Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

My name is Susan Jeffery and I live in Belconnen, Canberra. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.
I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will be harmful to the immediate and surrounding environment including those populated areas that may not be seen to be in the 'direct' vicinity. While we may be 40 kilometres away, during the bushfires a few years ago, we were constantly engulfed in smoke from surrounding areas that were further away (1-200km). The wind directed this smoke every day and it was all consuming - while this hopefully doesn't happen again anytime soon, I fear that the proposed incinerator in Tarago will provide a very similiar but perhaps less visible and highly toxic pollutants that will be far reaching and irreversible.
I hope that the ACT Government is aware of this and discussing the potential issues with the NSW Government and mitigations put in place to remove the risks. It is not good enough to minimise risks - it needs to be removed all together and look at other options or locations that do not put a large population over a large area at significant health risks.

The harmful pollutants that will be coming out of this incinerator can't be safe. Veolia's reports by people that have been hired by Veolia expect us to believe that the graphs they produce are safe. Veolia has many times be fined for not adhering to their licence and have contaminated our area. Everything regarding this project is wrong. Money over humanity it's not right. It will be too late to help humanity and future generations if this plant is mismanaged and Veolia has admitted to this happening regarding the leaching from their Woodlawn operations.
You must say NO TO THE TARAGO INCINERATOR

I am very concerned about my and my family’s as well as general community health regarding this toxic generating proposal. The fact that it DOES produce toxic waste that is supposedly MAINLY controlled and further processed highlights that it is toxic and relies on human intervention to change that status - which leaves that part of effluent to errors and breakdowns-and therefore potential Leah’s to the environment . I’m also very concerned that there will still be an emission of sorts-it’s interesting to read that Sydney proposal was denied due to unacceptable public health and safety concerns, however there is no consideration for us in our environment?
I’m also opposed to commercial development in our rural and generally unspoilt natural environment. I have been an owner of my property since the early 1980’s and am a strong advocate for my natural environment . I do not appreciate a commercial conglomerate stepping in to bastardise my surroundings and my healthy life.
NO THANK YOU!

My name is Ian de Montfort and I have a property in Windellama. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

There are several reasons for my objection that include, though not limited to:
• Greenhouse gas emissions will be generated
• Better to harness the methane gases from land fill
• Moves us from a focus on waste recycling

If the Eastern Creek waste incinerator was rejected by the NSW Independent Planning Commission due to not being in the public interest, I trust that the same standard would be applied for the proposed incinerator near Tarago.
Therefore, I expect that in accordance with the NSW Energy from Waste Policy the incinerator would only proceed if community acceptance to operate such a process has been obtained.

Please note my strong objection to the incinerator being established in Tarago or anywhere in the Southern Tablelands.

21st November 2022

Dear NSW Planning,

My name is Simon Clough and I live in a small village on the Far North Coast of NSW called Iluka. I am writing to object in the strongest terms to Veolia’s incinerator proposal.

You may wonder why I’m bothering to object to a proposal over 1,000kms away. Our communities are threatened by a similar incinerator being proposed for Casino. I believe it is important for all communities that are threatened by this insidious proposal to stand together.

I would like to list my objections to Veolia’s proposal:

• The incinerator proposed will emit toxic air pollution continuously for 25 years. This pollution is very damaging to human and animal health as well as the environment.

Food contaminated by incinerator toxins can cause cancer, miscarriage, infant deaths, developmental delays, reproductive issues, heart disease and of course respiratory problems.

ANU scientists concluded “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”.

• Veolia's incinerator isn’t needed the existing Woodlawn landfill has a remaining useful life of 25 years. The proposal is also completely at odds with the Government’s circular economy policies.

• The economic impact of the proposal is in direct conflict with alternative development and growth in the local area. Maintenance of successful local agricultural businesses, along with increased growth in rural- residential developments expected over the next 10-20 years will sustainably increase the size and diversity of the local community,


• Veolia’s waste incineration is not recycling, contributes to climate change and is essentially “green washing”. The 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.


• 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.

If this type of incinerator is unsafe for Sydney it is unsafe anywhere, especially when the cumulative impacts are considered.

Sincerely,

Simon Clough

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.

The independent review conducted by the NSW Chief Scientist and Chief Engineer on the proposed NSW EPA energy from waste policy which will allow waste incinerators to discharge 7kg/hour of dust over our homes and into our water supply. I am not only concerned but mortified that this is even being considered forTarago and its surrounds. Why on earth would I support an incinerator or any operator plans to install where they are legally able to discharge more than 7 kg/hr of dust 24/7 over Tarago homes and the surrounding district?
Waste incinerators generate large amounts of highly toxic ash and other materials such as spent activated carbon which, despite what the waste to energy industry says, can’t be remediated and must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Currently any attempt at immobilising pollutants focuses only on heavy metal contamination and nothing is done to immobilise persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. In addition, if undoped activated carbon is used to filter mercury from the discharge stream any mercury collected will not be retained and will leach out of the spent activated carbon. To effectively filter and absorb mercury from the discharge stream activated carbon doped with sulphur is required so that mercury sulphide is formed and is retained.
There are no requirements specifying how the immobilisation of heavy or bottom and fly, baghouse ash, spent activated carbon or other reagents should be carried out. Given the hazardous nature of the waste ash and other reagents this is essential to prevent toxic pollutants leaching into the environment prior to, and after disposal. Currently, proponents are only required to measure a very limited number of pollutants being emitted in stack gases under steady state plant conditions. Testing on modern waste incinerators currently operating in Europe has shown that this performance measure is deeply flawed as the highest concentrations of pollutants are emitted during start up, shut down or stack bypass events. It doesn’t surprise me that in other countries persistent organic pollutants are now being found in the environment, food chain and people from waste incinerators. So why should we believe for one minute that the incinerator proposed for Tarago will comply 24/7 with environmental orders? Veolia’s track record to date speaks for itself - they have a history of non-compliance while operating Woodlawn – who’s to say history wont repeat itself if the ARC is developed.
I do not support Veolia's proposal to build a waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator near Tarago, in the NSW Southern Tablelands

My name is Sandra Gerber.I live in Croydon Sydney. I strongly object to Veolia's proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.
My daughter's young family live in Tarago. I am greatly concerned that Veolia's waste incinerator will have a detrimental affect on their health and well-being. They grow much of their own food and their water supply is collected in tanks. Both are highly vulnerable to toxic air pollution.
It is well-documented that Veolia has often failed to comply with licensed conditions. The Tarago community has absolutely no reason to believe this would change.
In 2018 the Eastern Creek incinerator in Sydney was rejected based on a list of public health and safety reasons. The proposed Tarago incinerator should also be rejected based on similar reasons. Surely the people of Tarago and its surrounds are as worthy as the population of Sydney for a safe and healthy living environment.

I have a concern for the people who live near it and how it may damage their health and the environment. As well as lowering the value of the land around the area

I object to this project as the area is subject to very frequent high winds ( as evidence by the number of wind turbine in the area), which would spread pollution and harmful substance far and wide, there is a number of farms and hobby farms in the area and it would affect property value. This kind of project was rejected for Sydney in 2018 so why propose it in our region

I very strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

Veolia’s proposed toxic industrial waste incinerator will be seriously impact my health, that of my local community and of the environment. The acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS) generated by the proposed incinerator will pollute the air I, and my community, breath, contaminate the water I, and our rural community collect for domestic and stock consumption, pollute the Sydney Water Catchment, and contaminat the soil of our rural, food producing area.
I do not want the vegetables, fruit and meat I grow contaminated by Veolia’s proposed toxic industrial waste incinerator. I live in a rural area to minimise the impact of pollution on my health! 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”.
In July 2018, the NSW Independent Planning Commission rejected the Eastern Creek waste incinerator in Sydney 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. The NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health, risks have not changed since this decision.
Industrial waste incinerators aren’t safe for Tarago if they aren’t safe for Sydney!

I would like to lodge a very strong objection to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

My health, that of my local community and of the environment will be seriously impacted by Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator. I do not want acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS) generated by the proposed incinerator in the air I, and my community, breath nor contaminating the water I, and our rural community, collect for domestic and stock consumption or entering the Sydney Water Catchment, nor contaminating the soil of our rural, food producing area.
I grow my own vegetable, fruit and meat and do not want these contaminated by Veolia’s proposed toxic industrial waste incinerator. I chose to live in a rural area to minimise the impact of pollution on my health! 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”.
In July 2018, the NSW Independent Planning Commission rejected the Eastern Creek waste incinerator in Sydney as not being in the public interest. 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 were the reasons included. the NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health, risks have not changed since this 2018 decision.
If industrial waste incinerators aren’t safe for Sydney, they aren’t safe for Tarago!

Good afternoon, my name is Adam, and my wife and I built, and moved to this beautiful part of the country 6 month's , to get away urban sprawl and pullution of the Major cities. However when I found out they will be! (Because they will ignore us and do it anyway!) Building this disgusting waste incinerator from 5km !, I was shocked!, Allover the world, these companies always promise, that there will be minimum impact while at the same time donating money to some local development or paying off the government local government officials to side with there developments , however it always ends up the same way!. They end up poisoning the beautiful local area some how, while avoiding all responsibility via some legal loop hole, while forcing the locals to move and sell there properties for half the price!. I am completely against this project, however I am under no illusions,that it will go through, no matter how many people submit complaints!, Because at the end of the day, this project is going to make money for the local and state governments, and they care more about short term financial gain, rather then the long term health of the local hard working tax payers , who just want that little slice of paradise.

I am 100% against the Woodlawn Toxic Incinerator. This MUST be stopped. This incinerator would damage the air, water, farmland, crops, animals grazing on these lands and therefore damage the food created from these lands, which in turn, damaging the health of those eating that food.
Our family recently moved to the idyllic and picturesque town of tarago, having just had our first home built. I want tarago to remain picturesque, beautiful and a healthy country town. If this incinerator were to go ahead, we are talking major health risks, cancer being one of them, to every human living in the surrounding areas. Then you've got law suits on your hands. None of us will accept this destruction to our area and health. If someone were to get cancer they wouldn't easily sue Veolia and win, for Veolia being the cause in the turn of bad health. And not only that, Tarago and surrounds property prices could then plummet and reduce any economy presently being grown and brought into the area, because who wants to live near a toxic waste incinerator that will damage their health? Would you? No, exactly. So stop it from going ahead!

I am a resident of the ACT, but this project will impact most of the northern ACT suburbs as well as our neighbouring region. Energy Recovery Center is a euphemism for what will actually be a highly polluting plant producing a minute amount of energy in proportion to the investment made and the pollution created. That money could pay for much cleaner sources of energy. The long term impact on our environment and health of this incinerator will be invisible, but nonetheless present. Toxic chemicals in our environment are responsible for numerous cancers and chronic diseases, including reduced male fertility. Projects like these will impact my children and grandchildren. The solution to growing mountains of waste is not to burn it, but to reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, not produce it in the first place. Please do not allow this highly damaging project to go forward. The ACT has rejected Veolia's polluting project when it was proposed for Fyshwick; Sydneysiders have rejected it when it was proposed outside Sydney; the EEC has banned these types of incinerators in Europe; Veolia is counting on the fact that the population of Tarago and surrounds is tiny to avoid scrutiny and opposition. It is devious and cannot be allowed. Please stop this project immediately and advise Veolia to invest their money in responsible recycling or in truly green energy instead. Thank you.

I object to the Woodlawn AERC proposal on the grounds that:
It will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than coal-fired generation;
There are unacceptable risks the emissions will pollute surrounding soil and rainwater collection tanks (most properties for miles around rely on rainwater and many residents grow vegetables);
Similar incinerator proposals have been blocked in the ACT and Sydney due to concerns over the risks to public health;
Burning waste is not an acceptable alternative to recycling of materials, and produces a worse environmental outcome than using landfill;
Woodlawn site has landfill capacity for many years to come.
Please don't put the health of current and future residents of a wide surrounding area be put at risk from this project.

My name is Elisa Pavlic and I live in Wamboin. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will be bad for the environment and the health of the surrounding community. It would impact on the value of my property, making it vertually impossible to sell if I wished to do so in the future.I
There are many reasons for my objection. The incinerator would emit toxic air pollution including acid gases and toxic heavy metals particles. Can Veolia guarantee the quality of the air to be safe from these harmful toxins?
Burning waste in this manner will not help with the current need to reduce greenhouse emissions. Burning plastic is the same as burning fossil fuels.
If In July 2018, the Eastern Creek waste incinerator in Sydney was rejected by the NSW Independent Planning Commission as not being safe. Why is it then being proposed for Tarago? Why should we have to subjected to the harmful effects from burning waste? If it is not safe for Sydney, it is not safe for us!!!!

I object totally to the incinerator being developed at Tarago for the obvious reasons.
! Pollution to the farming communities, water, air and foodchain.
! Obviously not wanted in Sydney, "give it to someone else attitude".
! What happened to keeping it covered and creating methane for power?

see attachment

At a information meeting 3 months ago I asked the leader of the company conducting the EIS if they could guarantee 100% that if the project went ahead it would cause no health problems. Her reply was 'that is unreasonable, no one can guarantee 100 % that there will be no ongoing health issues'. Yet at a meeting after the EIS was released the same leader was asked the same question by me again and the answer was yes I can guarantee no health issues will arise if this project goes ahead. So it appears that the company that was employed by Veolia to do the EIS simply have no idea what the potential outcomes may be.
Their study was based on a facility operating in England, not exactly the same climate as what we experience at Tarago NSW, high winds , hot summers and as we have witnessed over the past year devastating floods, Veolia can not possibly guarantee that they can 100 % control emissions and successfully store hazardous byproducts of the incinerator when the climate conditions are extreme. I make this statement as Veolia operating the current landfill for nearly 20 years, had an obligation to under their license not to emit any odors from their site, yet I live 15 kms away as the crow flies and have put many complaint in about the odor that we have experienced.
Veolia have now been found to contaminate the ground water with a a breach off their current site, again they have not complied with the EPA or State Government regulations for their license, so why would you trust them with an incinerator ?
This is a rural community based on agriculture, the farming industry is now highly regulated regarding animal sales, each time a farmer sells stock they must fill out a NVD which is governed by the Livestock Production Assurance through Integrity Systems, we as producers must list all chemicals used on the stock that are still within a withholding period it also asks a question regarding chemical residues. If chemical residues are found in our stock immediately we loose the right to sell any stock until the source of the chemical residue is found.
This means if this project is allowed to go ahead a huge number of farmers producing food for Australia could in theory end up not being able to ell their produce which in turn means a shortage of food for Australia.
This is a desperate attempt for a multi national company to increase their profits at the expense of a small rural community.
NSW government made policy that waste to energy incinerators were only allowed in 4 areas in NSW which all are rural,
Why because the proposed WTE project in Sydney was defeated and not allowed due to the finding of " we are not satisfied that this project will not cause any health issues to Humans, animals or the environment".
If it is too much of a health risk to be built in Sydney where the rubbish is, then it is a bigger health risk to cart the rubbish to Tarago and burn it. Tarago is within the Sydney Water catchment ,so any contaminations that enter the water from the proposed WTE plant will end up in Sydney water.
Have Sydney residents been notified of the proposed project and advised of how their water supply could be affected?
This project is not welcomed or supported by the majority of the Tarago and district residents, which doesn't meet the criteria of community support for the project.