❓ A parliamentary question regarding air emissions exceeding action levels at the Omex remediation site, and whether the Environmental Management Plan was followed. The Minister indicates compliance and EPA oversight.
AnsweredQoN 796Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
796. Hon Jim Scott to the Attorney General representing the Minister for the Environment:
Air emissions in excess of action levels occurred at the Omex site for 11 days during the period May 8 2000 to May 23 2000 -
(1) Why did the Minister for the Environment permit air emission action levels to continue to be exceeded at the Omex site during this period?
(2) Does the Emergency Response Plan, Appendix 5, 1.5.5, of the Public and Occupational Health and Safety Procedure for the Omex remediation include actions to be undertaken in the event of air emissions exceeding action levels?
(3) Were all the procedures adhered to during the above dates when emission action levels were exceeded?
(4) If not, which procedures were not adhered to and why were they not adhered to?
(5) Has the remediation of the Omex site been managed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan prepared by Thiess Environmental?
(6) If not, why not?
Air emissions in excess of action levels occurred at the Omex site for 11 days during the period May 8 2000 to May 23 2000 -
(1) Why did the Minister for the Environment permit air emission action levels to continue to be exceeded at the Omex site during this period?
(2) Does the Emergency Response Plan, Appendix 5, 1.5.5, of the Public and Occupational Health and Safety Procedure for the Omex remediation include actions to be undertaken in the event of air emissions exceeding action levels?
(3) Were all the procedures adhered to during the above dates when emission action levels were exceeded?
(4) If not, which procedures were not adhered to and why were they not adhered to?
(5) Has the remediation of the Omex site been managed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan prepared by Thiess Environmental?
(6) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
23 November 2000
Response time
71 days
The Minister Replied:
(1) Air monitoring and responses to action levels during the remediation of the Omex site were managed by Thiess Environmental Services Pty Ltd on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection. Auditing of compliance with environmental conditions, including compliance with air emission monitoring, was undertaken by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). No matters of non-compliance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) have been advised by the EPA, therefore Ministerial action is not warranted.
(2) Section 3.1 of the EMP details an Environmental Management Program for atmospheric emissions. This program specifies controls to limit emissions during operations. The program also refers to specific responses to alert and action levels when these levels are reached. These responses are specified in section 1.4 of Attachment F, Air Emissions Management Procedure. A number of amendments to the Air Emissions Management Procedure were approved by the EPA in the light of operational experience during the remediation.
(3) I am unaware of any instances when procedures as set out in section 1.4 of Attachment F, Air Emissions Management Procedure (and amendments) of the EMP were not adhered to when air emission action levels were reached during the remediation.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) To the best of my knowledge, the remediation of the Omex site has been managed in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the EMP and amendments, as approved by the EPA.
(6) Not applicable.
(1) Air monitoring and responses to action levels during the remediation of the Omex site were managed by Thiess Environmental Services Pty Ltd on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection. Auditing of compliance with environmental conditions, including compliance with air emission monitoring, was undertaken by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). No matters of non-compliance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) have been advised by the EPA, therefore Ministerial action is not warranted.
(2) Section 3.1 of the EMP details an Environmental Management Program for atmospheric emissions. This program specifies controls to limit emissions during operations. The program also refers to specific responses to alert and action levels when these levels are reached. These responses are specified in section 1.4 of Attachment F, Air Emissions Management Procedure. A number of amendments to the Air Emissions Management Procedure were approved by the EPA in the light of operational experience during the remediation.
(3) I am unaware of any instances when procedures as set out in section 1.4 of Attachment F, Air Emissions Management Procedure (and amendments) of the EMP were not adhered to when air emission action levels were reached during the remediation.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) To the best of my knowledge, the remediation of the Omex site has been managed in an appropriate manner and in accordance with the EMP and amendments, as approved by the EPA.
(6) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.