❓ A parliamentary question regarding the environmental impact of raising the height of the Fimiston 2 tailings dam, specifically concerning seepage and the adequacy of mitigation measures. The Minister defers answering due to ongoing appeals.
AnsweredQoN 3638Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Fimiston 2 tailings dam and the recent proposal to raise the height and capacity of the dam, Prospecting Licence 26/1848 and the Independent Technical Review Thompson and Brett report dated October 2004 -
(1) Is it correct that part of the Thompson and Brett Report dated October 2004 states ‘Figure 3 also suggests that some seepage is flowing past the borefield but that is predominantly from Fimiston 2. To fully intercept all seepage it would be necessary to develop a broad groundwater sump. This has so far not been achieved’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text from the report dated October 2004?
(3) Will the Minister or Department of Environment (DoE) reject KCGM’s proposal to raise the height and capacity of the Fimiston 2 dam, until KCGM has produced a plan which clearly aims to fully intercept all seepage with a broad groundwater sump as advocated by Thompson and Brett, or a series of very deep benched down trenches including more production bores so as contaminated water does not continue to spread downstream?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If the DoE has determined that it is not practicable to fully intercept all seepage with a broad groundwater sump or a series of very deep benched down trenches including more production bores, will the Minister or the DoE reject KCGM’s proposal to raise the height and capacity of the Fimiston 2 tailings dam as being environmentally unacceptable, given that contaminated water will continue to spread downstream?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(1) Is it correct that part of the Thompson and Brett Report dated October 2004 states ‘Figure 3 also suggests that some seepage is flowing past the borefield but that is predominantly from Fimiston 2. To fully intercept all seepage it would be necessary to develop a broad groundwater sump. This has so far not been achieved’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text from the report dated October 2004?
(3) Will the Minister or Department of Environment (DoE) reject KCGM’s proposal to raise the height and capacity of the Fimiston 2 dam, until KCGM has produced a plan which clearly aims to fully intercept all seepage with a broad groundwater sump as advocated by Thompson and Brett, or a series of very deep benched down trenches including more production bores so as contaminated water does not continue to spread downstream?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If the DoE has determined that it is not practicable to fully intercept all seepage with a broad groundwater sump or a series of very deep benched down trenches including more production bores, will the Minister or the DoE reject KCGM’s proposal to raise the height and capacity of the Fimiston 2 tailings dam as being environmentally unacceptable, given that contaminated water will continue to spread downstream?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
22 August 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
70 days
(2) Not applicable. (3) The office of the Appeals Convenor in currently considering appeals against the Environmental Protection Authority's decision to set the level of assessment for the height increase of Fimiston 2 as "not assessed public advice given". As such, I cannot comment further on this matter until the outcome of this appeal has been determined. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(3) The office of the Appeals Convenor in currently considering appeals against the Environmental Protection Authority's decision to set the level of assessment for the height increase of Fimiston 2 as "not assessed public advice given". As such, I cannot comment further on this matter until the outcome of this appeal has been determined. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable.
(3) The office of the Appeals Convenor in currently considering appeals against the Environmental Protection Authority's decision to set the level of assessment for the height increase of Fimiston 2 as "not assessed public advice given". As such, I cannot comment further on this matter until the outcome of this appeal has been determined. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(5) As per (3). (6) Not applicable.
(6) 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.