I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago. My concerns include:
-Detrimental impacts to air and water quality in the surrounding population centres e.g. Canberra, Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, and particularly Tarago. These areas are all experiencing extraordinary growth, with many people moving here seeking a cleaner environment. If toxicity isn't an issue, why transport waste 100s km, it is more efficient to retain Sydney's waste in Sydney for processing.
-The pollution from these types of incinerators have led to heart and lung disease. It is also likely that pollutants such as dioxins will accumulate in the environment over time and impact on our soil and water, impacting crops and animals. Numerous studies have suggested these types of operations are not safe and result in food contamination and health risks to residents. Is the NSW Government ready to endanger the health of residents and impact on both productive land and the natural environment (which is already in dire straits due to climate change and poor management).
-It is likely that the proposed incinerator will contribute to climate change by emitting 140,000 tonnes of CO2/year. To approve the project is inconsistent with the NSW government commitment to Net 0 emissions by 2030.
-Roads in this area are becoming increasingly dangerous. Trucks and vehicles as associated with Veolia's current operations are already damaging our roads at their current present. The trucks in particular can drive quite dangerously, often needing to encroach on the wrong side of the road (usually due to excessive speed and the narrowness of the roads). An increase in activity at Veolia will only worsen the situation.
-There has been very limited community consultation from Veolia. I have received considerable information from those objecting to the proposal (volunteers with little financial support), while absolutely nothing from Veolia. I live approximately 10kms from the proposed incinerator, some engagement would have been welcomed.
-Employment is strong in the area, businesses are already struggling to find and retain staff. This proposal will add to these difficulties. Housing is also an issue in the area - how will accommodation be provided to new workers?
Thanks for considering my objection.

I am Greg Oliver and strongly oppose the proposed waste incinerator at Tarago NSW (Woodland ARC). I live and work on our certified organic farm just east of Bungendore, about 15km south of the proposed incinerator.

There are many reasons to oppose this incinerator. The most important to me is the real potential for heavy metals, dioxins, furans, PCBs and other pollutants to contaminate us, our farm and our organic produce. Plumes of toxin substances could be deposited on our pastures and market garden, and on our roof from which we source our drinking water. The potential negative impact on the health of ourselves, our animals and our customers is obvious.

Our 1100 acre farm is certified organic. We produce beef, pasture-raised eggs and a wide range of vegetables that we sell direct to the public at the Capital Region Farmers Market (CRFM) in Canberra and the Carriageworks Market in Sydney. We have sold our certified organic and biodynamic produce at the CRFM every week since 2007, and have built up a strong customer base that cares about clean healthy organic food. Our business provides employment for 3 local people full time and another 2 people part time. It also supports the local economy (including rural suppliers and service providers).

I am not mollified by the environmental impact statement (EIS). Reputable national and international agencies that deal with risk, such as the Plant and Animal Biosecurity areas of DAFF, use the term negligible risk” (zero being unrealistic). The AVPMA operates similarly with agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Risk management works most of the time, but not always (note equine influenza, white spot disease, varroa mite, red and crazy ants etc.). Importantly, the Tarago waste incinerator EIS does not even this term. Instead it uses much looser language with regard to the likelihood of contamination, such as “expected to”, “not expected to”, and anticipated to be”. I find this both incredible and upsetting. The proponents want to build a waste incinerator in our region and clearly cannot reassure us that it is completely safe in their 334 page EIS (plus Appendices). Published research papers indicate that these facilities overseas are “safe” only if all safeguards work all the time and there is never any human error. Of course this is never the case, and I note that Veolia have been fined numerous times for breaches by the EPA at Tarago and other locations. I think that contamination of surrounding areas and underground water, over time, is probable. Clay encapsulation cells might be disrupted and leak, filters might not be maintained on all occasions, and other risk mitigation measures can fail. In fact, it is likely that at least one will fail over time, and that my fear will be realized.

The EIS is disingenuous in stating that organic agriculture would not be impacted. Have the writers read the Australian National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic produce (The Standard)? Are they aware it even exists? Have they discussed the proposed facility with any of the six certifying bodies in Australia? I am certain that they have not requested comment from the committee that advises the Federal government on The Standard. Our business (Greenhill Farm) is based on being both organic and biodynamic, and our customers buy because of it. Who will bear any testing and other costs that our certifying body might require? Who will compensate us for any loss in organic status, which would effectively destroy our business?

This matter is the opposite of NIMBY syndrome. I object to waste being transported from someone else’s “backyard” to ours. We are being asked to bear the risk to our health and economic wellbeing. If any waste incinerator is built at all (and I believe it should not for other reasons), then it should be in the region from which the waste is generated. I understand that it is has not been approved in the source (Sydney) region due to potential contamination issues.

Apart from the potential impact on our health and economic livelihoods, there are many reasons not to build a facility such as that proposed, including:
. it generates power from fossil fuel (albeit waste). It thus contributes to global warming.
. it is inefficient in power generation, relative to the emissions it would produce
. it encourages the production of more waste, and works against efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle. It is not ok to keep using packaging and excuse it by generating a little power by burning it. The waste should not be created in the first place.

I strongly oppose the proposed waste incinerator at Tarago.

Greg Oliver
“Greenhill”
95 Greenhill Lane
Bungendore NSW 2621
0456 969861

On behalf of Neighbours of Winfarthing Inc. I am objecting to this development for the following reasons.
1. As Public Interest is a legitimate factor when deciding a SSD application, it is obvious that there are many individuals, community organisations, religious leaders and the Goulburn Mulwaree Council are opposed to this development. This indicates that it isn't in the Public Interest.
2. The proponents claim the development will meet guidelines and will be safe. Those opposing the development claim it will not be safe. Both cannot be right. So, who do we believe?
The proponents who stand to make a huge amount of money or the locals who want to protect their health, environment and lifestyle?
If we take the opponents path nothing can go wrong. If the proposal goes ahead it will only be a matter of time until something goes wrong and the locals health, environment and lifestyle will be compromised.
3. Veolia has repeatedly shown they cannot manage their current facility without getting it wrong (odour and contaminants) and being penalised.
How then can we trust them to manage this highly technical operation without something going wrong which would negatively affect the locals?
4. If the development is safe as claimed, why isn't it situated in Sydney which is the source of the waste? Is it because there will only be thousands of people who will be affected as opposed to millions if in Sydney?
Does this make us second class citizens compared to those in Sydney? Or is it because we have a small voice politically?
5. The Goulburn Mulwaree LGA should not become the Industrial Suburb of Sydney and gain a negative reputation. We already have, in the Southern Tablelands actual and proposed wind farms, solar farms, quarries, waste dumps, all for the benefit of Sydney. We have a clean, healthy and vast areas of pristine environment which attracts a large number of people to work and live here. This reputation will be trashed by this development.
6. Living some 40 km north east of the proposed development, our prevailing winds are from the south west for much of the year. This puts us directly in line for any toxic pollutants expelled from the development, contaminating our tank drinking water, gardens, environment and animals. That possibility shouldn't be allowed to occur.
7. If Veolia with all it's resources is unable in some 18 months to produce their EIS without the 50 plus gaps, errors and inconsistencies as noted in the Goulburn Mulwaree Council submission, they have shown they are not fit to run a facility like this. If they can't get this right what hope have they got to be able to get this development right?
8. The likelihood of something going wrong should be sufficient to stop this development from being approved.

See attachment

Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre SUB-51904479 - Woodlawn ARC: SSD-21184278

The proposal by the French company Veolia to operate a waste incinerator at Tarago NSW endangers Australians, as did the earlier French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific Ocean. Scientific research demonstrates health-damaging residual waste and pollution are inherently generated from waste incineration facilities such as that proposed by Veolia for Tarago. Similar proposals by the same French company have been dismissed recently by the ACT and NSW Governments after thorough investigation.

Not only would Veolia's proposed waste incinerator at Tarago be negative because of its impact on the health of people in the Tarago district, it would also not be an effective nor efficient means of energy production as claimed be Veolia. That company has great 'greenwashing' credentials, as the residents of the Tarago district have witnessed over the years with Veolia's dumping of Sydney's waste in the Woodlawn open-cut mine site. 'Energy from waste' is more greenwashing propaganda by Veolia in promoting waste incineration. Even the proposed facility's title, 'Advanced Energy Recovery Centre' is garbage.
I doubt the NSW Government, and its responsible top bureaucrats, will survive should they agree to Veolia's 'evil' waste incinerator at Tarago.

I live in Goulburn NSW & I have been doing some research on waste to energy incinerators. What I have found doing a small search is Very Alarming. There's a growing backlash over incinerating garbage in Europe.
1) The big paradox 
Across Europe, Waste to Energy incineration is promoted, by some, as an alternative to landfilling for the treatment of waste. According to Eurostat, in the 10 years running up to 2016, the amount of waste incinerated increased by 30% [1]. The data also reveals that in the last 10 years CO2 emissions from incinerators have doubled. In 2017, over 40Mt of fossil CO2 was released by WTE incinerators in the EU 28 countries [2].
The CO2 emitted per tonne of waste incinerated depends on the composition of the waste. Eurostat statistics show that the majority of the increase in waste incinerated comes from so-called residual municipal solid waste (MSW) which produces significant amounts of CO2. 
Each tonne of MSW incinerated typically releases between 0.7 and 1.7 tonnes of CO2 [3]. This includes emissions of both fossil CO2 (e.g. from burning plastics) and biogenic CO2 (e.g. from burning wood, paper and food). Although biogenic CO2 is directly released into the atmosphere making a significant contribution to climate change, only the CO2 emissions from fossil sources will be considered for the purposes of a global analysis – an important loophole in GHG emissions accountability. 
On top of this, evidence indicates that more than half of what is currently being incinerated could have been recycled or composted [4], suggesting that much of Europe’s WTE incineration capacity is being used to burn valuable resources that could have had a better environmental outcome. WTE incineration is proving to be a barrier to improving recycling rates and it creates a need to replace these resources at a high environmental cost, and that cost is not included in the Eurostat figures.
2)Shouldn’t we just stop incinerating waste?
The carbon intensity of European incinerators is a significant (540gr CO2/kWh)[4], around twice the concentration of CO2 emissions derived from the average EU electricity grid (296gr CO2/kWh) [5] and significantly greater than the energy produced through conventional fossil fuel sources such as gas. 
Since these infrastructures are meant to last for about 20-30 years, continued use of incineration is simply delaying a much needed, and urgent, transition to less carbon-intensive power generation infrastructures such as wind and solar renewable energy whilst also undermining the move to lower-carbon options for waste management, including the re-design of products to increase recyclability and longevity.
It would be environmentally irresponsible to continue to promote Waste to Energy infrastructures that are already largely outperformed by the EU average and even worse, by conventional fossil fuel energy generation such as gas. For countries across the world to best meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement, it’s clear that decarbonisation must happen across all sectors. Specifically, that means that they should call for a phase out of incineration practices, to be replaced with genuinely climate-positive waste management ones, and for those countries not yet hooked on waste incineration,
3) The youngest of Dutch incinerators: Reststoffen Energie Centrale

Out of the 13 waste incinerators currently in operation in the Netherlands, the Reststoffen Energie
Centrale (REC) is the most recent one. The so-called waste–to-energy plant is located in Harlingen,
bordering the UNESCO Wadden Sea coastline in the North of the Netherlands. When it was built in
2011, it was proudly announced by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs as ‘a state of the art’
installation, the best in Western Europe. However, long-term testing revealed the plant emits dioxin,
furans and toxic pollutants far beyond the limits set by EU laws.
Initially, in order to deliver energy to the nearby salt industry plant, the REC incinerator was only
supposed to burn Frisian household waste. However, nowadays the waste input comes from
everywhere in the Netherlands. Besides household waste, the REC waste input includes also
industrial waste, digestate1 and sewage sludge. Chemical analyses to check the waste input were
first undertaken at the start in 2011. It is debatable whether this installation with a post combustion
temperature of 8500 Celsius is actually capable of combusting the chemical complexity of current
‘household’ and industrial waste.
4)Environmental biomarkers and toxic eggs
In 2013, a study by ToxicoWatch found high concentration of dioxins and furans2 in eggs of backyard
chickens in the surroundings of the REC incinerator3 4. Eggs of backyard chickens are sensitive
environmental biomarkers for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like dioxins5. All eggs of backyard
chickens in Harlingen, sampled within a radius of 2 km from the REC incinerator, showed a much
higher concentration of dioxine than allowed by the EU6. Notably, the concentration exceeded 1.7
BEQ/gram fat (Bioanalytical EQuivalent)7, and the 2.5 picogram TEQ/gram fat8 limit set by EU law.
1 Digestate is the material remaining after the anaerobic digestion of a biodegradable feedstock. 2 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, PCDD/Fs. 3Arkenbout, A, 2014. Biomonitoring of dioxins/dl-PCBs in the north of the Netherlands; eggs of backyard chickens, cow and goat
milk and soil as indicators of pollution. Organohalogen Compd. 76, 1407–1410 4 Arkenbout, A, Esbensen KH, 2017. Biomonitoring and source tracking of dioxins in the Netherlands, Eighth World Conference On
Sampling and Blending / Perth, Wa, 9–11 May 2017, 117-124 5 Witteveen en Bos, Dioxine emissie oktober 2015 – Verspreidingsberekeningen, 2015, rapport LW217-12/16-002.590 6 See n=6, Figure 1 black spot
7 The values are expressed in Figure 1 in BEQ because analyses are performed with the bioassay of DR CALUX. 8 TEQ stands for Toxic EQuivalent, picogram is a millionth of a millionth of a gram or 10-12 gram
5) Hidden emissions
One of the reason why the REC incinerator exceeds the dioxins permit levels is the use of bypasses
during transient phases, which means that the incinerator emits without filtering (Figure 4). In the
technical literature this is known as a ‘filter bypass mode’, ‘abatement bypass’ or ‘dump stacks’. The
bypass mode is structurally programmed whenever elevated dust emissions occur. Although the
plant management had recently promised to stop using bypasses, data don’t confirm this has
actually happened.
these are just some serious problems, please read the attached studies