❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks information on the implementation of the Contaminated Sites Amendment Bill 2005, specifically regarding livestock dipping facilities. The response provides details on notification processes, responsibilities, and potential costs associated with contaminated sites.
AnsweredQoN 4920Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) By what date do contaminated sites need to be notified to the Department of the Environment under amendments passed in the
Contaminated Sites Amendment Bill 2005
?
(2) How many farm livestock dipping facilities have since been notified to the Department?
(3) What procedures will be followed on those properties where dips are notified?
(4) Will the farmer or pastoralist be required to conduct the soil tests?
(5) What is the estimated cost of such tests per site?
(6) If found to be contaminated, what will be the owners responsibility?
(7) If soil must be removed, where can it be deposited?
(8) What is the estimated cost of contaminated soil removal and who is responsible for the cost?
Contaminated Sites Amendment Bill 2005
?
(2) How many farm livestock dipping facilities have since been notified to the Department?
(3) What procedures will be followed on those properties where dips are notified?
(4) Will the farmer or pastoralist be required to conduct the soil tests?
(5) What is the estimated cost of such tests per site?
(6) If found to be contaminated, what will be the owners responsibility?
(7) If soil must be removed, where can it be deposited?
(8) What is the estimated cost of contaminated soil removal and who is responsible for the cost?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
26 June 2007
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
28 days
(2) Since the Act commenced on 1 December 2006, the total number of new known or suspected contaminated sites reported to the Department is around 1,000 with most of these reports being received in the last week of May 2007. The Department is still processing these reports, and therefore cannot provide accurate figures on the total number of sites or the number of farm livestock dipping facilities reported at this stage. However, the Department estimates that around 30 of the approximately 1,000 sites reported are farm livestock dipping facilities. (3) After receiving a report of a known or suspected contaminated site, the Department considers the information contained in the report, and may contact the person who reported the site or the site owner or occupier for further information or clarification. Based on the available information, the Department then classifies the site, in consultation with the Department of Health, according to the risk the site poses to people's health and the environment. There are seven possible classifications listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. (4) The classification assigned to a site will determine whether further action, such as investigation or remediation, is required. To date, only one livestock dipping site has been classified under the Act and this site was classified 'report not substantiated', with no further action required. (5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(3) After receiving a report of a known or suspected contaminated site, the Department considers the information contained in the report, and may contact the person who reported the site or the site owner or occupier for further information or clarification. Based on the available information, the Department then classifies the site, in consultation with the Department of Health, according to the risk the site poses to people's health and the environment. There are seven possible classifications listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. (4) The classification assigned to a site will determine whether further action, such as investigation or remediation, is required. To date, only one livestock dipping site has been classified under the Act and this site was classified 'report not substantiated', with no further action required. (5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(4) The classification assigned to a site will determine whether further action, such as investigation or remediation, is required. To date, only one livestock dipping site has been classified under the Act and this site was classified 'report not substantiated', with no further action required. (5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(8) See the answer to (5).
(3) After receiving a report of a known or suspected contaminated site, the Department considers the information contained in the report, and may contact the person who reported the site or the site owner or occupier for further information or clarification. Based on the available information, the Department then classifies the site, in consultation with the Department of Health, according to the risk the site poses to people's health and the environment. There are seven possible classifications listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. (4) The classification assigned to a site will determine whether further action, such as investigation or remediation, is required. To date, only one livestock dipping site has been classified under the Act and this site was classified 'report not substantiated', with no further action required. (5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(4) The classification assigned to a site will determine whether further action, such as investigation or remediation, is required. To date, only one livestock dipping site has been classified under the Act and this site was classified 'report not substantiated', with no further action required. (5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(5) Each site reported is assessed based on site-specific information and at this early stage in implementation of the Act, it is not possible to provide average costs applicable to farm livestock dipping facilities. (6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(6) Clean-up of contamination is only required where there is a risk to human health or the environment. A site that requires clean-up is classified 'contaminated - remediation required' and the Act sets out a hierarchy of responsibility for cleaning up such sites. In summary, the first person responsible is the person who caused or contributed to the contamination. If the causer of contamination cannot be identified, found, or made to pay, responsibility would generally fall to the current landowner. However, the Act provides some protection to innocent landowners, that is, landowners who unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased already contaminated land prior to 1 December 2006 and have not contributed to the contamination. Landowners can submit a disclosure statement before 1 December 2008, requesting exemption from responsibility for remediation. If it is determined that the landowner meets certain criteria, the landowner will be issued with an exemption certificate exempting him or her from responsibility for remediation. In cases in which an exemption certificate has been issued to the landowner and the person who caused the contamination cannot be identified, found or made to pay, it is likely that the State will bear the cost of cleaning up the site. (7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(7) The term 'remediation' has a broad definition under the Act and covers a spectrum of activities from restriction of access to a contaminant (such as by burying on site) to excavation and removal off-site. Where a site requires remediation, site-specific circumstances would determine the appropriate course of action. If excavation and off-site disposal of soil is chosen as the appropriate remedial strategy for a site, the level of contaminants in the soil will determine where the soil can be deposited. (8) See the answer to (5).
(8) See the answer to (5).
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.