❓ A parliamentary question regarding a liquid waste disposal company breaching licence conditions related to evaporation pond freeboard. The Minister provides details of the breach, penalty, and the company involved.
AnsweredQoN 401Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article dated Wednesday, July 17 2002 titled ‘Crisis Looming for Two Liquid Waste Disposal Companies’ which appeared in the
Kalgoorlie Miner n
ewspaper -
(1) Is it correct that in mid May 2001 the Department of Environmental Protection found that water levels at the evaporation ponds did not comply with licence conditions?
(2) If yes to (1), what is the penalty for breaching licence conditions?
(3) Can the Minister quote or state the specific text of the licence condition which was being breached and explain how it was being breached?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state who is the owner and operator of the plant where the licence conditions were being breached?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
Kalgoorlie Miner n
ewspaper -
(1) Is it correct that in mid May 2001 the Department of Environmental Protection found that water levels at the evaporation ponds did not comply with licence conditions?
(2) If yes to (1), what is the penalty for breaching licence conditions?
(3) Can the Minister quote or state the specific text of the licence condition which was being breached and explain how it was being breached?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state who is the owner and operator of the plant where the licence conditions were being breached?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
20 March 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
16 days
2) The penalty associated with Section 58 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 for body corporates is $125,000 and $62,500 for individuals. 3) Condition W2 (iv) states “a minimum freeboard of 300mm is maintained on the evaporation ponds;”. This freeboard is required so that during high rainfall events the evaporation ponds will not be overtopped. During an inspection on 17 May 2002 it was noted that the minimum freeboard was not being maintained. A written warning was issued on 31 May 2002 and compliance with freeboard was achieved by 22 July 2002. 4) Not applicable. 5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
3) Condition W2 (iv) states “a minimum freeboard of 300mm is maintained on the evaporation ponds;”. This freeboard is required so that during high rainfall events the evaporation ponds will not be overtopped. During an inspection on 17 May 2002 it was noted that the minimum freeboard was not being maintained. A written warning was issued on 31 May 2002 and compliance with freeboard was achieved by 22 July 2002. 4) Not applicable. 5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
4) Not applicable. 5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
6) Not applicable.
3) Condition W2 (iv) states “a minimum freeboard of 300mm is maintained on the evaporation ponds;”. This freeboard is required so that during high rainfall events the evaporation ponds will not be overtopped. During an inspection on 17 May 2002 it was noted that the minimum freeboard was not being maintained. A written warning was issued on 31 May 2002 and compliance with freeboard was achieved by 22 July 2002. 4) Not applicable. 5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
4) Not applicable. 5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
5) The Legislation does not involve knowledge of who is “owner and operator” of plant. The occupier of the premises in May 2002 to whom the licence was issued was Western Resource Recovery. 6) Not applicable.
6) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.