❓ Dr Edwards questions the Minister for Health regarding the Omex site remediation in Bellevue, focusing on air quality monitoring, community complaints, and communication with Bellevue Primary School. The Minister provides detailed responses addressing concerns about VOC exceedances and potential health risks.
AnsweredQoN 751Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
751. Dr EDWARDS to the Minister for Health:
(1) Is the Minister aware of a meeting held on 11 May 2000 between the Executive Director of Public Health, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Bellevue residents and representatives of the Bellevue Action Group at the Omex site remediation?
(2) If so, is the Minister aware of the discussions held on that day regarding complaints by residents living close to the site that the fumes from the excavations were affecting their health?
(3) Did the Minister request or receive any advice from the DEP regarding air monitoring results from the Omex remediation -
(a) prior to the meeting; and/or
(b) on the day of the meeting?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) If yes, what was that advice?
(6) Did the Health Department Western Australia (HDWA) advise the Bellevue Primary School Principal on 9 May 2000 that emissions from the site were not a risk to public health?
(7) Is the Minister aware that on 6 May 2000 at 8.20am an exceedence of Volatile Organic Compounds was registered at 12.8 ppm, some 8 times higher than the action level set by the HDWA to protect public health during the remediation?
(8) Is the Minister aware that 153 exceedences of Volatile Organic Compounds, 79 exceedences of sulphur Dioxide and 28 complaints from the community were reported prior to 9 May 2000?
(9) Will the Minister explain why the HDWA advised the Bellevue Primary School that air emissions from the remediation at the Omex site were not a health risk?
(10) Has the HDWA mislead the Bellevue Primary School?
(11) If not, why not?
(1) Is the Minister aware of a meeting held on 11 May 2000 between the Executive Director of Public Health, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Bellevue residents and representatives of the Bellevue Action Group at the Omex site remediation?
(2) If so, is the Minister aware of the discussions held on that day regarding complaints by residents living close to the site that the fumes from the excavations were affecting their health?
(3) Did the Minister request or receive any advice from the DEP regarding air monitoring results from the Omex remediation -
(a) prior to the meeting; and/or
(b) on the day of the meeting?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) If yes, what was that advice?
(6) Did the Health Department Western Australia (HDWA) advise the Bellevue Primary School Principal on 9 May 2000 that emissions from the site were not a risk to public health?
(7) Is the Minister aware that on 6 May 2000 at 8.20am an exceedence of Volatile Organic Compounds was registered at 12.8 ppm, some 8 times higher than the action level set by the HDWA to protect public health during the remediation?
(8) Is the Minister aware that 153 exceedences of Volatile Organic Compounds, 79 exceedences of sulphur Dioxide and 28 complaints from the community were reported prior to 9 May 2000?
(9) Will the Minister explain why the HDWA advised the Bellevue Primary School that air emissions from the remediation at the Omex site were not a health risk?
(10) Has the HDWA mislead the Bellevue Primary School?
(11) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 November 2000
Response time
55 days
The Minister Replied:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) (a) No.
(b) No.
4) I was not directly involved in the operational aspects of the Omex remediation. Officers of the HDWA were involved in advising the DEP, Environmental Protection Authority and community on public health aspects of the cleanup operation.
5) Not applicable.
6) HDWA Officers were in contact with the Principal, teachers and Parents & Citizens' Association of the Bellevue Primary School on several occasions, including a number of meetings, between 3 and 12 May 2000. The HDWA advised all concerned that the health of the children and teachers at the school was not at risk from emissions emanating from the Omex site, although some irritation may be experienced if levels of sulphur dioxide were sufficiently high and persistent.
7) A report by Thiess Environmental Services dated 20 June 2000 that was provided to HDWA on 22 June describes exceedences for air monitoring parameters at the Omex site and the Bellevue Primary School for the period 17 April to 7 May 2000. This report refers to a Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) level of 12.8 ppm being recorded over a one minute period at the Northern boundary at 8.20 am on 6 May 2000.
With respect to the magnitude of the VOC exceedence to which the Hon Member refers, I assume that the value of 8 times the action level is based on the action level of 1.6 ppm for benzene. Benzene is only one of the components of total VOCs and it was not detected in any of the measurements taken on 6 May 2000. The Thiess Environmental Services report refers to the VOC levels as exceedences because they were working on the worst-case assumption that VOC levels comprised entirely benzene, until shown otherwise by benzene specific tests. This was an appropriate precautionary approach to take. The VOC and benzene monitoring programme was explained in a letter to the community from Dr Bryan Jenkins, CEO of the DEP, dated 8 May 2000.
All stakeholders, including the community, agreed on the alert and action levels prior to any trial or remediation work; they were not set by HDWA. Alert and action levels were set so that, if exceeded, appropriate action could be taken by the contractors to reduce emissions and hence avoid risks to public health.
I stress that an exceedence of the action level does not necessarily mean that the health of the community was compromised.
8) The report by Thiess Environmental Services of 20 June 2000 describes the number of exceedences recorded between 17 April and 7 May 2000 for sulphurdioxide, VOCs and particulates. However, from the information available, HDWA is unable to confirm the number of exceedences for VOCs and sulphur dioxide to which the Hon Member refers.
Information has been provided at various times since 17 April and in different forms. HDWA has requested Thiess Environmental Services, through the DEP, to provide all data collected during the project in a specific format. An in-depth analysis of the results will be undertaken by HDWA and the report provided to the Environmental Protection Authority. This will complement the in-depth analysis being conducted by the DEP.
It is inappropriate to compare VOC levels, of which benzene is only one component, with the action level for benzene itself when assessing the likely risks to health.
Information available to HDWA indicates that benzene was detected on two occasions only, at 10.53 and 11.08 am on 26 April 2000 at which time levels of 0.0034 and 0.008 ppm, respectively, were reported. These values are at least 7.5 times less than the alert level of 0.06 ppm and at least 200 times less than the action level of 1.6 ppm.
With respect to complaints, HDWA was aware that there were community complaints. These came to the attention of HDWA from the DEP, the Bellevue Primary School Community, Bellevue Action Group (BAG) as well as directly by a few individuals. A letter to the community from Dr Bryan Jenkins, CEO of the DEP, dated 8 May 2000 refers to 25 complaints being received from Bellevue residents.
BAG has on a number of occasions claimed to have a record of many people whose health was affected by the remediation work at Omex. Repeated requests by HDWA, both directly and at the Omex Community Intermediary Committee meetings, for BAG to provide the list so that HDWA could investigate the complaints did not have a response.
9) HDWA was aware of the concerns expressed by teachers, parents and students of the Bellevue Primary School about odours and the possible impact on their health.
Based on all the information available at the time, the collective professional judgement of officers of HDWA was that the school community was not at risk. For example, the readings of the sulphur dioxide monitor placed at the school from 24 April were lower than alert levels (0.04 ppm) except on two occasions between 24 April and 10 May. At 7 am on 1 May, a one minute reading of 0.046 ppm was recorded and between 11.32 am and 1.09 pm on 9 May, 10 individual one minute readings ranging between 0.040 and 0.053 ppm were recorded. These were well below the action level of 1.00 ppm.
10) No.
11) The HDWA was aware of the concerns expressed by teachers, parents and students of the Bellevue Primary School about odours and the possible impact on their health. It was the judgement of officers of the HDWA that the school community was not at risk.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) (a) No.
(b) No.
4) I was not directly involved in the operational aspects of the Omex remediation. Officers of the HDWA were involved in advising the DEP, Environmental Protection Authority and community on public health aspects of the cleanup operation.
5) Not applicable.
6) HDWA Officers were in contact with the Principal, teachers and Parents & Citizens' Association of the Bellevue Primary School on several occasions, including a number of meetings, between 3 and 12 May 2000. The HDWA advised all concerned that the health of the children and teachers at the school was not at risk from emissions emanating from the Omex site, although some irritation may be experienced if levels of sulphur dioxide were sufficiently high and persistent.
7) A report by Thiess Environmental Services dated 20 June 2000 that was provided to HDWA on 22 June describes exceedences for air monitoring parameters at the Omex site and the Bellevue Primary School for the period 17 April to 7 May 2000. This report refers to a Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) level of 12.8 ppm being recorded over a one minute period at the Northern boundary at 8.20 am on 6 May 2000.
With respect to the magnitude of the VOC exceedence to which the Hon Member refers, I assume that the value of 8 times the action level is based on the action level of 1.6 ppm for benzene. Benzene is only one of the components of total VOCs and it was not detected in any of the measurements taken on 6 May 2000. The Thiess Environmental Services report refers to the VOC levels as exceedences because they were working on the worst-case assumption that VOC levels comprised entirely benzene, until shown otherwise by benzene specific tests. This was an appropriate precautionary approach to take. The VOC and benzene monitoring programme was explained in a letter to the community from Dr Bryan Jenkins, CEO of the DEP, dated 8 May 2000.
All stakeholders, including the community, agreed on the alert and action levels prior to any trial or remediation work; they were not set by HDWA. Alert and action levels were set so that, if exceeded, appropriate action could be taken by the contractors to reduce emissions and hence avoid risks to public health.
I stress that an exceedence of the action level does not necessarily mean that the health of the community was compromised.
8) The report by Thiess Environmental Services of 20 June 2000 describes the number of exceedences recorded between 17 April and 7 May 2000 for sulphurdioxide, VOCs and particulates. However, from the information available, HDWA is unable to confirm the number of exceedences for VOCs and sulphur dioxide to which the Hon Member refers.
Information has been provided at various times since 17 April and in different forms. HDWA has requested Thiess Environmental Services, through the DEP, to provide all data collected during the project in a specific format. An in-depth analysis of the results will be undertaken by HDWA and the report provided to the Environmental Protection Authority. This will complement the in-depth analysis being conducted by the DEP.
It is inappropriate to compare VOC levels, of which benzene is only one component, with the action level for benzene itself when assessing the likely risks to health.
Information available to HDWA indicates that benzene was detected on two occasions only, at 10.53 and 11.08 am on 26 April 2000 at which time levels of 0.0034 and 0.008 ppm, respectively, were reported. These values are at least 7.5 times less than the alert level of 0.06 ppm and at least 200 times less than the action level of 1.6 ppm.
With respect to complaints, HDWA was aware that there were community complaints. These came to the attention of HDWA from the DEP, the Bellevue Primary School Community, Bellevue Action Group (BAG) as well as directly by a few individuals. A letter to the community from Dr Bryan Jenkins, CEO of the DEP, dated 8 May 2000 refers to 25 complaints being received from Bellevue residents.
BAG has on a number of occasions claimed to have a record of many people whose health was affected by the remediation work at Omex. Repeated requests by HDWA, both directly and at the Omex Community Intermediary Committee meetings, for BAG to provide the list so that HDWA could investigate the complaints did not have a response.
9) HDWA was aware of the concerns expressed by teachers, parents and students of the Bellevue Primary School about odours and the possible impact on their health.
Based on all the information available at the time, the collective professional judgement of officers of HDWA was that the school community was not at risk. For example, the readings of the sulphur dioxide monitor placed at the school from 24 April were lower than alert levels (0.04 ppm) except on two occasions between 24 April and 10 May. At 7 am on 1 May, a one minute reading of 0.046 ppm was recorded and between 11.32 am and 1.09 pm on 9 May, 10 individual one minute readings ranging between 0.040 and 0.053 ppm were recorded. These were well below the action level of 1.00 ppm.
10) No.
11) The HDWA was aware of the concerns expressed by teachers, parents and students of the Bellevue Primary School about odours and the possible impact on their health. It was the judgement of officers of the HDWA that the school community was not at risk.
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.