❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses concerns regarding hypersaline water spillages from KCGM (Barrick Gold, Newmont Mining) onto an Aboriginal reserve, questioning the lack of prosecutions and reporting practices under environmental and contaminated sites legislation.
AnsweredQoN 3254Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the mining operations of Barrick Gold, Newmont Mining operated by KCGM, and a newspaper article dated 7 July 2008 titled ‘Residents anger at pit expansion’, which appeared in the
Kalgoorlie Miner
newspaper, and the area of land covering an aboriginal reserve number 24574 and question on notice No. 4973 asked in the Legislative council on 27 June 2007, and ask -
(1) With reference to question on notice No. 4973, can the Minister explain what specific actions KCGM took to prevent and minimize the risk of hypersaline water tailings spillages from occurring again?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why KCGM was not prosecuted as a result of the spillage which occurred on 27 May 2007?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state what is the penalty under section 50 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1
986, for discharging waste water which is likely to cause pollution of soil onto the area of land of the Aboriginal reserve?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Since May 2007, can the Minister state how many more spillages of saline water from the KCGM pipeline have occurred onto the land area of the Aboriginal reserve and nearby land?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Has KCGM ,Barrick Gold and Newmont mining reported all of the above referred to spillages onto the area of land known as the Aboriginal reserve referred to above, under the contaminated sites legislation administered by the department?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) If yes to (9), on what specific dates did this occur?
(12) Can the Minister explain why does the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) regard the area of the hypersaline water spillages as being a contaminated site under legislation?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) For each of the spillages since May 2007,can the Minister state how far in metres did the saline water travel from the pipeline bunding and the amount of square metres of soil that the saline water spills impacted upon at the time of the spillages?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister explain when is the DEC finally going to prosecute KCGM for incidents of hypersaline water spillages in the area of the land near the Aboriginal reserve which has been repeatedly ongoing for at least 15 to 20 years?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(18) Has KCGM reported all incidents, all areas of land of hypersaline water spillages, tailings spillages which have occurred for all of its operations in the last 20 years, as contaminated sites under the contaminated sites legislation?
(19) If no to (18), why not?
(20) What is the monetary penalty for KCGM failing to report spillages of hypersaline water or tailings under the contaminated sites legislation at any of its land/tenure holdings and associated areas?
(21) Were briefing notes prepared for the Minister by the DEC in relation to all the matters raised in the newspaper article dated 7 July 2008 referred to above?
(22) If no to (1), why not?
(23) If yes to (21), on what specific date were these prepared?
Kalgoorlie Miner
newspaper, and the area of land covering an aboriginal reserve number 24574 and question on notice No. 4973 asked in the Legislative council on 27 June 2007, and ask -
(1) With reference to question on notice No. 4973, can the Minister explain what specific actions KCGM took to prevent and minimize the risk of hypersaline water tailings spillages from occurring again?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why KCGM was not prosecuted as a result of the spillage which occurred on 27 May 2007?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state what is the penalty under section 50 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1
986, for discharging waste water which is likely to cause pollution of soil onto the area of land of the Aboriginal reserve?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) Since May 2007, can the Minister state how many more spillages of saline water from the KCGM pipeline have occurred onto the land area of the Aboriginal reserve and nearby land?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Has KCGM ,Barrick Gold and Newmont mining reported all of the above referred to spillages onto the area of land known as the Aboriginal reserve referred to above, under the contaminated sites legislation administered by the department?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) If yes to (9), on what specific dates did this occur?
(12) Can the Minister explain why does the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) regard the area of the hypersaline water spillages as being a contaminated site under legislation?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) For each of the spillages since May 2007,can the Minister state how far in metres did the saline water travel from the pipeline bunding and the amount of square metres of soil that the saline water spills impacted upon at the time of the spillages?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister explain when is the DEC finally going to prosecute KCGM for incidents of hypersaline water spillages in the area of the land near the Aboriginal reserve which has been repeatedly ongoing for at least 15 to 20 years?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(18) Has KCGM reported all incidents, all areas of land of hypersaline water spillages, tailings spillages which have occurred for all of its operations in the last 20 years, as contaminated sites under the contaminated sites legislation?
(19) If no to (18), why not?
(20) What is the monetary penalty for KCGM failing to report spillages of hypersaline water or tailings under the contaminated sites legislation at any of its land/tenure holdings and associated areas?
(21) Were briefing notes prepared for the Minister by the DEC in relation to all the matters raised in the newspaper article dated 7 July 2008 referred to above?
(22) If no to (1), why not?
(23) If yes to (21), on what specific date were these prepared?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 March 2011
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
104 days
(1)-(2) In response to requests from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) during the investigation, Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM) committed in writing to undertake a number of actions to minimise the chance of recurrence. These commitments included re-engineering the water storage dam at Mt Percy; installing some flexible mine hose to enable greater movement of the pipe without fracturing; and improving the bunding and containment contingencies downgradient of this facility. KCGM completed these works within the agreed timeframe.
(3)-(4) The answer to question on notice 4973 stated that a saline water spill occurred on 22 May 2007. DEC commenced its investigation with a site visit on 23 May 2007. The investigation was unable to establish a
prima facie
case of a breach under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or regulations. In accordance with DEC's
Enforcement and Prosecution Policy 2008,
where the evidentiary standard involving the existence of a
prima facie
case cannot be established, DEC cannot instigate a prosecution.
(5)-(6) Penalties under Section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act
are up to $1,000,000 for bodies corporate, and a daily penalty up to $200,000.
(7)-(8) Two; on 11 February 2008 and 14 July 2010.
(9)-(11) Under section 11(5) of the
Contaminated Sites Act 2003
, a "known or suspected contaminated site" does not need to be reported if the contamination, or suspected contamination, was caused by a discharge of waste of which DEC was notified under section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act.
KCGM reported all known spillages to DEC under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. The event on 18 June 2006 was reported on
20 June 2006 and the other three events of 22 May 2007, 11 February 2008 and
14 July 2010 were all reported on the day on which they occurred.
(12)-(13) Reserve 24574 is included in an area which has been reported under the Contaminated Sites Act
due to the suspected presence of metals and salinity, which were identified through desktop studies and monitoring data. As the reports provided "
grounds to indicate possible contamination of the site
", as per Schedule 1 of the Contaminated Sites Act, Reserve 24574 and surrounding areas were classified
possibly contaminated - investigation required
.
Further investigation is required to determine the nature and extent of impact, followed by a risk assessment to determine whether the levels of substances in soil, surface water or groundwater are present at above background concentrations.
(14)-(15) The spillage on 11 February 2008 was estimated to have travelled a length of 10 metres by 1 metre wide, or 10 square metres.
The spillage on 14 July 2010 was estimated to have travelled a length of 150 metres by an average width of 2 metres, or 300 square metres.
(16)-(17) No
prima facie
case of a breach under the Environmental Protection Act
or regulations was established for the events of 18 June 2006,
22 May 2007 and 11 February 2008.
The spillage of saline water on 14 July 2010 is being reviewed, and DEC is yet to make a determination as to whether a
prima facie
case can be established. As such, it is not appropriate to comment further at this stage.
(18)-(19) Under the Contaminated Sites Act, the identity of any person who reports a known or suspected contaminated site is confidential.
(20) The maximum penalty on conviction for an owner, occupier, a person who caused or contributed to contamination, or an accredited contaminated sites auditor engaged to provide a report on a site, who knows or suspects a site is contaminated, but fails to report it, is $250,000 with a daily penalty of $50,000.
(21)-(23) No specific briefing notes were prepared in relation to matters raised in the 7 July 2008 media article.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(3)-(4) The answer to question on notice 4973 stated that a saline water spill occurred on 22 May 2007. DEC commenced its investigation with a site visit on 23 May 2007. The investigation was unable to establish a
prima facie
case of a breach under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
or regulations. In accordance with DEC's
Enforcement and Prosecution Policy 2008,
where the evidentiary standard involving the existence of a
prima facie
case cannot be established, DEC cannot instigate a prosecution.
(5)-(6) Penalties under Section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act
are up to $1,000,000 for bodies corporate, and a daily penalty up to $200,000.
(7)-(8) Two; on 11 February 2008 and 14 July 2010.
(9)-(11) Under section 11(5) of the
Contaminated Sites Act 2003
, a "known or suspected contaminated site" does not need to be reported if the contamination, or suspected contamination, was caused by a discharge of waste of which DEC was notified under section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act.
KCGM reported all known spillages to DEC under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. The event on 18 June 2006 was reported on
20 June 2006 and the other three events of 22 May 2007, 11 February 2008 and
14 July 2010 were all reported on the day on which they occurred.
(12)-(13) Reserve 24574 is included in an area which has been reported under the Contaminated Sites Act
due to the suspected presence of metals and salinity, which were identified through desktop studies and monitoring data. As the reports provided "
grounds to indicate possible contamination of the site
", as per Schedule 1 of the Contaminated Sites Act, Reserve 24574 and surrounding areas were classified
possibly contaminated - investigation required
.
Further investigation is required to determine the nature and extent of impact, followed by a risk assessment to determine whether the levels of substances in soil, surface water or groundwater are present at above background concentrations.
(14)-(15) The spillage on 11 February 2008 was estimated to have travelled a length of 10 metres by 1 metre wide, or 10 square metres.
The spillage on 14 July 2010 was estimated to have travelled a length of 150 metres by an average width of 2 metres, or 300 square metres.
(16)-(17) No
prima facie
case of a breach under the Environmental Protection Act
or regulations was established for the events of 18 June 2006,
22 May 2007 and 11 February 2008.
The spillage of saline water on 14 July 2010 is being reviewed, and DEC is yet to make a determination as to whether a
prima facie
case can be established. As such, it is not appropriate to comment further at this stage.
(18)-(19) Under the Contaminated Sites Act, the identity of any person who reports a known or suspected contaminated site is confidential.
(20) The maximum penalty on conviction for an owner, occupier, a person who caused or contributed to contamination, or an accredited contaminated sites auditor engaged to provide a report on a site, who knows or suspects a site is contaminated, but fails to report it, is $250,000 with a daily penalty of $50,000.
(21)-(23) No specific briefing notes were prepared in relation to matters raised in the 7 July 2008 media article.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.