Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Withdrawn

Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project

Lithgow City

Current Status: Withdrawn

The construction of an energy recovery boiler and storage facility and will be integrated with the existing Mt Piper Power Station electricity generating infrastructure.

Attachments & Resources

Request for SEARs (1)

SEARs (4)

Additional Information (1)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 61 - 80 of 114 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
VALE OF CLWYDD , New South Wales
Message
I live in Lithgow and have attended an information session on this project and believe it would be detrimental to the future of our community.

I object for the following reasons:

- Lithgow is a town transitioning from fossil fuel energy production and I believe this project is first and foremost concerned with resolving Sydney's waste and rubbish issues. I believe Energy Australia (EA) should be looking at renewables as a source of energy production to be produced in Lithgow as the town is growing in eco tourism and this project is not as clean and green as EA and Regroup state it is. It will be damaging to small businesses and future proposals in these areas eg The Destination Pagoda proposal for the Gardens of Stone National Park region. I think Reduce, Reuse and Recycle from the circular economy is a preferable way forward for Sydney's waste not the RDF Waste to Energy process.

The concerns of Lithgow are not at the heart of this project - resolving Sydney's rubbish problem is the aim.

- Environmental Concerns air, water and land.
1. Toxic waste that needs to be encased in metal and buried beside the ash repository is not acceptable. There are already existing, ongoing problems with the ash at Mt Piper that EA have not resolved. At the information session I discussed this with a ReGroup representative and this person did not know about the ongoing ash issues and had not personally been to the ash repository site.

2. There is no 24x7 OEH online air monitoring for Mt Piper that the community can access in real time. I have enquired to EA and the EPA and there is monitoring but the licence requirements are for quarterly reporting and these are averages. Exceedance events are not clarified or visible in detail. EA has stated to me this indicates they don't have to introduce 24x7 online monitoring. The Lithgow community wants this monitoring and EA won't do it. I am not happy with this stance from EA as it is not a good indicator they are truly respecting the concerns of the local community. Do they have something to hide from us? This is not transparency.

Bushfire smoke and dust storms are occurring with increasing intensity and frequency and contribute to the PM concentrations. Chitter fires are still burning across the Lithgow region and creating air quality issues well after the Gospers Mountain fire was officially extinguished. These fires often burn for years and this should not be forgotten. SO2, NO 2 and other pollutants are already concerns with the current coal burning production with the Waste to Energy potentially contributing further.

I am dismayed about the "flue gas filter bag system’s single bag failure".... "with minor elevation of emissions (e.g. concentrations double that of the standard, albeit on a shorter time frame)." not warranting "quantitative analysis of an upset scenario".

Lithgow has seasonal temperature inversion which impacts heavily across villages and the Lithgow town. Wood fires and coal donkey burners are used across the community, diesel freight and coal trains pass through the town daily and through the night. Mt Piper is often seen with temperature inversion. All these emissions get trapped just above the rooves of houses. It is visible and has a strong odour. This was not addressed in the air assessment. It is a big issue in the Lithgow area and this is a huge oversight. I don't believe EA's practice to date of keeping the community informed is acceptable and don't believe we should go forward with an additional partnered industry that will continue further to add to air emissions that are harmful to the community.

I also have deep concerns about water and land contamination from this project contributing further to the existing serious industrial contamination in the region.

- Traffic Issues.
I am against the added truck movements along the length of the Great Western Highway through the Blue Mountains and Lithgow for reasons of traffic safety, noise and air pollution impacting on the environment and the destruction of existing and future tourism opportunities in our region. Truck accidents occur frequently.

I object to this proposal and firmly believe it will lower the quality of life for Lithgow residents, of which I am one, and be harmful to human health and the environment.
Economically small businesses and tourism ventures will flounder.

I suggest this project offers a solution for Sydney's rubbish and will not benefit the community of Lithgow in its transition to newer energy production projects.

I support 'true' examples of clean, green energy production' as in renewables and would welcome and support industries that support Reduce, Reuse and Recycle as a way forward.

Yours sincerely.
Lithgow Resident
Graham Birkinshaw
Object
TAREE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Ms Munk,
I object to the proposed Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project (recyclable materials burning) at Mt Piper Power Plant, State Significant Development (SSD-8294). This proposal will have negative impacts upon people’s health, local communities and be a major emitter of greenhouse gases. Toxic ash and gasses produced from this incinerator are likely to poison the air and water ways, impacting both the Blue Mountains and Sydney. It is not a green energy project, as waste burning facilities produce far more carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated than coal, oil or gas fired power stations, in addition to destroying resources that should be reused, such as plastics and paper.
Incineration produces ash that contains toxins and dangerous gas emissions that have health risks. Ash from burning waste is toxic and must be disposed of as intractable waste, in this case in a lined cell. The location of the proposed plant next to Mt Piper Power Plant poses a risk to the Coxs River catchment and its use as a source of raw source of drinking water for Sydney.
The most energy-rich waste products, such as plastic and paper, should be recycled, not burnt. The establishment of waste incineration technologies will result in a reduction in Sydney’s recycling as plastic bags are burnt instead of not being produced at all or recycled. The proposal entrenches a wasteful society and is a step in the wrong direction if Australia is to adapt and thrive in the 21st century.
The proposal will be in contravention of the Stockholm Convention (which Australia is a signatory to) as it will generate air emissions that include highly toxic and carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants. The Stockholm Convention specifies those Persistent Organic Pollutants whose production should be avoided or terminated which includes the highly toxic compounds such as dioxins, furans and toxic metals that are by-products of the incineration process. They are carcinogenic in humans (Stockholm Convention, 2008). Persistent organic pollutants from this proposed facility will contaminate the airshed, which will drift over the Blue Mountains and, in some circumstances, reside in the Sydney Basin. These contaminants will also pollute Sydney’s water supply catchment and build up over an extended period.
A large fleet of rubbish trucks will be used to transport waste to this plant, which will cause great disruption and negatively impact the Blue Mountains community. Deliveries of smelly loads of rubbish, by large and noisy trucks, will likely occur during the early morning and afternoon (end of school day), causing maximum traffic disturbance. It will alter the atmosphere of the towns within the mountains and will impact negatively on the Great Western Highway and the Bells Line of Road.
I have not made political donations or gifts totalling $1,000 or more in the last two years.
This proposal must be rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Birkinshaw
Name Withheld
Object
PORTLAND , New South Wales
Message
I object to the burning of waste to generate power. There is likely to be substantial air quality and health issues if the proposal is to proceed. Whilst the waste is currently seen as waste, once burned then the material is lost forever and can never be recovered. The waste should be stored until such time that an alternative use for the waste can be found.
Maree Evans
Object
PORTLAND , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project.

The long term health impacts are unknown and will remain unknown.

The burning of the material proposed is dangerous material that will cause significant detrimental effects on local people as well as the environment near by and further afield.

The particulate matter is a significant risk to those who have breathing difficulties.

Environmentally this project is a disaster waiting to occur in the headwaters of the Sydney water catchment as well as pollution of environmentally sensitive areas of the World Heritage areas of the Wollemi, Blue Mountains and Gardens of Stone National Parks.

Traffic flows across the already contested Mountains corridors will be increased as well and carting this material through small communities in the mountains, Lithgow and villages en route to Mount Piper. This is not acceptable.

The negatives of this project are significant and far outweigh the need to burn Sydney's rubbish away from Sydney. It will not produce enough energy to justify this project.
Once again I object to this project.
Ramon U'Brien
Comment
SPRINGWOOD , New South Wales
Message
Use coal trains to haul waste from Sydney through the Blue Mountains-they are empty going up, rather than road trucks. Add specialised waste wagons if required. Transfer to trucks near Wallerawang until rail link is completed. Wallerawang Power Station siding is suitable.
A pipeline and pumping station need to be installed to direct all ground water from the site in times of high rainfall into Hunts Creek to flow west. Install wetland to absorb any runoff and catch/remove/recycle leachings. This will remove any pollution flowing east into Coxs River and on to Wallerawang Dam, Warragamba Dam and Sydney drinking water. Install filtration plant to remove nasties from existing runoff storage ponds and undertake cleanup.
Cancel use of existing ash repositories and Lamberts.
Use Ulan or other nearby mines/sites with rail access preferable, to deposit ash to on the western side of the Great Dividing Range, a short way away. Install wetland to absorb any runoff and catch/remove/recycle leachings.
Feed all ash into a recycling plant. Have our scientific community investigate better re-use of ash waste which is an ongoing pollution problem. See: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/sustainability-02-01943.pdf and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793639/ etc
Paul Curran
Object
LIDSDALE , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to oppose the proposed waste Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project.

I am opposed to the project as I believe that it would be detrimental to area for a number of reasons as stated below

A similar project was proposed for Sydney’s west which was met with 949 public objections along with concerns from residents, councils and Health and Environment authorities concerned about its impact on air quality in the Sydney basin. When it was announced that the burner had been rejected on environmental grounds, member for Mulgoa Tanya Davies was quoted “The risks were too great, there were no adequate guarantees to ensure the health and safety of people in Western Sydney”
The people of Lithgow and surrounding areas do not have the people power of western Sydney to oppose this, and it has been kept quiet and a lot of people are unaware that it has even been proposed. If it has been knocked back on environmental grounds in Sydney, why then should it be dumped on rural residential areas? Surely the safety aspect of this proposal is no different to Sydney.

Lithgow has a proud industrial history, one which is showcased and is bringing tourist to our area. Lithgow has worked hard to change the public’s opinion of being cold and dirty and are working hard to move forward as a tourist destination showcasing all the natural beauty that surrounds us. The project will send Lithgow back further from where people would want to visit and live.

Lithgow’s reputation will take a nose dive and be known as the place that burns Sydney’s rubbish. Who would want to raise their families, invest their money and live in a place where the risks to public health are so high? Not only will it affect our regions image, it will have the flow on effect to our small businesses that rely on the tourism trade.

The long term effects so close to residential areas such as Portland, Wallerawang, Lithgow and surrounding localities will have a detrimental effect on house and land prices, farming and business. Not to mention the effect it will have on our health.

Thank you

Paul Curran
Name Withheld
Object
PORTLAND , New South Wales
Message
Submission – Mt Piper Energy Recovery Project
We have read, in part, documents associated with the Mt Piper Energy Recovery Project. Like most we have concerns about the quality of air, soil and water.
In relation to the Human Health Risk Assessment (Appendix K).
We live on Back Cullen Bullen Road, Portland and in the Sensitive Receptor Area (Diagram page 21). Like many rural properties in the area, we are not connected to town water and rely on collecting rain/tank water. I cannot see household tank water mentioned in clause 4.7.2 – Multiple Pathway Exposure (page 38).
It mentions possible exposure to pollutants through inhalation, ingestion and dermally, and gives examples such as consuming home grown fruit & vegetables, eggs, milk and meat. It even mentions dermal contact with soil, but fails to include the use of tank water.
Like most we use our water for (some) drinking, cooking, cleaning, washing and bathing. With the possibility of new pollutants being in the air, one would think that testing of its effect on household tank water would be paramount. If your report was a ‘holistic view’, this should have been included?
We are also concerned with the stigma that will be attached to our area if this proposal is given the go ahead. In all probability the value of real estate will fall as a result. Who will compensate us for this? The only benefit to the local community would be, after construction, the creation of 16 fulltime jobs…
Thanks for reading,
Joanne Curran
Object
LIDSDALE , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to oppose the proposed waste Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project.

I am opposed to the project as I believe that it would be detrimental to area for a number of reasons as stated below

A similar project was proposed for Sydney’s west which was met with 949 public objections along with concerns from residents, councils and Health and Environment authorities concerned about its impact on air quality in the Sydney basin. When it was announced that the burner had been rejected on environmental grounds, member for Mulgoa Tanya Davies was quoted “The risks were too great, there were no adequate guarantees to ensure the health and safety of people in Western Sydney”

The people of Lithgow and surrounding areas do not have the people power of western Sydney to oppose this, and it has been kept quiet and a lot of people are unaware that it has even been proposed. If it has been knocked back on environmental grounds in Sydney, why then should it be dumped on rural residential areas? Surely the safety aspect of this proposal is no different to Sydney.

Fly ash from the burning of rubbish is made up of Dioxins and Furans (PCDDI/PCDF) which pose a global threat to human health and the environment, they are persistent in the environment and can travel long distances and accumulate in the food chain. I am concerned that the ash will not be contained correctly and will cause further damage to our health and environment.

Who would want to raise their families, invest their money and live in a place where the risks to public health are so high? Not only will it affect our regions image, it will have the flow on effect to our small businesses that rely on the tourism trade.

The long term effects so close to residential areas such as Portland, Wallerawang, Lithgow and surrounding localities will have a detrimental effect on house and land prices, farming and business. Not to mention the effect it will have on our health.

Just because we live in the country does not mean that our lives, health and happiness are worth less than those that live in the cities. Let’s keep Sydney’s waste in Sydney, we don't want it.
Thank you
Name Withheld
Object
VALLEY HEIGHTS , New South Wales
Message
I read about the Mt Piper rubbish proposal in the Blue Mountains Gazette On Wed Feb 19, p.8
It occurs to me that if the incineration process is so sound, why can't Sydney's rubbish be burnt down there?
That would save all the unnecessary truck movements, which would not only pose extra danger on the Great Western Highway, but add to the already serious noise impact of older trucks with very loud engine brakes.
Evan McManus
Object
PORTLAND , New South Wales
Message
I object to the project as I have lived in Portland my entire life, my children and grandchildren, father, brothers and sisters are all in the area and we don't want to have to move to other places. If the project goes ahead, we feel that we will be forced to leave the area because the risks to our health and that of our children and grandchildren will be too great.

I believe that once there is one thing allowed through such as this waste to energy smelter, it will become an avalanche of rubbish and other pollutants allowed into the area.
Our area is the start of the Sydney water catchment, water from our area runs directly into Warragamba Dam, if the water is to be polluted, it would have far reaching implications for the entire of NSW and Australia.

I am concerned about the increase in traffic on our already sub par roads, I am concerned about the amount of waste that will be carted through our towns and how it will be stored at the power station. I am most concerned about what is to come out of the smelter, the toxicity of the product and the toxicity of the ash and how it will be stored and that it will be left to blow over onto our homes,gardens and into the food chain.

We should not have our health and qualitity of life put at risk to serve the cities that want to dump their waste and pollutants on us.
Angela Batty
Object
PORTLAND , New South Wales
Message
Submission Against the Proposed Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project

I am making this submission on behalf of myself, my family, and much of the Portland and Greater Lithgow community. We strongly oppose the proposed “Energy Recovery Project” for the following reasons:

- The project poses a significant threat to both community health, and the environment. In addition, it poses a significant threat to livestock and primary production on properties surrounding the facility at Mt Piper.

- The fact that the project proposes to construct and operate a high-risk polluting facility in an identified vulnerable/low income community, raises a very serious issue of the violation of human rights. Further, it undermines both social and environmental justice.

- It will be unavoidable to prevent all toxic fly ash produced from the project from entering nearby waterways. Creeks in and around the Mount Piper site, raise grave concerns for the pollution of Cox’s River which leads directly into Sydney’s main water source Warragamba Dam. Despite best-practice requirements, it is impossible to adequately safeguard waterways. Due to this, the proposed project stands to negatively impact a significant part of the state’s population. This simply cannot be ignored.

- The proposed public health and environmental safeguards employed are largely unproven and inadequate.

- In situations such as this, it is vital that epidemiological studies be undertaken. However, this has not been done most likely due to the fact that results from such a study would have been too damning to continue with the project.

- It is noted that extensive risk assessment analyses have been undertaken in preparation for the project. However, relying solely on data arising from such studies is problematic due the reliance on predictive modelling techniques that are routinely unreliable.

- The extensive research conducted for the project is blatantly biased.

- Despite the project’s claims that the current plant will use new technologies that are proven and reliable, studies of similar technologies show that these claims are in fact unproven. Further, evidence from the Netherlands confirms that even the newest incinerator technologies cause significant pollution and health impacts to the surrounding communities and their environment (Arkenbout, Able. 2018. Hidden Emissions: A Story from the Netherlands Case Study).

- Waste to energy incinerators emit more toxic air pollutants and ghg’s per unit of energy than coal, oil, and gas (U.S. EPA eGRID 2012 Database. Analysis by Energy
Justice Network. The Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like compounds in the United States: The year 2000 Update. March 2005 External Review).

- Mass combustion, Gasification, and Pyrolysis type technologies pose environmental and public health impacts in surrounding communities and globally through the dispersion of persistent organic pollutants and ghg’s, while creating highly toxic ash that will require secure landfill (Bell, L and Bremmer, J. 2013. Burning waste for energy: it doesn’t stack up. The National Toxics Network, Australia).

- The proposed ‘Energy Recovery Project’ will also emit nanoparticles, toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and acid gases that have serious impacts on human health (British Society for Ecological Medicine. 2008. The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators. 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine). Many of these pollutants are carried on the wind impacting communities and ecosystems long distances from the point of origin (Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2001).

- Many chemicals of concern from emissions are not monitored or regulated in Australia even though they are unavoidably released from incinerators such as the one you propose (National Toxics Network. 2020. Federal Waste Inquiry: Waste Management and Recycling in Australia).

- With the above point in mind, how is it possible that you CLAIM our communities will not be impacted in anyway? This is simply untrue.

- The project has been misrepresented as a ‘renewable’ clean source of energy.

- The project has been deceptive in that the word ‘incinerator’ is never mentioned. Instead you cleverly describe an ‘Energy Recovery Project’ and push it as a ‘Green Energy’ solution. This has clearly been a public-relations stunt to cover up an industry that has a dirty past and an extremely negative public perception.

- The project has been pushed as a solution to assist with Sydney’s waste problem. In truth, you are dealing with one problem by creating a far greater one.

- The project claims to be a more environmentally sound alternative to landfill. These claims are unfounded.

- The proposal has not been transparent in educating the communities of the true nature of the project. In truth, this project appears to be proposing gasification like procedures which are categorised as incineration by the EU and US Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The current proposal is therefor far from being a ‘green energy’ solution.

- The project has employed a ‘smoke and mirrors’ technique to avoid certain, and justified public outcry.

- The current project is not in anyway aligned with Australia’s legal obligation under the Stockholm Convention to eradicate dioxins and furans.

- The waste incinerator industry has for decades been known as the HIGHTEST source of global dioxin pollution. This industry has long been referred to as the ‘Dioxin Factory’ industry. Dioxin is one of the most toxic compounds ever studied (Bell, L and Bremmer, J. 2013. Burning waste for energy: it doesn’t stack up. The National Toxics Network, Australia), yet your proposal intends to construct and operate such an incinerator in our community.

- Your project also raises grave concerns as to property devaluation in towns neighbouring the power station.

- After the proposed gasification/incineration process, 25% to 30% of the original waste mass remains as ash which is then put into landfill. Only this resulting landfill is now hazardous waste that is highly toxic.

- Similar ‘Waste to Energy’ Projects in Eastern Creek NSW (Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd) and Fishwick ACT (Captital Recycling and ActewAGL) were refused planning approval by the NSW Independent Planning Commission in 2018 and 2019 respectively. This was due to the risks to human health and increased pollution outweighing the benefits of the projects.

With the above in mind, I, and many others in the local community, believe it is unacceptable for the Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project to proceed.

Yours Faithfully
Angela Batty

* Please find attached below my above submission against the Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project in PDF form.
Attachments
Daniel Whitty O.A.M.
Support
Wallerawang , New South Wales
Message
I feel the proposal offers a very good outcome for disposal of waste (non toxic) and would be supportive of energy production for N.S.W. The chance to create much needed employment in the area is also a plus for the proposal
Lithgow Environment Group Inc.
Object
BLACKMANS FLAT , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached a submission on the Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project on behalf of Lithgow Environment Group Inc.
Attachments
Rebecca Hilder
Object
LITTLE HARTLEY , New South Wales
Message
My family and I are residents in the Lithgow LGA. We strongly object to the proposed Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project for several reasons.

The initial reasons are personal: we moved here from the Blue Mountains because we loved the area for its environment, the chance of a green and healthier lifestyle, and for the local town of Lithgow, which has a long and proud history of serving the state of NSW. We grow our own food, have chickens, have built a strawbale house with grid-connected solar power and a solar hot water heating system. We aren't on town water (although we have a creek running through our property which connects to the Coxs River and eventually the Sydney Water supply); we gather water from our roof for all our household use, and use the water collected in the dam to water our fruit and vegetable crops. We work as hard as we can to protect and even revegetate our land for the use of native animals, plants, birds and insects. We are deeply committed to our local area, shopping and using services in Lithgow, rather than other town and city centres. Lithgow is a strong and resilient community of which we are proud to be members.

The Lithgow region has made a significant contribution to the NSW economy for over 150 years. However, our local community and the environment has paid a very high price for providing NSW with coal and coal-fired electricity generation. We are aware and proud that Lithgow is trying to promote a cleaner-greener image as it transitions away from coal, to attract Tourism and Tree-changers. The pollution, particulate matter and general “Yuck Factor” of a Waste Incinerator will be highly detrimental.

Disturbingly, NSW Health Sydney West Area Health Service has identified that the health status of people living in the Lithgow LGA is on many measures far worse than other parts of NSW. The communities most affected by this Proposal (Blackmans Flat, Portland, Cullen Bullen, Pipers Flat, Lidsdale, Wallerawang) already have high levels of relative disadvantage, making them more susceptible to additional health impacts from environmental stressors such as air pollution and waste transport by trucks.

Furthermore, people in the Lithgow LGA already experience high levels of morbidity due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, the conditions most likely to be aggravated by exposure to Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Particulate Matter PM2.5 & 10, PAH’s, Dioxins, & diesel particulates from 100 truck movements per day hauling 200,000 tonnes of waste annually along the Great Western and Castlereagh Highways. This already should be a matter of great concern, and positive action from Government, as opposed to an increase in these pollutants.

It makes us feel like we are being used a guinea pigs in a nasty experiment. It also feels like a project like this is being proposed for Lithgow in an 'out of sight, out of mind' manner, a very upsetting impression.

The environment has also paid a high price over the years of local projects, with water quality records showing that the Coxs River currently has the highest salinity levels of all catchments in the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment.

Mount Piper Ash Emplacement area is known to be leaching into underground mine workings and groundwater, as is Wallerawang Power Stations Kerosene Vale Fly Ash Dam (KVAD). Air Quality has recently been recorded as being among the worst in NSW during recent bushfires and dust storms.

The NSW Government has a poor record of managing air and water emissions from local power station’s, coal-ash repositories, and coal mines, both during their operation, and after closure. The local community does not trust Energy Australia to manage emissions from this Proposal any better.

This is not a “clean nor green energy” Proposal. This Proposal will produce more CO2 than burning coal per kw/h of electricity generated, will cost local coal mining jobs, will create toxic air, water, and soil pollution. And it will seriously undermine NSW Recycling and Zero Waste Strategies.

The most recent Air Quality Guidelines from the WHO are emphatic about the need to consider the impacts of air pollution sources on disadvantaged populations. The proposal to continue monitoring of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide at Wallerawang and Blackman's Flat is very much needed. Very little monitoring has taken place in recent years, so this information is vital to show the extreme levels of pollution being inflicted on the local population.

We are deeply disturbed by the Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project, and we hope that it is seen as a completely inappropriate proposal for an already beleaguered community.
Gary McCue
Object
BLACKHEATH , New South Wales
Message
Dear Ms Munk,
I object to the proposed Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project (recyclable materials burning) at Mt Piper Power Plant, State Significant Development (SSD-8294). This proposal is one of the most ludicrous energy proposals ever imagined and does not deserve to be approved. Recyclable material is just that, recyclable. These materials are resources, not wastes, and burning them destroys them forever, not to be recovered, and instead the proposed incinerator will produce more carbon emissions than the Mt Piper coal fired power plant, which is currently the second worst polluting site in the country. And on top of that these recyclables are to be trucked on the Great Western Highway, creating even more carbon emissions just to reach the incinerator. Who conceived such a proposal in a time following our country’s devastating bush fires, when we should have awakened to the need to address climate change affects and make greater efforts to reduce our carbon emissions?
Please, stop this disastrous proposal and instead direct any proposed government funding of this proposal toward creating new industries for making useful products from Australia’s recyclables.
Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Sincerely,
Gary McCue
Please note: I have not made political donations or gifts totalling $1,000 or more in the last two years.
Margaret Hilder
Object
LITTLE HARTLEY , New South Wales
Message
My personal story

I am a resident/landholder in Hartley Valley, adjacent to Lithgow, and I am writing to register my very strong objection to the proposed “energy recovery project” (recyclable materials burning) at Mt Piper Power Plant, State Significant Development (SSD-8294).
When I and my son and daughter left Sydney to live in the Blue Mountains, around 12 years ago, we planned to buy land and set up a smallholding where we could keep chickens, grow our our own fruit and vegetables, and enjoy a healthy life in a quiet, unpolluted environment. With this in mind we chose very carefully, ending up on a small acreage in Little Hartley.
We now have gardens where we grow vegetables, a small orchard, berry bushes and chickens for eggs. We gather and store rainwater, and have sufficient for all our needs. The air is fresh and clean, and smells sweet. We enjoy having a variety of wildlife sharing our property, and we fed and, watered and cared for them during the recent bush fires, when there was literally nothing else for them to eat.
This is the lifestyle we wanted. We are very happy here, and have many plans for the future, but if this proposal goes ahead, will tear out dreams apart, and at age 75, with limited financial resources, I would find it very difficult to start again in a new location.

My objections to this project
In summary ,
I believe that this project would be a retrograde step, impacting negatively on the lives and health of a large number of people and contributing to an increased bush fire risk through the warming and polluting effects on the atmosphere over a large area. For those of us who are still struggling with the after-effects of the most recent bush fires, this, in itself, is a genuinely terrifying prospect.

In more detail

This proposal will have significant negative impacts upon people’s health and local communities, and it will be a major emitter of greenhouse gases - something we can no longer afford, in terms of global heating.Additionally, toxic ash and gasses produced from this incinerator are likely to poison the air and waterways, impacting communities as far away as the Blue Mountains and Sydney. This is NOT a green energy project, because waste burning facilities produce far more carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated than coal, oil or gas fired power stations, in addition to destroying resources that should be recycled, wherever possible.
Incineration produces ash that contains toxins and dangerous gas emissions that have health risks. Ash from burning waste is toxic and needs to be disposed of as intractable waste, in this case in a lined cell. The location of the proposed plant next to Mt Piper Power Plant poses an unacceptable risk to the Coxs River catchment and its use as a source of raw source of drinking water for Sydney.
The most energy-rich waste products, such as plastic and paper, should be recycled, not burnt. The establishment of waste incineration technologies will result in a reduction in Sydney’s recycling, as plastic bags are burnt instead of not being produced at all, or else recycled. Thus the proposal will entrench a wasteful society, adding significantly to air pollution, and it would be a large step in the wrong direction if Australia is to adapt and thrive in the 21st century.

Further, the proposal will be in contravention of the Stockholm Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) as it will generate air emissions that include highly toxic and carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants. The Stockholm Convention specifies those Persistent Organic Pollutants whose production should be avoided or terminated: these include the highly toxic compounds such as dioxins, furans and toxic metals that are by-products of the incineration process. These are carcinogenic in humans (Stockholm Convention, 2008). Persistent organic pollutants from this proposed facility will contaminate the airshed, which will drift over the Blue Mountains and, in some circumstances, contaminate the Sydney Basin. These contaminants will also pollute Sydney’s water supply catchment and build up over an extended period.

Another consideration is the large fleet of rubbish trucks that will be used to transport waste to this plant. wThis will cause major disruption and negatively impact the Blue Mountains and Hartley Valley communities in this extensive World Heritage area. Deliveries of odorous loads of rubbish, by large and noisy trucks, will likely occur during the early morning and afternoon (end of school day), causing maximum traffic disturbance. It will alter the atmosphere and amenity of the towns within the mountains, and will impact negatively on the Great Western Highway and the Bells Line of Road.

To sum up: This is not a suitable use of taxpayers' money, nor an appropriate way to generate local employment. "Clean green" jobs are the way of the future, but this project is neither clean nor green, and is firmly rooted in the past, when we should be looking to the future.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

I strongly urge that this project be rejected.
Central West Media Pty Ltd
Support
WALLERAWANG , New South Wales
Message
I am in support of Energy Australia’s submission for the Waste to Energy project at Mt Piper. In my role as founder and CEO of a local media organisation i have seen First hand how they have been open and engaged in the community throughout the process. As a local entrepreneur I see a need for forward thinking projects in this region to assist in a transition of the economy. The project at MtPiper ticks a number of boxes in this regard and will lead to more jobs and a better long term solution for the region.
I fully support this project and hope to see more exciting projects in this region in the future.
Steven Ring
Support
PORTLAND , New South Wales
Message
As an individual living within three kilometres of the work, I fully support the Mount Piper Energy Recovery Program for the following reasons:
It will divert non-recyclable material from landfill
Reduce Carbon Emissions as per Appendix Greenhouse Gas Assessment
It will create a new industry within Lithgow that may lead to further commercial development
The project will create 140 construction jobs and 16 ongoing permanent jobs that are critical in the post fire recovery of the Lithgow LGA
The proposal will meet or exceed European Best Practice Standards or exceed them see Appendix E Best Available Techniques
There has been more than sufficient community consultation prior to and during the exhibition period and the company is to be commended on the work they have undertaken.
It has been proposed in briefing sessions that local drivers will be contracted to haul the non recyclable material from Sydney to Mount Piper.
Any potential air quality impact on this proposal is minor
No risk from this project to human health was identified.
24/7 air monitoring and results that are publicly available indicate transparency in this process.
BLUE MOUNTAINS CITY COUNCIL
Object
KATOOMBA , New South Wales
Message
At the ordinary Meeting of Council 25 February 2020 it was resolved:
‘That the Council writes a submission in objection to the proposed Lithgow waste incinerator and the extra truck traffic this will generate on roads across the Blue Mountains, most importantly this project sends the wrong signal to the market by encouraging waste generation, rather than creating a circular economy by reducing waste volumes and building a robust recycling system to responsibly manage our waste problem.’
[Minute 69]

Transport
Council are in objection to the addition of between 52 and 96 additional truck movements per day to the Great Western Highway. This will contribute to NOx, SOx, CO and PM pollutions causing heath implications for those residents living along the highway.
The Blue Mountains is a world heritage area that is renowned for its natural beauty, wildlife and is valued by locals for its peace and tranquillity. The additional road traffic will cause negative implications to the amenity of the Blue Mountains particularly through significant increases to noise levels. This is compounded as the majority of transportation will occur during day time when the local attractions are primarily utilised. Any reduction to amenity may also have a detrimental effect on our economy through lost tourism.
The EIS is not clear around the number of truck movements during construction phase and its implications. Specifically Month 15, the report states that a maximum of 28 trucks per day will operate. This directly contradicts table 15-2 which show 46 trucks per day for concrete alone. This calls to question the accuracy and reliability of the transport section of the EIS.
Rail transport has been ruled out for the site despite the report highlighting that existing capacity exists on the rail network and that all truck movements over the GWH could be replaced with one trainper day (which has capacity of 60 trucks). This option also offers fuel savings of 75%, with associated CO2e emission reductions. The negatives of rail have been unduly over stated and truck advantages over stated. One example being openly acknowledged in the detail of the EIS, is the advantage for truck movements which deliver ‘significantly shorter transit to and from Mt Piper land thus reduced cost’. The next section then goes on to concede that cycle time (transport time) for RFD is not particularly time sensitive.
Further, the report does not appropriately consider the opportunity of adapting rail either via Energy Australia’s currently planned rail loop or utilising existing infrastructure for RDF transport. Instead opting to say ‘assumed 30% cost increase’, ‘considers’ and acknowledges it ‘has not been considered comparatively against the dedicated road option’. Council would like to see other transport alternatives to road be considered and analysed more accurately, in particular rail.
Circular Economy
Council is concerned that Energy Recovery can lead to the creation of a market mechanism that incentivises energy recovery over waste minimisation or recycling. This is currently playing out in some European markets. This presents a real risk in NSW given the lack of clear policy direction, long term strategic planning around recycling facilities, waste processing, energy recovery and waste disposal in NSW. These risks have not been identified and should be with mitigation measures.
Central West Environment Council
Object
Summer Hill Ck , New South Wales
Message
Please refer to the document attached: 2020-02-28 Mt Piper Energy Recovery Project
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-8294
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Electricity Generation - Other
Local Government Areas
Lithgow City

Contact Planner

Name
Sally Munk