❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment regarding the practicability of containing toxic seepage from the Fimiston I tailings dam within KCGM's lease, referencing an independent technical review and previous questions on notice. The Department's response indicates that preventing seepage from leaving the lease is deemed unnecessary as it doesn't see any environmental benefit to taking this action.
AnsweredQoN 3636Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Fimiston I tailings dam, Prospecting Licence 26/3126, answers to question on notice number 2892 of 10 November 2005, and the Independent Technical Review Thompson and Brett report dated October 2004, concerning the Fimiston I tailings dam -
(1) Is it practicable to contain all seepage within the confines of the proponent’s (KCGM) lease so as no toxic seepage emissions which are harmful to persons and the environment, can cause pollution or environmental harm on Prospecting Licence 26/3126?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will the Minister list and table all of the evidence which the Department relies upon to determine that it is not practicable to prevent seepage leaving the proponent’s lease?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the Thompson and Brett Report dated October 2004 in part states, ‘As the seepage could cause significant impacts it is recommended that the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled. The extent of the works required to control the impacts could then be engineered by KCGM. Possible levels of control are -
(a) maintain groundwater levels to prevent vegetation deaths (which seems to be the current approach);
(b) reduce groundwater levels to historic levels;
(c) prevent seepage leaving the proponent lease;
(d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and
(e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(6) If no to (5), will the Minister quote the full text from the report dated October 2004?
(7) Can the Minister explain why Thompson and Brett, as expert consulting engineers and hydrogeologists, advocate preventing seepage from leaving the proponent’s lease as a possible level of control, based on their independent review of evidence and documents with the works required to control the impacts then being engineered by KCGM, in contradiction to what the Department now claims is impracticable to achieve?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why Thompson and Brett, as expert consulting engineers and hydrogeologists, also verbally advised a number of appellants that it was clearly practicable to prevent seepage from leaving the proponents lease and that was why they advocated it as a possible level of control?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how much seepage in litres per day could be practicably captured by the Fimiston I tailings dam?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(1) Is it practicable to contain all seepage within the confines of the proponent’s (KCGM) lease so as no toxic seepage emissions which are harmful to persons and the environment, can cause pollution or environmental harm on Prospecting Licence 26/3126?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will the Minister list and table all of the evidence which the Department relies upon to determine that it is not practicable to prevent seepage leaving the proponent’s lease?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the Thompson and Brett Report dated October 2004 in part states, ‘As the seepage could cause significant impacts it is recommended that the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled. The extent of the works required to control the impacts could then be engineered by KCGM. Possible levels of control are -
(a) maintain groundwater levels to prevent vegetation deaths (which seems to be the current approach);
(b) reduce groundwater levels to historic levels;
(c) prevent seepage leaving the proponent lease;
(d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and
(e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(6) If no to (5), will the Minister quote the full text from the report dated October 2004?
(7) Can the Minister explain why Thompson and Brett, as expert consulting engineers and hydrogeologists, advocate preventing seepage from leaving the proponent’s lease as a possible level of control, based on their independent review of evidence and documents with the works required to control the impacts then being engineered by KCGM, in contradiction to what the Department now claims is impracticable to achieve?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why Thompson and Brett, as expert consulting engineers and hydrogeologists, also verbally advised a number of appellants that it was clearly practicable to prevent seepage from leaving the proponents lease and that was why they advocated it as a possible level of control?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state how much seepage in litres per day could be practicably captured by the Fimiston I tailings dam?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
22 August 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
70 days
(b) reduce groundwater levels to historic levels; (c) prevent seepage leaving the proponent lease; (d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and (e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(c) prevent seepage leaving the proponent lease; (d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and (e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and (e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE does not see any benefit in demonstrating the practicability of preventing seepage from crossing the proponent's lease as there is no apparent environmental benefit to taking this action. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(3) The DoE does not see any benefit in demonstrating the practicability of preventing seepage from crossing the proponent's lease as there is no apparent environmental benefit to taking this action. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(c) prevent seepage leaving the proponent lease; (d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and (e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(d) prevent seepage leaving the perimeter of the TSF structure; and (e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(e) prevent any seepage entering the groundwater’?
(2) Not applicable. (3) The DoE does not see any benefit in demonstrating the practicability of preventing seepage from crossing the proponent's lease as there is no apparent environmental benefit to taking this action. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(3) The DoE does not see any benefit in demonstrating the practicability of preventing seepage from crossing the proponent's lease as there is no apparent environmental benefit to taking this action. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(7) Thompson and Brett indicated that these are "possible" levels of control. However the report also states that, "the regulators should more clearly determine the extent to which these impacts need to be controlled". The DoE has determined that preventing seepage from leaving the proponents lease is not necessary to minimise the likelihood of pollution or environmental harm occurring. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(9) No. The DoE cannot comment on verbal advice that was given by Thompson and Brett to appellants. The DoE can only comment on the advice that was provided in the report. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that KCGM should be required to contain all seepage within their leases. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(11) No. (12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
(12) The DoE cannot answer this question in a short time period as a complex modelling exercise would have to be undertaken to provide such estimates. The DoE can see no benefit to asking KCGM to undertake this work given that there is no evidence that seepage is currently causing pollution or environmental harm.
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.