❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses KCGM's sulphur dioxide breaches and Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services' regulatory compliance, with the Minister providing updates on investigations and tabling relevant documents.
AnsweredQoN 2895Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to question on notice No. 553 of April 9 2002 and No. 2583 of September 1 2005 -
(1) Can the Minister indicate why the investigation for KCGM breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005 has not been finalised?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Given that in the year 2000 KCGM reviewed and modified its air quality management strategy so as to ensure that if weather conditions that gave rise to incidents were repeated the management strategy would minimise the likelihood of the standard being exceeded, will the Department of Environment prosecute KCGM for breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005 under the environmental protection policy?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state on what date the investigation first commenced in relation to KCGM breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister indicate approximately when the investigation for breaching sulphur dioxide limits will be finalised?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state by how much were the sound measurements in excess of the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations 1987 requirements?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Will the Minister table a copy of the warning issued to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services in March 2004?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Will the Minister quote the full text of the infringement notices issued in August 2004 and November 2004 stating what the company was alleged to have infringed?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Will the Minister table a copy of the warning issued to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services in February 2005?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(1) Can the Minister indicate why the investigation for KCGM breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005 has not been finalised?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Given that in the year 2000 KCGM reviewed and modified its air quality management strategy so as to ensure that if weather conditions that gave rise to incidents were repeated the management strategy would minimise the likelihood of the standard being exceeded, will the Department of Environment prosecute KCGM for breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005 under the environmental protection policy?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state on what date the investigation first commenced in relation to KCGM breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister indicate approximately when the investigation for breaching sulphur dioxide limits will be finalised?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state by how much were the sound measurements in excess of the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations 1987 requirements?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Will the Minister table a copy of the warning issued to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services in March 2004?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Will the Minister quote the full text of the infringement notices issued in August 2004 and November 2004 stating what the company was alleged to have infringed?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Will the Minister table a copy of the warning issued to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services in February 2005?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
124 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: The following information is accurate as at 7 December 2005: (1) Investigations follow contemporary methods to objectively and impartially gather evidence (including forensic evidence, interviewing witnesses, legal advice etc) to establish culpability of any party. As a result, investigations can be complicated matters. Because this investigation is still in progress I am unable to comment on the specifics of the investigation. (2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
The following information is accurate as at 7 December 2005: (1) Investigations follow contemporary methods to objectively and impartially gather evidence (including forensic evidence, interviewing witnesses, legal advice etc) to establish culpability of any party. As a result, investigations can be complicated matters. Because this investigation is still in progress I am unable to comment on the specifics of the investigation. (2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(1) Investigations follow contemporary methods to objectively and impartially gather evidence (including forensic evidence, interviewing witnesses, legal advice etc) to establish culpability of any party. As a result, investigations can be complicated matters. Because this investigation is still in progress I am unable to comment on the specifics of the investigation. (2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(16) Not applicable.
The following information is accurate as at 7 December 2005: (1) Investigations follow contemporary methods to objectively and impartially gather evidence (including forensic evidence, interviewing witnesses, legal advice etc) to establish culpability of any party. As a result, investigations can be complicated matters. Because this investigation is still in progress I am unable to comment on the specifics of the investigation. (2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(1) Investigations follow contemporary methods to objectively and impartially gather evidence (including forensic evidence, interviewing witnesses, legal advice etc) to establish culpability of any party. As a result, investigations can be complicated matters. Because this investigation is still in progress I am unable to comment on the specifics of the investigation. (2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(3) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment (DoE) investigation into this event is ongoing. (4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(5) The investigation commenced on 27 May 2005. (6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(7) No. (8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(8) As per question (1) investigations are ongoing and due to the complexity of this type of investigation no end date can be provided. Under the statute of limitations, the State has two years in which to bring a matter before the courts. (9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(9) When the warnings and infringement notices were issued the DoE considered that the readings were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Readings for La10 had varied between 70dB and 80dB without consideration of adjustments for modulation, tonality of impulsiveness. The assigned La10 values for the noise sensitive receiving premise of (industrial) would be 65dB without considering influencing factors. (10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(11) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(13) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable. (15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(15) Yes. (See tabled paper no ) (16) Not applicable.
(16) 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.