My name is Bianca Pavlic and I live in Wamboin NSW. I strongly object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago.

I believe that Veolia’s toxic industrial waste incinerator will have a major impact on my health and environment.

As an asthmatic I feel this will create additional health hazards and concerns. I don’t believe they can burn waste without creating harmful toxic substances in the air.

I have been in living in Wamboin for the past 25 years (all of my life), I have seen my parents create a valuable productive farm which supplies to many of the locals with organic produce. This will significantly impacted the production of chemically free produce. I one day wish to continue the farming business however cannot see a future with the proposed incinerator!

Thanks

The EPA will play a decisive role in the assessment of the Woodlawn Waste Incinerator.

Their draft Policy Statement was on exhibition for comment from March 31, 2021 until April 30, 2021. The final version of the Policy Statement was released in June 2021.

From the final (and current) Policy Statement (Page 1)

Introduction
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) recognises that the recovery of energy and resources from the thermal processing of waste has the potential, as part of an integrated waste management strategy, to deliver positive outcomes for the community and the environment. Energy from waste can be a valid pathway for residual waste where:
• further material recovery through reuse, reprocessing or recycling is not financially sustainable or technically achievable
• community acceptance to operate such a process has been obtained.
(bolding added)

The bolded sentence was also in the draft. I am unable to find the submissions to see whether any submitter wanted this changed.

As is normal, a number of agencies were asked by DPE for their input into the SEARs. The EPA’s input was extensive and detailed.

EPA input to SEARs relevant to this submission

RE: Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd - Woodlawn Advanced Energy
Recovery Centre (SSD - 21184278)
I refer to your request for the Environment Protection Authority’s (EPA) requirements for the environmental assessment (EA) in regard to the above proposal received by EPA.

The EPA has considered the details of the proposal as provided by <DPE or applicant> and has identified the information it requires to issue its general terms of approval in Attachment A & B. In summary, the EPA's key information requirements for the proposal include an adequate assessment of:
1. Waste management, including waste feedstock and inputs, waste processing and controls and management of residual waste and by-products from the incineration process (such as ash);
2. The proposal's compliance with the NSW EPA's Energy from Waste Policy Statement; and
3. Air quality and human health risk. (bolding added)

DPE issued SEARs for the Woodlawn incinerator on July 2, 2021



SEARs from DPE relevant to this submission

Key Policies – including:
addressing the relevant provisions in, and consistency with, the following State and
international waste legislation and policy:
o NSW Energy from Waste Policy Statement (EPA, 2021)

We would then expect to find in the EIS a strong case showing community support and community acceptance of the proposal.

I’ve chosen a paragraph that I think is most relevant.
From the EIS (page ES16)

iv Community
The assessment recognises that some in the community have concerns about the project, and the impacts of current operations at the Eco Precinct. All of the issues raised have been addressed in the EIS. It is noted there is also support for the project and its economic benefits and contributions to the community. Veolia has and will continue its community engagement program throughout all phases of the project.

Very unconvincing.
This paragraph was written, I assume, by one or more of the EMM signatories to the EIS, more specifically David Snashall, Associate Director and/or Kate Cox, Associate Environmental Scientist. Remember, all EMM signatories to the EIS claimed that the EIS and all its Appendices does not contain information that is false or misleading
These two individuals gave a presentation to the Waste 2022 Conference 3-5 May 2022 entitled:
Energy from Waste in NSW – The long and winding road (sounds a bit insulting to EPA/DPE)
The last section of the last slide of EMM’s presentation is headed “Key challenges for proponents”
Challenge number 5 is “Resource Recovery Criteria” to which they comment:
“Efw Policy Statement is unclear which leads to different interpretations by bureaucrats”
Also sounds a bit insulting to EPA/DPE. (no mention of community acceptance to operate such a process has been obtained so this is unclear)

The last Challenge on the last slide of EMM’s presentation, number 7, is “Social licence (sic)” to which they comment:
“Gaining some measure of community acceptance”
Can the EPA or DPE shed any light on EMM’s interpretation of the Policy Statement?

There is no question that Veolia has some measure of community acceptance – employees for example.

I object to the proposal. "If it's too dangerous for Sydney, why should we have it?"

I strongly oppose this project. I am deeply concerned that the proposed site is so close to the ACT, where I live, and so close to regional communities like Tarago and Collector, where my friends and family live.

This will impact the air and water quality. We will be able to smell it. Breathe it. See it. It will pollute our ground water supplies. It will poison the land, our food, our bodies.

Food contaminated by incinerator toxins can cause cancer, miscarriages, developmental delays, reproductive issues, heart disease and respiratory impairment.

This proposal disregards human life. Makes regional areas responsible for Sydney’s waste. Will disproportionately affect women. Will ruin the region’s growth and future.

This project CANNOT go ahead.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre - SUB-52131511
I object and equally oppose this project and any future Waste to Energy projects across the state of NSW due to the another legacy that will contaminate our air, land, water, communities, agricultural crops, impacting and increasing the long term health for many communities, equally increasing toxic emissions.
1. The health requirements into the future will be another added burden to our already understaffed, underfunded public health system;
2.Loss of agricultural production for the communities across NSW due to contaminated crops and stock;
3. Increasing toxic emissions is not an acceptable practice for the future with the proposal pollution from the proposed incinerator will includes acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS). Particulate pollution can lead to decreased lung function, cardiac disease and death. In addition to polluting the air, dioxins and furans will accumulate in the surrounding environment over time in soil and water and are absorbed by plants, crops and animals.

Where is the guarantee and who will be watching 24/7 the monitoring on site equally the emissions, leaching from residual ash landfill produced even under required monitoring license system. The current system is not working with some examples below.
The contamination from the residual ash. Lithgow with its long history and current contamination from extraction, burning of coal to date cannot be managed with contamination of our ground water, surface water and land. Example links : https://apps.epa.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/sitedetails.aspx ; Mt Piper Power Station Lamberts North Ash Repository leaching into groundwater and surface water. Western Coal Washery discharges into local creeks.
The expectation for the people is for the government to sustain the health of communities, land, water and air.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a submission.
Julie Favell
Lithgow

I object to the proposed incinerator for the following reasons:
- the incinerator will release toxic gasses that pose a major health hazard to residents in a large surrounding area.
- the incinerator will add to greenhouse gasses and exacerbate global warming. Burning waste is not recycling; if waste is produced then burying it and capturing the methane emissions (as Veolia is currently doing) is a much better option.
- the focus of any project dealing with waste should be on reducing the waste coming out of Sydney instead of burning it.
- if the incinerator is not safe to build in Sydney, then it is not safe to build near the residents of Tarago and surrounding areas.
- the project does not have support from the broad community surrounding the proposed site. Veolia's track record in operating its current projects in the location shows that it does not have a social licence to build the incinerator.
The proposed incinerator should not be approved.

Being a resident of the Goulburn Mulwaree LGA, I am extremely concerned about the pollution that this project will put into our air and the health implications of this pollution. My children attend school near this project and we live in the direction of the main proposed air flow. The health affects, especially in the long term, that this may have, if this project is allowed to go through, is extremely concerning. If there are no health concerns, let the project be built in Sydney, as it is Sydney waste being disposed of. If it is too much of a health hazard for Sydney, we DO NOT want it here. Our area may not be as heavily populated but we are still people and our health is equally important and we have gone without a lot to live in an area where our air is clear and fresh. The damage that this level of pollution will do to our farming lands is unspeakable. This project must not be allowed to go ahead!!!

I live in Gungahlin, ACT (north north Canberra). I object to Veolia’s proposed incinerator being built in Tarago near Lake George and Collector NSW. This toxic industrial waste incinerator will completely ruin the local area’s growth prospects. People are finding affordable housing in the region and commuting to ACT or Goulburn to work. Now nobody will want to live there with the smell and the pollution. Also, these negative factors will impact Canberra. Why should regional areas have to deal with the waste from Sydney?

I strongly object to the proposed incinerator in the Canberra - Goulburn area by Veolia. I live in this area, and run a food producing primary producer business.
(1) The threat: airborne pollutants will be spread by wind widely in the Canberra - Goulburn area, including to those two cities! Meteorological data mapping proves this. Pollutants include PFASS, same as polluted groundwater around Australian airports!
(2) The threat: pollutants will be spread in groundwater.
(3) The threat: Veolia has already been found guilty of failures in pollutant management, resulting in leakage outside of their existing facility in the area.
(4) The threat: Veolia, a French company, is no longer legally permitted to build this type of proposed incinerator in Europe due to major safety risks. Why would Australia allow this in 2022?
(5) Threat to public safety: airborne pollutants will enter the rainwater (the main human drinking water source for residents in this area outside of towns) and groundwater (the main drinking water source for the towns). Any home grown food (backyard vege garden, eggs from Chooks, sheep, cattle, etc) will also absorb the contaminants. The longer humans drink and eat this contaminated food and water, the more toxins will be built up (bio magnification) in people living in the area.
(6) threat to public safety: breathing in the pollutants.
(7) threat to food production: any food (grains, meat, milk, fruit, vegetables, wine, honey, mead etc) grown in the area will be contaminated. Contamination levels will increase over time.

So, the NSW Government and Veolia want to poison the people living in the Canberra - Goulburn area, and poison the food grown in this area as well. How can this be happening? Why was this not stopped already?

My name is Christine Bradey and I live at 14 Moray Pde Saratoga NSW 2251 and I am strongly opposed to the incinerator being allowed to proceed.
I am writing to add my objection in support of the people directly and indirectly debilitated by this incinerator.
I would like to know if the following impacts from this proposed incinerator have been addressed.

A lot of the affected properties do not have access to town water and rely solely on tank water for their drinking, bathing and washing. With the toxic ash falling in such a wide area on roofs, this ash, containing heavy metal, will be washed into the tanks with possible dire health consequences.

In Sydney you can only have tank water for use on gardens as it is known that the toxic fallout from industry, that accumulates on roofs, would be detrimental to people's health. Why is not the same consideration given to residents in the affected areas from this proposed development, when they rely solely on tank water for all needs.

This development does not take into account the detrimental effects of contamination this proposed development will have on farming, in such a wide catchment area.

There is no need for the diversion of some of the waste for incineration as the current site is currently using methane capture technology to generate electricity without polluting the air. The pollutants from this proposal will impact a vast area and cause untold damage to the lives of the residents. It is a highly inefficient method of power generation and appears to just be a way to try and solve a problem caused by the lack of proper recycling facilities in Sydney and surrounds.

Veolia also has a record of NOT doing the right thing when it comes to preventing pollution. Even the NSW government admits there is no real safe threshold and populations will be affected.

Waste incineration is NOT recycling and contributes to climate change. If a proposed incinerator for the Sydney region was rejected at eastern Creek, why is it acceptable to impose it upon a rural community without access to a reticulated water supply.

Also, as a retired real estate valuer working for the Valuer Generals and the State Valuation Office, specializing in rural valuations, the negative affects this proposed development will have on properties values in the area will be dramatic.

The residents in this affected area would have a good case for mounting a class action, if not only to stop this development if it proceeds, but also to claim compensation for loss in value of their properties and detrimental health effects to themselves.
There is so little land suitable for residential development in NSW contaminating such a large area would not help matters.

Thank you,
Christine Bradey
0402 804 803
14 Moray Parade
Saratoga NSW.

Veolia is couching burning waste in very rosy environmental terms and they are simply not true:

1 - The NSW government already admits this type of waste burning doesn't meet environmental pollution standards at certain critical operational times. Given how much the wind blows in the selected area (note wind turbines located nearby) there is NO safe way to operate this thing.

2 - The fly ash is a serious concern in terms of airborne pollution and as an employee of an organic certified composting business at Mulloon (Landtasia Organic Compost) - this proposal puts my employer's business and my employment AT RISK. We just had an EPA audit (and passed) but if this airborne pollution gets a green light, we won't pass soil and water quality metrics in a few years.

There is so much more I could say about this greenwashed project but I think the above points are compelling enough to demonstrate why I oppose this project.

I trust sanity will prevail.