❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the rationale behind environmental regulations imposed on the Kundana Gold Mine, focusing on water management, waste dump design, and rehabilitation practices. The Minister's responses affirm the regulations as standard practice for environmental protection and industry standards.
AnsweredQoN 1371Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter which I understand is dated February 14 2002 signed by Eugene Bouwhuis, Environmental and Rehabilitation Officer, from the Department of Minerals and Energy addressed to Registered Manager, Goldfields Limited, Kundana Gold Mine -
(1) Can the Minister state the rationale and justification as to why it was so important for the officer to request the owner/operator to provide a management/closure plan for the lake located on M16/669 and M16/260 to which water from dewatering of the Kurrawang Pit was pumped given that the general area is predominantly salt lake terrain, with little and intermittent vegetation, with the underlying groundwater being hypersaline and can be claimed to be of no beneficial use?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state why is it so important that waste dumps must incorporate design features capable of withstanding both average and extreme climatic conditions (ie. 1 in 100 year 72 hour storm event) given the area is not in close proximity to a small town or population?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the rationale and justification as to why ‘low grade ore stockpiles require rehabilitating to reduce the overall active mining footprint where possible’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why ‘surface rehabilitation earthworks and placement of infrastructures must not interfere with surface water flow (where practicable), which will result in water ponding against structures eg waste dumps, formed haul road’?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(1) Can the Minister state the rationale and justification as to why it was so important for the officer to request the owner/operator to provide a management/closure plan for the lake located on M16/669 and M16/260 to which water from dewatering of the Kurrawang Pit was pumped given that the general area is predominantly salt lake terrain, with little and intermittent vegetation, with the underlying groundwater being hypersaline and can be claimed to be of no beneficial use?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state why is it so important that waste dumps must incorporate design features capable of withstanding both average and extreme climatic conditions (ie. 1 in 100 year 72 hour storm event) given the area is not in close proximity to a small town or population?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the rationale and justification as to why ‘low grade ore stockpiles require rehabilitating to reduce the overall active mining footprint where possible’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why ‘surface rehabilitation earthworks and placement of infrastructures must not interfere with surface water flow (where practicable), which will result in water ponding against structures eg waste dumps, formed haul road’?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 December 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
39 days
1. Yes, this is a standard departmental requirement to ensure no, or minimal long term impacts on the environment. 2. Not applicable. 3. Yes. The requirement is in accordance with department guidelines and good mining industry practice. 4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
2. Not applicable. 3. Yes. The requirement is in accordance with department guidelines and good mining industry practice. 4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
3. Yes. The requirement is in accordance with department guidelines and good mining industry practice. 4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
8. Not applicable
2. Not applicable. 3. Yes. The requirement is in accordance with department guidelines and good mining industry practice. 4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
3. Yes. The requirement is in accordance with department guidelines and good mining industry practice. 4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
4. Not applicable. 5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
5. Yes. Progressive rehabilitation enables progressive habitat reconstruction and potential for reduction of environmental bonds. 6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
6. Not applicable. 7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
7. Yes. Natural surface water ponding against mine related infrastructure is not a desirable situation, particularly large ponding since it has a potential to reduce/prevent vegetation growth, increase weed invasion as well as destabilise the structure. 8. Not applicable
8. 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.