I live in nearby Mount Fairy and strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built at Woodlawn near Tarago.
I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will:
1) negatively impact property values within the area
2) cause illness amongst locals who depend on harvested rain water for household useage, and also who grow fruit/vegetables for local consumption
3) cause illness to people who purchase products grown in the affected area
4) cause illness to animals/livestock which depends on local water sources and grazing due to the build up of toxins in the soil & water
5) create fear and angst in the local community
The main reason for my objection is:
If the NSW Government banned toxic waste incinerators in Sydney due to the risk to human health, then they simply should not be allowed to operate anywhere in the vicinity of any populations or food production areas.
If it’s not safe for Sydney, it isn’t safe anywhere
I personally rely on harvested rain water and locally grown vegetables for consumption. I also occasionally sell excess vegetables through local markets to supplement my income.
I am deeply concerned that the toxic air pollution which Veolia’s proposed incinerator will emit..... constantly for 25 years........ may affect my water supply(which is rooftop collection) the runoff into my dams (which I use to grow vegetables) and impact the health of my livestock due to the accumulation of toxins in the soil.
I am also concerned for the greater communities which include Canberra to Goulburn, Braidwood, Bungendore, Murrumbateman, Gunning, Marulan, Yass and beyond which have been identified as being within the toxic incinerators “plume”.
Why should we be considered second class citizens to Sydney?
The risk to human health outlined by the NSW Independent Planning Commission following the rejection of the Eastern Creek waste Incinerator in 2018 including:
- 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.
should be considered relevant to the proposed Woodlawn incinerator proposal.
Nothing is different. The EPA has evidence of Woodlawn failing to meet emission requirements with it’s existing Bioreactor.
Air pollution from the proposed incinerator includes acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (including cadmium, lead & mercury) and persistent organic particulates (such as PFAS, dioxins, furans, PCBs). I am deeply concerned that this air pollution will be blanketed across the neighbouring region, which can cause serious illness such as cancers and decreased lung function, and also accumulate in the surrounding environment over time in soil and water, to be absorbed by plants, crops and animals.
I do not wish to be concerned about breathing the air where I live, drinking the water and eating my crops.
I understand that 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 a toxic waste facility at Woodlawn near Tarago.

I object to the proposed incinerator (Advanced Energy Recovery Centre – ARC) being built near Tarago by Veolia. I oppose any such waste incinerators being built anywhere, but as a resident of Currawang NSW which is part of the region this proposal particularly concerns me.

Such “Waste-to-energy” or “Energy-from-Waste” incinerators have been referred to as regrets-based solution to our current waste and energy issues. It is short sighted in terms of being a bandaid solution that might help address some issues in the short-term, but doesn’t actually address any of the systemic problems that are causing these issues in the first place, and actually makes things worse in the long term.

I’m embarrassed that Australia isn’t rapidly moving towards a circular economy to avoid waste products, as well as improving our capability to recycle materials here at a speed to keep up with the rate that materials are being used and discarded. I am concerned that the proposed incinerator will detract from the greater goal of moving rapidly towards a circular economy, and that investing in such a facility will be locking in 3 decades of future carbon emissions and many environmental risks.

There are many academic and government bodies that recognise the potential environmental pollution from waste incinerators. Even the NSW Government has acknowledged 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”.

I’m sure Veolia do some good work, but unfortunately their operations at Woodlawn have had ongoing issues with foul odours over many years. At times we have suffered from a foul-smelling stench at our place some 15km away from the site, that has a sulphurous nostril burning sensation to it. This is hugely concerning as there are obviously large quantities of greenhouse gases and potentially other pollutants escaping from the facility. Veolia are not generally trusted to be able to manage a facility to government and EPA conditions by the broader community of the region. Veolia don’t have community acceptance to operate an incinerator at Woodlawn.

Please don’t proceed with any “Waste-to-energy” or “Energy-from-Waste” incinerators in the Tarago area, or indeed anywhere. We can and all should be looking to rapidly move to a waste hierarchy that sees waste reduction, reuse and recycling of materials taking precedence over energy recovery applications, and their associated environmental pollution and risks.

Following a review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by EMM for Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) the following key concerns have been identified that relate to the operation of the proposed Woodlawn Advanced Recovery Centre.
Groundwater impact assessment:
EIS Appendix U Groundwater impact assessment (EMM) states Veolia has adopted several leading practices to produce a project design that avoids and minimises impacts to water assets, however it is unclear what these leading practices are as the mitigation measures identified as no more than business as usual.
The assessment reviews the Willeroo borefields as a potential source of operational water. The report includes a field assessment which determines:
• A pumping rate of 9.7 L/s for up to 14 days continuous pumping is estimated to be the safe yield for GW042931 - Bore 3 (operating in isolation of other production bores). The pumping test analysis indicates that the current pumping rate of approximately 15 L/s is not sustainable, as after approximately 16 hours groundwater level is predicted to reach the pump intake;
• safe yield of 15 L/s cannot be maintained long term and hence only the early drawdown data was used to predict the safe yield of this production bore
• The predicted drawdown following 25 years of cyclic operation of the borefield (at 600 ML/yr) is shown in Figure 8.4. The water table drawdown is predicted to extend the width of the deep aquifer palaeochannel. Potential drawdown impacts at third party bores, which are a minimum 750 m away, are highly unlikely as pumping is not expected to be continuous for the 25 year period.
The assessment fails to outline the alternate source of water as a result of not achieving the 15L/s from the Willeroo borefields that is required during operation. If the water supply is not available or volumes are not sufficient, what is the impact on operations at the facility or where will this shortfall in water be supplied from.
What is the impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems from the continual drawdown of groundwater? This impact has not been assessed sufficiently.
The Groundwater Assessment identifies during drought conditions the facility will require a significant increase in groundwater use. The cumulative impact of this increase in groundwater use has not been assessed and consideration of local users has not been discussed, other than to state Veolia has a Licence and proposes to use the water with no regard to local or environmental constraints.

Air Quality Impact Assessment:
The EIS Appendix O Air Quality assessment confirms that under all three scenarios modelled, the local air quality will be adversely impacted due to an increase in emissions (excluding as a result of a bushfire). The assessment referenced a similar project in the UK using only one year of data from 2017 and showed where non-conformance against NSW EPA criteria would occur due to incorrect feedstock inputs. The assessment determines this to be an anomaly and an error, however, what engineering controls have been designed into the Woodlawn system to eliminate such issues occurring. While real-time monitoring will detect any exceedance, the air quality will be impacted as a result of the emissions entering the atmosphere and the real-time monitoring is reactive rather than a pro-active measure and does not prevent incidents from occurring.

Capability of Veolia to meet NSW EPA criteria and comply with DPE SDD conditions of approval:

Veolia has failed consistently to comply with both of its Environment Protection Licences (EPL) (No. 11455 CRISPS CREEK INTERMODAL FACILITY; and No. 11436 WOODLAWN LANDFILL) relevant to the operation of the Woodlawn facility on an ongoing basis and every year since 2017 and 2016 respectively.

In addition to non – compliances with EPL conditions, the EPA issued Veolia with a S. 96 Prevention Notice on 26 October 2022 as a consequence of not managing leachate water. The impact of this has the potential to result in groundwater and surface water contamination of off-site sources located at Crisps Creek and Lake Bathurst.

This Prevention Notice issued by EPA demonstrates that Veolia is not managing the environmental aspects of the site in a competent manner. The EIS Appendix V – Surface Water Impact Assessment states all water will be contained on site due to the level of contaminants (e.g. acid mine drainage etc) with no off-site discharge required, therefore no offsite impacts proposed. This statement is not consistent with the actual operational activities occurring on site currently.

In addition to the Veolia operations at Woodlawn, more widely, Veolia demonstrates ineffective systems to manage governance and environmental requirements. This is demonstrated through Veolia agreeing to an enforceable undertaking and agreeing to pay $590,000 as a result of its Horsely Park Waste Management Facility not managing asbestos appropriately (https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2022/epamedia221007-$590000-financial-undertaking-secured-after-asbestos-find)

This demonstrates that while criteria and controls can be required for the operation of the Woodlawn facility, including the provision of monitoring data, it appears unlikely that Veolia will meet these requirements and the local community and environment will be impacted.

I am extremely concerned about the proposed Veolia incinerator planned for Tarago. I live in Canberra and I am concerned about the toxic gases and particulates that will be belched into the air, 24/7 for the next 25 years if this gets the green light. They will not only be in the air, but will also end up in the soil and water, leading to unwanted, toxic impacts for agriculture across the surrounding region. This level of toxic ash pollution will also impact people’s health. We DO NOT WANT THIS INCINERATOR in our region!!!

Canberra, and the surrounding region, is known for its clean air, vineyards, truffle farms and sheep properties. I strongly OBJECT to the imposition of such an incinerator on our region.

Think outside the square and come up with a proper environmentally-friendly solution to Sydney’s waste. Don’t just burn it and cause the Canberra region to be significantly damaged.

Today in Gundaroo we can already smell the sulphuric odour of decaying waste in the right wind conditions. This project jeopardises the integrity of our farmland, our health and our land values.
The organic methods we apply to raising our sheep are a wasted effort when toxins contaminate the soil that they graze on. Why should so many endure the fallout of a expanded facility for so little gain to the area in terms of jobs?
Once again this is big business putting profits before community health and safety.

To Whom it May Concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Wilcannia Weir project.
We would be happy to discuss our submission in more detail or meet with you at any time.
Yours sincerely,
Julie McClure