Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1415 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

perfectly clear that, quite apart from the question of the jobs that are at stake at a place like Mitchell, there are very serious questions about the other very important role that the incinerator plays, particularly in disposing of clinical waste in this Territory, not just for hospitals and other establishments within the ACT that produce such waste, but also for others in our region which are also disposing of their waste at that incinerator.

I have not seen a shred of evidence in this debate to prove, or even raise the serious doubt, that materials being burnt there are actually producing dangerous chemicals for emission into the atmosphere around Mitchell. I have not yet seen any evidence of that. I have heard it alleged that, in theory, it could occur - I propose to go on in a moment to explain why I do not believe that it could occur - but I have seen no evidence whatever to justify the very emotive statements made about this at the time that the allegations were first raised. Totalcare complies voluntarily with the manifest system currently in use in New South Wales, and information about the types and amounts of substances burnt at the incinerator is available to anyone who asks. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the case that much of the information relied upon by Mr Darlington to make his claims a few months ago was, in fact, freely released by the Department of Urban Services, or Totalcare, when asked for that information.

It was claimed that cyanide gas was emitted as a result of the incineration of the fungicide Delan in 1996. I have to say, as I have said before, that this was based on a lack of understanding of basic chemistry and quoting emissions associated with thermal decomposition - an unrelated chemical process. The fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that cyanide is not emitted from the high-temperature incineration of Delan. No-one has suggested - at least not publicly - that these chemicals have been burnt at the incinerator at temperatures anything like low enough to produce the dangerous emissions, the cyanide, referred to in that media statement.

There were also claims that dioxins are produced by burning Delan. Chlorine contains dioxins, and Delan does not; so, clearly, the incineration of Delan cannot produce dioxins. The campaign at that point, after these claims were debunked, switched back and claimed that incineration was not an appropriate method for destroying Delan and Propoxur, a flea powder also burnt at the incinerator. The United Nations Environment Program recommends incineration as the appropriate means of destruction of both of these substances. In fact, the New South Wales Environment Protection Agency has already approved both for incineration in New South Wales.

As part of this campaign, it was also claimed that organophosphate pesticides were incinerated at Totalcare. That claim is false. They are not burnt at Totalcare. It was also suggested that Delan and Propoxur were sent to the ACT because other States do not permit the incineration of pesticides. That is also untrue. The New South Wales Environment Protection Agency has already approved the incineration of Propoxur and Delan. I have here a copy of the approval, and I am happy to table it later on. Queensland also permits the incineration of pesticides, and it is a common method of destruction overseas.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .