❓ Hon Jim Scott questions the Minister for Environment and Heritage regarding an incinerator on Barrow Island, focusing on pollution control, waste disposal, and environmental assessment. The Minister confirms the incinerator's existence and provides details on its operation and regulatory oversight.
AnsweredQoN 1048Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Works on his early appearance today! Hon Tom Stephens: It is very nice to be able to drop by and be here today! The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Jim Scott will not encourage bad behaviour. (1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
Hon Tom Stephens: It is very nice to be able to drop by and be here today! The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Jim Scott will not encourage bad behaviour. (1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Jim Scott will not encourage bad behaviour. (1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
Hon Tom Stephens: It is very nice to be able to drop by and be here today! The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Jim Scott will not encourage bad behaviour. (1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon Jim Scott will not encourage bad behaviour. (1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(1) Will the minister confirm that an incinerator has been established on Barrow Island to burn refuse generated by oil industry workers? (2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(2) What pollution control equipment, if any, has been installed on the incinerator to prevent heavy metal and dioxin emissions from impacting on local ecosystems? (3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(3) Where and how is the contaminated incinerated fly ash and bottom ash disposed of? (4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(4) What level of environmental assessment was applied to the incinerator proposal by either the Department of Environmental Protection or the Environmental Protection Authority? (5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(5) Was the incinerator proposal approved by the Department of Environmental Protection; and, if yes, when? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
I thank the member for his welcome. As he appreciates, I have had a bit of a rough week and it is nice to be able to drop back into slumber land in the Chamber! I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following response - (1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(1) Yes. In 1995-96 the incinerator was replaced and upgraded to burn putrescible and office waste at high temperature and reduce the amount of waste to landfill. (2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(2) Pollution control is through limiting the waste stream to putrescible and office waste, high-temperature incineration, and five-metre stacks. (3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(3) Ash is disposed of to landfill category 64, class 2, on site. The nature of the waste stream minimises risk of contaminated ash. (4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(4) The proposal was not assessed as it was under the 100 kilogram an hour waste stream trigger for assessment. (5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
(5) As the proposal was under the assessment trigger, it does not require a Department of Environmental Protection licence.
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.