❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding the Lake Way uranium site, focusing on inspections, safety, remediation, and potential risks to workers, the public, and Indigenous people. The Minister's response indicates limited inspections, low risk assessment, and adherence to existing regulations.
AnsweredQoN 2736Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With reference to the Lake Way uranium site, E53/1132 and M53/1090 leases, held by Nova Energy and photographs and data contained on,
http://robinchapple.org.au/node/460
, and entitled ‘2010-07-10 Lake Way Site.pdf’, I ask -
(1) Since October 2002, have inspections been undertaken by the DME, DIR or DMP of these or preceding leases held over this area?
(2) If yes to (1), -
(a) how many inspections; and
(b) on what dates?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
(4) If yes to (1), were any directives given at the time of these inspections, for remedial action to be taken in respect of the exposed uranium ore at the site?
(5) If yes to (4), -
(a) what were those directives; and
(b) to whom were they given?
(6) If any directives were given, was the site visited to confirm compliance, who undertook the visits and on what dates?
(7) Since the advent of this Government have any independent radiation safety experts or members of the Radiological Council visited the site to ensure compliance with radiation safety guidelines or to assess existing hazards?
(8) If yes to (7), -
(a) who made the visits;
(b) on what dates; and
(c) what were their findings and recommendations?
(9) If no to (7), why not?
(10) How many tonnes of uranium ore are left exposed on the Nova Energy leases associated with previous Lake Way uranium mining activities?
(11) What action will the minister take to, -
(a) ensure worker health and safety at these sites;
(b) ensure public access to the area is restricted;
(c) ensure the sites are remediated; and
(d) ensure that proper safety signage is installed at the hazardous areas?
(12) Given there is evidence of Indigenous people accessing the area, what action will be taken to ensure adequate screening is carried out on the regional population for ingested or inhaled Alpha emitting radioactive material in the form of dust?
http://robinchapple.org.au/node/460
, and entitled ‘2010-07-10 Lake Way Site.pdf’, I ask -
(1) Since October 2002, have inspections been undertaken by the DME, DIR or DMP of these or preceding leases held over this area?
(2) If yes to (1), -
(a) how many inspections; and
(b) on what dates?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
(4) If yes to (1), were any directives given at the time of these inspections, for remedial action to be taken in respect of the exposed uranium ore at the site?
(5) If yes to (4), -
(a) what were those directives; and
(b) to whom were they given?
(6) If any directives were given, was the site visited to confirm compliance, who undertook the visits and on what dates?
(7) Since the advent of this Government have any independent radiation safety experts or members of the Radiological Council visited the site to ensure compliance with radiation safety guidelines or to assess existing hazards?
(8) If yes to (7), -
(a) who made the visits;
(b) on what dates; and
(c) what were their findings and recommendations?
(9) If no to (7), why not?
(10) How many tonnes of uranium ore are left exposed on the Nova Energy leases associated with previous Lake Way uranium mining activities?
(11) What action will the minister take to, -
(a) ensure worker health and safety at these sites;
(b) ensure public access to the area is restricted;
(c) ensure the sites are remediated; and
(d) ensure that proper safety signage is installed at the hazardous areas?
(12) Given there is evidence of Indigenous people accessing the area, what action will be taken to ensure adequate screening is carried out on the regional population for ingested or inhaled Alpha emitting radioactive material in the form of dust?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 October 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
35 days
(1) Yes
(2)
(a) One
(b) 27 July 2010
(3) Not applicable
(4) No
(5) (a) - (b) Not applicable
(6) Not applicable
(7) Two independent experts from the Resources Safety Division of the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) visited the site - see answer to questions 1 and 2.
(8)
(a) Two experts from DMP.
(b) 27 July 2010
(c) Radiation levels in the area associated with previous exploration work were consistent with earlier survey results and with the fact that the ore-body is shallow and is known to naturally outcrop in the vicinity.
(9) Not applicable.
(10) Scattered disturbed material, similar to the outcropping mineralisation remains from rehabilitating the pits. No measurement of the very small volume has been made.
(11)
(a) Worker health and safety is covered by the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994.
(b) These sites have been assessed as not posing a significant public risk - see answer to question 8(c) - and access requires permission of the pastoralist.
(c) As previously indicated in answer to question 8(c), the sites have been rehabilitated to the standards required by the State Mining Engineer and the Radiological Council.
(d) Not required - see answer to question 8.
(12) Not required. As previously noted in answer to question 8(c), the site represents a very low risk.
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
(2)
(a) One
(b) 27 July 2010
(3) Not applicable
(4) No
(5) (a) - (b) Not applicable
(6) Not applicable
(7) Two independent experts from the Resources Safety Division of the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) visited the site - see answer to questions 1 and 2.
(8)
(a) Two experts from DMP.
(b) 27 July 2010
(c) Radiation levels in the area associated with previous exploration work were consistent with earlier survey results and with the fact that the ore-body is shallow and is known to naturally outcrop in the vicinity.
(9) Not applicable.
(10) Scattered disturbed material, similar to the outcropping mineralisation remains from rehabilitating the pits. No measurement of the very small volume has been made.
(11)
(a) Worker health and safety is covered by the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994.
(b) These sites have been assessed as not posing a significant public risk - see answer to question 8(c) - and access requires permission of the pastoralist.
(c) As previously indicated in answer to question 8(c), the sites have been rehabilitated to the standards required by the State Mining Engineer and the Radiological Council.
(d) Not required - see answer to question 8.
(12) Not required. As previously noted in answer to question 8(c), the site represents a very low risk.
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.