❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding safety precautions, environmental compliance, and inspections at the Bulong Nickel Mine. The Minister's response details safety measures, inspection findings, and reasons for departmental actions.
AnsweredQoN 1636Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter which I understand is dated 1 December 2003 signed by Mathew Stingemore, Environmental officer from the Department of Industry and Resources addressed to the Registered Manager Bulong Nickel Pty Ltd concerning the Bulong Nickel Mine -
(1) Can the Minister state what specific ‘safety precautions’ have been detailed to the Department of Industry and Resources by the owner of the mine?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Has the District Inspector verified by site inspection that all the ‘safety precautions’ under all of relevant legislation were or are in place at the mine?
(4) If yes to (3) what specific safety precautions if any did the District Inspector identify that were not in place and required further attention?
(5) Will the Minister table copies of the departmental correspondence sent to the owners on the mine following the Annual Environmental Report inspection in the years of 2000, 2001, 2002 and a follow up inspection on the 21 November 2003?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the tailings which had been discharged into the evaporation ponds were so important to the department that it had to be ‘removed’ and ‘cleaned up’?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why the Department is providing and giving the owners of the mine a lot of latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance under all legislation administered by the department and verification of the Annual Environmental Report submitted on the 3 October 2003 without conducting a site inspection given that it extremely important and pertinent in time for the Department to check the veracity and accuracy of information supplied otherwise it severely limits the validity of any comments made in the report?
(10) If no to (9) why not?
(11) Can the Minister state the names of which other mines are given the same latitude in not having a site inspection undertaken by the department to verify and validate the accuracy of information supplied in a annual environmental report particularly where the mine is in the process of closing down?
(12) If no to (11) why not?
(13) Will the Minister immediately order/direct that a urgent inspection be undertaken of the mine to verify and validate all comments made in the Annual Environmental Report submitted 3 October 2003 to ensure compliance with all legislation administered by the Department so as the validity of any comments made in the report are not limited simply because the department has delayed conducting a site inspection?
(14) If no to (13) why not?
(1) Can the Minister state what specific ‘safety precautions’ have been detailed to the Department of Industry and Resources by the owner of the mine?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Has the District Inspector verified by site inspection that all the ‘safety precautions’ under all of relevant legislation were or are in place at the mine?
(4) If yes to (3) what specific safety precautions if any did the District Inspector identify that were not in place and required further attention?
(5) Will the Minister table copies of the departmental correspondence sent to the owners on the mine following the Annual Environmental Report inspection in the years of 2000, 2001, 2002 and a follow up inspection on the 21 November 2003?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the tailings which had been discharged into the evaporation ponds were so important to the department that it had to be ‘removed’ and ‘cleaned up’?
(8) If no to (7) why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why the Department is providing and giving the owners of the mine a lot of latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance under all legislation administered by the department and verification of the Annual Environmental Report submitted on the 3 October 2003 without conducting a site inspection given that it extremely important and pertinent in time for the Department to check the veracity and accuracy of information supplied otherwise it severely limits the validity of any comments made in the report?
(10) If no to (9) why not?
(11) Can the Minister state the names of which other mines are given the same latitude in not having a site inspection undertaken by the department to verify and validate the accuracy of information supplied in a annual environmental report particularly where the mine is in the process of closing down?
(12) If no to (11) why not?
(13) Will the Minister immediately order/direct that a urgent inspection be undertaken of the mine to verify and validate all comments made in the Annual Environmental Report submitted 3 October 2003 to ensure compliance with all legislation administered by the Department so as the validity of any comments made in the report are not limited simply because the department has delayed conducting a site inspection?
(14) If no to (13) why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
30 March 2004
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
109 days
I am advised: 1. The Temporary Closure Plan dated November 2003, specifically details the following safety precautions: · Pit perimeters have been secured with bunding. · Mine access areas have been secured with bunding or fencing. · Communications systems have been maintained. · The site inventory of hazardous materials has been reduced to zero where possible or stored in compliance with statutory requirements. · A management plan and MSDS for each hazardous material has been documented. · Plant/Buildings have been shutdown, cleaned and secured. · A site emergency response plan will remain in place. · Security personnel will continue to maintain security on site 24 hours a day. · Safety inductions, work permits, audits and inspections, risk assessments and hazard identification activities will be ongoing. 2. N/A 3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
1. The Temporary Closure Plan dated November 2003, specifically details the following safety precautions: · Pit perimeters have been secured with bunding. · Mine access areas have been secured with bunding or fencing. · Communications systems have been maintained. · The site inventory of hazardous materials has been reduced to zero where possible or stored in compliance with statutory requirements. · A management plan and MSDS for each hazardous material has been documented. · Plant/Buildings have been shutdown, cleaned and secured. · A site emergency response plan will remain in place. · Security personnel will continue to maintain security on site 24 hours a day. · Safety inductions, work permits, audits and inspections, risk assessments and hazard identification activities will be ongoing. 2. N/A 3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
2. N/A 3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
1. The Temporary Closure Plan dated November 2003, specifically details the following safety precautions: · Pit perimeters have been secured with bunding. · Mine access areas have been secured with bunding or fencing. · Communications systems have been maintained. · The site inventory of hazardous materials has been reduced to zero where possible or stored in compliance with statutory requirements. · A management plan and MSDS for each hazardous material has been documented. · Plant/Buildings have been shutdown, cleaned and secured. · A site emergency response plan will remain in place. · Security personnel will continue to maintain security on site 24 hours a day. · Safety inductions, work permits, audits and inspections, risk assessments and hazard identification activities will be ongoing. 2. N/A 3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
2. N/A 3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
3. Yes. 4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
4. The following defects were noted in the Mine Record Book: · Quicklime spillage on the ground at the Quicklime Silo was being hosed into a sump prior to being pumped into the tailings dam. Clean up of the spillage is to be completed prior to suspension. · Bulka bags of carbon are to be removed from the bunded enclosures at the SX valley area. · The storage and bunding of chemicals left on site is to be reviewed and upgraded. · The two 5000 litre diesel storage tanks require adequate bunding or to be emptied. 5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
5. No. However these documents can be made available to you by contacting the Environment Branch of the Department. 6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
6. Inspection reports are not public documents, due to potential commercial confidentiality and/or sensitivity, and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
7. The Department was concerned about this issue since the evaporation ponds are not licensed for the storage of tailings, and notification of this incident was not submitted to the Department as required by tenement condition 23 for Mining Lease 25/97. 8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
8. N/A 9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
9. The Department did not provide or give Bulong Nickel operations a lot of “latitude in terms of monitoring for compliance”. The operations were inspected by Departmental Environmental Officers during an Annual Environmental Inspection on the 30 July 2003. A further inspection was conducted on 21 November 2003. The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
The site was also inspected by Departmental Mines Safety Inspectors on 3 and 13 of October 2003, and on 16 December 2003. Since these inspections were quite recent, the Department considered that it was not necessary to conduct another inspection of the Bulong site following the submission of the Annual Environmental Report on 3 October 2003. The next environmental inspection has been scheduled for mid to late 2004. 10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
10. N/A 11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
11. The inference that the Department has given Bulong Nickel operations any latitude is incorrect. The frequency of inspections is based on the environmental risk and performance of site, and the length of time since last inspection. 12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
12. N/A 13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
13. In light of the above explanation, there has already been inspections. 14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
14. See answers to Q9 and Q11.
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.