David Hodder
Object
David Hodder
Object
BRADDON
,
Australian Capital Territory
Message
My name is David Hodder and I live in the Braddon ACT. My partners parents also operate a organic, bio-dynamic farm in the Bungendore region. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.
I understand that the decision to require a incinerator is complex, with there being an immediate need to address the increasing amount of Sydney waste that must be disposed of one way or another. I also appreciate that the cost to dispose waste is a serious consideration that will greatly influence the decision on how best to dispose of this excess waste. As such my intention of this submission is not to argue against the need for a waste incinerator more broadly, but instead to argue that should a waste incinerator be required, a location needs to be selected that does not have a plume catchment area that impacts a population the size that the proposed facility in Tarago would impact. I understand that a facility in Tarago would have a plume catchment that would include Canberra, Tarago, Bungendore, Goulburn and Collector, including thousands of small rural properties.
There must be alternate sites considered that where and plume catchment would impact a significantly smaller population of people such as more remote areas within NSW. If the site was to be at Tarago, there would significant health risks to hundreds of thousands of people impacted by the plume catchment area.
I understand that the decision to require a incinerator is complex, with there being an immediate need to address the increasing amount of Sydney waste that must be disposed of one way or another. I also appreciate that the cost to dispose waste is a serious consideration that will greatly influence the decision on how best to dispose of this excess waste. As such my intention of this submission is not to argue against the need for a waste incinerator more broadly, but instead to argue that should a waste incinerator be required, a location needs to be selected that does not have a plume catchment area that impacts a population the size that the proposed facility in Tarago would impact. I understand that a facility in Tarago would have a plume catchment that would include Canberra, Tarago, Bungendore, Goulburn and Collector, including thousands of small rural properties.
There must be alternate sites considered that where and plume catchment would impact a significantly smaller population of people such as more remote areas within NSW. If the site was to be at Tarago, there would significant health risks to hundreds of thousands of people impacted by the plume catchment area.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Bungendore
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I object to the proposed incinerator. On our property we grow a substantial amount of food including fruit and vegetables. This food is watered regularly using water from our dams and on occasion the water tanks. These dams have large catchment areas which are likely to be contaminated from the airborne toxins generated by Veolia. While Veolia claim there will be negligible impact, Veolia also have said we will not be affected by odour from their existing facilities. Veolia can not be trusted on their claims of impact. Regardless the risk is still there. A risk of 1 in 1,000 does not mean one extra person... it means there is an increased risk for everyone.
We also provide excess produce to neighbours and friends. Knowing that our produce will be polluted by Veolia means we will stop passing on our produce. Right now we do this in exchange for things like eggs. This barter system is important for the whole community, and Veolia want to undermine this and introduce doubt over if our food (veges, fruit, eggs, meat) wil be fit for consumption. Should we turn down eggs that our friends want to share with us? Veolia's proposal mentions nothing about the impact on the local barter system - they have not even bothered to raise this in their proposal.
We do our best to look after the environment. This proposal will have an impact on particularly sensitve species such as microbats and frogs. Tarago is surrounded by Lake Bathurst and associated wetlands, and by Lake George and many wineries. Grapes are known to be highly sensitive to even small quantities of pollutants. Yet Veolia does not take into consideration how important the environment is.
Our child also enjoys gardening with me. They have their own strawberry patch, and at the local school they undertake gardening there too. The school is much closer to the proposed incinerator. Is the school going to be able to continue to grow plants and educate our children on the importance of the environment? Our children are also affected by this proposal.
Reject this proposed incinerator. It is completely inappropriate to generate this much toxic pollution given how close we are to the 1.5 degree threshold set in the Paris Agreement.
I object to the proposed incinerator. On our property we grow a substantial amount of food including fruit and vegetables. This food is watered regularly using water from our dams and on occasion the water tanks. These dams have large catchment areas which are likely to be contaminated from the airborne toxins generated by Veolia. While Veolia claim there will be negligible impact, Veolia also have said we will not be affected by odour from their existing facilities. Veolia can not be trusted on their claims of impact. Regardless the risk is still there. A risk of 1 in 1,000 does not mean one extra person... it means there is an increased risk for everyone.
We also provide excess produce to neighbours and friends. Knowing that our produce will be polluted by Veolia means we will stop passing on our produce. Right now we do this in exchange for things like eggs. This barter system is important for the whole community, and Veolia want to undermine this and introduce doubt over if our food (veges, fruit, eggs, meat) wil be fit for consumption. Should we turn down eggs that our friends want to share with us? Veolia's proposal mentions nothing about the impact on the local barter system - they have not even bothered to raise this in their proposal.
We do our best to look after the environment. This proposal will have an impact on particularly sensitve species such as microbats and frogs. Tarago is surrounded by Lake Bathurst and associated wetlands, and by Lake George and many wineries. Grapes are known to be highly sensitive to even small quantities of pollutants. Yet Veolia does not take into consideration how important the environment is.
Our child also enjoys gardening with me. They have their own strawberry patch, and at the local school they undertake gardening there too. The school is much closer to the proposed incinerator. Is the school going to be able to continue to grow plants and educate our children on the importance of the environment? Our children are also affected by this proposal.
Reject this proposed incinerator. It is completely inappropriate to generate this much toxic pollution given how close we are to the 1.5 degree threshold set in the Paris Agreement.
Caroline Marsh
Object
Caroline Marsh
Object
Lake Bathurst
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a farmer in the Tarago/Lake Bathurst area and in a direct line northeast of the proposed Veolia waste incinerator. I strongly object to the proposed incinerator because:
(1) the waste produces a variety of toxins in a water catchment area close to Lake George
(2) while the technology underpinning the proposal has been explained, there remains a potential for technology failure or breach of environmental standards due to human error
(3) Veolia has recently been fined for breaches of environmental standards in Tarago due to human error resulting in toxin release into a water way. Human error is therefore a real possibility – one breach would release toxins that cannot then be recovered. Once done, such an error cannot be undone
(4) the toxins concerned cause serious negative health effects and therefore have the potential to do so in this area
(5) we are currently impacted by horrible odours whenever the wind blows from the Southeast – akin to a fetid septic – nausea inducing
(6) a proposal in Western Sydney involving the same or similar technology was refused for safety, environmental damage, and health concerns
(7) the NSW Gov Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan states that waste incinerators impact human health when emissions are below the national standards, and for some common air pollutants, there is no safe threshold of impact. The air pollutants arising from the proposal fall into this category and are both common and uncommon.
(8) the proposal is not necessary for at least 25 years during which time there is an expectation of national changes in the technology for the treatment and management of all waste, so better to wait and avoid the potential for layers of irreparable harm
(9) we bought our 88-acre olive farm 11 years ago specifically because the land was pristine, high altitude and devoid of toxins or the potential for polluted water inflow. The proposal places this purity, our path to organic status, our health, the health of the soil, water, livestock, wildlife and our chosen lifestyle at serious risk
(10) as a member of the NSW RFS, I can assert and records will verify, that the RFS and other first responders are called regularly to incidents at Veolia sites in the area. The health of volunteers and paid emergency workers is at risk from dealing with potential toxic incidents arising from the proposed incinerator
(11) the emissions and heat produced from the proposal contribute greenhouse gases and act against the nation’s moved to reduce emissions by 43%, NSW’s target of Net 0 emissions by 2030 and global temperature targets
(12) the proposal does not involve recycling; incinerators reduce recycling rates by destroying discarded products and are incompatible with a circular economy – they replace one waste stream (municipal/commercial/industrial waste) with toxic ash.
I know no individual within our area, or the broader area of Goulburn Mulwarree or the Capital region who supports this proposal and sincerely hope they all lodge their stated objections. This is not a community supported proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
(1) the waste produces a variety of toxins in a water catchment area close to Lake George
(2) while the technology underpinning the proposal has been explained, there remains a potential for technology failure or breach of environmental standards due to human error
(3) Veolia has recently been fined for breaches of environmental standards in Tarago due to human error resulting in toxin release into a water way. Human error is therefore a real possibility – one breach would release toxins that cannot then be recovered. Once done, such an error cannot be undone
(4) the toxins concerned cause serious negative health effects and therefore have the potential to do so in this area
(5) we are currently impacted by horrible odours whenever the wind blows from the Southeast – akin to a fetid septic – nausea inducing
(6) a proposal in Western Sydney involving the same or similar technology was refused for safety, environmental damage, and health concerns
(7) the NSW Gov Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan states that waste incinerators impact human health when emissions are below the national standards, and for some common air pollutants, there is no safe threshold of impact. The air pollutants arising from the proposal fall into this category and are both common and uncommon.
(8) the proposal is not necessary for at least 25 years during which time there is an expectation of national changes in the technology for the treatment and management of all waste, so better to wait and avoid the potential for layers of irreparable harm
(9) we bought our 88-acre olive farm 11 years ago specifically because the land was pristine, high altitude and devoid of toxins or the potential for polluted water inflow. The proposal places this purity, our path to organic status, our health, the health of the soil, water, livestock, wildlife and our chosen lifestyle at serious risk
(10) as a member of the NSW RFS, I can assert and records will verify, that the RFS and other first responders are called regularly to incidents at Veolia sites in the area. The health of volunteers and paid emergency workers is at risk from dealing with potential toxic incidents arising from the proposed incinerator
(11) the emissions and heat produced from the proposal contribute greenhouse gases and act against the nation’s moved to reduce emissions by 43%, NSW’s target of Net 0 emissions by 2030 and global temperature targets
(12) the proposal does not involve recycling; incinerators reduce recycling rates by destroying discarded products and are incompatible with a circular economy – they replace one waste stream (municipal/commercial/industrial waste) with toxic ash.
I know no individual within our area, or the broader area of Goulburn Mulwarree or the Capital region who supports this proposal and sincerely hope they all lodge their stated objections. This is not a community supported proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
GREENLEIGH
,
New South Wales
Message
As a resident of Queanbeyan and a health practitioner, I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.
Based on my research of the wind drift/plumes and the nature of residual ash created by the incinerator, I believe the risk to our already stressed waterways in the region and our younger residents in the area will be unacceptable.
The transport impact (wear on roads, accidents, emissions ) to Tarago is not tolerable by the rate payers of the region. The current incinerator I understand has capacity and infrastructure life cycle remaining to cater for the waste. Veolia's record is not consistent for either legal compliance or welfare. The incinerator would devastate our local food systems through contamination (wind, leaching), tying up agricultural land. This region is already fragile and the incinerator and associated operations and infrastructure would not be of any benefit and cause potential damage (based on previous environment reports for other sites considered for the incinerator). As a health and safety professional I appreciate the risks of the known emissions of the incinerator and the impact on all species over time. We do not need that exposure in our community with so little justification of need for this business to run this facility. 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”. The publication Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health in 2022 reported that “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”. The publication was referenced by the NSW Government Chief Scientist and Engineer in his report to the NSW Minister for Environment (2022). The public liability of this facility cannot be bourne by any community at these uncertain times. Waste incineration is not renewable energy generation, nor will reduce greenhouse emissions or reliance on fossil fuels. Unlike wind and solar generated power, waste doesn’t come from infinite natural processes. I understand that 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. Incinerators create a disincentive for our QPRC local council by locking them into long-term contracts requiring them to supply consistent volumes of waste for incineration over decades. They are incompatible with a circular economy and how we all need to adapt by reducing use. Maintenance of local agricultural businesses, along with increased growth in rural- residential developments expected over the next 10-20 years will increase the size and diversity of the local community, supporting local businesses, volunteer organisations such as the Southern Harvest Association, a multi- farmer produce scheme and education /community building group, a new farming cooperative Soil City Farms, and other community services such as NSW RFS, CWA and local schools. In contrast this proposal would risk the viability of local agricultural businesses. There are no requirements for jobs and growth in Goulburn Mulwaree in this sort of industry (the incineration of waste) to justify this proposal. The Department of Regional NSW has not listed this LGA as requiring significant investment. Other employers like Community Resources Ltd Soft Landing do a fantastic job of waste to wages with real skill building. 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, 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. Since then, the NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health. The risks have not changed since that decision back in 2018 – this project must also be rejected - If they aren’t safe for Sydney then they aren’t safe for Tarago. I strongly object to this submission and ask respectfully that it not be approved by my elected representatives and their administrative authorities.
Based on my research of the wind drift/plumes and the nature of residual ash created by the incinerator, I believe the risk to our already stressed waterways in the region and our younger residents in the area will be unacceptable.
The transport impact (wear on roads, accidents, emissions ) to Tarago is not tolerable by the rate payers of the region. The current incinerator I understand has capacity and infrastructure life cycle remaining to cater for the waste. Veolia's record is not consistent for either legal compliance or welfare. The incinerator would devastate our local food systems through contamination (wind, leaching), tying up agricultural land. This region is already fragile and the incinerator and associated operations and infrastructure would not be of any benefit and cause potential damage (based on previous environment reports for other sites considered for the incinerator). As a health and safety professional I appreciate the risks of the known emissions of the incinerator and the impact on all species over time. We do not need that exposure in our community with so little justification of need for this business to run this facility. 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”. The publication Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health in 2022 reported that “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”. The publication was referenced by the NSW Government Chief Scientist and Engineer in his report to the NSW Minister for Environment (2022). The public liability of this facility cannot be bourne by any community at these uncertain times. Waste incineration is not renewable energy generation, nor will reduce greenhouse emissions or reliance on fossil fuels. Unlike wind and solar generated power, waste doesn’t come from infinite natural processes. I understand that 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. Incinerators create a disincentive for our QPRC local council by locking them into long-term contracts requiring them to supply consistent volumes of waste for incineration over decades. They are incompatible with a circular economy and how we all need to adapt by reducing use. Maintenance of local agricultural businesses, along with increased growth in rural- residential developments expected over the next 10-20 years will increase the size and diversity of the local community, supporting local businesses, volunteer organisations such as the Southern Harvest Association, a multi- farmer produce scheme and education /community building group, a new farming cooperative Soil City Farms, and other community services such as NSW RFS, CWA and local schools. In contrast this proposal would risk the viability of local agricultural businesses. There are no requirements for jobs and growth in Goulburn Mulwaree in this sort of industry (the incineration of waste) to justify this proposal. The Department of Regional NSW has not listed this LGA as requiring significant investment. Other employers like Community Resources Ltd Soft Landing do a fantastic job of waste to wages with real skill building. 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, 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. Since then, the NSW Government has banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health. The risks have not changed since that decision back in 2018 – this project must also be rejected - If they aren’t safe for Sydney then they aren’t safe for Tarago. I strongly object to this submission and ask respectfully that it not be approved by my elected representatives and their administrative authorities.
Aaron Wild
Object
Aaron Wild
Object
LAKE BATHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
My Name is Aaron Wild and I live in the village of Lake Bathurst with my wife and five year old twins, we also have a family farm that has been in the family since 1898. We strongly object to the proposed incinerator "Advanced Energy Recovery Centre" that is planned to be built in our community.
Mine and my families’ biggest concerns are as follows,
Veolia is planning to burn 380,000 TONS of waste/rubbish per year in Tarago for the next 30 years, though they can't actually tell us what is in the waste that they are planning to burn.
I have attached numerous mismanagement activities Veolia currently undertake for you to have a look at, and our major concern is that Veolia cannot manage their current landfill site that they operate here! We (Tarago) currently landfill thousands of Tons of Sydney's waste and the waste Veolia currently landfill is so mismanaged we DO NOT trust their ability to operate a toxic waste incinerator.
Veolia are telling our community that this will be measured and monitored to the highest order, though if you see my attachment they have failed in their measurements of their existing landfill site since 2002 as reported by the EPA. For instance, in 2020 and 2021 Veolia did not meet the environmental monitoring and sampling requirements 14 times and had 595 odor complaints! How can they be trusted with an incinerator!
We are so concerned about what is going to happen to our agricultural livelihood after they fill the air and our water supplies with toxic ash and fumes? Will we still be able to send our tainted high quality agricultural products eg our beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, fine wool, cereal crops, hay, honey, grapes and the list goes on. All products are produced in our area to be processed into feed and clothes for not only Australian consumers but worldwide.
Another major concern that we have with this proposal is that burning residential, commercial & industrial waste is not a green / renewable option and will contribute to continual climate change through Co2 omissions. How will this affect our district and community?
If this project and projects like this are not welcome and in fact rejected by the NSW independent Planning Commission in July 2018 for Eastern Creek / Sydney due to being not in the public interest! How can this be safe to be built in our community if it's not in the public interest of Western Sydney. These projects shouldn't be built in ANY part of Australia.
Please consider our objection and ask yourself when reviewing this document, would you live in the village with an incinerator in it?
Yours Sincerely
Aaron Wild.
My Name is Aaron Wild and I live in the village of Lake Bathurst with my wife and five year old twins, we also have a family farm that has been in the family since 1898. We strongly object to the proposed incinerator "Advanced Energy Recovery Centre" that is planned to be built in our community.
Mine and my families’ biggest concerns are as follows,
Veolia is planning to burn 380,000 TONS of waste/rubbish per year in Tarago for the next 30 years, though they can't actually tell us what is in the waste that they are planning to burn.
I have attached numerous mismanagement activities Veolia currently undertake for you to have a look at, and our major concern is that Veolia cannot manage their current landfill site that they operate here! We (Tarago) currently landfill thousands of Tons of Sydney's waste and the waste Veolia currently landfill is so mismanaged we DO NOT trust their ability to operate a toxic waste incinerator.
Veolia are telling our community that this will be measured and monitored to the highest order, though if you see my attachment they have failed in their measurements of their existing landfill site since 2002 as reported by the EPA. For instance, in 2020 and 2021 Veolia did not meet the environmental monitoring and sampling requirements 14 times and had 595 odor complaints! How can they be trusted with an incinerator!
We are so concerned about what is going to happen to our agricultural livelihood after they fill the air and our water supplies with toxic ash and fumes? Will we still be able to send our tainted high quality agricultural products eg our beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, fine wool, cereal crops, hay, honey, grapes and the list goes on. All products are produced in our area to be processed into feed and clothes for not only Australian consumers but worldwide.
Another major concern that we have with this proposal is that burning residential, commercial & industrial waste is not a green / renewable option and will contribute to continual climate change through Co2 omissions. How will this affect our district and community?
If this project and projects like this are not welcome and in fact rejected by the NSW independent Planning Commission in July 2018 for Eastern Creek / Sydney due to being not in the public interest! How can this be safe to be built in our community if it's not in the public interest of Western Sydney. These projects shouldn't be built in ANY part of Australia.
Please consider our objection and ask yourself when reviewing this document, would you live in the village with an incinerator in it?
Yours Sincerely
Aaron Wild.