❓ A parliamentary question addresses concerns about toxic emissions from Alcoa's Wagerup plant and their impact on Yarloop residents' health. The Minister acknowledges the issue, details actions taken, and explains the retesting of air samples due to suspected contamination.
AnsweredQoN 379Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to health problems caused by ongoing emissions from Alcoa World Alumina Australia’s Wagerup plant and a report in The West Australian recently that air samples taken by the Department of Environmental Protection from the town of Yarloop in my electorate have shown elevated levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals. (1) Will the minister confirm this alarming report? (2) Given these latest test results, on what basis is the DEP planning further tests, and why are these tests being delayed until next year? (3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(1) Will the minister confirm this alarming report? (2) Given these latest test results, on what basis is the DEP planning further tests, and why are these tests being delayed until next year? (3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(2) Given these latest test results, on what basis is the DEP planning further tests, and why are these tests being delayed until next year? (3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(1) Will the minister confirm this alarming report? (2) Given these latest test results, on what basis is the DEP planning further tests, and why are these tests being delayed until next year? (3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(2) Given these latest test results, on what basis is the DEP planning further tests, and why are these tests being delayed until next year? (3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(3) In the face of mounting evidence that the health of residents and workers is being affected or put at risk, will the minister, or any other minister in this Government, now act to protect the health of residents in the area? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
I thank the member for the question. (1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
(1)-(3) I start by saying that this issue had been raised with us at the very end of our term of opposition. When we came into government, I immediately raised it with departmental staff. I was told at first that there was not a problem. Certainly, when the coalition was in government, it did not think there was a problem. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Mr J.L. Bradshaw: I did. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: The member may have done, but his colleagues did not. In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
In response to that, we set up a medical practitioners forum to give us independent health advice on whether there was a problem in that area. When we first went down that track, it was very contentious. However, this independent medical panel, which comprised medical practitioners, occupational health practitioners, some local general practitioners, university people and Alcoa doctors, finally came to the Government with seven recommendations. They stated that there was a problem, but they could not define it. They did not think it was worth drilling to find out which chemical it was. In the meantime, they said that we should cut emissions, decrease people’s exposure, increase the buffer zone and better manage the individuals who were affected. In response, the Government modified Alcoa’s licence to decrease emissions, worked on the buffer, and generally responded to those seven recommendations. In addition, a ministerial council has been formed, together with a council of senior officers to underpin the ministerial council, to better coordinate a response to those problems across government. The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
The Government has taken this issue seriously. It has taken measures to respond to issues in the community and broader concerns. As part of that, the Government commissioned some air study tests, to which the member referred. When this report was evaluated, there were some unexpected results. High levels of chemicals known to be carcinogenic were reported in the results. However, the Chemistry Centre (WA) advised that it believed that those results were artefacts. Those results were not expected from the known emissions in that area, and were consistent with some problems with the seals on the bottles and the way the samples were transported. Those problems were made known to the journalist who wrote about this matter, and were included in the body of the report. On that basis, those tests will be redone. Nothing else in the report concerns the Government. We believe that the likely cause of those results was problems with the actual testing and transportation of those samples. That is clearly spelt out in the report. Further testing will be done. I am not sure why that has been delayed. I thought it would be done sooner. Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Mr J.L. Bradshaw: It will be done next year. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I will follow that up with the department. I thought those tests would be repeated sooner. The Government will continue to work with both Alcoa and the community to resolve the problems in that area. They are very big problems from the point of view of the individuals who live there. I am pleased to note that during this odour season, complaints were down on the previous year. Alcoa has spent tens of millions of dollars on improving its output of emissions from that plant. The way that we are all working together means that we can get on top of this problem. However, it will take some time.
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.