❓ A parliamentary question regarding odour emissions from Loongana Lime operations and the Department of Environment's (DoE) enforcement actions. The Minister responds that investigations are ongoing and appeals are being considered.
AnsweredQoN 3631Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article which appeared in the
Kalgoorlie Miner
dated Saturday 13 May 2006 titled ‘Investigation into Loongana Lime Renewed’ concerning a serious unreasonable odour from Loongana Lime Operations on the 11 April 2006, an ABC radio interview with Mr Wayne Astill from the Department of Environment (DoE) on 6 October 2005 and answers to question on notice numbers 3379 and 3380 of 4 April 2006 -
(1) Is it correct that five complaints were received by the DoE on 11 April 2006 about strong odours in the Hannans area?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically is correct?
(3) Is it correct that preliminary information indicated Loongana Lime was the source of the odours?
(4) If no to (3), what specifically is correct?
(5) Was an Environmental Field Notice issued to Loongana Lime on the 11 April 2006?
(6) If yes to (5), will the Minister table a copy of the Environmental Field Notice?
(7) Given that Mr Wayne Astill from the DoE stated on ABC radio in early October 2005 ‘If odour issues reoccur we’ll put another condition back on the licence to stop them using the kiln on oil when it blows towards town or we’ll consider an Environmental Protection Notice which does the same thing or look at further enforcement action under the Act,’ can the Minister explain why the DoE continues to allow Loongana Lime to continue to cause emissions which seriously affect the health welfare, comfort , convenience and amenity of surrounding residents?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) With reference to the answer provided on 9 May 2006, which in part states ‘will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are towards residential areas’. Can the Minister explain why there is a continued lack of strong enforcement action on the part of the DoE regarding Loongana Lime’s repeated emissions?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
Kalgoorlie Miner
dated Saturday 13 May 2006 titled ‘Investigation into Loongana Lime Renewed’ concerning a serious unreasonable odour from Loongana Lime Operations on the 11 April 2006, an ABC radio interview with Mr Wayne Astill from the Department of Environment (DoE) on 6 October 2005 and answers to question on notice numbers 3379 and 3380 of 4 April 2006 -
(1) Is it correct that five complaints were received by the DoE on 11 April 2006 about strong odours in the Hannans area?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically is correct?
(3) Is it correct that preliminary information indicated Loongana Lime was the source of the odours?
(4) If no to (3), what specifically is correct?
(5) Was an Environmental Field Notice issued to Loongana Lime on the 11 April 2006?
(6) If yes to (5), will the Minister table a copy of the Environmental Field Notice?
(7) Given that Mr Wayne Astill from the DoE stated on ABC radio in early October 2005 ‘If odour issues reoccur we’ll put another condition back on the licence to stop them using the kiln on oil when it blows towards town or we’ll consider an Environmental Protection Notice which does the same thing or look at further enforcement action under the Act,’ can the Minister explain why the DoE continues to allow Loongana Lime to continue to cause emissions which seriously affect the health welfare, comfort , convenience and amenity of surrounding residents?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) With reference to the answer provided on 9 May 2006, which in part states ‘will result in the DoE considering the issuing of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict the use of recycled oil when winds are towards residential areas’. Can the Minister explain why there is a continued lack of strong enforcement action on the part of the DoE regarding Loongana Lime’s repeated emissions?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
23 August 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
71 days
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response:
1.
No.
2.
There were no complaints received on the 11 April 2006.
3.
Not applicable.
4.
Not applicable.
5.
No.
6.
Not applicable.
7.
Currently a number of incidents are being investigated in relation to odours allegedly from Loongana Lime. The object of the investigation is to establish the source of the odours and whether the party responsible has breached the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Enforcement action may be taken against the responsible party depending upon the outcomes of those investigations. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Office of the Appeals Convenor is currently considering a number of appeals in relation to Loongana Lime's licence, particularly in relation to the wind restriction condition. Section 102(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 states that pending the determination of the relevant appeal lodged under subsection (1) in respect of a specification of any condition in a licence, the decision against which that appeal is lodged continues to have effect. At the time of the radio interview in early October 2005, appeals had not been lodged against the condition. The imposition of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict Loongana Lime's operations is still a tool that the DoE may utilise if it is considered necessary prior to the appeals being determined or the outcome of the investigations decided.
8.
Not applicable.
9.
As per (7).
10.
Not applicable.
1.
No.
2.
There were no complaints received on the 11 April 2006.
3.
Not applicable.
4.
Not applicable.
5.
No.
6.
Not applicable.
7.
Currently a number of incidents are being investigated in relation to odours allegedly from Loongana Lime. The object of the investigation is to establish the source of the odours and whether the party responsible has breached the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Enforcement action may be taken against the responsible party depending upon the outcomes of those investigations. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Office of the Appeals Convenor is currently considering a number of appeals in relation to Loongana Lime's licence, particularly in relation to the wind restriction condition. Section 102(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 states that pending the determination of the relevant appeal lodged under subsection (1) in respect of a specification of any condition in a licence, the decision against which that appeal is lodged continues to have effect. At the time of the radio interview in early October 2005, appeals had not been lodged against the condition. The imposition of an Environmental Protection Notice to restrict Loongana Lime's operations is still a tool that the DoE may utilise if it is considered necessary prior to the appeals being determined or the outcome of the investigations decided.
8.
Not applicable.
9.
As per (7).
10.
Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.