❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding KCGM's Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan, specifically concerning the 100-metre operational area around tailings storage facilities and its impact on a neighbouring prospecting licence. The Minister's response clarifies the DoE's position on groundwater management within the operational area and on adjacent tenements.
AnsweredQoN 2951Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the final KCGM Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan dated September 29 2005, the Department of Environment (DoE) file note titled ‘Note on Reissue of Licence 6420’ dated September 29 2005, and the draft groundwater and seepage management plan dated July 22 2005 -
(1) Can the Minister confirm that the draft seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 22 2005, in part stated ‘In general, within this 100 metre halo around the facility there is also limited vegetation as most of the infrastructure associated with the operation of the TSFs is located here. In the case of the Fimiston TSF’s, this halo or operational area equates to about 20 per cent of the TSF’s footprint, and is considered part of the facility. It may not be practical to lower groundwater levels within this operational area below four metre bgs, and so this area is not considered in the GMP objective while the TSF’s are operational’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) During the public comment period for the draft seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 22 2005, did stakeholders verbally identify and raise with Mr Marelich from the DoE, that the 100 metre operational area and map included part of Prospecting Licence 26/3126 (not owned by KCGM)?
(4) If yes to (3), what specifically was identified and raised, and why hasn’t this been included in the file note dated September 29 2005?
(5) If no to (3), what specifically was identified and raised and why hasn’t this been included in the file note dated September 29 2005?
(6) Can the Minister precisely explain how did the DoE address the matter raised in question (3) above to ensure that the groundwater levels on Prospecting Licence 26/3126 are not going to remain the same for the next 10 years, because its located within 100 metres of the Fimiston I Tailings dam wall, and it is not considered practical to lower the groundwater levels within part of this area?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Prior to July 22 2005, did the DoE as the regulator consider it practical to reduce groundwater levels caused by seepage from the tailings dams to below four metres within the operational area of 100 metres from the dam?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) If yes to (8), why?
(11) Does the DoE as the regulator consider it practical to reduce groundwater levels caused by seepage from the tailings dams to below six metres on Prospecting Licence 26/3126?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) If yes to (11), why?
(1) Can the Minister confirm that the draft seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 22 2005, in part stated ‘In general, within this 100 metre halo around the facility there is also limited vegetation as most of the infrastructure associated with the operation of the TSFs is located here. In the case of the Fimiston TSF’s, this halo or operational area equates to about 20 per cent of the TSF’s footprint, and is considered part of the facility. It may not be practical to lower groundwater levels within this operational area below four metre bgs, and so this area is not considered in the GMP objective while the TSF’s are operational’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) During the public comment period for the draft seepage and groundwater management plan dated July 22 2005, did stakeholders verbally identify and raise with Mr Marelich from the DoE, that the 100 metre operational area and map included part of Prospecting Licence 26/3126 (not owned by KCGM)?
(4) If yes to (3), what specifically was identified and raised, and why hasn’t this been included in the file note dated September 29 2005?
(5) If no to (3), what specifically was identified and raised and why hasn’t this been included in the file note dated September 29 2005?
(6) Can the Minister precisely explain how did the DoE address the matter raised in question (3) above to ensure that the groundwater levels on Prospecting Licence 26/3126 are not going to remain the same for the next 10 years, because its located within 100 metres of the Fimiston I Tailings dam wall, and it is not considered practical to lower the groundwater levels within part of this area?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Prior to July 22 2005, did the DoE as the regulator consider it practical to reduce groundwater levels caused by seepage from the tailings dams to below four metres within the operational area of 100 metres from the dam?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) If yes to (8), why?
(11) Does the DoE as the regulator consider it practical to reduce groundwater levels caused by seepage from the tailings dams to below six metres on Prospecting Licence 26/3126?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) If yes to (11), why?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
117 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: The following information is correct as at 20 December 2005. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
The following information is correct as at 20 December 2005. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(12-13) Not applicable.
The following information is correct as at 20 December 2005. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(3) Yes. (4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(4) This was one of many verbal comments made to the DoE by members of the public regarding the Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period, the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided to KCGM. (5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(6) During meetings with KCGM the matter of the 100m halo was raised and the fact that this included parts of mining tenements not owned by KCGM. The DoE considered that the 100m halo shouldn't apply where it crosses premises boundaries and KCGM would need to take further steps to ensure that water levels were managed prior to leaving KCGM's tenement. (7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(8) The DoE considers that the area within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings storage facilities is, in general, highly disturbed. Therefore the impact from water levels increasing to less than 4m below ground level is unlikely to cause pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). The DoE also considers that it may not be practicable to prevent water levels getting within 4m of the ground surface adjacent to the toe of the tailings storage facility. Given that environmental harm and/ or pollution are unlikely and it is not considered practicable to achieve water levels less than 4m below ground level, it is unreasonable to require this within the operational area of the tailings storage facility. However, the DoE considers KCGM needs to review the size of this operational area and level of practicality of managing groundwater levels within this area. KCGM have committed to doing this prior to the annual review of the plan by 31 August 2006 (including 21 day public comment period). (9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(9-10) Not applicable. (11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(11) See answer to (6). (12-13) Not applicable.
(12-13) 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.