Mount Piper Energy Recovery Project

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
I object to the development of a waste-to-energy plant within the Lithgow Local Government Area.
While I assume that the Environment Protection Authority will be applying stringent standards to the development, I am not convinced that even the highest current standards of emission control will mean that the proposed development will not impact negatively upon the health of the Lithgow community.
We actually don’t know what the air we currently breathe contains as there is no permanent air pollution monitor between Bathurst and Windsor. The people of Lithgow are treated differently to the people of the Hunter Valley who are able to see at any moment what the nearest power station to them is emitting.
The Lithgow community has been subjected to emissions from coal-fired power stations for many decades. Local doctors believe that the community’s health has suffered. A new source of pollution won’t help to build a healthier community.
Another major negative aspect of the proposal is the transport of its fuel by road. The Great Western Highway is already hazardous due to the quantity of large trucks that use it. Additional truck movements will increase this hazard. They may also be used as a “reason” to implement the ludicrous proposal to duplicate the Great Western Highway. The waste-to-energy plant, if it must be built, would be better located where rail transport of its raw material is possible.
The proposed development will provide temporary jobs during its construction phase in an area that is crying out for jobs. However, in the longer term it will provide only 16 permanent jobs. Lithgow needs more than that to ensure its future, especially with the assured closure of the coal mines when they cease to be profitable enough for their foreign owners.
The community of Lithgow does not take kindly to being a “beneficiary” of Sydney’s waste problem. If the state government cannot commit itself to reducing intractable waste by enacting appropriate legislation such as extended-producer-responsibility, then each community should be accountable for its own waste. Lithgow has its own problems.
Susan Gregory
12 Kirkley Street, South Bowenfels NSW 2790
Phone 0487 443 759

Great for the local area with the creation of jobs into the future

l am writing this submission as I am totally against this project principally on the grounds that the health impact of this project will generate on myself and my family. To burn toxic waste and then call it an energy recovery project is a complete lie. We have winds regularly coming from the east which will directly blow this toxic emission right over my residence. l live within 2km of this proposed facility and l object to having to inhale these toxic emissions. There is no benefit to having this incinerator in our community at all but only negative consequences for all residents in our town of Portland. When considering this submission consider would yourself be happy to live so close to this toxic facility and endanger your and your families health I think not. I hope common sense prevails and this facility is rejected.

Please see submission attached.

Hi Sally
We had trouble setting up an account to make a submission for the Energy Australia project.

We support the project for reasons,
1, reduces land fill
2, creates employment
3, and is an alternative to mining

We have always had haul trucks on our roads in our area so we don't object that.

We all rely on electricity and it's a privilege to have it. So creating a sustainable way to produce power for a good proportion of the state is a good thing.

And burning clean waste reduces the risk of hazardus polution and again land fill.

Thank you
Sharon &
Mingaan Wiradjuri Aboriginal Corporation

Dear Ms Munk,
I live in Lithgow with my two children and we are very concerned about your plans to build an incinerator near our home town. Having lived in Germany for many year I know too well of the dangers and controversy about incinerations to burn waste.
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 and Lithgow 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 our home town LIthgow and will impact negatively on the Great Western Highway and the Bells Line of Road.
I want to note that we live near the Bells line of road that is already heavily used by commuters and trucks. This road turns into Chifley road that runs right through the heart of our beautiful small town. This is significant. People walk this street early in the morning, school children cross it every day. I drive this road every day to get to work which is located in the Blue mountains.
We value and rely on a clean and safe environment. This is the time to invest in genuine renewable technologies that don’t put our children’s health and our precious environment at further risk.
This proposal must be rejected for the sake of our health, the health of future generation and to protect the beautiful environment we live in and that still supports our life.
Yours sincerely
Eva Regitz
Finn Johnson (senior high school student)
Matilda Johnson (junior high school student)
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,
Eva Regitz

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.
We in Blackheath are already reeling from the proposed highway duplication which will see 30m B-doubles thundering through our beautiful villiage. The addition of even more trucks, laden with rubbish destined for the Lithgow incinerator, will only serve to make Blackheath and the other Blue Mountain villages no more than unwilling spectators to political vote grabbing! Where is the vision for a 'greener' future?
This proposal must be rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Jennifer Hardwick

Dear Ms Munk,
RE: State Significant Development (SSD-8294)
I am writing to object in the strongest terms to the proposal to truck recyclables from Sydney and elsewhere to Mt Piper Power station for burning as fuel.
The impacts of this would be absolutely appalling - including:
- Health impacts on the local community from toxic fumes and air pollution (containing highly toxic and carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants)
- Environmental impacts of toxic fumes and air pollution on plants and wildlife in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area - only today it was reported by Dr Andrew Peters from Charles Sturt University that smoke inhalation has killed native Australian smoky mice living more than 50 kilometres from the nearest bushfires
- Poisoning of waterways from both smoke and solid wastes (ash) and the resulting impact on aquatic life
- Impacts on Sydney’s drinking water catchment and recreational users of waterways - the toxins (persistent organic pollutants) will continue to build up over time resulting in environmental impacts and health impacts for the Sydney population.
- Impacts on Greenhouse Gas emissions of burning recycled materials (reported to be far greater per unit of energy generated when burning recyclables compared with coal, oil or gas)
- Impacts on Greenhouse Gas emissions of transporting massive volumes of recycled materials across the Blue Mountains
- Impacts on the communities and tourism operators in the Blue Mountains - both from the toxicity directly generated from the power plant plus from the massive amount of truck movements that would be required (also contributing to air pollution).
Householders recycle to “do their bit” and contribute towards a cleaner and greener environment. There is nothing green about this proposal - it will turn people off recycling. Instead of burning, the material from recyclables should be reclaimed and turned into recycled products and the government should invest in both recycling plants and promoting use of recycled products (eg through government purchasing policies).
There is no bypass of the Great Western Highways which goes straight through the heart of many Blue Mountains villages. Trucks mixed with local and tourist traffic, as well as the numerous school zones along the highway, will result in more accidents and in addition to the negative impacts on amenity and tourism values. Both the Great Western Highway and Bells Line of Road through the Blue Mountains are totally unsuited to increase in truck movements - the weather is frequently wet and misty with dense fog, snow and ice common. The government continues to overlook rail as a viable option for freight.
Furthermore this 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.
At a time when we need to act on Climate Change and are still reeling from and assessing the impacts of an unprecedented fire season this is is not the solution we need in NSW. We need to invest in truly green and clean technologies - please do not allow this blight on our beautiful environment and on the Lithgow, Blue Mountains and Central West communities to go ahead.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Jones

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.
The proposal is not a ‘green energy project’ as it emits gross amounts of harmful greenhouse gasses. The proposal should not receive any funding or grants due to allegedly being a source of renewable/green energy.
The proposal should be stripped of its status as a state significant development, which exempts it from adequate review. It is primarily a waste disposal project, not energy production, which affords it this status.
The proposal will stymie the booming recycling industry. In 2002, recycling businesses supported 22,000 full-time jobs. Waste-to-Energy technology will see employment in the recycling sector decline.
This proposal must be rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Marcia Grace

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,
Gabrielle Jones

Ms Sally Munk
Principal Environmental Planner
Industry Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
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,
Jane calcraft
Jane Calcraft
6 sylvannia st
Mt victoria New South Wales 2786
Sunday, February 9, 2020 - 08:28

Mt Piper Energy Recovery Project (SSD-8294)

Dear Sally,

Fire & Rescue NSW (FRNSW) acknowledge the receipt of your email on the 7th January 2020 requesting input into the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mt Piper Energy Recovery Project (SSD-8294).

FRNSW have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was prepared in support of the development and will not be providing comment at this time as there is currently insufficient information available regarding the fire safety and emergency response management aspects of the project.

FRNSW request to be consulted during the design phase of the fire and life safety systems for the site and project.

If you have any queries regarding the above please contact the Fire Safety Infrastructure Liaison Unit, referencing FRNSW file number BFS20/42. Please ensure that all correspondence in relation to this matter is submitted electronically to [email protected].

Regards
Brendan

Ms Sally Munk
Principal Environmental Planner
Industry Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
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 gases produced from this incinerator are likely to affect the air and water ways of the central we 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,
Ruby Stephens
1/13 Ross Smith Avenue
Meadowbank New South Wales 2114
Sunday, February 2, 2020 - 14:07

Ms Sally Munk
Principal Environmental Planner
Industry Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
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,
rick kilpatrick
Windmill
glen davis New South Wales 2846
Sunday, February 2, 2020 - 13:22

Ms Sally Munk
Principal Environmental Planner
Industry Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
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,
Sharon Wallent
15 Exmouth Court
Leanyer Northern Territory 0812
Thursday, January 30, 2020 - 00:10

Ms Sally Munk
Principal Environmental Planner
Industry Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Dear Ms Munk,
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. This proposal, if it 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.
In summary:
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 effects and continuing threat from the most recent bush fires, this, in itself, is a genuinely terrifying prospect.
In more detail:
This proposal will have negative impacts upon people’s health and local communities, and it will be a major emitter of greenhouse gases. 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. 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 recycled, 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 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 and is a 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.
A large fleet of rubbish trucks will be used to transport waste to this plant, which 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 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 have not made political donations or gifts totalling $1,000 or more in the last two years.
This proposal must be rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Margaret Hilder
PO Box 80
Mt Victoria New South Wales 2786
Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - 19:05

Ms Sally Munk
Principal Environmental Planner
Industry Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Dear Ms Munk,
I object to the proposed “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,
Cristine Cusbert