Seventy kilometres north of Canberra, a proposed energy from waste facility will turn thousands of tonnes of waste into electrical energy, powering homes throughout the region – or polluting it, some locals say.
The company building the facility states that the process is environmentally friendly, but the local council and some residents oppose the facility, fearing that Canberra and the Southern Tablelands will be threatened by pollutants from a waste incinerator on their doorstep, burning Sydney rubbish.
Veolia, a French ecological transformation company, intends to build the Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (ARC) at its Eco Precinct in Tarago.
The ARC, Veolia states, would divert 380,000 tonnes of waste from Sydney landfills every year, and thermally treat it, producing 30 megawatts of electrical energy, or 240,000 megawatt hours of electricity every year – enough to power 40,000 homes, and recycle and recover 20 per cent of the outputs that would otherwise be lost to landfill. The project would save approximately 240,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, the same as the emissions of 32,400 cars.
Veolia also predicts an economic boom for the region: a capital initial investment of more than $600 million, with a further $2 billion investment in lifetime maintenance and operations, will create a more than $250 million financial boost to local suppliers, and increases in household incomes, the company states. In addition, the project will create 300 direct jobs during construction, a further 40 jobs during operation, and 383 indirect jobs through spending with local suppliers.
The Eco Precinct, described as a critical waste management infrastructure for NSW, accepts approximately 40 per cent of Sydney’s residual putrescible waste: 1.18 million tonnes every year. No additional waste would be transported to the Eco Precinct, the company says.
While energy from waste (the process of extracting the embedded energy from materials that would otherwise be disposed of in landfill) is a new technology in Australia, Veolia states, it is widely used internationally: there are 450 plants running in Europe, while Veolia operates more than 65 such facilities around the world. It will operate Australia’s first two energy recovery facilities in Perth.
Veolia states that energy from waste is a more sustainable waste management technique for residual waste than disposal to landfill, and has been so recognised by the Federal and NSW Governments. The facility dries and combusts waste with air in a controlled setting, where all gasses are treated and cleaned, then uses the heat produced to boil water into steam to drive a turbine, which generates electricity.
“This is a significant step in reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and is cleaner than gas and coal fuel alternatives, particularly given that landfill gas emissions are avoided,” Veolia stated.
Veolia’s Environmental Impact Statement was published this week.
“Independently verified assessments, undertaken over a period of more than 12 months, have confirmed the proposed project is safe for local people, farming, and the environment,” a Veolia spokesperson said.
CATTI: Waste incinerator threatens the region
A local group, Communities Against The Tarago Incinerator (CATTI), opposes Veolia’s plans to build the ARC. In their view, it is a garbage incinerator near Lake George to burn 380,000 tonnes of Sydney’s waste every year.
“This toxic proposal is a major threat to the region’s human, animal, and environmental health,” president Rod Thiele said. “For the first time, an advanced economy is proposing industrial-scale waste incineration close to the homes of thousands of people who are totally reliant on rainwater, collected in household tanks, for drinking, household usage and business.”
The community-led organisation says it stands for preserving the clean environment of Tarago and the Southern Tablelands, and managing waste in a more sustainable manner through reduce, reuse, genuine recycling, and transition to a truly circular economy.
CATTI argues that the ARC’s waste incinerator is more polluting than coal-fired power stations – it burns fossil fuel products (like plastic) and uses an industrial diesel fuel burner, they say – and will generate 12 times less electricity, contamination, and employment than solar farms [ENDNOTE 1].
CATTI’s research over the last 18 months, Mr Thiele said, shows that the incinerator would emit harmful pollutants: acid gasses; heavy metal particulates (mercury, lead, and cadmium); and persistent organic particulates (dioxins, furans, PCBs, PFEAs). These can cause illness and death from respiratory problems (asthma, lung disease, breathing difficulties), strokes, cancer, heart disease, and heart attacks, they say. The NSW Government has stated that “for some common air pollutants, there is no safe threshold of impact”, CATTI states.
According to CATTI’s emissions modelling, these pollutants will spread throughout the ACT, Bungendore, Goulburn and Southern Tablelands region, contaminating water and food supplies.
An overseas expert has modelled the emissions plume, using Bureau of Meteorology local weather data from Goulburn airport. Plume tracking over the last year has shown the plume swings 360 degrees and extends past the edge of the map at maximum extension.
CATTI is also concerned about contamination of regional ground water and the Sydney catchment from hazardous waste stored in the ground near Tarago.
Almost a quarter (24 per cent) of everything fed into the ARC becomes waste ash, CATTI calculates. According to the EIS, the ARC would generate 76,000 tonnes of incinerator bottom ash (20 per cent of residual waste feedstock) and 15,200 tonnes of air pollution control residues (APCr or ‘fly ash’; 4 per cent of residual waste feedstock).
The incinerator bottom ash would be disposed to landfill, but could be used as material for the bioreactor, as a rehabilitation material for application on site, or as a construction material. The APCr would be disposed of in an encapsulation cell designed in accordance with NSW EPA guidelines; it would provide approximately 1.5 million cubic metres of airspace, considered sufficient volume to receive stabilised APCr from the ARC for a project life of 25 years.
According to CATTI, the pit sealants only have a lifespan of 30 years, but persistent organic pollutants and toxins will remain in the pit for 1,000 years, leaching out of concrete into the surrounding environment, contaminating plants, crops, and animals, and poisoning the Sydney water catchment.
Last month, the NSW EPA issued a prevention notice to Veolia: leachate had seeped out of an evaporation dam, in a manner that could pollute groundwater entering Crisps Creek, which ultimately drains to Lake Bathurst. The EPA found that the dam had not been maintained or operated in a proper and efficient manner.
“Veolia’s Woodlawn Eco Precinct is a zero-discharge site,” a Veolia spokesperson said. “Its activities are designed to remediate the land to safeguard the community and the environment following previous mining operations.
“Due to significant rainfall, an emergency measure was put in place to contain all liquids within the site. There is no evidence that this emergency measure has caused harm to any waterways.
“Veolia works closely with the EPA, and undertakes extensive and ongoing monitoring of the surrounding area to ensure people, wildlife, and waterways are protected.”
“The community of Tarago has already suffered for far too long as a result of Veolia’s mismanagement,” CATTI member Fiona Jefferey said.
“Veolia has been issued with countless fines and warnings over the past decade, but they continue to sacrifice our community’s future for profit. If I drove my car as recklessly as Veolia does business, I would have lost my licence years ago. How is it that Veolia still has their licence to operate at Woodlawn?”
Mr Thiele said the ARC is “overwhelmingly opposed by local communities and their local political representatives, but Veolia is pushing on regardless”.
The Goulburn Mulwaree Council last year opposed waste to energy or waste incineration facilities in the LGA, including at Tarago. This resolution, made in September 2021, was reaffirmed on 15 March.
Council is reviewing the contents of the EIS. A report will be put to Council for its consideration at an Extraordinary Meeting scheduled for 29 November.
A systematic review of the health impacts of waste incineration (2019), CATTI noted, found that “there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any incinerator is safe”, and that “contamination of food and ingestion of pollutants is a significant risk pathway for both nearby and distant residents”.
The review, by academics from the Australian National University Medical School, the Public Health Association of Australia, and Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australia, was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health in 2020, and referenced by the NSW Government Chief Scientist and Engineer in his report to the NSW Minister for Environment that same year.
CATTI also noted that the ACT Government had banned waste incinerators in the ACT for health and environmental reasons.
“These facilities have been banned in the ACT and Sydney because they aren’t safe,” Mr Thiele said. “If they aren’t safe for Canberra and Sydney, then they aren’t safe anywhere.”
An ACT Government spokesperson said that the thermal treatment of waste is prohibited under the ACT Waste-to-Energy Policy 2020-25, except for facilities already in place before the policy. Waste reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials is the primary focus in the ACT.
Veolia: ARC is *not* a waste incinerator
Veolia described CATTI’s statement as “grossly misleading and incorrect”. The ARC facility was not an incinerator, a spokesperson stated.
“Incinerators burn waste uncontrollably, and all those emissions produced are released to air. Energy recovery does not do this. It’s a highly controlled combustion process, with two-thirds of the technology dedicated to treating and capturing the emissions from the flue gas.
“This process also allows recovery of energy, recovery of recycling and recovery of inert materials that can be used for construction – all of which does not happen through an incinerator.”
The EIS, Veolia stated, finds that the ARC meets all regulations for human health, water quality and food production; that predicted air quality levels are safely below limits set by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA); that water concentrations within rainwater tanks are well within safe drinking water guidelines; that the ARC project will not change local soil conditions, and farms with organic farming status would not be affected; and that 96 per cent of the waste diverted from landfill will instead be recovered or recycled.
“The studies demonstrate that energy from waste technology can be safely built and operated in Woodlawn, with many benefits, whether they be to help prevent climate change, or to boost the local economy,” project director, Kathryn Whitfield, said.
The ARC will be classified as a State Significant Development and, if approved, the project will take up to three years to commission. Veolia states the facility aligns with the NSW Government’s environmental protection and decarbonisation targets, and is set to propel NSW into a new era of sustainability.
“The NSW Government has established bold emission reduction and recovery targets, designed to halt global warming and bring about environmental improvements,” Ms Whitfield said.
“Energy from waste plays a role in this transition, and the Government’s stance on its safe application aligns with our project objectives. The NSW Government has set the world’s strictest regulations for energy from waste technology, and we now have the evidence to show how we’ll comply.”
The NSW EPA stated: “The NSW Government supports thermal energy recovery as a residual waste management option where it can deliver positive outcomes for the community and human health and the environment are protected.
“Analysis of future residual waste infrastructure needs in the NSW Waste and Materials Strategy 2041 shows that a mix of potential infrastructure solutions are needed. The Strategy recommends a limited number of new energy from waste facilities will be needed to manage residual waste in NSW.
“The Energy from Waste Regulation puts into law the Government’s Energy from Waste Infrastructure Plan to strategically locate energy from waste in designated locations in NSW. It ensures that energy from waste plays a sustainable role as NSW transitions towards a circular waste and resource recovery framework.
“All energy from waste facilities proposed for NSW must comply with relevant planning and environmental legislation, including public consultation requirements, and the NSW Energy from Waste Policy Statement, which sets out technical, operational and pollution control criteria and contains air emissions standards that meet and exceed world best practice.”
EIS on exhibition for next month
The EIS is on public exhibition until 6 December. The community can formally submit their views on the proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE).
“We are holding a series of events right around the region to showcase the details of the studies,” Ms Whitfield said. “Now is the time for people to hear the facts from qualified and independent experts, and to have their say by making a submission.”
CATTI said it would mobilise community objections to the proposal, and counter what it calls Veolia’s ‘green washing’ public relations campaign.
The NSW Department of Planning and Environment stated that Veolia will be required to respond to any issues raised during exhibition. The Department will undertake a rigorous and comprehensive assessment in close consultation with the EPA and NSW Health, and will consider the advice of its independent experts.
[ENDNOTE 1] CATTI argues that the ARC’s waste incinerator is more polluting than coal-fired power stations, and generates 12 times less electricity, contamination, and employment than solar farms: For instance, the proposed solar farm at Sutton is costed at $120 million (one-fifth the cost of the $600 million incinerator); will produce up to 100 MW power per year (versus up to 30 MW at the incinerator); will operate for 30 years (the proposed life of the incinerator is 25 years); and projects five full-time employees. (A comparable spend would provide 750 job years, and the ARC 1,000 job years, CATTI said; that does not include jobs lost from the current operations at Woodlawn, so there is minimal difference.)
The solar farm produces minimal operational waste until the panels reach their end of life. One farm has 260,000 panels (so approximately 1 million panels in total over five farms). Even if the total operations could not recycle anything, the waste would be far less than the ARC would produce to generate the same power, CATTI claims. (For example, a 72 cell 2.3 sqm panel weighs approximately 25 kg, so the total waste would be around 350,000 kg.)
Get local, national and world news, plus sport, entertainment, lifestyle, competitions and more delivered straight to your inbox with the Canberra Daily Daily Newsletter. Sign up here.
