❓ A parliamentary question probes the Department of Environment's handling of odour emissions from Loongana Lime, questioning the removal of wind direction restrictions on waste oil burning and the ongoing complaints from residents. The Minister's response indicates ongoing investigations and considerations, but no immediate action.
AnsweredQoN 3411Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated 7 April 2006 signed by Paul Rosair, Department of Environment (DoE), Director Regional Operations addressed to Mike Smith, General Manager, Loongana Lime Pty Ltd titled ‘Re Odour Events’ -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the DoE is disappointed that Loongana continued to burn waste oil when the wind was blowing towards town in spite of being aware that there was a problem with the feedstock on 24 January 2006?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the DoE considers that Loongana should adopt a degree of caution and take appropriate measures?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why the DoE recommended ‘that if there is poor feedstock diesel fuel should be used especially when the wind is blowing towards town’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DoE continues to allow odour emissions to affect the welfare, amenity and health of residents without recommending or supporting the reimposition of the licence condition relating to the burning of waste oil when the winds are blowing towards town?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Minister and DoE incorporate kiln freeboard temperature into the licence?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain what is the purpose of incorporating kiln freeboard temperature into this licence?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister state why complaints about unreasonable odours have been continuing for over six years?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Will the Minister reimpose the licence condition relating to burning of waste oil on Loongana’s licence to provide a level of protection to residents from any further unreasonable odour emissions from these premises?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain why the DoE is disappointed that Loongana continued to burn waste oil when the wind was blowing towards town in spite of being aware that there was a problem with the feedstock on 24 January 2006?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the DoE considers that Loongana should adopt a degree of caution and take appropriate measures?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why the DoE recommended ‘that if there is poor feedstock diesel fuel should be used especially when the wind is blowing towards town’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DoE continues to allow odour emissions to affect the welfare, amenity and health of residents without recommending or supporting the reimposition of the licence condition relating to the burning of waste oil when the winds are blowing towards town?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Minister and DoE incorporate kiln freeboard temperature into the licence?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain what is the purpose of incorporating kiln freeboard temperature into this licence?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister state why complaints about unreasonable odours have been continuing for over six years?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Will the Minister reimpose the licence condition relating to burning of waste oil on Loongana’s licence to provide a level of protection to residents from any further unreasonable odour emissions from these premises?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
30 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
28 days
(2) Not applicable. (3) As per (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(3) As per (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(16) Not applicable.
(3) As per (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(7) The DoE reissued the licence on the 17 October 2006. The reissued licence removed wind direction restrictions relating to burning of recycled oil when the wind was blowing towards residential areas of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This decision was based on the best scientific evidence at the time, including advice from Curtin University's Centre for Fuels and Energy. A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
A number of complaints have been received by the DoE since the licence was reissued. The DoE is currently conducting an investigation into a number of events related to some of these complaints to determine if there has been a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Notwithstanding the continuing investigation, the DoE does not consider that there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice imposing tighter wind direction restrictions on Loongana Lime's operations. In addition, the DoE is satisfied that Loongana Lime is now being pro-active in addressing process issues that may be related to these odour events. The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
The licence issued to Loongana Lime is currently before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(9) The DoE is considering that matter, however it will not be progressed until the current appeals on the licence have been resolved. (10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(11) Loongana Lime claim in a letter dated 15 March 2006, that the odour may have been generated because of a lack of sufficient freeboard temperature. (12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(13) The DoE recognises that there have been issues relating to odours being produced from Loongana Lime's operations that have lead to complaints being made to the DoE. The DoE cannot comment on the most recent complaints as these are still under investigation. (14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable. (15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(15) It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage, as the matter is before the Office of the Appeals Convenor. However, as stated in the letter dated 7 April 2006, signed by Paul Rosair, "the DoE would re-iterate that further substantiated odour events will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are blowing towards residential areas." (16) Not applicable.
(16) 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.