Moss Vale Plastics Recycling Facility

This is not the right site for a huge plastic reprocessing complex.

Moss Vale is part of the Southern Highlands -" A Jewel in the Crown of the N.S.W State"!! Currently a great tourist destination especially for Sydney residents who want to escape to the country to experience: Open Spaces with Nature Trails, Acclaimed Restaurants and Hotels, Visit Wineries, Play Golf, Shop in Elegant Boutiques, Visit and relax in Beautiful Gardens & Historic Houses in the surrounding villages and towns.

They do not want to see and smell a Plastic Recycling Factory which will be polluting the air and ground for many years to come and is only a few minutes drive from the center of Moss Vale with local schools and residential areas. This is not the site for a huge plastic reprocessing complex.

The local residents especially those living in the Beaconsfield Road area have and are investing most of the hard earned funds into the purchase of their family homes approved by the Council. The threat of the B.M.V is a great invasion to the peace and tranquility they thought they were buying into and is already causing them great mental stress.

Noise pollution 24 hours a day from the factory and heavy vehicles as well as all the lights which will be on through the night will make for an unlivable area.

The roads in the Southern Highlands were only ever built to take local country traffic not continuous heavily laden trucks. The sub soil in this area is mainly clay and once wet - continuous heavy vehicles completely destroy the road surfaces as the clay moves under their weight. We are experiencing this at present with the State Government requirements that we take in more Sydney people wishing to move into the area to live . The high volume of traffic we are now experiencing on the roads each day is breaking up the road surfaces - which were never in a good state but it is now becoming quite dangerous dodging all the sink holes, pot holes and large cracks.

Fire will be a big problem at some stage. We have experienced fires at the local tip when the green waste ignited and smouldered for days. The stench was so bad all doors and windows had to be tightly shut no matter what the weather, and I lived 5 Kilometers away. Stock piled dirty waste plastic will ignite at some time - just like a compost heap and send toxic carcinogen laden smoke over the locals towns of Moss Vale and Bowral. Stock piled dirty waste plastic will also be full of maggots and attract an awful lot of flies not a healthy place.


Water - we are always being reminded with many signs that this area is the drinking water catchment for Greater Sydney. If large volumes of waste water and sludge from cleaning the plastic (which will smell) is continuously over many years placed in ponds the seepage into the ground will eventually drain into the local river and streams especially after heavy rains. They are all connected by gravity to the lowest point which is the river.

The Southern Highlands does not have a current council to represent it's wishes - this seems a most undemocratic situation to be in with such a high impact development hanging over us! Most residents in the area are completely unaware of the proposal. We only hear reports about what's happening in Sydney and all their new developments. N.S.W's country areas are a forgotten race!

I have lived in this area for around 17 years we are pleased to see light industry established in the zoned areas but the proposed Plastic Waste Reprocessing complex is a step too far!!

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. I have grave concerns about the suitability of this project in this location. The 28 day exhibition period ( which is the MINIMUM exhibition period ) is completely inadequate to thoroughly assess a 1700 page document as demonstrated by Wingecarribee Shire Council's request for an extension for their submission.

The site is situated close to residential houses, schools, childcare facilities and Australian BioResources - a significant laboratory animal breeding facility owned by the Garvan Institute which supplies research facilities worldwide. Impacts on this area will have far reaching consequences within both the Southern Highlands and the Medical Research Community.

GHD have stated many times at their engagement meetings that Beaconsfield Rd is their rightful access to the site. WSC has publicly stated that it will not support the use of residential roads for any access yet GHD have ignored this and placed the construction of any new access road as a late stage in their timeline making the use of Beaconsfield Rd a necessity. Beaconsfield Rd is not in any way suitable for heavy vehicles and has no footpaths. GHD has also stated at a recent meeting that Beaconsfield Rd may join into the Braddon Rd for access although this has been omitted from the EIS.

The proponent ( Plasrefine ) has no experience in any type of plastics recycling in Australia. With the approved construction of the Brightmark Global Recycling Business in Parkes SAP, which proposes to use newer and more efficient technology and dedicated rail transport for the waste material transfer, the questions must be asked about the viability of a smaller and less advanced facility competing for the limited amount of material available in NSW and ultimately Australia . Does this mean that Plasrefine will need to source plastic waste for processing from outside Australia to remain viable? When questioned about the Brightmark facility in Parkes GHD's response was that they were "surprised" demonstrating a complete lack of engagement with the established plastics recycling industry within Australia.

The lack of resources available for such a facility in a semi rural town like Moss Vale makes this site completely unsuitable. The lack of infrastructure available ( water , sewer , power ) at the site has previously been of high enough concern to WSC that they have rejected previous smaller development applications for this site. In the EIS the collected water storage capacity is stated to be 150,000L - only 3 days usage according to their predicted figures. The discharging of 16,300L of waste water into the sewerage system is alarming considering many nearby residents are still restricted to septic systems as there are no sewer connections available.

The EIS does not provide any of the site cut / fill details for the proposed road or the building site or any contour plans so it is unclear how any of these have been costed - has this been deliberately withheld from the EIS ? The siteworks for this proposal are enormous and the timelines predicted by GHD are completely inadequate.

The fire risk and the lack of Emergency Services resources to be able to deal with such an event in the Wingecarribee Shire is a very real concern. There is no Emergency Response plan included in the EIS. During any major emergencies event the residents of the Wingecarribee Shire rely heavily on support from Emergency Services from out of the region which can take hours to arrive. In the event of a fire at Plasrefine the toxic smoke would be drawn directly into Australian BioResources ventilation system.

A major concern for residents right across the Shire is the increased heavy vehicle traffic and the reliance on the drivers sticking to the "designated routes" - when questioned who would enforce the routes GHD was unable to provide a consistent answer. This leaves open the option for drivers to use the "quickest" route which will have major impacts on the traffic and sub standard roads through Moss Vale.

The EIS completely fails to address the immense negative impacts that vibration will have on the mice housed at Australian BioResources research facility that is only 30m from the proposed construction site. Whilst the noise impacts on mice have briefly been mentioned in the EIS I feel the fact that they have completely omitted the vibration impacts shows either their lack of understanding / engagement with Australian BioResources or reluctance to show the negative impacts on the closest property. ( Noise & Vibration : 5.3.3 Human comfort - The most vibration intensive activities associated with the construction works are anticipated to be excavation works with a 26 tonne excavator and vibratory rolling during construction of the road. Excavation activities have the potential to exceed the human comfort vibration criteria should these works occur within 73 m of residences, while rolling works have the potential to exceed human comfort levels within 100 m.)
Due to the proximity of both the road and construction sites to Australian BioResources I formally request that an in depth and relevant vibration assessment both for construction and operation be done specific to the impacts on rodents housed for medical research. This is also applicable to the negative impacts odours have on mice - this has not been addressed anywhere in the EIS.

The inclusion of Braddon Rd ( extension ) as the access to the site when no agreement has been made or is forthcoming from the landowner ( Garvan ). This project is not viable without this access and to assume forced resumption will be the way of acquiring the land from a Not For Profit organisation is deplorable. There is no detail for the construction of this portion of the road in the EIS so how can this be accurately assessed and costed ?

The roads leading to this site are already substandard and have been hugely impacted by the recent rain events. WSC has stated that they are not in a position to improve these roads for such heavy vehicle use and it would be up to the proponent to do this - no where in the EIS has this been addressed.

A Social Impact Assessment was requested by WSC and by the community members of Moss Vale - this has not been done or any indication given that it would be undertaken. I formally request that a SIA be conducted by GHD in relation to the Plasrefine Proposal in Moss Vale.

The visual impact assessment that has been provided is inadequate. The assessment does not include lighting or light spill as they were excluded from the assessment . There are no detailed architectural drawings , façade views or diagrams available in the EIS – only basic concept plans .
The Technical Report 7 ( Landscape & Visual Impact ) specifically states that " The visual impact of the proposal would be high for the surrounding sensitive receivers ... with significant and irreversible, changes to the attributes, elements and value of the rural landscape character". The acceptability of these impacts has not been considered in the EIS. There is no balance between the scale of the built forms and the landscaped areas to minimise the visual impact of the bulk of the 18m high building.

WSC has stated repeatedly that this project is out of sequence with the development of the SHIP ( Southern Highlands Innovation Park ) and as such could have detrimental knock on effects to the efficient development of this area. As such the detrimental effects of a single facility must be considered as part of the bigger picture.

These are by no means my only concerns and I will be submitting additional submissions. The construction of a facility of this scale and nature that will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is simply not acceptable for this location. This will have a negative effect not only on surrounding property values but also far reaching social impacts affecting people’s health and wellbeing . This is not the right site for such a facility.

I am writing this submission to object to the construction and operation of the plastics recycling facility (Plasrefine) which is proposed to be located on 74-76 Beaconsfield Rd, Moss Vale NSW 2577 SD-9409987.

My main concern with regards to this proposed facility is the lack of information and detail provided in the EIS Scoping Report with respect to the risk of this facility being built on a property that has two key waterways located on it which flow into the Sydney drinking catchment area. I am not satisfied that having a plastic recycling facility at the specified location will not negatively impact the two waterways located on it.

Although the EIS Report outlines that the plastic will be stored within the two buildings located on site, it does not delve into any detail with how Plasrefine will eliminate any risks of the plastics being exposed to open air and the waterways during transport to and from Plasrefine as well as transportation between Building 1 and Building 2.
During a community meeting Plasrefine and GHD confirmed that there may be times where trucks are waiting on site to enter Building 1 or 2. These trucks will be sub-contractors and it is unclear as to how Plasrefine will be able to enforce any minimum standards to ensure that there is no exposure of the plastics to the air or waterways while trucks are either waiting on site or traveling to and from the site.

Further, it is likely that floods can occur at the proposed location. There is no mention or sufficient detail of how the site will effectively manage such an event without contaminating the two waterways. Although there will be two bioretention basins located on site, I am not clear as to whether this will be sufficient to eliminate any risk in the waterways being contaminated during extreme whether events such as those we have recently experienced.

I am also concerned about how much water will be used for this facility especially during times of drought. Plarefine is proposing to use 46,300L of water every day and it will be derived from a combination of rainwater harvesting and potable town water. Plasrefine will only have the ability to store 150,000 L of water which is roughly 3 days’ supply. I am extremely concerned that during times of drought, Plasrefine will not have any rainwater and will subsequently use 150,000L of water from our local potable water when Moss Vale already does it tough during these times. Could this further impact local residents’ access to town water? Will this mean even more restrictions during times of drought? I feel that this facility will only add further unnecessary pressure on our local water supply during times of drought to the disadvantage of local residents.

This refinery seems to have a lot of negative effects on our community. I cannot actually see any benefit to the community.

1)The site for the plastic refinery is only accessible through residential streets. These streets are not set up to handle the flow of trucks 24x7. The streets do not have any pedestrian access at the moment either. There is a community living here. It is hard enough at the moment to take the dog for a walk without adding trucks on these quiet suburban streets. This will have a huge impact on the valuation of the properties affected by the truck designated routes. The trucks will add light, noise pollution.
2) I am also concerned about the smell this refinery will produce.
3) The environmental impacts ie water and air quality.
4)From what I have read the refinery is mostly robotic so it will not be adding jobs to the community.

I don’t want the area of beauty as rural regional nsw to be destroyed. I object to the pollution of Noise, air quality and water contamination within sydney water catchment.massive increase of trucks. Visual pollution within country environment. It’s Chinese owned. This must be stopped

Please note my strong opposition to the proposed plastic recycling factory in Moss Vale. I grew up in the Highlands for both primary and high school (1980s and 90s), and have now been living here for 8 years with my young family. I am a teacher and an artist, and feel strongly about retaining the beauty and fresh air of this gorgeous place!

The southern highlands is a thriving and booming regional area with a growing culture of organic and dedicated food growers. This is not the right site for a plastics recycling and production facility.

We are struggling with road infrastructure and the weight of so many new residents these last 2 years. I fear the roads and congestion a factory like this would bring would be the last straw. This is not the right site for a plastics recycling and production facility.

We are a water catchment area for Sydney! This is not the right site for a plastics recycling and production facility.
Property prices are through the roof, and more housing needs to be built. The proposed development is in a 'light industrial' area... fairly soon we will need this for housing and infrastructure. This is not the right site for a plastics recycling and production facility.

We understand the need for plastics recycling, but it is counter productive to improve environmental waste at the expense of the environment of a whole town! This is not the right site!!
Faithfully,

Louisa de Haas

I would like to object to the proposed Plasrefine Development in Beaconsfield Road, Moss Vale, NSW.
The grounds for my objection are
1. the size of the waste reprocessing complex
2. health and safety
3. proximity to town centre and kindergartens, schools and residential areas.
4. increased traffic problems with long heavy vehicles accessing suburban roads 24/7 creating pollution and noise
5. Plasrefine has not submitted a social impact assessment
6. impact on existing infrastructure, services and facilities
7. impact on air and water quality

This type of facility should not be located in such close proximity to residential areas anywhere. The Southern Highlands is a huge regional tourist area and the odours from a plastic refinery and pollution and traffic problems will seriously adversely affect the tourism industry. Additionally, my concerns are for the health and wellbeing of local residents and the financial losses to property values if the said proposal proceeds.
Regards
Dr Dianna Porter (PhD)

This project is a good thing (it seems) from an environmental perspective; plastic is a scourge and any plant of this type to increase recycling is a positive step.
BUT - such factories should not be located within what is essentially an established and growing residential area.
The location proposed for this plant is unacceptable to the community due to noise, odour, visual pollution and truck traffic and other lesser issues.

Please find a more suitable, more remote location where the benefits of such an operation can be realised without the terrible costs on the Moss Vale community that will be inflicted under the current proposal.

We all vote and have long memories!

Robert McKern
25 Hammond Ave
Normanhurst 2076

Plasrefine Recycling Pty Ltd
SSD-9409987
Objection Statement

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Plasrefine proposal currently under consideration in Moss Vale. I am strongly opposed to the project going ahead for a number of reasons.

As I spent all my childhood growing up in the Moss Vale region and visit my mother, who will be affected regularly by recycling plant, I feel I am eligible to have an input as to what is being proposed.

My 85 year old mother has lived on her peaceful and harmonious property for the past 28 years. Her home will overlook the project and will be in noise and vibration range of the constant truck traffic to and from the factory. I think living so close to the factory will be untenable for her will likely result in her being forced to relocate.

From my observations and research of the proposal, I feel that not enough due diligence has been invested in the choice of location for the plant. In my opinion, the impact on the surrounding local community will be greatly impacted by noise, vibration and pollution and I think a more appropriate property should be selected.

Thank you for allowing me to have my say on the Plasrefine proposal.

Cpt. Robert McKern (Qantas)

I live in moss vale with chronic breathing issues

I object to this proposal in its current form. My reasons are set out in the attachment.

Alan Lindsay

Dear Manager,
The proposal currently sits in a tourism destination site and will ruin a major industry of the population. Times have changed, we have major flooding and fire and severe weather risks leading to population stress and mental health issues. This proposal will put water and food security at risk on top of the economic foundation of the Southern Highlands, a major tourism destination for functions, conferences, weddings, outdoor experiences, conservation and education. Most significantly the proposal would create increased health issues by reducing air quality and exposing environment to toxins. The Operator has no prior record in this highly risky enterprise.
The EIS, if full of technical errors, inconsistencies and does not address many areas of concern such as occupational safety and hazard at the plastic melting stage, emergency measures in the event of a factory fire, no details of plastic sludge disposal, protection of Riparian zone and so on. The EIS does meet the required standards and the level of details expected of an EIS for such scale SSD.
Based on the requirements of the SEPP 33 the proposed development is potentially hazardous in nature as it involves plastics and polymers for reprocessing. While the plastic products prior to recycling or final products may not be hazardous and toxic there are some stages in the reprocessing of each of those plastics are hazardous and toxic
The significant residential areas within the Moss Vale and the surrounding rural residences as well as Early Childhood Learning Centre and other facilities will be significantly compromised if the proposed plant will be approved.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not address adequately any possible hazard:
· No buffer zone for air quality and odour.
· No buffer zone for noise and vibration.
· No buffer zone for fire hazard
· No plan for evacuation in case of any accident including surrounding residences
Thank-you for addressing the exceptional risks associated with this proposal.

Submission attached

This project is situated in the wrong Location - it is an envrionmental, health and social hazard to a growing poplulation in Moss Vale and Surrounds . It is most inappropriate and there has been very poor communication with the local population.

The high flow of trucks and heavy vehicle traffic through Moss Vale and surrounds will congest and damage our roads, all of which is under strain as it is.
The Plasrefine plant will contribute significantly to noise, air and water pollution in our community.
There are better sites for this type of project. This is proposed to be within a few hundred meters of residential houses and will cause a major disruption (24hrs a day) and discontent to the people living close to the site.
There's been a very poor effort to consult and involve the community tin the planning process. Offering 140 jobs is not enough and many of those will likely come from out of area anyway.

There are so many issues with this project. A lot of these will not be answered satisfactorily until the plant is up and running , at that stage there will be no going back.
- Heavy vehicle trucks 11 hrs a day 7 days a week continually passing residential housing only 10-15 meters from roadway (Beaconsfield ' Lackey and Lytleton Rds).
-How far will this continual noise penetrate into the surrounding suburban area. Peoples lives impacted by the relentless noise. Their sanctuary from the stresses of daily life and work taken away from them.
-The safety issue of heavy vehicle transport sharing residential roads with school children ,aged from 5 years up , with no footpaths forcing them to walk on the edge of the road. Some of these roads can barely accommodate two passing passenger vehicles let alone these monster trucks. This is a potential tragedy waiting to happen. These residential roads should be completely off limits to Heavy vehicle usage and the Recycling company should not proceed with any works until another access rd is constructed.
-water usage by the processing plant and dependence on town water are a real concern, especially during times of drought.
-contamination and volumes of water being discharged into the sewerage system.
-Air pollution ,what toxic chemicals are going to be released into the air by this process. What are the safe limits and who will monitor these pollutants . What action will be taken for non compliance.
Conclusion- This is not the right site

I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by GHD for Plasrefine’s proposed plastic recycling facility at Moss Vale, titled “Moss Vale Plastics Recycling and Reprocessing Facility EIS”. Most of my comments relate to the section called Technical Report 3 – Air Quality and Odour, which I will refer to as “the report”.

Please also see my attached document which discusses my objections in more detail, and includes scientific references. Here I will summarise the most important points:

The report omits important information about the impacts on human health from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other airborne emissions, and presents insufficient detail about how Plasrefine would manage emissions. The report only assessed 3 individual VOCs (benzene, toluene and styrene), but there are many more VOCs and other noxious compounds that can be released when plastic is melted, some of which are carcinogenic or neurotoxic; a few are associated specifically with waste plastic. The report does not mention these problematic substances, or assess their impacts on the health of the community, or on Plasrefine’s own employees.

The report relies on the stated assumption that the plastics being heated will include only polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The EIS states, however, that the facility will also process acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), and up to 20,000 tonnes of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) per year. Both of these plastics should have been included in the report’s assessment of air quality impacts, particularly PVC which will represent around one sixth of all plastics processed at the facility and will therefore contribute significantly to its emissions.

The toxic emissions from heating PVC include hydrogen chloride, vinyl chloride (a known carcinogen), and dioxins, which are “among the worst materials for human health impacts." The exclusion of PVC from the report casts doubt on the validity of GHD’s claims that airborne emissions from the Plasrefine facility will be “low” or benign.

Studies of plastic recycling processes and facilities elsewhere in the world have documented impacts on human health and wellbeing as a result of airborne emissions. The impacts on people living near other plastic recycling facilities included respiratory and skin problems, increased cancer risk, and reduced quality of life as a result of unpleasant odours. Impacts were sometimes experienced by residents more than a kilometre away, but were most severe for those closest to plastic recycling facilities. The EIS does not address these human health issues, nor are those studies included in its reference list.

The report does not provide information about the efficiency of the proposed systems for treating air emissions within Plasrefine’s facility, and does not state what percentage of emissions these systems would capture. This is an important detail, since it will determine the amount of airborne pollutants released into the surrounding environment. Without this information, how can it be confidently stated that emissions will be “low”?

At previous community presentations, GHD stated that Plasrefine would use “common techniques that are able to capture 99% of emissions”. Even if this is true, it still amounts to a large impact on air quality. Effectively it means that untreated emissions from 1% of the 120,000 tonnes of plastic to be processed each year (around 1200 tonnes per year, or more than 3 tonnes per day) will be vented straight to the surrounding neighbourhood. If some ordinary citizen was to melt down 3 tonnes of plastic per day in their backyard, with no protection for the neighbours, it seems highly unlikely that would be considered acceptable anywhere close to a residential area.

A failure or inadequacy of the airborne emissions treatment systems, or unusually large emissions if a fire impacts on the facility, could create serious off-site risks or offence to people, property or the environment due to the toxic nature of the substances involved in melting and burning plastics. A build up of these toxic substances in the nearby environment over time could also represent a significant hazard. Therefore, I would suggest this proposal falls into the category of potentially hazardous or offensive development and should be assessed under SEPP 33.

The list of “sensitive receptors” in section 4.1 of the report omits the many people in the general community >500 m from the proposed facility who are vulnerable to impacts from VOCs and other airborne emissions. These include young children, the elderly, and people with respiratory issues such as asthma, or other health issues.

The meteorological data presented in section 4 shows the prevailing winds blow mostly from the North/Northeast in spring and summer, directing emissions straight towards Moss Vale’s central residential and business areas for around half the year. Spring is also the time when high wind speeds occur most frequently, further increasing the likelihood of airborne emissions impacting on the town. Moss Vale is a growing community with several housing developments under way, so these airborne emissions could impact on an increasingly large number of people.

It is not clear whether there are effective barriers to air movement between the processing areas where emissions will be generated and the unloading area where trucks will drive in. If air can flow freely between these areas (as appears to be the case from the diagrams of the buildings’ internal layout) then what will prevent untreated emissions escaping whenever the roller doors open to allow trucks in and out?

The effectiveness of the proposed methods will be to separate the different kinds of plastic, and the consequences if plastics become inadvertently mixed and are melted at inappropriate temperatures at a result, should have been discussed in the EIS.

It is not clear at what temperature the extrusion process in Building 1 will occur, although this temperature will significantly affect the level of toxic emissions produced at this stage of the process. The extrusion process in Building 2, where plastics are reformed, will be done at “less than 280˚ C”. This is not particularly comforting, since many plastics emit harmful substances at much lower temperatures than this. A more precise range of treatment temperatures should be provided for each type of plastic in order to realistically assess the emissions.

Table 7.4 gives insufficient information about how Plasrefine will assess and monitor VOCs and other noxious emissions. There is no information as to how, by whom, how often, and what specific kind of emissions will be monitored. These are important details, since a failure of the emissions capture systems could result in unacceptable impacts on the nearby community if this failure is not detected quickly.

The proponent does not appear to have run a similar facility before, so their ability to run the plant safely and successfully is unknown.

The EIS involves transporting plastics a long distance from their point of origin in the cities, creating a large carbon footprint.

The proposed facility is much larger than other similar facilities in Australia, and accordingly could have much larger impacts on the community and local environment.

As climate change intensifies over the next few decades, extreme weather events will increasingly disrupt transport to and from Moss Vale. The haulage route between Wollongong and Moss Vale is particularly problematic, even though it is a smaller distance than the route to Sydney.

Many of these problems could be mitigated by having two or three smaller facilities located closer to the outskirts of Sydney, Canberra and/or Wollongong (although still at sufficient distance from residential areas to protect human health).

The local roads in the Moss Vale area do not seem adequate for the increased heavy traffic. All of the three local access roads to the proposed site appear to have significant problems associated with their use. It seems likely that construction of the new access road will be delayed or even prevented altogether due to land acquisition issues, causing unacceptable impacts on Beaconsfield Road, and/or a significant reduction in the quantity of plastic waste the facility can receive.

The proposed site has previously been described by Wingecarribee Council as “flood prone” land. In 2019 a development application to subdivide the site was refused by council on this basis. Recent flooding events in NSW have demonstrated that the unexpected is happening more frequently, and many existing flood maps may need to be reassessed.

The need to move a watercourse to build the facility is a red flag. This cannot be done without having serious impacts on the ecology of the creek.

I am also concerned about the proposal’s potential impacts on tourism, which is a large source of revenue for the Southern Highlands. Why would anyone want to go on holiday near a huge plastic recycling factory that may smell bad, make them cough or itch, or cause them to develop cancer?

While recycling plastics is certainly desirable and necessary, it needs to be done in a way that will protect people and the environment. If the local community cannot be guaranteed protection from noxious airborne emissions and other impacts, then using the precautionary principle, the Plasrefine facility should be located much further away from residential areas.

This proposal involving 60 heavy truck movements a day through the suburban streets of Moss Vale is ridiculous. I'm surprised you are even seeking submissions on it given it is so contrary to good planning. It needs to be located next to a major highway so that the trucks and related traffic are not going along local roads and shouldn't be anywhere near a residential area. It is more suited to being in the Hunter Valley to replace the jobs being lost there and must be near the highway and not near a residential area. Preferably it should be where materials being trucked to it can be taken there by freight train, rather than trucks damaging the roads and causing pollution.
Ultimately, the location of this factory in suburban Moss Vale will not be allowed to proceed and work undertaken to allow it to be there will be a waste of public money.

There are no firm details provided by the Chinese/Australian owners to all the questions asked by the community. GHD ( on behalf of the owners) have presented 1700 pages of very light reading and no hard facts.
The transport routes for the trucks that will service the facility 24 hours a day 7 days a week are going to be residential streets that are ill equipped to handle that increased traffic and there are schools , a preschool and churches and no guttering on these streets.
Noise and air pollution will be significant for all the residents of Moss vale and surrounds. There is no modelling to ensure that this is within safe limits.
They plan on using 46,300 L of water per day and pump 16,300 L of polluted waste into our sewerage system- we are part of the Sydney water catchment and our water and sewage cannot cope with this.
This plant is to be the biggest in Australia and will badly affect the southern Highlands, which relies on tourism and agriculture. Moss Vale is not the correct location.
The technology to process recycled plastic is still being worked out, CSIRO have set up research into how to use the recycled plastic and this company appear to be making things up as they go without the expertise to do the work properly.
The proposal is inadequately assessed and will adversely affect the region and produce a profit to the Chinese investor.
This is the wrong site and the cost to the surrounding areas is too great to consider this project

Please see attached submission letter.