❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses concerns about noise and dust levels from the KCGM Superpit operations, particularly regarding the impact on nearby residents and the adequacy of existing monitoring and management plans. The Minister's response largely deflects, citing ongoing investigations or lack of specific information.
AnsweredQoN 3206Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the editorial dated November 25 2005, which appeared on page two of
The Kalgoorlie Miner
titled ‘Delays do not reflect well on watchdog’, various emails dated March 13 2001, from Peter Skitmore to Catherine Harrison, Sean Mcgunninigle copied to various people titled ‘KCGM Superpit Operations’ -
(1) In relation to the noise and dust levels, can the Minister explain why the officer stated this issue can only get worse as the pit gets closer to the houses?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Does the Minister currently expect people living in houses and businesses in the area to tolerate both noise, dust and vibrations from the KCGM superpit operations interfering with their comfort, convenience, amenity, health, welfare and amenity, as the pit gets closer to houses and businesses, given that KCGM wants to reduce to safety exclusion zone of 400 metres to 200 metres, which provides a buffer distance to minimise the impacts of emissions on people living in houses and businesses in the area?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If yes to (3), why?
(6) Can the Minister state why the officer stated ‘RSD is continuing to get complaints regarding dust, blast and vehicle noise and vibration from the superpit operations. Although there is a Pt4 package over the project, I am not convinced that it is managing these operations adequately, nor is the monitoring sufficiently detailed to pick up specific impacts in the adjacent residential area. I am yet to be advised if the Pt 4 package even imposes noise limits on the project’?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain why the officer was not convinced that the Pt4 package over the project was managed adequately?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) Can the Minister state why the officer was of the view that the monitoring was not sufficiently detailed to pick up specific impacts in the adjacent residential area?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment has only just discovered in 2005 in relation to KCGM’s requirement to monitor dust levels as part of its dust management plan for each and every blast between certain hours is not enforceable, given that people have been making complaints about these operations for well over six years which seriously impact upon their convenience, comfort, welfare, amenity and health?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
The Kalgoorlie Miner
titled ‘Delays do not reflect well on watchdog’, various emails dated March 13 2001, from Peter Skitmore to Catherine Harrison, Sean Mcgunninigle copied to various people titled ‘KCGM Superpit Operations’ -
(1) In relation to the noise and dust levels, can the Minister explain why the officer stated this issue can only get worse as the pit gets closer to the houses?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Does the Minister currently expect people living in houses and businesses in the area to tolerate both noise, dust and vibrations from the KCGM superpit operations interfering with their comfort, convenience, amenity, health, welfare and amenity, as the pit gets closer to houses and businesses, given that KCGM wants to reduce to safety exclusion zone of 400 metres to 200 metres, which provides a buffer distance to minimise the impacts of emissions on people living in houses and businesses in the area?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If yes to (3), why?
(6) Can the Minister state why the officer stated ‘RSD is continuing to get complaints regarding dust, blast and vehicle noise and vibration from the superpit operations. Although there is a Pt4 package over the project, I am not convinced that it is managing these operations adequately, nor is the monitoring sufficiently detailed to pick up specific impacts in the adjacent residential area. I am yet to be advised if the Pt 4 package even imposes noise limits on the project’?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain why the officer was not convinced that the Pt4 package over the project was managed adequately?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) Can the Minister state why the officer was of the view that the monitoring was not sufficiently detailed to pick up specific impacts in the adjacent residential area?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment has only just discovered in 2005 in relation to KCGM’s requirement to monitor dust levels as part of its dust management plan for each and every blast between certain hours is not enforceable, given that people have been making complaints about these operations for well over six years which seriously impact upon their convenience, comfort, welfare, amenity and health?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
103 days
(1) It is apparent from reading the e-mail that the officer was relaying concerns that had been expressed by sections of the community. In particular it appears the officer supported the consideration that the buffer distance between mining operations and human residences assisted in mitigating the issues of dust, noise and vibration. It was also noted by the officer that sections of the community were concerned that if they were being affected prior to the expansion of the pit that it may get worse as the pit expanded. (2) Not Applicable. (3) No. (4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(2) Not Applicable. (3) No. (4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(3) No. (4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(13) See answer to question 12.
(2) Not Applicable. (3) No. (4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(3) No. (4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(4) I would not expect the public to tolerate noise, dust and vibration levels above the standards as set by legislation. Information on how KCGM proposes to manage these issues will have to be provided as part of the assessment of any proposed expansion of the Superpit. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(5) Not applicable. (6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(6) It is apparent from the e-mail that at the time the officer was aware of a number of complaints relating to dust, noise and vibration having been received regarding the Superpit operations. It appears that the officer was unsure to what extent the limits relating to that noise aspect of the complaints were covered by the Ministerial Statement 188 that covered the open cut (Superpit) operations. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(7) Not Applicable. (8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(8) No. (9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(9) The e-mail does not outline the reasons why this particular officer was unconvinced, at that time, that the Part 4 package was managing the operation adequately. It is presumed that the officer was seeking advice on this matter from his colleagues. (10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(10) No. (11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(11) The e-mail doesn't outline the reasons this particular officer, at the time, was not convinced that the monitoring was sufficiently detailed. (12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(12) I do not consider it appropriate to comment on this matter as it is currently under investigation. (13) See answer to question 12.
(13) See answer to question 12.
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.