❓ Question regarding asbestos contamination at a Department of Housing property in Bicton, specifically concerning worker safety and notification procedures. The response indicates some procedural failings and delayed action.
AnsweredQoN 6358Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a Department of Housing property at Lot 85 on Plan 1547 as shown on certificate of title 2173/253 known as 66 Murray Road, Bicton, and I ask —
(1) Were construction workers and visitors who attended this site from 15 November 2010, when the Department of Housing received its first notification of possible asbestos contamination at this site —
(a) informed of this risk;
(b) required to use appropriate protective equipment; or
(c) follow any other protocol or standard in relation to asbestos management?
(2) Has the Department of Housing since notified workers or visitors to this site during this period that they were potentially exposed to asbestos contamination at this site?
(3) Why was work only stopped at this site on January 12, 2011, and not in November 2010, when the Department of Housing was notified of possible asbestos contamination at this site?
(4) Did the Department of Housing notify the building contractor that it had been notified by the Department of Environment and Conservation of possible asbestos contamination at this site?
(5) If yes to (4), how, and on what date?
(6) If no to (4), why not?
(7) Were any earth works, trawling, cut and fill, levelling and so forth done between November 2010 and 12 January 2011, when work was eventually stopped at this site?
(8) If yes to (7), please list all works done.
(9) Were proper watering and dust suppression measures put in place at all times between November 2010 and January 2011?
(1) Were construction workers and visitors who attended this site from 15 November 2010, when the Department of Housing received its first notification of possible asbestos contamination at this site —
(a) informed of this risk;
(b) required to use appropriate protective equipment; or
(c) follow any other protocol or standard in relation to asbestos management?
(2) Has the Department of Housing since notified workers or visitors to this site during this period that they were potentially exposed to asbestos contamination at this site?
(3) Why was work only stopped at this site on January 12, 2011, and not in November 2010, when the Department of Housing was notified of possible asbestos contamination at this site?
(4) Did the Department of Housing notify the building contractor that it had been notified by the Department of Environment and Conservation of possible asbestos contamination at this site?
(5) If yes to (4), how, and on what date?
(6) If no to (4), why not?
(7) Were any earth works, trawling, cut and fill, levelling and so forth done between November 2010 and 12 January 2011, when work was eventually stopped at this site?
(8) If yes to (7), please list all works done.
(9) Were proper watering and dust suppression measures put in place at all times between November 2010 and January 2011?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
27 November 2012
Responded by
Minister for Education representing the Minister for Housing
Response time
34 days
The Department of Housing advises:
(1)(a) The Department's records indicate that a letter was sent to the building contractor on 9 February 2011 after notification was received from the Department of Environment and Conservation that further investigation was required. The building contractor was aware of investigations prior to this date and had received instruction to cease work on the site on the 12 January 2011.
(b) The letter dated 9 February 2011 referred to the required use of protective equipment.
(c) The letter dated 9 February 2011 also referred to the Department of Environment and Conservation guidelines.
(2) No
(3) The site inspection and soil testing undertaken by the environmental consultant engaged reported a negative testing result for asbestos free fibre indicating no widespread asbestos contamination or immediate health risk through dust generation.
(4) Yes
(5) A letter was sent to the building contractor on 9 February 2011, however, it is apparent that the builder was aware of the investigations prior to this date, with work on site ceasing because of this issue in January 2011.
(6) Not applicable
(7) Yes
(8) The Department's records indicate that trees were removed, earthworks were undertaken and some boundary fencing and retaining walls were constructed.
(9) The Department's records indicate that watering and dust suppression measures were applied on the site during this period. Complaints in relation to dust were received and further measures applied with a contractor engaged, after work ceased on the site, to apply soil stabilizer to the site in early February 2011.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(1)(a) The Department's records indicate that a letter was sent to the building contractor on 9 February 2011 after notification was received from the Department of Environment and Conservation that further investigation was required. The building contractor was aware of investigations prior to this date and had received instruction to cease work on the site on the 12 January 2011.
(b) The letter dated 9 February 2011 referred to the required use of protective equipment.
(c) The letter dated 9 February 2011 also referred to the Department of Environment and Conservation guidelines.
(2) No
(3) The site inspection and soil testing undertaken by the environmental consultant engaged reported a negative testing result for asbestos free fibre indicating no widespread asbestos contamination or immediate health risk through dust generation.
(4) Yes
(5) A letter was sent to the building contractor on 9 February 2011, however, it is apparent that the builder was aware of the investigations prior to this date, with work on site ceasing because of this issue in January 2011.
(6) Not applicable
(7) Yes
(8) The Department's records indicate that trees were removed, earthworks were undertaken and some boundary fencing and retaining walls were constructed.
(9) The Department's records indicate that watering and dust suppression measures were applied on the site during this period. Complaints in relation to dust were received and further measures applied with a contractor engaged, after work ceased on the site, to apply soil stabilizer to the site in early February 2011.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.