15 July 2024

Opponents' 'alarm bells' ringing as Veolia flags amendments to latest Tarago waste incinerator plan

| Claire Fenwicke
Join the conversation
17
aerial view of Veolia's Woodlawn Eco Precinct near Tarago

Amendments will be made to plans for the Advanced Energy Recovery Centre near Tarago. Photo: Veolia ANZ.

Issues around Veolia ANZ’s waste incinerator or Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (ARC) facility (however you classify it) continue to drag on, with the plan now needing amendments – 18 months after the original went on public exhibition.

In a statement, the business explained the amendment to the Woodlawn Eco-Precinct in Tarago centred on air pollution control residue (APCr) and making it “better align” the project with the long-term water management plan for the area.

“The amendment involves implementing a more comprehensive method of stabilisation and treatment of air pollution control residues (APCr) from the ARC facility, which enables the reclassification of the stabilised APCr as general solid waste that is safe for disposal in the Woodlawn Bioreactor landfill,” it stated.

“The flue gas treatment and filtration is exactly the same. The stabilisation process is very similar, but rather than using portland cement as a stabiliser, other fillers and binders would be used.

“Veolia is still investigating the preferred options.”

(APRc is a by-product from energy recovery facilities captured by air pollution control systems. It’s also known as ‘fly ash’ and typically includes a mixture of ash, carbon and lime).

The amendment would also see the removal of the previously proposed encapsulation cell from the project, and also relocate the APRc stabilisation area to be adjacent to the main energy-from-waste building.

A contingency plan will be included to allow stabilised APRc to be transported off-site for disposal, should it not meet the standards needed for disposal at the Woodlawn Bioreactor landfill site.

READ ALSO Landholders rally to fight off Wallaroo Solar Farm as proposal heads to decision time

The project has attracted community backlash for years, with the Goulburn Mulwaree Regional Council previously lodging “total opposition” to the facility.

The Yass Valley and Queanbeyan-Palerang regional councils have also voiced their concerns and pleas have also been made for the ACT community to oppose the NSW project.

Communities Against the Tarago Incinerator (CATTI) said the NSW Government’s “alarm bells should be ringing” over Veolia’s need to amend their plans yet again.

“Veolia states it is an expert in incineration, but what they have demonstrated to the community is a lack of proper planning, an EIS so full of holes it’s taken Veolia more than a year and a half to respond to community submissions, and a hazardous waste ‘mismanagement’ plan that now proposes dumping hazardous material into an ordinary landfill,” the group said in a statement.

“If there’s ever a company that has fully demonstrated unsuitability to manage an incinerator and its toxic by-products, Veolia is it.”

CATTI pointed to previous EPA breaches by the company and voiced concerns about allowing it to transport waste through towns and alongside farming land.

“There is no safe way to manage and monitor these toxins in the landfill, and particularly not when this landfill sits within the Sydney Water Catchment and onsite leachate has already seeped into local groundwater,” they said.

“Veolia’s proposal to also truck this same contaminated waste through our towns and along local roads to Sydney is terrifying.”

READ ALSO ‘Bumblebee or chainsaw’: Murrumbateman residents concerned about noise, fire risk of battery storage power station proposal

The Veolia ANZ statement outlined the need for amendments was identified towards the end of 2023, following the public exhibition period of the project’s environmental impact statement (EIS) from October to December of 2022.

“As part of the amendment process, Veolia will undertake an additional range of stakeholder engagement opportunities, which will provide the community with an understanding of the proposed amendment, its implications, and provide the potential for feedback,” a statement read.

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) will ultimately decide whether the changes need to go on public exhibition, which is expected.

It’s hoped the amendment report will be shared around November.

This will change the project’s approval timeline, given more submissions would be accepted from the public and then Veolia would be able to respond.

Finally, the DPHI would prepare an assessment report for the Independent Planning Commission to make a final decision on its development application.

Veolia has previously outlined the project’s expected to generate up to 30 megawatts of electrical energy (enough to power 40,000 homes) from about 380,000 tonnes of residual waste each year.

Original Article published by Claire Fenwicke on About Regional.

Join the conversation

17
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Can it really be that bad? Cleanaway operate an incinerator in the heart of Sydney (Silverwater) which has been burning all sorts of materials daily for years. Residential properties within 100m and other businesses, thus people closer than that. I can’t see the EPA allowing it to operate if it was a danger and I can’t imagine the Tarago being any more dangerous.

Capital Retro10:16 pm 18 Jul 24

I don’t think that is a WTE incinerator. There used to be an ACT Government operated incinerator at Mitchell to burn surgical waste and other nasties.

Colin Bosworth10:27 am 18 Jul 24

Veolias’ proposed waste to energy (WTE) incinerator is a catastrophic hazard looking for regulatory permission to occur, indeed the company has proposed that in order to satisfy the regulatory requirements it intends to confirm its own compliance and issue its own certification to this effect.
Whilst the Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) and the EPA has raised some thirteen (13) issues of concern with Veolia, one of which was the proposal to deposit some 456,00 tonnes of highly toxic air pollution control residue (APCr) including spent reagent chemicals into a repurposed onsite dam.
The potential for this or any similar proposal to contaminate the local and Sydneys’ water supply cannot be underestimated.

Too many folks, including the author, exaggerate these unlikely, and unproven hazards!
All this “not in my backyard” nonsense, the same enviro nuts want to put and end to land fill and also want to ban waste from energy plants.
Humans are wasteful, where would they have us put our waste?

The japanese burn their waste to generate electricity.

We could drop what appear to be virtue signally useless bird shredders nearby, and instead use the output of the waste burning, to produce some form of reliable 24 x 7 electricity.

Want to prove your ‘bird shredders’ claim, let alone someone point you in the direction of the latest generation reports for the National Electricity Market.

What we don’t need is more toxic crap going into the air. We have enough of that already thanks to our ongoing reliance on gas and coal for energy production.

Question – what happens when the wind dont blow?

QED

Nimby’s doing Nimby things.

But opposing light rail is not a NIMBY thing? Just asking

The people who benefit most from light rail are those who live closest to it, so would be a fairly strange NIMBY issue.

Although there are definitely some people who oppose any change near them, so there could be a minority who fall into that category.

Did you have a point?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.