❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Environment Minister regarding the EPA's assessment of potential environmental impacts from the Fimiston Gold Mine Extension, specifically concerning TSF seepage, noise, dust, blasting risks, and long-term land use. The Minister clarifies that the EPA identified potential impacts requiring further assessment, not confirmed impacts.
AnsweredQoN 2584Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a document which I understand is signed by the chairman dated July 21 2005, titled ‘Department of Environmental Protection, weekly record of recommendations for s38 referrals, s16 and/or s46 advice’ concerning the Fimiston Gold Mine Extension (stage 3) and mine Closure Planning -
(1) Is it correct that part of this document under a sub heading ‘Potential Significant effects’ it states ‘High impact on CALM Reserve from TSF seepage, impact to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. Risk to public from blasting. Impact to Aboriginal site. Long term land use inter-generational equity’?
(2) If no to (1), can the Minister specifically quote the text from the document dated July 21 2005 signed by the chairman?
(3) Can the Minister explain how did the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environment determine that their would be a high impact on the CALM Reserve from TSF seepage?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how did the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environment determine that their would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how did the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environment determine that there is a risk to the public from blasting?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state how many people are potentially affected by the risk to public from blasting?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain what is long term land use inter generational equity, and why it was stated in this document?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(1) Is it correct that part of this document under a sub heading ‘Potential Significant effects’ it states ‘High impact on CALM Reserve from TSF seepage, impact to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. Risk to public from blasting. Impact to Aboriginal site. Long term land use inter-generational equity’?
(2) If no to (1), can the Minister specifically quote the text from the document dated July 21 2005 signed by the chairman?
(3) Can the Minister explain how did the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environment determine that their would be a high impact on the CALM Reserve from TSF seepage?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how did the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environment determine that their would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how did the Environmental Protection Authority, Department of Environment determine that there is a risk to the public from blasting?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state how many people are potentially affected by the risk to public from blasting?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain what is long term land use inter generational equity, and why it was stated in this document?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 October 2005
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
40 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: (1) It is understood that the document which is referred to is the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA) record of its decision that the proposal by KCGM for the Fimiston Gold Mine Extension (stage 3) and Mine Closure Planning will be subject to formal environmental impact assessment under Environmental Protection Act 1986. The part of the document referred to provides the potential significant environmental impacts considered by the EPA in its decision to assess the proposal. It was considered that the proposal had the potential to have a high environmental impact. This does not mean that the proposal will have these impacts, but that the proponent needs to show through the environmental impact assessment process that the impact will not be occur, or will not be significant, or can be managed to satisfactorily mitigate the impact. (2) Not applicable (3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(1) It is understood that the document which is referred to is the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA) record of its decision that the proposal by KCGM for the Fimiston Gold Mine Extension (stage 3) and Mine Closure Planning will be subject to formal environmental impact assessment under Environmental Protection Act 1986. The part of the document referred to provides the potential significant environmental impacts considered by the EPA in its decision to assess the proposal. It was considered that the proposal had the potential to have a high environmental impact. This does not mean that the proposal will have these impacts, but that the proponent needs to show through the environmental impact assessment process that the impact will not be occur, or will not be significant, or can be managed to satisfactorily mitigate the impact. (2) Not applicable (3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable (3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable.
(1) It is understood that the document which is referred to is the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA) record of its decision that the proposal by KCGM for the Fimiston Gold Mine Extension (stage 3) and Mine Closure Planning will be subject to formal environmental impact assessment under Environmental Protection Act 1986. The part of the document referred to provides the potential significant environmental impacts considered by the EPA in its decision to assess the proposal. It was considered that the proposal had the potential to have a high environmental impact. This does not mean that the proposal will have these impacts, but that the proponent needs to show through the environmental impact assessment process that the impact will not be occur, or will not be significant, or can be managed to satisfactorily mitigate the impact. (2) Not applicable (3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable (3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(3) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be a high impact on the Department of Conservation and Land Management Reserve from TSF seepage. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(5) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there would be impacts to amenity from noise, dust and vibration. The expected impact will be determined through assessment. (6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(7) The EPA or Department of Environment did not determine there is a risk to the public from blasting. The expected impact will be determined through the assessment. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(9) No. (10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(10) As the assessment has not been undertaken yet, it has not been established if any people will be affected by blasting. (11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(11) Long term land use and intergenerational equity relate to mine closure planning and indicate that the proponent needs to address the issue of long term land use post closure and ensure that the EPA's principle of intergenerational equity "that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the benefit of future generations" is satisfied through closure plans. (12) Not applicable.
(12) 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.