| Contact Us | Site map | Have Your Say | Search | Increase font size |   
You are here: Home > News > Media Releases > Mercury Concerns Unsubstantiated Wed, Nov 25 2009
Home
News
About Tasman
About Council
Services A-Z
Council - Community Projects
Plans, Policies & Reports
Forms
Environment
Publications
Have Your Say
Links
Site Information

Mercury Concerns Unsubstantiated
Concerns about mercury at former Fruitgrowers Chemical site at Mapua unsubstantiated
 
30 July 2008

Tasman District Council Environment and Planning Manager, Dennis Bush-King today expressed concern that some of the media and public have assumed that mercury is present in high concentrations in the residential soils near the Fruitgrowers Chemical Company site in Mapua.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report released on Tuesday recommended the residential Western part of the Mapua site be tested more thoroughly for mercury. Tasman District Council has undertaken to do this.

“However, we want to set the record straight, and explain to the public that we consider there is a very small chance of tests finding mercury at non complying levels” said Mr Bush-King.

“Historically there were very small quantities of mercuric sprays on the factory site, less than 1 tonne or 100 litres according to the 1992 Factory Site Audit. When the site was characterised before the clean-up started, mercury was found in three of the 80 soil samples tested for metals. The concentration was low, with 1 to 1.2 milligrams per kilogram of soil (1 part per million). This should be compared with the guidelines for residential soil at 1 milligram/kilogram. The three locations where mercury was found were in the middle of the factory site on the East, and were also heavily contaminated with the main pesticides.”

Mr Bush-King said soil used in the residential zone on the West of the site came from “clean” parts of the site and imported soil from a stockpile in Nelson.

“The Council has agreed to do further sampling to remove any uncertainty about the soil being safe for the public and to protect the environment. However, on the basis of our understanding of the site we do not believe it will be a significant issue.”