❓ Hon Giz Watson asks about environmental regulation compliance of a sandstone quarry near Donnybrook, following up on a previous question. The Minister's response indicates shared regulatory responsibility between DEC, DMP and DoW, and details previous EPA assessments and referrals.
AnsweredQoN 5954Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the sandstone quarry situated on Irishtown Road near Donnybrook, and the answers given to my question on notice No. 2448 on 29 June 2010, and I ask —
(1) Since answering question on notice No. 2448, has the operator of the quarry contravened any environmental regulations, environmental guidelines, licence conditions or other requirements of operation of an environmental nature, including but not limited to —
(a) noise pollution;
(b) dust pollution; or
(c) water degradation?
(2) If yes to (1), in respect of each contravention will the Minister please provide full details of —
(a) the date of the contravention;
(b) the nature of the contravention;
(c) the action taken in respect of the contravention;
(d) the outcome of that action; and
(e) the time taken between the original allegation of contravention and the matter being finalised?
(3) Since answering question on notice No. 2448, has the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) performed any environmental assessment on the area?
(4) If yes to (3) —
(a) when;
(b) what were the findings;
(c) will the Minister please table a copy of the report; and
(d) if no to (4)(c), why not?
(5) Regarding the answer given to (3) of question on notice No. 2448 (i.e. that the EPA determined no formal assessment was warranted in relation to referrals made in November 2008 and on 29 July 2009) —
(a) what were the reasons for this determination (please provide full details); and
(b) what was the evidence on which those reasons were based (please provide full details)?
(6) How frequently does the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) assess the quarry operator's level of compliance with environmental regulations, environmental guidelines, licence conditions or other requirements of operation of an environmental nature, including but not limited to noise pollution, dust pollution and water degradation?
(7) By what means does DEC assess the operator's level of compliance with those requirements?
(8) What is the estimated cost per year of monitoring as per (6) and (7)?
(1) Since answering question on notice No. 2448, has the operator of the quarry contravened any environmental regulations, environmental guidelines, licence conditions or other requirements of operation of an environmental nature, including but not limited to —
(a) noise pollution;
(b) dust pollution; or
(c) water degradation?
(2) If yes to (1), in respect of each contravention will the Minister please provide full details of —
(a) the date of the contravention;
(b) the nature of the contravention;
(c) the action taken in respect of the contravention;
(d) the outcome of that action; and
(e) the time taken between the original allegation of contravention and the matter being finalised?
(3) Since answering question on notice No. 2448, has the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) performed any environmental assessment on the area?
(4) If yes to (3) —
(a) when;
(b) what were the findings;
(c) will the Minister please table a copy of the report; and
(d) if no to (4)(c), why not?
(5) Regarding the answer given to (3) of question on notice No. 2448 (i.e. that the EPA determined no formal assessment was warranted in relation to referrals made in November 2008 and on 29 July 2009) —
(a) what were the reasons for this determination (please provide full details); and
(b) what was the evidence on which those reasons were based (please provide full details)?
(6) How frequently does the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) assess the quarry operator's level of compliance with environmental regulations, environmental guidelines, licence conditions or other requirements of operation of an environmental nature, including but not limited to noise pollution, dust pollution and water degradation?
(7) By what means does DEC assess the operator's level of compliance with those requirements?
(8) What is the estimated cost per year of monitoring as per (6) and (7)?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 October 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
35 days
(1)-(2) Sandstone quarrying is not a prescribed activity under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986,
and is therefore not licensed by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).
Under a delegation of the clearing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) undertakes assessment of clearing permit applications and also investigates incidents of alleged unlawful clearing for mining and petroleum activities.
Since the answer was given to question on notice 2448, DEC has received an inquiry in June 2012 concerning alleged illegal clearing of native vegetation which has been referred to the Department of Mines and Petroleum. A further inquiry in August 2012 concerning dust and fire management is currently being investigated.
The Department of Water (DoW) advised that no incidents have been recorded since June 2010.
The DMP also oversees the mining operations for this quarry under the
Mining Act 1978
.
(3) Since 29 June 2010 the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has not undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposal.
(4) The proposed expansion of the quarry was referred to the EPA in November 2008 and in July 2009 the EPA determined that the proposal did not warrant formal assessment. The proposal was referred again to the EPA by a third party on 8 June 2012, however under section 38 (5j) of the Environmental Protection Act a proposal cannot be referred to the EPA more than once.
(5) The EPA made a decision in July 2009 that the environmental impacts were not so significant as to warrant a formal environmental impact assessment by the EPA. The EPA's decision was based on information submitted with the referral and the EPA's inquiries. The referral by the proponent included the document Mining Proposal M70/1217 Irish Town Road, Donnybrook which is publicly available on the DMP's website
www.dmp.wa.gov.au
. This document describes the proposal and investigations undertaken.
The EPA considered the environmental issues relevant to the proposal were clearing of native vegetation, Dieback management, fauna, noise, dust and surface water drainage and indigenous heritage.
The EPA advertised its decision 'Not assessed, public advice given and managed under Part V (Clearing)' on 20 July 2009.
The decision not to assess the proposal was appealed. The Minister for Environment dismissed the appeals in September 2009. A report on the appeals is publicly available on the Appeal Convenors website,
www.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au
(Ref 283-289/09). This report discusses the environmental issues and the matters considered by the EPA in making its decision. Public Advice was provided by the EPA to the proponent and Decision Making Authorities in October 2009. This advice also shows the environmental issues considered by the EPA in making its decision.
(6) - (8) See answer to part (1).
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Environmental Protection Act 1986,
and is therefore not licensed by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).
Under a delegation of the clearing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) undertakes assessment of clearing permit applications and also investigates incidents of alleged unlawful clearing for mining and petroleum activities.
Since the answer was given to question on notice 2448, DEC has received an inquiry in June 2012 concerning alleged illegal clearing of native vegetation which has been referred to the Department of Mines and Petroleum. A further inquiry in August 2012 concerning dust and fire management is currently being investigated.
The Department of Water (DoW) advised that no incidents have been recorded since June 2010.
The DMP also oversees the mining operations for this quarry under the
Mining Act 1978
.
(3) Since 29 June 2010 the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has not undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposal.
(4) The proposed expansion of the quarry was referred to the EPA in November 2008 and in July 2009 the EPA determined that the proposal did not warrant formal assessment. The proposal was referred again to the EPA by a third party on 8 June 2012, however under section 38 (5j) of the Environmental Protection Act a proposal cannot be referred to the EPA more than once.
(5) The EPA made a decision in July 2009 that the environmental impacts were not so significant as to warrant a formal environmental impact assessment by the EPA. The EPA's decision was based on information submitted with the referral and the EPA's inquiries. The referral by the proponent included the document Mining Proposal M70/1217 Irish Town Road, Donnybrook which is publicly available on the DMP's website
www.dmp.wa.gov.au
. This document describes the proposal and investigations undertaken.
The EPA considered the environmental issues relevant to the proposal were clearing of native vegetation, Dieback management, fauna, noise, dust and surface water drainage and indigenous heritage.
The EPA advertised its decision 'Not assessed, public advice given and managed under Part V (Clearing)' on 20 July 2009.
The decision not to assess the proposal was appealed. The Minister for Environment dismissed the appeals in September 2009. A report on the appeals is publicly available on the Appeal Convenors website,
www.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au
(Ref 283-289/09). This report discusses the environmental issues and the matters considered by the EPA in making its decision. Public Advice was provided by the EPA to the proponent and Decision Making Authorities in October 2009. This advice also shows the environmental issues considered by the EPA in making its decision.
(6) - (8) See answer to part (1).
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.