Objection to the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre

The proposal of the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (ARC) exemplifies the inequality between metropolitan and regional areas through the significant risk it poses to human health. If this proposal is accepted by the NSW Planning Authority, the ARC will threaten drinking water quality and agriculture in an area which relies on rainwater as one of its main sources of potable water for drinking, bathing, preparing food, and growing crops. Furthermore, the proposal to operate such a facility does not align with the NSW Government's commitment to Net Zero Emissions by 2050, and prevents the community from taking steps to live sustainably. Hence, the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre should not be permitted.

The Woodlawn ARC, if approved, will create harmful levels of pollution in the drinking water supply of local communities, which poses a significant risk to human health and will create an economic burden for residents. As many Goulburn-Mulwaree, Yass Valley and Queanbeyan-Palerang residents rely on rainwater as their main source of water for drinking, growing and preparing food, and bathing, it is vital that this water is of an acceptable standard in order to protect their health. In relation to rainwater, the NSW Health Department states that “the water should be free from […] harmful levels of chemicals,” (NSW Health, 2022). The potential for the Woodlawn ARC to release chemicals and other harmful pollutants into the air threatens access to safe water, in areas which have no access to public water supply, and may be forced to resort to water filtration systems, buying bottled water or importing water from safer sources. All these options are highly expensive and negatively impact the environment through the excess packaging waste they create and the energy used to obtain them, such as fuel emissions from trucking water to properties. They are also all costs that individuals will need to absorb, likely with limited support from government. Therefore, because many residents in this region have no public water facilities, unlike their counterparts in Sydney, where much of the waste the Woodlawn ARC will process originates, they will unjustly suffer the health, economic and environmental effects of this project.

The health risks posed by the Woodlawn ARC are serious and suggest that residents of the surrounding area are expendable, in comparison to those who live in metropolitan areas such as Sydney where similar waste management projects have been rejected. The chemicals released in the process of waste incineration can have significant impacts on health, and have been linked to cancers, infant death and miscarriage, and congenital anomalies. While newer waste incineration technologies may have a reduced impact, studies into their effects are inconclusive and a cautionary response has been recommended until adequate time has passed for any adverse effects to emerge (Tait et al., 2019). Therefore, the Woodlawn ARC proposal cannot be supported, as it poses too great a potential hazard, especially when there are other methods available to process waste. According to the NSW Government Net Zero Plan Stage 1, “Innovation needs to be part of any plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050,” (Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020). Using an incinerator to manage waste is not an innovative technology, and has been used to the detriment of the environment and health for decades. Sydney’s waste should not be transported to the regions, because it allows the problem of safe waste management to move to the back of the minds of Sydneysiders, and to the forefront of poor regional health outcomes and inequality. The fair and equal consideration of all NSW residents should be of the highest priority for the NSW Government, thus approving the Woodlawn ARC cannot occur as it is in direct opposition to achieving this.

The development of the Woodlawn ARC will limit and discourage sustainable practices at all levels of society; from state government to the individual; and will not contribute to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. An investment in this facility will encourage limited action from individuals or councils to reduce overall landfill inputs, as it poses as a solution to waste management. It may also impede investment in closed loop initiatives such as innovative recycling programs. The ARC justifies its plans to incinerate waste by collecting the energy produced. However, the Net Zero Plan Stage 1 states that “when combined with firming technologies, such as gas, batteries and pumped hydro, renewables are now the cheapest forms of new, reliable electricity generation” (Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020). There is hence no purpose in pursuing such a technology which burns non-renewable resources; the proposed operation of the ARC could be compared to burning fossil fuels to create energy. Given “The NSW Government’s fourth priority is to play a leading role itself, by bringing sustainable goods, services and practices into the market and maximising the environmental value of the assets it oversees,” (Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, 2020) the government cannot support this proposal. Seeing out the lifespan of the existing landfill management facility at Tarago and investing in successful, sustainable technologies such as diversion of organic waste from landfill to make compost and supporting research into recycling will make a far greater positive impact on the environment. These strategies could be used in combination to effectively manage Sydney’s waste safely. The Woodlawn ARC is not an acceptable answer to the issue of waste management in NSW when we have such options available.


The proposal to construct the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre cannot be approved by the NSW Planning Authority. This project poses too significant a threat to the lives of residents in the Goulburn-Mulwaree, Yass Valley, Queanbeyan-Palerang and surrounding regions. Its potential to negatively impact drinking water, and consequently health in the area will perpetuate regional inequality and cause significant health and financial harm to the residents. Allowing the ARC to operate implies that NSW’s rural and regional residents are less important than those who live in metropolitan areas, and that the risks to their health and wellbeing are inconsequential. Furthermore, the approval of such an archaic form of waste management technology will discourage investment in technologies and strategies that will minimise waste and close loops, instead providing a band-aid solution and obstruction to achieving the Net Zero Plan by 2050. The Woodlawn ARC simply cannot be permitted.

References

Department of Planning, Industry and Science, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Net Zero Plan Stage 1: 2020–2030 (2020). State of New South Wales 2020. Retrieved November 23, 2022, from https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/net-zero-plan-2020-2030-200057.pdf.

NSW Health. (2022, September 30). Rainwater Tanks. NSW Health Department. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/water/Pages/rainwater.aspx

Tait, P. W., Brew, J., Che, A., Costanzo, A., Danyluk, A., Davis, M., Khalaf, A., McMahon, K., Watson, A., Rowcliff, K., & Bowles, D. (2019). The health impacts of waste incineration: A systematic review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 44(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12939

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

My name is Annette Carter and I live in Collector. I am strongly opposed to and vehemently object Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will be extremely detrimental to the health of those living in the area. We are proud of being in an area where we harvest our own water and grow our own food. There are many farms in the area. Our child goes to the local school, and it will impact our property prices. There can be no compensation for the health of the local children and the viability of our drinking water and the food we grow. If it’s safe to do, as we are being told, then why is the waste not being burnt where it is being manufactured/made? This would also mean that extensive transport is not needed and therefore better for the environment.

There are many reasons for my objection, such as the health and wellbeing of our community (both physically and mentally) and the environmental impact.

Recent reports, include those send to the NSW Minister for Environment, have concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any incinerator is safe” and, in particular “contamination of food ingestion of pollutants is a significant risk pathway for both nearby and distant residents”.

The increased anxiety and other mental health impacts have already had a detrimental negative impact on our community. How would you feel if you harvested your own water and grew your own food and there was a looming threat of those being polluted? This will only be exasperated if the proposal goes ahead.

Unfortunately, Veolia’s overseas incinerators often exceed safety standards. We have been “assured” this will not happen here but the track record of failing to comply to local regulations at the current facility means that we cannot trust that they will follow the required operating conditions.

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!