What About the Bees?

My name is Graham Connell. I own and run Black Hill Apiaries,

My background as an introduction

I was an original objector to the subject permit being issued as proposed in such a very valuable piece of chemical free farming land and Box Iron Bark forest. That's what bees need to thrive and produce a healthy chemical-free food for us all. One of the aims for a farming zone is to maintain farming activities and keep it chemical free, don’t you think - not turning it into a trade waste disposal site.

My concerns are justified when you see the activities being conducted on this site. As always we are not against the mine BUT the quality of the water is the main concern to the community, especially as it’s left open to the elements and not contained and can contaminate the nearby area with unwanted chemicals via airborne dust or in a gaseous form, depending on the chemical.

Please examine the chemical composition of the groundwater in this expert analysis.

I also appealed the decision by Goulburn Murray Water upon the grounds that the water was so contaminated with other chemicals it should be classed as trade waste not ground water. However, Goulburn Murray Water allowed the new Bore to be installed well before the appeal had even been decided. That bore will bring the 700Megalitres / year of contaminated water to the surface. 

I lost that appeal but its definition of water is so open that anyone can interpret it as they see fit. It’s clear to me just how wrong this is when you compare the definition of trade waste and the Australian water quality standard on water. (Both attached for your own comparison)

I still can’t accept that this polluted water can be claimed to be safe. Especially to my charges/stock… the bees, but also the wider community and environment. I have to remove them from this very productive apiary site because of my concerns with the water used for dust suppression.

I didn’t foresee these massive construction issues when appealing the granting of the permit. 

It’s just not fair on the immediate property owners.

 ***

Hello REGULATORS,

I have an apiary some 400 meters from this facility i.e. the evaporation pond, and on a visit to requeen these hives Monday, 10 November 2014, I witnessed dust and noise emissions from the site well above the expected levels in any environment. The level of noise was most unacceptable to me and my enterprise.

What monitoring programme is in place to assess these pollutants (noise, dust and air borne contaminants from the possible use of the mine water to suppress dust)? I didn’t see any monitoring stations from the road although I was of the opinion that they had to be on adjoining properties to monitor the dust that escapes from the construction area. 


I have since found out that they are only on the site so I missed seeing them. Silly me for assuming. 

The number of heavy construction vehicles was overwhelming with the main depot situated on the adjoining property to the south on Lot 1 – How did this get included in the application???

Who is in charge? The regulators or the mine?

Please respond to the following points carefully as people’s livelihoods  and enterprises are at stake here.

1.    Has Lot 1 been given a permit to change use and to produce dust and construct internal roads to service the construction of the evaporation facility? HENCE THE AMOUNT OF NOISE GENERATED ON SITE. Now for the noise monitors could I get some feedback on where they are and the reporting programme please.

2.    Surely an application to change the use from farming to an industrial construction depot would be required. The original application said nothing about Lot 1. The mine hadn’t even purchased it at the time.

3.    Surely a  permit to remove native vegetation would be required to clear the tracks straight through regrowth areas. This track lines up with an existing drive way directly across the road creating unacceptable dust and noise levels.

4.    Surely a permit to construct a new crossover onto South Costerfield Road is required. Especially as it required vegetation removal on council road ways.

5.    What about the storage of bulk fuel on this site? There was no evidence of any containment measures in the event of a spill!

6.    As always the mine is treating adjoining community with disdain – their policy is “my way or the highway and stuff you all” at any cost.

7.    The reason an environmental effects study EES was not required as explained by Ms Prue Mansfield, was that the site was just under the size that would trigger an EES, so as Lot 1 has been included? Why didn’t this happen? Just another bit of misinformation fed to the community to appease them!!

Now for the most worrying immediate issue -- the water that is used for dust suppression on the roads and the construction sites. Does the water originate from the mine?

"DSDBI have issued notices to Mandalay to stop using ground-water on the roads for dust suppression, stop misting sprays on the evaporation ponds and review dust and ground-water management plans to minimise the impact on the environment”. 

Have look at their media release 

This water is classed as trade waste in accordance with EPA guidelines. When on the roadside I saw tankers filling the dam to the south side of the subject allotment Lot 2. Quick fill pumps then filled the water trucks that suppress the dust on the construction site. The water is of grave concern to me as this could contain airborne pollutants if the trade waste from the mine is used. On the way from the site a water truck went past in the opposite direction watering the road and the trees!.

THE WATER SMELT PUTRID! I mean FOUL! What is in the water? 

This is not acceptable to the community at all. Now don’t forget about the legacy the WOODVALE residents have to bear with their issues from the Bendigo mine's waste water evaporation dams... And then there is Kangaroo Flat.

 YOU the regulators WORK IT OUT and let us know the results urgently.

 I have attached the following documents

1.    the MIN 5567 site where the approved works are going ahead

2.    Lot 2 shows the adjoining allotment where the site depot is and the new cross over and the bulk storage of fuel. How did this occur? Read the permit conditions and the work plan.

3.    This is an analysis of the contaminant composition of the mine water. If you compare the allowable limits to  the tested results, I think you will agree it’s not a nice cocktail to be allowed to become airborne in the form of dust or a gaseous form.

4.  The EPA Industrial Waste categorisation and management requirements.

5.  The EPA 1191 Protocol for Environmental Management  

6.    Australian Standards for Water quality

7.    This letter from a United Nations Environmental Project (UNEP) partnered heavy metals Disaster Management company gives a list of many other very nasty chemicals that the mine uses on site and I don’t know how they dispose of these nasties. I can only assume they are in the water so I can’t risk leaving the bees in the area or within 5 km of this or any mining activity.

8.    Final Works Plan… which shows no mention of the water source for the dust suppression water! Shows no activities associated with LOT 1! and COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT!?!?? I love that one, neighbours kicked out of this meeting. Why isn’t this ERC meeting held in a neutral environment instead of the mine site? Very intimidating being confronted by the lolly pop brigade especially on their patch and in their comfort zone. I asked this be held in a neutral site from the beginning.

A prompt and honest and accurate assessment of my concerns would be greatly appreciated please.

I thought I had 6 months without any possibility of contaminants to my BEES, but if the mine isn’t complying with the permit conditions re pollutants and since I have no faith in the source of the dust-suppressing water, I am now forced to move them out as it’s just too big a threat to my enterprise.

WATER is one of the considerations that GMW should have taken into account when assessing the effects on the community as required in the Water Act. They, GMW, just dismissed the community's concerns and granted the BORE LICENCE anyway before the objectors were even heard.

Yours 

Graham Connell