No level of emissions from a proposed waste to energy facility is acceptable for the community, the council says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It is just one ground on which planners recommend that Goulburn Mulwaree Council oppose Veolia's plan for a $600 million 'Advanced Energy Recovery Centre (ARC), near Tarago.
READ MORE:
The facility, pegged for the company's Woodlawn Eco-precinct, would burn up to 380,000 tonnes annually of residual waste feedstock, otherwise destined for landfill. The associated power plant would generate up to 240,000 megawatts of energy each year.
But the council has called for more thorough investigations before any state government assessment.
In a wide-ranging response to a recently released environmental impact statement, planners said the document "demonstrated numerous deficiencies" and did not allow for a complete assessment.
"In its current state, the EIS does not sufficiently or appropriately justify a demonstrated need for the project, nor does it demonstrate a minimal impact on the environment and public health, not only in the vicinity...but also on a wider regional scale," a report stated.
In a report to Tuesday night's extraordinary meeting, they identified 54 areas for further investigation.
Chief among them are emissions and air quality. They called into question Veolia's use of its Staffordshire waste to energy facility as a reference plant. Planners said the outputs were not comparable as Woodlawn would be processing 60 per cent more organics than Staffordshire's.
Moreover, Australia had "some of the worst recycling policy and practices" in the world and there was "a reasonable likelihood the waste stream would become contaminated." This in turn could impact waste and emission output "if not managed correctly."
The company stated that cumulative air quality impacts at Woodlawn would "not be significantly different to existing operations."
"...No matter how large or small the...difference is, the fact remains that particulate matter and specific compounds such as sulphur dioxide, ammonia, dioxins and furans will be emitted to the atmosphere," planners' report stated.
"In effect, this will result in emission of compounds from the site and expose the community to a risk not (there now). While ever this is the case, the council will not be in a position to support the air quality assessment or simply, the proposal itself."
They pointed to Veolia's data showing its Staffordshire facility emitted 186 tonnes of nitrogen oxides and almost 27 tonnes of sulphur dioxide in 2017.
Planners recommended results of the Department of Planning's independent health assessment be made public before any further assessment was undertaken. When released, the EIS should be re-exhibited.
The council wants more assurance on the location of air quality monitors community access to their "real time" data.
Planners said ongoing odour from Veolia's existing operations had created "a trust issue," not only with the company but the EPA's monitoring abilities.
"This project is proposing to incinerate waste which will generate emissions into the air. Fears around this are quite natural and to be expected," the report stated.
The council also wants greater clarity on how feedstock will be monitored and managed, particularly that from LGAs without fully developed food and organic waste (FoGo) processing. The EIS stated that at least 20 per cent of Sydney councils would need to transition to FoGo collections by 2025 in order to have feedstock of sufficient quality for the waste to energy facility.
Planners hit back at EIS suggestions the plant would "enhance the region's ability to implement circular economy waste management principles."
"The council does not see a move to the circular economy for waste and recycling as involving incineration of the waste stream," the report stated.
Nor was it clear whether 380,000 tonnes was the plant's "absolute capacity." With Veolia handling 40 per cent of Sydney's waste, and given the company's recent merger with Suez, the council says it is concerned further expansion applications will be lodged for the ARC and landfill.
Other recommendations include:
- Veolia consider entering into a voluntary planning agreement on road maintenance and renewal. Planners described the current contributions as "totally inadequate."
- A review of traffic data in the EIS. The council claimed this was "flawed" as the counts were taken during COVID restrictions. The review should also address the "identified need" for a climbing lane between Crisps Creek intermodal and Collector Road.
- Further investigation of construction traffic alternatives, including use of Crisps Creek intermodal.
- An accommodation strategy be prepared and considered with the EIS before any approval. This would include options to house an estimated 297 construction workers over three years "to avoid placing undue stress on the local rental market."
- That Veolia demonstrate that the use of Portland cement as a binding agent on hazardous waste is proven before the application is assessed. The council says this is a "critical element" that must not be left "open-ended."
- A comprehensive and region-wide monitoring system for air quality, water and soil be established if the project is approved.
- That Veolia consider and "thoroughly assess" alternatives to the project and that these findings be included in a re-exhibited EIS.
On balance, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest, and the council does not consider that it should be approved," the report stated.
Mayor Peter Walker said 15 staff members with various expertise contributed to the EIS review.
"In the unlikely event that consent is granted, it is recommended that the council...negotiate benefits for the region, in particular the Tarago and Lake Bathurst communities," he said.
"This includes advocating that once again, in the unlikely event this project is approved, that this be the only energy from waste facility within the Goulburn Mulwaree region, and that the total volume of waste throughput be limited to 380,000 tonnes per annum."
Cr Walker said this was not the preferred position and the council totally opposed energy from waste facilities in Goulburn Mulwaree.
Council CEO Aaron Johansson said 12 speakers, including the proponent, were so far registered for Tuesday's public forum.
The meeting, starting at 6pm, is open to the public and will be livestreamed. The full report is available on the council's website.
Do you have something to say about this issue? Send a letter to the editor. Click here for the Goulburn Post
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content:
- Bookmark our website
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Google News
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking news and regular newsletters
Louise Thrower
If you have a story to tell, drop me a line at louise.thrower@austcommunitymedia.com.au or call 0418 229 678.
If you have a story to tell, drop me a line at louise.thrower@austcommunitymedia.com.au or call 0418 229 678.
