❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the Minister for the Environment regarding concerns raised by the EPA services unit about the Kaltails tailings dam and KCGM's environmental review. The Minister clarifies the nature of the concerns and confirms the importance of the issues raised.
AnsweredQoN 4967Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is it correct that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) services unit wrote to KCGM on or about April 2006 with concerns about the Kaltails tailings dam?
(2) If no to (1), what is correct?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the EPA services unit was concerned to state ‘there is no evidence presented that the re-commissioned Kaltails TSF will seep at the same rate as during previous use or that raising the level will not increase seepage’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why was it important for the EPA services unit to state ‘there is no evidence that all seepage can be intercepted nor that current recovery of groundwater is successful in preventing water spreading downstream and that it will be successful in future’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state why was it important for the EPA services unit to state ‘there is no evidence presented on the potential impact of the Kaltails seepage on groundwater or to show an understanding of groundwater movement and current levels in the area, or potential impact to the Lakeside Conservation Reserve’?
(8) Does the EPA services unit still regard all the points mentioned in questions in (3), (5), and (7) as still being important?
(9) If yes to (8), why?
(10) If no to (8), why not?
(2) If no to (1), what is correct?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the EPA services unit was concerned to state ‘there is no evidence presented that the re-commissioned Kaltails TSF will seep at the same rate as during previous use or that raising the level will not increase seepage’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why was it important for the EPA services unit to state ‘there is no evidence that all seepage can be intercepted nor that current recovery of groundwater is successful in preventing water spreading downstream and that it will be successful in future’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state why was it important for the EPA services unit to state ‘there is no evidence presented on the potential impact of the Kaltails seepage on groundwater or to show an understanding of groundwater movement and current levels in the area, or potential impact to the Lakeside Conservation Reserve’?
(8) Does the EPA services unit still regard all the points mentioned in questions in (3), (5), and (7) as still being important?
(9) If yes to (8), why?
(10) If no to (8), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 August 2007
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
48 days
(1) No.
(2) The correspondence referred to was not about the Kaltails Tailings Storage Facility
per se
, but about inadequate information provided in a preliminary Public Environmental Review document prepared by KCGM and submitted to the EPA in March 2006.
(3) This statement was made as the EPA Service Unit was not satisfied that KCGM had adequately demonstrated in the preliminary information provided that seepage into groundwater could be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) This statement was made as the EPA Service Unit was not satisfied that KCGM had adequately demonstrated in the preliminary information provided that seepage into groundwater could be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) This statement was made as the EPA Service Unit was not satisfied that KCGM had adequately demonstrated in the preliminary information provided that seepage into groundwater could be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(8) Yes.
(9) Information about these issues is important for determining whether seepage from the Tailings Storage Facility is likely to cause a significant environmental impact and needs to be properly addressed in the Public Environmental Review.
KCGM has now submitted the reports "
Kaltails Tailings Storage Facility Hydrogeological Review
", Environmental Resource Management Australia, June 2006 and "
Review of Groundwater Seepage Recovery 1993-2005
", Peter Clifton and Associates, July 2006, to address these issues.
(10) Not applicable.
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
(2) The correspondence referred to was not about the Kaltails Tailings Storage Facility
per se
, but about inadequate information provided in a preliminary Public Environmental Review document prepared by KCGM and submitted to the EPA in March 2006.
(3) This statement was made as the EPA Service Unit was not satisfied that KCGM had adequately demonstrated in the preliminary information provided that seepage into groundwater could be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) This statement was made as the EPA Service Unit was not satisfied that KCGM had adequately demonstrated in the preliminary information provided that seepage into groundwater could be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) This statement was made as the EPA Service Unit was not satisfied that KCGM had adequately demonstrated in the preliminary information provided that seepage into groundwater could be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
(8) Yes.
(9) Information about these issues is important for determining whether seepage from the Tailings Storage Facility is likely to cause a significant environmental impact and needs to be properly addressed in the Public Environmental Review.
KCGM has now submitted the reports "
Kaltails Tailings Storage Facility Hydrogeological Review
", Environmental Resource Management Australia, June 2006 and "
Review of Groundwater Seepage Recovery 1993-2005
", Peter Clifton and Associates, July 2006, to address these issues.
(10) Not applicable.
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.