Reservoir pollution first of its kind

by Colin James / The Advertiser 29 Jan 01

An SA Water investigation into the pollution throughout 1997 of the Warren Reservoir by chemicals used by Forestry SA could find no comparable incidents interstate or overseas.

The inquiry traced large quantities of Atrazine and Hexazinone in the reservoir to clay pellets dropped by helicopters on new pine plantations at the nearby Mt Crawford Forest.

The Advertiser on Wednesday reported how the Environment Protection Authority ordered Forestry SA in August, 1998, to stop using the herbicides after it received the results of the investigation.

SA Water staff involved with the inquiry have told The Advertiser there had been no other incident in Australia where similar quantities of herbicides had leached into reservoirs through creeks and streams.

Heavy rain washed dissolved quantities of the herbicides into the waterways, where the chemicals eventually ended up in the Warren Reservoir.

Diluted amounts then spread into the Barossa and Little Para reservoirs before being removed through expensive treatment processes at the Little Para water filtration plant.

"It was an unusual set of circumstances which, when we looked, we couldn't find had happened anywhere else in Australia or around the world," one SAWater manager said.

The water had to be treated with an expensive cleanser, powdered activated carbon, before it could be released for consumption in townships including Gawler and the Barossa Valley.

Attempts by SA Water to recover the cost of the treatment from Forestry SA were dropped after intervention by Government Enterprises Minister Michael Armitage.

Three government departments, SA Water, the Environment Protection Authority and the Department for Human Services, spent several months advising Dr Armitage on whether the contamination posed a risk to human safety and how the water could be treated.

Confidential briefings were provided to Dr Armitage, who agreed with departmental advisers that no public notification was required as levels of the herbicides were below guidelines set by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

In a letter to Forestry SA general manager Ian Millard on August 3, 1998, then EPA director Rob Thomas said the authority supported national water management policies which recommended the "concentration of any pesticide in water supply systems should be below detection levels".

The EPA later issued a public warning after levels of Atrazine and Hexazinone in creeks and streams feeding into the reservoir system were found to be six times above the NHMRC guidelines.

1. TITLE: BAROSSA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - 16 July 1998

ISSUE: Detection of pesticides and action to stop contamination

Barossa Reservoir in foreground and South Para Reservoir in background - circa 2001

Source: SA Water.

RELEVANT POINTS

*SA Water's routine water quality monitoring program has detected low levels of a pesticide (atrazine) in the Barossa Reservoir that supplies approximately ten per cent of metropolitan Adelaide and some country areas.

*The Department of Human Services (formerly the South Australian Health Commission) have been consulted on levels present in the Barossa Reservoir and consider that, although undesirable, the levels are below that which would constitute an immediate health concern. This viewpoint concurs with information from the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines which refer to helath-related guideline values for atrazine which are above the levels detected.

*The Department of Human Services has supported an investigation initiated by SA Water to determine the source of contamination and to implement remedial action to stop contamination. An ongoing investigation to identify the source(s) of contamination has determined that the atrazine did not originate from any SA Water activities within its catchment. SA Water subsequently requested DEHAA to investigate possible sources upstream which could affect runoff into the South Para and Warren Reservoirs which feed the Barossa Reservoir.

*A group representing SA Water, DEHAA, the Department of Human Services, DAIS - Forestry SA, Barossa Ranges Animal and Plant Control Board, Northern Adelaide and the Barossa Catchment Water Management Board has convened to facilitate this process. In this forum DAIS - Forestry SA has indicated the use of atrazine as a pre-emergent herbicide in conjunction with new pine forest plantations in the Mount Crawford Forest Reserve upstream of Warren Reservoir. A task force established from the above group will be continuing to meet in order to identify other possible users of pesticides in the catchment.

*In order to guarantee the safety of the water supply, SA Water has initiated powdered activated carbon treatment of the water produced by United Water at Barossa Water Treatment Plant. It is expected that this treatment will enable levels in the Barossa distribution system to be maintained below analytical detection limits. This will be verified by WTP product water analyses.

*Given the necessary extent of consultation on this issue, there is scope for the media to become involved. SA Water Corporate Communications are aware of this possibility. In addition, DEHAA has advised that it intends to inform the Minister for Environment and Heritage of the current situation.

2. TITLE: BAROSSA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - 29 July 1998

ISSUE: Herbicide contamination in the Barossa water supply.

BACKGROUND

*SA Water's routine water quality monitoring program has detected low levels (around 1.5u/L) of the herbicides atrazine and hexazinone in the Barossa Reservoir which supplies approximately ten percent of metropolitan Adelaide and some country areas (previous briefing note dated 16 July 1998 refers).

*An inter-agency team established by SA Water has been investigating the possible source of contamination. Agencies involved included EPA, DEHAA, Forestry SA and Water Catchment Management Board.

RELEVANT POINTS

*Further monitoring undertaken by SA Water in South Para and Warren Reservoirs which are immediately upstream of Barossa Reservoir has revealed low level herbicide contamination in both. Testing in the streams feeding into Warren Reservoir has identified very high levels of herbicides in the streams in the Warren catchment.

*Whilst indiscriminate pesticide use within the catchment cannot be ruled out, the monitoring results suggest the principal source is spraying and aerial drops of a proprietary forest herbicide (containing atrazine and hexazinone) by Forestry SA in their pine plantations immediately upstream of Warren Reservoir. The herbicide is being used to control pre-emergent growth in new pine forest plantations in the Mount Crawford Forest Reserve area.

*Samples from streams running through the plantation areas (which then drain into Warren Reservoir) show herbicide levels around 150u/L, which are up to six times the level recommended for drinking water. These levels are also significant from an environmental viewpoint and the EPA is likely to take an active interest.

*Dosing of powdered activated carbon has been instigated at Barossa Water Treatment Plant in order to prevent the herbicides passing into supply. At present, herbicide concentrations in the treated water leaving the Barossa plant are below the limit of detection (currently 1.2u/L) against the guideline (0.5u/L) and health limits (20u/L) set within the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

*Provided the herbicide concentrations in the raw water entering the Barossa treatment plant remain below around 2-3u/L, existing powdered activated carbon dosing at the plant is expected to remain effective in controlling herbicide levels in treated water. Dosing costs are currently $30,000 per month.

*Should herbicide concentrations increase significantly then further temporary dosing facilities will need to be installed at the plant and dosing costs will also increase significantly.

*SA Water is forwarding correspondence to DEHAA, EPA and Forestry SA expressing concerns about the risk to public helath caused by the use of these herbicides in close proximity to watercourses feeding Adelaide's water supply system and requesting actions be taken to prevent further occurrences. Options for remediation have also been requested.

3. TITLE: HERBICIDE IN WATER SUPPLIES - 9 September 1998

ISSUE: Further detection of Simazine in Anstey Hill System

RELEVANT POINTS

*SA Water's routine monitoring program detected a low concentration of the herbicide simazine in the raw water feed into Anstey Hill Water Treatment Plant in a sample collected on 3 August 1998.

*The result, reported on 5 August 1998 indicated that the raw water contained 0.9ug/L simazine. This compared to a maximum helath-related guideline value of 20ug/L in potable water recommended in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

*There have been ongoing discussions with the Public and Environmental Health Service (Department of Human Services) on the issue of herbicides in raw water as results have become known.

*The result was discussed with EPA and Forestry SA during a meeting called to discuss Barossa water quality on 5 August 1998 and were subsequently referred again to the EPA on 10 August 1998.

*Detailed information was forwarded to the PEHS via email on 17 August 1998. A further update was provided on 31 August 1998.

*Given the low level detected, it was agreed that further monitoring would be undertaken in accordance with existing procedures to identify whether the herbicide contamination was persistent.

*Sampling on 13 August 1998 (reported 19 August 1998) showed NIL detected. A sample taken on 24 August 1998 (reported 25 August 1998) again showed a low level of simazine in the source water.

*Despite the very low levels of herbicide detected, SA Water initiated powdered activated carbon treatment in the Anstey Hill Water Treatment Plant on 9 September 1998 as a precautionary measure only to ensure all herbicide is effectively removed before water goes into supply. Confirmation sampling in product water will be undertaken on 11 September 1998.

*SA Water has again requested the EPA on 10 September 1998 to commence an investigation into possible sources, focussing particularly on forestry activities and/or local vineyards.

South Para reservoir - circa 2001

4. TITLE: BAROSSA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM - 10 September 1998

ISSUE: Herbicide contamination in the Barossa water supply.

*Weed control undertaken by Forestry SA on new pine plantations within the Warren catchment have been linked with the detection of the herbicides atrazine and hexazinone in the Barossa, South Para and Warren Reservoirs.

*Following investigations by SA Water and EPA, Forestry SA was directed by the EPA to cease the use of all herbicides in all of the proclaimed water protection areas within the Mt Lofty Ranges until such time as an appropriate management plan is developed by Forestry SA. The management plan seeks to avoid herbicides entering water bodies from forestry areas.

*As part of this directive, Forestry SA has begun to monitor herbicide levels in streams both above and below their new plantation areas within the Warren catchment. Work has also commenced on development of the management plan.

*SA Water is continuing to monitor water quality within the reservoirs. Recent results from SA Water's monitoring show a gradual decline in herbicide levels at the outlet of Barossa Reservoir feeding into the Barossa Water Treatment Plant (1.6ug/L atrazine on 24 August).

*Herbicide levels in Warren Reservoir have increased slightly as a result of further inflow from contaminated streams (5.3ug/L atrazine on 17 August).

*Water transfers from the Mannum-Adelaide pipeline into Warren Reservoir have been stopped in order to minimise spillage of water from Warren into South Para and Barossa Reservoirs. This will reduce the chance of contaminated water from Warren Reservoir increasing concentrations in the downstream reservoirs. South Para Reservoir is being well supplemented with filtered water from Swan Reach-Stockwell pipeline.

*SA Water continues to dose powdered activated carbon (20mg/L) into the raw water entering the Barossa WTP in order to ensure that no herbicides reach customers. Product water analyses have demonstrated effective removal.

South Para and Warren reservoirs - note plantations - circa 2001

5. TITLE: OUR POLLUTED DAMS - FORESTRY HERBICIDE CAUSES NEW SCARE

(The Advertiser September 17, 1998 p3)

By Environmental Reporter - Bronwyn Hurrell

Three reservoirs north-east of Adelaide had been contaminated for the past year by the herbicide Atrazine, the Environment Protection Authority revealed yesterday.

And leaching of run-off from Forestry SA's Mt Crawford pine plantation has been blamed for the pollution.

It is the third scare involving the State's reservoirs in as many weeks.

The State Government last night formed a high level committee to examine water catchment management strategies and threats as a result of the incidents. The committee will hold its first meeting today.

Atrazine was detected by SA Water at Barossa Reservoir last September, but it was only made public through a press release issues after 11pm on Tuesday.

The notification followed an EPA investigation which found the contamination had travelled down creek beds from the SA Forestry plantation to the Warren, South Para and Barossa Reservoirs.

The State Opposition has called for a public audit of the water quality of all State reservoirs and why the detection was not revealed.

Investigators found levels of contamination on the reservoirs of two micrograms per litre - well below the 20-microgram drinking quality guideline.

But the surrounding catchment has recorded samples up to three times the safe level and the water in the catchment has been declared unsafe for drinking. Forestry SA, which uses the chemical each May when it plants pines at Mt Crawford, has now been ordered to stop using the herbicide until a management plan has been put in place.

The Atrazine contamination follows the shutdown of Hope Valley Reservoir after the parasite giardia was discovered - and the discovery of cryptosporadium in Myponga Reservoir on August 31. EPA evaluation branch manager said because Atrazine was a potent herbicide with a long life, the waterway would be contaminated for another year.

He said the reason the EPA did not become involved earlier was because SA Water had decided the low levels detected in Barossa Reservoir were not a health risk.

Mr McLennan said the 'trigger' for the public warning was a fear that campers who went into the forest area might be taking water from the catchment to which contamination was traced.

"I think the incident certainly heightened people's concerns," Mr McLennan said.

The EPA says signs will be erected in SA Forestry reserves indicating that the water there is not safe for use.

The Opposition Leader, Mr Rann yesterday wrote to the Premier, Mr Olsen, demanding he take personal action over the water quality issue.

The action of Atrazine

Atrazine is a herbicide which provides knockdown and residual action to control emerging weeds.

It also promotes tree growth, which is why its almost exclusive use in Australia is in forestry.

Atrazine is usually applied by tractor or four-wheel-drive boomspray. It is a mobile chemical with the potential to contaminate water, but Australian aquatic environments are generally below the threshold for affecting the ecosystem. Higher levels in groundwater have been detected occasionally and have usually arisen from accidents or improper handling practices.

The National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals has taken steps to reduce aquatic contamination by restricting maximum annual application rates and withdrawing uses with high contamination potential...

6.TITLE: I DIDN'T READ WATER REPORT
KOTZ UNAWARE OF POLLUTED RESERVOIR

The Advertiser September 18, 1998

By Environment Reporter Bronwyn Hurrell

The Environment Minister, Mrs Kotz, did not read an official briefing on herbicide contamination in a key Adelaide reservoir for at least two weeks, her office has revealed.

The Environment Protection Agency briefing detailed how a powerful herbicide, Atrazine, had been detected in the Barossa reservoir on various occassions since last September.

The briefing paper was given to Mrs Kotz on July 22 - 13 days before she addressed State Parliament on efforts to preserve the State's water quality. Her speech made no mention of any problems in Adelaide's reservoirs.

A spokeswoman last night said that Mrs Kotz did not read the Barossa reservoir briefing before she addressed Parliament, because she was "away in the country".

Mrs Kotz also "did not get to that briefing" because "it was a parliamentary sitting week".

The spokeswoman last night could not say when Mrs Kotz eventually had read the briefing.

The revelation came after inquiries by The Advertiser yesterday revealed another Adelaide Hills reservoir had been contaminated by two separate herbicides during the past nine months.

However, like the recent discovery of the parasite, giardia, at the Hope Valley reservoir, the problem at the Millbrook reservoir was not publicised because authorities did not consider it threatened public health. . .

At a press conference after yesterday's meeting, Mrs Kotz denied the Hope Valley and Barossa reservoir incidents had been embarrassing for the Government.

"How can anyone be embarrassed over a situation where there is still no public health risk?" she said.

Mrs Kotz's comments were followed eight hours later by confirmation she had received the Barossa reservoir herbicide briefing on July 22 - but did not read it before addressing Parliament on August 4.

The contamination was not publicly revealed until late on Tuesday night.

The Environment Protection Agency, released a statement in the wake of the outcry over the Government's handling of the Hope Valley reservoir giardia outbreak.

Further inquiries yesterday by The Advertiser revealed the Millbrook reservoir, near Cudlee Creek, north-east of Adelaide, tested positive for Atrazine in January while, a second herbicide, Simazine, was detected early last month.

The Advertiser also confirmed yesterday that the Government Enterprises Minister, Dr Armitage, recieved briefings from SA Water about the Barossa reservoir on July 16, July 29, September 10 and September 11.

Mrs Kotz received a separate briefing about the Millbrook reservoir incident on September 11.

The Advertiser yesterday sent detailed questions to both ministers on why public statements were not issued on the herbicide problems before this week.

Their spokespeople said last night they required more time to prepare their answers. Mrs Kotz was asked why she had not mentioned the herbicide issue when she made her ministerial statement to the House of Assembly on August 4.

During the speech, she said the Sydney water crisis was "a pointed reminder to South Australia of the need for vigilance in protecting and monitoring the water supplies which service this State".

"Ensuring a clean water supply through the protection of our water catchments is the responsibility of every South Australian," she said.

Mrs Kotz and Dr Armitage were not available last night for further comment.

7.TITLE: PLANTATIONS NO LONGER TREATED WITH ATRAZINE

The Advertiser January 10, 2001.

By Colin James

FORESTRY SA has stopped using a herbicide linked overseas to cancer, says Government Enterprises Minister Michael Armitage.

The department ceased treating new pine plantations with Atrazine in May, 1998, Dr Armitage said.

"It (herbicide contamination in reservoirs) is not an issue," he said.

"They (Forestry SA) don't use any herbicides in SA Water reservoirs any more."

Since the early 1970s, Forestry SA had used helicopters to bomb new pine plantings around reservoirs with herbicides containing Atrazine, named last year by the United States Environment Protection Agency as a potential carcinogen.

The EPA issused the warning after tests on rats showed Atrazine caused breast, testicular and ovarian cancers.

Internationally, studies have shown herbicides leach into reservoirs from nearby forests and accumulate in sediment. While the levels of herbicides in reservoirs have never exceeded official guidelines, the concentrations in sediment require ongoing monitoring and treatment.

The cost of this treatment has been the subject of high-level debate between Forestry SA and SA Water.

SA Water spent an estimated $700,000 in 1998 treating contaminated water with an expensive chemical before it was released for drinking supplies. The corporation wanted to sue Forestry SA to recover the cost, but was advised it would have difficulty isolating the source of the herbicides.

Dr Armitage confirmed Crown Law advice had been sought about herbicide use by Forestry SA. The issue is being discussed between SA Water and Forestry SA.

Dr Armitage said he was optimistic it would be resolved without the need for litigation.

"If a (satisfactory) conclusion cannot be reached there are procedures which could be taken," he said.

8.TITLE: BLOCK ON HERBICIDE USE

The Advertiser 24 January 2001.

By Colin James

A STATE GOVERNMENT department was ordered to stop using potentially carcinogenic herbicides after its operations contaminated drinking water supplies.

The Environment Protection Authority issued the edict to Forestry SA in August 1998, after herbicides were traced to new pine plantations near the Barossa Valley.

Former EPA executive director Rob Thomas wrote to Forestry SA manager Ian Millard on August 3, 1998, to order his department to stop using herbicides containing the agents Atrazine and Hexazinone. Mr Thomas said SA Water had told the EPA that Atrazine had been found in the Warren Reservoir "continuously since September, 1997".

Normal water-filtration processes had "not been able to remove" the chemical from the "water supply system" - necessitating the use of an expensive cleanser, powdered activated carbon.

Mr Thomas said SA Water investigations had found:

WATER in the South Para and Warren Reservoirs contained Atrazine at similar concentrations to that found in the Barossa Reservoir at levels within national safety guidelines.

NO Atrazine was found in creeks flowing into reservoirs from grazed areas.

CONCENTRATIONS in creeks immediately downstream of new forest plantations were up to six times higher than safety guidelines allowed

HEXAZINONE had been found with every water sample containing Atrazine.

Mr Thomas said the results - and information on the "location, timing, rate and method of Atrazine application to new forestry plantations near Warren Reservoir" - had identified Forestry SA as the source of the contamination.

Mr Thomas used Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act (1993) to order Forestry SA "to cease the use of Atrazine and other herbicides in all proclaimed water protection areas within the Mt Lofty Ranges".

His letter was followed in May, 1999, by an SA Water briefing to Government Enterprises Minister Michael Armitage in which a senior manager stated herbicides detected in the Barossa Valley reservoir system had been traced to Forestry SA.

Former bulk water division manager Matthew Giesemann also told Dr Armitage overseas research had determined that Atrazine and Hexazinone were carcinogenic.

The Advertiser earlier this month reported that Dr Armitage wrote back to Mr Giesemann asking him to rewrite the briefing as the claims about Forestry SA and the cancer risks of the herbicides were unsubstantiated.

Dr Armitage told Mr Giesemann the "causal link between run-off from forestry areas and levels of Atrazine and Hexazinone in the Warren Reservoir had not been adequately proven."

Copters made the drop

Atrazine was regularly dropped by helicopter near most of the state's reservoirs to control weeds in new forestry plantations.

In late 1997, large quantities leached into the Warren Reservoir after heavy rain dissolved clay pellets coated with the chemical.

One of the world's most commonly-used herbicides, its use was officially restricted last year after the US Environment Protection Authority found it was "likely" to cause cancer.

A five-year review found Atrazine could cause a range of harmful effects, from reproductive deformities to cancer. Atrazine has contaminated tap water throughout the US and is banned in several European countries.

State Water Monitoring Coordinating Sub-committee Nov 2000

p11 Pesticides

Contamination of the Warren catchment and the Warren, South Para and Barossa Reservoirs by atrazine and hexazinone had been featured in media reports in 1998. Through 1999 and 2000 the concentrations of the two pesticides decreased gradually in the reservoirs. Although activated carbon was used at the Barossa Water Treatment Plant to remove the pesticides low concentrations were detected in some samples.

By September 1999 concentrations at the inlet to the Barossa Water Treatment Plant were consistently below 1.6ug/L and the use of activated carbon was discontinued. The health related guideline value for atrazine was 20ug/L and for hexazinone is 300ug/L. In the latest samples collected in mid August 2000 the concentrations were below detection limits at most most locations and including the inlet and outlet of the Barossa Water Treatment Plant.

There were occasional detections of pesticides throughout the period. The most common were of:

* simazine which was detected in four samples from Gumeracha Weir and in single samples from Little Para River and Reservoir, Torrens Gorge Weir and Tod Reservoir; and

*hexazinone which was detected in single samples from Little Para River and the River Murray at Murray Bridge, Mannum, Lock 9 and Loxton.

* Atrazine was detected in one samples of product water from the Hope Valley Water Treatment Plant, endosulfan sulfate in one sample from Gumeracha Weir and dieldrin which is no longer registered for use was detected in one sample from Mt Bold Reservoir.

The detection of atrazine and hexazinone in product water from the Barossa Treatment Plant, atrazine, in product water from the Hope Valley Treatment Plant (0.5ug/L), dieldrin in Mt Bold Reservoir (0.07ug/L) and the concentrations of hexazinone detected in the Little Para River (5.9ug/L) and the River Murray at Mannum (2.5ug/L) and Lock 9 (2.1ug/L) represented Type 1 incidents. However, the concentrations detected were well below the health related guideline values (atrazine 20ug/L; dieldrin 0.3ug/L; hexazinone 300ug/L) and DHS considered in each case that there was no risks to human health. Except for the results from the Barossa Treatment Plant the pesticide detections were gnerally isolated samples.

The remaining detections represented Type 2 incidents.

***PRESS RELEASE 3/7/01***

AUTHORITIES MUST ACT ON LOGGING COMPANIES.

At one particular site, on a tributary of Asplin Creek which in turn runs into the Gellibrand River, buffer zones were almost non-existent and soil erosion from poorly maintained roads was entering the waterways. It would appear that Hancock are more concerned about their profits than the well being of people, who rely on this catchment for clean drinking water" said Mr Amis.

Mr Amis added, "It appeared that care was not taken in this particular part of the plantation, which was located on the eastern side of Carmen Track, possibly on Gagin Track. There was inappropriate roading, massive soil disturbance and a lack of culverts of drains which protect creeks and streams from water pollution associated with sediment and herbicide use".

"In November 1998, Hancock Victorian Plantations purchased the assets of the Victorian Plantation Corporation for over $A500 million. The purchase entitled Hancock to log over 105,000 hectares of mostly pine plantations throughout the state over a 99 year licence.

"Since 1998 Hancock has been logging at a ferocious rate across the state, logging vast areas of pine plantations. Once logged the areas are then treated with herbicides. This is clearly a very worrying method of logging, especially when many of the plantations are located upstream of domestic water catchments throughout the state" said Mr Amis. Our research indicates that possibly 100 towns throughout Victoria are located downstream of Hancock plantations. What onus is on the company to protect the health interests of people relying on this drinking water?" Mr Amis. "Is the water being tested for herbicide contamination downstream from the plantations?"

"Adelaide's drinking water was recently contaminated by the herbicides Atrazine and Hexazinone which were sprayed into surrounding water catchments by Forestry South Australia. This was also the case for the small Tasmanian town of Lorinna which in 1994 had their water catchment sprayed with Atrazine by Forestry Tasmania. Atrazine has been linked with non-hodgkins Lymphoma, a form of cancer. Friends of the Earth has real concerns that similar problems could be occuring throughout Victoria. Responsibility for monitoring Hancock in the Otways has fallen on the Colac-Otway Shire. I raised these concerns twice with the council earlier this year. They have only responded to the first of my letters and didn't even answer the second letter. There are many other plantation companies operating in the Gellibrand Catchment. The council has refused my request earlier this year to supply Friends of the Earth with information pertaining to the herbicides used by these plantation companies. We have been forced to create our own website to pass this information onto the public" concluded Mr Amis.

STANLEY VELPAR INCIDENT November 1985 - March 1986.

Spraying on the Stanley Plateau carried out by DCFL on pine plantations

Orchards were damaged in this incident by the Overdrift of Velpar. Chlorotic spotting was evident on some fruit trees with the trees suffering the worst possibly being those suffering moisture stress through lack of irrigation. By January at least 24 growers from the Stanley area were effected. The damage was first reported in 26 November. Between 2 and 31 December,1985, a total of 30 written complaints were received in Central Registry. All complainants reported the occurrence of leaf spotting on trees, mainly chestnuts, walnuts, cherries, apples (pears) and on a variety of ornamental species, following the aerial spraying of a nearby pine plantation by the Forest Commission.

Vowell Air Services (Helicopters) Pty Ltd of Stuart Road, Tyabb, apparently did the spraying. The application was Velpar (Hexazinone) applied at a rate of 2kg of active ingredient per hectare mixed with 20 litres of Ulvapron and 32 litres of water. Symptoms of Velpar damage were also observed on roadside reserves and in unsprayed forest areas. Possibly a cloud of minute particles of spray material was picked up during the aerial spraying and carried from the target area by a current of wind which then circulated in a generally south west direction depositing several amounts of spray material over and onto nearby properties.

December 10, 1985: The Ovens and Murray Advertiser ‘Premier called on to intervene on aerial spraying of pine trees’. Orchardists and Beechworth Shire Council wanted the ban in the Stanley area until studies had been completed into the spraying problems.

January 21, 1986: The Ovens and Murray Advertiser ‘Growers call for spraying to stop’. A meeting packed with orchardists at Stanley last Tuesday unanimously called on the CFL Minister, Ms Kirner, to stop aerial spraying in the vicinity of the Stanley Plateau. Orchardists were concerned to see whether there would be any short or long term effects on the production of fruit. Also concerns that sprays had fallen on roofs and then entered water supplies.

February 11, 1986: The Ovens and Murray Advertiser ‘Spraying at Stanley now Banned says Kirner’. ‘The Minister for CFL has introduced a ban on all aerial spraying of pine plantations in the Stanley area . . . The decision follows an urgent call by Stanley orchardists in the middle of January for a ban on the spraying. Ms Kirner said CFL had agreed to cease all spraying pending a investigation into the spotting of fruit and other tree foliage which appeared late in November.

5. BALLARAT/CRESWICK HEXAZINONE INCIDENT 1993/4.

BACKGROUND

In late 1993, two pine plantations, owned by the Victorian Plantation Corporation, situated near the City of Ballarat in Central Victoria were sprayed with Hexazinone and Ulvapron. Creswick nursery staff were the first people alerted to something going wrong with this spraying operation a week or two after the spraying, when plants in their nursery started to die. The City of Ballarat first found spotting of trees in Ballarat a month after the spraying. The following timeline is a rough description of some of the events that followed.

*Please note in 1986 the Department of Conservation and Forests issued an moratorium that they would not use fixed wing aircraft for aerial spraying after spraying problems with Hexazinone in the Stanley Region.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS (Incomplete)

22 October: Victorian Plantations Corporation (VPC) writes to Agricultural and Domestic Chemicals Review Committee (ADCRC) requesting approval for aerial spraying of Velpar L (hexazinone preparation) on pines in Creswick (LEGL 93-39/1) and Shepherds Flat (Ballarat) (LEGL 93-32) pine plantations in November/December in accordance with Code of Practice.

28 October: ADCRC approves spraying.

2 November: VPC distributes letter to residents between Creswick East and Springmount informing them amongst other things that;

". . . Aerial application will commence in early November, 1993 and should be completed in one day, depending on weather.

The operation has been approved by the Agricultural and Domestic Chemicals Review Committee and will be conducted in accordance with the Committees' Code of Practice.

Strict controls will be used for this operation.

1. An aircraft specially rigged for this job will be used to ensure accurate delivery of herbicide onto the target zone.

2. Buffer zones will be left along streams and other sensitive areas.

3. Spraying will take place only when weather conditions are such as will avoid any drift of herbicide outside the target area." . . .

4 November: VPC sends almost identical letter (as above) to Shire of Creswick.

15 November: Field Air* (Ballarat) sprays 70 hectares of the Shepherds Flat pine plantation (located about 4km south east of the village of Durham Lead) with Velpar L (wind SE, 12 knots). Three/Four? spraying flights were necessary. Approximately 912 litres of Velpar (Hexazinone), 1520 litres of Ulvapron and 2128 litres of water were sprayed. (*Field Air act as agents for Air Tractor Australia - owned by Air Tractor (Olney, Texas)).

16 November: Field Air (Benalla) sprays 30 hectares in one aircraft trip at Creswick (plantation known as Sawpit Gully) with Velpar L (wind NE, 4 knots). VPC advises DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) of aerial spraying near Creswick nursery that day. Nursery staff observe plane flying low over nursery. DCNR staff ask what is being sprayed. VPC advises it is Velpar L. - 12 litres of Velpar, 20 litres of Ulvapron (an anti-evaporant petroleum based compound) and 28 litres of water, total 60 litres per hectare. Droplet size was 250-300 microns (a relatively large droplet size which are normally 100 microns). Aircraft in question had an 1800 litre tank. Height of the aircraft was 1 to 2 metres above canopy - 3 metres above the ground.

End November/early December: DCNR Creswick nursery staff observe yellow blotching on nursery stock and amenity plants at nursery. Damaged tubestock thrown out.

15 December: DCNR nursery staff sample foliage and send to DAV (Department of Agriculture) for testing.

20 December: City of Ballarat first notices spotting in Ballarat.

30 December: DAV analysis indicates no evidence of disease. Report notes damage most likely caused by environmental conditions or spray drift. Reported to DCNR South West Catchment and Land Protection Management (CALM) manager, who discusses report with VPC.

6 January: DCNR/VPC inspect damaged nursery stock.

7-10 January: DCNR photographs damage. DCNR describes damage to DAV and Du Pont staff who say description could be consistent with Velpar L spray drift.

18 January: DCNR shows photographs of Creswick nursery damage to MacSpread, Ballarat, supplier of Velpar L. MacSpread advises damage could be consistent with aerial spraying.

20 January: VCAH (Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture) visits Creswick nursery.

27 January: City of Ballarat samples foliage at Ballarat for biological testing.

3 February: Institute of Horticultural Development (DAV) inspects spotting at Ballarat.

9 February: Shire of Ballarat notifies EPA of spotting.

10 February: SCL (State Chemistry Laboratories) confirms hexazinone in DCNR Creswick nursery samples. SCL reports to DCNR that hexazinone has been found in nursery stock foliage. EPA commences investigation.

11 February: Director of DCNR Forest Service, sends letter to Managing Director of VPC, seeking compensation for damage to the Creswick Nursery stock and amenity planting. Loss of stock was later valued at about $70,000.

12 February: DCNR closes Creswick nursery to public.

15 February: EPA confirm that spotting of leaves found as far west as Linton (about 24km south west of Ballarat) and as far north as Clunes (about 27km north of Ballarat).

16 February: DAV rules out biological causes for damage in Ballarat samples.

18 February: First interdepartmental/local government meeting (EPA, DAV, DCNR, City of Ballarat, Shire of Ballarat, Shire of Buninyong). Leaf Chlorosis Co-ordination Committee formed.

21 Februray: DHCS (Department of Health and Community Services) samples drinking water. SCL confirms hexazinone in Ballarat samples.

22 February: First EPA media release. EPA begins Creswick inspections.

23 February: Newspaper and TV coverage of issue. EPA begins sampling throughout affected area. DHCS provides drinking water sample results - hexazinone not detected. Second EPA media release.

24 February: Second interdepartmental/local government meeting. VPC requests EPA to withdraw suggestion that aerial spraying caused problem.

26 February: Peak level of public enquiries.

28 February: EPA begins meetings with external experts (Spraysearch, Daratech, Du Pont, DCNR, University of Ballarat).

March 1994: Spraysearch (a joint venture between the DofA and Daratech Pty Ltd (the Department's commercial arm) writes a report entitled; SPRAY DRIFT COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION OF FIELD AIR (BALLARAT) Pty. Ltd. Quotes from the report incude;

p1 "The complaint specifically involves allegations of spray drift from the aerial application of the herbicide Hexazinone (trade name Velpar L). Approximately 76 ha of young Pinus Radiata plantation at Durham Lead (approximately 20 km south of Ballarat) were sprayed on the 15th November 1993. In January 1994, the leaves of species of Elm tree (and subsequently other deciduous species such as Flowering Cherry, Rose, Liquidambar, Pin Oak and Maple, to name a few) began exhibiting extensive chlorotic spotting. Experts from the Institute of Horticultural Development at Knoxfield discounted any possible disease or pathogen effects, and leaf samples analysed by the State Chemistry Laboratory (SCL) confirmed Hexazinone residues. The extent of the effects have yet to be determined, however effected trees can apparently be found in a broad swathe from Bunninyong in the South to Clunes in the North, a distance of approximately 50km."

p2 "A copy of the Job Sheet (Field Air Work Order) was produced. Copies of the relevant maps showing flight lines and the pine plantation detail and area sprayed was also produced. The job sheet and maps reveal:

*The client was the Victorian Plantations Corporation (VPC).
*The chemical rates were: Velpar 12 litres/ha
Ulvapron 20 litres/ha
Water 28 litres/ha
TOTAL 60 litres/ha

However a Field Air Work Order given to Reg Hill states the chemical rates were:
Velpar 12 litres/ha
Ulvapron 15 litres/ha"

1 March: EPA begins Shepherds Flat inspections. ALP candidate calls for independent enquiry into leaf spotting.

2 March: EPA begins visual survey to determine extent of affected area.

3 March: Third interdepartmental/local government meeting results in requests to DAV that Velpar L use be suspended pending outcome of investigation.

8 March: EPA formally requests report on DAV investigation of spotting under Aerial Spraying Control Act.

9 March: State Opposition calls for independent enquiry into spraydrift in Ballarat.

5 April: EPA sends letter to Chairman and Board of Directors of Victorian Plantation Corporation seeking the name of a person authorised to speak on its behalf.

13 April: EPA receives letter indicating that Kevin White was authorised to speak to the EPA.

17 June: Victorian Plantation Corporation served notice pursuant to Section 55(3)(D) of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

12 July: Victorian Plantation Corporation served notice pursuant to Section 55(3) of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

19 January: Field Air plead guilty at the Geelong Magistrates Court and were convicted and fined $5000 in relation to each incident plus $20,000 costs.

17 March: Geelong Magistrates Court

Counsel for VPC advised Mr Von Einem Magistrate, as follows:

(a) VPC did not intend to pursue its proposed objections to the further and better particulars of the charges;

(b) He had received instructions that VPC would be pleading guilty to the two charges of pollution, subject to suitable prosecution summary being agreed between the parties. He indicated that the matter was therefore resolved, "unless the sky fell in".

Spraysearch report - August 1994;

The Aerial Application of Velpar L herbicide to a Radiata Pine plantation at Sawpit Gully, Creswick, Victoria. A report on the performance of the application equipment and use of spray cloud modelling to determine the possibility of off-target drift;

p5 "The aircraft was loaded at the Field Air base at Ballarat airport and then flew to the site. The mixing and loading of the product was carried out in the open on the normal loading/washdown area. The loading equipment consists of a main water supply, a steel mixing tank (approx 200L capacity), recirculating and delivery pump and associated valves and supply hoses. Whilst somewhat basic in design and construction the equipment appeared to fulfill its purpose . . . The covered mixing tank has an internal agitation bar, allowing thorough mixing prior to pumping to the aircraft". ..

p5 ". . . The DCNR nursery in question was located on the southern side of this plantation, approximately 350m from the boundary of the site." . . .

p9 "From an operational point of view the site would be typical of many areas of forestry plantation that are aerially sprayed, offering principally straight, parallel flight-lines along the site. The mature plantation would require that the aircraft drop down and pull up at either end, in order to safely clear the trees. This would be especially important at the western end, where the ground itself was sloping away. Normal practice would be to follow the contours as closely as possible, in order to maintain a uniform spraying height" . . .

p10 (b) Equipment Selection

"Field Air Pty Ltd selected to use the fixed-wing Airtractor 502 fitted with a hydraulic boom onto which were mounted 10 Micronair AU 5000-2 rotary atomiser units. This type of aircraft is widely used for forestry spraying in Australia. The Micronair AU5000-2 is an atomiser widely used for low volume aerial spraying of agrochemicals, and is routinely used in aerial spraying of forests".

p11 "One of its perceived attributes is that it produces a relatively narrow droplet distribution with fewer fine droplets, compared to many hydraulic pressure nozzles. It consists of a central spindle, through which the spray liquid is supplied to a surrounding perforated sleeve, passing through the main body of the atomiser. Three adjustable pitch blades are mounted on the body, together with a cylindrical wire mesh cage - that spins with the body and the blades. In the use the spray liquid is thrown from the inner sleeve onto the inner surface of the rotating mesh cage and then off the cage into the high velocity air steam from the aircraft. It is most probable that the liquid is also sheared directly off the cage surface by the air stream.

The droplet size distribution can be varied by altering the rotation speed of the atomiser, for a given air speed, by adjusting the pitch of the blades on the unit".

p14 (4) SPRAY OPERATION INVESTIGATION

(a) Spray Liquid Composition

The original contract specified that the spray liquid would have the following composition:

*Velpar L 12L/ha
*Ulvapron Oil 20L/ha
*Water 28L/ha

However it is understood from discussion with Field Air Pty Ltd that the composition was changed for operational reasons following the previous day's spraying at Durham Lead, (the other part of the contract), to the following:

*Velpar L 12L/ha
*Ulvapron Oil 15L/ha
*Water 33L/ha

No mixing records were made available to SpraySearch to validate the above; it is presumed that the VPC controller's records document the actual useage, as required by Section 3.11 of the contract. The latter composition has been used throughout this report . . .

The reason for the inclusion of the large quantity of Ulvapron Oil is unclear and is not defined in the contract. It is presumed that it was included to reduce evaporation and/or to improve biological efficacy. The use of an oil additive is not included on the product label guidelines. Ulvapron is an hydrocarbon oil/emulsifier blend that is marketed as an application aid. The only reference to an adjuvant in the guidelines relates to the inclusion of a non-ionic surfactant/ wetting agent to improve foliar wetting. However the guidelines state that a surfacant should not be used if the spray liquid is to be applied over the top of Pinus Radiata trees - as was the case for this operation.

(b). Spray liquid mixing and loading.

No records of the mixing and loading were made available, however the following procedure was verbally supplied by Field Air Pty Ltd:

*A portion of the water was pumped into the aircraft hopper.
*The Velpar L and a further quantity of the water were mixed in the mixing tank on the ground and then pumped into the aircraft hopper.
*The Ulvapron Oil was emulsified into a further quantity of the water in the mixing tank on the ground and then pumped into the aircraft hopper.
*The balance of the water was pumped into the aircraft hopper.

The design of the hopper is such that the liquid entry point is at the bottom, so there would have been thorough mixing of the components during the filling of the hopper. It was reported that the hopper contents were not circulated during transit to the site, but prior to spraying the pump was turned on and the hopper contents continuously mixed.

(c). Application to the site.

It is understood that the spraying was carried out between 09.00 and 13.00 hrs on the 16th November 1993. SpraySearch has not had access to the controller's records of the operational parameters and conditions at the time of spraying and so is unable to comment on the compliance of the operation to the contract specifications in sections 4.4 and 5. Information from Field Air Pty Ltd confirmed that the flying height was nominally 3-5m as far as was practical and safe. . . Apart from the initial passes to spray the boundaries of the block, the majority was sprayed with a series of lengthwise swaths. It is noted that the swath width was given as 12m by Field Air Pty Ltd, whilst the contract states that an effective swath width of 15-18m would be expected unless otherwise determined and set by the Controller.

p15 DROPLET SIZE ANALYSIS

The mechanics of airborne spray drift are very complex and depend on a large number of factors. The droplet size distribution of the spray emitted from the atomiser is obviously an important factor because, together with the evaporation characteristics and environmental conditions, it will largely determine the proportion of the spray cloud that may remain airborne and become a drift problem. . . There is no single accepted value of droplet size below which drift becomes a problem, because it is an intercative issue - for example a strong wind will be able to carry larger droplets off-target than a slight wind.

The contract specified an ... "even distribution of droplets ranging in size from 250-350 microns", unless otherwise agreed by the Controller . . . This is an ambiguous statement because of the ways in which it could be interpreted. Strictly interpreted it means that no droplets should be smaller than 250 microns or larger than 350 microns, and that the population should be evenly distributed between those limits.

In a commercial operation this is probably impossible to achieve. The more probable interpretation, and that made by Field Air Pty Ltd, and presumably accepted by the Controller, would be that the median size should be within that range.

In order to give a more technical base to this aspect if the investigation SpraySearch were contracted to conduct a series of droplet size determinations in its advanced Atomisation Facility at Werribee.

p25 SUMMARY

In the context of the expected behaviour for the conditions selected and used by Field Air Pty Ltd, the following conclusions can be made:

(1) The anticipated Volume Median Diameter of 250 - 350 microns has been successfully achieved, with a mean value for the two replicates of 300 microns.

(2) With regard to the potential for off-target drift, approximately 10% by volume of the emitted spray cloud was in droplets below 105 microns, 3.3% below 50 microns, and 1.0% below 25 microns.

(3) Approximately 20% of the emitted spray was in droplets with a diameter between 256-344 microns.

(4) The accidental mis-setting of the Micronair blade angle, resulting in an over-revving to 3000rpm, would have had minimal effect on the size distribution of the emitted spray cloud.

(5) The omission of the high level of Ulvapron Oil would have resulted in a significantly coarser emitted spray cloud.

(6) The operational conditions selected by Field Air Pty Ltd, based on information available to them, successfully met the reasonable interpretation of the contract's droplet size requirements.

p41 SUMMARY

In the letter from *****, dated 13th April 1994, the following three questions were asked:
(1) Could spray drift from the sprayed area, (Sawpit Gully), have been deposited on the affected trees?
(2) Is spraydrift a likely cause of the spotting?
(3) If it is drift, was it forseeable and could it have been avoided?

In relation to question (1), the model as used has indicated that it would be possible for spray drift to be deposited at the nursery.

In relation to question (2), the model as used has indicated that a dose of approximately 0.03 L/ha would have been deposited on the ground at the nursery. This would probably have been mostly composed of droplets with a diameter of the order of 50 microns. Whether the doseage of spray liquid, in that droplet size range, could have caused the observed spotting and damage is beyond the remit of this investigation.

In relation to question (3), this investigation indicates that the operation was carried out by Field Air Pty Ltd was satisfactory; the equipment used was typical of that used for aerial forestry spraying in Australia, there were no apparent problems and the emitted spray cloud was of the droplet size distribution anticipated and required by the contract. As to whether the problem was foreseeable and could have been avoided, there are a large number of local factors that could have influenced the outcome of the operation at the time that have not been investigated here, and it is therefore considered impossible to answer this question.

University of Ballarat Report - November 1994
Survey of Leaf Chlorosis Syndrome at Creswick, Victoria

p13 Conclusions

Surveys of vegetation in and around Creswick township were undertaken in early 1994 following the development of yellow spotting on leaves (leaf chlorosis). Fifty trees were scored for leaf chlorosis including 14 mature elm (Ulmus spp.) trees and 36 eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.), the latter ranging in size from small understorey to mature forest trees. Twenty of the fifty trees surveyed were affected by leaf chlorosis. Among the surveyed trees, those most severely affected by leaf chlorosis were located along Sawpit Road near the DCNR Nursery. Trees with intermediate leaf chlorosis (Categories 1 to 3) occurred within an area 2 to 3 km south of the DCNR Nursery, to the north, east and south of St Georges Lake. Trees more than one kilometre north and north-west of the DCNR Nursery were not affected by leaf chlorosis.

Leaf chlorosis decreases in intensity with increasing distance southwards from Sawpit Gully Pine Plantation. Analysis of new growth suggests that the causal event occurred in late 1993 or early 1994. Affected vegetation appears to be altered both physically and physiologically. The results if the surveys show that the distribution of the leaf chlorosis syndrome in the Creswick study area is non-random, and that the most severely affected trees are adjacent to the Sawpit Gully Pine Plantation. The results of the surveys are consistent with the theory that the causal agent or agents were distributed aerially from a point source of contamination and were subsequently spread by prevailing winds.

Regional Health Survey

Regional Health Survey by Reark Research Pty Ltd commissioned by the Department of Health and Community Services in late April 1994 - primary purpose of the survey was to determine whether persons living in certain areas within and surrounding Ballarat had suffered any ill health as a consequence of the herbicide hexazinone in the environment of Ballarat.

pi Telephone survey conducted in May 1994 . . . A total of 558 respondents were interviewed . 'While survey findings confirmed age-related variations in the prevalence of illnesses, the survey results did not confirm the expected higher prevalence of illnesses within the Ballarat population, nor the expected higher levels of stress and anxiety within the Ballarat and Daylesford populations. However, in comparison to Daylesford/Bendigo respondents, Ballarat respondents did report significantly higher levels of specific symptoms, such as upset stomach or diarrhoea, irritated throat or dry cough, and cold symptoms. . .

p1 . . . Hexazinone is considered to have only mildly acute toxic effects on humans, notably eye irritation, as reported from occupational exposures. Animal toxicity testing has confirmed this low toxicity. However, the survey design proposed to account for the widest range of possible effects on the exposed population. Also, it could not be assumed that any effect would have been immediately evident as acute illness, as subsequent effects may follow some months later when discharged herbicide that might have settled on a dwelling's roof was flushed off by rain into tank water storage and later consumed.

p11 . . . The prevalence of three specific symptoms was significantly higher amongst Ballarat respondents than Daylesford/Bendigo respondents: with 14% of Ballarat respondents, compared to 9% of Daylesford/Bendigo respondents reporting stomach upset or diarrhoea; 13% of Ballarat respondents, compared to 8% of Daylesford/Bendigo respondents reporting irritated throat or dry cough; and 22% of Ballarat respondents, compared to 14% of Daylesford/Bendigo respondents, reporting having had cold symptoms, including runny nose or sneezing. . .

p15 . . . Those persons most likely to have experienced an illness episode during November/December were older people (23% of those aged 60 years or older having experienced an illness during November/December 1993) and children (19% of those aged less than 5 years, and 10% of those aged 5 to 11 years, being identified as having suffered an illness during November/December 1993).

It had been expected that persons dependent upon bore, tank or bottled water as their main source of drinking water might be more susceptible to illness conditions. Table 2 shows that 16% of persons living within such households reported any illness experience during November/December 1993, which is only marginally higher than the 12% reporting illness amongst those persons dependent on town water as their main drinking water.

p19 . . . Table 5 summarises survey data on the extent to which reported illnesses during November and December were believed and/or suggested to be related to exposure to chemicals within the environment. Overall, 5% of respondents believed an illness was definately or very likely to be related to chemical exposure, while 4% considered it quite likely that an illness had been related to chemical exposure within the environment. However, . . . respondents living in the affected Ballarat region were only marginally more likely than respondents living in Daylesford/Bendigo to believe an illness had been related to chemical exposure (10% and 8% respectively).

Only 3% of respondents reported their doctor as having suggested an illness might be related to exposure to chemicals within the environment, while a further 1% of respondents reported that someone else had suggested an illness might be related to chemical exposure.

Overall, 10% of Ballarat, and 9% of Daylesford/Bendigo respondents reported that they believed, or that it had been suggested, that an illness of a household member during November/December 1993 might have been related to chemical exposure. However, most (6%) considered such exposure to relate to general pollution within the environment and not to a specific chemical, although no one specifically mentioned hexazinone (or its brand name, Velpar) as being the particular chemical believed or suggested to be related to an illness.

Summary

p24 The findings of the survey conducted throughout specific areas of Ballarat, the nearby Daylesford region, and the Bendigo region, do not support the hypothesis regarding an expected higher prevalence of illness within Ballarat region, nor the further hypothesis regarding higher levels of stress or anxiety within the Ballarat and Daylesford regions. While there was no overall difference in the prevalence of illnesses, it is worth noting the significantly higher prevalence of specific symptoms amongst Ballarat respondents, such as upset stomach or diarrhoea, irritated throat or dry cough, and cold symptoms.

However, as might be expected, respondents within the Ballarat region were more aware, than were respondents within Daylesford/Bendigo, of media reports concerning health risks from exposure to chemicals within the environment. It is therefore interesting to note that in spite of greater awareness of media coverage of health risks from exposure to chemicals within the environment, Ballarat respondents were not more likely to report greater stress of anxiety than respondents in Daylesford/Bendigo. . .

Chemical damage alarms Ballarat citizens 25/3/94 Melbourne Age

The Environment Protection Authority may take legal action is it finds the law has been breached in an incident that left 500 square kilometers of central Victoria sprayed with farm chemical including most of the city of Ballarat.

The spraying of the herbicide Hexazinone has raised health and environmental concerns among Ballarat residents and damagd elm trees in Ballarat’s Avenue of Honour. A community health hotline was set up in late February, when the chemical’s presence was first detected.

Many trees have suffered from spotted leaves, and hundreds of elm trees have dropped their leaves early. But local health officers have advised that no trace of the chemical had been found in the city’s water supply and that homegrown fruit and vegetables were safe to eat.

The EPA is investigating the incident, which probably occurred late last year. The area affected runs south of Ballarat as far as Buninyong, and north to Clunes. There has been speculation that the chemical dump was caused by a drift from aerial spraying of pine forests.

Hexazinone is used to retard the growth of young eucalypts in pine plantations. An EPA spokesman said there was no confirmed link between aerial spraying and the chemical’s appearance, but that any breaches of the Environment Protection Act could lead to court action.

About 50 people have rung a hot line set up by the Department of Health and Community Services. The EPA has also set up a hot line for people to give information about the spraying.

The Chief Medical Officer, Dr Graham Rouch, said Ballarat’s residents were not at risk from hexazinone. Herbicides worked on plant systems but were not toxic to humans, he said. But Dr Rouch said hexazinone could irritate the eyes.

No traces of the chemical had been found in Ballarat’s water, he said. “We’re looking at very tiny drops in a diluted form (over Ballarat),” he said.

The City of Ballarat’s director of gardens and parks, Mr Phil Clingin, said yellow spots appeared on leaves of trees in the Avenue of Honour last November. Mr Clingin said about 25 per cent of the avenue’s 4000 trees had been affected, with many dropping all their leaves. He said it was too early to say whether the elms would recover.

The ALP candidate for Ballarat Province, Mrs Catherine Laffey, said there was widespread concern about the spraying, although it was important that people were not unduly alarmed. Mrs Laffey said an independent inquiry should be held. Ballarat Community Health Council’s executive officer, Mr Paul Niall, said no one had come in with health problems from the spray.

A spokesman for the Australian Medical Association in Ballarat said doctors had not reported patients being affected. A Ballarat Councillor, Ms Janet Dale, said she believed the incident was being properly investigated but that more stringent controls might be needed once the EPA released its results.

P1 Ballarat Courier March 1994? Ballarat trees’ yellow spotting illness - Labor urges compo rights by Kim Quinlan

Ballarat people should be entitled to compensation for damage done to trees as a result of the yellow spotting illness, the Opposition spokesman for Conservation and Resource management, Barry Pullen, said yesterday.

Mr Pullen was in Ballarat to inspect the trees. He said if it was proved the damage was caused by an accident or poor practice, people should be entitled to some form of compensation.

A petition calling for an independent inquiry into why the damage occurred was also presented to Mr Pullen during his visit. The petition called on the Government to “take all necessary steps to ensure that the Government establish an independent inquiry into this matter, and the issue of the spraying of herbicides into the Victorian environment, to document the facts, calculate the losses and make recommendations to ensure that such damage will not recur”.

More than 800 signatures were presented to Mr Pullen by ALP candidate for Ballarat West Robyn Mason and more are still to come.

The Courier - Ballarat April 16, 1994

P3 Low levels found in soil, water Low levels of hexazinone have been detected in soil and water samples in the Ballarat area.

The Environment Protection Authority yesterday confirmed the chemical was present in soil and water samples. The samples had been taken from and near two pine plantations in the Ballarat district.

An EPA spokesman said the most recent results indicated that levels of hexazinone detected were “very low”. They were well within guidelines established to protect health and the environment.

However, soil and water samples taken and analysed from residential areas in Ballarat, Creswick, Buninyong and Clunes showed no hexazinone present. The spokesman said information from the samples would be used in any prosecution taken by the EPA regarding the yellow spotting incident.

Investigations were continuing, he added.

Spray ‘won’t hurt you: doctor The Courier - Ballarat April 16, 1994

P3 The herbicide believed to have caused yellow spots on thousands of the region’s trees should not pose any danger to the health of the community, a public health physician confirmed yesterday.

Department of Health and Community Services’ Dr Malcolm Dobbin said hexazinone - the chemical identified in plant samples from trees afflicted by the mysterious yellow spots - had not been linked with adverse health conditions, and was one of the least toxic chemicals used in agriculture.

“People often worry about cancer or birth defects in situations like this and no such long-term effects have been associated with the chemical,” Dr Dobbin said. If hexazinone had drifted more than 800 square kilometers, it would have mixed with large volumes of air and be very diluted.

“When you look at health effects of chemicals you consider their toxicology and the dose, and in this case the toxicology is low and the dose distributed over a very large area,” he said.

Hexazinone was used to control unwanted plants by affecting photosynthesis and because humans had different biological systems to plants, they were not subject to the same effects. Dr Dobbin believed ongoing water tests in the Ballarat district would continue to read negative.

Water samples collected by the department on February 21 from town water supplies and private rainwater tanks in Ballarat, Wendouree, Buninyong, Creswick and Clunes, did not show any sign of the chemical. Home grown produce was also considered safe as the levels of exposed trees were below levels allowed for drinking water and other foodstuffs.

Hexazinone was broken down by micro-organisms in the soil after a few months. Ballarat Department of Agriculture’s Reg Hill said hexazinone - sold as Velpar L - was a safe chemical relative to other chemicals used on food crops, but said no chemical could ever be said to be “totally safe”.

Although is has yet to be proved that the random yellow spotting was caused by herbicide drift, a recent issue of Elm Watch (a newsletter of the Friends of the Elms) reporting the yellow spotting, outlined that a new Aerial Spraying Control Act assented to last year, made off-target spray drift an offence.

However, the article said investigations indicated correct guidelines were followed when Velpar was most recently applied near Ballarat. A final environmental report is not expected for another seven weeks, but a progress report will be available this month.

Letter to the Editor April 1994 - Ballarat Courier

We refer to the recent publicity concerning the damage caused to the property of residents in the Ballarat district by, reportedly, Herbicide drift.

While we understand that continued investigations need to be undertaken to identify the precise cause of the afflication, we are happy to advise both existing or potential clients of their rights to pursue claims for compensation as more conclusive information comes to light.

We are already aware of some instances of stock losses thought to be attributed to this cause. We are also undertaking our own expertise in an attempt to establish the cause, nature and extent of the afflication **** ****

6. COPPER OXYCHLORIDE

In November 1992 several privately owned softwood plantations in North-East Victoria were treated with the fungicide Copper oxychloride (CuoC1) to control Dothistroma needle cast fungus.

Dothistroma was again present in October/November 1993 with the Department of Natural Resources acting on behalf of the Victorian Plantation Corporation in attempting to control the Dothistroma in 6,355 hectares of Radiata Pine plantations in the north east. (2875 hectares of plantations at Upper Murray, 2500 hectares at Beechworth/Ovens and 980 hectares at Benalla). 100 hectares of these plantations were treated with Foli-R-Fos 200).

"Pine Needle Blight cannot be eradicated from infected areas because it is an air-borne fungal disease. Spraying with copper-based fungicide is the only proven and immediate method of disease control. Aerial spraying with fungicides will therefore be a regular practice in plantations in north east Victoria . . .

In previous spraying programs, particular attention has been paid to exclusion of riparian zones and streams from the treated area and stream water has been routinely sampled for detection of any copper residues. This has led to a major point of concern in that the unsprayed riparian zones along streams are a continuing source of inoculum for the disease. At present the systemic fungicide (Foli-R-Fos 200) is being evaluated for control of the disease . . . This fungicide is being tested operationally because of its extremely low toxicity to fish - the LC50 (96 hrs) for Foli-R-Fos 200 against Rainbow Trout is estimated to be 1,500 milligrams per litre." - Source DNRE.

Application rates of 1.6 kilograms a.i. /hectare of Copper oxychloride as a 50% wettable powder. At that time the EPA had a threshold value for copper in freshwater of 0.01 ppm and wanted pine companies to monitor copper to 0.002 ppm. (Copper at 10 ug/L = 0.1 ppm). Most of the 1993 sample analysis results gave readings of Copper (ug L) <2 ug/L, however a number of readings in Koetong Creek (trout cod habitat) came in higher. Three readings of 9 ug/L, 7 ug/L, 6 ug/L out of 31 sites were recorded, with only one site on Koetong Creek 13 ug/L being recorded over the EPA threshold value.

Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters - November 1992.

Copper

The concentration of total copper in fresh waters should not exceed 2-5 ug/L, depending on water hardness.

The concentration of total copper in marine waters should not exceed 5 ug/L

Natural sources of copper in aquatic environments include weathering of copper minerals and native copper; however anthropogenic activities can release significant amounts of copper to the environment (McNeeley el al. 1979). Copper is commonly found in the +II state in natural waters. The composition of the various copper species depends on pH and the presence of inorganic and organic ligands in the water. As an essential element, copper is readily accumulated by plants and animals; bioconcentration factors ranging from 100 to 26,000 have been recorded for various species of phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish (Spear & Pierce 1979).

The toxicity of copper in fresh waters increases with decreasing water hardness and dissolved oxygen concentration. High concentrations of chelating agents (e.g. humic acids, amino acids) and suspended solids lead to lower copper toxicity, presumably by complexation forming less available forms of copper (Alabaster & Lloyd 1982). Acute toxicity data for freshwater species in forty-one genera are available (USEPA 1985c). At a hardness of 50mg/L, the values ranged from 17 ug/L for Ptychocheilus to 1,000 ug/L
for Acroneuria. Skidmore and Firth (1983) found the acute toxicity of copper for ten Australian species ranges from 200 ug/L to 7,800 ug/L, and Bacher from O'Brien (1990) reported that acute toxicities for Australian species ranged from 40 ug/L to 21,000 ug/L.

Chronic values for fifteen freshwater species ranges from 4 ug/L upwards (USEPA 1986). Changes in fish behaviour have been demonstrated at concentrations as low as 4 ug/L (CCREM 1991). A size effect has been shown for bluegill, guppy and rainbow trout, with juveniles being more sensitive than adults (Chakoumakos et al. 1979; Tsai & Chang 1981). Fish and invertebrates seem to be about equally sensitive to the chronic toxicity of copper in fresh waters. The sensitivity of a number of species of freshwater plants that were tested was similar to those of animals (USEPA 1986). Protection of animal species appears to offer adequate protection of plants.

CCREM (1991) recommended a guidleine for copper based on hardness, with concentrations ranging from 2 ug/L to 6 ug/L. USEPA (1986) recommended a criterion based on a formula requiring a value for water hardness. Hart (1982) established a criterion of 5 ug/L for filterable copper in soft waters with low complexing capacity.

7. THE ATRAZINE CAMPAIGN

The Atrazine Campaign
From For the Forests

by Helen Gee
Annie Willock and Bart Wisse

In 1993, the people of Lorinna refused to accept the poisoning of domestic water with herbicides used in the establishment of a plantation in their water catchment. Atrazine was being sprayed in the Eucalyptus nitens plantation to kill the aggressive snowgrass weed. Atrazine is a teratogen and has been found to cause cancer of the ovaries, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and to suppress the immune system.

Lorinna residents persisted in claiming, 'For us there is no safe level, no acceptable level...we have to make a stand for other areas.' When forestry leaders claimed their pursuit of a chemical free environment was idealistic, the people of Lorinna argued that they were living an ideal.

Because of its isolation, in rugged north-west Tasmania, Lorinna has the potential to develop as Tasmania's organically-grown food capital. However, to be approved as a bio-dynamic farm, soil and water must be free of all synthetic chemicals. Three and a half months after the spraying in the catchment, the atrazine levels at Lorinna exceeded the World Health Organisation's safe level.

Fiery and courageous campaign spokesperson Annie Willock told Simply Living magazine, 'We are not ratbags up here, we're not into sabotage or any of that extreme behaviour, we just want some respect for our way of life.' This was a fight about lifestyle and the right of a community to defnd itself, to rage against the dying of the light. Annie's story is profound and inspirational and she and partner Bart Wisse atold it with the passion that many have lost through distancing themselves from real life. Editor.

"Prior to the atrazine campaign we had spent three or four years as total recluses. It had just been the kids, us, the garden and home education for five children. Our neighbour Tania Wilby came with a whole lot of information about what Forestry was intending in Lorinna's water catchment. She was looking for donations for some water tests because, she told us, they are going to use poisons in our catchment and we want to test the water.

Somebody advised us that we needed to write to the Chief Commissioner, Evan Rolley, and to the Minister for Forests, Ray Groom; to remind them that they would be held responsible if we had any ill health or other effects from this poison. We had a computer so we wrote that letter, personalised, for everybody in the valley. As soon as we had done that, bang, we were in it!

All other activities took a back seat. It was such a direct threat. Anthony and Jo were doing all the preparatory work. It was only when we started to realise what we had to do and the nature of the beast. I always felt it was a call to arms. Gaia was saying, 'OK its your turn now.' And that's the way we approached it. It was not something we particularly wanted to do; it needed to be done.

We contacted the Ombudsman and the Registrar of Pesticides; we went through all the proper channels and got told, 'Relax, it's OK.' The more they tried to make us feel secure the less secure we felt. We spent six months on the phone and gradually came to realise the system was designed to pacify and then to disempower and shut down community concerns. So we started looking at direct action.

There was quite a core group of people here in Lorinna mobilised and everybody was made aware of it and given letters to sign and send off. We were putting out a monthly newsletter which was basically a home education tool to incite the kids to write, for one thing, but it also became the update on atrazine and our dealings with Forestry. The kids would get on horses and go to the far reaches of the valley, delivering circulars and say there's a meeting at one o'clock and we'd all meet for half an hour. It would be enough time for everybody to say, 'No chemicals in the catchment' and we'd all dissipate and I'd be on the phone saying sorry Mr District Forester, no chemicals in the catchment.

We were so overwhelmed that the concern communicated itself to those people who would otherwise be taken in by the chemical company rhetoric and bureaucratic rhetoric that told them things were OK.

This was all pre-spray. We suggested we would hand weed their buffers in exchange for them not using chemicals. Then we got back to one of our hall meetings and people said they are going to come back in fifteen years and we're going to have the same fight. We have all slaved our guts out to have the whole thing stripped again in fifteen years. In the meantime we've worked for nothing to hand weed a pulpwood plantation. It's only going to be exported as woodchips.

There was a television interview. As spokesperson I was asked, 'What do you think will happen now they have got this information?' I said, 'Look, the information is so good these guys will stop using atrazine.' They laughed. I was so naive. I was convinced they'd stop! I really was genuinely convinced.

A really significant contribution was the lead I was given by Dr Juliet Lavers of the Environmental Health Association. 'Have you spoken to Jack Lomax?' she asked. Then fifteen minutes later the phone rang: 'This is Jack Lomax. If you are really going to get involved in a campaign you need some non-violence workshops.' He said, 'I could come up next weekend.' and I thought, 'Shit, it will be all over by then,' and felt so guilty about this man offering to travel all the way up from Lachlan. I felt like it was something too great to ask. As it turned out Forestry hadn't sprayed yet and it wasn't all over and Jack came up and gave non-violence workshops. Juliet came too.

We were meeting with Forestry about three times a week. Sometimes down here and sometimes up on the coupe. One time we had a meeting scheduled for the Thursday at eleven o'clock and at ten o'clock they were going to start spraying up on the coupe. So we said, 'Don't bother coming to Lorrina, we are all going to be up on the coupe,' and we were. That was OK. They stopped spraying, they sent their guys away for a few days or a few weeks. Negotiations kept going.

They gave us concessions. They did a ground-based operation rather than aerial, to minimise the contamination risk; they gave us extra buffers - they were supposed to be 70 metres from the stream and they increased it to 100 metres. They were going to spray amatrol and atrazine but they dropped amatrol and decided they'd use round-up instead. They said that had to have a persistent pre-emergent herbicide, which was atrazine, but they had to spray it in conjunction with a knock down herbicide.

Paul Smith, the Area Forester, said to me, 'You've run a good media campaign, you've had good coverage, but that's enough.' That was the red rag to the bull! It was a fabulous thing to say to me. I knew then that we really had to go for it.

Finally it was spray-day. We trucked up and stood in front of the tractors and prevented them starting work. Alan Watson, the District Forester, called in the big guns and they came and started arresting people. It looked like the policemen spent all morning polishing their boots for the media and they trucked out here with a great convoy of vehicles. They parked on the road and marched in twos to the coupe; it was just so funny. Only two of us got arrested. Sandra was so fired up. While the police were talking to the rest of us, she ran up and stood in front of the tractor driver when he started up his machine. The other one, Martin Klussendorf, spent the night in jail because he refused to sign the bail conditions. And that was a really important move because it got national coverage as well as state coverage. We made the front page of the paper:

With the negotiations at a standstill a number of residents moved onto the plantation early yesterday morning obstructing operations by standing in front of a tractor and spray unit. The driver immediately shut down the engine and walked away from the machinery. 'I went to start the tractor. Someone was standing in front of it'. he said. I'm not licenced to run over people'. The Advocate, 5 May 1993.

We had a meeting of about 20 people and of those there were six prepared to get arrested so we had to spread it out. The second day we were going to get arrested and at six o'clock in the morning Tania rang and said, 'I can't stand it. I want Wilbur and me to get arrested today,' so we swapped days. But after the second day of arrests they banned the media from the site and we couldn't see the point in getting arrested. The whole purpose was to make the wider community aware of what was going on.

Forestry said publicly that if they were going to permit us to negotiate over our water catchment they would be in a position where everybody would want to negotiate over their catchment.

On Saturday 1 May 1993 the Targa Tasmania race cars came right through the coupe. I was worried all night about what to do with this opportunity. We had been invited to afternoon tea with Rimpoche at the local Buddhist Gompa and I really wanted to be involved in that, but on the morning I decided we would go out to Targa. At 9am we brought out a ten metre length of black building paper and a can of white paint and we wrote on it in four foot high letters 'DON'T POISON OUR WATER MR GROOM'

We knew Premier Groom was in Targa with fellow Minister Peter Hodgeman. There were seven of us and we walked and walked. By the time we had made this sign the roads were closed to us, so we had to walk up to the coupe through the bush. We got ourselves against the wind-row on a sweeping curve and held up this sign which really stood out, white lettering on black. Everyone had a long time to read it. The last car came puttering along with Hodgeman leaning out the window. We knew they had read the sign, there was no doubt.

We did a lot of other things; we went to Mr Groom's house. We took a map to show him where the poisoning was happening and where the houses were. It made me feel good about Tasmania that you could rock up to the Premier's door and deliver. It's very empowering to do that kind of stuff. Every time an opportunity presented itself we would create something to do. We didn't set out with a goal and a map of how to get there. As something happened we tried to find out how we could use it to our greatest advantage; it was ad hoc.

Our first phone bill during the campaign was $900. It had jumped from $200 to $900. We didn't have donations but when we needed some legal work done we got Anna Crotty to find out all the water laws. It cost $1000. To get $1000 was just completely beyond us. A couple of the women made some carob sultana balls and were selling them around the valley. The Kentish Women's Group held a vegetarian feast as a fundraiser for us - the Cleanwater Network. They did it all and we got over $1000 from that one night. There were people from Scottsdale, from Derby, and from Scamander. People just showed up - it was amazing.

We went to Hobart in May and promoted The Davies Report, an Inland Fisheries Report, 1991, on the contamination of streams. Davies reported really high levels of atrazine in streams following rain in all the plantation coupes that he'd tested. The commissioned Report said the presence of pesticides in streams as a result of forestry plantation spraying is a concern; the need to prevent stream pesticide contamination should be realised at the planning stage of plantations, not left to be considered as an inconvenience when the need to spray arises.

This was reported on 10 May 1993 in The Mercury.

We publicised the report on a Sunday; it got second billing on the seven o' clock news. After that was a lull. Then the rain came. Forestry promised us some tests. They have a statutory obligation to test pre-spray, day of spray and then after the first significant rainfall. They tested pre-spray, they tested day of spray, and then it didn't rain. A month after spraying we had really light drizzle. Alan Watson rang me up and said there was a bit of rain up there over the weekend so he asked, the Department of the Environment - the DELM - to come up and take some samples. I said, 'It really didn't rain much Alan; it's just a bit of drizzle.' On the Thursday it absolutely pissed down and I rang him and said, 'Alan it's raining; this is real rain,' and he said, 'Annie I can't have them running up and down the State twice in one week. I just can't do that.'

I was really frantic; I knew this rain was for real. We rang the emergency number at the DELM and we said, 'We need this testing to take place, it's pissing with rain and the Forestry Commission won't do it.' So they sent somebody out. It was bitterly cold. We went out with our bottles from the Launceston Environment Centre and took some samples. DELM came out 45 minutes after us and took samples in exactly the same spot. We were there to meet them and they didn't know we had taken samples. We sent ours to Melbourne. They sent theirs back to Hobart and had them analysed. Ours came back 0.2 parts per billion and theirs came back 0.1 part per billion. We jumped up and down; ours were twice as high; the laboratory in Hobart was not certified to test for atrazine whereas the Melbourne laboratory was. We were talking about miniscule amounts of atrazine but we made such a noise about it, and we got heaps of media because of the discrepancy - even though Paul Smith, Area Forester, referred to it as 'a bull's roar away' from the 0.2 parts per billion which was the World Health Organization - WHO - benchmark.

But because the atrazine was definitely there and there was a discrepancy, after the next rain a week or so later DELM authorised a dual sample. They took samples from a number of sites and sent one of each to Melbourne and Hobart laboratories. Forestry wanted to show how responsible t hey were and genuinely wanted to look at it and get it right. Paul Smith had used this 0.2 parts per billion benchmark and the next result was way over. It was 9.3 parts per billion; nearly five times the World Health Organisation allowable limit. Forestry now had to come up with some story to destroy the position they had created for us. So they said it's OK for short term exposure.

Meantime, practically on a daily basis, I'd be ringing them to ask for results of analysis. When they first tested they refused to give them to us until they had the complete result, and when we had these huge levels, we couldn't get any results out of them. We had rung and rung and they passed us on one time too many. I said to whoever it was on the other end of the phone, I don't actually need to speak to Brian, I just need the results of these tests sitting on his desk, and the Forestry staff member read them to me. So I informed the media without Forestry having officially released the figures!

Primarily it was a water catchment and secondly it was a plantation. We were negotiating from the water catchment position to permit the plantation to be there and it was very exciting to see how far they bent. They had no choice; the fear that this campaign would reflect on Tasmania's clean, green image was raised as an issue in the State parliament.

Ricky Eaves said, 'I want to do an article for Simply Living, meet me up at the coupe.' We went up there with our banner; it was my birthday. We found they had put in a trial planting to test for browsing. The seedlings were in the wrong place; they were in the buffer zone which had been given back to the Lorinna people. So a group of our people removed them. Then negotiations changed. We got promises of no fertlisers, no more herbicides, no 1080, no synthetic p