❓ A parliamentary question regarding alleged dust pollution from Kalgoorlie Cement Works and the Department of Environment's response and enforcement actions. The questioner implies inaction despite evidence, while the Minister states action is dependent on evidence of dust crossing the boundary.
AnsweredQoN 963Legislative Council
Asked
27 June 2003
Member
Portfolio
Local Government and Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to an email from Mr Wayne Astill dated May 29, 2003 concerning Kalgoorlie Cement Works pollution and environmental problems operated by Mr Mark Posa addressed to Mr Chris Right -
(1) Is it correct that part of the email states ‘The second image shows a minimal amount of some dust or water mist leaving the hopper during loading’?
(2) If no to (1) will the Minister table the email dated May 29 2003?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department is not able to take some form of serious enforcement action including writing a letter to Kalgoorlie Cement Works indicating that should dust become validated as causing pollution under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, there is potential for KCW to be in breach of section 50 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
in order to specifically address the complaints concerning dust given that -
(a) Mr Chris Right has provided numerous and many evidentary images of KCW over a period of time causing dust in the last 16 months to the DEP; and
(b) an Environmental Field Notice has previously been issued for dust emissions?
(4) If no to (3) why not ?
(5) Can the Minister explain why the Department is prepared and willing to take definitive proactive action similar or the same to that outlined in question 3 above at other premises in relation to dust which has not been validated as leaving the site, yet is not prepared to do the same at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works in order to specifically address the complaints concerning dust and not have the Department continue to waste resources claiming a number of drive by inspections with no evidence of non compliance?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the Department on the one hand clearly attempts to pacify Mr Right’s concerns by stating the owner operator has made certain commitments to address many of his complaints not just noise, yet when these commitments are either broken or changed, the DEP conveniently adopts a very loath attitude towards Kalgoorlie Cement Works which then ultimately triggers further complaints from Mr Right about the very same/similar issues?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(1) Is it correct that part of the email states ‘The second image shows a minimal amount of some dust or water mist leaving the hopper during loading’?
(2) If no to (1) will the Minister table the email dated May 29 2003?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department is not able to take some form of serious enforcement action including writing a letter to Kalgoorlie Cement Works indicating that should dust become validated as causing pollution under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, there is potential for KCW to be in breach of section 50 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
in order to specifically address the complaints concerning dust given that -
(a) Mr Chris Right has provided numerous and many evidentary images of KCW over a period of time causing dust in the last 16 months to the DEP; and
(b) an Environmental Field Notice has previously been issued for dust emissions?
(4) If no to (3) why not ?
(5) Can the Minister explain why the Department is prepared and willing to take definitive proactive action similar or the same to that outlined in question 3 above at other premises in relation to dust which has not been validated as leaving the site, yet is not prepared to do the same at the Kalgoorlie Cement Works in order to specifically address the complaints concerning dust and not have the Department continue to waste resources claiming a number of drive by inspections with no evidence of non compliance?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the Department on the one hand clearly attempts to pacify Mr Right’s concerns by stating the owner operator has made certain commitments to address many of his complaints not just noise, yet when these commitments are either broken or changed, the DEP conveniently adopts a very loath attitude towards Kalgoorlie Cement Works which then ultimately triggers further complaints from Mr Right about the very same/similar issues?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 August 2003
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
46 days
(b) an Environmental Field Notice has previously been issued for dust emissions?
(1) Yes. (2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes, given there is no evidence of dust crossing the premise boundary, there has been no repeat breach that was the subject of Environmental Field Notice issued in January 2003. As no breach has been committed, then no further action can be taken. (4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes, given there is no evidence of dust crossing the premise boundary, there has been no repeat breach that was the subject of Environmental Field Notice issued in January 2003. As no breach has been committed, then no further action can be taken. (4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(3) Yes, given there is no evidence of dust crossing the premise boundary, there has been no repeat breach that was the subject of Environmental Field Notice issued in January 2003. As no breach has been committed, then no further action can be taken. (4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(8) Answered by (7).
(1) Yes. (2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes, given there is no evidence of dust crossing the premise boundary, there has been no repeat breach that was the subject of Environmental Field Notice issued in January 2003. As no breach has been committed, then no further action can be taken. (4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes, given there is no evidence of dust crossing the premise boundary, there has been no repeat breach that was the subject of Environmental Field Notice issued in January 2003. As no breach has been committed, then no further action can be taken. (4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(3) Yes, given there is no evidence of dust crossing the premise boundary, there has been no repeat breach that was the subject of Environmental Field Notice issued in January 2003. As no breach has been committed, then no further action can be taken. (4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(4) Answered by (3). (5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(5) No. (6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(6) I am unaware of what other examples you are alluding to, and the specific nature of those cases. (7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (8) Answered by (7).
(7) The Department of Environment will continue to regularly inspect the operations of the Kalgoorlie Cement Works. If a breach is identified, then appropriate enforcement action will be taken. (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.