Page 4319 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
soil, which will generate considerable dust. The actual or perceived risk of airborne asbestos particles will be problematic, and the government will need to be very deliberate in the education campaign and documentation they are able to provide to neighbours of demolished houses. Of course, when using excavators or bobcats to remove dirt, dust will be generated, and managing concerns relating to that dust will be tricky.
Regarding the transportation of the material to landfill, the government is again going to need tight, published guidelines about the safeguards that will be in place. I expect there to be concerns about the routes the trucks are driving, the risks to people living on those routes, damage to the roads, concerns about traffic and issues about noise. All of these can be managed, but it must not be an afterthought. The government will need to have active strategies prepared about how to manage each of these issues and more prior to them being raised for the first time.
Finally, in the urban services space I will turn my comments to the landfill. Some residents in my electorate of Ginninderra, especially those in the westernmost suburbs, are understandably concerned about the asbestos pit at Parkwood. It is for that reason that I commend recommendation 44 of the inquiry, which states:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government investigate alternative sites for disposal of contaminated waste and report back to the Legislative Assembly by the first sitting day in March 2015.
Rather than simply running with west Belconnen because it appears an obvious choice, there should be careful consideration of all the options, perhaps including a totally new landfill site. Whilst this may have some cost implications, without knowing what those costs are it is impossible to make an informed decision.
We heard in the inquiry about the government’s plan to put a nightly cover of 30 centimetres onto the new waste deposited at the landfill. However, I have already heard some concerns about the exposure of this waste during the day for perhaps 10 to l2 hours. Again, the government should have clear and published strategies in place as to acceptable wind levels, rain and other events that might change the risk factors for unloading and storage of this waste and whether screening is required.
Earlier this year it was revealed that the ACT government had made errors in the calculation of available space at the Mugga landfill, and an investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers is currently underway. Given this error in calculating the demand or capacity, I have some concerns about the government’s assessment of the assumptions regarding the volumes required for Mr Fluffy waste.
I was concerned to hear that it seems very little effort has been made into researching the disposal of the loose-fill asbestos 25 years ago. When I asked in the inquiry, with regard to the remediation of 20 or 25 years ago, where the loose-fill asbestos was deposited, the response from the official was:
I literally do not know. I cannot answer that for you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video