I am writing to object to the Tarago incinerator proposal. I have been a viticulturist and resident in the region for over 10 years and am deeply concerned about the risk this proposal poses to the Canberra Wine Industry which is a significant regional employer and contributor to the local economy primarily through tourism.

After reviewing Veolia’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) I note that they make no mention of the wine or grape growing industry. This glaring omission calls into question the entire EIS - how can we be certain that the true impacts on residents as well as local agricultural industries have been comprehensively assessed if this impact was not recognised?

With no information in the EIS, the local wine industry approached the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) for an assessment of the risks posed by this facility. The attached report is unequivocal in assessing the facility as high risk and states “it is considered not advisable to build the ARC at the site proposed by Veolia and it is therefore suggested that an alternative site be sought.”

The AWRI points out a number of issues that were not examined by Veoia in its EIS. Specifically the potential for several of the chemical compounds that will be released by the facility to accumulate in the soil and revolatilise during summer. This will pose a great risk to our grape harvest as grapes absorb these chemicals and the resulting wine can be tainted by them at a sensory level much lower than a health and safety level. This was illustrated by our loss of the crop in 2020 from bushfires over 150km away - the levels were not of a health concern but the wine was undrinkable due to the smokey/ashtray characters.

When I review the EIS I do not believe that Veolia has adequately factored in the risk of long-term accumulation in the soil - if these chemicals have the potential to revolatise during summer than potentially they could build up to levels much greater than predicted by Veolia as they seem to have focused only on what the incinerator is emitting at a point in time. This makes me concerns about my and my family’s future health. I draw your attention to a couple of key points from the attached AWRI report:

- Using data provided in the Woodlawn ARC EIS, two separate approaches were used to estimate the amount of chlorophenols that could potentially be emitted by the Woodlawn ARC each year. In both estimations, the amount of CPs that could potentially be emitted was more than double the amount required to taint all the wine produced by Australia in the 2021-22 period

- An easterly wind direction would direct emissions from the ARC straight towards the Canberra District viticultural region. There is likely to be higher occurrence of easterly winds, and lower wind speed, during summer months, when grapes are ripening.

- Accumulation of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (TCP), one of the chlorophenols in MSW incinerator flue gas emissions, in vineyard soil introduces the possibility of its biotransformation to one of the most potent food taint compounds known: 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA). Volatilisation of TCA from vineyard soil during summer introduces the risk of aerial contamination of grapes with this compound.


I trust that these points will cause you to reject the proposal by Veolia as the risks to human health and local industries are too great. The Canberra Wine Industry is world-renowned and an Australian tourism asset - to destroy it by the installation of this facility would be heart-breaking to both Australia, small businesses and rural residents.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written objection to this proposal - I object to this is the strongest way possible.
While I agree we need strategies to reduce our environmental footprint, do much better in terms of conservation and environmental management, there are so many more options available to us; and even if there weren’t, then we should change our ways and not even consider this.
While I know evidence presented suggests this is leading edge, and best practice, there is as much evidence that contradicts this position and should not be overlooked, ignored, or downplayed.
Those reviewing, and contemplating this proposal are in very trusted positions, and by design should be looking after the communities you represent, and should not be contemplating such terrible environmental initiatives rebadged as a good thing for the environment. It’s dishonest, and unethical.
While thinking more broadly about the promises associated with this initiative, I implore the decision makers to consider very carefully the fact the Veolia to-date has had significant issues with controlling the stench leaving the facility, which well and truly pre-dates the increased water in the environment over the last few years.
If they cannot be trusted to meet the terms and conditions of their current licence, are considerably and continually breaching their conditions, and are making a nuisance of themselves not only in the local community, but across the district due to their lack of compliance, which is correlated to the absolute stench, how can they be trusted to meet any new compliance or licences?
This is a terrible thing for a local farming community, think about where your food comes from as well. There will be long term impacts affecting generations to come if this goes forward. Think about your community, think about your children, and honestly review the evidence at hand.