The Coast Road Resilience Group [CRRG] is deeply disappointed and concerned about a Mineral Separation Plant [MSP] at Rapahoe just granted consent by the Grey District Council (GDC).

Prior to consent being granted, the watchdog group had furnished Council with a detailed report from Dr John Bradley, a US-based geoscientist with expertise in radioactive materials in the environment, warning about the potential public health effects of radiation - firstly from the mining itself but even more so from the process of separating the minerals at Rapahoe, any stockpiling, and any returning of tailings to the site. They asked to meet with Council planners to discuss these concerns, but Council declined.

A CRRG spokesperson says for Council to claim in the media that the notification process was too far on by the time the CRRG contacted them with concerns, begs the question of how it got that far without adequate and timely notification.

Council quietly went about consenting what would otherwise have been a controversial industrial development right next to a residential area, so quietly that even Kate Kennedy, GDC councillor for Rapahoe ward, was not fully informed of any Mineral Separation Plant proposal and knew nothing of consent being granted until alerted by the CRRG.

“We shared with Council information sent by geoscientist Dr John Bradley of the University of Hawaii, about the radioactivity which could result from the mineral separation process Tāiko Critical Minerals plan to use,” the CRRG spokesperson says.

GDC Regulatory Planner Michael McEnaney dismisses Dr Bradley’s findings as ‘not peer-reviewed’ and ‘using older samples’. Ironically, Dr Bradley agrees: “It’s true, my sample is old, about 6000 years old in fact, just like the rest of the sand in the Barrytown placer.”

“Council decided not to submit Dr Bradley’s report to an independent, academic peer reviewer such as a Crown Research laboratory or the Director of Radiation Safety in the Ministry of Health,” the CRRG spokesperson says.

“A responsible option for Council would have been to pause consent until this could be done. The CRRG is concerned GDC is leaning in to assist mining on the Coast at all costs without due regard for public and community wellbeing. We’re talking possible long-term serious effects on community health.”

A recent Grey Star article on the consent refers to critical minerals, rare earth minerals, and rare earth element separations, yet the resource consent application mentions only ilmenite, garnet, and zircon separations.

The CRRG also has concerns regarding consent conditions for the Mineral Separation Plant. It is now acknowledged by the Ministry of Health that NZ lacks effective radiation safety legislation for regulation of naturally occurring radioactive materials [NORMs], compared with say the legislation and codes of practice developed in Australia during its 100-year history of sand mining. Until NZ’s central government addresses this issue, CRRG believes councils need to take a precautionary approach not evident in these Separation Plant consent conditions.

Finally, the CRRG questions the change of company name from TiGa Mining and Minerals to Tāiko Critical Minerals. “To take the name of an already threatened indigenous bird, which this mining industry risks further endangering, is at best disingenuous, and at worst cynical and callous misappropriation.”

© Scoop Media