❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding KCGM's management of tailings dam seepage and its impact on groundwater levels and vegetation, alleging potential pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
AnsweredQoN 3408Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Fimiston 1, Fimiston 2 and Oroya tailings dams owned by Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining, operated by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM), question on notice number 2890 of 10 November 2005, and a letter dated 24 February 2000 addressed to Dr Jim Bawden, Manager - Community, Safety and Environment titled ‘Fimiston Tailings dams’, signed by Andrew Mack for Fred Tromp, Director Pollution Prevention Division -
(1) Does the Minister deny that seepage from the Fimiston 1, Fimiston 2 and Oroya tailings dams has in the period of 1993 up until 2005 caused the water table to rise, thus stressing and in some cases killing vegetation in the area between all of these tailings dams, this being a serious offence and pollution under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(2) If yes to (1), on what specific basis and which specific facts are denied?
(3) If no to (1), why has KCGM been allowed to cause pollution for such a long period of time without the DoE taking strong enforcement action to prevent ongoing and recurring pollution?
(4) Is it correct that part of the abovementioned letter states ‘The DEP believes that to demonstrate that KCGM is capable of adequately managing groundwater levels in this region, the company must show that is it has decreased levels in all areas and that it is capable of maintaining a trend of further reductions towards the target of six metres below ground level’?
(5) If yes to (4), can the Minister explain why the DoE has allowed KCGM in the period 1993 to 2005 to inadequately manage seepage, thus failing to keep groundwater levels at below six metres?
(6) If no to (4), will the Minister quote the specific text from the letter?
(7) Can the Minister state in which specific areas the groundwater levels ‘have increased substantially’ and by what specific amount in metres?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state the cause and reasons why the groundwater levels had increased substantially?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the DoE advised KCGM in 2000 that it must show that it has decreased levels in all areas and that it is capable of maintaining a trend of further reductions towards the target of six metres below ground level?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister state why did KCGM in 2000 need to be able to demonstrate that it was able to quickly react (by way of recovery mechanisms or other means) to monitoring data indicating marked decreases in groundwater depth?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(1) Does the Minister deny that seepage from the Fimiston 1, Fimiston 2 and Oroya tailings dams has in the period of 1993 up until 2005 caused the water table to rise, thus stressing and in some cases killing vegetation in the area between all of these tailings dams, this being a serious offence and pollution under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(2) If yes to (1), on what specific basis and which specific facts are denied?
(3) If no to (1), why has KCGM been allowed to cause pollution for such a long period of time without the DoE taking strong enforcement action to prevent ongoing and recurring pollution?
(4) Is it correct that part of the abovementioned letter states ‘The DEP believes that to demonstrate that KCGM is capable of adequately managing groundwater levels in this region, the company must show that is it has decreased levels in all areas and that it is capable of maintaining a trend of further reductions towards the target of six metres below ground level’?
(5) If yes to (4), can the Minister explain why the DoE has allowed KCGM in the period 1993 to 2005 to inadequately manage seepage, thus failing to keep groundwater levels at below six metres?
(6) If no to (4), will the Minister quote the specific text from the letter?
(7) Can the Minister state in which specific areas the groundwater levels ‘have increased substantially’ and by what specific amount in metres?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state the cause and reasons why the groundwater levels had increased substantially?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the DoE advised KCGM in 2000 that it must show that it has decreased levels in all areas and that it is capable of maintaining a trend of further reductions towards the target of six metres below ground level?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister state why did KCGM in 2000 need to be able to demonstrate that it was able to quickly react (by way of recovery mechanisms or other means) to monitoring data indicating marked decreases in groundwater depth?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
30 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
28 days
(2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes, and I table a copy of this letter. It is apparent from this letter that the Department of Environment (the then Department of Environmental Protection) considered that the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) had shown that certain areas around the Tailings Storage Facilities had marked improvement, but it appeared that other areas exhibited increased water levels. The Department considered that KCGM needed to present information in the report so as to demonstrate adequate management of groundwater levels in the area. (5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable. (4) Yes, and I table a copy of this letter. It is apparent from this letter that the Department of Environment (the then Department of Environmental Protection) considered that the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) had shown that certain areas around the Tailings Storage Facilities had marked improvement, but it appeared that other areas exhibited increased water levels. The Department considered that KCGM needed to present information in the report so as to demonstrate adequate management of groundwater levels in the area. (5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(4) Yes, and I table a copy of this letter. It is apparent from this letter that the Department of Environment (the then Department of Environmental Protection) considered that the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) had shown that certain areas around the Tailings Storage Facilities had marked improvement, but it appeared that other areas exhibited increased water levels. The Department considered that KCGM needed to present information in the report so as to demonstrate adequate management of groundwater levels in the area. (5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable. (4) Yes, and I table a copy of this letter. It is apparent from this letter that the Department of Environment (the then Department of Environmental Protection) considered that the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) had shown that certain areas around the Tailings Storage Facilities had marked improvement, but it appeared that other areas exhibited increased water levels. The Department considered that KCGM needed to present information in the report so as to demonstrate adequate management of groundwater levels in the area. (5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(4) Yes, and I table a copy of this letter. It is apparent from this letter that the Department of Environment (the then Department of Environmental Protection) considered that the Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) had shown that certain areas around the Tailings Storage Facilities had marked improvement, but it appeared that other areas exhibited increased water levels. The Department considered that KCGM needed to present information in the report so as to demonstrate adequate management of groundwater levels in the area. (5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(5) As per Question on Notice 2890 of 10 November 2005, KCGM is required to manage the storage of matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituent within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. The Department encouraged KCGM to work towards a depth to groundwater of 6m as a target to minimise the likelihood of pollution. (6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(7) The areas in which groundwater levels had increased are detailed in the letter tabled in (4). (8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(9) The reasons for the increased groundwater levels are detailed in the letter tabled in (4), but in summary relate to cyclonic activity and the spread of the seepage plume. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(11) As per (4). (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(13) As per (4) and (5), KCGM needed to demonstrate that it could adequately manage groundwater levels in the area. It is apparent from the letter that the Department considered that being able to quickly react to monitoring data was an important part of the management strategy. (14) Not applicable.
(14) 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.