The impact to both the environment and health of residents is significant and has been objected by the broader community time and time again.

I am a resident in the nearby region of Currawang and I strongly object to Veolia's proposed incinerator being built in Tarago, for a number of reasons.

We are a young family who are in the process of building our dream home not too far from the proposed incinerator site. When we purchased our forever block, we had no idea that we would be purchasing a block of land that would later be subject to toxic emissions from a proposed incinerator. We enjoy spending time growing vegetables to eat, as well as producing meat and eggs for ourselves and others. Given our location, we also rely entirely on tank water. I also have a scientific background with a university degree and have spent quite some time examining the scientific evidence that is available on waste incinerators. The science certainly details a very different picture to that which Veolia is painting and given the nature of my qualifications, I will always lean on science and the scientific processes of presenting information to base my perspectives on things. Specifically, there is good scientific evidence to suggest that pollution that includes acid gases, toxic heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead cadmium) and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFAS) will escape the installed filtration systems and enter our food chain. There is abundant scientific evidence to support the significant health impacts this has on people from cancer, to reproductive issues, to respiratory and cardiac effects, the list goes on. These particles will remain in our lives forever, it is an intergenerational burden and legacy which cannot be allowed to go ahead. We want to be able to drink the water from our tanks, eat the eggs our hens lay and feel safe walking outside on a windy day. These are basic expectations that should be a given in a modern society such as the one we live in.

The impact of this incinerator on house and land prices must also be raised. People will leave this area in droves and land prices will follow. The financial impact on our family and many others is also unacceptable. We have invested significantly in our new home and cannot bear the financial burden of reduced house prices but will also be unable to stay if this incinerator goes ahead. How is this fair?

Veolia has also admitted that its emissions will exceed the NSW Government safety standards and they already have a bad track record for breaching licence conditions. In addition, there are a number of non-standard operating conditions such as start up and shut down, that actually have no safety standards applied. The NSW Government themselves also 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”. So why should we be exposing these nearby communities (including our family), to known toxic emissions, from a company who has admitted it will exceed safety standards and already has multiple breaches for its existing waste management site at Woodlawn and under the regulations of a government who knows it will impact the health of surrounding communities?

Given the above, I then have to ask if this is not suitable for Sydney, why is it suitable for us? Eastern Creek had an incinerator rejected in 2018 due to not being in the public interest. Since then, toxic waste incinerators have been banned in Sydney due to the risk to human health. These risks are still the same regardless of the location the incinerator is placed. And one could argue, they are more critical in food producing areas such as Tarago. So why do we have to suffer the burden when Sydney doesn’t need to? This proposal should be rejected on the exact same grounds.

We also know that incinerators contribute to climate change, not help it. They emit more C02/megawatt-hour than coal-fired, natural gas fired or oil-fired power plants. That’s saying something! Incinerators also consume finite resources such as plastics, diesel and water. Likewise recycling and composting conserves 3-5 times more energy than incineration. Incinerators simply replace one waste stream with another. They are not good for our planet and have no place in Tarago.

I do hope the concerns of the community are taken seriously and the scientific evidence that is available, is listened to. This incinerator must not go ahead – for the sake of our health and our future generations if nothing else.

* NSW policy acknowledges that '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' (Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan, 2021, page 4). The proposed facility is unnecessary given the existing waste management options in NSW, and will create unnecessary and uncertain health and economic risks to local and regional communities in NSW and the ACT, which were not considered despite being only around 40km from the proposed site.
* For example, the Human Health Risk Assessment acknowledges that PFAS 'will usually be present in materials that could be in the residual waste as mixtures', including at the proposed facility. However, the Assessment analysis does not reference the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan, which provides information on recommended approaches to storage, transport
and waste management, including landfill disposal and destruction, of PFAS contaminated materials and wastes (including PFAS-containing products), or national guidance by the Environmental Health Standing Committee guidance available at https://www.pfas.gov.au/about-pfas/affects and https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/enhealth-guidance-statement-on-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances. The EIS also does not consider the potential socio-economic impacts of PFAS contamination.
* The Ash Management Study acknowledges that 'there is a current lack of specific guidance on beneficial re-use of IBA in Australia'. The suggestions regarding future market demand for IBA or ABCR are entirely speculative, leaving landfill as the only viable option.

I am not satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to address the following:
- the likelihood of air pollutants contaminating rainwater collected for drinking (under both normal operating conditions and in the event of an emergency e.g a fire within the incinerator)
- what routine monitoring procedures will be put in place to measure the level of pollutants and assess any possibly health impacts
- the likely deterioration of roads in the vicinity of Tarago, Mount Fairy and Bungendore given the expected increase in heavy vehicle traffic particularly given their already degraded and dangerous state
- what additional training/mitigation/personnel will be provided by Veolia to manage this facility given they are already unable to effectively manage odour from the existing, smaller installation and are subject to a number of EPA penalties
- reasoning behind the selection of this location/site including a cost benefit analysis comparing other possibilities

Please see attachments. The project should not proceed because of the high risk of winegrapes being contaminated.

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.

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.