The Goulburn Mulwaree Council has formally voiced its “outright opposition” to Tarago’s Veolia Woodlawn Advanced Energy Recovery Center, identifying 53 separate issues in the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The proposed center, located at 619 Collector Road, Tarrago, will process up to 380,000 tonnes of waste annually from areas other than Sydney and the Goulburn Mulwarry area.
It has met with fierce opposition in the community.
At an ad hoc meeting on the issue, some local residents had the opportunity to voice their concerns.
Paige Davis said she felt the proposal would undermine the “human rights” of Tarago residents, including their right to clean water and a healthy environment.
“These are undermined to protect the rights of the people of Sydney,” she said.
“Clearly the risk to human health is too high for the Sydney community, so the NSW government has imposed this on our community.”
Particular concerns were raised about potential health risks and the lack of ‘baseline’ measurements of air, water and soil to monitor if any changes would occur if the project progressed.
Representing pastors, pastors and priests in the area, venerable Paul Davey said the project posed an “unacceptably high risk” of harming the health of locals, later found to be toxic. expressed concern about potential chemicals that may be
“It’s sad to see a PFAS-type disaster in our city council area,” he said.
The proposal has been flagged as a project deemed to be of economic, social or environmental importance to the state and has been submitted by the NSW government under the state’s significant development classification.
But Davey claimed it served another purpose.
“The effect of the state’s key development laws is to silence communities, and that’s what they’re for,” he said.
Davey accused Veolia of not conducting proper regional consultations and lobbied trustees to consider a referendum on the issue in the next election to raise the wider regional issue.
“The referendum will give the community a voice…it will give the people a vote,” he said.
Dr. Jackie Wright conducted a human health risk assessment for EIS.
She defended the decision not to take baseline measurements, saying the current levels of the toxins present are too low to be detected.
“We used conservative assumptions and assumed all emissions. [in the modelling] More than 70 years from the facility, continuously … that’s my starting point for the concentrations that could be in the soil,” Dr. Wright said.
“When you collect baseline data, you have to collect a lot of data to understand what that variation is.”
Dr. Wright said he and his children were “happy” to live near such a facility and could be exposed to the chemicals and toxins released by the facility, which could harm people’s health. He argued that it would not affect
“While you think you are zero, [concentration] Technically, from a health standpoint, it makes no difference,” she said.
“You can have some exposure without any health effects. It’s important to understand that chemicals have thresholds.”
Veolia CEO Richard Kirkman insisted that what was being proposed was safe for the community and said he was “sad” at the community’s frustrations and concerns.
“I believe it’s the right thing to do, and I believe it’s proven to be safe.
“Given the problems facing the planet, this is for the common good of all mankind.”
He acknowledged that there have been “operational failures” due to the current facility, primarily in the form of odor complaints, and that while he is working to remedy such issues, he believes the odor will go away in a “cast iron “Agreement” was not reached.It is still a problem.
“Odor is bad. We have to fix that. Part of that fix is updating the technology,” Kirkman said.
“The point is, are we improving the environment? Are we doing harm? And I stand by the fact that we are protecting both.”
Kirkman said he would be happy to consider soil sampling at the site if the community wanted it.
The 3000-page EIS was reviewed by 15 city council staff and identified 53 issues that we believe warranted further information or consideration.
These include detailed information on odor management, details on emissions monitoring systems, how compliance is monitored and managed at the site, specific details on air quality monitoring, further traffic impact assessments, and if nearby boreholes are affected. demonstration of what would happen in the future, the results of independent public health assessments, and how community support for the project was obtained.
The report also outlines various courses of action that the Council should take in an “unlikely event” given the opportunity to negotiate “benefits for the region”, particularly for the communities of Tarragon and Bathurst Lakes. increase.
“This includes the fact that, should the project be approved, it will be the only waste-from-energy facility within the Goulburn Mulwarry region and will once again limit total waste disposal to 380,000 tonnes per year. claiming,” said the board statement.
“Noting the Council’s outright opposition to Energy from Waste Facilities in the Goulburn Mulwaree Local Government Area, I emphasize that this is not the Council’s preferred position.”
Councilor Bob Kirk said the inclusion was important because it had to “cover the possibility” of the project proceeding without council approval or permission.
“We have to face the reality that we are making submissions…and despite our best presentations and such, this could get approved,” he said.
“If approved, there will never be another chance to protect. [against] The type of issue identified. “