❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding noise and contaminant issues at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works following complaints from a resident, Mr. Chris Right. The Minister provides details on noise monitoring, engagement of acoustic consultants, and stormwater management.
AnsweredQoN 398Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article dated Saturday February 22 2003 titled ‘Cement works likely to move’ which appeared in the Kalgoorlie Miner -
(1) Is it correct that complaints from Mr Chris Right last year led to noise monitoring conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which showed a breach of the noise regulations?
(2) If yes to (1), can the Minister state which specific regulation was being breached?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
(4) Can the Minister state the date on which the noise monitoring commenced, over how many days was the noise monitoring conducted, and the date on which the DEP instructed the Kalgoorlie Cement works to engage acoustic consultants?
(5) If no to (4), can the Minister explain why the DEP instructed Kalgoorlie Cement Works to engage acoustic consultants?
(6) If no to (6), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DEP has selectively attempted to portray that Mr Right is the only resident concerned about the Kalgoorlie Cement Works given that Mr Right has in his possession a petition signed by other residents in the area who are also concerned?
(8) If no to (8), why not?
(9) Will the Minister or the DEP direct/instruct Kalgoorlie Cement Works to diligently ensure and take action to prevent all contaminants from the cement works after rainfall from leaving the premises, given that contaminants have been allowed to leave the cement works property and flow into Mr Right’s property and also down the laneway at the rear of the property?
(10) If no to (10), will the Minister direct/instruct that the Regional Operations Director visit Kalgoorlie so evidence can be shown and presented in order for a written instruction/direction to be made to the Kalgoorlie Cement works?
(1) Is it correct that complaints from Mr Chris Right last year led to noise monitoring conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which showed a breach of the noise regulations?
(2) If yes to (1), can the Minister state which specific regulation was being breached?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
(4) Can the Minister state the date on which the noise monitoring commenced, over how many days was the noise monitoring conducted, and the date on which the DEP instructed the Kalgoorlie Cement works to engage acoustic consultants?
(5) If no to (4), can the Minister explain why the DEP instructed Kalgoorlie Cement Works to engage acoustic consultants?
(6) If no to (6), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DEP has selectively attempted to portray that Mr Right is the only resident concerned about the Kalgoorlie Cement Works given that Mr Right has in his possession a petition signed by other residents in the area who are also concerned?
(8) If no to (8), why not?
(9) Will the Minister or the DEP direct/instruct Kalgoorlie Cement Works to diligently ensure and take action to prevent all contaminants from the cement works after rainfall from leaving the premises, given that contaminants have been allowed to leave the cement works property and flow into Mr Right’s property and also down the laneway at the rear of the property?
(10) If no to (10), will the Minister direct/instruct that the Regional Operations Director visit Kalgoorlie so evidence can be shown and presented in order for a written instruction/direction to be made to the Kalgoorlie Cement works?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
20 March 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
16 days
(1) Yes. There was a three decibel breach of the relevant assigned noise level as per the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. (2) Regulation 7 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. (3) Not applicable. (4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(2) Regulation 7 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. (3) Not applicable. (4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable. (4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(10)Not applicable.
(2) Regulation 7 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. (3) Not applicable. (4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable. (4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(4) Noise monitoring began on 20 August 2002 and was completed on 24 August 2002. Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) was asked to engage acoustic consultants on 15 January 2003. (5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(5) KCW were asked to engage an acoustic consultant, as the breach was a minor one. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered that an acoustic consultant could suggest measures to limit noise from the site. (6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(7) The DEP has not attempted to portray Mr Right as the only complainant. DEP records of complaints show only two complainants, both from the one address. One of these was Mr Right. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations the DEP contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the three residents contacted, none had concerns with the operations at KCW. (8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(9) KCW have been advised by DEP to retain stormwater on site. Inspections conducted on two occasions during storm events did not show any stormwater discharge from the site. The DEP has informed the City of Kalgoorlie Boulder of the possibility of stormwater runoff from the site. (10)Not applicable.
(10)Not applicable.
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.