❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment (DoE) regarding the licensing of KCGM's Fimiston tailings dams and the potential for pollution of adjacent mining tenements, alleging the DoE facilitates environmental harm. The Minister responds by citing licence conditions and stating that seepage across boundaries doesn't necessarily constitute pollution.
AnsweredQoN 2612Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams owned by Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining, operated by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM), and Question on Notice No. 2543, of August 25 2005 -
(1) Will the Department of Environment (DoE) issue a licence to KCGM which clearly allows KCGM to allow emissions or waste of hypersaline water including saline, alkaline, cyanide constituents along with heavy metals and other toxic contaminants to enter mining tenements P26/3126 and P26/1848 not owned by KCGM, and then have a debate or argument with the tenement holders for the next 10 years or more, as to whether it causes pollution or environmental harm on these tenements?
(2) If no to (1), why not, given that the Department has done everything within its powers to promote and encourage this situation?
(3) If yes to (1), can the Minister explain why?
(4) Can the Minister explain why the DoE repeatedly facilitates emissions and waste leaving the premises from KCGM Fimiston I and Fimiston II operations to have all sorts of impacts on the environment of tenements, not owned by KCGM, and then claim to the owners that its not our responsibility for these impacts under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, given that it is the Department that is licensing these premises and tolerating and permitting emissions and waste of hypersaline water containing saline, alkaline, cyanide constituents along with heavy metals and other toxic contaminants to leave the premises?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(1) Will the Department of Environment (DoE) issue a licence to KCGM which clearly allows KCGM to allow emissions or waste of hypersaline water including saline, alkaline, cyanide constituents along with heavy metals and other toxic contaminants to enter mining tenements P26/3126 and P26/1848 not owned by KCGM, and then have a debate or argument with the tenement holders for the next 10 years or more, as to whether it causes pollution or environmental harm on these tenements?
(2) If no to (1), why not, given that the Department has done everything within its powers to promote and encourage this situation?
(3) If yes to (1), can the Minister explain why?
(4) Can the Minister explain why the DoE repeatedly facilitates emissions and waste leaving the premises from KCGM Fimiston I and Fimiston II operations to have all sorts of impacts on the environment of tenements, not owned by KCGM, and then claim to the owners that its not our responsibility for these impacts under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, given that it is the Department that is licensing these premises and tolerating and permitting emissions and waste of hypersaline water containing saline, alkaline, cyanide constituents along with heavy metals and other toxic contaminants to leave the premises?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 November 2005
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
47 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: (1) The Department of Environment has placed condition W2 on licence 6420/10 issued to KCGM for its Fimiston operations. Condition W2 states: The licensee shall manage the storage of all matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituents within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. (2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(1) The Department of Environment has placed condition W2 on licence 6420/10 issued to KCGM for its Fimiston operations. Condition W2 states: The licensee shall manage the storage of all matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituents within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. (2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
The licensee shall manage the storage of all matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituents within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. (2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
(1) The Department of Environment has placed condition W2 on licence 6420/10 issued to KCGM for its Fimiston operations. Condition W2 states: The licensee shall manage the storage of all matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituents within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. (2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
The licensee shall manage the storage of all matter containing cyanide, saline or alkaline constituents within holding facilities in a manner, which prevents pollution. (2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Condition W2 of license 6420/10 ensures that the KCGM is required to take appropriate actions to manage matter that contains cyanide, saline or is alkaline in an environmentally acceptable manner. The licensee needs to ensure that this matter prevents pollution either on site or off their site. (4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(4) The option of completely preventing seepage from crossing the premise boundary is not considered practical in this situation. The Department of Environment does not consider that seepage crossing a boundary necessarily constitutes pollution or environmental harm. (5) Not applicable.
(5) 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.