Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

I object to this proposal as per the attached document.

I am Greg Oliver and strongly oppose the proposed waste incinerator at Tarago NSW (Woodland ARC). I live and work on our certified organic farm just east of Bungendore, about 15km south of the proposed incinerator.

There are many reasons to oppose this incinerator. The most important to me is the real potential for heavy metals, dioxins, furans, PCBs and other pollutants to contaminate us, our farm and our organic produce. Plumes of toxin substances could be deposited on our pastures and market garden, and on our roof from which we source our drinking water. The potential negative impact on the health of ourselves, our animals and our customers is obvious.

Our 1100 acre farm is certified organic. We produce beef, pasture-raised eggs and a wide range of vegetables that we sell direct to the public at the Capital Region Farmers Market (CRFM) in Canberra and the Carriageworks Market in Sydney. We have sold our certified organic and biodynamic produce at the CRFM every week since 2007, and have built up a strong customer base that cares about clean healthy organic food. Our business provides employment for 3 local people full time and another 2 people part time. It also supports the local economy (including rural suppliers and service providers).

I am not mollified by the environmental impact statement (EIS). Reputable national and international agencies that deal with risk, such as the Plant and Animal Biosecurity areas of DAFF, use the term negligible risk” (zero being unrealistic). The AVPMA operates similarly with agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Risk management works most of the time, but not always (note equine influenza, white spot disease, varroa mite, red and crazy ants etc.). Importantly, the Tarago waste incinerator EIS does not even this term. Instead it uses much looser language with regard to the likelihood of contamination, such as “expected to”, “not expected to”, and anticipated to be”. I find this both incredible and upsetting. The proponents want to build a waste incinerator in our region and clearly cannot reassure us that it is completely safe in their 334 page EIS (plus Appendices). Published research papers indicate that these facilities overseas are “safe” only if all safeguards work all the time and there is never any human error. Of course this is never the case, and I note that Veolia have been fined numerous times for breaches by the EPA at Tarago and other locations. I think that contamination of surrounding areas and underground water, over time, is probable. Clay encapsulation cells might be disrupted and leak, filters might not be maintained on all occasions, and other risk mitigation measures can fail. In fact, it is likely that at least one will fail over time, and that my fear will be realized.

The EIS is disingenuous in stating that organic agriculture would not be impacted. Have the writers read the Australian National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic produce (The Standard)? Are they aware it even exists? Have they discussed the proposed facility with any of the six certifying bodies in Australia? I am certain that they have not requested comment from the committee that advises the Federal government on The Standard. Our business (Greenhill Farm) is based on being both organic and biodynamic, and our customers buy because of it. Who will bear any testing and other costs that our certifying body might require? Who will compensate us for any loss in organic status, which would effectively destroy our business?

This matter is the opposite of NIMBY syndrome. I object to waste being transported from someone else’s “backyard” to ours. We are being asked to bear the risk to our health and economic wellbeing. If any waste incinerator is built at all (and I believe it should not for other reasons), then it should be in the region from which the waste is generated. I understand that it is has not been approved in the source (Sydney) region due to potential contamination issues.

Apart from the potential impact on our health and economic livelihoods, there are many reasons not to build a facility such as that proposed, including:
. it generates power from fossil fuel (albeit waste). It thus contributes to global warming.
. it is inefficient in power generation, relative to the emissions it would produce
. it encourages the production of more waste, and works against efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle. It is not ok to keep using packaging and excuse it by generating a little power by burning it. The waste should not be created in the first place.

I strongly oppose the proposed waste incinerator at Tarago.

Greg Oliver
“Greenhill”
95 Greenhill Lane
Bungendore NSW 2621
0456 969861

Dear Madam/ Sir

I express our families deep concern re Veolia's proposal to build a waste-to energy incinerator near Tarago at their existing Woodlawn Bioreactor landfill site in Goulburn Mulwaree NSW. The proposal is to dispose of Sydney's waste and dispose of it at the expense of the our local environment. We have one of a number of vineyards in the area where the predicted range of the incinerator's toxic plume would impact not only on the pristine environment of the local area and reach as far as Canberra. There are many agricultural pursuits in the area who would be impacted: sheep, dairy, cattle, grape grower and wine makers and towns and even the capital of Australia, Canberra. Australian citizens in the towns and farms in the impacted region have invested their lives and savings in the expectation that this kind of development would not be contemplated and that they would be protected by our government. The incineration would be 24/7 for 30 years and toxic waste will be disposed of in the local area without regard to the groundwater and land, resulting in pollution and possible deaths that this could lead to in the future. This development would be a biological and atmospheric catastrophe! It is of no use to say that the company would ensure that these events would not occur because they have ensured on paper that they would have planned to overcome all objections and concerns. In 30 years they can easily escape any retribution and ensure that the honest taxpayer would have to fund a cleanup. This has happened so many times this century and before! Please take these concerns seriously as we, the taxpayers, and local regional populations will be forced to exact our retribution in elections following this if the outcome is anything other than a rejection of the proposal.

I object to the proposed incinerator (Advanced Energy Recovery Centre – ARC) being built near Tarago by Veolia. I oppose any such waste incinerators being built anywhere, but as a resident of Currawang NSW which is part of the region this proposal particularly concerns me.

Such “Waste-to-energy” or “Energy-from-Waste” incinerators have been referred to as regrets-based solution to our current waste and energy issues. It is short sighted in terms of being a bandaid solution that might help address some issues in the short-term, but doesn’t actually address any of the systemic problems that are causing these issues in the first place, and actually makes things worse in the long term.

I’m embarrassed that Australia isn’t rapidly moving towards a circular economy to avoid waste products, as well as improving our capability to recycle materials here at a speed to keep up with the rate that materials are being used and discarded. I am concerned that the proposed incinerator will detract from the greater goal of moving rapidly towards a circular economy, and that investing in such a facility will be locking in 3 decades of future carbon emissions and many environmental risks.

There are many academic and government bodies that recognise the potential environmental pollution from waste incinerators. Even the NSW Government has acknowledged in its own Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan that waste incinerators impact human health stating “Populations can still experience health impacts when emissions are below the national standards, and for some common air pollutants, there is no safe threshold of impact”.

I’m sure Veolia do some good work, but unfortunately their operations at Woodlawn have had ongoing issues with foul odours over many years. At times we have suffered from a foul-smelling stench at our place some 15km away from the site, that has a sulphurous nostril burning sensation to it. This is hugely concerning as there are obviously large quantities of greenhouse gases and potentially other pollutants escaping from the facility. Veolia are not generally trusted to be able to manage a facility to government and EPA conditions by the broader community of the region. Veolia don’t have community acceptance to operate an incinerator at Woodlawn.

Please don’t proceed with any “Waste-to-energy” or “Energy-from-Waste” incinerators in the Tarago area, or indeed anywhere. We can and all should be looking to rapidly move to a waste hierarchy that sees waste reduction, reuse and recycling of materials taking precedence over energy recovery applications, and their associated environmental pollution and risks.

I want to object to this project on environmental grounds. I think that adding an incinerator to the existing landfill site will add a lot of unnecessary air pollution to the surrounding rural area as well as to the ACT. This is likely to increase the burden on people who have any kind of lung conditions, including children with asthma. In addition, the incinerator will create tons and tons of toxic ash that will need to be disposed of. The incinerator will also generate tons of C02 emissions. All of this is contrary to NSW stated direction of decreasing C02 emissions and decreasing the burden of industrial wastes. I also think it is profoundly unfair to further burden Tarago and surrounding communities with the dust, noise, pollution and other negative effects of expanding Woodlawn's operations to include waste incineration -- despite the project's clever title which makes it look like an energy project rather than a waste disposal project. The pollution will have a negative impact on surrounding agricultural produce as well as on the quality of life of the residents. Last but not least, this type of incinerator was rejected for the Sydney area (as it should have been). If it's not considered to be safe for Sydneysiders, why should rural people have to put up with it? Out of sight, out of mind is not the right answer. The NSW government should be finding new ways to reduce waste and recycle what's left. This is the wrong project in the wrong place -- it should not go ahead.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre - SUB-52131511
I object and equally oppose this project and any future Waste to Energy projects across the state of NSW due to the another legacy that will contaminate our air, land, water, communities, agricultural crops, impacting and increasing the long term health for many communities, equally increasing toxic emissions.
1. The health requirements into the future will be another added burden to our already understaffed, underfunded public health system;
2.Loss of agricultural production for the communities across NSW due to contaminated crops and stock;
3. Increasing toxic emissions is not an acceptable practice for the future with the proposal pollution from the proposed incinerator will includes acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS). Particulate pollution can lead to decreased lung function, cardiac disease and death. In addition to polluting the air, dioxins and furans will accumulate in the surrounding environment over time in soil and water and are absorbed by plants, crops and animals.

Where is the guarantee and who will be watching 24/7 the monitoring on site equally the emissions, leaching from residual ash landfill produced even under required monitoring license system. The current system is not working with some examples below.
The contamination from the residual ash. Lithgow with its long history and current contamination from extraction, burning of coal to date cannot be managed with contamination of our ground water, surface water and land. Example links : https://apps.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/sitedetails.aspx ; Mt Piper Power Station Lamberts North Ash Repository leaching into groundwater and surface water. Western Coal Washery discharges into local creeks.
The expectation for the people is for the government to sustain the health of communities, land, water and air.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a submission.
Julie Favell
Lithgow

Hazardous to health of my family,pollution in water,damage to farm,if it's so safe build it in sydney

I object to the project for the reasons provided in my attached submission.

to whom it may concern
I strongly oppose this project. Please do not destroy this community.
thanks
Luke

The details of our objection is described in the attachment.

This waste to energy project provides a method of recycling otherwise non-recyclable materials such as food/organic waste, mixed plastics and plastics whose recycling is not feasible.
The energy obtained will displace coal usage until such time as coal usage is phased out. The project could be reassessed when coal is no longer used for energy production.
The project displaces material otherwise sent to landfill where it would generate methane. Although methane is collected at Woodlawn current facility, direct combustion is far more efficient and complete.
Great care must be taken to ensure the completeness of combusion and monitoring of effluent. Fly ash/dust collection and disposal needs to be effective.
Recovery of ferrous metals (and potentially other metals) from the remaining ash is also valuable and displaces resources that would otherwise be used to mine/refine new metal.