Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is David Johnson and I have lived in Bywong at my current address for 30 years. I enjoy living in Bywong because of its natural attributes, living close to nature, and clean unpolluted environment.
I strongly object to the proposed Tarago Incinerator for several reasons, each of which is critically important.
1. Burning the vast amounts of waste material produced in the Sydney region goes totally against the critical necessity of reducing atmospheric carbon, the primary cause of climate change which threatens the whole planet, and a goal of the current federal government (and governments around the world!). There is no need to incinerate this waste in this region as the existing Woodlawn facility that was built to bury Sydney's waste has been working well (and producing energy!) and has several decades or capacity remaining. While a certain amount of methane (a serious global warming gas) will be produced, this can be used to generate electricity, as has already been proven at Woodlawn, continuing to bury this waste will prevent much of the carbon contained being released into the atmosphere.
2. The amount of air pollution that such a facility will inject into the atmosphere will have a significantly detrimental effect on this region and the people who live here. It is well-known how much this kind of pollution can effect human health, and also quality of life and enjoyment of living in a clean rural environment. People will also suffer financially as property values will also decline due to a constant presence of air pollution (including smoke as well as toxic fumes from the undisclosed array of materials that will be incinerated) in the area becoming a much less appealing place to live.
3. It is unfair that people who choose to live in rural areas such as ours should be subject to the detrimental effects of waste produced in Sydney. It makes sense that such a large city produces a lot of waste, but there must be a better solution for managing the waste that does not have a large detrimental effect on the quality of lives of others living in other parts of the state.
4. Ultimately we must learn how to run the economy without producing so much waste, but in the meantime it is not fair to have such a large impact on innocent people's lives.

I live in Gundaroo, NSW and I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will poison the local environment and result in poor community health in the region.

There are many reasons for my objection, such as:

1. Veolia’s incinerator proposal will emit toxic air pollution continuously every day for 25 years. This will have adverse effects on the region from Canberra to Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan, Yass and more.

2. The proposed incinerator will pump pollution into the surrounding region consisting of acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS). These pollutants have a known correlation with decreased lung function, cardiac disease and death. These dioxins and furans whilst airborne also accumulate in the surrounding environment over time in soil and water and are absorbed by plants, crops and animals which are ingested by the local communities.

3. The produce harvested in the affected region by incinerator toxins can cause cancer, miscarriage, infant deaths, developmental delays, reproductive issues, heart disease and respiratory impairment, all of which are unacceptable.

4. The proposed incinerator will generate 2.2million tonnes of toxic waste ash, containing 380,000 tonnes of air pollution control residue (fly ash). This has been 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. Veolia has polluted local groundwaters previously (recognised by EPA prevention notice in October 2022) and goes to show they cannot be trusted to safely manage such toxic outputs.

5. In a report to the NSW Minister for Environment in 2022 the NSW Government Chief Scientist and Engineer referenced a report stating, “there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any incinerator is safe” and in particular “contamination of food and ingestion of pollutants is a significant risk pathway for both nearby and distant residents” as published by the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and researched by academics from the Australian National University Medical School, the Public Health Association of Australia, and Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australia in 2019.

6. The NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health. These risks have not changed since the decision in 2018 to reject the Eastern Creek Waste Incinerator in Sydney by the NSW Independent Planning Commission, therefore this project must also be rejected. If the Incinerator isn’t safe for Sydney it’s not safe for Tarago and the surrounding region.

I object to the project

I object to the construction of the proposed waste incineration project as the long term effects on the local and broader community have not been guaranteed to be safe.
The potential impact on the land and water of our region could be catastrophic and completely decimate the regional agricultural economy. Agriculture contributed $50m to this regional areas economy which is significant.
The long term effects of the dispersment of the incinerated waste is unknown and as we have found with historical events, this could have long term health and lifestyle consequences.
There have been recent breaches noted by the EPA. Given the unsatisfactory response to these breaches, these could continue and obviously prove a huge detriment to our agricultural industries as well as contamination issues to both our local waterways and the waterways that flow to the Greater Sydney area.
There are also significant gaps in the detail that has been provided about how the interaction with the energy and the grid will work and the outcomes. The focus is predominantly on the waste transport with no information provided on the outcomes which is a large gap in the documentation.
The broader community have been very vocal in its opposition to this project and this should be taken into account in this review process.
I reiterate my absolute objection to the construction of this project.

Please note my submission is opposing the project

The incinerator is too close to all towns particularly Tarago which has a school, sporting clubs full of kids, a day care, and numerous houses that use rain water as drinking water not to mention all the farming land in the area that has animals grazing on the ground that will be contaminated by the toxic waste, this is unacceptable and should not be within any distance of any residential facilities. It's bad enough dealing with the smell some twenty minutes away not to mention the traffic from the trucks that Veolia has created meaning the roads are completely destroyed. The trains are leaking sewage as they pass the town and they stink too. This is a ridiculous proposal and all incinerators are and should remain BANNED. BURNING RUBBISH IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. You are rendering peoples properties worthless by running this incinerator, ruining peoples lives and likely causing serious health concerns for the residents. THIS IS A MAJOR NO TO THIS PROJECT AND MYSELF AND MY FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DO NOT ACCEPT THIS INCINERATOR.

I write to express my strong objection to Veolia's proposed incinerator at Tarago.

My biggest concern is regarding the toxic pollution that would be emitted from a waste incinerator, especially from the significant proportion of waste that is plastic.

At this time, the NSW Government has policies for waste reduction and this is being echoed by consumers and business as we all recognise the need to create less waste. The Woodlawn facility, which turns the methane from waste into electricity has capacity for at least another 25 years. I feel that this facility should be used to its full capacity and we should utilise all other available options rather than burning waste. Burning should be avoided as it will be harmful to people living both in Tarago and the surrounding communities.

The NSW Government has said No to building waste incinerators in Sydney due to safety concerns, pollution and risk to human health. Why then would it be okay to build a waste incinerator in any location? Does the NSW Government think that Sydney residents are more valuable than rural and residential residents? If it isn't safe for Sydney, it isn't safe anywhere!

Veolia cannot be trusted. Veolia has repeatedly breached it's license conditions for the Woodlawn facility and received multiple infringements.

Finally, the NSW Energy from Waste Policy requires that "community acceptance to operate such a process has been obtained". The communities of Tarago and surrounding areas do not accept this proposal and therefore the proposal cannot be valid.

My name is Lisa and I live in Canberra and strongly disagree to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago at the Woodlawn facility (or anywhere).
 
I’m very concerned that the proposed incinerator will be producing toxic gases that will spread throughout the region, and potentially put peoples health at risk. As someone with immune health problems, I’m very sensitive to exhaust fumes, even paint and chemical fumes and other gases such as are released from these types of facilities. I am also concerned with the fly ash and other waste that may effect the health of the land and farming in neighbouring areas.

I also understand that veolia themselves admit the emissions exceed the safe standards recognised by the NSW government. It concerns me that our project would go ahead without a more visual public consultation period.

I request that this facility is not built, And that if they do try to go ahead with building that much more public consultation be undertaken which requires letters being sent to all residents in the surrounding areas that could be affected by this facility.

I also Think the government should be focusing more on education around recycling and waste reduction rather than looking to burn waste which creates toxic byproducts. And there isn’t a reason to focus on the energy that’s produced as it is such a small amount compare to other power production sources.

Yours sincerely
Lisa

I am a local resident and already the negative impacts of the current of the Woodlawn Eco Precinct, NSW - Veolia are evident.
(1) The amount of large truck movements on the local road is terrible. Huge waste carrying trucks thundering through local towns from Canberra 60km away - how is that environmentally friendly. Being forced off the road and suffering windscreen damage frequently. Massive potholes caused by trucks that are not suited for the road.
(2) to escape from the trucks i have decided to sell my property - however the local agents can't sell as everyone is concerned about "the new facility" - how is it fair or just that my property value is negatively impacted by this development. I am within the "plume" will i be compensated?
(3) What are the impacts of the proposed truck movements during the construction phase?
(4) What are the considerations for the loss in property prices?
(5) Don't destroy a community -
(6) My mental health is deteriating because of this proposal - it has impacted my marriage. What will you do to assist my mental health? It is not wanted. How can you justify the mental anguish this proposal is causing?

I object to the proposed project because this will not only affect our health but our environment also. One of our biggest reasons for making a move to the area was because of a better and cleaner environment, this will not be the case for, Tarago but the whole southern tablelands region.
I fully support this community fully in their concern where our kids and grandchildren will suffer from bad decisions that we make together today.
Private companies such as Veolia are only interested in making money for their shareholders and even though they say and may care for the environment their commitments are never swayed.
Therefore our decisions today should never affect or impact public health and or safety of the environment.

Concerned for the future of our nearby property that produces crops for animal consumption, fat lambs and beef cattle for human consumption.
Concerned for the water course flowing through the property, our dams, rainwater tanks and underground water.
Veolia cannot be trusted, evidenced in recent breaches for groundwater pollution.
Very concerned about the enormous increase in truck movement on our already stressed road system. This will also seriously affect traffic movement, safety of lives and ultimately cause STRESS for so many. ARC will obviously make a lot of money, with absolutely no regard for the concerns, wishes and safety of the community and beyond. They make predictions (meaning: what someone THINKS will happen/a forecast). We would expect guarantees (meaning: a formal assurance/promise with certainty).
Doesn't the community deserve guarantees on something so vert serious. This facility is for the rubbish from Sydney, nothing to do with us. Why should we suffer the fallout. Don't do it here. FIND ANOTHER WAY!!

As l live 35 km from this proposed development l am concerned with the air quality and impact to the surrounding environment.There is many natural breading areas for both birds and other native species.I will be down wind from this development but also believe that this is not a solution for disposal of waste products

I object to the proposed Woodlawn Waste Incinerator, Tarago, on three counts:

1. Local community acceptance has not been obtained
2. The smell leakage has not been properly resolved
3. It’s disrespectful to the community of the tiny town of Tarago and the surrounding farm areas, to have Sydney’s waste processed out of THEIR sight, out of THEIR mind
4. Incineration of waste is an inappropriate approach for environmental conditions, with wasted energy and potentially toxic emissions

To expand on these points, the EIS minimises the community objections, instead focusing on support for economic benefit and Veolia’s commitment to ongoing community consultation. Community consultation is window dressing at best, if actions don’t follow community feedback.

Smell emanating from the current waste processing can be obvious when weather conditions are conducive. If Veolia is unable to control the current leakage, how will it control the increased volume of processing?

And finally, the quote from a presentation at the Waste 2022 Conference in May 2022, says it all:

‘If it’s too dangerous for Sydney, why should we have it?’

I object to the proposal.

The Acknowledgement of Country on Page 5 of the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (AERC) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and any further mentions of Aboriginal occupation of the area or language spoken needs to include the Gundungurra Nation.
Gundungurra representatives should also be involved throughout the project and on an ongoing basis throughout consultation/reconciliation initiatives regarding the subject site.
I had requested to be listed as a Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) with the Department of Premier and Cabinet/Department of Planning and Environment on 6 March 2022, however delays within the Department of Planning and Environment (which were not of my doing) meant this was not finalised until recently. This had the effect of limiting my capacity to have input into this project. My RAP registration includes the Goulburn Mulwaree Local Government Area, within which the subject site is located.
Including the Gundungurra Nation in the Acknowledgement of Country and specific references to Traditional Ownership of the site and the Aboriginal language spoken is consistent with various information in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment (ACHAR). This includes various mentions that the site is in the wider vicinity of the border between the Gundungurra and neighbouring nations. References such as the AIATSIS map of Indigenous Australia locate the subject site within the Gundungurra Nation.
Aboriginal people in the project area are likely to have spoken the Gundungurra language and the there is significant evidence of Gundungurra people living across the Goulburn Mulwaree Local Government Area.
Such evidence of Gundungurra people living in the area is recorded in relation to the nearby property Springfield (refer to: https://www.nma.gov.au/explore/features/springfield-faithfull/station)
The highly regarded record ‘My Recollections’ by Gundungurra Chief Werriberri (Werriberrie / Billy Russell), published in 1914 when he was aged 84 years, ascertains that Gundungurra Country travelled to Yass, stating: “Sub-tribes never fought against each other, but only against men of other tribes, such the Wiraijuri tribes, north and west about Bathurst, those of the south of Yass and the coast tribes Dharruek, and the Camden tribe, Cubbitch-Batha”. Such information is supported by ongoing oral knowledge.
Anne Jackson-Nakano, who is also referenced in the ACHAR for this proposal, locates the subject site as being on Gundungurra Country in her later work including ‘The Pajong and Wallabalooa: A History of Aboriginal Farming Families at Blakney and Pudman Creeks, 1820-1945, and Historical Overview 1945-2002 (Weereewaa History Series, 2)’. This work also considers contradictions between the 1974 Tindale map compared to early historical sources and ongoing knowledge.
Robert Hamilton Mathews, who is highly regarded for his contribution to early anthropological studies, also wrote about his personal interactions with Gundungurra people as he spent much of his childhood and youth living on a property just south of Goulburn.
It should be noted that Gundungurra people were heavily impacted in the early days of colonisation. This included violence such as the Appin Massacre, and this violence extended south beyond present day Goulburn as colonisation progressed to areas in the vicinity of the subject site.
I am happy to be contacted by the proponents or their representatives regarding the proposal.

I seriously object to the proposed Woodlawn Advanced Recovery Centre. Please find attached my full objection.

I am a farmer involved in agri tourism.
Clean air and viable regenerative agriculture with working workshops and education both passive and active are required to maintain the working farm.
To even consider this toxic facility that will pollute the Great Dividing Range, local farms and people's lifestyles and income should not be tolerated. The NSW government doesn't want the incinerator because they aren't safe for Sydney - they aren't safe for our families and visitors either.
This pollution is known to be harmful to our waterways, water tank storage and collection, animal water systems and the grazing grass they will have the contaminated ash falling on it every windy day or more.
We know Veola have their experts who collect massive fees through their reports and research - sure they are going to be concerned about what they say as they are handsomely paid for the right words to support this submission. Whay have so many independent scientists and waste managers have disputed what they write. Its known n by all the ash puts our environment, farms air and health at risk. WE DO NOT WANT THE INCEINREATR HERE.
The Woodlawn mine has another 20 - 25 years' worth of ill to take - their methane gas is being caught and controlled - new technologies from around the world will be coming on line to handle world waste during that time - we can wait for the tech - just like we waited for the electrical boom in cars and household energy collection.
Why can't the future waste fill all the open cut coal mines and covered with the tailings that are stacked waiting for readaptation.

Come on this is not an acceptable practice when they have the facilities in the time for big tech advancements over the next 20 years to keep this project form polluting our country for ever! STOP and THINK - this is not required at the moment. WAIT and watch the new technologies offer full proof management of waste

My name is Hannah Levarre and I disagree with the implementation of the proposed incinerator at Tarago/Lake Bathurst area.

I live in Goulburn and travel to Tarago regularly. The township and surrounding business is well developed with potential of residential expansion with the Goulburn district already bursting.

This project is in direct conflict with development and growth in the local area. There are successful Tarago, Lake Bathurst local agricultural businesses, along with increased growth in rural- residential developments, which are expected to grow over the next 10-20 years and will sustainably increase the size and diversity of the local community. There is support of local businesses, volunteer organisations and local schools. In contrast, this proposal would risk the viability of an already successful local agricultural business locality, reduce existing residential developments, families will likely move away due to the health and environmental pollution, and the incinerator will put a halt to any further long-term local business development and reduce growth in the rural residential development plan.

In July 2018, the Eastern Creek waste incinerator in Sydney was rejected by the NSW Independent Planning Commission as not being of public interest. The reasons included concerns of insufficient evidence that the pollution control technologies would be capable of managing emissions, concern about the relationship between air and water quality impacts, the possibility of adverse environmental outcomes, concerns 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. Why has this problem been shifted to Tarago/Lake Bathurst?
The risks have not changed since the decision back in 2018 – the project proposed for Tarago, Lake Bathurst must also be rejected - If it is not a viable solution for Sydney, then it is not viable for Tarago/Lake Bathurst.

Veolia have spent over 15 years failing to operate their existing Woodlawn facility within license conditions, received multiple infringements, failed to inform and communicate with the local community of the impact of pollution to the local environment, and attempted to withhold information under the freedom of information act process. This is not acceptable and not a good indication of transparency in the proposed agenda of Veolia.

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 an incinerator facility in Tarago, Lake Bathurst or anywhere in the Southern Tablelands.

I implore you to not approve this application for the future of the Tarago, Lake Bathurst area. The expected expansion and economic benefits anticipated to fulfil its future, will outweigh the financial benefits of the proposal. The incinerator will only inhibit and in turn impact future prospects of settlement in the area and investment in the local economy.
Please reject the Tarago incinerator proposal.
Thank you,
Hannah Levarre

I am concerned about this Energy Recovery Centre producing toxic waste and affecting the prime agricultural land/industry in which it is being located.

Submission against the Veolia waste to energy incinerator at Tarago NSW

I write to register an objection to the proposed waste to energy incinerator at Tarago NSW. My objection is based on the toxic emissions of various kinds that this technology will produce. What is being billed as a renewable source of energy does not fit the renewable energy criteria.
The process will produce a high level of particulates which would be damaging to the atmosphere and subsequently to the health of people in the region. I have been involved in the climate action arena for many years. One of the best books that I have read detailing the harmful impacts of fossil fuels is Client Earth by James Thornton and Martin Goodman (2017). The book included significant information on air pollution in general and particulates in particular (excuse the pun). Thus, when I have read that the waste to energy incinerator will increase the levels of particulates to extremely dangerous levels, this alone would lead me to oppose it.
There are of course other problems with this technology. Statistics are available of the emissions that will be produced each year. These are alarming but most significantly, various governments have been convinced enough to rule against the use of this technology: the NSW Government having banned the incinerators for Sydney and the ACT Government having banned them in the Territory.
It is undoubted that Australia and the world have a problem with waste. I wish there were better technology to deal with it. Governments need to be proactive and fund scientific research and development. We cannot solve problems with harmful solutions.