❓ A parliamentary question regarding dust control measures at the Geraldton Port iron ore facility, with the Minister providing assurances of compliance and outlining improvements made during commissioning.
AnsweredQoN 201Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the answer given to question without notice 149 of 31 March 2004 and the conditions of works approval No 3748, which was issued to the Geraldton Port Authority for the iron ore storage and handling facility on behalf of Mount Gibson Iron Limited. (1) Did the permit holder employ housekeeping practices to ensure that no visible dust crossed the boundary of the premises, as in condition A1? (2) What were the faults identified and rectified during the initial commissioning of loading machinery? To be more specific - (a) did the walls of the iron ore storage shed meet condition A2(a); (b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)? (3) If not, why not? (4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(1) Did the permit holder employ housekeeping practices to ensure that no visible dust crossed the boundary of the premises, as in condition A1? (2) What were the faults identified and rectified during the initial commissioning of loading machinery? To be more specific - (a) did the walls of the iron ore storage shed meet condition A2(a); (b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)? (3) If not, why not? (4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(2) What were the faults identified and rectified during the initial commissioning of loading machinery? To be more specific - (a) did the walls of the iron ore storage shed meet condition A2(a); (b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)? (3) If not, why not? (4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)?
(c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)?
(4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays.
(c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays.
Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays.
(4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(1) Did the permit holder employ housekeeping practices to ensure that no visible dust crossed the boundary of the premises, as in condition A1? (2) What were the faults identified and rectified during the initial commissioning of loading machinery? To be more specific - (a) did the walls of the iron ore storage shed meet condition A2(a); (b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)? (3) If not, why not? (4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(2) What were the faults identified and rectified during the initial commissioning of loading machinery? To be more specific - (a) did the walls of the iron ore storage shed meet condition A2(a); (b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)? (3) If not, why not? (4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(b) was the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system fully operational according to condition A2(b) to (d); (c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)?
(c) were water sprays fitted according to condition A2(e), and were two dust extractors fitted on the iron ore shed and gradients controlled to comply with condition A2(f)?
(4) Given the local sensitivity regarding pollution of the Geraldton port, the local strong wind conditions and the lessons that should have been learnt from other port operations involving iron ore in Western Australia, why did the Geraldton Port Authority not refer the transport and shipping of iron ore from Mount Gibson Iron Ltd to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment? The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is in order except for the last part. Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
I wanted to answer that part, because there is an answer to it! I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(1) Yes. The GPA is not aware of visible dust crossing the boundary of port land. (2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(2) An officer of the Department of Environmental Protection inspected the system prior to commissioning, and the written compliance report was submitted to the department on 9 January 2004. The officer also inspected the operation during the first train unloading. The minister has advised that the GPA is satisfied that - (a) the shed walls were and still are compliant with condition A2(a); (b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays. (3) See answer to (2) above. (4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
(b) the iron ore conveyor belt dust suppression system was fully operational to condition A2(b) to (d); and (c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays.
(c) water sprays were fitted where they were considered to be necessary and were working, and the dust extraction and negative pressure gradient were fitted and operational to condition A2(f). Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays.
Necessary changes identified during commissioning included additional cladding on the conveyor belt structure and at the entry point of the shed, and additional water sprays.
(4) The GPA did refer matters concerning the transport and shipping of iron ore within the GPA boundaries to the EPA, hence works approval No 3229.
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.