❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding arsenic contamination at the Barrick Kanowna Belle mine, alleging high levels of arsenic in water samples and inadequate management of arsenic trioxide disposal. The Minister deflects by referring to another question.
AnsweredQoN 2541Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Belle operations, analysis results of tests conducted on soil/mud and water samples for arsenic conducted by MPL Laboratories dated 5 May 2010, and a letter from Evan Spencer General Mine Manager for Barrick Kanowna dated 9 June 2010, which are available for viewing at
http://www.robinchapple.org.au/node/460
entitled 2010-05-20 Kanowna Belle Arsenic Trioxide Results.pdf and 2010-06-09 Kanowna Belle Arsenic Letter Evan Spencer.pdf, and ask -
(1) Is it correct that the safe level for the amount of arsenic in drinking water is 0.007grams per litre, making the results of the analysis results referred to on page two of the tests referred to above almost 286 times the allowable limit, for arsenic in drinking water?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically is correct concerning this matter?
(3) Is it correct that the safe level for the amount of arsenic in the marine or environment is 0.05 grams per litre, making the analysis results referred to on page two of the tests referred to above 40 times the allowable limit for arsenic in the marine or environment?
(4) If no to (3), what specifically is correct concerning this matter?
(5) With regards to (1) and (3), can the Minister state specifically the factual known and potential effects to a person’s health upon ingesting water in which the level of arsenic was two grams per litre, -
(a) in small amounts; and
(b) in large amounts?
(6) If no to (5), not?
(7) With regards to (1) and (3), can the Minister state specifically the known and potential effects to a person’s health upon absorbing through the skin or eyes water in which the level of arsenic was two grams per litre, -
(a) in small amounts; and
(b) in large amounts?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Given that the samples provided for analysis were taken from a bulker bag that contained arsenic trioxide and was disposed of underground in the upper levels of the Kanowna Belle mine, can the Minister explain why the results on page two of the analysis results referred to above specifically state that the arsenic was contained in mud/soil instead of a consolidated substance?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the results from the samples from the water, referred to in page two of the document referred to above, that was right alongside and under and around the bulker bags containing arsenic trioxide that are disposed of underground in the Kanowna Belle Mine, contained any level of arsenic whatsoever, let alone very high levels of arsenic?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Given that it has been reported and documented that there was water flowing through the roof of the Kanowna Belle Mine and onto the soil containing arsenic trioxide in the bulker bags that were disposed of underground in the upper levels of the mine, and causing the arsenic to leach out in very high volumes into the water before that water proceeded to course down through the mine, can the Minister explain and define how the management of this mine and the Department of Mines and Petroleum inspectorate allowed this to happen, and for how long in years and months this was allowed to happen?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
http://www.robinchapple.org.au/node/460
entitled 2010-05-20 Kanowna Belle Arsenic Trioxide Results.pdf and 2010-06-09 Kanowna Belle Arsenic Letter Evan Spencer.pdf, and ask -
(1) Is it correct that the safe level for the amount of arsenic in drinking water is 0.007grams per litre, making the results of the analysis results referred to on page two of the tests referred to above almost 286 times the allowable limit, for arsenic in drinking water?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically is correct concerning this matter?
(3) Is it correct that the safe level for the amount of arsenic in the marine or environment is 0.05 grams per litre, making the analysis results referred to on page two of the tests referred to above 40 times the allowable limit for arsenic in the marine or environment?
(4) If no to (3), what specifically is correct concerning this matter?
(5) With regards to (1) and (3), can the Minister state specifically the factual known and potential effects to a person’s health upon ingesting water in which the level of arsenic was two grams per litre, -
(a) in small amounts; and
(b) in large amounts?
(6) If no to (5), not?
(7) With regards to (1) and (3), can the Minister state specifically the known and potential effects to a person’s health upon absorbing through the skin or eyes water in which the level of arsenic was two grams per litre, -
(a) in small amounts; and
(b) in large amounts?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Given that the samples provided for analysis were taken from a bulker bag that contained arsenic trioxide and was disposed of underground in the upper levels of the Kanowna Belle mine, can the Minister explain why the results on page two of the analysis results referred to above specifically state that the arsenic was contained in mud/soil instead of a consolidated substance?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the results from the samples from the water, referred to in page two of the document referred to above, that was right alongside and under and around the bulker bags containing arsenic trioxide that are disposed of underground in the Kanowna Belle Mine, contained any level of arsenic whatsoever, let alone very high levels of arsenic?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Given that it has been reported and documented that there was water flowing through the roof of the Kanowna Belle Mine and onto the soil containing arsenic trioxide in the bulker bags that were disposed of underground in the upper levels of the mine, and causing the arsenic to leach out in very high volumes into the water before that water proceeded to course down through the mine, can the Minister explain and define how the management of this mine and the Department of Mines and Petroleum inspectorate allowed this to happen, and for how long in years and months this was allowed to happen?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
42 days
Please refer to parliamentary question 2516.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.