❓ A parliamentary question probes the Health Department's advice regarding emissions from the Omex site, specifically whether the department downplayed health risks despite reported exceedances of volatile organic compounds and sulfur dioxide.
AnsweredQoN 193Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) On or around 9 May 2000 did the Health Department advise - (a) the Bellevue Primary School; (b) residents living near the Omex site; and (c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(a) the Bellevue Primary School; (b) residents living near the Omex site; and (c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(b) residents living near the Omex site; and (c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(a) the Bellevue Primary School; (b) residents living near the Omex site; and (c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(b) residents living near the Omex site; and (c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(c) medical practitioners in the Bellevue area that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
that emissions from the Omex site were not a risk to public health? (2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(2) Was that advice correct? (3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(3) How does the minister reconcile that advice with information that there were 153 exceedences of volatile organic compounds, 79 exceedences of sulfur dioxide and 28 complaints made by the community prior to 9 May? Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(1) Yes. A letter was sent to the medical practitioners in the Bellevue area on 8 May 2000 and to the Bellevue Primary School on 12 May 2000. (2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(2) Yes, based on information available to the Health Department. (3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
(3) The Health Department had not been advised of any exceedences of the action level for either sulfur dioxide or volatile organic compounds prior to 13 May 2000. The action levels were set as an operation objective and not necessarily as indicative of levels that would cause adverse health effects.
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.