❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding the EPA's decision-making process concerning the White Foil Gold Project's water discharge proposal into Greta Lake, focusing on the EPA's assessment of environmental impacts and application of the precautionary principle.
AnsweredQoN 3641Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated 25 February 2003 titled ‘White Foil Gold Project: Proposal to discharge water from Mine dewatering to Greta Lake’, signed by Bernard Bowen from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) addressed to Mr Jean-Pierre Nicoud, Mines and Resources Australia Pty Ltd -
(1) Is it correct that part of the letter dated 25 February 2003 states ‘I understand that the White Foil Mine commenced in March 2002, and there have been three separate approaches to managing pit dewatering at the site (re-injection, water storage/evaporation, and finally disposal to the Moonbeam pit). These methods have proved inadequate due to the large volumes of water encountered?’
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text from the letter dated 25 February 2003?
(3) Can the Minister explain how each of the three methods mentioned in the letter dated 25 February 2003 were inadequate ‘due to the large volumes of water encountered?’
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that Greta Lake is somewhat atypical of the area and appears to be more biologically productive than other salt lakes in the region?
(6) If yes to (5), can the Minister state and detail why this lake is more biologically productive than other salt lakes in the region?
(7) Can the Minister state how the precautionary principle was applied in rejecting White Foil Gold’s proposal with particular reference to the following comment in the letter dated 25 February 2003 ‘The report also notes that, while there is unlikely to be any significant impact on riparian vegetation, there is very little information on biota in the lake itself and that further background work is required. The report concludes that, ‘… in the short term it is likely that there will be impact on aquatic biota … however the potential for long term impact is unknown?’
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why the EPA also stated that ‘There is potential for the salt you propose to discharge to remain on the surface of the lake and disrupt the ecological cycle’ and to also disrupt the ecological cycle in the ‘relatively small salt lake close to the mine?’
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Is it correct that part of the letter dated 25 February 2003 states ‘I understand that the White Foil Mine commenced in March 2002, and there have been three separate approaches to managing pit dewatering at the site (re-injection, water storage/evaporation, and finally disposal to the Moonbeam pit). These methods have proved inadequate due to the large volumes of water encountered?’
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text from the letter dated 25 February 2003?
(3) Can the Minister explain how each of the three methods mentioned in the letter dated 25 February 2003 were inadequate ‘due to the large volumes of water encountered?’
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that Greta Lake is somewhat atypical of the area and appears to be more biologically productive than other salt lakes in the region?
(6) If yes to (5), can the Minister state and detail why this lake is more biologically productive than other salt lakes in the region?
(7) Can the Minister state how the precautionary principle was applied in rejecting White Foil Gold’s proposal with particular reference to the following comment in the letter dated 25 February 2003 ‘The report also notes that, while there is unlikely to be any significant impact on riparian vegetation, there is very little information on biota in the lake itself and that further background work is required. The report concludes that, ‘… in the short term it is likely that there will be impact on aquatic biota … however the potential for long term impact is unknown?’
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why the EPA also stated that ‘There is potential for the salt you propose to discharge to remain on the surface of the lake and disrupt the ecological cycle’ and to also disrupt the ecological cycle in the ‘relatively small salt lake close to the mine?’
(10) If no to (9), 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
These questions relate to correspondence between the Chairman of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and a proponent, in relation to a proposal which had been formally referred to the EPA under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . The EPA is an independent statutory authority. As the correspondence in question relates to the conduct of the EPA's assessment process, it is not appropriate for the Minister for the Environment to comment on the matter. It is recommended that the Honourable Member raises these questions directly with the EPA Chairman.
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.