❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Department of Environmental Protection's handling of a contaminated stormwater overflow incident involving Westrac Equipment, focusing on the brevity of the response timeframe and subsequent actions taken. The Minister confirms the details of the notice, explains the rationale for the timeframe, and outlines the warning issued and Westrac's remedial actions.
AnsweredQoN 1650Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter which I understand is dated 14 July 2003 from the Dept of Environmental Protection addressed to the Manager Westrac Equipment Pty Ltd, Lot 26 Gt Eastern Highway, Kalgoorlie, titled ‘Notice to show cause regarding overflow of contaminated stormwater pond onto road reserve’ -
(1) Is it correct that part of the letter dated 14 July 2003 states ‘Opportunity to show cause, you are hereby afforded twenty one (21) days from the date of this letter to show cause in writing to the Director of the Pollution Prevention Division, as to why the DEP should not proceed with further action against you in respect to the above non compliance of section 49 and 50 of the Act. In responding to this letter, you should detail your reasons and also the circumstances surrounding each of the non compliances. You are hereby put on notice that if you do not respond to this letter within twenty one days action may be taken against you without further notice.’?
(2) If no to (1) will the Minister table a copy of the letter dated 14 July 2003?
(3) Can the Minister explain why a period of only 21 days was afforded to Westrac and not a much longer time period to respond and address the concerns raised in the letter?
(4) If no to (3) why not?
(5) Can the Minister quote the reasons and circumstances surrounding each of the non compliances provided by Westrac to the department in relation to these matters?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Has any further action been taken by the department in relation to all the matters raised in the letter dated 14 July 2003?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(9) If yes to (7) can the Minister explain what action and the reasons why?
(1) Is it correct that part of the letter dated 14 July 2003 states ‘Opportunity to show cause, you are hereby afforded twenty one (21) days from the date of this letter to show cause in writing to the Director of the Pollution Prevention Division, as to why the DEP should not proceed with further action against you in respect to the above non compliance of section 49 and 50 of the Act. In responding to this letter, you should detail your reasons and also the circumstances surrounding each of the non compliances. You are hereby put on notice that if you do not respond to this letter within twenty one days action may be taken against you without further notice.’?
(2) If no to (1) will the Minister table a copy of the letter dated 14 July 2003?
(3) Can the Minister explain why a period of only 21 days was afforded to Westrac and not a much longer time period to respond and address the concerns raised in the letter?
(4) If no to (3) why not?
(5) Can the Minister quote the reasons and circumstances surrounding each of the non compliances provided by Westrac to the department in relation to these matters?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Has any further action been taken by the department in relation to all the matters raised in the letter dated 14 July 2003?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(9) If yes to (7) can the Minister explain what action and the reasons why?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 March 2004
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
90 days
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Twenty-one days was considered to be an appropriate time to respond to this matter. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Twenty-one days was considered to be an appropriate time to respond to this matter. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(3) Twenty-one days was considered to be an appropriate time to respond to this matter. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Twenty-one days was considered to be an appropriate time to respond to this matter. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(3) Twenty-one days was considered to be an appropriate time to respond to this matter. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(5) The Inspector under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 noted the source of the discharge, the colour of the discharge and the olfactory nature of the discharge. Given the time, place and circumstances, the Inspector required the company to cease the practice until an investigation could be undertaken. The letter issued on 14 July 2003, was done so as part of an ongoing investigation into Westrac. (6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(6) Not applicable. (7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(7) A warning was issued on 15 September 2003. (8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(8) Not applicable. (9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
(9) After an investigation the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) considered a warning letter to be appropriate. This warning letter was issued in accordance with the DEP’s Environmental Enforcement Policy. Westrac was co-operative during the investigation and when it was made aware of the issue, it immediately commenced recovery of any contaminated material. Furthermore, Westrac upgraded the sump at the rear of its property, by installing a triple interceptor and lining the sump. The overflow pipe to the adjacent road reserve has been removed.
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.