At Least We Now Have 17 Metals

In a previous post we were extremely critical of the Department of Health and Golder Associates' sampling and testing regime in Costerfield. Despite being capable of testing for the presence of 17 metals (and it's cheaper) in the residents' soils and water - such a scope of testing was undertaken by the residents themselves - it was announced by the Chief Inspector of Mines (why is the DSDBI commenting on a Health Issue? Oh that's right, the 'whole of government'!) that only 8 metals would be tested for.

The second round of testing in the Costerfield area has been completed.

Guess what? The Department of Health and Golder Associates are now testing for 17 metals.

This is good news. Really. 

We thank the Department of health for its initiative in introducing these measures.

This still falls a long way short of the 32 elements that were tested for by the residents, but it is an encouraging beginning to achieving an acceptable level of scientific certainty regarding the mine's cumulative impacts on our town.

Nevertheless we are grateful for the adoption of these new standards.

This is good news. Really.

It is an admission-through-action that provides what one would assume to be a pretty air-tight argument for the adoption at Splitters Creek of testing employing the same (or greater - 32 elements!) scope of investigation.

This testing for 17 metals forms part of the residents' requirements as shown here. That document was forwarded to Mandalay Resources by Ms Pamela King and Mr Colin Leask on 25 November 2014, four days before works commenced on Lot 2 at Splitters Creek (works had already commenced on Lot 1 in breach of the VCAT Decision handed down in April) in response to an offer of inadequate testing parameters received the day before. Ms King and Mr Leask received one further communication from the mine: a restatement of the offer of the limited status quo on the day after works commenced on Lot 2. Nothing further.

Why are DSDBI and EPA continuing to allow Mandalay Resources to offer only the testing of 8 metals in order to assess the impacts of this dust generating project on a chemical-free farm? Why do they not require testing for 32 elements as performed by the residents? Or even for 17 metals as is performed by the Department of Health and Golder Associates for the 'whole of government' response?

According to DSDBI's Colin Thornton in the ERC Minutes for the November Quarter there is the "need to resolve the sampling issues with the landowners even if it required sampling outside of the work plan so that background levels could be recorded."

That sounds like a very good idea. Perhaps Mr Thornton could arrange a work plan variation that would require such an expanded scope of sampling from Mandalay.

Why is Mandalay Resources responsible for the testing at all? They are a mining company, not an environmental regulator.

Where is the Environmental Protection Authority?

Where has the EPA been in Costerfield since February 13, 2006?

In any case it looks like a suitable time for the DoH and Golder to further expand their testing regimes to incorporate an even more expansive scope.