❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding potential soil contamination at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works, focusing on the DEP's rationale, powers, and actions related to the site's suitability for residential development. The Minister's response clarifies the DEP's position and actions.
AnsweredQoN 1581Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to question on notice No. 1259 of September 19 2003 and the answers provided concerning the Kalgoorlie Cement Works located on the corner of Oberthur and Wilson Streets in a residential area -
(1) Can the Minister explain the rationale and justification as to how the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) identified that there may be ‘potential for soil contamination at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works,’ given that it has operated as a cement works for some time?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state on what specific date the DEP recognised and realised that the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site may be potentially contaminated?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister state the determinative factors that led the DEP to believe that there may be potential for soil contamination at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Given the Minister has stated the DEP no longer has powers to direct the company by way of the registered activity, does the DEP still have powers under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
to enforce any pollution or waste issues at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) If yes to (7), what are those specific powers and under what specific sections of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
can the DEP take action?
(10) Did the Kalgoorlie Boulder Community and Industry reference group pass a motion that sampling be undertaken by the DEP at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site?
(11) If no, what specifically did happen at the reference group meeting?
(12) If yes to (10), why wasn’t this undertaken?
(13) Can the Minister explain why, prior to Kalgoorlie Cement Works ceasing to be a prescribed premise, the DEP had not previously conducted an investigation by way of either asking the owner to investigate the soil on the premises for oil and diesel contamination or the DEP taking some soil samples for analysis?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain the rationale and justification as to how the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) identified that there may be ‘potential for soil contamination at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works,’ given that it has operated as a cement works for some time?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state on what specific date the DEP recognised and realised that the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site may be potentially contaminated?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister state the determinative factors that led the DEP to believe that there may be potential for soil contamination at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Given the Minister has stated the DEP no longer has powers to direct the company by way of the registered activity, does the DEP still have powers under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
to enforce any pollution or waste issues at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) If yes to (7), what are those specific powers and under what specific sections of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
can the DEP take action?
(10) Did the Kalgoorlie Boulder Community and Industry reference group pass a motion that sampling be undertaken by the DEP at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works site?
(11) If no, what specifically did happen at the reference group meeting?
(12) If yes to (10), why wasn’t this undertaken?
(13) Can the Minister explain why, prior to Kalgoorlie Cement Works ceasing to be a prescribed premise, the DEP had not previously conducted an investigation by way of either asking the owner to investigate the soil on the premises for oil and diesel contamination or the DEP taking some soil samples for analysis?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 March 2004
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
91 days
(1) Yes. Cement Works are on the list of potentially contaminating activities, as listed in the Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) and due to the fact that the cement works has been in operation for such a long time. The issue came to light when the cement works closed down and the site was approved for residential development. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) suggested to the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder that testing should be undertaken to assess the suitability of the site for residential development. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. Any site may be potentially contaminated, however it is considered that because this site was a cement works the potential for contamination is higher. Only site testing will confirm whether the site is contaminated or not. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. Any site may be potentially contaminated, however it is considered that because this site was a cement works the potential for contamination is higher. Only site testing will confirm whether the site is contaminated or not. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(3) Yes. Any site may be potentially contaminated, however it is considered that because this site was a cement works the potential for contamination is higher. Only site testing will confirm whether the site is contaminated or not. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. Any site may be potentially contaminated, however it is considered that because this site was a cement works the potential for contamination is higher. Only site testing will confirm whether the site is contaminated or not. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(3) Yes. Any site may be potentially contaminated, however it is considered that because this site was a cement works the potential for contamination is higher. Only site testing will confirm whether the site is contaminated or not. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder of its concerns on 11 September 2003, following the concern being raised by a member of the public. The DEP informed the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that should a residential development application come before the City that a preliminary site investigation should be undertaken. It was when the DEP became aware that residential development may occur on this site, that further action was taken. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(5) Yes. Please refer to answers for Questions 1 and 3. Due to the fact that the site was to support residential development, the DEP thought that testing would be justified to ensure that the site is suitable for residential development. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(7) Yes, the DEP does have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , but would need to prove pollution. The DEP will have specific powers relating to contaminated sites when this part of the legislation has been gazetted. This should occur in the second quarter of 2004. However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
However, the comment was made in regards to the old Kalgoorlie Cement Works on the corner of Lane St and Oberthur St in Kalgoorlie. The cement works has moved, and operates at Carnegie St in West Kalgoorlie. The DEP will continue to regulate this premise. (8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(9) The DEP would need to have evidence of an offence under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. An offence would depend on time, place and circumstances. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(11) Not applicable. (12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(12) It is the responsibility of the landowner, developer, to prove that the land is suitable for the intended purpose. To this extent, the DEP advised the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and requested that sampling be set as a condition of development for the site. It is the developers responsibility to undertake the site investigation. (13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(13) Yes. If the previous owner had intended to develop the land, they would have been asked to undertake this sampling. When the DEP became aware that the new owner was going to develop the site, the DEP notified the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder that a Preliminary Site Investigation should be undertaken. The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
The Contaminated Sites Management Series document ‘Potentially contaminating activities, industries and landuses’ (August 2001, Department of Environment) identifies asbestos, rather than hydrocarbons, as the item of concern at old concrete batching plants. (14) Not applicable.
(14) 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.