❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses emissions from Cockburn Cement, inquiring about causes, investigations, and preventative measures after two incidents in October 2011.
AnsweredQoN 931Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
COCKBURN CEMENT WORKS — EMISSIONS PLUME
I refer to the minister’s response to my question without notice on 18 October 2011. (1) Is the minister aware that on Sunday, 23 October another emissions plume from the Cockburn Cement factory in Munster blanketed the suburb of Beeliar and other surrounding areas? (2) Was the cause of the emission on 23 October 2011 the same as the cause of the similar emission that occurred on 2 October 2011; namely, “a blockage of the coal fuel feed on Cockburn Cement Limited’s kiln 4 … which caused a safety system to shut down the pollution abatement system on this kiln”, as advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON
I refer to the minister’s response to my question without notice on 18 October 2011. (1) Is the minister aware that on Sunday, 23 October another emissions plume from the Cockburn Cement factory in Munster blanketed the suburb of Beeliar and other surrounding areas? (2) Was the cause of the emission on 23 October 2011 the same as the cause of the similar emission that occurred on 2 October 2011; namely, “a blockage of the coal fuel feed on Cockburn Cement Limited’s kiln 4 … which caused a safety system to shut down the pollution abatement system on this kiln”, as advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(1) Is the minister aware that on Sunday, 23 October another emissions plume from the Cockburn Cement factory in Munster blanketed the suburb of Beeliar and other surrounding areas? (2) Was the cause of the emission on 23 October 2011 the same as the cause of the similar emission that occurred on 2 October 2011; namely, “a blockage of the coal fuel feed on Cockburn Cement Limited’s kiln 4 … which caused a safety system to shut down the pollution abatement system on this kiln”, as advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(2) Was the cause of the emission on 23 October 2011 the same as the cause of the similar emission that occurred on 2 October 2011; namely, “a blockage of the coal fuel feed on Cockburn Cement Limited’s kiln 4 … which caused a safety system to shut down the pollution abatement system on this kiln”, as advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(b) will its findings be made public?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(1) Is the minister aware that on Sunday, 23 October another emissions plume from the Cockburn Cement factory in Munster blanketed the suburb of Beeliar and other surrounding areas? (2) Was the cause of the emission on 23 October 2011 the same as the cause of the similar emission that occurred on 2 October 2011; namely, “a blockage of the coal fuel feed on Cockburn Cement Limited’s kiln 4 … which caused a safety system to shut down the pollution abatement system on this kiln”, as advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(2) Was the cause of the emission on 23 October 2011 the same as the cause of the similar emission that occurred on 2 October 2011; namely, “a blockage of the coal fuel feed on Cockburn Cement Limited’s kiln 4 … which caused a safety system to shut down the pollution abatement system on this kiln”, as advised by the Department of Environment and Conservation? (3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(3) If yes to (2), what caused the blockage and what steps have been taken to prevent a similar blockage from occurring in the future? (4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(4) If no to (2), what was the cause of the emission? (5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(5) With regard to DEC’s investigation after the incident on 2 October 2011 “to determine whether Cockburn Cement Limited’s licence conditions have been breached” — (a) when will that investigation be completed; and (b) will its findings be made public? (6) Will a further investigation be carried out by DEC into the incident on 23 October 2011? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(b) will its findings be made public?
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(1) The Department of Environment and Conservation has advised that it received two complaints regarding dust emissions on 23 October from the Cockburn Cement Ltd Munster operations. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(3) Not applicable. (4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(4) According to CCL’s continuous emission monitoring system data, there were two short, high emission events from kiln 5 on 23 October. It appears that the events were the result of the elevator conveying raw material into the kiln stopping. (5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
(5) (a) DEC is still investigating this incident. (b) The complainants are advised of the outcome of the investigation. The licensee would be made aware of the investigation outcome if a sanction is administered. (6) No. Based on DEC’s assessment of the data and the circumstances of this emission, it has been determined that a formal investigation is not warranted.
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.