Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent articles
  • News
    • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Writers
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Jordan Crugnale
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Phil Wright
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
    • Zoe Geyer
  • Features
    • Features 2022
  • Arts
  • Local history
  • Environment
  • Bass Coast Prize
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
  • Contact us

Time to draw a line in the sand

16/6/2021

14 Comments

 
PictureProfessor Dick Wettenhall, pictured on the Grantville foreshore,
warns that new sand mining projects in Bass Coast risk polluting
Western Port’s precious wetlands. Photos: Geoff Ellis
By Dick Wettenhall
 
AMONGST the greatest causes of despair in my lifetime have been government decisions permitting pollution of the environment in ways that were predictable.

Too often, concerns about potential toxicities of chemical pollutants have been set aside to make way for “progress”, resulting in considerable harm to human health and the destruction of vast areas of remnant forests and wetlands, extinction of species and loss of biodiversity. 
 ​

You would think we would have learned by now. But, in considering approvals for new industrial applications of chemistry with pollution potential, decision makers continue to prioritise employment, economic considerations and political opportunism over environmental risks. 

​Unfortunately, the latest example of this is close to home.  The Victorian Government is considering approvals for new sand mining projects that risk toxic chemical pollution of precious remnant bushland and wetlands along the eastern shores of Western Port.  
 
One proposal is to appreciably upgrade and expand an existing sand mining operation near Grantville. Sand is to be mined and washed on site. An integral part of the operation will be a huge 3500 megalitre dredge pond for sand extraction and depositing waste waters and sludge.  Considerable quantities of chemical coagulants used in sand processing will be released into the pond, together with heavy metal compounds. 
The Grantville sand mine plans to use several chemical pollutants with potential to inflict long-term damage to precious ecosystems within Western Port wetlands. 

​At least three of the pollutants are highly toxic and potentially mutagenic, including the nitroso amine, N-NDMA, acrylamide, and the heavy metal antimony. (Antimony is a close cousin of arsenic, familiar to any reader of Agatha Christie's detective stories.) These will leach from the sand mine’s dredge pond into ground water, which flows into downstream creeks and tidal zone mudflats.​
Picture
The Grantville foreshore. Photo: Dick Wettenhall
More than 1400 people have signed an e-petition to the Victorian Parliament calling for an immediate moratorium on sand mining in Bass Coast’s remnant forest.
Of most concern is the potent mutagen and probable human carcinogen, N-NDMA. This will be formed by conversion of the relatively low toxicity coagulant, poly-DADMAC, during sand washing, as well as in the dredge pond.  The potential mutagenicity of N-NDMA released into waterways is presumably why the commercial supplier’s Safety Data Sheet for poly-DADMAC includes the precautionary alert “avoid release into the environment” and classifies the polymer as a hazardous chemical “harmful to aquatic life, with long lasting effects”.

N-NDMA levels considered unsafe for humans have been detected in some drinking water storages using poly-DADMAC treatment plants.  This has required implementation of rigorous safety procedures for suppressing N-NDMA formation.
 
International safety concerns about pollution of waterways by potentially harmful pollutants of the type to be released from the Grantville sand mine have led to the adoption of stringent guidelines:  The WHO, US and EU guidelines warn that N-NDMA, acrylamide and antimony are highly toxic chemicals.  Safe drinking water limits have been set in the low microgram per litre range for acrylamide and antimony, and in the low nanogram (WHO, EU) or sub nanogram (US) range for N-NDMA.
Many environmental organisms seem likely to have similar sensitivities to these toxic chemicals. Therefore, similar limits should apply for their levels in aquatic environments. With the proposed Grantville sand mine, the levels of the toxic pollutants in the dredge pond and groundwater could appreciably exceed these limits, but provisions for the necessary ongoing testing of the pollutants have not been made.   To ensure safeguarding the environment, access to the ultra-high sensitivity instrumentation required for accurate determination of extremely low levels of the pollutants will be essential.    

​The prospect of continuous infusion of mutagenic pollutants into the delicately balanced ecosystems within the Weston Port mudflats is alarming. Mudflats are the foundation for life in wetlands, providing microbes, invertebrates and other foods that sustain the diverse range of resident fish, birds, and plants.  The lack of consideration of the potential for adverse impacts of the pollutants is extraordinary, given the listing of the Western Port wetlands as of world significance by the international Ramsar Convention and formal recognition of their environmental significance by both the Australian and Victorian Governments.

​Wetlands only need to meet one of nine criteria for them to be listed under the Ramsar Convention.  Western Bay wetlands meets at least seven of these criteria, including supporting vulnerable species, unique ecosystems, biodiversity, greater than 20,000 birds, and diverse populations of fish and other aquatic organisms.
​
Slow-motion killers
Discounting potential chemical toxicities in response to industry pressure can have disastrous consequences. The classic case is tobacco. Despite mounting evidence of carcinogenicity, it took 150 years to overcome industry resistance, introduce strict regulations governing tobacco use, and force industry to acknowledge tobacco as the most destructive source of chemical carcinogens known to man.
  And then came synthetic chemical pesticides! I first became aware of their evils while living in Chicago in the early 1970s. The weekly news cycle was dominated by stories of devastating harm to health and the environment by a variety of agrichemical pollutants. The scariest of all were organomercury-based pesticides which enter the food chain and cause irreversible brain damage.
    The disasters caused by unregulated use of agrichemicals have exposed both the industry’s preparedness to spread disinformation in pursuit of profits and the unquestioning acceptance of industry’s marketing claims by government decision makers. Even where specific environmental chemical toxicities are proven, introducing legislation to restrict their use can take decades, particularly when powerful industry lobby groups are in play.
  This is particularly so for mutagenic chemicals because of the delayed onset of their effects, making it difficult to assess environmental impacts within the time frame allowed for processing applications for approving their use.
  And yet their actions have the potential to disrupt delicately balanced ecosystems by creating mutant fish and other species with competitive advantages, or with cancerous-like neoplasms, or other serious abnormalities. 
​                                  - Dick Wettenhall
This frightening prospect underpins the concerns about Western Port pollution by effluents from sand mines that will wash sand on site.  The Grantville operation is not the only one. There are vast deposits of potentially mineable sand ranging from Glen Forbes to Koo Wee Rup.  Already, industry is wanting to expand sand mining operations in the area, many of which are likely to release potentially toxic chemicals of the type released at the Grantville site.     
 
Sadly, it seems likely that the pathway for government approval of new sand mines, will favour job creation, revenue streams and profit over concerns about likely adverse environmental impacts on the precious Ramsar wetlands.
 
Approving these operations without addressing the risks would be the equivalent of Lord Nelson using his blind eye to look through his telescope to avoid seeing signals he had no intention of taking notice of.  Must we accept such a flawed process, or should we draw a line in the sand and say no to pollution that will risk long term environmental damage?
 
Dick Wettenhall is a former Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Melbourne University, and inaugural Director of the University’s Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute. He lives in Bass Coast. ​
Picture
Dick Wettenhall pictured at Grantville with Tim O'Brien and Catherine Watson of the Save Western Port Woodlands group, which is seeking a stay on new mining projects in the Western Port woodlands.
14 Comments
Tim O'Brien
17/6/2021 10:36:39 am

Well said Dick; it is simply astonishing to me that the Andrews Labor Government which purports to value the environment, and rests on assumed 'environmental credentials', can be doing what it is doing to the Grantville Lang Lang coastal forest - ripping it out for sand for Melbourne - and at the same time putting our beautiful Western Port foreshores and bay at risk. And doing it so sneakily... hiding this risk and vandalism of the forest from Grantville and Bass Coast residents. It is a disgrace.

Reply
James Glover
18/6/2021 09:42:29 am

The sad irony is that most of this sand makes its way to Pakenham and Clyde for building new estates which are being built on the farmland that was made by draining the Great Swamp that water once flowed through before entering Westerport.

Reply
Joy Button
17/6/2021 10:51:43 am

Prior to reading this article I was concerned and opposed to the expansion of the sand mining. Now that I have read this informative and detailed article, I am appalled to think there is a remote chance that this sand mine will be allowed to expand. There will be nothing left for future generations and the expansion just cannot be approved. Thank you Professor Wettenhall for explaining so clearly the danger to the wetlands when sand mining is carried out.

Reply
James Glover
18/6/2021 09:39:04 am

What an extraordinary situation. From my window overlooking the bay to French Island at Jam Jerrup I have watched the sea grass grow back over the last 3 or 4 years to the point where it is now washing up onto the shoreline. Feeding birds, fish and insects. It is well established that the sea grass, once so plentiful it was harvested, mysteriously disappeared completely in the 1970s. The most likely culprit was a glass factory near Lang Lang which dumped its effluent into a drain which flowed into Westernport. With the closure of this factory it is no coincidence that the sea grass begun to return and once again the ecosystem of Westernport slowly returns to what was here originally. Benefiting bird watchers, fishers and those who care about nature.
And now this threatens to undo all that good work. Westernport is not an industrial drain. If anything we should be doing more to ensure that shipping on the western side is not polluting this fragile and unique environment.
It is great that Dick has presented the evidence in a rigorous and well researched way that cannot just be ignored as overzealous Greenies stopping all industry. It is now up to the rest of us to stop this madness by putting pressure on the government. Where do I sign up?

Reply
Tim O'Brien
18/6/2021 09:57:53 am

Hi James, we have paper petitions circulating which will be presented to the Victorian Parliament (Lower House); we can shoot these to you if you contact www.savewesternportwoodlands.org via email - maybe you could collect signatures around Jam Jerrup. We also have an e-Petition on the Vic. Parliament website which goes to the Upper House, the Legislative Council.
Google "Vic Parliament e-Petitions", then click "view and/or sign current e-petitions" and you'll see our petition there (it's numbered 343).
All the best mate.

Reply
Tim O'Brien
18/6/2021 10:00:51 am

James, there's a link straight to the e-Petition under Dr Wettenhall's photo of the Grantville foreshore (above).
Tim

Reply
James Glover
18/6/2021 10:45:57 am

Thanks Tim, found and signed.

Reply
ian Samuel link
18/6/2021 12:34:05 pm

Dick
Thank you for your excellent expert advice on details that are beyond community knowledge and further support the objection to extending the Grantville sand mining proposal.
It is apparent that you have raised hidden issues that demand a thorough investigation by EPA prior to any final decision by the minister.
All industries must strive to eliminate release of toxic waste into the environment. Sand mining has a responsibility and must be made accountable by rigorous certification and independent inspection of residue containment.
This needs to be considered by the Minister and implemented as a condition of current or future operations.

Reply
Meryl Tobin link
18/6/2021 01:19:18 pm

If politicians will not listen to the Science and we want ourselves and our progeny to live in a livable world, we must demand our government representatives listen to the Science. Dick Wettenhall is the Professor here, and he presents the Science with knowledge, logic and commonsense. Those seeking to profit from non-sustainable 'development' do not want to know their proposals involve potentially devastating risks to the environment. If they do know, they ignore the risks, refuse to acknowledge them or get 'experts' in and cherry-pick to get the information they want.

Thank you, Dick Wettenhall. If the planet, including this precious area of it, is to be protected, we need experts speaking out as you have here.

Reply
Barbara Moje
18/6/2021 01:26:29 pm

Thank you for this article! To me "sand mining" had, up to now a benign ring to it, as in "sand pit". In no way had I associated toxic sludge with such operations. It makes me even more concerned, also about the current operations of the existing sand mines. Who monitors these, and the containment of toxic substances? Is it a case of alarm bells ringing when the horse has bolted (the usual reaction after the environmental disaster comes to light) ? Even more reason to oppose this development vehemently. Please publish this article widely! Thank You!

Reply
Anne Heath Mennell
20/6/2021 03:24:39 pm

Thank You, Professor Wettenhall for providing this evidence-based, detailed information. Nothing like this emerged from the Panel Hearings into the expansion of the Dandy Premix site. The plans have already been approved by all the relevant regulatory authorities. The priority now is to ensure the Minister and appropriate bodies have this information and to consider it in their decision-making. We cannot let this happen and must continue our efforts. Onward!

Reply
Dr Virginia Lowe link
22/6/2021 08:27:50 pm

When i was young, my parents had a holiday house at The Gurdies, and we often stayed there, my husband and mu children.We loved the wild places around. I hope we can stop the Victorian Government wrecking it. You wonder what the Labor Party stands for, don't you. They need the Greens in power with them to push them in the right direction!

Reply
John Sutton
28/6/2021 12:51:30 pm

Move sand mining away from South Gippsland and the fragile Westernport Bay. We need areas of un-toxified land and sea in our growing community

Reply
Richard Kemp
25/7/2021 07:05:00 pm

Thanks Dick for your enlightening article. I believe that Boral still owns the land this side of of the Proving Ground at the top of Peacocks road. Is the same thing going to happen up there? Is it true that the Pilkington's sand pits water run off caused the seagrass to be killed off when the chemical caused the flocculation of particles in the water in the Western port? I think we have a huge battle on our hands.

Reply



Leave a Reply.