❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment's assessment of environmental harm and pollution risks associated with seepage from the Fimiston tailings storage facilities, referencing previous correspondence and questions on notice. The Minister's response refers back to these previous answers, maintaining that serious environmental harm is unlikely due to the disturbed nature of the area and the irrelevance of tenement boundaries to ecological features.
AnsweredQoN 3373Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated October 10 2005, signed by D Carew Hopkins, Acting Director General, Department of Environment (DoE) reference CEO 1162 addressed to Mr L Mills, and question on notice number 2892 of 10 November 2005 -
(1) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the DoE considers the operational area of the Fimiston 1 tailings storage facility in general to be ‘highly disturbed’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain how the specific operational area of the Fimiston 1 tailings dam referred to by the DoE became ‘highly disturbed’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the DoE considers the operational area of the Fimiston 2 tailings storage facility in general to be ‘highly disturbed’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the specific operational area of the Fimiston 2 tailings dam referred to by the DoE became ‘highly disturbed’?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why ‘environmental harm and or pollution is unlikely’ within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston 2 tailings dams, given that seepage has been stressing and killing vegetation since 1993 up until the present day in this area?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the DoE does not consider seepage emissions entering prospecting Licence 26/3126 as likely to cause pollution?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain why the DoE does not consider seepage emissions entering prospecting licence 26/3126 as likely to cause environmental harm?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the DoE considers the operational area of the Fimiston 1 tailings storage facility in general to be ‘highly disturbed’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain how the specific operational area of the Fimiston 1 tailings dam referred to by the DoE became ‘highly disturbed’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the DoE considers the operational area of the Fimiston 2 tailings storage facility in general to be ‘highly disturbed’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the specific operational area of the Fimiston 2 tailings dam referred to by the DoE became ‘highly disturbed’?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why ‘environmental harm and or pollution is unlikely’ within the operational area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston 2 tailings dams, given that seepage has been stressing and killing vegetation since 1993 up until the present day in this area?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the DoE does not consider seepage emissions entering prospecting Licence 26/3126 as likely to cause pollution?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain why the DoE does not consider seepage emissions entering prospecting licence 26/3126 as likely to cause environmental harm?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
35 days
(2) Not applicable. (3) As per (1) roads, pipelines, bores, fencing and power services are necessary infrastructure around these facilities. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(3) As per (1) roads, pipelines, bores, fencing and power services are necessary infrastructure around these facilities. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable.
(3) As per (1) roads, pipelines, bores, fencing and power services are necessary infrastructure around these facilities. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(5) As per (1). (6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(7) As per (3). (8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(9) As per Questions on Notice 2892 of 10 November 2005 and Question on Notice 2951 of 17 November 2005, the DoE considers that pollution or environmental harm (serious or material) is unlikely given that the area is highly disturbed. Ongoing allegations of stressing and killing of vegetation has also recently been answered in Question on Notice 3211 of 1 December 2005. (10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(11) As per Question on Notice 2885 of 10 November 2005, the DoE considers that from an ecological or environmental viewpoint, retaining seepage within arbitrary boundaries of mining tenements, has no relation to preventing pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). That is the boundary of a mining tenement generally has no relationship to an environmentally significant feature, but rather delineates the area of control of a mining operation. (12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(13) As per (9) and (11). (14) Not applicable.
(14) 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.