Environment Protection Authority

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:06): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation questions about the Environment Protection Authority and Nyrstar.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Over the last several years the government has struggled to deal with ongoing issues of lead toxicity in the Port Pirie environs as the result of both historic and ongoing particulate pollution from the lead smelter operated by Nyrstar. More recently, a deal has been concluded that the government will underwrite $291 million of a half billion dollar smelter upgrade which we are told will decrease the contemporary pollution going forward but not the residual contamination.

Associate Professor Mark Taylor of Macquarie University is reported in Saturday's Advertiser, following his publication in the peer reviewed journal Aeolian Research of serious allegations about pollution and health monitoring in Port Pirie. According to The Advertiser, Professor Taylor is critical of the EPA and accuses the agency of misleading the public by cherrypicking data, misrepresenting the science and not adequately regulating chemicals other than lead. The criticism is that the EPA is either deliberately or negligently playing down the health repercussions of industrial pollution in Port Pirie.

In response the EPA has indicated that 'We are not interested in engaging in a public debate on Mark Taylor's views.' In essence, the professor and his colleagues are drawing attention to the fact that South Australia's pollution control regime is focused on licensing companies to pollute but does not adequately protect citizens from resultant systematic poisoning. Professor Taylor summarises his findings on Port Pirie as follows:

Despite chronic childhood blood lead exposures there is a history of denial and downplaying of the sources and impact of the contamination.

My questions are:

1. Does the minister accept all or any of the criticisms levelled at the EPA's handling of industrial pollution in Port Pirie from Professor Taylor and his colleagues?

2. Will the government provide reassurance to the people of Port Pirie by committing to a regime of full transparency by making all raw monitoring data and health data and all scientific methods publicly available?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:08): Let me say at the outset that it is somewhat disappointing that, when presented with certain scientific advice and information, The Advertiser in its article decided not to print it and run with some alarmist claims without any supporting advice from the chief scientist, which I will get to in a moment.

However, I can say this: I am advised that the EPA is currently performing air modelling in order to assist it to set limits that are reasonable and practicable assuming industry best standards and globally available technology. The EPA requires Nyrstar to submit lead and air monitoring results monthly. The EPA monitors for lead at a number of points throughout the town and also monitors sulphur dioxide at its Oliver Street monitoring station. Monitoring results undertaken by the EPA at all four of its Port Pirie monitoring stations, including the station at the smelter facility boundary, are published regularly on its website, I am advised.

The EPA uses the two monitoring stations that are most representative of the community and most affected by lead emissions: the Pirie West and Oliver Street stations. When analysing and reporting data for the purposes of the national environment protection measure (NEPM), the EPA collects and analyses data in accordance with the NEPM standards. As such, it uses the two monitoring sites furthest from the facility. The EPA uses rolling averages to measure against licence conditions as there is currently no standard for spikes.

The national environment protection measure, which sets the standard, requires averaging over a 12-month period, I am advised. Averaging is representative of the impact on blood lead levels as it relates to the total emissions of the plant. Comparing daily averages or spikes to standards for annual averages is inappropriate and shows a lack of understanding of how lead is regulated and its health impacts in the body.

Whilst the main focus of environmental regulation in the Nyrstar smelter is on a reduction in lead emissions, the transformation will also result in a reduction of other emissions including arsenic, cadmium and sulphur dioxide. That is because the technology associated with the reduction in lead levels will also lead to reduction in other pollutants. I am advised that the health risk of potential impacts from lead exposure on the community of Port Pirie is higher than that from cadmium and arsenic.

I understand that this assessment is based on the National Pollutant Inventory methodology for risk ranking, taking into account emission quantities and impact. This is why the EPA licenses and places limits on lead, knowing both that this is a crucial substance to control and that, in reducing emissions of this, there is a corresponding reduction in cadmium and arsenic. In fact, as far back as 1994, I am advised, the South Australian government has acknowledged that contemporary emissions were the main source of lead exposure and not legacy issues.

Control of contemporary emissions has always been the prime focus of the EPA's regulatory approach, I am advised. In addition to the EPA requiring Nyrstar to work to reduce current emissions, the efforts of the community of Port Pirie include controlling the risk from historically-deposited dust as part of its lead abatement program. I understand that SA Health is confident that the statistical methods used in the Port Pirie blood level reports provide the most accurate analysis of the blood lead level trends for the purposes of public health protection.

In fact, given the current transformation proposal, I understand the EPA is confident that, once complete, it will dramatically lower many pollutants coming from Nyrstar's smelter including not just lead but also sulphur dioxide, arsenic and cadmium. Nyrstar undertakes sulphur dioxide monitoring in the tall stack and monitors the level of a range of metals including lead, arsenic and cadmium at monitoring locations throughout Port Pirie. Post transformation, the EPA will continue to work with Nyrstar to seek ongoing improvements to reduce lead and other pollutants from areas of the facility through the development and implementation of the EPA-approved environment improvement plan. As is the current case, compliance with the environment improvement plan will remain a condition of Nyrstar's licence.

It is important to understand that the EPA is not a public health authority. It is not competent to talk about issues related to lead in blood levels. That is the responsibility of the Department for Health. The two agencies work very closely together, but the EPA is always very careful not to stray outside its remit, its area of professionalism. The EPA has been undertaking a detailed review, of course, of lead levels in Port Pirie. It is also disappointing, as I alluded to earlier, that when The Advertiser in preparing this article were offered—and accepted, I understand—briefing from the chief scientist, they seem to have chosen to ignore that advice and information that was given to them and printed their one-sided article that the honourable member refers to in his question.

The chief scientific adviser on the Nyrstar project undertook an interview with The Advertiser, is my advice, providing advice regarding the justification for current monitoring by the EPA in line with the national environment protection measures and SA Health in terms of blood lead level testing. I have the utmost confidence in the regulatory role of the EPA and it will remain the government spokesperson on environmental protection. The Department for Health will remain the government spokesperson on health matters.

The PRESIDENT: Is this your first question, the Hon. Mr McLachlan? Congratulations. The Hon. Mr McLachlan.