❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the Department of Environment Protection (DEP) regarding a reported ammonia leak and black smoke emissions from the Burrup Fertilisers and Woodside LNG facility, inquiring about DEP's awareness, actions taken, and compliance with license conditions. The Minister confirms DEP was notified, no breach occurred, and tables the report.
AnsweredQoN 4153Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With reference to the reported ammonia leak from Burrup Fertilisers on
GWN News
on 11 August 2006 and the plumes of black smoke seen emanating from the Woodside joint venturers LNG facility located behind the Burrup Fertiliser plant, I ask -
(1) Was the DEP advised or aware of this event emanating from the Woodside LNG facility as required under licence condition A5(c)?
(2) If yes to (1), how were they made aware?
(3) If yes to (1), on what date and time was the DEP advised?
(4) Was any action required of Woodside by the DEP to curtail these emissions?
(5) Did these emissions breach licence condition A5(a) which sets the limits for dark smoke emissions relating to scale and duration?
(6) If a report was tendered to the DEP by Woodside in accordance with condition A5(c), will the Minister table that report?
GWN News
on 11 August 2006 and the plumes of black smoke seen emanating from the Woodside joint venturers LNG facility located behind the Burrup Fertiliser plant, I ask -
(1) Was the DEP advised or aware of this event emanating from the Woodside LNG facility as required under licence condition A5(c)?
(2) If yes to (1), how were they made aware?
(3) If yes to (1), on what date and time was the DEP advised?
(4) Was any action required of Woodside by the DEP to curtail these emissions?
(5) Did these emissions breach licence condition A5(a) which sets the limits for dark smoke emissions relating to scale and duration?
(6) If a report was tendered to the DEP by Woodside in accordance with condition A5(c), will the Minister table that report?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
17 October 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
49 days
(2) By fax. (3) 11 August 2006 at 15:52. (4) No further actions were required as the emissions were not in breach of licence conditions. (5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(3) 11 August 2006 at 15:52. (4) No further actions were required as the emissions were not in breach of licence conditions. (5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(4) No further actions were required as the emissions were not in breach of licence conditions. (5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(3) 11 August 2006 at 15:52. (4) No further actions were required as the emissions were not in breach of licence conditions. (5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(4) No further actions were required as the emissions were not in breach of licence conditions. (5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(5) No. (6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
(6) Yes. I table the report. [See table paper no.]
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.