❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding alleged odour emissions and noise pollution from Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM) operations, specifically concerning incidents in February 2010 and ongoing noise from ventilation fans. The Minister declined to answer directly, offering a briefing instead.
AnsweredQoN 5108Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a media statement, dated 16 June 2008, from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) titled, 'Hazelmere rendering company pays $25,000 penalty for odour emission', and unreasonable odour emissions of ammonium nitrate fumes from blasts which seriously impacted upon residents which occurred on 11 and 16 February 2010, at a site managed by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM ), who is the management company for Newmont and Barrick at the Mount Charlotte gold mining operations, and ask -
(1) Will KCGM be prosecuted under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, for causing unreasonable odour emissions for the incidents on 11 and 16 February 2010, in the same/similar manner as other companies referred to, in the DEC media statements above?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), when will prosecution proceedings be commenced or implemented?
(4) Is it correct that the DEC has evidence in the form of a copy of a letter from KCGM, dated 3 February 2010, addressed to a resident which in part states 'As discussed on the phone, the odour was the result of post-firing blast fumes that were not appropriately contained by the spray system However, on behalf of KCGM, I would like to apologise to you and your family for the inconvenience experienced for both of these incidents regarding the failure of sprays to activate'?
(5) If no to (4), what was specifically stated in the letter, dated 3 February 2010?
(6) Was the letter in (4) above considered by the DEC as part of its investigation before it finalised these matters along with many statements from persons affected?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) If yes to (6), how was the letter, dated 3 February 2010, taken into consideration?
(9) Since the February 2010 incidents of unreasonable odour emissions -
(a) how many more incidents have occurred; and
(b) on what respective dates have these incidents been reported to the DEC?
(10) Will the DEC take strong prosecution action which eliminates and reduces any likelihood of any ongoing unreasonable odour emissions which seriously impact on residents?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Can the Minister explain why the DEC has not taken any action against KCGM to reduce noise levels which are generated in the evening from the ventilation fans from the Mt Charlotte KCGM operations?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(1) Will KCGM be prosecuted under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
, for causing unreasonable odour emissions for the incidents on 11 and 16 February 2010, in the same/similar manner as other companies referred to, in the DEC media statements above?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If yes to (1), when will prosecution proceedings be commenced or implemented?
(4) Is it correct that the DEC has evidence in the form of a copy of a letter from KCGM, dated 3 February 2010, addressed to a resident which in part states 'As discussed on the phone, the odour was the result of post-firing blast fumes that were not appropriately contained by the spray system However, on behalf of KCGM, I would like to apologise to you and your family for the inconvenience experienced for both of these incidents regarding the failure of sprays to activate'?
(5) If no to (4), what was specifically stated in the letter, dated 3 February 2010?
(6) Was the letter in (4) above considered by the DEC as part of its investigation before it finalised these matters along with many statements from persons affected?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) If yes to (6), how was the letter, dated 3 February 2010, taken into consideration?
(9) Since the February 2010 incidents of unreasonable odour emissions -
(a) how many more incidents have occurred; and
(b) on what respective dates have these incidents been reported to the DEC?
(10) Will the DEC take strong prosecution action which eliminates and reduces any likelihood of any ongoing unreasonable odour emissions which seriously impact on residents?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Can the Minister explain why the DEC has not taken any action against KCGM to reduce noise levels which are generated in the evening from the ventilation fans from the Mt Charlotte KCGM operations?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 May 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
56 days
(1)-(13) The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has spent approximately 200 hours answering questions from the Hon Member on projects owned by Barrick Gold, and Newmont Mining and managed by KCGM. Given the interest of the Member in this matter, the Minister would be happy to arrange for DEC to provide the Member with a briefing on any matters of concern.
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.