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.

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

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

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.

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. 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.

I live at Lower Boro. I object to the proposal because:
1. of the long term public health and environmental impacts the incinerator will have on water catchment areas, catchment areas that supply water to capital cities and many regional towns.
2. of the ongoing mental and social anxiety caused to people who are forced to have this structure in their area, or after-effects of incineration in their area.
3. the amount of pollution caused by transporting the material to Tarago significantly adds to the projects carbon footprint.

thank you.

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 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