Ms Mansfield's Reply to Mr Leask and Ms King: A Response

As with most of Ms Mansfield's replies of late, she advises us to contact the Victorian Omdusman if we have further issues. Oh and we shall.

But in the meantime we are continuing to post responses to her just as if we were living in a magical world where unelected Public Servants were in some way accountable to the Public they are supposed to Serve and were concerned with maintaining open communication channels.

And so here is our response to Ms Mansfield's cut and paste reply (no one mentioned the colour of the water again!) to this email:

Ms Mansfield,

Thank you for your reply. The water being sprayed by the mine is contaminated. It is the same water that requires this sign at the Heathcote Pit. It is a health hazard.

The residents of Costerfield know what colour the clay makes water out here. Mr Leask has lived and farmed here since 1948. This water is being sprayed onto the surface of Lot 1 and allowed to dry and blow dust across the road and onto our property.

According to the VCAT decision, because of the accumulation of toxic material caused by the evaporation of this water and the chance of it becoming dust, the terraces of the constructed evaporation facility should never be allowed to dry. Yet this water is freely sprayed and allowed to evaporate on Lot 1. And on the terraces being constructed on Lot 2. What about the toxic material in the dust?

Ms King and Mr Leask are quite aware that construction sites yield noise and dust – at the moment they are much more aware than you. They maintain that the noise emanating from this site is at times excessive. Did Mr Chalkley have a decibel meter when he visited? Did he take measurements from their property as is the requirement in the work plan?

Or did he do what we have observed the usual noise testers doing? Wait until the lunch break occurs and then measure the noise of a quietened work site from the corner of the road? That is what is happening Ms Mansfield.

We will ask again, Ms Mansfield: Did Mr Chalkley have a noise meter? A handy pocket-sized dust deposition gauge? On what basis does he claim to be able, and on whose authority does he presume to make pronouncements through you on these issues? Was he performing specific testing for Council? For EPA? If not, then would it not be wise if he were to keep his opinions regarding dust and noise emissions at Glenlea to himself? 

Mr Chalkley parked across the road at least 150 metres from the house. In order to decide on the level of the noise at the house.

Look at this logically, Ms Mansfield. If Mr Chalkley were “parked on the shoulder of the road” there would have been no need for anyone to stop and ask him to move. If Mr Chalkley had not refused to move his vehicle there would have been no cause for agitation. Ms King and Mr Leask were indeed agitated. Mr Chalkley blocked the road and insulted Mr Leask. You have been told what he said. You have not said that he denies saying what he did, only that he was concerned at their agitation. What do you think agitated them Ms Mansfield? Intransigence, obstruction and insults from a Council Officer.

No one has measured noise from the Glenlea property. The sound travels across the road and across the property and blasts into the house. Complaints are made regarding noise at Glenlea and yet are measured anywhere but...

It seems very strange that you would claim that Mandalay have offered noise monitoring. Why would the mine be conducting its own noise monitoring? This is surely the preserve of the EPA. Where is the EPA?

Mr Leask and Ms King were offered, just four days before construction began, particulate monitoring and water sampling that did not satisfy their requirements as a chemical-free farm. Chemical-free. They have issues with the monitoring equipment to be employed and with the narrow scope of the testing itself. And so they replied with their own requirements. In light of the recent issues with human and animal antimony toxicity this is not an an unreasonable thing to do.

Mr Leask and Ms King took the Council to VCAT in part to ensure that their chemical-free farm was considered during this project. They were given the impression it would be. And so they have their own requirements. Naturally these requirements are much more stringent than the mine’s. Because Mr Leask and Ms King produce food for people to eat.

Work commenced on Lot 2 without any further contact being made. On the day after work commenced on Lot 2 – 30 October – Mandalay forwarded a further offer of their inadequate monitoring and sampling regime. No further communication with regards to monitoring or sampling has been forthcoming. It is the mine’s way or no way at all apparently. And we were refused admittance to the ERC meeting.

Why is the mine conducting its own testing. Where is the EPA?

It would seem that we are not the only one's concerned by the narrow scope of the testing, as the Department of Health and Golder Associates are now, in accordance with the stated requirements of the residents, testing for a suite of 17 metals in the Costerfield area. It would seem to be time for DSDBI to enforce such testing in Mandalay's case, too. Perhaps, as the Responsible Authority, you could suggest this to them. All it would take is a Work Plan Variation.

DSDBI may well be “aware of all of the detailed requirements for the mine” (what about our detailed requirements?), but if they refuse to employ that awareness in their actions then what is the use of directing us to them? Have a look at what the Chief Inspector of Mines has allowed to take place in Costerfield already.