❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Environment Minister regarding the DEP's handling of alleged environmental breaches by Kalgoorlie Cement Works, specifically concerning the spraying of renofinish or diesel/oil mixture and the referral of the matter to Worksafe. The Minister defends the DEP's actions, citing a lack of evidence of non-compliance and ongoing monitoring efforts.
AnsweredQoN 656Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Kalgoorlie Cement Works operated by Mark Posa in Kalgoorlie and a letter dated April 29 2002 signed by Judy Edwards, Minister for the Environment and Heritage -
(1) Is it correct that Mr Wayne Astill from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) contacted Mr Chris Right on Friday, March 14 2003 and with words to the effect in part stated ‘We referred the spraying of the renofinish or diesel/oil mixture to Worksafe’?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically did Mr Wayne Astill state to Mr Right?
(3) If yes to (1), why did Mr Wayne Astill abrogate the Departments specific responsibilities and obligations under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
given that the Minister has previously stated ‘The DEP has discussed alternative methods for applying the lubricant to decrease misting with the operator. The outcome of these discussions was for a brush application to be adopted by the operator and further monitoring by the DEP in order to ensure compliance’?
(4) Can the Minister state why Mr Wayne Astill is clearly not monitoring and ensuring compliance given the Minister has previously stated ‘The outcome of these discussions was for a brush application to be adopted by the operator and further monitoring by the DEP in order to ensure compliance’?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Did Mr Wayne Astill from the DEP refer the spraying of renofinish or diesel/oil mixture to Worksafe?
(7) If yes to (6), can the Minister table a copy of the email or letter sent to Worksafe in relation to this matter?
(8) If no to (6), why not?
(1) Is it correct that Mr Wayne Astill from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) contacted Mr Chris Right on Friday, March 14 2003 and with words to the effect in part stated ‘We referred the spraying of the renofinish or diesel/oil mixture to Worksafe’?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically did Mr Wayne Astill state to Mr Right?
(3) If yes to (1), why did Mr Wayne Astill abrogate the Departments specific responsibilities and obligations under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
given that the Minister has previously stated ‘The DEP has discussed alternative methods for applying the lubricant to decrease misting with the operator. The outcome of these discussions was for a brush application to be adopted by the operator and further monitoring by the DEP in order to ensure compliance’?
(4) Can the Minister state why Mr Wayne Astill is clearly not monitoring and ensuring compliance given the Minister has previously stated ‘The outcome of these discussions was for a brush application to be adopted by the operator and further monitoring by the DEP in order to ensure compliance’?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Did Mr Wayne Astill from the DEP refer the spraying of renofinish or diesel/oil mixture to Worksafe?
(7) If yes to (6), can the Minister table a copy of the email or letter sent to Worksafe in relation to this matter?
(8) If no to (6), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
13 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
34 days
(1) Yes. (2) Answered by (1). (3) Whilst the video clip shows the presence of aerosols, at the point of application, there is no indication of spray drift away from this point. Therefore, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no clear evidence that there is non-compliance of DEP's directives, a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the more specific Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998. (4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(2) Answered by (1). (3) Whilst the video clip shows the presence of aerosols, at the point of application, there is no indication of spray drift away from this point. Therefore, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no clear evidence that there is non-compliance of DEP's directives, a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the more specific Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998. (4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(3) Whilst the video clip shows the presence of aerosols, at the point of application, there is no indication of spray drift away from this point. Therefore, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no clear evidence that there is non-compliance of DEP's directives, a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the more specific Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998. (4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(8) Answered by (7).
(2) Answered by (1). (3) Whilst the video clip shows the presence of aerosols, at the point of application, there is no indication of spray drift away from this point. Therefore, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no clear evidence that there is non-compliance of DEP's directives, a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the more specific Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998. (4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(3) Whilst the video clip shows the presence of aerosols, at the point of application, there is no indication of spray drift away from this point. Therefore, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no clear evidence that there is non-compliance of DEP's directives, a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or the more specific Environmental Protection (Concrete Batching and Cement Product Manufacturing) Regulations 1998. (4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(4) The DEP has not directed or ordered Kalgoorlie Cement Works (KCW) to stop applying the releasing agent (diesel/ oil solution) to moulds. This agent is required to release the concrete product from the mould after the product has set; it is part of the standard operations for a concrete product facility. However, the DEP has requested Kalgoorlie Cement Works use rollers in preference to aerosol sprays, but the shape and size of some moulds require some limited use of sprays. The use of spray will invariably result in some aerosol mist in the vicinity of the spraying operation. The DEP expects the aerosol mist to be kept to a minimum with no visible spray drift crossing the boundary of the premises. (5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(5) Since the first complaint was raised, the DEP has conducted 10 site inspections, plus 12 drive-by inspections, where the officer stopped and took note of any issues related to noise and dust. In order to try and gauge the extent of concerns with KCW operations, the DEP has also contacted other adjacent neighbours to the KCW. Of the five residents contacted, none have made complaints about the operations at KCW. (6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(6) Yes. (7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(7) I table a copy of the e-mail to Mr Len Gordon of Worksafe on 25 February 2003 (Attachment 1). This was followed up with a telephone call to Mr Gordon who referred the matter onto Mr Arthur Livock, Worksafe. Mr Livock informed Mr Astill that he already had a copy of the video and there was no need to forward it on again. See Tabled Paper. (8) Answered by (7).
(8) Answered by (7).
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.