Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

My name is Josephine Church and I live in Lake Bathurst, under eight kilometres from the site of Veolia’s proposed incinerator. I vehemently object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.
I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will NOT be an effective, green waste solution but will instead cause irreparable damage to the environment, local industries and the health and well-being of residents.
How can waste be transported some 230 kilometres and burnt without causing adverse environmental effects? Not only emissions caused by transportation and the actual burning of waste but also, Veolia’s despicable record in waste leakage. I personally have witnessed plastic and liquid spilling from shipping containers being transported through rich farmland, unique ecosystems and across vital waterways.
I have been raised on these lands which surround the proposed incinerator. I have grown up alongside blue tongue lizards, peregrine falcons, sheep producing Australia’s finest wool, and the woodlands of the Great Dividing Range. I enjoy the annual visits of the flame robins and yellow tail cockatoos, visiting our lands from the cold south. They will not continue to visit a location that has been coated in ash, that’s waterways are contaminated with garbage, litter and ash, that’s farmlands are barren, that’s human inhabitants hide indoors and die young. Veolia has done enough to destroy this land.
The New South Wales government claims to be respectful of the cultural connection of Indigenous Australians to Country, yet they want to permit and encourage an incinerator that will spew toxins across the very same lands. This is not respect.
Regularly, I smell Veolia’s current farce of a bioreactor at the same site as the proposed incinerator. It seems that when the weather is nice and the sun is shining, Veolia is smelling. It is nauseating. It prevents me from going outside, engaging in my outdoor activities and exercising outdoors. Imagine the impacts on my health and well-being. This will only worsen when it is not only foul smell, but also toxic ashes which I inhale.
When my parents pass away, this inclinator will leave me with a valueless property, unproductive and worthless. Any investment, made in my parent’s farm is a risk, possibly a waste. No one will purchase a lamb chop or a T-bone steak, when they know it has come from lands around a giant, industrial waste-fired power station. And more so, no one will want to purchase a farm under this cloud of ash.
I have received no communication from Veolia regarding their proposed incinerator. I live so close yet Veolia clearly has no care or respect local residents.
Please, stop the incinerator.

See attached letter of objection

I, Charlotte Middleton strongly object to the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (application number SSD - 21184278).
Please my submission attached
Thank you

I have significant concerns about the proposal on many levels, ranging from the proposed activity to specific issues raised from the EIS and the proponent Veolia. These call into question the development, is need and the likelihood of operational compliance.

The European Union (EU) states Waste to Energy (WTE) incineration a 'disposal' activity and not a 'recovery' (of energy). It is a carbon intensive, green house emission causing and inefficient technology. In the European Union there is growing dissatisfaction with the technology. The EU which has relied on waste incineration for the past few decades, is now moving away from thermal WTE and other forms of incineration and is focusing on more ecologically acceptable solutions.

European financial institutions are now choosing to support alternatives higher in the waste hierarchy, while the EU has decided that WTE incineration should be excluded from financial support. The construction of new waste incinerators was presented by the European Commission as an example of non-compliance with the Do No Significant Harm principle. WTE also has been shown to significantly impact the greenhouse gas budgets of Germany and the EU. The energy conversion rates in existing plants are only between 25% and 40% of that input.

In India many of these plants, during operation had to increase the limits of waste they received in an effort to be viable. Not only did this increase waste generation by adding more waste streams but it also damaged other true waste reuse industries. As UNSW engineering professor Veena Sahajwalla, states by resorting to burning waste for energy, Australia is not trying hard enough to repurpose materials. Now many of these plants have been shut down in India and Europe.

Why are we considering a proposal of this type when it has been demonstrated not to work and other countries are rejecting it? What consideration have been given to preventing this situation from occurring with this plant.

Outside of the general issues with the proposed technology. There are specific concerns which have not been addressed.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the proposal fails to consider all the principals of sustainable development. Specifically, the reduction in transportation. One of the key sustainable features listed in Britain and India is that these plants can be built close to source. The proposed location is over 2.5 hours or 240kms (Clyde to Crisps Creek) from where the waste will be generated, Sydney. The environmental benefits listed in the EIS fails to take into account the energy and fuel usage required to transport the waste from where it’s generated to the plant. This is not best sustainable practice. The answer as to why the plant is not being built where the fuel is generated (Sydney) is not answered by the proposal’s EIS.

The air quality model used is not valid. It’s benchmarked against a United Kingdom located in Staffordshire which has significantly different climactic conditions to the proposed site in particular wind (Average Wind Speed, Britain: 18.03km/h; Tarago 13.68km/h) and rainfall. By using the results of air quality readings from such a different and wetter climate, it brings into question the validity of the results. As air quality impacts a large number of receivers data should be cross referenced with other plants in climates of more similar climates.

The EIS prominently states that fuel will come from the current waste streams. This phrasing makes it sound that there will be no increase in waste received at the current Crisps Creek facility. It is not until later in the documents that the EIS clarifies that there will be no increase in the limit of volume of waste received as approved in the EPL. The current volume of waste received is lower than the EPL limit. The projections and models provided show the intent to receive was up to the EPL limit. Therefore, there will be an increase in the volume of waste received as against current volumes. The phrasing at the start of the EIS is disingenuous, and has the potential to be misinterpreted. Given the current pollution issues from the facility including the PIN and Prevention Notice, with the volume it currently receives there is significant likelihood of increased issues as the volume of waste accepted increases. The community should not be impacted in this manner.

The proposed location of the restricted waste encapsulation cell needs to be reconsidered. The proposed cell continues below the ground water level. If the restricted waste generated is not effectively mixed and sealed, it can be mobilised in water, potently contaminating the ground water.

Given that the current primary industries in the community are partly reliant of groundwater any potential risk to this resource for gain of a single private company is not justified. In addition, the basin which the EIS proposes to be decease in size to facilitate the installation of the cell is leaking. A Prevention Order was issued by the EPA on 24 October 2022 (Notice No. 3503885). The creek downslope of the leaking basin feeds into the Warragamba Dam, Sydney’s primary source of water. Given is the potential contaminants of the restricted waste, contamination of a state significant drinking water source is possible should it leak.

The proposal is not complaint with the facility’s EPL. The current EPL has a construction condition (L5.2) which limits hours of operation to 7:00am and 6:00pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 7am and 1pm on Saturdays. The Interim Construction Noise Guideline also requires that work which can be undertaken during standard hours must be undertaken during standard hours. The EIS states that the constriction will be 24 hours, seven days a week for three years. This proposed noncompliance also happens with the hours of operation which are limited in the ELP (with the exception of one activity) to the same hours (L5.1). Again the EIS states 24 hours, seven days a week operation. There is no reason provided as to why the project can‘t comply with the EPL current conditions. This is not acceptable.

The EPL Annual Returns for the facility, shows non-compliances for every one of the 20 years of operation, with the expectation of one year. The last public return for the current EPL shows that 292 complaints were received. The operator Veolia has received 5 PINs while operating this facility including one on the 28 November 2022 (Notice No: 3173531433). With this poor record of compliance, the likelihood of future non-compliances is significant. The community wants Veolia to constantly meet their current requirements before consideration of future expansion.

Lastly, should the proposal go ahead the control mitigation measures listed in the EIS lack substance. The majority are only admiration controls, with little to no detail on what they entail or how they will be implemented. In the hierarchy of control, administration controls are second the lowest level and have reduced effectiveness compared to other control methods. Given the issues with non-compliances with current administration controls as shown in the Annual Returns and the recent PIN, Veolia can’t be trusted to rely on admiration controls. Better mitigation is needed.

Based on the reasons listed above I do not support this proposal, the operator fails to comply, it disregards current EPL conditions, selectively chooses the principals of sustainably development which suit its narrative, lacks effective proposed controls and doesn’t in plain English advise of the changes to noise and the current waste received. As a result is can’t meet the requirements of the NSW waste management and resource recovery policies. I do not support this proposal and it should be rejected.

As a resident, a primary producer and a small business owner in the Yass Valley area at Murrumbateman NSW I am writing to strongly oppose the proposal of an incinerator at Tarago. I am particularly concerned about the effects of this proposal on the premium Canberra Wine District, regional tourism and our rural food and water supply.

Impacts on the Canberra District Wine Region

I am a grapegrower/primary producer at Murrumbateman NSW and this proposal has the potential to destroy our business and that of other wineries in the region. My friends and colleagues at the wineries at Lake George will be directly within the path of the projected pollution plumes and the modelling makes me concerned about the potential for drift onto my vineyards as well.
The Canberra Wine District has an unparalleled reputation in Australia for exceptionally premium wines. This region does not produce any low grade, cheap wine but rather focuses on quality instead of quantity and as such the region has attracted incredible accolades from wine critics and wine shows all over the world. Unfortunately, as we discovered during the bushfires in 2019/20, this industry is incredibly susceptible to air pollution. The entire 2020 wine crop was lost due to absorption of smoke compounds, from bushfires over 150km away, into the grapes which rendered the wine completely unpalatable. Most vineyards across the region had to dispose of their entire crop and lost a years worth of income as grapes were tainted right up and down eastern Australia and so there were none available to purchase nearby. The wine industry is still reeling from these impacts.
To give you an idea of the impact of smoke on vineyards, please see the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) factsheets attached. Further information should be sourced directly from the AWRI and the NSW Wine Association on the specific impacts of this incinerator on the local industry before a decision is made.

2020 was not the first time that wine grapes have been impacted by air pollution but it certainly was the worst. Between 2003 and 2015, major fire events in Australia resulted in over $400 million worth of grapes being lost or downgraded due to smoke taint. In 2020 the financial impact would have been much greater - particularly when the effect on wine tourism is taken into account.

Impacts on regional tourism

Due to its enviable reputation the Canberra Wine District attracts a lot of wine tourists each year and makes a significant contribution to our regional economy. I am concerned that the installation of this incinerator will impact on our pristine rural environment which is one of our biggest drawcard for tourists. These tourists are primarily escaping the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne for the peaceful unpolluted countryside. If this region is polluted, or even just perceived to be polluted and less desirable, we will lose this significant tourist trade to other country regions. Local tourism businesses such as ourselves employ significant numbers of staff from local communities both for retail and production purposes. If these local regional businesses close down due to lack of trade the flow-on impacts to the regional economy will be significant.

Impacts on other agricultural industries and export markets

As a resident I am deeply concerned that an incinerator that is banned from being built in the Sydney basin will be built in a regional and largely agricultural area. This rural area produces food and fibre for domestic and international export and I am deeply concerned about the chemical residues from this facility that will enter our food and water systems and flow through into our produce. Veolia are not disputing the fact that these chemical residues will exist but they maintain they will be safe for human health. The issue is whether or not they can confidently predict the effects of accumulation into the food system over time and whether this will be low enough to meet importing country’s chemical residue limitations (both current and future requirements)—the European market is particularly strict on this with little to no chemical residues permitted in imported produce. Furthermore, one mishap or accident at the incinerator which results in fluid leakage or higher than expected air pollution could cause the loss of export markets and wipe out entire local agricultural industries, not to mention the effects on human health. Australia has a reputation for clean and green produce and any damage to this reputation cannot be undone easily.

Impact on residents’ food and water supply

The majority of rural residents in the region are responsible for provision of their own water and have no centrally monitored water supply. Most houses rely on rainwater supplies for drinking and household use and rivers, creeks and bores for stock use and to irrigate vegetable gardens. It is unusual for rural residents to filter this water or to be concerned about it being polluted as the region is not a manufacturing or industrial area. The chemical residues from this facility will collect on roofs in the region and then would be washed into and accumulate into rainwater tanks. It does not appear that Veolia has adequately considered and factored this long-term accumulation into their projections. Since each roof area varies considerably and wind currents are difficult to predict I am not confident that the long-term accumulation could be accurately calculated for every household in the region.
I note that compared to people in the Sydney Basin, rural residents rely significantly on consuming produce from their own land. For instance on my own property we grow our own vegetables, fruit and collect eggs & goats milk from our farm animals. Many other people I know butcher their own meat from animals they have raised themselves. Veolia has not adequately examined this key difference between metropolitan and rural households in projecting the effects on human health and has not provided sufficient evidence to assure that there will be no long-term effects on residents health as a result of this pollution if they continue to consume home-grown food and unfiltered rainwater every day of their lives. Furthermore, with regional areas not having the same ability to access fresh fruit and vegetables as metropolitan residents (particularly in this era where supply chains are constantly disrupted by pandemics, flooding, fires etc) it is crucial that rural residents are able to be self-sufficient safely.

In this matter, as in any matter of human health, uncertainty is a risk too great to take. Please reject this proposal for the future of our rural businesses and communities.

I strongly object to this project for the following reasons.

1. I am not close to being satisfied that there won’t be serious and ongoing negative health impacts on surrounding residents, livestock, biodiversity and soil impacts. If this incinerator is safe to operate near people, then it should be built in the area that is generating the waste. If it is not safe to operate around the suburbs of Sydney, then it is not safe to operate around the residents surrounding Woodlawn.

2. The EIS is completely inadequate. It is impossible to adequately assess the potential and long term catastrophic environmental impacts from this EIS, made up of sweeping assumptions about emissions controls without any evidence of how that will be achieved. The only thing that is clear from the EIS is that Veolia is proposing to use second rate technology that will lead to worse emissions than if they used industry leading (but more expensive) emissions scrubbing technologies.

3. Veolia, as the current managers of the Woodlawn landfill site have a long track record of being unable to control the environmental impacts of the existing landfill. This has included waste leaching into the soil and the constant smell. They have an appalling track record and cannot be trusted to live up to their commitments, because they rarely do.

This project must be rejected on the basis of fairness, due process and good governance. It is clear cut. If this technology is safe to exist around family homes, then is should be built next to the people who are producing the waste. This would obviously save a huge amount of money in transporting the waste and well as extinguishing what would be a significant burden on the state’s infrastructure. However, if it is not safe to operate a waste incinerator next to the homes of the people that are producing the waste then it is not safe to operate in our area. We are not second-class citizens.

I live in BYWONG, near BUNGENDORE and TARAGO NSW. This area has a growing population and is not far from Canberra. All of these areas, including rural towns and communities, agricultural land and Canberra city will be impacted by the TOXIC EMISSIONS from the proposed waste incinerator at Tarago.

I strongly oppose the proposed incinerator being built at Tarago because it will result in TOXIC EMISSIONS from the incineration of waste over people's homes and properties, including in areas where water is collected in RAINWATER tanks and people grow LOCAL PRODUCE.

The NSW Government needs to find better ways to reduce and manage waste. Incineration of waste from Sydney in rural areas is NOT an acceptable solution. This will impact the quality of people's lives - affecting AIR AND WATER QUALITY, agricultural land and human health.

The UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS on human lives and economies cannot be overlooked in the assessment of this proposal. It must be refused on the grounds of HUMAN HEALTH.

I strongly object to this project for a number of reasons:

- It is blatant greenwashing. The amount of energy produced from the plant is minuscule and is far outweighed by the detrimental impact of toxic waste entering the regions farmland and water ways (an estimated 2.2 MILLION tonnes of toxic waste ash). Veolia asserts that incineration is more environmentally friendly than landfill due to methane emissions. It is actually the opposite - methane produced from their landfill is captured which prevents it from entering the atmosphere. Landfill does not make the CO2, air pollution and toxic ash by-products that this incinerator will. The NSW Government has committed to net zero by 2030, but this project will emit 140,000 tonnes of CO2 each year.

- Pollution from the proposed incinerator will includes acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS). These have been proven to be associated with various health issues including cardiac disease, decreased lung function and death. As well as polluting the air, furans and dioxins will accumulate in the environment over time in soil and water - they are then absorbed by plants, crops and animals.

-Food which has been contaminated by toxins this incinerator will produce can cause cancer, infant deaths, miscarriage, developmental delays, heart disease reproductive issues and harm the respiratory system. This would be devastating for the health of the local community and have broader, economic implications as agriculture in the region is unviable.

- This incinerator will result in economic devastation. the benefit of the small number of jobs created by the incinerator will be far outweighed by the closure of agriculture. The unviability of agriculture in the region will have enormous flow on effects to all economic activity in the broader region.

- The NSW Independent Planning Commission determined that an incinerator in western Sydney was not in the public interest. Safety, insufficient evidence that the pollution control technologies would be capable of managing emissions, concern about the relationship between air quality impacts and water quality impacts, the possibility of adverse environmental outcomes, and concern about site suitability and human health impacts were all reasons the project was rejected. The NSW Government has banned incinerators like this in Sydney because of the risk to human health. The risks remain the same and if it is not safe for residents of Sydney it is not safe for those in regional NSW (despite these populations having less voting power).

- Community acceptance is not obtained. Veolia have proven through past projects they are unethical, profit driven with zero regard for Australians.

I understand that the Tarago residents have been labelled "NIMBYS" (Not In My Backyard). This is not a necessary project that must be put somewhere. It is a shortsighted money grab by Veolia and an easy option the NSW government is considering because it has failed to arrange a solution for Sydney's immense amounts of waste. The residents I have spoken to don't want it in their backyard or anyone else's for the reasons that a toxic waste incinerator is an environmental, economic and social disaster. The solution must not cause more or equal harm to the problem.

See attachment

I have become aware of the application (Woodlawn ARC: SSD-21184278) by Veolia to build an industrial incinerator at Woodlawn Eco-precinct to dispose of large quantities of Sydney waste to produce energy.
I strongly object to this project. I live in Canberra and have family and friends living around this area, including Tarago. It is clear to me after reading about this incinerator and Veolia that this is an extreme risk to our health and the environment.
1. Why choose the incinerator over more environmentally friendly methods?
The incinerator will burn a third of the Sydney waste that currently goes into Woodlawn landfill. This process will release more greenhouse gases than leaving it in landfill. This is contrary to the Government’s commitment to reduce our output of these gasses. At least the methane from landfill can and is collected for use in power production
The incinerator will be a comparatively dirtier method of power production than coal and natural-gas and most certainly renewables.
2. Landfill reduction
Landfill will not be reduced by a third as the contaminated fly ash by-product of incineration will be discarded into landfill.
3. Toxic emissions
Incineration will produce emissions that are toxic and an extreme danger to the health of those who are downwind. Though there will be processes in place to reduce these emissions to within standards set by government how will these be monitored and by whom? How frequently will they be monitored? How quickly will a malfunction be detected? How long will it take to shut the incinerator down to stop the emissions? What warnings will be issued to the public?
Though emissions may be within airborne standards who monitors emission deposits on agricultural land, waterways and tank water on rural properties? What happens to these if emission controls fail?
4. How trustworthy is Veolia
Veolia has a history of breaching licensing conditions. Allowing them to undertake such a project is an extreme risk. I have often experienced the foul smell of the current landfill when visiting Tarago!
5. Incinerator and recycling
A paper from UNSW Sydney states that most of Australia’s recyclable material ends up in landfill posing a potential risk to the environment and health. Surely $600,000,000 would be better spent on a recycling plant and recycling incentives than an incinerator.

My name is Jan Scott and I am deeply opposed to a waste incinerator being built at Tarago. Approval of such an incinerator is not only environmentally damaging but also is a destructive way of dealing with a waste problem.
Such an incinerator will produce toxic air pollution which will affect both local residents, including children who are especially vulnerable, and the essential farming lands in that region giving rise to pollution entering the food chain.
Further, toxins risk leaching into the groundwater causing widespread damage to humans and the environment.
The chemicals produced by such waste incineration are very long-lasting and cause serious health effects such as cancer, respiratory problems, child development issues and many others.
Such incinerators have be refused elsewhere in New South Wales for exactly these reasons and should be rejected at Tarago.
No amount of restrictions contained in any approval are likely to be effective in preventing harm as Veolia has a track record of breaching the terms of their licence.
Incineration of waste is not an effective way to deal with it: it should be reduced and recycled. A must better use of the land would be built a recycling centre for products that cannot currently be recycled in Australia.
Energy from burning waste with toxic by-products cannot be considered green or renewable.
Please reject the application for approval of the proposed incinerator.
Thank you for reading this submission.

See attached.

Submission on Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre SSD-21184278
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission opposing the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre, an incinerator approximately 6km from Tarago and 40km from the northern suburbs of Canberra.
I oppose the proposed development because:
- the incinerator will be using the same technology that has been banned in most other places in NSW, banned in the ACT and in many countries around the world because it pollutes the air and threatens human health.

- the incinerator will exceed the NSW Government safety standards for air emissions.

- hazardous waste will be stored in the ground near Tarago risking the groundwater supplies of the region and the Sydney water catchment

- plume modelling shows air pollution will spread throughout the region, from Canberra to Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan, Yass, and more

- incinerator air pollutants can cause illness and death from respiratory problems (asthma, lung disease, breathing difficulties), strokes, cancer, heart disease, heart attack and more.

- buried persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and toxins in the pit will remain for over 1,000 years and these deadly chemicals will leach out into the surrounding environment.

- if contamination occurs and accumulates, crops, pastures and livestock will exceed the safety limits for human and livestock consumption. Many overseas communities can no longer safely farm their land due to incinerator contamination.

- Veolia has no social licence to operate an incinerator in the Tarago area and has a dismal track record for breaching licence conditions and will continue to show the same contempt for the local community. No number of conditions of consent will prevent Veolia continuing as usual.

- incinerators contribute to climate change. They emit more CO2 per megawatt-hour than coal-fired, natural-gas fired, or oil-fired power plants. And this incinerator will be operating 365 days of the year for more than 30 years.


This proposed development must be rejected.

I now reside in Eden, but lived in the Tarago area for 40 years, so have a personal and detailed perspective of living with Veolia in Tarago.


Pam Handyside
Eden NSW

Received via post 7/12/22

I would like to object to the Tarago incinerator project. Waste from major cities should be dealt with in those cities and not shipped out to small towns.

Both Tarago and Canberra and surrounds value the clean air of the region and I and concerned about air pollution from this project.

Yours
Cassandra Proudfoot
Canberra

Please see the attached document containing our objection to the proposed incinerator.

I live in nearby Mount Fairy and strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built at Woodlawn near Tarago.
I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will:
1) negatively impact property values within the area
2) cause illness amongst locals who depend on harvested rain water for household useage, and also who grow fruit/vegetables for local consumption
3) cause illness to people who purchase products grown in the affected area
4) cause illness to animals/livestock which depends on local water sources and grazing due to the build up of toxins in the soil & water
5) create fear and angst in the local community
The main reason for my objection is:
If the NSW Government banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health, then they simply should not be allowed to operate anywhere in the vicinity of any populations or food production areas.
If it’s not safe for Sydney, it isn’t safe anywhere
I personally rely on harvested rain water and locally grown vegetables for consumption. I also occasionally sell excess vegetables through local markets to supplement my income.
I am deeply concerned that the toxic air pollution which Veolia’s proposed incinerator will emit..... constantly for 25 years........ may affect my water supply(which is rooftop collection) the runoff into my dams (which I use to grow vegetables) and impact the health of my livestock due to the accumulation of toxins in the soil.
I am also concerned for the greater communities which include Canberra to Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan, Yass and beyond which have been identified as being within the toxic incinerators “plume”.
Why should we be considered second class citizens to Sydney?
The risk to human health outlined by the NSW Independent Planning Commission following the rejection of the Eastern Creek waste Incinerator in 2018 including:
- concerns about safety,
- insufficient evidence that the pollution control technologies would be capable of managing emissions,
- concern about the relationship between air quality impacts and water quality impacts,
- the possibility of adverse environmental outcomes, and
- concern about site suitability and human health impacts.
should be considered relevant to the proposed Woodlawn incinerator proposal.
Nothing is different. The EPA has evidence of Woodlawn failing to meet emission requirements with it’s existing Bioreactor.
Air pollution from the proposed incinerator includes acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (including cadmium, lead & mercury) and persistent organic particulates (such as PFAS, dioxins, furans, PCBs). I am deeply concerned that this air pollution will be blanketed across the neighbouring region, which can cause serious illness such as cancers and decreased lung function, and also accumulate in the surrounding environment over time in soil and water, to be absorbed by plants, crops and animals.
I do not wish to be concerned about breathing the air where I live, drinking the water and eating my crops.
I understand that the NSW Energy from Waste Policy states that incinerator proposals are only valid where “community acceptance to operate such a process has been obtained”. There is no community acceptance for a toxic waste facility at Woodlawn near Tarago.