Inkerman Landfill Facility

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (14:45): I seek leave to make an explanation before directing a question to the Minister for Environment on the subject of the Inkerman waste disposal site.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In July 2017, the EPA received an application from Cleanaway, Redox and the Metropolitan Fire Service to safely dispose of the chemical sodium ethyl xanthate at the Inkerman landfill facility. The product was to be transported to the Inkerman facility under the escort of the MFS. A number of members of the community have raised serious concerns regarding the transport and also how the disposal process would be managed.

On 28 September, a meeting was held in the local area involving the proponents, the CFS, Wakefield Regional Council and some members of the local community. The expectation, following the meeting, was that all questions raised would be responded to in order to address the concerns; however, community members have been disappointed that they received a one-page fact sheet which did not address the concerns.

On 16 October, my colleague in another place, the member for Goyder, wrote to the minister expressing his concerns over the lack of communication and consultation. As far as I am aware he has not received a response. Yesterday, the EPA approved the application. My questions are:

1. Why was the community provided with so little information and a complete lack of involvement before this decision was made to approve the application?

2. Can the minister commit to responding to the community concerns immediately, before any disposal of xanthate occurs at Inkerman?

3. Following the commitment from this government and the EPA in 2015, after Clovelly Park, that it would drastically improve community consultation and communication, can the minister explain why communities are still experiencing a lack of transparency?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for her important question—somewhat delayed, but nonetheless it is good to have one—on this very important subject. I will answer some of the latter questions now.

I believe I have responded to the member for Goyder, unlike the questioner's assertion, although she may not be aware of that, of course. I also understand that the EPA fully briefed the member for Goyder in relation to this matter, so it is not as if he has been kept in the dark at all, nor has the local community, as far as I am advised. Of course, there are some members of the community who have raised some concerns.

I am advised that, in July 2017, the EPA received a proposal from the Metropolitan Fire Service, Redox and Cleanaway seeking to complete combustion of the chemical sodium ethyl xanthate and then dispose of the ash at the Inkerman landfill facility. I am informed that xanthate is a chemical distributed by Redox Pty Ltd, located at Dry Creek, and is used as a flotation agent for the separation of ores in the mining industry.

I am also advised by the EPA that approximately 850 kilograms of material was partially burnt as result of a small incident at the Dry Creek facility. Redox and the MFS subsequently undertook a controlled combustion at the Redox facility in July 2017, and the partial combustion resulted in residual material being left, which required disposal. That brings us to the point of that disposal at a suitable landfill site.

Subsequent to the combustion event, I understand the EPA received a proposal. I am advised that the proposal seeks to amend the EPA licence conditions at the landfill in order to combust up to 850 kilograms of xanthate at the Inkerman facility in a controlled manner. The proposal includes that this will occur in the presence of CFS officers and the MFS. I am further advised that this occurring on site means that the residual ash from the combustion can then be directly disposed into the engineered low-level contaminated waste cell at the Inkerman landfill site. This is to occur after it has cooled, of course, from its combustion event and has then been fixed in concrete as an additional precautionary measure.

In considering the proposal, the EPA sought community feedback as part of the notifications process. Cleanaway also engaged with the local council and the landfill community consultative committee members. That is my advice. I have been further advised that the EPA's community consultation period closed on 25 September 2017. I am told that Cleanaway held a further meeting on Thursday 28 September for the members of the landfill community consultative committee to provide additional information about the Inkerman site's proposed activities. The EPA, MFS, CFS and Redox were also in attendance, I am advised.

It is important that members of the council understand that in these matters the EPA is independent. It is an independent regulator, and the decision on the proposal is for them alone, as is appropriate, given the legislation that we in this place have supported. I am advised that after careful consideration the EPA approved the proposal to dispose of the combusted and then fixed product into the low-level contaminated waste cell at Inkerman. I am also informed that a date for the burn has not yet been set by the MFS, but that it will be planned for a day when suitable weather conditions are forecast.

The EPA has advised that the community and council will be informed prior to the burn date. If weather conditions on the day are not as forecast, the burn will be rescheduled—as you would think would be an appropriate decision to be made by officers on the ground—taking into consideration local conditions at that time. It is important to understand that the community has been taken into a consultation process, not just by the EPA but also by the proponents, which is, of course, what the legislation provides for. I recall signing correspondence to the local member, and I am advised that the EPA has fully briefed him, so I reject any assertion that anyone is being kept in the dark whatsoever.

As in relation to all of these things, the EPA is performing its duties as outlined in its legislation. It is their responsibility to do so, and they are not at my direction in these matters, as you would expect from an independent organisation such as the EPA.