Rosalind Dobbie
Object
Rosalind Dobbie
Object
Jake Bertram
Object
Jake Bertram
Object
Rod Harvey
Object
Rod Harvey
Object
Electorate Office Goulburn
Object
Electorate Office Goulburn
Object
GOULBURN
,
New South Wales
Message
21 November 2022
Department of Planning and Environment,
Locked Bag 5022,
Parramatta NSW 2124
Dear Sir/madam,
Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre
Application Number: SSD-21184278
Assessment Type: State Significant Development
Development Type: Electricity Generation - Other
Local Government Area: Goulburn Mulwaree
I refer to the proposal above and as such submit my formal response to same.
I have raised matters of concern surrounding waste incineration for my community many times.
It is clear to me that the vast majority of the people in my electorate do not support the proposal of waste incineration.
The small village of Tarago is situated approximately 40 kilometres south of Goulburn with a population of approximately 510. The Veolia eco-precinct is located outside of the village of Tarago.
The system which Veolia operates on currently receives the municipal solid waste of Sydney sent to two transfer terminals; where it is sorted and loaded for transport by rail to Crisps Creek; and then by truck to the Woodlawn site – which it is presently used as landfill.
The ‘ARC’, a $600m waste-to-energy project, proposes an additional step once this waste is delivered to Tarago. Burning 380,000 tonnes of rubbish to generate steam and electricity to the tune of 39MW the equivalent of power to 50,000 homes annually.
Trains and trucks of rubbish are being hauled through the city, past our national parks, through prime agricultural lands and taken to Tarago.
It appears the electorate of Goulburn is an attractive dumping ground for Sydney’s waste due to its close proximity.
The inference that this is a waste to energy project appears somewhat misleading, why are we using resources to transport the waste, to an area to incinerate and then generate power, which then must again be returned to the city? That’s because this isn’t about energy production, it is waste incineration.
Of particular concern to me is the risk to human health.
From the website of the proponent: The energy-from-waste process is well regulated and proven to be safe.
I refer to the expert advice from the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer, Mr Hugh Durrant White, whereby he advises.
Exposure to particulate matter (PM) can be linked to increased mortality, hospitalisations and respiratory disease. A large body of scientific evidence supports this. AAQ monitoring of airshed quality in NSW and internationally measures both PM10 and PM2.5. AAQ data are used in large scale population health studies to understand better the health impacts of particulates overall as well as specific health impacts associated with coarse and fine particles. Understanding health impacts of UFP is a major area of research internationally. However, there is incomplete information about the development, size distribution and composition of UFP, and challenges remain in our ability to accurately and separately monitor these particles.
And this.
Currently, there is no means of assessing the impact that a single source of emissions (e.g. a specific plant) will have on an individual. (Ref.1)
During a recent community meeting representatives of the proponent advised that there have been no soil studies undertaken of surrounding prime agricultural land.
The Chief Scientist advises that The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) should consider food as an exposure pathway.
We know that one of the main contaminates of concern are Dioxins. Dioxins are found throughout the world, they accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals. Mercury is also a toxic heavy metal and incineration has been known to produce high levels of this pollutant.
Across NSW regional plans have been adopted to provide a blueprint for growth until 2036, recognising the need for the state's best agricultural land to be preserved. The NSW Government has guidelines in place to ensure the potential impact of projects on prime agricultural land is properly assessed during the planning approvals process, protecting our food bowl.
Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) is land with high quality soil and water resources capable of sustaining high levels of productivity. BSAL plays a critical role sustaining the State’s $12 billion agricultural industry.
A total of 2.8 million hectares of BSAL has been identified and mapped at a regional scale across the State.
Tarago has a mapped area of BSAL. (Ref.2)
When conducting A Human Health Risk Assessment, it is imperative to address environmental hazards of concern and evaluating how likely it is that the environment might be impacted as a result of exposure to one or more environmental stressors, such as chemicals, in this case persistent organic pollution (POP).
A recent study by ToxcioWatch of incinerators in three countries – Spain, Czechia, and Lithuania, identified high levels of persistent organic pollution (POP) contamination in the surrounding areas of waste incineration facilities, it also found that contamination levels posed a ‘significant risk to the environment and to the health of people nearby’.
Analysis of vegetation, pine needles, and mosses also shows high levels of dioxins, the report states, adding that ‘people living in the vicinity of incinerators could be harmed’ if they eat vegetables grown in contaminated soil. (Ref.3)
In NSW, Government policy provides a framework by which a project that proposes to recover energy from the thermal treatment of waste (energy recovery facility) only occurs where it delivers positive outcomes for human health and the environment.
Proponents who seek to operate energy recovery facilities must comply with the 2015 NSW Energy from Waste Policy Statement, to protect the community and ensure best use is made of waste materials.
I am unconvinced that enough studies have been undertaken to prove there are no risks associated with EFW projects to human life and agriculture and as such I am opposing the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre proposal alongside my community.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy Tuckerman MP,
Member for Goulburn
Minister for Local Government
Ref.1 https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/357400/FINAL-Report_EFW-with-additional-advice.pdf
Ref.2 strategic_agricultural_land_map_-_sheet_sta_035.pdf
Ref.3 https://resource.co/article/zwe-finds-surroundings-waste-incinerators-are-highly-contaminated
Department of Planning and Environment,
Locked Bag 5022,
Parramatta NSW 2124
Dear Sir/madam,
Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre
Application Number: SSD-21184278
Assessment Type: State Significant Development
Development Type: Electricity Generation - Other
Local Government Area: Goulburn Mulwaree
I refer to the proposal above and as such submit my formal response to same.
I have raised matters of concern surrounding waste incineration for my community many times.
It is clear to me that the vast majority of the people in my electorate do not support the proposal of waste incineration.
The small village of Tarago is situated approximately 40 kilometres south of Goulburn with a population of approximately 510. The Veolia eco-precinct is located outside of the village of Tarago.
The system which Veolia operates on currently receives the municipal solid waste of Sydney sent to two transfer terminals; where it is sorted and loaded for transport by rail to Crisps Creek; and then by truck to the Woodlawn site – which it is presently used as landfill.
The ‘ARC’, a $600m waste-to-energy project, proposes an additional step once this waste is delivered to Tarago. Burning 380,000 tonnes of rubbish to generate steam and electricity to the tune of 39MW the equivalent of power to 50,000 homes annually.
Trains and trucks of rubbish are being hauled through the city, past our national parks, through prime agricultural lands and taken to Tarago.
It appears the electorate of Goulburn is an attractive dumping ground for Sydney’s waste due to its close proximity.
The inference that this is a waste to energy project appears somewhat misleading, why are we using resources to transport the waste, to an area to incinerate and then generate power, which then must again be returned to the city? That’s because this isn’t about energy production, it is waste incineration.
Of particular concern to me is the risk to human health.
From the website of the proponent: The energy-from-waste process is well regulated and proven to be safe.
I refer to the expert advice from the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer, Mr Hugh Durrant White, whereby he advises.
Exposure to particulate matter (PM) can be linked to increased mortality, hospitalisations and respiratory disease. A large body of scientific evidence supports this. AAQ monitoring of airshed quality in NSW and internationally measures both PM10 and PM2.5. AAQ data are used in large scale population health studies to understand better the health impacts of particulates overall as well as specific health impacts associated with coarse and fine particles. Understanding health impacts of UFP is a major area of research internationally. However, there is incomplete information about the development, size distribution and composition of UFP, and challenges remain in our ability to accurately and separately monitor these particles.
And this.
Currently, there is no means of assessing the impact that a single source of emissions (e.g. a specific plant) will have on an individual. (Ref.1)
During a recent community meeting representatives of the proponent advised that there have been no soil studies undertaken of surrounding prime agricultural land.
The Chief Scientist advises that The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) should consider food as an exposure pathway.
We know that one of the main contaminates of concern are Dioxins. Dioxins are found throughout the world, they accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals. Mercury is also a toxic heavy metal and incineration has been known to produce high levels of this pollutant.
Across NSW regional plans have been adopted to provide a blueprint for growth until 2036, recognising the need for the state's best agricultural land to be preserved. The NSW Government has guidelines in place to ensure the potential impact of projects on prime agricultural land is properly assessed during the planning approvals process, protecting our food bowl.
Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land (BSAL) is land with high quality soil and water resources capable of sustaining high levels of productivity. BSAL plays a critical role sustaining the State’s $12 billion agricultural industry.
A total of 2.8 million hectares of BSAL has been identified and mapped at a regional scale across the State.
Tarago has a mapped area of BSAL. (Ref.2)
When conducting A Human Health Risk Assessment, it is imperative to address environmental hazards of concern and evaluating how likely it is that the environment might be impacted as a result of exposure to one or more environmental stressors, such as chemicals, in this case persistent organic pollution (POP).
A recent study by ToxcioWatch of incinerators in three countries – Spain, Czechia, and Lithuania, identified high levels of persistent organic pollution (POP) contamination in the surrounding areas of waste incineration facilities, it also found that contamination levels posed a ‘significant risk to the environment and to the health of people nearby’.
Analysis of vegetation, pine needles, and mosses also shows high levels of dioxins, the report states, adding that ‘people living in the vicinity of incinerators could be harmed’ if they eat vegetables grown in contaminated soil. (Ref.3)
In NSW, Government policy provides a framework by which a project that proposes to recover energy from the thermal treatment of waste (energy recovery facility) only occurs where it delivers positive outcomes for human health and the environment.
Proponents who seek to operate energy recovery facilities must comply with the 2015 NSW Energy from Waste Policy Statement, to protect the community and ensure best use is made of waste materials.
I am unconvinced that enough studies have been undertaken to prove there are no risks associated with EFW projects to human life and agriculture and as such I am opposing the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre proposal alongside my community.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy Tuckerman MP,
Member for Goulburn
Minister for Local Government
Ref.1 https://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/357400/FINAL-Report_EFW-with-additional-advice.pdf
Ref.2 strategic_agricultural_land_map_-_sheet_sta_035.pdf
Ref.3 https://resource.co/article/zwe-finds-surroundings-waste-incinerators-are-highly-contaminated
Attachments
Matthew Shea
Object
Matthew Shea
Object