❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses delays in classifying the Dalyellup waste disposal facility under the Contaminated Sites Act, focusing on potential environmental and health risks due to dioxins, furans, and radiological materials. The Minister acknowledges delays, explains the reasons, and outlines actions taken.
AnsweredQoN 1007Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
dalyellup waste residue disposal facility
I refer to the minister’s response to question without notice 958. (1) Are there sites reported under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 in 2007 and 2008 that have not yet been classified? (2) If yes to (1), how many? (3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER
I refer to the minister’s response to question without notice 958. (1) Are there sites reported under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 in 2007 and 2008 that have not yet been classified? (2) If yes to (1), how many? (3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(1) Are there sites reported under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 in 2007 and 2008 that have not yet been classified? (2) If yes to (1), how many? (3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(2) If yes to (1), how many? (3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
[See paper 1425.]
(1) Are there sites reported under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 in 2007 and 2008 that have not yet been classified? (2) If yes to (1), how many? (3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(2) If yes to (1), how many? (3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(3) Does the Department of Environment and Conservation’s delay of over two years in classifying the Dalyellup site breach the department’s obligations under section 14(1) of the Contaminated Sites Act 2003? (4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(4) If yes to (3), what are the consequences of this? (5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(5) If no to (3), why not? (6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(6) If no to (3), how can the department justify a delay of over two years when Millennium Inorganic Chemicals has admitted that dioxins and furans are present, posing potential environmental and health risks to the community of Dalyellup? (7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(7) Has the department received the information from the Radiological Council required to classify the site that was requested in 2008? (8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(8) If yes to (7), what was the advice from the Radiological Council? (9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(9) If no to (7), why not? Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(1) Yes. (2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(2) As at 1 October 2009, there were 1 194 sites reported since the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 commenced listing as awaiting classification. (3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(3) Yes. The act requires that sites are classified within 45 days of being reported to the chief executive officer or, where particular circumstances make it difficult to classify the site within 45 days, such longer time as the CEO decides is necessary. In response to the period of grace provided for in the act, 1 656 reports of contaminated sites were received by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the four-month period between March and June 2007. While DEC has classified 99 per cent of the sites reported after 1 July 2007 within the 45-day time frame, there remains a backlog from the large number of reports received during the period of grace. These are being assessed and classified on a priority basis in relation to the risk to health and the environment. I have, however, spoken to the director general of the department and requested the department to work through the remaining sites as a priority and report to me at regular intervals on its progress. (4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(4) DEC’s prioritisation of the outstanding sites for classification ensures that sites that pose the greatest potential risk to humans’ health or the environment are dealt with first. However, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals is currently required to undertake groundwater monitoring as a requirement of conditions of its Environmental Protection Act licence. DEC is reviewing the groundwater monitoring results to determine what further action, if any, is required to address any groundwater contamination issues. (5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(5) Not applicable. (6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(6) As advised in my response to part (6) of question without notice 958, the site contains radiological materials, and therefore DEC sought advice from the Radiological Council in July 2008. DEC followed up with the council in July and September 2009 and, following receipt of this advice, classified the site as “possibly contaminated—investigation required” on 9 October 2009. DEC has revised its procedures and established a system to trigger follow-up of external agencies when advice has not been received within an eight-week period. (7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(7) Yes. DEC received the advice on 30 September 2009. (8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
(8) DEC has advised me that the Radiological Council has advised that, while levels at the operating ponds are higher, the radiation dose at the site boundary does not exceed the limit of radiation exposure for the general public as per “Industry Guideline—Reporting of Radiologically Contaminated Site Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material”. Monitoring above the rehabilitated southern pond has also demonstrated that the remediation measures have successfully reduced radiation levels to below the limit of radiation exposure to the public. The council has further advised that the levels identified at the site boundary are comparable with background levels for the Swan coastal plain and Darling scarp areas. Based on the available information, and taking into account advice received from the council, the site is considered suitable for its current use as a treated waste disposal facility, provided public access to the site is restricted and groundwater and radiation monitoring continues. I table a copy of the advice from the Radiological Council as well as the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 “Basic Summary of Records”. (9) Not applicable. [See paper 1425.]
[See paper 1425.]
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.