❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses odour complaints from Loongana Lime operations near Ninga Mia Aboriginal community and Kalgoorlie-Boulder residents, seeking details on complaint numbers, dates, substantiation, and reasons for not issuing directions or abatement notices under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
AnsweredQoN 1266Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article titled ‘Complaints about oily odour’ which appeared in the
Kalgoorlie Miner
April 12 2003 concerning Loongana Lime operations located near residents living at the Ninga Mia Aboriginal community and residents in the City of Kalgoorlie- Boulder -
(1) Can the Minister state how many complaints have been received from the above operations in the last 3 years?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Can the Minister state how many complaints have been received from the above operations in the last 9 months of operation?
(4) If no to (3) why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how many complaints, the specific dates in which they were received in the last 3 years and which complaints have been substantiated?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why a section 73 direction under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
has not been issued to Loongana Lime operations in relation to any substantiated pollution odour complaints in the last 3 years given that a direction can be given by an inspector who forms the view that ‘a condition of pollution is likely to arise or has arisen’ to clearly ‘prevent that condition of pollution from arising or control or abate that condition if it arises’?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why a pollution abatement notice under section 65 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
has not been issued to Loongana Lime operations in relation to any substantiated odour complaints in the last 3 years given that an abatement notice can be issued for any odour which ‘has caused or is causing or likely to cause pollution?
(10) If no to (9) why not?
Kalgoorlie Miner
April 12 2003 concerning Loongana Lime operations located near residents living at the Ninga Mia Aboriginal community and residents in the City of Kalgoorlie- Boulder -
(1) Can the Minister state how many complaints have been received from the above operations in the last 3 years?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Can the Minister state how many complaints have been received from the above operations in the last 9 months of operation?
(4) If no to (3) why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how many complaints, the specific dates in which they were received in the last 3 years and which complaints have been substantiated?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why a section 73 direction under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
has not been issued to Loongana Lime operations in relation to any substantiated pollution odour complaints in the last 3 years given that a direction can be given by an inspector who forms the view that ‘a condition of pollution is likely to arise or has arisen’ to clearly ‘prevent that condition of pollution from arising or control or abate that condition if it arises’?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why a pollution abatement notice under section 65 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
has not been issued to Loongana Lime operations in relation to any substantiated odour complaints in the last 3 years given that an abatement notice can be issued for any odour which ‘has caused or is causing or likely to cause pollution?
(10) If no to (9) why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 November 2003
Responded by
Minister for Local Government and Regional Development representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
54 days
(1) Yes, a total of 50 complaints were received since July 2000. July 2000 to June 2001 - 4 complaints July 2001 to June 2002 - 22 complaints July 2002 to June 2003 - 17 complaints July 2003 to 16 October 2003 - 7 complaints (2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
July 2000 to June 2001 - 4 complaints July 2001 to June 2002 - 22 complaints July 2002 to June 2003 - 17 complaints July 2003 to 16 October 2003 - 7 complaints (2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
See tabled paper.
July 2000 to June 2001 - 4 complaints July 2001 to June 2002 - 22 complaints July 2002 to June 2003 - 17 complaints July 2003 to 16 October 2003 - 7 complaints (2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(2) Answered by (1). (3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(3) Yes. From February to 16 October 2003, a total of 24 complaints have been received. (4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(4) Answered by (3). (5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(5) Yes. Complaints were received on the following dates in Attachment 1. The table includes an assessment of whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) felt there was a valid complaint. This is not an indication that either the Environmental Protection Act 1986 or licence conditions have been breached. The assessment of the validity of the complaint was based on an assessment of the wind direction to determine the claim that Loongana Lime was the likely cause. (6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(6) Answered by (5). (7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(7) Yes. The odour complaints received by the DEP do not constitute breaches of Loongana Lime’s licence conditions, as there is no reliable way of measuring odour at this time and maximum levels for odour emissions cannot be set. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that the odour being produced at Loongana Lime, resulting in any of the above complaints, constitutes pollution. The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
The DEP has never received more than 4 complaints on one day from the public regarding Loongana Lime. The majority of complaints received are from a small number of individuals. It is difficult to prove that pollution is likely to arise or has arisen, as it would be difficult to prove that public amenity has been threatened or that the odour is causing environmental degradation. However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
However, the DEP continues to encourage Loongana Lime to improve its performance to ensure it is taking all practical measures to minimise its emissions. (8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(8) Answered by (7). (9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(9) Yes. In order to issue a pollution abatement notice, the DEP would have to be satisfied that the odour emitted from Loongana Lime has caused or is likely to cause pollution. It is difficult to prove that the impacts of odour are to the detriment of the environment or to the detriment of any beneficial use including public amenity. Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
Again, the DEP is continuing to work on this matter to ensure that Loongana Lime is continually improving its environmental performance. (10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
(10) Answered by (9). See tabled paper.
See tabled paper.
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.