Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

Veolia’s incinerator proposal will emit toxic air pollution 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 25 years, which will spread throughout the region from Canberra to Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan, Yass and more.

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.

Food contaminated by incinerator toxins can cause cancer, miscarriage, infant deaths, developmental delays, reproductive issues, heart disease and respiratory impairment.
The proposal will create 2.2million tonnes of toxic waste ash, including 380,000 tonnes of air pollution control residue (fly ash) which is classified as hazardous waste by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). All of this will be dumped on site, risking further contamination of soil and groundwater as well as the Sydney water catchment. Veolia’s track record of polluting local groundwaters (recognised by EPA prevention notice in October 2022) proves they cannot be trusted to safely manage such toxic outputs.

This incinerator will impact the health of our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren through the accumulation of forever chemicals in the surrounding environment. It is an intergenerational burden and legacy which cannot be allowed to go ahead.

The NSW Government acknowledges 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”.

The proposed incinerator will exceed NSW government safety standards for air emissions during start-up, shut-down and many other ‘non-standard’ operating conditions. 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.


Waste incineration is not recycling and contributes to climate change
​
I do not agree with the characterisation of waste incineration as renewable energy generation, nor that it will reduce greenhouse emissions or reliance on fossil fuels. Unlike wind and solar generated power, waste doesn’t come from infinite natural processes. It is sourced from finite resources – minerals, fossil fuels and forests that are cut down at an unsustainable rate. Plastic is a petroleum by-product. Burning it is the same as burning fossil fuel and produces similar emissions.

Veolia’s claims that incineration is better than landfill due to methane emissions is flawed as it ignores the fact that methane produced from their landfill is captured which prevents it from entering the atmosphere. They also utilise this to generate power which is pumped into the grid. This process is much better for the environment as it does not produce the CO2, air pollution and toxic ash by-products an incinerator does.

This incinerator will contribute to climate change by emitting 140,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases (CO2) each year. To approve the project is inconsistent with the NSW government commitment to Net 0 emissions by 2030.

Incinerators reduce recycling rates by destroying discarded products and creating a disincentive to local councils by locking them into long-term contracts requiring them to supply consistent volumes of waste for incineration over decades. They are incompatible with a circular economy – they replace one waste stream (municipal/commercial/industrial waste) with contaminated ash.

Not safe for Sydney, not safe anywhere.
​
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 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. Since then, the NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health. The risks have not changed since that decision back in 2018 – this project must also be rejected - If they aren’t safe for Sydney then they aren’t safe for Tarago.


No social license
​
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.


Social license is made up of three components:

Legitimacy – do they play by the rules?

Credibility – do they provide honest information?

Trust – can the community be confident that they will do what they say?

Veolia have spent over 15 years failing to operate their existing Woodlawn facility within license conditions, have received multiple infringements, failed to inform the community of pollution to the environment, and attempted to withhold information from the community under freedom of information processes.

Veolia’s track record shows they break the rules, hide information from the community and pollute the environment.
​

See Attachment

I object to the project for the reasons provided in the attached statement.

Objection to the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

The proposal of the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (ARC) exemplifies the inequality between metropolitan and regional areas through the significant risk it poses to human health. If this proposal is accepted by the NSW Planning Authority, the ARC will threaten drinking water quality and agriculture in an area which relies on rainwater as one of its main sources of potable water for drinking, bathing, preparing food, and growing crops. Furthermore, the proposal to operate such a facility does not align with the NSW Government's commitment to Net Zero Emissions by 2050, and prevents the community from taking steps to live sustainably. Hence, the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre should not be permitted.

The Woodlawn ARC, if approved, will create harmful levels of pollution in the drinking water supply of local communities, which poses a significant risk to human health and will create an economic burden for residents. As many Goulburn-Mulwaree, Yass Valley and Queanbeyan-Palerang residents rely on rainwater as their main source of water for drinking, growing and preparing food, and bathing, it is vital that this water is of an acceptable standard in order to protect their health. In relation to rainwater, the NSW Health Department states that “the water should be free from […] harmful levels of chemicals,” (NSW Health, 2022). The potential for the Woodlawn ARC to release chemicals and other harmful pollutants into the air threatens access to safe water, in areas which have no access to public water supply, and may be forced to resort to water filtration systems, buying bottled water or importing water from safer sources. All these options are highly expensive and negatively impact the environment through the excess packaging waste they create and the energy used to obtain them, such as fuel emissions from trucking water to properties. They are also all costs that individuals will need to absorb, likely with limited support from government. Therefore, because many residents in this region have no public water facilities, unlike their counterparts in Sydney, where much of the waste the Woodlawn ARC will process originates, they will unjustly suffer the health, economic and environmental effects of this project.

The health risks posed by the Woodlawn ARC are serious and suggest that residents of the surrounding area are expendable, in comparison to those who live in metropolitan areas such as Sydney where similar waste management projects have been rejected. The chemicals released in the process of waste incineration can have significant impacts on health, and have been linked to cancers, infant death and miscarriage, and congenital anomalies. While newer waste incineration technologies may have a reduced impact, studies into their effects are inconclusive and a cautionary response has been recommended until adequate time has passed for any adverse effects to emerge (Tait et al., 2019). Therefore, the Woodlawn ARC proposal cannot be supported, as it poses too great a potential hazard, especially when there are other methods available to process waste. According to the NSW Government Net Zero Plan Stage 1, “Innovation needs to be part of any plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050,” (Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020). Using an incinerator to manage waste is not an innovative technology, and has been used to the detriment of the environment and health for decades. Sydney’s waste should not be transported to the regions, because it allows the problem of safe waste management to move to the back of the minds of Sydneysiders, and to the forefront of poor regional health outcomes and inequality. The fair and equal consideration of all NSW residents should be of the highest priority for the NSW Government, thus approving the Woodlawn ARC cannot occur as it is in direct opposition to achieving this.

The development of the Woodlawn ARC will limit and discourage sustainable practices at all levels of society; from state government to the individual; and will not contribute to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. An investment in this facility will encourage limited action from individuals or councils to reduce overall landfill inputs, as it poses as a solution to waste management. It may also impede investment in closed loop initiatives such as innovative recycling programs. The ARC justifies its plans to incinerate waste by collecting the energy produced. However, the Net Zero Plan Stage 1 states that “when combined with firming technologies, such as gas, batteries and pumped hydro, renewables are now the cheapest forms of new, reliable electricity generation” (Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020). There is hence no purpose in pursuing such a technology which burns non-renewable resources; the proposed operation of the ARC could be compared to burning fossil fuels to create energy. Given “The NSW Government’s fourth priority is to play a leading role itself, by bringing sustainable goods, services and practices into the market and maximising the environmental value of the assets it oversees,” (Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020) the government cannot support this proposal. Seeing out the lifespan of the existing landfill management facility at Tarago and investing in successful, sustainable technologies such as diversion of organic waste from landfill to make compost and supporting research into recycling will make a far greater positive impact on the environment. These strategies could be used in combination to effectively manage Sydney’s waste safely. The Woodlawn ARC is not an acceptable answer to the issue of waste management in NSW when we have such options available.


The proposal to construct the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre cannot be approved by the NSW Planning Authority. This project poses too significant a threat to the lives of residents in the Goulburn-Mulwaree, Yass Valley, Queanbeyan-Palerang and surrounding regions. Its potential to negatively impact drinking water, and consequently health in the area will perpetuate regional inequality and cause significant health and financial harm to the residents. Allowing the ARC to operate implies that NSW’s rural and regional residents are less important than those who live in metropolitan areas, and that the risks to their health and wellbeing are inconsequential. Furthermore, the approval of such an archaic form of waste management technology will discourage investment in technologies and strategies that will minimise waste and close loops, instead providing a band-aid solution and obstruction to achieving the Net Zero Plan by 2050. The Woodlawn ARC simply cannot be permitted.

References

Department of Planning, Industry and Science, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Net Zero Plan Stage 1: 2020–2030 (2020). State of New South Wales 2020. Retrieved November 23, 2022, from https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/net-zero-plan-2020-2030-200057.pdf.

NSW Health. (2022, September 30). Rainwater Tanks. NSW Health Department. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/water/Pages/rainwater.aspx

Tait, P. W., Brew, J., Che, A., Costanzo, A., Danyluk, A., Davis, M., Khalaf, A., McMahon, K., Watson, A., Rowcliff, K., & Bowles, D. (2019). The health impacts of waste incineration: A systematic review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 44(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12939

See attachment below

I strongly object to the Veolia’s incinerator proposal. The ACT banned these incinerators as well as Sydney for health and environmental reasons so why is this proposal even being considered for another rural area. Yes, the Veolia is zoned as Industrial land but what about the near surrounding rural areas where people and animals need to live who will all be adversely affected by this proposal if it goes ahead. The effects of such a proposal will go further than the nearby surrounding areas given the widespread toxic ash that will be spread by such hazardous measures to deal with waste. If Veolia admits that the incinerator will exceed the NSW Government safety standards, how can it be allowed to go ahead? The toxic fly ash will have ever lasting and detrimental effects on our environment and our community through contamination of our food and water supplies. YOU MUST NOT LET SUCH A PROPOSAL GO AHEAD!

I object to this proposed major project and have included my submission in a PDF document below.

We live on a rural property 35kms WNW of the Woodlawn bioreactor site operated by Veolia. For years now, we have endured the appalling stench this facility emits when the wind blows up from the coast. It is truly nauseating and sometimes so strong it wakes us at night. Many times we have complained about this to the facility, the company and the EPA, with no real result. The arrogance of the company is shocking, especially as they are clearly in breach of conditions in their operating license (license condition L6.1 states: The licensee must not cause or permit the emission of offensive odour beyond the boundary of the premises). The proposal to expand the Woodlawn facility with a high intensity incinerator is deeply disturbing and shocking. It will adversely affect my family and my community for the next 25 years. It will produce toxic emissions, and fly ash 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 25 years. All this will be added to the bioreactor emissions and stench, ruining our quality of life and our beautiful, productive farmlands and our precious environment. The future lives of my family, our children and grandchildren, and the health of local communities will be indelibly contaminated.
I strongly urge you to reject the proposal for the following reasons, each of which, alone, should be sufficient reason to scuttle Veolia's plan.
1. The proposed facility will produce 2+million tonnes of toxic waste each year for 25 years. That is more than 50 million tonnes of toxic waste. Every day it will emit toxic particulates and compounds, including heavy metals, dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS and toxic acidic gases. The toxic compound emissions will affect the quality of our air, soils and water. Heavy metal and toxic 'forever' compounds will be spread across surrounding regions. They will enter the food chain. Our streams, rivers, lakes (including Lake George) and the water table will be contaminated. Agricultural and home garden produce will be contaminated as the toxic compounds Veolia will emit accumulate in soils and plants. These effects will be relentless, cumulative and progressively more damaging over the life of the proposed facility and for many years thereafter.
2. There is no safe level of exposure to the toxins Veolia's proposed incinerator facility will produce (see report by NSW Government Chief Scientist and Engineer to the NSW Minister for Environment in 2020). The science is very clear. These compounds cause cancers, respiratory illnesses, developmental disorders, reproductive disorders, genetic mutation/decay and heart disease. The proponent's attempts to disguise this and bury it in voluminous documentation (much of which is spin dressed up as evidence) should not be accepted. The cost of adverse health effects on people in surrounding regions has not been factored into the proponent's proposal. These costs will be borne by taxpayers through the public health system. Denial of adverse health effects is no answer. The toxic compounds this facility will produce in particulate and gaseous form have serious adverse health effects on humans. This is why it is madness to allow a facility of this kind in a populated area.
3. The proposed facility will intrude upon the right of land and house owners to quiet enjoyment of their properties under law. We experience this already, with the emissions from the bioreactor facility Veolia operates at the Woodlawn site. The value of our properties will be further impacted should the proposed incinerator be allowed to proceed. Why would anyone want to purchase a property where the air frequently stinks, toxic compounds, smoke and ash contaminate everything on a daily basis, and even the rainwater collected from our rooves is not safe to drink? Despite this, there is no mechanism in the proposal to compensate property owners who will see the value of their properties diminish if this facility proceeds. No doubt, the cost of such compensation would be prohibitive and directly contrary to the profit projections on which the commercial viability of Veolia's project rests.
4. The proposed facility will produce greenhouse emissions in excess of 140,000 tonnes each year. While the cost of providing offsets might be addressed in license conditions, permitting such emissions would not be consistent with the NSW Government's commitment to achieve zero emissions by 2030. Veolia's proposal runs counter to our collective efforts to combat emissions driven global warming in order to avoid or mitigate catastrophic climate change.
5. Not only is the proposed facility a dirty proposition in so many ways, it is a regressive, easy option. It relies on old thinking that burning waste is OK. It is not OK when there are better ways of dealing with waste. Such practices are not consistent with forward-looking NSW Government policies on recycling, sustainability and a circular economy. Unlike the bioreactor (despite all its problems), incinerating waste is not renewable energy generation. There is nothing renewable about it. Burning plastic waste may produce energy but it reduces recycling (UK now burns 60% of plastics rather than recycling them). By requiring delivery of combustible waste, contracts for waste incineration encourage less recycling and re-use. If there is a need for high temperature incineration of dangerous compounds in NSW, it is not made out in this proposal and, in any event, any such facility should not be placed in a populated area.
6. Veolia has a terrible track record of failing to comply with license conditions at the Woodlawn site. It has lost any social license to operate the Woodlawn facility. Over many years, it has failed to adequately respond to reasonable concerns and complaints, and it has failed to comply with legal obligations which condition its operating license. The most recent breach, involving contamination of ground water, was reported on 5 November 2022. Veolia is a giant multi-national corporation which profits from its incineration business model. The real costs, however, are borne by those subjected to its failure to comply with environmental standards and legal requirements.

Finally, while burning waste reduces it volumetrically by 95+%, the resultant waste is highly toxic, enduring and difficult to safely manage over the short, medium and long term. Too often, the cost of managing such waste and cleaning up contamination from released emissions is left for the public to bear. The facility Veolia proposes will produce 50+million tonnes of toxic waste. This will require careful management over many decades, probably long after Veolia has gone. It will harm the health of people in surrounding areas and those health effects will be felt over generations. It will contaminate the air, water, soil and environment in surrounding areas for many years to come. The proposal lacks merit and it should be rejected.

I totally object to this project as it will be very close to a monastery, where we go for a retreat to spend quiet, peaceable times enjoying the virgin land and fresh water. This project will harm our water, air and spiritual atmosphere of the place as it will generate noise and pollute the air and water.
We all go there and the reason why i bought this place is to be away from people, noise, pollution to enjoy good quiet times and enjoy clear fresh water from our water tanks, which is obtained by rain water though our roof gutters. this project will greatly harm the reasons i bought this place.
Your consideration to stop this project will be greatly appreciated.
thank you

I object to the building of the Waste Incinerator at Tarago for the reasons in the attached document.

See attached submission objecting to the Veolia ARC proposal.

My name is Edward Gundry, i live near Tarago NSW. And I strongly object to the current proposal for Veolias incinerator.
I live directly to the west of Veolia, my property borders onto Woodlawn. We are a neighbour who is most affected by Veolias plan. With close proximity to the planned project. i believe we will feel and breath the effects of the incinerator.
I am also worried about extra traffic heading to the Bore field which is on our property Willeroo, this will cause an extra Biosecurity risk. As we run a Beef cattle breeding operation, the spread of weeds, disease and contamination from the Veolias site is off great concern.

I strongly object to the proposed incinerator being established in the surrounds of Murrumbateman.

The environmental impacts such a facility would do to the community is beyond thinkable. The toxicity released into the air would be extremely harmful to all living in the area. With a brand new primary school opening in 2023, it highlights the growing population of the area. Coupled with that the air quality would be detrimental to the vulnerable members of the community.

Furthermore, many businesses would not be able to continue due to the hazardous pollutants being realised. These include but are not limited to local wineries who are internationally renowned, local produce including fresh fruit and vegetables, farming, local bee and honey harvesting all of which bring a great revenue to the local and wider community.

I live, work and raise our family in Goulburn and I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will;

*Cause massive pollution for the air, land and waterways. Which will then contaminate the food chain.

*It won’t just affect Tarago but the surrounding areas including as far as the south coast due to the prevailing westerly winds carrying fine ash to the coast.

*The pollution will impact on people’s health, including those yet to be born.

*Cause and is causing massive stress and mental health issues for the people in the Goulburn region even before it allowed.

*IS NOT a recycling centre. Burning rubbish is not recycling.

*not in line with Net 0 emissions by 2030.

*not helping to encourage recycling or reducing waste from Sydney, it may actually encourage more waste.

*not inline with current operating of old Woodlawn mine that captures the methane to generate electricity.

*not create economic increase but actually burden the area.

*roads will be impacted with more cars and trucks in building and supplying people and materials.

*there is no housing available in the local area, this will encourage more FIFO with no money staying in the region.

*If the Eastern Creek waste incinerator in Sydney was rejected by the NSW Independent Planning Commission as not being in the public interest, why is it OK for rural areas to be affected by it? Are we, country people not as valuable as city people?

*Veolia has a bad track record of not being truthful. This creates greater distrust for Veolia to adhere to rules and regulations with an even larger facility.

*The Goulburn region already has enough state significant development. These include many, many wind farms, solar farms and major power lines and more major Transgrid power lines to come. Most if not all of these developments are to supply towns and cities outside Goulburn region and even other states.

Finally….
when will the Sydney region be held accountable for the waste they make? This is not a Goulburn region problem, in fact most rural areas in Gouburn don’t have curbside red waste bin collection but we are expected to carry the toxic burden of Sydney waste.

I strongly object this development.

I strongly object to this proposal.

I strongly oppose this project because of the following: Any and all emissions that will result from this incinerator cannot be guaranteed as safe by experts present at a recent meeting in Tarago. The nearest town water is Bungendore, Braidwood, Goulburn and Yass, all the residents that live in between these towns harvest their drinking water from their roofs. Will it be safe to drink and bathe in? We produce wool, grain and meat for human consumption and if a landholder has a trace-back with their produce they will be immediately shut down and unable to trade. This would obviously have devastating effects if this were to happen. I would lose my livelihood.
When Veolia first commenced use of the current tip, we were told that the tip would receive the household rubbish from the Eastern suburbs of Sydney only, however, rubbish is now transported to the tip from every direction, including burnt houses from Batemans Bay. Local residents have been complaining of the stink from the tip for many years now to no avail. It appears that Veolia do not care.
I know Veolia cannot be trusted. If this incinerator goes ahead we will have toxic waste/material from every state in Australia that they cannot burn anywhere else.
I understand that the proposal includes monitoring stations at surrounding locations.
My children and grandchildren live 4kms away on adjoining properties to the west and south of the location of the proposed project. The expert that I spoke to at the meeting in Tarago could not and would not guarantee the emissions as safe. By the time the monitor has detected any harmful emissions, those emissions have already been breathed in by my grandchildren. Would you be happy for your grandchild to breath in emissions that are unsafe?
I feel the reason for the proposed location of the project is because of voter backlash in Sydney. There are far fewer voters here in Tarago and surrounds than there are in Sydney. Why is the health and safety of the residents in Sydney more important than that of the health and safety of the residents of the Tarago district?

My name is James Harrington and I live at 1120 Taylors Creek Road Tarago. This address is a farm less than one and a half kilometers from the proposed Veolia waste incinerator .On this farm we fatten and turn off for slaughter an average of three hundred steers a year.
I strongly object to the Veolia's proposed industrial waste incinerator as the escape of toxic pollutants will over time poison our farm land an the air we breath.
Some of the reasons for my objection:
# The escape of toxins into the air from the industrial process and from the buried ash will accumulate in the soil and groundwater. This will affect our ability to produce chemical free beef. The majority of beef produced in Australia is exported. Many beef inporting countries favor Australian beef because of its chemical free reputation.

#The incinerator will contribute to climate change by releasing an estimated 140,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

#The extra carbon dioxide released by diesal locmotives hauling the waste 200 kilometers from Sydney.

#The potential negative effect on the health of the community ,especially children. Our grandchildren regularly visit and enjoy being at our farm, if the proposed industrial incinerator proceeds I would not be comfortable about further visits because of the potential long term health risks.

#I have no confidence in Veolia's ability to adequately administer any safeguards built into the incinerator proposal .For over a decade Veolia has operated a landfill on the same site. This is over a decade of broken promises and the escape of a vomit inducing smell which at times is so severe that it enters our sealed farm house.

#The "Energy From Waste Infractructure Plan" released by the NSW Government acknowledges that waste incinerators impact communities.To quote from the plan:"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".

#This proposal should not be approved for the same overall reasons that the 2018 Eastern Creek proposal was not approved. An industrial incinerator operated By Veolia would not be safe for the community or the environment.

I object to the project on the following grounds:A glossy brochure does not give details of the process.
Increased traffic in the construction phase will have an adverse effect on the local population.
Economic benefits so far have not outweighed the disadvantages.
We the local residents have been lied to from the beginning of this Woodlawn project and our consent was mainly based on the understanding the miners who had lost their jobs when the mine closed would receive their entitlements. We were assured that only putrescible waste would be received, now residual waste can be processed. The local community does not benefit to any great degree from the facility currently, which has over time increased its operations markedly.
There is insufficient evidence that the waste will be sorted/ repurposed before transport to the facility.
There is insufficient information regarding possible contamination of ground water.
Local residents have been subjected to severe odour problems for all of the 20 years of current operation, how will future odour issues be managed.
How will hazardous fly ash produced in the process be disposed of? buried? where?
How will toxic bottom as be disposed of safely.
What is the composition of the aggregate material produced and how will it be used? to say it can be used as road base doesn't mean it will be used in this way.
Already there is significant light pollution from the facility at night, which affects the movements of night flying wildlife such as bats and moths which can travel great distances and are attracted to light; our wildlife needs our protection in a time when many of our native species numbers are in decline.
This development, in my opinion, is a way of the NSW Government solving an escalating problem of waste at the expense of a small rural community who choose to live and derive much of their enjoyment from a natural unpolluted environment.

I write to lodge an objection to Veolia’s proposed incinerator for Tarago. I live in the ACT and am the local member for Ginninderra. I lodge this objection personally and on behalf of the ACT Greens. Please do not allow this facility to be built in our region.

The ACT Greens have long opposed thermal incineration. It is too risky for health and the environment. Incinerators have a long history of polluting our air and water. Testing is always a concern. Burning waste is also a waste of resources. It is also an unnecessary way to generate electricity. The ACT is powered by 100% renewable electricity, primarily sourced from solar and wind. We do not need incineration.

The ACT Government banned incinerators in the ACT in 2020. The ACT Government has committed to introduce the human right to a healthy environment. We would not allow this facility within our borders. We do not want to see one just across our border.

I am concerned for the residents of Tarago and Canberra and for future generations. This facility might impact on the clean air and water in our region. It might also impact on our regional food growers, winemakers and other primary producers.

I sponsored a community petition opposing this proposal. 919 Canberra residents signed it. It is attached to this letter. Residents in Tarago are even more concerned.
Communities Against the Tarago Incinerator demonstrate predicted air pollution on their website using modelling developed by the US EPA. This predicts pollution from the incinerator could reach Canberra, Queanbeyan, Yass and the whole region.

I released the ACT Greens’ Vision for a Circular Economy in August 2022. The ACT Government is now consulting on a Circular Economy. A genuine Circular Economy means we should think about what we need and come up with a sustainable way of meeting those needs. Incineration is not part of that story. Can I discuss this with you as a better alternative to incineration?

We object to the proposal for all the reasons outlined in our attached submission. This project has no social licence to operate and is at odds with a number of NSW and federal waste management, climate and environmental protection policies. The project represents a major threat to the health of the community and their agricultural and tourism industries in the region as well as representing a toxic air pollution, hazardous waste ash pollution and climate pollution threat to Australia and the Oceanic region.