
5 The EIS prepared by the GHD does not enable the decision makers to understand the development and its environmental, social and economic consequences.
6 The EIS and Appendices do not mention on provide any assessment about microplastic generated by the proposal and its impact on human health, air, drinking water, ground water, soil and wildlife.
7 There is an extensive scientific research available that micro plastic and toxic fumes from plastic recycling plants cause hormonal changes, infertility, heart problem and, cancer just to mention a few. The proposal is surrounded by rural, residential and general industrial areas.
8 There is no technology available to fitter completely microplastic from the plastic recycling facilities.
9 There proposed facility has a very demand for town water and rain water, which cannot be guaranteed in the Southern Highlands.
10 There is a high risk of fires in any plastic processing plants and the proposed development is surrounded by residential and general industrial of Moss Vale and Burradoo and Bowral and other town. There is unsatisfactory fire protection of the proposed facility and water storage in case of fire are insufficient.
11 The proponent has not demonstrated understanding the risks of fire hazard of such facilities or has not proposed any measures in case of such event.
12 Microplastic in waste water will be released into our sewerage, no levels provided and Wingecarribbe Council sewerage system has no more capacity.
13 The proposed development is situated in the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment area and all toxic chemicals and micro plastic will end up in drinking water.
14 The proposal will detrimentally impact on the health and livelihood the of residents, tourism, wine and honey industry and weddings and entertainment industry.
15 There site is too small for the proposed development and does not allow for enough
parking for delivery track, waiting area for trucks, for fire brigade trucks, not enough water tank for emergency and no space for any landscaping or screening.
16 The development will jeopardise the operation of trains of the Cement factory and will adversely affects the traffic on M4 and local traffic and will cause a constant chaos at the railways crossing at the Cement factory.
17 The traffic study undertaken during school holidays ( 3 December 2020) is irrelevant and misleading
18 The emitted gases from stack are toxic and harmful to human and mitigation measures are hypothetical only.
19 The prosed development may generate some new jobs (some only temporary during construction phase) but it will destroy livelihood of thousands in tourism, agriculture, hospitality, wine and honey industry and will have a domino effect on the rest of the local economy.
20 The proposed development will increase NSW annual greenhouse gas emissions by 0.07% (if this number is accurate) which is significant.

1. SEPP 33 Hazardous and Offensive Development

The proposed recycling facility is potentially hazardous industry and potentially offensive industry therefore it is not permissible in the General Industrial Zone under LEP of the Wingecarribbe Council.
In this Policy--

"potentially hazardous industry" means a development for the purposes of any industry which, if the development were to operate without employing any measures (including, for example, isolation from existing or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would pose a significant risk in relation to the locality--
(a) to human health, life or property, or
(b) to the biophysical environment,
and includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment.

"potentially offensive industry" means a development for the purposes of an industry which, if the development were to operate without employing any measures (including, for example, isolation from existing or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would emit a polluting discharge (including for example, noise) in a manner which would have a significant adverse impact in the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, and includes an offensive industry and an offensive storage establishment.

2. Wastewater treatment plant
Wingecarribbe Council states that the subject site is serviced by the Moss Vale Waste Water Treatment Plant. As the EIS mentions, this facility is currently operating at capacity therefore it cannot accommodate this plastic recycling facility.
“ To assist the processes, pH adjustments would be made using acid and alkali solutions and other chemicals such as polyelectrolytes would be added”
Appendix A, Page A7 does not specify what other chemicals are going to be uses to the recycled water which is of great concern. Also recycled water used for washing plastics will contain more and more microplastic every time .As presence there is no technology to filter microplastic which will end up in the air, water courses, ground water, soils, plants, animals and us.
The plant would utilise a disinfectant solution patented in Australia by the operator, to assist in treating the water used in the process for washing the plastics. This solution contains tea tree oil, essential oils and other natural plant-based ingredients. It contains approximately 300 millilitres of turpentine per 20,000 litres, as turpentine accounts for approximately 0.0015 percent by volume. The disinfectant solution is not flammable or classified as a dangerous good.
However Turpentine is flammable and hazardous. The EIS does not specify what quantities of pure of turpentine will be stored on the site. Also there is no explanation on how the tea tree oil and turpentine and other natural based components will be separated from the water before releasing into the sewerage.
Bio retention systems will not filter microplastic either. As the EIS Statement Appendix a page A10 states the primary function of bioretention systems is to filter out excess pollutants and nutrients. These excess nutrients typically come from fertilisers and primarily consist of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. These nutrients can cause algae bloom if left within the water, and therefore filtering them out through the bio-media and vegetation assists in providing better water quality.
In addition, about 2.5 kilolitres per day of sewage generated from the amenities would be discharged to the Council sewerage system
So 2500 litters of waste water per day with microplastic and chemicals will be released to Councils sewer system and will end up in our water, soil, plants , food and then in our bodies ,including all population in Greater Sydney water catchment area .
Clause 10 the proposal is located on land within the Sydney drinking water catchment. As advised by Water NSW the development is not a type of development that use of the NorBE tool is applicable to under Chapter 6, section 6.61 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021. An assessment considering the neutral or beneficial effect on water quality has been undertaken for the proposal using the MUSIC assessment tool and the results are summarised in the EIS.

3. Water usage
The proposal will use 5.5 -15.5 kilolitres of input water /per day, which means 5500-15500 litters of water per day. The consumption of water in my household per day is 0.097 kilolitres. So Plasrefine will use daily the equivalent of water between 57 households to 160 households. Where this water will come from and where it will flow contaminated with all that microplastic?
"The plastics recycling process and amenities would have a net water demand of about 10 kilolitres and 2.5 kilolitres of water per day respectively" so it is anticipated that a total of 12.5 kilolitres (12500 litters) per day will be required and the remaining 3 kilometres ( 3000 l) will come from rainwater tanks?” The proponent can’t guarantee rainwater as he has no control over rainfall. Therefore where that 3 kilolitres is going to come from?

4. Rain water tanks
Rainwater tanks to capture roof water (minimum 150 kilolitres) are proposed, however there is no guarantee and rather unlikely that there will be sufficient rainfall to fill in those tanks. Goulburn is also supplied with our water during periods of drought from here as they rely on our rainfall, specifically Moss Vale (which has a higher rainfall in comparison).
During drought time, which is on the forecast for this year, Plasrefine would also be exempt from water restrictions being a factory, which would apply to everyone else .
regards
Danuta Hulajko

See attached

I would like to formally object to the Plasrefine project. This enormous factory will create excessive vehicle traffic in the township of Moss Vale less than 3km from schools and home. I believe that for Health and Safety reasons this site is not suited for this sort of factory due to the risk of pollutants and micro plastics entering the environment. The increased fire risk would be unacceptable so close to the township.

Not a suitable area. Too close to residential properties and school. Health impact on residents, wildlife and environment.

Refer to attachment

I am a property owner in Burradoo and I am deeply concerned at the proposed Moss Vale plastic recycling facility. I absolutely unequivocally object.
Environmental and health hazards are my biggest concern. However there are so many other issues to address that demonstrates how this proposal is not at all in the public and local community’s best interest. Such as the effect to water quality, water supply/pressure, the wide and significant negative environmental impacts whether loss of habitat and wildlife, the inevitable environmental pollution with toxic airborne and grounded residue, noise pollution and traffic pollution.
I strongly object to this proposal.

My child attends a daycare facility 700 meters from the proposed site.

This facility will cause air and water contamination with microplastics. I do not want my child breathing or ingesting these particles. The detrimental health impacts are well documented.

This location is not appropriate for this type of facility. This is a predominantly residential area.

To minimise negative health & environment impacts, this type of facility should be located in a 100% industrial area, well away from children, residential zoning & water catchment areas.

I have strong concerns over the proposed location of this facility in a very popular and naturally beautiful tourist destination and indeed place where I chose to live for its clean and beautiful environment 23 years ago. My concerns are related mainly to safety, pollution, increased traffic. I am
strongly against this development and believe it’s construction would adversely affect the town of Moss Vale and that of the greater Southern Southern Highlands.

I Object to the project on the grounds that it is too close to housing, schools and will impact air pollution.

The size and nature of this project is absolutely not suited to this location. The small town of moss vale cannot support the increased traffic that would be required and it would be far too close to the existing residential areas. Plasrefine is untested in their ability to run such an operation. It should be sited in an area much further away from residential areas so that residents don’t have to suffer from the pollution it will produce.

I object to this project on the basis that of the industrial nature of the use of the land in a growing residential community. I am concerned about air pollution impacting surrounding residents particularly given how windy the Highlands can be. I am also concerned about the amount of additional heavy duty traffic the facility will produce.

The proposed establishment of the Plaserefine Plastics Recycling factory within the municipality of Moss Vale, situated in the Southern Highlands, is an unsuitable site for a project of such substantial scale and potential environmental impact. This project has consistently failed to meet the minimum prerequisites for this category of development, ranging from its planning, accessibility, and the implications it holds for the local community. This oversized and inadequately considered industrial facility possesses the capacity to bring about enduring transformations within the district.

The planning of this overdimensioned and potentially perilous factory, with concerns related to air quality, water resources, and increased traffic, positions it a mere 2.17 kilometers from the General Post Office and only five minutes from our residential area. To provide a contrasting example, the Visy paper factory in Adelong, New South Wales, is located over 17 kilometers away from the town of Tumut. Contrary to the company's claims, this factory is intended to sit within the town's boundaries. The issue at hand revolves around the prospect of a single company determining the future of a community encompassing 7,000 residents and their livelihoods.

In the first instance, there is the matter of subpar planning associated with the factory's proposed location. This includes an inordinate level of exposure and risk to the residents, including families and children, stemming from unacceptable noise pollution, visually obtrusive structures, and the pernicious consequences of air pollution, particularly due to microplastics and diesel emissions from trucks. To illustrate, during my schooling in Moss Vale three decades ago, there were instances when the stench emanating from the abattoir, under certain wind conditions, was so noxious that it necessitated our confinement indoors during recess and lunch periods. It is noteworthy that the abattoir, which has since ceased operation, was situated 4.2 kilometers from the General Post Office.

The second concern pertains to the issue of access for the projected 100 truck movements daily to and from the factory site. The existing infrastructure, specifically Beaconsfield Road, is ill-suited for accommodating heavy vehicles. Additionally, it traverses directly through residential neighborhoods, including areas in proximity to two educational institutions, a high school, a primary school, and a preschool. Furthermore, Plaserefine has provided ambiguous details regarding the nature of these 100 truck movements, such as the size of the trucks in question, and the evidence of adherence to the stipulated route from the Hume Highway is inadequately communicated. The matter of enforcement and regulation also raises significant questions.

Lastly, the long-term implications of this proposal for our community and the broader district are profoundly concerning. The proposal has the potential to inflict severe economic harm upon the numerous businesses and the thousands of jobs they support, particularly within the tourism and agricultural sectors. Even the company's own Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concedes that no Social Impact Assessment has been conducted. The local population has been informed to anticipate the erection of oversized industrial structures, which, as per the EIS, would generate substantial visual disruption to the surrounding areas, leading to enduring and negative transformations in the landscape's character. Moss Vale, being a semi-rural locale, is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of erecting a massive facility covering 38,638 square meters within its town boundaries. This clearly contradicts any established council Land Use Planning (LEP) policies and departs from the reasonable and prudent expectations of the residents for sound community planning.

In my capacity as a resident of Moss Vale and the Southern Highlands, I humbly implore that this project be declined based on the concerns articulated above. While the imperatives associated with recycling are undeniable and crucial, it is paramount that future recycling facilities are sited within designated heavy industrial zones, in close proximity to collection points, and connected to rail, train, air, and port facilities. They should not be established in rural towns devoid of the requisite infrastructure, distant from collection points, and to the detriment of the health and safety of local residents. I extend my gratitude for your consideration of this matter, which holds significant import.

I will be moving to the highlands in a month and was dismayed to learn of this project which I believe will have a significant effect on the quality of life in the area. It is absolutely inappropriate for a residential area to facilitate what will be one of Australia's largest plastic recycling factories ESPECIALLY when the proponent PLASREFINE have no experience in recycling plastics to date. This is a health and safety nightmare in the making; a plant like this will result in microplastic and other residue to permeate air and waterways, it will contribute to further pollution through 24/7 operation and over 100 truck movements daily on already congested roads. PLASREFINE should not be able to risk the heath of people like this, any recycling plant should be much further than 3km from a town centre.
A plant like this in one of the last affordable and commutable-to-Sydney areas in NSW at a time where there simply aren't enough homes in the state is a mistake. The state government, alongside its plan to densify city centres over the next ten years, should not contribute to unliveability in commutable areas with vibrant local communities. Doing so only encourages more people to move into areas already struggling with overpopulation.