Work Has Begun At Splitters Creek - Permit Conditions Breached Already?

Works have already commenced at the proposed Splitters Creek Evaporation Facility.

Dust generating activities have already begun. Here is a photo of the mine's earthmoving equipment arranged on the site. As you can see, they've already built a road.

From the EPA's SEPP AQM:

Section 1.1 Purpose:

All mining and extractive industries have a requirement to comply with SEPP (AQM). An air quality assessment… is required only for proposals requiring an Environment Effects Statement or an EPA Works Approval and Licence or where specifically required by DPI. DPI are likely to request an air quality assessment only when activities that are likely to generate increased emissions of the indicators specified… or will have significantly increased impact at sensitive locations.

Please advise the current status of the EPA Works Approval and Licence for this site which is about to be subjected to "activities that are likely to generate increased emissions of the indicators specified". 

In this case the indicators specified include arsenic compounds which happen to be a Class 3 Indicator.

Please refer to Section 3.6 of the SEPP AQM for Costerfield-specific instructions. Antimony in water tanks and other such stuff.
 
Has an Air Quality Assessment been instituted by EPA?

If not why not?

Has an Air Quality Assessment been instituted by DSDBI?

If not why not?

Can someone please explain how you build a dirt road in Costerfield without generating dust.


We were informed by DSDBI on 10 October, 2014 that:

Following the VCAT outcome Mandalay revised their work plan to met the requirements of Planning Permit DM/501/2013 (20/6/2014) and submitted it to Council for consideration. Council advised DSDBI on 11 September that the revised work plan met the requirements of Condition 1 of DM/501/2013. This work plan was approved by DSDBI this week (approved 6/10/2014 and registered 9/10/2014).

Before works can commence on actual construction of the proposed facility it is necessary for Mandalay to be granted a minerals industry Work Authority under s42 of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990. One of the requirements for the grant of a Work Authority is the lodgement of a rehabilitation bond, which is yet to be finalised.

Why have works commenced without this Work Authority or the lodgement of a rehabilitation bond?

[It has just come to our attention that the bond has been lodged

At 5.27 pm 17 October, the DSDBI NW Operations Manager advised that:

 “Mandalay Resources have lodged a bond with the Department but at this time the matter is still being considered and the bond has not been formally accepted or registered. Mandalay are aware of the need to complete the requirements of the MRSDA (as I mentioned in my email of last Friday) before commencing construction of the evaporation facility”.

The bond is still to be formally accepted or registered, however, so our point stands.]


Who is the person overseeing the activities of the mine to ensure that the company does not breach the conditions of the Permit by commencing work before permitting allows?

Why has the revised work plan not been presented for discussion to the Environmental Review Committee?

Condition 1(a) of the Splitters Creek VCAT Decision requires:
A schedule setting out a program for dust monitoring;


Please provide us with a copy of this schedule.

Condition 6 of the Splitters Creek VCAT Decision reads:
Prior to the commencement of construction work an authorised environmental auditor appointed under the Environmental Protection Act 1970 (hereafter in the conditions called environmental auditor) is to be engaged at no cost to the responsible authority to carry out the functions attributed to the Environmental Auditor in the conditions of this permit.

Condition 7(a) then reads in part:
Prior to the commencement of works a written certificate of the environmental auditor is to be presented to the responsible authority.

Condition 7(b), follows:
The certificate is to include or refer to a monitoring plan to specify monitoring:
(i) prior to and during the construction of works, on commencement of operations of the evaporation facilities and ongoing.

Please advise us of the date on which the certificate was presented to the responsible authority.

Please advise us of the details of the water testing plan that the environmental auditor has put in place and also the results of the monitoring undertaken prior to the commencement of works at the Splitters Creek site.

Please advise as to whether particulate monitoring has been undertaken.

Please provide us with the results of this testing.

Condition 14 reads:
Before construction can commence, the owner and/or operator must submit the following to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
a) The results of an Emerson dispersive test by a laboratory accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities demonstrating that the clay to be used in lining the ponds and storage dam will not be compromised by the saline nature of the groundwater; and
b) The results of geotechnical testing by a laboratory accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities to show that the clay to be used in lining the ponds and storage dam is capable of achieving the maximum seepage rate allowed under this permit.

Please confirm for us that the responsible authority has received and is satisfied by the results of these tests.

Please provide us with the results of these tests.

Condition 20 reads:
The use permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of the responsible authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the processes carried on; the transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the subject land; the appearance of any buildings, works or materials; the emission of noise artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, or oil; the presence of vermin or otherwise.

Please advise us of the extent of current dust monitoring at the Splitters Creek site and whether such monitoring includes the testing for particulate dust - PM10 and smaller...

If not, why not?