HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-11-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Toxic Waste

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation about the interstate transportation of toxic waste.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Last Thursday, the ABC reported on a disturbing case where a Victorian based company, HydroMet Pty Ltd, was fined $22,000 by the Victorian EPA for transporting 900 tonnes of hazardous waste into South Australia without a permit. The waste concerned was 900 tonnes of lead slag, apparently the result of car battery recycling. Its ultimate destination was a landfill facility in South Australia, although the precise location is not publicly known. When approached by the ABC, the South Australian EPA, through a representative, said that they were aware of, and had approved, the movement of waste from Victoria, but the appropriate paperwork was not completed and that this was under investigation. My questions of the minister are:

1. Where was this toxic material taken? Was it the ResourceCo dump at the corner of South Road and Tatachilla Road, McLaren Vale?

2. How much lead contaminated waste is transported to South Australia from interstate each year?

3. What remediation processes are in place to deal with this lead contaminated waste?

4. Does the EPA regularly measure the lead content of groundwater and soil in the area around relevant toxic waste dumps?

5. What is the South Australian waste levy for lead contaminated waste?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:30): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions because again it allows me to put on the record some of the facts in this matter which have been somewhat omitted from the media's consideration. The movement of waste between jurisdictions in Australia is commonplace and is driven by the national market for waste and the specialisation of the treatment and disposal of certain hazardous waste within certain jurisdictions. Some of these specialised treatment facilities are quite expensive and capital intensive to set up, and so different jurisdictions have different specialities in these areas.

The National Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories) Measure (NEPM) tracks the movement of hazardous and other waste across state borders and aims to minimise the potential for harm to human health and the environment associated with its transport. As outlined in some recent media reports and the honourable member's question, approximately 900 tonnes in total, I am advised, of lead slag generated by a metal reclaiming facility in Victoria, HydroMet Corporation Pty Ltd, was transported to a South Australian landfill between 5 January and 25 April 2015.

I am assured that the EPA has been aware of the matter to which the honourable member refers. I understand there has been some confusion in the media reports but concerns that the EPA was unaware of this waste being transported to South Australia are unfounded. I am advised that the person who was contacted by the media was in fact a media adviser, and who, of course, would not be expected to be familiar with all the internal documentation that the EPA is across at a senior level.

I am advised that the treatment project management plan was submitted to the EPA by the landfill operator in November 2014 and that the plan was deemed suitable by the EPA. I am informed that the lead waste slag has been treated, tested and safely disposed of to landfill. On 1 July 2015, a discrepancy in the consignment process was discovered, I am advised. The Victorian EPA notified the South Australian EPA that it would commence an investigation for potential breaches of the Victorian Environment Protection Industrial Waste Resource Regulations 2009, as no approval for the transport of the material had been issued.

The Victorian EPA has fined the producer of the waste, HydroMet, as I understand it, $22,000, for breach of the transporting prescribed industrial waste provisions of the Victorian Environment Protection Industrial Waste Resource Regulations 2009. Accepting the lead slag waste without the appropriate paperwork is also a breach of the landfill licensing conditions here in South Australia. I am advised that the South Australian EPA is continuing to investigate this matter, including investigating consignment authorisation permissions, waste transport certificates, waste depot licence approvals and waste transporter licence approvals.

The action taken by the South Australian and Victorian authorities will help to ensure that the interstate movement of this type of waste is tracked and recorded as required, and ensures that movement and disposal are undertaken in a legal, safe and environmentally responsible manner. This includes having the correct administration processes in place.

I would like to make it clear to honourable colleagues that I am informed that the lead waste slag has been treated, tested and safely disposed of to landfill, as I said. I am informed—again, just to make it absolutely clear—that between 5 January and 25 April 2015, lead slag generated by a metal reclaiming facility in Victoria was transported across the border into a South Australian landfill. On 19 November 2014, the South Australian EPA received a copy of the operator's treatment project management plan from the EPA licensed landfill, seeking approval that the proposed plan for the treatment of that lead slag had met EPA requirements. The treatment plan was deemed suitable by the EPA as being appropriate for the treatment and disposal of the waste in an acceptable and safe manner.

Following receipt of the lead slag, the landfill treated the waste and, on 11 June 2015 and 1 July 2015, the South Australian EPA received the landfill's application to dispose of the treated lead slag into the landfill. These included post-treatment validation reports which confirmed that the treated lead slag met the South Australian EPA low-level contaminated waste disposal criteria.

Also on 1 July 2015, the Victorian EPA and the South Australian EPA noticed a discrepancy in the consignment process, I am advised. The Victorian EPA notified the South Australian EPA that it would commence an investigation for potential breaches of the Victorian Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 and that no approval for the transport of the material had been issued.

On 3 July 2015, the South Australian EPA sought confirmation from the landfill operator. They responded on 8 July 2015, confirming that no consignment authorisation for the lead waste transport from Victoria had been obtained, and this was subsequently confirmed, I am advised. The Victorian EPA subsequently fined the producer of the waste, as I have mentioned.

The South Australian EPA supports the Victorian EPA in taking action in relation to this matter. This will help to ensure that the interstate movement of this type of waste is tracked and recorded. I am informed that the lead waste slag has been treated, as I have said. The landfill is licensed to operate a waste or recycling depot and to receive, treat and dispose of lead slag waste. However, accepting the lead slag waste without the appropriate paperwork is a breach of the landfill's licensing condition.

I am advised that the South Australian EPA is continuing to investigate this matter. This includes investigating consignment authorisation permissions, etc., as I outlined previously. For that reason, I decline the honourable member's invitation to name the landfill site because, as he would understand, it might cause us difficulties if we do go down the track of prosecution.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT