Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

Considering Sydney do not want to incinerate their own rubbish in their back yard why should our community be objected to the long term health problems from toxic chemicals such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, VOCs ,POMs and dioxins.
As a farmer producing food for our nation I find it outrageous even contemplating having such a proposal considered. An absolute disgrace!!! There must be a more progressive and safe way to dispose of accumulated rubbish.

I object to this project.
I am a local resident and object on the basis that the proposal would have a terrible effect on the local community.
health would be put at risk, property prices will fall (who wants to live near an incinerator?), road traffic will worsen, there will be a terrible smell.
the technology is suspect, i have no trust all in Veolia to manage the project ethically or responsibly.
We already have terrible smell from their existing project and we are 12km away, i do not trust them to be any better with this proposal.
The waterways can be polluted. We live on tank water and i am concerned about substances falling out of the atmosphere and onto our roofs where we catch domestic water for drinking.
I am sick of Tarago being targeted as an industrial solution to Sydney's problems.
The proposal should not proceed.
thank you

I object to the project because it will adversely impact my local community and environment. It will drag house and property prices down as people will not want to buy near such an incinerator as the one being proposed. It will endanger the wildlife in the area and put the local community's health at risk. Veolia has not been able to manage the odours already coming from their existing waste operation and I have no faith in them managing a toxic waste incinerator.

I am writing to you regarding the proposed Veolia Tarago Incinerator near Lake George.

I have a number of concerns regarding the suitability and safety of the said project including the harmful air emissions that are expected to exceed safety standards, the disposal of contaminated bottom ash and ground water contamination that I will outline here. I will demonstrate that this project is not in the public interest, the unsuitability of the site and the social, economic and environmental impact of the said proposal.

Our concerns are unfortunately backed by considerable scientific research, studies have found elevated cancer risks with some incinerators, one 2013 study[1] demonstrated “a statistically significant increase in the risk of dying from cancer in towns near incinerators and installations for the recovery or disposal of hazardous waste”. A 2019 systematic review[2] published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health identified a range of adverse health effects of living or working near a waste incinerator, including significant associations with some neoplasia (abnormal growth), congenital anomalies, infant deaths and miscarriage.

The incinerator industry has become notorious as the “highest known source of global dioxin pollution – one of the most toxic compounds ever studied. It was considered a dirty industry with a poor track record of air pollution and incidents”[3]. While in recent years it has tried to shake this stigma and rebrand itself as a ‘clean energy solution’ this is simply greenwashing. Reports such as that by Bell and Bremmer (2013)[4] establish that incinerators remain a dirty industry plagued with pollution problems“... modern waste incinerators are still significant sources of hazardous air toxics emissions that are difficult to control. Some of the pollutants such as mercury, dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can travel great distances and contribute to contamination on a global level as well as contaminating local soil and produce.” (Bremmer & Bell, 2013)

Contamination of our air and soil will impact the producers in the area and the safety of our food. Studies have demonstrated the “contamination of food and ingestion of pollutants is a significant risk pathway for both nearby and distant residents”[5]. Furthermore, this proposal will impact the rainwater tanks our communities rely on for drinking water. And moreover, with hazardous waste risking the groundwater that supplies the Sydney Water Catchment the health risk does not burden our regional communities alone. How can such a proposal therefore be suitable in this area?

The ACT Government has banned waste incineration for energy production with the ACT Climate Change Minister stating “There are cleaner, greener and more efficient ways of managing our waste, than burning it. The last thing we need are the toxic emissions or greenhouse gases from burning waste in Canberra”. Modelling shows that air pollution will spread to Canberra and will also be impacting Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan and Yass. A technology that is to be banned less than an hour away does not seem appropriate for our communities.

We have a responsibility to future generations to safeguard our environment. We have created this waste problem; we should not be furthering it by damaging our ozone. Waste Incinerators that are burning otherwise captured CO2 should be prohibited due to their greenhouse gas emissions, let alone their other toxic discharges. Zero Waste Australia have produced a map that “shows the current 17 waste incinerator projects operating already… including those planned for Australia.. will burn 3,909,500 million tonnes of waste every year. This will contribute more than 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, representing a major climate pollution threat for Australia”[6]. The National Toxics Network[7] state that “incinerators emit more carbon dioxide (Co2) per unit of electricity than coal-fired power plants” and burning waste also emits mercury, dioxins and lead. Environmental engineer Georgia Ellitott-Smith sums up my thoughts perfectly “Burning plastic in a climate emergency, that’s insane” [8].

There is “insufficient evidence to conclude that any incinerator is safe”[9]. I am shocked for what this means for my health and the health of my family and our communities. The families in the effected communities now find their health, homes and livelihoods under threat.

The environmental impacts on the natural and built environment as well as the social and economic impacts of this proposal are far too great, I hope that you will stand with us against this proposal.

(1) (Javier García-Pérez 1, 2013)
(2) (Peter W. Tait, et al 2019)
(3) (Bremmer & Bell, 2013)
(4) (Bremmer & Bell, 2013)
(5) (Peter W. Tait, 2019)
(6) (Zero Waste Australia, n.d.)
(7) (National Toxics Network, 2014)
(8) (Gardiner, 2021)
(9) (Peter W. Tait, 2019)

References
Allsopp, M., Costner, P., & Johnston, P. (n.d.). Incineration and Human Health: State of Knowledge of the Impacts of Waste incinerators on Human Health. Retrieved from New South Wales Government Independent Planning Commision: https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/project-submissions/2018/04/eastern-creek-energy-from-waste-facility-ssd-6236/20180518t193048/incineration-and-human-health-greenpeace.pdf
Bremmer, J., & Bell, L. (2013). Burning waste for energy It doesn’t stack- up: Exposing the push towards unsustainable waste to energy technology in Australia. https://ntn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NTN-waste-to-energy-incineration-report-2013.-1.pdf: National Toxics Network. Retrieved from Burning waste for energy: Exposing the push towards unsustainable waste to energy technology in Australia.: https://ntn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NTN-waste-to-energy-incineration-report-2013.-1.pdf
Gardiner, B. (2021, April). In Europe, a Backlash Is Growing Over Incinerating Garbage. Retrieved from Yale Environment 360: https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-europe-a-backlash-is-growing-over-incinerating-garbage?fbclid=IwAR2bMi3duF-aozyo_5rt9KpdJTtLgPHCgXtycZ3l00Ld3EfUJjWLZhroEac
Javier García-Pérez 1, P. F.-N.-C.-A. (2013). Cancer mortality in towns in the vicinity of incinerators and installations for the recovery or disposal of hazardous waste. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23160082/: PubMed.gov.
National Toxics Network. (2014). 10 REASONS WHY BURNING WASTE FOR ENERGY IS A BAD IDEA. Retrieved from https://ntn.org.au/10-reasons-why-burning-waste-for-energy-is-a-bad-idea/?doing_wp_cron=1621505170.2445030212402343750000
Peter W. Tait, J. B. (2019, vol. 44 no. 1). The health impacts of waste incineration: A systematic review. Retrieved from Australian and New Zealand Jouranl of Public Health: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox/FMfcgxwLtswZHFnstzrSKvpXPXpVxgCV?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1
Zero Waste Australia. (n.d.). Incineration. Retrieved from Zero Waste Australia: https://zerowasteaustralia.org/incineration/?fbclid=IwAR0k2cntTRl4EZFeNqp9EJUnJgfrbbJheJJAgh001q-HzdI0zSeWjYAsHm8

I wish to object to the project on concerns around the environmental and health impacts this submission proposes to the local communities.

My wife and I own Lumley Park at Bungonia. Lumley Park is located approximately 40km as the crow flies from the proposed incinerator. We are the third owners of the property and next year we will celebrate 200 years of continuous prime lamb production on Lumley Park. We typically sell between 4,000 and 5,000 lambs a year as well as mutton, wool etc.
We are very concerned that over time the fallout of dioxins and other toxic materials emanating from the incinerator will build up to such a level that our lamb and mutton will be declared unsalable. The sale of food containing dioxins or other carcinogenic substances is banned in the US, for example, under the USFDA “Delaney Clause”. A lot of our lamb is exported and this would remove this important market and of course buyers would be very wary of primary producers in the fallout area of the incinerator and it follows our long established business would fail.

I have been following the discussion on this proposal plus an abandoned similar project at Bungonia. The claims made by both companies in regard to fallout of dioxins and similar species is seriously flawed. I am concerned Veolia have no real world experience to back up their claim that no dioxins or furans will escape the incinerator into the atmosphere. If that is true it will be a world first. These chemicals form at high temperatures and are adsorbed on the surface of the ash. If any ash escapes it has a small amount of dioxins and furans. These chemicals will then fallout over the flume of the emissions. Lumley Park is downwind of the dominant wind. These chemicals are very persistent in the soil and last for years. The period has never been determined. For example in Vietnam birth deformities are still occurring in well above normal numbers as a result of the dioxin in the herbicide Agent Orange. Even if the quantities on an annual basis are very very small over time it will build up in the soil and eventually be consumed by my sheep.
So that is our concern.
I have had previous experience on a technical level dealing with industrial carcinogenic materials. I am an industrial chemist and in the 1970’s was involved with the problems associated with vinyl chloride monomer. It is not insignificant that polyvinyl chloride plastic is the chief source of chlorine for the formation of dioxin in the incineration process.
This is a dinosaur of a proposal. It is easy just to burn the garbage and get rid of it but it has long term downsides and obviously our concern is with the fallout of dioxins, furans and heavy metals from batteries etc in the garbage and their uptake into the food chain. The process will not occur instantaneously but insidiously over years. In my opinion the Veolia management is being very cavalier with other peoples health and livelihoods and the proposal should be rejected.

I object to the proposed incinerator at the Tarago Woodlawn precinct, owned by Veolia, as it will directly impact the environment in which my family and I live and work, as well as impact more widely the community around me.

I am greatly concerned by the toxic air emissions that are emitted from waste incinerators, and that Veolia themselves have said will be released through toxic fly ash. I am deeply concerned by the toxic heavy metal particles such as mercury, lead and cadmium that will leach into the soil of my farm, my community’s soil and the soil of our natural environment in the Lake George Region. As primary producers, I am greatly concerned by the prospect of our livestock consuming toxic chemicals, which will affect their health and the quality and safety of the meat they provide. How will we confirm that the meat our livestock produce is safe for consumption when we won’t even know the levels of toxic chemicals in their meat after they consume our crops in direct contact with the incinerator fly ash? Chemicals from the incinerator will blow onto our forage crops and pasture and accumulate. Many overseas communities cannot farm their land safely due to incinerator contamination and I fear our business, which operates primarily on the sale of beef cattle, will suffer tremendously and perhaps be completely unviable if the incinerator operates in such close proximity to our farm. The devaluation of our farm, property and livestock due to the Tarago incinerator would lead to further economic devastation and ongoing stress and mental health issues for my family and those in my community. Control soil tests have not been conducted in the area surrounding the incinerator site at Tarago, which is of great concern considering the effects of the incinerator on soil and water cannot be analysed and measured for toxicity if the incinerator is installed and after it is running.

I am concerned also for my family working and living with these chemicals on a daily basis. We are already greatly affected by the smell produced by Veolia’s Woodlawn Eco-Precinct with the current operation of their landfill site. The smell is persistent and Veolia itself admits the incinerator will exceed the NSW Government safety standards for air emissions. We cannot help but feel we will suffer from harmful air emissions and Veolia will still be able to operate as they have with the odour from their current operations. We, like the majority of the local community, rely solely on rainwater collected in tanks for our domestic use. Toxic fly ash can settle on our rooves and flow into our water tanks. I am alarmed that we will be consuming the chemicals produced through burning inorganic substances previously buried in landfill to keep them away from any human contact.

I am also very concerned about 3 million tonnes of hazardous waste ash being stored in the ground near Tarago. Our property is located less than 5km from the proposed incinerator site. The storage of hazardous waste in soil so close to our property is absolutely alarming. We are downhill from the site- of course these chemicals can leach their way to our farm, to Lake George, to the Sydney Catchment which supplies water to those in my community and beyond. These chemicals, such as Persistent Organic Pollutants, are known as ‘forever chemicals’. If toxic ash leaches into the groundwater under Tarago and Lake George it will poison bores, springs, creeks, rivers, lakes and dams throughout the Sydney water catchment. It will leach into soil and water consumed by livestock, which feeds our community, the wider NSW region and even overseas export markets.

I believe there are alternatives to the proposed ‘Waste-to-energy’ incinerator. Burning plastics, hazardous waste, landfill is not a ‘clean energy’ alternative. There is a current need for waste infrastructure in NSW, but I do not believe a waste incinerator is going to lead to the circular-waste economy so crucial to sustainability and protecting our fragile natural environmental.

Sydney and the ACT have banned waste incinerators. I believe that if they are unacceptable and inappropriate (dangerous) to the people of Sydney and the ACT, they are also as inappropriate and dangerous to the people of Tarago.

The transporting of Sydney’s waste to Tarago (very close to the ACT border) to be burned in an incinerator (which is using technology that has been abandoned in other countries) is such a terrible idea I don’t know where to begin. 1) why is this location so close to the ACT? 2) why is the location in a township that is near to other towns and suburbs such as Bungendore, Lake George, Wamboin, Bywong, Sutton etc? Why is the waste being taken so far away from its source to be burned? I am a resident of Bywong and do not want the fumes coming over my property. Please do not tell me the fumes are safe. Everyone thinks their toxic stuff is safe at the time they spread it everywhere, and history tells us every time that later on, it is found it wasnt safe at all. And this time, there is evidence that the fumes are not safe right from the start. I know the waste has to go somewhere. But putting it near the ACT border, and having trucks driving constantly, for years and years, all the way from the source to the little town of Tarago along roads that are barely capable of hosting these vehicles, is not fair. The fact that western sydney lobbied so hard not to have the incinerator anywhere near them, combined with the fact that no-one around here wants it and that it is SO CLOSE to the ACT, should be enough for the regulators and experts to come up with another solution for this waste destruction.

i am here to write to you in regards to Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre.
i am Objecting the project being put into my backyard.
i am planning to build there with my girlfriend this year and i want to be able to move there with a piece of mind that i do not have this incinerator in my backyard.
the company Veolia that you have intrusted to maintain clean air in Tarago hasnt meant that promise at all. every time i am out there all i can smell with the Veolia garage waste. how can you trust them to maintain an incinerator when they cant keep a simple promise.

not only that but my health will be inpacted by this; the water catachment required for Tarago will be compomise. i wont be able to drink it or use it for cooking also if i plan to have friuts or veg plants they will also be effected.

by my understadning these type of centres are being shut down all over eurpoe at this time because they ae a public risk and has effected people health so i please do not impact me or my family.

I write to you today deeply saddened and concerned regarding the proposed Veolia plant at Tarago. I am both a resident, small business owner, wife, mother and active participant in the community of Goulburn. I am also the wife and daughter-in-law of 3rd generation farmers at Lake Bathurst. All of which will be affected if this plant is to proceed.

I have tried to educate myself on the building and benefits of this plant, as I would love to see Goulburn continue to grow and flourish. Whilst I have only lived here permanently for 10 years, I chose to live here and I absolutely love and am proud of this fine town.

I understand there are employment opportunities for the construction, however the short term benefits cannot and do not outweigh the long term health benefits of our community.

I have grave fears for the health and safety of both our residents and the nation. The nation? I hear you ask, put simply, we feed the nation in this beautiful prime agricultural land within the 100km+ radius of this plant. One of the greatest concerns I have, post the presentation by Veolia at the Goulburn Chamber of Commerce meeting held 12/10/2022, is that no soil tests have been conducted by Veolia at ANY site that they have built (domestically or internationally). Which means they cannot be certain of the toxins produced NOT raining down on local land used to produce the crops that both humans and livestock consume, the livestock also grown for human consumption.

Many studies have already been conducted on the toxins produced by such incinerators, for example the World Health Organisation (WHO) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dioxins-and-their-effects-on-human-healthm , Journal of Public Health https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1753-6405.12939 whilst they conclude that older incinerator technology is strongly linked with adverse health effects, more recent incinerators have not ONLY because there is insufficient time lapsed since the emergence of new technology in which to study. Another study was the toxic ash poisons affecting our food chain https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-toxic-fly-ash-in-food-v2_3-en.pdf this study was conducted on various incinerators in various countries. There was a particular focus on poultry eggs, a case study demonstrated that at the Newcastle, UK incinerator, the production of the dioxins at a low level can cause severe problems, i.e contamination of poultry eggs which, on average, exceeded the limit for the content of dioxins in eggs by 6.4 to 8.8 times the 2015 Basel Convention level of 15ppb (parts per billion). Also noted in this study, when applying fly ash and other wastes containing levels of dioxin over 0.05 ppb in agriculture (and other land based application) can lead to contamination of the local food chain, and free range poultry eggs in particular at critical levels over currently used safety limits (2.5 pg WHO-TEQ g-1 fat) by several fold, with some cases revealing a 10 fold exceedance. Locally produced food is of great importance in developing countries and rural locations in developed countries in particular. Finally, I noted dioxin levels in sediments in a rural area are one order of magnitude higher than those in industrial areas of the country. To this, I also note that after great persistence, Veolia admitted to not having done any soil sample testing or animal carcass testing in the surrounds of existing incinerators abroad, rather unusual if there is nothing to hide. Farmers know the chemicals used, and the ingredients of which, on their land as this is audited.

Studies have been done to show the plume that will come from the ‘stack’ at the plant, and we all know the winds that we suffer through in this tablelands region, these toxic plumes will not only affect the immediate prime agricultural land but also our beautiful city of Goulburn. Veolia state they must adhere to strict EPA standards and levels, unfortunately Veolia do not have a promising positive track record in compliance (see just one complaints register of Veolia’s current Woodlawn Bioreactor https://www.veolia.com/anz/sites/g/files/dvc2011/files/document/2021/05/Woodlawn%20Bioreactor%20-%20Complaints%20Register_20210510.pdf). Also, if Veolia is fined, does this help the persons who have already ingested the toxins or soil that has been contaminated?

Most recently on the 24/10/2022 the EPA issued another prevention notice (Notice number 3503885, reference number REG-3326) to Veolia for ongoing mismanagement of leachate and the contamination of ground water at their existing Woodlawn landfill in Tarago.

I understand that we have to dispose of our waste, I am a firm believer and advocate for alternative/green/renewable energy, however this is not an alternative energy solution, the energy is a bi-product of the actual main purpose of the plant. I do not believe it is the solution to the problem if we look at the damage to the health and safety of both local residents, but even greater effects of the health of the consumer of the grains, cereal, livestock produced in this area. Food security is a growing national concern, as our nation grows the demand on our agriculture sector to supply more products is ever increasing.

In Veolia’s presentation, they stated the 25 year life of the facility, which is then sealed and left, is this a positive solution to the problem? I see two outcomes in 25 years, sadly either an extension of the use of the facility, which would only serve to increase the problem, and or the sealing which is then not monitored as a priority and would certainly continue to pollute surrounding areas and potentially leak into groundwater table. Once again please refer to the Prevention notice referenced above for ongoing mismanagement of leachate and the contamination of ground water at their existing Woodlawn landfill.
These incinerators are not the solution to our problem, let alone when they affect the lives of the nation.

Seems pretty stupid to build a massive polluting project that could adversely affect a multi million dollar wine industry in Canberra, Bungendore and Collector. Not to mention impacts to tourism to those regions when people know there's an incinerator in the area that could affect their health. How can you ensure the long term health impacts of surrounding residents? It's also in the flight path of planes flying in and out of Canberra

Environment disaster, lots of people in the area would be affected is something goes wrong as it always does. Wind direction waste landing on roofs of houses that would end up in drinking water. Farming and grazing disaster, will there be any more traffic to these very run down roads

I oppose the development of the Incinerator at the Woodlawn site near Tarago for the following reasons.
1, The risk to the community and my family is considerable with the possibility of Veolia not being able to maintain the recognised required temperatures within the incinerator during start ups, close downs and maintenance cycles.
2, The potential that my home gardens in which I grow my own fruit and vegetables may be contaminated and made unfit or human consumption, thus raising my cost of living expenses.
3, Veolia has been unable to meet the standards of their existing licences at Woodlawn with regards to smell, odour, and water retention and control. Why would we expect that they will be able to meet he standards required for this project?
4, The potential for the left over waste ,which is proposed to be buried within a purpose built hole in the ground onsite at Veolias Woodlawn site, to eventually leach into the water table and surrounding lands as the waste product will outlive the lifespan of the purpose built hole.
5, Veolia already can't control the existing onsite water from the tip from leaching / leaking into the old mine workings causing issues for the new mining operations run by Develop Global.
6, The current accepted standards are a number of years old and need to be reviewed and probably updated to higher standards as more data on the effects of these types of incinerators has become available.
7, The potential for another increase in odour in the Tarago area will have a detrimental effect on property values and limit the potential growth of the Tarago Village.

I am a concerned resident of the Canberra region who works closely with local farmers and wineries. The environmental, social and potential adverse health impact of the Tarago incinerator is of grave concern and I strongly oppose this project.

I object strongly to this proposal as I have been informed that scientific research shows waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerators:

pollute the surrounding air, waterways and land with dangerous toxins such as mercury, lead and persistent environmental pollutants such as dioxins;

pose serious health risks for nearby residents and anyone drinking water from the surrounding water catchment or food produced nearby;

put dangerous toxins into the human food chain. Tarago and the surrounding region is a big agricultural producer of lamb, beef, chicken, wine, and other human food and livestock feed;

contribute to global warming and climate change;

do not form part of a sustainable waste management plan for the future - they are more climate polluting per unit of energy than coal, oil and gas;

discourage the 3R's (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) of best-practice, sustainable waste management;

pose a commercial risk to local industry, businesses and livelihoods (especially agriculture);

in rural areas encourages an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" approach to the management of Sydney's waste problems;

are inefficient and ineffective energy producers and are not recognised as a sustainable energy resource;

do not form part of the circular economy model that Australia is shifting to;

create highly toxic fly ash that then needs to be transported and stored in containment cells for generations to come);

require a highly sorted and consistent waste stream to manage filtration of particulate emissions;

will increase the already dangerous numbers of trucks on Tarago's narrow and poorly maintained rural roads;

will increase the amount of garbage arriving in Tarago, and intensify odour problems the town experiences from the current Veolia operations;

Additionally, Veolia has misled the Goulburn Mulwaree community about previous developments, cannot manage the odour and emissions from its current operations, and has demonstrated a lack of concern for community wellbeing;

And NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) fines and interventions have not effectively improved odour and emissions for Tarago and surrounding residents and EPA oversight of a WTE incinerator is likely to be similarly ineffective;


Future generations should be assured of a healthy life using safe, sustainable and best-practice waste management.

Veolia should halt plans for an incinerator and focus on improving its current operations so that they no longer adversely affect the town. While residents still need to make regular reports to the EPA about issues with the Woodlawn Precinct operations, Veolia has no social licence to propose further development. Tarago residents want to see a sustainable and future-focussed waste management plan and a community-friendly alternative to a WTE incinerator.

They also want the EPA and NSW Government to deny Veolia's proposal for a waste incinerator at Tarago and thereby acknowledge that the health, homes and livelihoods of rural residents and their children matter just as much the health, homes and livelihoods of people living in Sydney's urban areas.

Sincerely, Keri James.

I sincerely object to this project. Its disgusting they are trying to do this to a community where people live and children play. We are already struggling with the current treatment centre with the pollution of lead and the smell that they can never seem to get under control. Imagine all the promises they will make about this new one and lie about? They have broken our trust. I have a 9 month old who is struggling with eczema and has allergies and I am so worried the current toxins being released into the air are affecting her. How will an incinerator that is proven to release toxic ash going to affect her? I am not ok with this.

I object for the following reasons:

It will cause deterioration of my family's and my own health due to increased air pollution from the burning of waste. This pollution will enter the air, ground and waterways.

This will cause toxins to enter the food chain.

This will contribute to climate change.

This will be a unclean and disgusting blight on the clean countryside which is within commuting distance from our capital city and Sydney.
I will be ashamed to live here, and ashamed to share my country with tourists as there will be unnecessary pollution constantly being shipped to my community. Veolia can not safely or appropriately manage waste as seen with the increased instances of foul odours.

It will emit greenhouse gases, strongly negatively impact on climate change.

This encourages poor waste management principles which does not meet sustainable waste management practices.

This is not a safe or sustainable method of energy production, and is not supporting renewable energy, which the ENTIRE world is aiming toward

There will be highly toxic fly ash which is a by product of incinerating waste. This will then need to be managed. Which the plan for this does not seem to be appropriate or supportive of the environment.

Please reject the waste incinerator. I do not want this on my doorstep.

This project is great method for waste management with the added benefit of energy generation. It is greenhouse gas negative compared to landfill of the same waste and dramatically increases the life of landfill site the waste is destined for. The project will bring more local jobs to the region which is always a good benefit. The opposition to this project is borne almost entirely out of fear and ignorance. The EIS clearly shows the health risks are not even close to what is claimed by those who are opposed. The government has released information comparing emissions from WTE plants to every day sources and those opposed reject it without any critical thought at all, they are driven purely by agenda and ideology. The number of wood fires, backyard burning and stubble burn offs in the region would create significantly more pollutants than this facility ever would.

In the end the vast majority of opposition to this project is not based in fact and that alone should discount their opposition entirely.

I have serious concerns about the health impacts of such a facility so close to rapidly growing regional areas.

I do not support this proposal in any way.

I object to the proposed Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre for the following reasons:-
HEALTH RISKS: The risk of dangerous toxins in the air, in a growing rural area, means that families are going to be breathing in this putrid air.
Odour problems which will detract from the quality of life of the community.
Tank water is used in Tarago and the side effects of toxins contaminating the water supply are a real concern.
There are many farms in the area which rely on fresh water for growing grain and vegetables, also for stock to drink. It will be extremely detrimental to farmers making a living in the area to lose the fresh water supply that they are used to.
ROAD SAFETY: There are already too many large garbage trucks using the road to Tarago. The roads are narrow and not built for these heavy vehicles, add more heavy vehicles on this road,as will be necessary, and it will seriously endanger all other road users.
GLOBAL WARMING: Investigations have shown that this is not the answer for waste disposal.
IT IS NOT SAFE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE THIS BUILT ON THEIR DOORSTEP! THERE MUST BE OTHER ALTERNATIVES!