Letter received by post

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