❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Fimiston Superpit, specifically questioning the adequacy of environmental assessments given discrepancies in planned vs. actual dimensions and seeking clarification on departmental approvals and long-term planning.
AnsweredQoN 576Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to question on notice No. 278 of November 13 2002 answers provided and the ‘Consultative Environmental Review Mine and Waste Dumps- Fimiston’ August 1990 submitted by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd -
(1) Given that the Minister has previously stated ‘The question has been referred to the Minister for Mineral and Petroleum Resources’ for the answer to parts 4, 6 and 8 will the Minister now provide all the answers?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain how the Department can possibly accept broad scale plans and make accurate assessments of the impacts, without precise or accurate details of the width, depth and length of the superpit given that the Department and the Minister imposed both Ministerial and licence conditions on this superpit operation to protect people and the environment?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the depth, width and length of the superpit in the Consultative Environmental Review (CER) was stated as ‘Ultimately the main pit will be approximately 5km long by 1km wide at the widest point, to a proposed depth of 300m (Figs.10, 11, and12).’?
(6) If no to (5), what is the specific depth, width and length in metres of the superpit mentioned in the CER?
(7) Can the Minister state what specific documents, with dates, if any, did the Department and the Minister assess and approve the superpit operations on?
(8) If no to (6), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state on what specific date the Department were advised by KCGM that it plans to finalise its long term plan within two years?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Given that the Minister has previously stated ‘The question has been referred to the Minister for Mineral and Petroleum Resources’ for the answer to parts 4, 6 and 8 will the Minister now provide all the answers?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain how the Department can possibly accept broad scale plans and make accurate assessments of the impacts, without precise or accurate details of the width, depth and length of the superpit given that the Department and the Minister imposed both Ministerial and licence conditions on this superpit operation to protect people and the environment?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the depth, width and length of the superpit in the Consultative Environmental Review (CER) was stated as ‘Ultimately the main pit will be approximately 5km long by 1km wide at the widest point, to a proposed depth of 300m (Figs.10, 11, and12).’?
(6) If no to (5), what is the specific depth, width and length in metres of the superpit mentioned in the CER?
(7) Can the Minister state what specific documents, with dates, if any, did the Department and the Minister assess and approve the superpit operations on?
(8) If no to (6), why not?
(9) Can the Minister state on what specific date the Department were advised by KCGM that it plans to finalise its long term plan within two years?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 April 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
19 days
1. No. 2. The questions raised in question on notice No. 278 of November 13 2002 were regarding the tonnes milled in 1991, the tonnes mined in 1991 and the tonnage of dump trucks in 1991. These matters need to be addressed to the Minister for State Development and you should direct this question to that Minister. 3. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) at that time considered that there was sufficient information available to be able to assess the proposal and to make recommendations accordingly. As stated in the Foreword to the relevant EPA Bulletin (EPA Bulletin 539, July 1991) the EPA noted that the proposal was consistent with the planning strategy for the area as set out in the publication 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
2. The questions raised in question on notice No. 278 of November 13 2002 were regarding the tonnes milled in 1991, the tonnes mined in 1991 and the tonnage of dump trucks in 1991. These matters need to be addressed to the Minister for State Development and you should direct this question to that Minister. 3. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) at that time considered that there was sufficient information available to be able to assess the proposal and to make recommendations accordingly. As stated in the Foreword to the relevant EPA Bulletin (EPA Bulletin 539, July 1991) the EPA noted that the proposal was consistent with the planning strategy for the area as set out in the publication 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
3. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) at that time considered that there was sufficient information available to be able to assess the proposal and to make recommendations accordingly. As stated in the Foreword to the relevant EPA Bulletin (EPA Bulletin 539, July 1991) the EPA noted that the proposal was consistent with the planning strategy for the area as set out in the publication 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
10. Not applicable.
2. The questions raised in question on notice No. 278 of November 13 2002 were regarding the tonnes milled in 1991, the tonnes mined in 1991 and the tonnage of dump trucks in 1991. These matters need to be addressed to the Minister for State Development and you should direct this question to that Minister. 3. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) at that time considered that there was sufficient information available to be able to assess the proposal and to make recommendations accordingly. As stated in the Foreword to the relevant EPA Bulletin (EPA Bulletin 539, July 1991) the EPA noted that the proposal was consistent with the planning strategy for the area as set out in the publication 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
3. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) at that time considered that there was sufficient information available to be able to assess the proposal and to make recommendations accordingly. As stated in the Foreword to the relevant EPA Bulletin (EPA Bulletin 539, July 1991) the EPA noted that the proposal was consistent with the planning strategy for the area as set out in the publication 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
4. Not applicable. 5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
5. The Minister has been advised that the CER does indeed state that these are the approximate ultimate dimensions of the pit. 6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
6. Not applicable. 7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
7. The Minister has been advised that the primary source of information used by the EPA for the assessment was the proponent's Consultative Environmental Review document. As noted previously, the EPA also had regard to the document 'Conceptual Plan for Mining Developments on the Golden Mile' which was published by the then Department of Mines in 1989. 8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
8. Not applicable. 9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
9. KCGM informed the DEP at a meeting on 25 September 2000 of its plan to finalise its long term plan within two years. KCGM reiterated this in a letter submitted on 19 October 2000 to the DEP. The EPA Chairman informed KCGM on 20 December 2000 that any change to the size of the Superpit beyond that assessed in 1991 would require referral to the EPA. No referral has been received to date. 10. Not applicable.
10. 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.