❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses environmental and health concerns following a fire at Waste Control Pty Ltd in Bellevue. The Minister's response outlines actions taken under a section 73 direction, limitations on testing, and risk assessments.
AnsweredQoN 99Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Have the activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd fire site at Bellevue been subject to an environmental impact assessment process? (2) If so, can the minister give details; and, if not, why not? (3) Has the Waste Control fire site in Bellevue been subject to any on-site soil testing? (4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(2) If so, can the minister give details; and, if not, why not? (3) Has the Waste Control fire site in Bellevue been subject to any on-site soil testing? (4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(3) Has the Waste Control fire site in Bellevue been subject to any on-site soil testing? (4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers?
(c) the health of workers?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(2) If so, can the minister give details; and, if not, why not? (3) Has the Waste Control fire site in Bellevue been subject to any on-site soil testing? (4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(3) Has the Waste Control fire site in Bellevue been subject to any on-site soil testing? (4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(4) If so, can the minister detail results; and, if not, why not? (5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(5) What guarantee can the minister provide to the Bellevue community and the on-site workers at the Waste Control fire site that activities at the site will not pose an increased risk to their health and wellbeing? (6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(6) Does the Waste Control fire site currently pose a risk to - (a) the health of the Bellevue community; (b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(b) the environment; or (c) the health of workers?
(c) the health of workers?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(1) No. (2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(2) The activities at the Waste Control Pty Ltd site are being conducted under the authority of a section 73 direction that is intended to prevent pollution arising from the fire of 15 February 2001. These activities were not referred to the Environmental Protection Authority due to the need for immediate action. (3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(3) No. (4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(4) Under section 73 there is power to address only off-site contamination. Further, the site is privately owned, so the Department of Environmental Protection cannot unilaterally undertake any testing on the site as this is the responsibility of the owner. (5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(5) The proposed method of drum treatment poses minimal risk to the Bellevue community due to the design of the treatment equipment, which incorporates several pollution-control features, and the smaller quantities of waste being handled at any time. (6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(6) (a) I am informed that the Waste Control site poses minimal risk to the health of the Bellevue community. (b) The risk posed to the environment is being determined. (c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
(c) The health of workers on the site is a matter for WorkSafe WA, and I have referred this matter to the Minister for Labour Relations for reply.
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.