❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding air quality monitoring in Yarloop following a media statement about pollution problems. The questions focus on the quality assurance of monitoring, interpretation of results, and the role of the Department of Health in providing health-based guidelines, particularly concerning formaldehyde levels.
AnsweredQoN 3412Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the media statement from the Department of Environment (DoE) dated 1 December 2005 and the recent decision of the Police Service to take evasive action against pollution problems in Yarloop -
(1) Has the DoE received advice to confirm the quality assurance of the analytical process involved in the monitoring results announced on 1 December 2005?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), what was the result of that advice and will the Minister please table a copy of the relevant advice?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Has the Air Quality Management Branch of the DoE now interpreted the results of the community monitoring?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), will the Minister please table the advice from the Air Quality Management Branch?
(8) What was the interpretation of the community monitoring results by the Air Quality Management Branch of the DoE?
(9) Has the DoE received any further results from community monitoring?
(10) If yes to (9), what were the results of these additional community monitoring samples?
(11) What is the formaldehyde concentration likely to cause irritation in humans to which the Department of Health (DoH) Principal Medical Consultant referred to in the media release of 1 December 2005?
(12) What advice has the DoH provided since 2001 in relation to the levels of formaldehyde likely to cause irritation in humans and particularly vulnerable humans?
(13) Can the Minister confirm that the DoH has previously proposed an ‘Interim Goal for the Protection of Vulnerable Individuals’ for formaldehyde of 10ug/m3 over three minutes?
(14) Can the Minister confirm that the highest level of formaldehyde concentration detected in the community monitoring samples exceeded the ‘Interim Goal for the Protection of Vulnerable Individuals’ proposed by the DoH, notwithstanding differences in averaging time?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister confirm that standards and guidelines for air quality are developed using health based research such as epidemiology studies that take into account specific health and environmental endpoints?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(18) Can the Minister confirm that where no relevant Australian guidelines or standard has been derived there is an agreed approach between the DoE and the DoH to consider alternative guidelines or standards?
(19) If no to (18), why not?
(20) Was the DoE consulted on the irritation level guideline referred to by the DoH Principal Medical Consultant in the DoE media statement of 1 December 2005?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
(22) Is the Minister aware of how or from where the DoH derived the irritation level guideline referred to in the DoE media release of 1 December 2005?
(23) If no to (22), why not?
(24) What is the Minister’s understanding of how the DoH derived the irritation level guideline referred to in the DoE media statement of 1 December 2005?
(1) Has the DoE received advice to confirm the quality assurance of the analytical process involved in the monitoring results announced on 1 December 2005?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), what was the result of that advice and will the Minister please table a copy of the relevant advice?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Has the Air Quality Management Branch of the DoE now interpreted the results of the community monitoring?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), will the Minister please table the advice from the Air Quality Management Branch?
(8) What was the interpretation of the community monitoring results by the Air Quality Management Branch of the DoE?
(9) Has the DoE received any further results from community monitoring?
(10) If yes to (9), what were the results of these additional community monitoring samples?
(11) What is the formaldehyde concentration likely to cause irritation in humans to which the Department of Health (DoH) Principal Medical Consultant referred to in the media release of 1 December 2005?
(12) What advice has the DoH provided since 2001 in relation to the levels of formaldehyde likely to cause irritation in humans and particularly vulnerable humans?
(13) Can the Minister confirm that the DoH has previously proposed an ‘Interim Goal for the Protection of Vulnerable Individuals’ for formaldehyde of 10ug/m3 over three minutes?
(14) Can the Minister confirm that the highest level of formaldehyde concentration detected in the community monitoring samples exceeded the ‘Interim Goal for the Protection of Vulnerable Individuals’ proposed by the DoH, notwithstanding differences in averaging time?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister confirm that standards and guidelines for air quality are developed using health based research such as epidemiology studies that take into account specific health and environmental endpoints?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(18) Can the Minister confirm that where no relevant Australian guidelines or standard has been derived there is an agreed approach between the DoE and the DoH to consider alternative guidelines or standards?
(19) If no to (18), why not?
(20) Was the DoE consulted on the irritation level guideline referred to by the DoH Principal Medical Consultant in the DoE media statement of 1 December 2005?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
(22) Is the Minister aware of how or from where the DoH derived the irritation level guideline referred to in the DoE media release of 1 December 2005?
(23) If no to (22), why not?
(24) What is the Minister’s understanding of how the DoH derived the irritation level guideline referred to in the DoE media statement of 1 December 2005?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
20 June 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
49 days
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) A sample containing known concentrations were sent to two overseas laboratories for analysis in December 2005. There was reasonable agreement between the known and reported concentrations, which gives confidence in the laboratory analytical procedures. There were, however, some anomalies and these are currently being investigated. The results were published on the DoE website on 1 March 2006. (4) Not applicable. (5) Interpretation of results to date has been provided by the Department of Health (DoH) and is included in the report of 1 March 2006. The community monitoring program has been expanded and further results and interpretation by DoH will be published in due course. (6) Not applicable. (7) Refer to the tabled report attached. [see table paper number] (8) Please refer to the report of 1 March 2006 which includes advice from the DoH that the reported levels are not a health concern. (9) Yes. Subsequent to the reporting of the December 2005 results, an additional community canister was collected on 10 December 2005. The analytical results for this sample is included in the report of 1 March 2006. There are a further two recent community samples that are currently at an overseas laboratory undergoing analysis. (10) See (9) above. (11) This question is not related to my portfolio. (12) This question is not related to my portfolio. (13) This question is not related to my portfolio. (14) This question is not related to my portfolio. 15) This question is not related to my portfolio. (16) This question is not related to my portfolio. (17) This question is not related to my portfolio. (18) Yes, subject to alternative or additional advice by the DoH as that Department sees appropriate. (19) Not applicable. (20) Yes, the DoH Principal Medical Consultant liaised with the DoE on whether irritation guidelines had been considered in previous assessment of projects by the Environmental Protection Agency. (21) Not applicable. (22) No. (23) It is the DoH's role to provide advice on appropriate guidelines for the protection of health. (24) It is the DoH's role to provide advice on appropriate guidelines for the protection of health.
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.