❓ A parliamentary question regarding the environmental assessment and mine closure planning for the Superpit expansion, focusing on transparency, community consultation, and the availability of technical studies. The response outlines the EPA's role and KCGM's responsibilities.
AnsweredQoN 3200Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the media statement dated November 11 2005, titled ‘Careful assessment for Superpit expansion’, a document titled ‘Mine Decommissioning’ dated July 2002 and the ‘Guidelines for Environmental Management of Mining in Arid Areas,’ dated May 1988 -
(1) Given that it has been stated it is imperative that the proposal is subject to detailed and careful environmental assessment, to ensure thorough transparency, openness and that residents are not in any way limited/restricted in the consultation phase, will the Minister request the Environmental Protection Authority(EPA) to make sure the scoping document for this proposal clearly requires KCGM to provide the full and complete (not summaries) of the technical studies, risk assessments for fly rock, pit wall subsidence, mine closure plans and all reference material relied upon available for inspection at the local Department of Environment office in Kalgoorlie?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) In relation to mine decommissioning and mine closure for the Super pit operation does the Minister and EPA agree that Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If yes to (3), why?
(6) Will the Minister and EPA clearly ensure that KCGM is required to have their mine closure and decommissioning plan including the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams areas out in the consultation phase of this project, so that the options do not become limited as time progresses along with the resources available for the plan?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Will the Minister and EPA ensure that all of the issues raised in all of the appeals are clearly identified and made clear in the scoping document for this project?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(1) Given that it has been stated it is imperative that the proposal is subject to detailed and careful environmental assessment, to ensure thorough transparency, openness and that residents are not in any way limited/restricted in the consultation phase, will the Minister request the Environmental Protection Authority(EPA) to make sure the scoping document for this proposal clearly requires KCGM to provide the full and complete (not summaries) of the technical studies, risk assessments for fly rock, pit wall subsidence, mine closure plans and all reference material relied upon available for inspection at the local Department of Environment office in Kalgoorlie?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) In relation to mine decommissioning and mine closure for the Super pit operation does the Minister and EPA agree that Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If yes to (3), why?
(6) Will the Minister and EPA clearly ensure that KCGM is required to have their mine closure and decommissioning plan including the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams areas out in the consultation phase of this project, so that the options do not become limited as time progresses along with the resources available for the plan?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Will the Minister and EPA ensure that all of the issues raised in all of the appeals are clearly identified and made clear in the scoping document for this project?
(9) If no to (8), 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) Technical studies relating to the environmental factors under assessment will be publicly available unless considered to be commercially sensitive. Requests for information can be made to the EPA, who will ensure that people seeking the information receive it. If providing the information at the local Department of Environment office is the most appropriate method of supplying it, this will be done. It should be noted that the EPA does not assess public risk such as that from fly rock or pit wall subsidence. It is Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines' (KCGM) intention to include public risk within the Public Environmental Review (PER). An independent review of risk related studies will be co-ordinated by the Office of Development Approvals Co-ordination. Requests for information on public risk studies in addition to that provided in KCGM's scoping document and the PER should be made to this Office. (2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(3) No. (4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) No. (4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(3) No. (4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(4) One cannot assert with certainty that "Prior Planning prevents Poor Performance". Due to human fallibility and other factors it is possible that even the most thorough planning may not prevent unforeseeable events occurring. What one may assert is that good prior planning reduces the risk of poor performance, or conversely that no planning potentially increases the risk of poor performance. In this case the aim of planning for mine closure is to reduce the risk of not meeting closure objectives. (5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(6) It is anticipated that KCGM's draft closure plans/strategy and timelines will be presented in the PER. The first step in the formulation of mine closure plans/strategy for the Superpit operation must be a decision on the future use and management of the site. It is the Government's desire that this decision is taken in consultation with the local community. The EPA has therefore recommended that public consultation on the final fate of the site be commenced as soon as possible. Options for future use and management of the site will need to be investigated. The EPA has recommended that the company sets a timeline of three years to come to an agreement with the community on the post-closure use and management of the site. Until this process is complete detailed closure plans cannot be formulated. (7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(8) The EPA has endeavoured to ensure that issues raised in appeals will be addressed in the PER as far as possible. The assessment can only cover the Stage 3 proposal and cannot address historical concerns or parts of the project already operating. (9) Not applicable.
(9) 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.