Mike Elliott: Question on EPA Monitoring of BHP

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
4 July 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning, representing the Minister for Environment and Heritage, a question in relation to the effectiveness of the Environment Protection Authority.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: An article in the Australian of 27 June this year (page 44) titled `Dirty and deadly' states:

In an illuminating moment in 1996, a young Wollongong leukaemia sufferer attending chemotherapy treatment at a hospital realised she was not alone. Recognising several of her former classmates among the chemotherapy patients, she began to suspect a causal link. The Illawarra leukaemia cluster, as it became known, triggered mass protest among locals who had long suspected the plumes of toxic nasties such as dioxins and furans that spewed from BHP's Port Kembla plant and spread across the southern Wollongong sky each night could not be good. It also triggered a health inquiry by local and New South Wales health officials.

While that study found the incidence of leukaemia among adolescents in the southern suburbs of Wollongong closest to Port Kembla was 10 times higher than the average it could find no direct link `on the available information'. Part of the reason for that is no research had been conducted into the impacts of industrial by- products such as dioxins.

. . . we still don't know the dioxin levels in the blood and breast milk of Australians living next door to dioxin emitters. In 1998, Greenpeace Australia conducted a Freedom of Information campaign which identified 70 sites across Australia as known or potential sources of dioxins. An update of that list places among the top sites BHP's Port Kembla sinter plant and Whyalla steelworks. . .

In March this year the company announced a $94 million upgrade of its Port Kembla plant which it says will border on eliminating all dioxin emissions by December 2002. The upgrade is part of a negotiated five-year program with the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority to reduce emissions from 3 nanograms per cubic metre to 0.3 ng of dioxin per cubic metre-still well above the WHO recommended 0.1 per cubic metre.

In other words, currently it is 30 times the world standard and it will be reduced to three times the world standard. The article quotes a BHP spokesperson as follows:

We understand the sinter plant is possibly the largest single point source of dioxin emissions in Australia. . .

One notes that, while the focus was not on Whyalla, it was identified as one of the potential major sources of dioxins in Australia. It is also worth noting that the Advertiser of 2 July this year indicates that OneSteel Whyalla has been given further extensions in terms of pollution of the marine environment. It has already had, if you like, eight years' notice from when the Marine Environment Protection Act came into force-in fact, I think it was more than eight years ago-and it is still being given extensions in relation to that. People in Whyalla want to know the answers to the following questions:

1. What was the annual amount of dioxins emitted by the BHP operations in Whyalla prior to October 1999; by what factor was this amount above or below the standard?

2. What is the annual amount of dioxins being emitted by One Steel's operations since October 1999; by what factor was this amount above or below the WHA standard?

3. When will the results of EPA monitoring of fallout at 43 Whitehead Street, Whyalla be released?

5. Have any health studies been done on the impact of BHP One Steel emissions; if not, when will one commence, given that the severe impact of dioxins on human health is already known?

6. Does the further extension of three years, which has been granted to One Steel and a number of other companies in South Australia in relation to marine environment pollution, indicate that the EPA is not taking its responsibilities sufficiently seriously?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW (Minister for Transport and Urban Planning): I will refer the honourable member's questions to the minister and bring back a reply.