Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

See attached Submission below

We own a property at 1677 Collector Road Currawang , near the site of the project. We can see the existing facility from parts of our property. We support the project for the following reasons.
1.The community cannot keep filling holes in the ground with rubbish. We will run out of holes!
2.We need to recycle as much as possible and this project will turn rubbish into mostly energy and water.
3.The company already operates such facilities in other countries and so understands the problems which may occur.
4.A large area of land is owned by the company around the site so problems such as noise should not occur.
5.Infrastructure for transporting rubbish already exists. A strong argument can be made to extend the railway to the site.
6.This project will provide many well-paid jobs in the district.
7.This project when completed will provide a blueprint for similar projects in other parts of Australia.
8.The present problem of odour Should be solved.

Strict conditions should be placed on all parts of the operation. These should be checked regularly by the NSW Government. We suggest a license fee, or similar, be charged to pay for these regular inspections.

My name is Paul Costigan and I live in 193 Lucky Pass Rd Currawang, less than 10km from Woodlawn and I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will be a danger to our health and well-being,As it is now most days we get a bad rotten egg smell from the Woodlawn direction , if they can’t control smell from the waste, what toxins are they going to be making us breath in from the incinerator.
I also worry for the health and well-being of my young and vibrant family. I would dread anything I’ll health happening to them because of a government decision to dispose of Sydney’s waste.
My wife,s family have lived and worked the land in this area for over 120 years.I would like to see my kid continue on this farming decision for many more generations to come .

I object to this project for many reasons, please refer to the below;
1. Veolia and the EPA cannot even manage odor issues of the last few years so they have no hope with this toxic incinerator.
2. Veolia cannot even look after the local community safety through dangerous use of country roads.
3. As a meat producer we sell to supermarkets this incinerator will impact the quality of the meat as the toxic pollutants will enter the food chain casing harm to local and more importantly (you lot in Sydney).
4. This project does not follow the most preferred waste management method (I think created by the EPA) REDUCE. But the least preferred option - treatment disposal! The government should be focusing on reducing or eliminating their waste rather then burning it MY BACK YARD! What you doing about this?
5. Water contamination - the pollutants over time will land on the ground, trees and tanks and will then end up in our waterways and will contaminate drinking water .

Once again Sydney will continue to use this farming land as their dumping ground for their own issues that they are two lazy to fix.

My name is Jade Anderson. I live in Gundaroo NSW and I wish to register my strong objection to the industrial waste incinerator Veolia is proposing to build in Tarago. I believe that an industrial waste incinerator will be incredibly harmful to our communities for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the proposed incinerator will emit toxic air pollution 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 25 years. This pollution will spread across the region from Canberra to Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan, Yass and further. Pollution from the incinerator is likely to include toxic heavy metal particulates, acid gases, and organic particulars which are harmful to humans as well as plants and animals.

Secondly, the proposed incinerator will contribute to climate change by emitting 140,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO2) each year. This is unacceptable at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases for the future of our children and of humanity. It is also inconsistent with the NSW government’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2030.

Finally, the community around the proposed incinerator site has expressed continued rejection of Veolia’s proposal and do not accept the proposal. The project would be in direct conflict with alternative development and growth in the local area where increased growth in rural- residential developments is expected over the next 10-20 years which will sustainably increase the size and diversity of the local community, supporting local businesses, volunteer organisations such as the NSW RFS, CWA and local schools. Veolio’s proposal will put these development strategies in jeopardy, making the area unsafe for families and the wider community.

Veolia’s proposal for an industrial waste incinerator in Tarago should be rejected, just as similar proposals were rejected in Sydney. It is not in the best interests of the community or the wider Australian community.

Please see attachment

This is another of a number of proposals to incinerate problem waste which have all (so far) been refused due to opposition based on concerns mainly related to the various risks seen to be associated with the gaseous and micro particle products of combustion which are injected in to the environment via of the flue emissions.
Whilst such concerns are covered in the EIS, the tone and content of the comment is very much dismissive of them being material. This perhaps is hardly surprising given the objective of the proponent is to present their proposal in a favorable light and are hardly likely to pursue a proposition which is stated to created problems for various affected parties.
I see they following points as an indication that the proposal is seen to be a "no worries" proposition which should/will be approved to go ahead as proposed:
- the fact that it is identified as a State Significant Project (SSD) which conveys the impression that it is seen as necessary and is supported by the Government and hence most likely to be approved by the Minister as the determining authority
- its description as an "Advanced Energy Recovery Center" would seem to be a classic exercise in "green washing" given that regardless of the spin put on it, its primary role is to facilitate the high temperature incineration of problem waste to enable its disposal. Volume reduction and energy recovery are at best secondary benefits with, despite the fairly summary assessments of green house gas effects in the EIS, it being very unlikely the that such waste would be the fuel of choice for an energy generation plant.
- even if the information provided in relation to the improvements that advances in technology have created in substantially reducing (eliminating?) the negative impacts of operating such plant and ensure their safe operation is correct, then this could more provide a case to locate it at the source of the waste (eg - in the immediate vicinity of Sydney) rather than remotely at Woodlawn, given this would minimise the transport needs, maximise the generated energy utilisation and eliminate any risks it creates for the surrounding rural area
- the impacts of the negative perceptions (factual or not) for the rural focused tourism and primary production industries (including the wineries) located in the extensive area of the capital region affected by the flue emissions plume (nominal 50km radius) will also be substantial and should be acknowledged as a significant counter to the stated local economic positives.
In summary, I suggest that the assessment of this proposal should follow that recently made by the ACT government for similar projects which concluded that the risks and public concern meant that waste incineration technology of any ilk was not an acceptable option for waste management. At worst, if the various claims presented in the EIS are credible, then the plant could be safely located operated in the Sydney environs with positive benefits to transport, energy recovery and greenhouse impact considerations. To persist with locating it at Woodlawn would indicate that the decision is more about political than environmental impact assessments - ie: there are fewer voters to upset within the Woodlawn precinct than in the Sydney metro area.
Finally, I would also add my voice to the doubts re the value and surety offered by Veolia's experience with developing and operating waste disposal facilities world wide and in particular the Woodalwn bioreactor and composting operation. The odour emissions from the these are often widespread and foul (at a property I own some 7km along the Collector Rd and driving past the site) despite the environmental assessments, operating licence conditions and monitoring regime it is subject to. Projecting this experience on to the incinerator proposal does not fill me with confidence re the outcomes to be expected for it!

I am writing on behalf of myself, my husband Peter and our son Nathan re the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre. Our property is 849 Covan Creek Rd Tarago. It is next door but one to the Woodlawn site and within 4km as the crow flies to Woodlawn. That puts us pretty close and until the letter came from council had no concept of what was proposed. At the special Council meeting - Goulburn-, a Woodlawn rep said that 4.5 million were notified (those living in Syd), through the papers, of the proposal BUT NOT EVERYONE READS THE PAPERS. and WHY were the people WHO WILL be impacted by this NOT NOTIFIED BY MAIL?
I find it interesting that as a landowner if I was to use dog baits on my property I would not only have to do a public notice and signs but also a letterbox drop to the properties within a certain radius, giving notice. Are we NOT as important as dogs. Dog baits impact for one week, this facility will impact for many many decades.
The project is being presented as an alternative energy source. Any electricity produced will be used to fuel the burners of the industrial toxic waste and not be of benefit to the community. The high temps needed to burn off this waste will result in the formation of toxins that are extremely harmful to people, animals and the environment and will be for many years to come. Some 12 generations I am led to believe. We are told that the toxin levels will be within the accepted levels (now) and will be regularly monitored. By the time we are notified that the levels are too high and not acceptable ,it will be too late to fix the problem.
We purchased our land at Tarago in 1997 for our family and for generations to come. It was to be a safe haven, with clean air and a pristine environment. The facility proposed will destroy our haven and turn it into a death trap for us and those who live there.
We and our neighbors depend on our air to be clean. We cannot afford to have tocsins in the air, toxic ash fall on our rooves, our land where we grow food and raise animals for food. We collect water off our rooves and store them in tanks for drinking and personal use. We don't have elaborate water filters to clean our water, so all toxins will end up finding their way into our bodies and in time will accumulate to unacceptable levels causing major problems. Too late to fix the problem when we are all dying of some form of cancer as a result of the toxins that are 'within the accepted guidelines'.
We are led to believe that the area impacted will be minimal. This is a joke. Our weather patterns are changing. Wind patterns are changing. The fallout of ash and toxins will impact more people and land than we are led to believe.
If this Energy Recovery Centre is so safe, why was it rejected in Syd? It is because it is really a facility for disposing of industrial waste and not as safe as we are led to believe. It may appear to be safe on paper if it is running perfectly however, history has shown that accidents do happen far more frequently than it is really acceptable. Then when disaster strikes it will be too late to fix the enormous damage done.
I find it very interesting that employees of Veolia are telling land owners that the facility will go ahead. What are they hoping that landowners will just sit by and not object and stick up for their rights, thinking its just too hard. Very naive of Veolia.
Veolia tell us that toxins are already in the air and part of the environment. That may be true but we don't need to add to the problem. They also stated that no facility works to capacity, but who is there to keep an eye on them to say this is true. In time I am sure that Veolia will apply for expanding the facility to cope with the ever increasing demand for waste disposal. More problems.
I find it quite interesting that we were invited to an exhibition to review the Woodlawn application at council from Wed 26/10/22. Well we went to see this application documentation and was confronted with a series of volumes all saying the same thing but through a different perspective. We spent hours skimming through the books and at the end were no wiser. In fact we then went next door to the library to find the information we were after. What a joke this exhibition was. I was expecting display boards outlining the proposal so we could see what was proposed. Instead we were presented with a mountain of volumes more designed to intimidate rather than inform.
Dr Jackie Wright spoke at the special council meeting at Goulburn an stated that her Environmental Impact study showed that the facility is safe. Dr Wright was engaged by Veolia to conduct the study and she like every other person would not put a negative twist on any report she did for them After all they were the ones who paid the invoice. All reports can be written to favor the party who commissioned it. Also she said she would stand by her report but does she live anywhere near this proposed facility? NO and I bet she would not buy land anywhere there.
The roads in the vicinity to the proposed site are in no way able to take the volume of traffic that the plant will generate. All the roads in the area will need to be upgraded a great deal because I'm sure with the volume of waste coming in all roads in the area will be used.
Toxic pollution is also not the only concern. I frequently drive past the waste facility at Kemps Creek. The amount of rubbish on the road there is disgraceful and seems to get worse by the day. The one at Walgrove is not much better. I don't know if these companies are fined for the litter dropped by the trucks but the area is always dirty and no alttempt is made to clean it up. We don't want this at Tarago.
Australia is a vast country with many thousands of Sq Km of desert land. Why not build this facility out there where it will have minimum impact on people and their livelihood, animals and the food producing land. People out west may very likely welcome the facility and some of the good benefits it may bring. But as usual it is a question of money and it will cost Veolia more to set up and run and that will eat into their profits.
Putting this waste facility in Tarago will greatly impact on the value of our land and disadvantage many many people. People who want to leave a legacy to their families, those who invested there with the hope of retiring, those whose property represent their retirement nest egg, people who depend on the land to support themselves and their families, those who need to have a place to just unwind, as well as many more. If you despite all the objections to this facility, still go ahead and approve it, make sure that we the surrounding land holders, and by surrounding I mean at least a 10-15 km radius of the facility be compensated monetarily. This should be in the vicinity of at least 3 times currant market land value. I have come up with this value as by the time all the problems become apparent and WE ARE NOTIFIED that is what the land would have been worth.
I find it quite disturbing that State Planning would even consider approving a facility like Woodlawn at Tarago with it's great potential to be an environmental disaster and pose unacceptable exposure to toxic fumes and ash for the people surrounding it. When I consider that State Planning and Environment is so finicky and made such a fuss, expecting extensive soil testing for the building of a farm shed on land that is replacing an existing cow shed on another property we own. To us this is just shows a double standard that exists. Its OK to contaminate an area but if you want to build any structure the land must be pristine.
Don't approve this facility. Think of the people of the area and not the $$$ that Veolia has. PUT PEOPLE BEFORE MONEY.

My name is Tania Gazzard and I live in Lower Boro. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago for so many reasons but my primary concern is the health of the community - which this incinerator will badly impact. Further objections are outlined below:
Impact to community health:
1. It will emit toxic air pollution 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year, which will have the greatest impact on us nearby but will reach far beyond our local community.
2. Food contaminated by incinerator toxins can cause reproductive issues, miscarriage, infant deaths, respiratory impairment, heart disease & cancer. This is not to mention the significant mental health affects that the proposal has already had on the community - increased stress, anxiety & depression, which will only be exacerbated should the incinerator go ahead.
3. These health impacts will last for generations through the lasting accumulation of chemicals in the surrounding environment.
4. The NSW Government acknowledges in its own Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan, that waste incinerators negatively impact human health. They state that “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”.
5. Additionally, a systemic review which was published in the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health in 2020 & referenced by the NSW Government Chief Scientist & Engineer in his report to the NSW Minister for Environment that same year, concluded that, “There is insufficient evidence to conclude that any incinerator is safe” & in particular, “Contamination of food & ingestion of pollutants is a significant risk pathway for both nearby and distant residents”.
6. If it's not safe for Sydney, then why is it deemed safe for Tarago (& surrounds)? In July 2018, the Eastern Creek waste incinerator in Sydney was rejected by the NSW Independent Planning Commission as not being in the public interest. The reasons included insufficient evidence that the pollution control technologies would be capable of managing emissions, concerns about safety, the relationship between air & water quality impacts, & concerns about human health impacts. Since then, the NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health. These risks haven't changed since that decision back in 2018 – this project must also be rejected!
7. The incinerator will exceed NSW government safety standards for air emissions during start-up, shut-down & many other ‘non-standard’ operating conditions.
8. Veolia’s overseas incinerators often exceed safety standards and Veolia has a track record locally for failing to comply with license conditions at their existing Woodlawn facility.
No Social Licence!:
1. 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 facility in Tarago - or anywhere in the Southern Tablelands.
2. Social license is made up of three components:
a) Legitimacy – do they play by the rules?
b) Credibility – do they provide honest information?
c) Trust – can the community be confident that they will do what they say?
The answer to all 3 of these is a resounding NO! For over 15 years Veolia have failed to operate their existing Woodlawn facility within license conditions. They have received multiple infringements, failed to inform the community of pollution to the environment, & attempted to withhold information from the community under freedom of information processes. Their track record shows they break the rules, hide information from the community & pollute the environment.
Finally:
1. This community has already suffered impacts from the Woodlawn site for almost 45 years. The first 20 years from copper, lead & zinc mining undertaken on site, & the last 15 years from Veolia breaching its license conditions through impacting the surrounding region with unbearable odour impacts (health aside this affects quality of life & property value), as this incinerator will also do!). The local town is also living with significant lead contamination including local residences, which has directly impacted the long-term health of the community including young residents.
2. It will have a negative economic impact on the community. As mentioned above it will affect local property values & further growth & development of the community - residential development, local businesses, local agricultural businesses as well as community & volunteer organisations as residents move away or are unable to volunteer due to health impacts.

My name is Georgia Hill and I live in Gundaroo NSW 2620. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will emit a range of toxic gases and chemicals, as well as ashes and particulates, that will have a negative impact the health of the residents within our region, contaminate and poison our productive farmland and acreage, damage the health and quality of our livestock, reduce local tourism to the region, and adversely impact our thriving rural businesses.

There are many reasons for my objection, such as:
• Incinerators don’t eliminate waste, they change its form into other more hazardous pollutants, that will have a significant negative impact on air quality and that may be more toxic and harmful to humans, than had it remained in its original form.
• An incinerator is only a ‘quick fix’ for physical waste, it does not solve the long-term waste issue. Money, resources and effort should be focused on the implementation of effective waste management policies that aim to reduce or eliminate waste, avenues for re-use and recycling.
• Incinerators contribute to greenhouse gases and result in higher carbon emissions than landfill. It is hard to reconcile how incinerators could be considered as an option for waste management, when the government has such a strong position on climate action and net zero emissions.
• It is well documented that incinerator pollutants cause respiratory problems and that food contaminated with incinerator toxins can cause cancer, heart disease and reproductive issues.

Received via post - no email address supplied