❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding KCGM's Fimiston I tailings dam licensing conditions, seepage management, and alleged environmental damage. The Minister's response details licensing history, seepage control measures, and denies current evidence of adverse environmental impacts.
AnsweredQoN 3211Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to question on notice No. 2889 of November 10 2005, and the answers provided -
(1) Can the Minister state the specific date in which the first licence was issued to KCGM with the licence condition stating ‘All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minster state how many months and years the Fimiston I tailings dam was licenced with the condition stated in question (1) above?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state the specific date on which the licence condition stated in question (1), was removed?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister quote the specific text of the licence condition which was replaced in the licence after the licence condition was removed in question (1) above?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why would the earliest licences for the Fimiston operation have the requirement of preventing seepage crossing the premises or lease boundaries, given that the works approval required the Fimiston I tailings dam to be built in a certain way to be impervious and in the event that their was seepage, KCGM made a written commitment that they would contain and recover that seepage within the plant and tailings areas?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the DoE required that the Fimiston I tailings dam be built in a certain way to be impervious and then just totally ignored this to accommodate KCGM causing pollution, stressing and killing vegetation for the next 12 years and more?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain why the DoE over the last 12 years has focussed it resources on defending KCGM by regularly just changing the wording of the licences each time they are reissued, the effect of which is to facilitate and encourage continued seepage spreading up to two km from the source, while this has been causing pollution killing and stressing vegetation in direct contravention of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(1) Can the Minister state the specific date in which the first licence was issued to KCGM with the licence condition stating ‘All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minster state how many months and years the Fimiston I tailings dam was licenced with the condition stated in question (1) above?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state the specific date on which the licence condition stated in question (1), was removed?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister quote the specific text of the licence condition which was replaced in the licence after the licence condition was removed in question (1) above?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why would the earliest licences for the Fimiston operation have the requirement of preventing seepage crossing the premises or lease boundaries, given that the works approval required the Fimiston I tailings dam to be built in a certain way to be impervious and in the event that their was seepage, KCGM made a written commitment that they would contain and recover that seepage within the plant and tailings areas?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the DoE required that the Fimiston I tailings dam be built in a certain way to be impervious and then just totally ignored this to accommodate KCGM causing pollution, stressing and killing vegetation for the next 12 years and more?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain why the DoE over the last 12 years has focussed it resources on defending KCGM by regularly just changing the wording of the licences each time they are reissued, the effect of which is to facilitate and encourage continued seepage spreading up to two km from the source, while this has been causing pollution killing and stressing vegetation in direct contravention of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(14) If no to (13), 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) Licence Number 1186 for the Fimiston Mill and Tailings Disposal was issued on 1 May 1989. (2) Not applicable. (3) Licence 2796 was amended on 30 August 1993. This amendment resulted in a change to the condition stated in question (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Licence 2796 was amended on 30 August 1993. This amendment resulted in a change to the condition stated in question (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(3) Licence 2796 was amended on 30 August 1993. This amendment resulted in a change to the condition stated in question (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
" All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
"The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Licence 2796 was amended on 30 August 1993. This amendment resulted in a change to the condition stated in question (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(3) Licence 2796 was amended on 30 August 1993. This amendment resulted in a change to the condition stated in question (1). (4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(5) As per question (3) the condition was amended on 30 August 1993. (6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(7) The condition (B1) stated " All matter containing saline, alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters. " (8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(9) There is no condition in any licence or works approval in relation to KCGM's Fimiston operations which requires that seepage from KCGM's operations be retained within the premise's boundaries. KCGM do make a written commitment in the document entitled, " Notice of Intent Fimiston Project - Phase II Proposed Ore Processing Plant Expansion for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd September 1990" that, " KCGM makes a firm commitment to contain water pollution within the plant and tailings area". Please note that the Notice of Intent (NOI) states that KCGM will contain "water pollution" and not "seepage" and this is a very important distinction in the context of this question. Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Works approval No 203 was issued in 1988 for the construction of the Fimiston I TSF. The works approval contained the following condition. 3. A catch drain and recovery system shall be installed along the downstream external toe of the tailings dam to recover any seepage losses. There was no condition on the works approval to say that the facility should be impervious. The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
The letter from North Kalgurli Mines (a forerunner of KCGM) dated 22 November 1988 regarding the completion of construction of the Fimiston TSF addressed the issue of seepage control and at no stage guaranteed that the facility would be impervious. For example the document states that, " Seepage through the embankment should not occur provided suitable material and construction methods are used during embankment construction and good tailings management practices adhered to. However, in the event that seepage did occur, it would be handled in a similar method to near surface seepages ". Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Similarly Works Approval 652 was issued in 1991 for the construction of the Fimiston II TSF. Condition B1 states that, " All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
" All matter containing saline alkaline or cyanide constituents shall be retained within impervious holding facilities, such that there is no discernible impairment of surface or underground waters". However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
However, works approval 652 also contains condition B4 which states that, "The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
"The proponent shall, where practical install and maintain a perimeter drain immediately downstream of the tailings dam system, which shall be used to collect and recover any liquid matter resulting from seepage or breach of the embankments." (10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(11) See answer to question (9). (12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(13) Whilst there may be some indication in the past of stress on vegetation, there is no evidence to suggest this is currently the case and as a result there are no active investigations into KCGM with respect to seepage, and/or vegetation stress or death surrounding the Fimiston I and II tailings storage facilities. Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Allegations are regularly made that seepage from KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities are adversely impacting on the surrounding vegetation. The DoE has repeatedly requested further information from complainants and has attempted on numerous occasions to organise site visits with complainants including inviting staff from its native vegetation protection section in Perth to attend. To date the DoE has been unsuccessful in attaining any evidence that seepage is causing adverse environmental impacts in the area surrounding KCGM's Tailings Storage Facilities or in organising a site visit with the complainant to identify where vegetation stress is occurring. The offer of a joint site visit remains open to complainants. The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
The DoE regularly reviews the wording of licence conditions in an effort to keep licences as current and legally enforceable as possible. These reviews may mean the wording of conditions could change with a new licence issue. Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
Also, the DoE does not believe that any of the conditions on KCGM's previous licences require them to retain all seepage within their premise's boundaries. The DoE does not currently have any evidence that seepage from the Fimiston I and II TSF's are resulting in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
The DoE is committed to the use of investigations into potential breaches and, depending on the outcome of the investigation, enforcement action to achieve compliance in a defined and measured manner in line with the objectives of the legislation being enforced, and its enforcement policy. Information on the Department's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy is publicly available on the Departments website at www.environment.wa.gov.au . (14) Not applicable.
(14) 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.