❓ Question regarding the Department's approval process for a tailings dam, specifically questioning the lack of a liner despite evidence of high permeability and subsequent environmental damage. The Minister deflected the question by referring to a previous answer.
AnsweredQoN 2504Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer Mining Lease 26/383 owned by Barrick Gold of Australia and Newmont Mining Limited, operated by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd, the Fimiston I tailings dam and a document dated August 1988 titled ‘Notice of intent and works approval for Fimiston leases expansion project, North Kalgurli Mine prepared by Australian Groundwater Consultants Pty Ltd’ -
(1) Given the above document dated August 1988 in part under the heading ‘Liners’ on page 12 states ‘The geotechnical investigation has revealed no areas of high permeability within the impoundment. Based on this evidence it is not considered necessary to seal the foundation within the impoundment’, can the Minister explain why the Department simply accepted as part of the approvals provided for this dam that there were no areas of high permeability and therefore the Department did not require or suggest that the foundations be sealed with a liner given that there are areas of high permeability which commencing from 1988 through till current date, have caused seepage to impact on Bulong Road, vegetation stressing and dying in the area, impacts of rising groundwater levels on Trans Australian Railway property, contamination of soil with salt and other seepage contaminants, impacts on people living in the area, and impacts on Optimum Resources tenements?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department has Notice of Intent documents listed as part of their tenement conditions along with commitments made in these documents, when the Department does not ensure through regulation that the proponent adheres to all of these written commitments and predictions made in all of the documents?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Has the Department been checking and carefully monitoring all of the commitments made in the Notice of Intent documents including all tenement conditions since the dam was first constructed in 1988?
(6) If no to (5), why?
(7) If yes to (5), can the Minister explain how there have been significant impacts on the environment surrounding this facility over a large period of time from 1988 to 2004, in direct contrast to written predictions and commitments given as part of the approvals process?
(1) Given the above document dated August 1988 in part under the heading ‘Liners’ on page 12 states ‘The geotechnical investigation has revealed no areas of high permeability within the impoundment. Based on this evidence it is not considered necessary to seal the foundation within the impoundment’, can the Minister explain why the Department simply accepted as part of the approvals provided for this dam that there were no areas of high permeability and therefore the Department did not require or suggest that the foundations be sealed with a liner given that there are areas of high permeability which commencing from 1988 through till current date, have caused seepage to impact on Bulong Road, vegetation stressing and dying in the area, impacts of rising groundwater levels on Trans Australian Railway property, contamination of soil with salt and other seepage contaminants, impacts on people living in the area, and impacts on Optimum Resources tenements?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department has Notice of Intent documents listed as part of their tenement conditions along with commitments made in these documents, when the Department does not ensure through regulation that the proponent adheres to all of these written commitments and predictions made in all of the documents?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Has the Department been checking and carefully monitoring all of the commitments made in the Notice of Intent documents including all tenement conditions since the dam was first constructed in 1988?
(6) If no to (5), why?
(7) If yes to (5), can the Minister explain how there have been significant impacts on the environment surrounding this facility over a large period of time from 1988 to 2004, in direct contrast to written predictions and commitments given as part of the approvals process?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 November 2004
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
27 days
I refer the Hon member to the answer to Question on Notice 2499.
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.