Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 3542

❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment (DoE) regarding KCGM's tailings dam emissions of cyanide and xanthate, arguing the DoE prioritizes vegetation protection over human safety and seeking clarification on the department's regulatory approach.

AnsweredQoN 3542Legislative Council

Asked

25 May 2006

Member

Hon Paul Llewellyn

Portfolio

the Environment

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to the Fimiston I and Fimiston 2 tailings dams operated by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) owned by Barrick Gold of Australia and Newmont Mining, answers provided for question on notice number 2891 of 10 November 2005, and the Thompson and Brett final report dated October 2004, titled ‘Independent review of a proposal to raise the Fimiston I tailings dam at Kalgoorlie’ -
(1) Given the Minister has stated ‘it is unlikely that cyanide will occur naturally in groundwater on this lease’ (prospecting licence 26/3126) can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment (DoE) is allowing KCGM to alter the condition and nature of the water on this lease by discharging emissions of cyanide (which are harmful or potentially harmful to any persons conducting prospecting or mining operations or who interact with the water) that require persons ‘to take precautions to avoid contact with the (emissions in the) water’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Given the Minister has stated ‘it is unlikely that xanthate will occur naturally in groundwater on this lease’ (prospecting licence 26/3126), can the Minister explain why the DoE is allowing KCGM to alter the condition and nature of the water on this lease by allowing emissions of xanthate (which are harmful or potentially harmful to any persons conducting prospecting or mining operations or who interact with the water), that require persons ‘to take precautions to avoid contact with the [emissions in the] water’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why the protection of vegetation is being given overriding importance by the DoE within licence conditions including the seepage and groundwater management plan, yet the protection of persons who are part of the environment and come into contact with many toxic and harmful seepage emissions of various chemicals (including cyanide and xanthate) is disregarded?
(6) If no to (5), why not?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

20 June 2006

Responded by

Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment

Response time

26 days

(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 does not require the Department of Environment (DoE) to prevent emissions from crossing premises boundaries, as this is not practicable in many situations. Where a stack or pipe emits a substance then it is most likely that this will cross a premises boundary, for instance an emission from a chimney is likely to cross a boundary. The Act is intended to prevent, control and abate emissions so that they do not cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). However the DoE also acknowledges it needs to have due regard to the minimisation of emissions where practicable. In many situations this would need to be considered on a case by case basis. If persons conducting mining operations are inconvenienced by seepage from KCGM's operations this should be addressed under the Mining Act 1978 which has provisions relating to inconvenience from mine waste water. (2) Not applicable. (3) As per (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) Section 62 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 allows the setting of licence conditions for prescribed premises. In particular the CEO needs to consider the conditions to be necessary or convenient for the purposes of the Act relating to the prevention, control, abatement or mitigation of pollution or environmental harm. Two important policy statements titled "Works approvals, licences and conditions for prescribed premises" and "Limits and targets for prescribed premises" (Department of Environment, 11 April 2006) have recently been finalised and assist industry and the community to understand the DoE's position on condition setting in licence and works approvals. I table these documents for your information. In particular the "Complimentary regulation / Appropriate regulatory authority concept" on Page 2 of the "Works approvals, licences and conditions for prescribed premises" policy highlights the principles that mean any potential inconvenience caused by seepage from KCGM's operation on another mining operation, should be addressed under the Department of Industry and Resources authority and the relevant legislation for mining operations. The DoE does not consider it likely that persons will come into contact with seepage to groundwater, given that it is metres below the ground surface, unless they are carrying out mining activities. However, the DoE is the appropriate regulatory authority to deal with the potential impacts of emissions on native vegetation. The basis and particulars of the DoE's strategy to protect native vegetation have been answered on numerous occasions in the past twelve months. In particular Questions on Notice 2543 of 25 August 2005 and 2613 of 22 September 2005, but others include but are not limited to Questions on Notice 2890 & 2892 (10 Nov 2005), 2951 & 2954 (17 November 2005) and 3211, 3212 & 3213 (1 December 2005). [see table paper no. ] (6) Not applicable.

View on Parliament of WA