| Home | Documents | News | Status | Comments | Links | Contact Us |
Rodney's Caper Coverup continues  22 December 2008 - This latest episode of Nova Scotia's Environment Department in action began in August when a Cape Bretoner who's been away returned to his retirement dream home only to find that the brook through his property has turned orange. The source of the problem was photographed and mapped and hand delivered to the Environment Department on August 14th 2008 in a formal Application for Investigation pursuant to Section 115 of the Environment Act. NSE's Monitoring & Compliance Inspector Brad Langille refused to accept the application and told the landowner to get his own water samples and test results and get his Application for Investigation signed by a Commissioner of Oaths, but the landowner did not have the time to do the Inspector's job for him. Upon inquiry, Inspector Langille would not confirm whether or not he had inspected Coal Hollow Brook and taken samples himself. So CASM borrowed a professional grade water probe and tested and photographed the brook again and filed another Application for Investigation under the Environment Act on September 26th 2008. While preparing the Section 115 Application, CASM inspected the mine site and submitted photographs of additional items for investigation in the application.
Below is the Environment Department's response to the public's concerns about what we can see and feel happening at Rodney's "reclamation" of his "flagship" site at Point Aconi the "environmentally right way".CASM's response to the Inspector's report is in RED. Minister Mark Parent is invited to answer the obvious questions raised by his failure to protect our environment and persistent failure to monitor the predictable adverse effects for compliance: |
|
Environment PO Box 714 Sydney, Nova Scotia B1P 6H7 Tel.: (902) 563-2100 Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division December 22, 2008 Re: Application For An Investigation pursuant to Section 115 of the Environment Act: Pioneer Coal Limited Surface Mine and Reclamation Project, Point Aconi. At the request of Mark Farrell, District Manger of the Sydney Regional Office, to follow is a response to your Application For An Investigation pursuant to Section 115 of the Environment Act regarding the Pioneer Coal Limited (PCL) Surface Mine and Reclamation Project, Point Aconi (2006-051995). This application was signed and received by Nova Scotia Environment, September 26, 2008. A Solemn Declaration witnessed by a Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was submitted with the application. On September 26, 2008, correspondence acknowledging receipt of the Application For An Investigation was mailed to your residence. A copy of the correspondence is attached as Appendix "A". In your Section 115 Application for An Investigation, the allegations and statements as submitted and the evidence presented did not provide the reviewer with a clear understanding of the application. As a result of this, on October 29, 2008 you were interviewed at the Nova Scotia Environment office at 295 Charlotte Street, Sydney, for the purpose of seeking further clarification. Throughout this response, where required, I will be referencing this interview. On October 29, 2008, upon conclusion of the interview a photocopy of the interview was provided to you. In a brief background summary, Pioneer Coal Limited (PCL) was subject to the standard assessment process as prescribed in Nova Scotia's Environment Act. PCL completed an Environmental Assessment and was granted an Industrial Approval to operate. The Environmental Assessment was approved December 28, 2005 and the Industrial Approval was subsequently issued September 12, 2006. Page 1 of 14
Please be advised, items that relate to the present appeal process you are part of will not be addressed in this report nor will previous Section 115 responses and items that are not under the control of Pioneer Coal Limited such as questions relating to Provincial or Departmental policies. Wildlife questions should be posed to Nova Scotia Natural Resources. Based on the October 29, 2008 interview with you and subsequent emails, NSE is aware that you had not taken the photos that were submitted with the application. When requested, you would not provide the name of the individual(s) who/whom took the pictures. When requested, you also declined to provide the department with a level of confidence to indicate whether or not you were present, while the pictures were taken, particularly for pictures with a sole purpose of proving an allegation of noncompliance. In review of the October 29, 2008 interview there were instances where the only detail you could provide regarding an allegation was based on the photos provided. For future consideration, for information to be used as evidence, the information must be collected and presented by first hand parties. Please be advised, the photos as submitted will be reviewed at face value only. Environment's Inspector Brad Langille has been monitoring and inspecting Pioneer Coal's Prince Mine site at least twice a week for over two years now. There's nothing in any of the photographs that the Inspector couldn't have seen for himself and collected his own "first hand" evidence of. Two eye witnesses met with the Inspector for over an hour but there was no allowance for any discussion during the "witness format" meeting. His very first question was who took the photos but he never asked if there were other witnesses he could speak to if necessary. If Inspector Langille did not get sufficient detail it's purely because he didn't ask the right questions at the interview and the other eye witness present was not allowed to speak! NSE's Inspector has the powers of a Police Officer to issue an injunction to bar the public from the mine site. When the Inspector declined to explain why he needed to know who took the photos, CASM exercised our democratic right to decline to respond to the irrelevant question, and the Inspector had no further questions about the photographic evidence submitted.
For an effective response to a complaint, prompt reporting is vital as these events are very time sensitive. Reviewing the event at the time of the alleged incident can greatly improve the opportunity for the department to identify the exact source or contributing sources of the alleged incident. In particular, this applies to concerns raised within the application concerning, sound, dust, siltation and site discharging of liquid. You had indicated during the October 29, 2008 interview that rather than notifying the Department at the time of receiving dust, sound and site discharge complaints they were compiled over time and submitted via this Section 115 Application for Investigation. With respect to the siltation concern raised, according to the date on the photo, 15 days past before you notified this office, via this Section 115 Application for Investigation. NSE encourages and invites any resident who feels they may be negatively impacted by the operation to contact NSE directly in a timely manner. If you still believe that NSE is in the business of protecting our environment instead of the mining company, and don't mind being treated like you're the criminal, call:
For your convenience, a copy of the application for investigation excluding the photos is attached as "Appendix B". (For easy reference, CASM has included the photos on this web page.) To follow is a response to you Section 115 Application for Investigation: Page 2 of 14 |
Members
of CASM's committee are well known to all the various powers that be
including Pioneer's staff and the Police who they've called out several times
complaining of a bunch of people walking around the mine site taking photographs and posting them on a 
|
Statement: "Documented test results show that Acid Producing Potential of
the coal Hub Seam at the Prince Mine site is as high as 175.59 kg of H2S02/t.
The limit under Nova Scotia's Sulphide Bearing Material Disposal Regulations is
12.51 kg of H2S02/t." NSE Response to Statement: The Sulphide Bearing Material Disposal Regulations do not apply to mining activities that are under approval or otherwise permitted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The coal being removed from the site is intended to be sold, not disposed of. The site does not accept sulphide bearing material from other sites and residual sulphide bearing material that is encountered on the site other than coal is managed inhouse according to standard industry practices.
Surface Water Statement:
NSE Response to Statement:
The presence of pooling water within the site
and open excavation(s), regardless of pH value is not a compliance issue. PCL is
restricted from discharging to areas other than what is identified within
Schedule E of the Approval.
Allegation:
NSE Response to Allegation: Within your application, other than
photos of Coal Hollow Brook, you did not provide further
evidence to support the
allegation that PCL was discharging to Coal Hollow Brook What further evidence must the public provide for NSE's Monitoring and Compliance Inspector to monitor and inspect discharges into the brook for compliance? In the middle of the intersection of the Prince Mine and Point Aconi Roads there's a drain between the pumphouse and the underground culvert to Coal Hollow Brook, if you stand there you can hear the water flowing. Both Pioneer and the Environment Department were supposed to be monitoring this brook all along so the Inspector should be able to provide his own first hand scientific evidence that is not available to the public. Was the brook being monitored as required? Does the monitoring data show any changes in the water flow?
By original design liquid could discharge from the existing/present pumphouse sump to Coal Hollow Brook through a overflow pipe in the pumphouse via an underground culvert.  So the Water Level Tunnel east of the portals and the excavated pit is connected to the pumphouse, and the pumphouse is connected to the culvert at Coal Hollow Brook. Environment's Inspector fails to mention that the liquid that's supposedly being pumped into the underground workings "is highly acidic and cannot be discharged into the environment untreated". He also fails to mention that mining was stopped in what was supposed to be Excavation #1 over a year ago, why? What is the expected time frame for the Prince Mine workings to reach capacity, then what?
Since issuance of the Industrial Approval, the Department has not observed PCL discharging water via the pumphouse to Coal Hollow Brook.
Although PCL's pumphouse does not appear to be contributing to the occurrence in Coal Hollow Brook, NSE will continue the review of this separate matter.
NSE will provide you with an update as additional information becomes available throughout the review of this matter. |
Sulphide
Bearinq Material Disposal Requlations 
This is the exact opposite to what the Environment Department said last year
when specifically asked if the Sulphide Bearing Material Disposal Regulations
apply to Pioneer Coal's project and they said "Yes". Where is the "yellow stained
dirt band of sulphur content" being disposed? Evidently the acceptable "standard industry practice" is to
ignore the regulations and NSE won't enforce them. What other mining activities are still regulated by DNR's loopholes that render the Environment Act a meaningless document?
"Between
the mine portals and the water pumping station Pioneer Coal has excavated a pit
that has filled with obvious evidence of Acid Mine Drainage." 
Contrary to the Inspector's claim, "prevention of acid rock drainage" is indeed a compliance issue under the department's 
"Last
spring ...started receiving complaints from area residents that Pioneer Coal was
discharging water during the night from the pump house into Coal Hollow Brook. " 
With
respect to Coal Hollow Brook, as taken from the Environmental Assessment, "east
of the five existing entrances to the underground mine (portals), surface water
enters bootleg pits, drains into the Water Level Tunnel and gathers at the water
pumping station and then directed into the Prince Mine underground workings.
This series of bootleg mining pits and the Water Level Tunnel to the east of the
Prince Mine will be removed. This will eliminate the pumping station
requirement, such that surface water can be directed into the Prince Mine
workings by way of a pit floor sump and pumping system. The work will be carried
out before the expected time frame for the Prince Mine workings to reach
capacity." 
Upon acquisition of the property, PCL has continued to maintain the pumphouse
equipment to enable water entering the sump to be directed to the former Prince
Mine portals. Records of maintenance have been provided to the department. 
NSE attempted to determine if the pumphouse sump overflow was the source
contributing to the occurrence in Coal Hollow Brook. Tracer dye was placed in
the sump hole on 4 different occasions and no dye was observed in Coal Hollow
Brook. A water sample was submitted to a lab to determine if dye was present but
not visible to the eye, no dye was detected. Thus any discharge into Coal Hollow
Brook does not appear to have come from the pumphouse overflow. 
A review of historic photographs shows a history of coal extraction in the area
of the former Prince Mine and Coal Hollow Brook. These photos date back over a
span of 60 years, and it is conclusive that both bootleg and commercial mining
have been very active in the immediate surrounding area. 
Local residents have first hand knowledge of coal mining in the area going back hundreds of years, and Devco has decades of scientific monitoring data. Why did NSE fail to review the "complex" hydrogeology of this area prior to issuing its approval for this project, and not until the public formally applied for an investigation of the obvious adverse effects?
Why has NSE's Inspector done nothing whatsoever to prevent the adverse effect of discharging mine water into Coal Hollow Brook as granted by the Approval? Why did he not even know about it until the public formally complained? Why do they still not know what
the problem is or what to do about it or even who's responsible? And why isn't
Environment's Inspector collaborating and sharing information with Devco who's
about to start "
"A
month later, there is visual evidence of lime being added to the brook to
neutralize it, and Pioneer has installed a new pipeline along the backyards of
Forrest Lane from the pump house to above the portals." 
A month after the initial complaint that Coal Hollow Brook had turned orange it turned
milky white. During this time, Inspector Langille should have been
monitoring and testing the brook himself and gathering his
own first hand evidence from his investigation. If it's not lime
then what is it, aluminum, tracer dye? Where did it suddenly come from? What has NSE done to prevent any further contamination downstream? At this rate of coverup and denial by NSE, what's going to happen when Rodney lifts his reclamation moratorium on the other sites across the region?
"Pioneer Coal has not ensured that the Terms & Conditions of the Environmental
Assessment Approval issued December 28, 2005 under Part IV of the Environment
Act are adhered to. For example, posted minutes of the Community Liason
Committee indicate that it has not met since 19 March 2007 and clearly has not
established any forum for dialogue fo the public's concerns. Pioneer Coal has
done nothing to keep the public informed of the details of the project as
required. " 
Mechanical crushing, screening and
sorting coal is 
So there's no environmental regulations for the stockpiling and processing of coal in Nova Scotia? And by the Inspector's definition that's not a stockpile of coal everyone can see from the front fence so the inevitable dust and
runoff are of no concern to him? If there is nothing wrong with it then why is
Pioneer "constructing a method to improve it's coal handling practices at this site"? What will it sound like?
The
small mechanical screener identified in Photo 23, behind the main shop, is not
property owned or operated by PCL. This is a third party contractor who is
authorized by PCL to conduct it's business on that portion of the property. The 
Yet another loophole using third party contractors to circumvent the environmental regulations. During the time frame of this investigation, NSE's Inspector also disavowed any responsibility for a third party strip mining top soil and removing it from the "reclamation" project under DNR's two hectare loophole, endangering public safety in the process. It took a professional Vehicle Compliance Officer to do what NSE's amateur Monitoring and Compliance Inspector won't do, and never even notices unless the public photographs and reports it for him. Since the departments Regional Managers couldn't even find the road through the mine site that they closed last year, can they find the restoration bond Pioneer had supposedly paid at the time? Why wasn't this stopped before the predictabe damage was done to the public road across Morrison Pond and surrounding wetlands? What would have happened if the public hadn't protested? 
Environment's
Inspector neglects to mention that the Department failed to review Devco's 2004
environmental assessment that contains a long list of toxic substances that many local residents saw for themselves being buried at the Prince Mine at the time. If the toxic substances are
not being disposed of at the site where are they being disposed? What further evidence must the public provide for NSE's Inspector to investigate such activities at the "clean up" of Devco's old Prince Mine?
Inspector Langille neglects to mention that he failed to identify the wetland during his twice weekly inspections and Pioneer failed to report it as required, and it took an Application for Investigation from the public for NSE to address the matter. What was the "haul road" constructed out of, where is it now?
With
respect to MacDonald/Morrison Brook to date, throughout the monitoring of this
site,
If the Inspector never observed the obvious discharge from the culvert into MacDonald/ Morrison Brook then either he refused to look or he has no credibility whatsoever. If the discharge wasn't coming from the settling ponds where was it coming from? And if there was nothing
wrong with it, as NSE's Executive Director claimed, then why have they sealed off the culvert and cleaned up the brook? What would have happened if the concerned public hadn't done the Environment Inspector's job for him? Where is the settling pond water being discharged to now that the culvert has been removed? What else is NSE covering up hoping no one will notice?
Within
your application further 
Incredibly, yet again NSE's Inspector failed to observe discharges from the mine site after the public photographed and reported the evidence and took the area's MP to see it and he called DFO when the Inspector wouldn't. What further evidence does NSE's Inspector need to investigate predictable discharges from the mine site and gather his own evidence in a timely manner? Does the Inspector ever inspect any of the watercourses flowing from the mine site, especially after heavy rains like the local residents have the common sense to do? What do the aerial photographs taken two days later show? What does the data from the monitoring well next to the DNR Crown stake show? If there's nothing wrong with it why doesn't the Inspector say so?
With
respect to Photo 27, labeled wetland, which shows water pooling in an area, has
been reviewed by both NSE and DNR. It is concluded that the feature in Photo 27
Evidently the Inspector failed to observe that this "grubbed off" "buffer" is along the northern property line
between the mapped wetlands and the shore and was previously photographed and reported to
him over a year ago. Since this Application for Investigation was filed in
September a ditch has been dug to drain the water into the pit. If there was
nothing wrong with it why did they do something about it after the
public asked for an Investigation?
While reviewing a separate
area outside of Photo 27, a small portion of land adjacent to the site boundary
has been identified to contain wetland features. Directly inside the site
boundary
Small pools of water can be
observed all over the site, it's taken two years for Evironment's Inspector to
finally observe one that he can't ignore, and apparently only because DNR was with him. What else does NSE's Inspector not notice about DNR's Crown land unless the public files an Application for Investigation?
Why didn't Inspector Langille observe this predictable discharge into the ocean after heavy rains and the photo was sent to him and posted on this public website, did he wait until his scheduled inspection date to go and look? What further evidence must the public provide for NSE to monitor and inspect the site for compliance in a timely manner and gather his own first hand evidence? Is he insinuating that what even the area's MP saw with his own eyes is a figment of his imagination and Photo 20 is fake? That there was still no evidence of failure of the erosion and sedimentation controls a month later?
Photo 26 has been omitted for reasons expressed in the opening of the report (see page 2). Photo 26 alleges that PCL is discharging water to an adjacent property.
Other than the photo, 
If the excess water overflowing the pond on neighboring private property isn't coming from the
mine site then where is it coming from, and where is all the siltation coming from? What additional detail does the Inspector need to investigate the situation, or does the public have to do it for him?
The
area in Photo 28, showing a close up of water pooling, was viewed and is within
the footprint of PCL and within land leased by PCL. 
The facility
is operating within it's delineated boundaries.
Contrary to the Inspector's claims, Schedule A(d) of NSE's Industrial Approval requires all site water to be managed as described in Pioneer's "Industrial Approval Application Supporting Document" - Section 4, which states that there will be a "Riparian buffer to a watercourse (minimum of 30 metres)". The Inspector also neglects to
mention that the Environment Act and related regulations also identify required
distances from watercourses for blasting, etc. but evidently NSE's Inspector refuses to
enforce them either at this strip mine at the mouth of the Bras d'Or Lakes. Why not?
Photo 29 and 30 (drainage ditches) were viewed and are within the active site
where erosion and sedimentation controls are not necessary. 
Evidently the Inspector failed to notice that Photos 29 and 30 show that, even
despite the heavy rains, there's no water in the drainage pipe or ditch to the Prince
Mine workings or Settling Ponds for treatment as required prior to discharge.
The water has to be going somewhere but where?
Evidently
the Inspector failed to notice the captions on Photos 31 and 32 illustrating that they have not
left the required riparian buffer to a watercourse, and have not constructed a
rock lined perimeter ditch around the active work areas as required. The DNR Crown stakes serve as landmarks that NSE's Inspector ought to be familiar with by now but never seems to notice the predictable site runoff in the area. Why not?
Did Environment's Inspector actually observe the trucks exiting the mine site during the course of his 3 month Investigation? If
the trucks were confirmed to be free of loose debris upon exiting the site then
why do they have to water spray and sweep the public road? Does the public have to call in Vehicle Compliance again to do what NSE's Monitoring and Compliance Inspector won't do and never notices during his "audits"?
What information does NSE need the public to provide in order to investigate the dust at the mine site? Photo 33 illustrates a dust cloud typical of PCL's weekly blasts that drifts over nearby homes. Did Environment's Inspector inspect the site for dust, did he collect his own evidence, did he review the scientific monitoring data that the public does not have access to? If so, were emissions within the guidelines, then why doesn't he say so?
"Numerous complaints received ...from nearby residents disturbed by noises from
the site almost 24/7 indicate that Pioneer Coal has not ensured that sound
levels do not exceed the approved limits. (Photo 34)"
Page 9 of 14
To date, all blasts have been well within the stated ground and air concussion limits set out in the approval in Schedule H. Field inspection observations collected August 21, 2008 during the blast indicate weather/site conditions that differ from the observations provided in the application.
Goundwater
"Pioneer Coal stated in its Industrial Approval application that a groundwater monitoring well will be installed at Coal Hollow Brook, downstream from Point Aconi Road (downstream from potential site influence) to assess the condition of Coal Hollow Brook. However ...inspection of the brook from the road to the shore revealed no sign of the existence of the monitoring well marked on the submitted map." NSE Response to allegation: PCL has not installed a monitoring well along Coal Hollow Brook as this is not required. Within Section 3.0 titled "Monitoring" in the PCL Environmental Protection Policy, this feature is identified as SW1 and is discussed. SW1 is a surface water sampling location that is being monitored on a regular basis by PCL.
Allegation: "Between smoke and dust from the blasting that stings the eyes and Acid Mine Drainage being discharged into the brooks and fishing grounds and salt water intrusion into domestic wells, as a nearby resident says "They're poisoning us, it should be shut down"." NSE Response to Allegation: NSE encourages and invites any resident who feels they may be negatively impacted by the operation to contact NSE directly in a timely manner. To date, NSE has not received complaints regarding salt water intrusion nor has salt water intrusion been identified within the domestic well monitoring program. As stated in the October 29, 2008 interview you could not identify an impacted domestic water supply. You have not provided sufficient evidence to support the allegation of salt water intrusion of a domestic water supply.
Allegation: "The surface water collection system was not capable to diverting all mine water and site runoff including extreme precipitation events to the underground workings and settling ponds on 7 September 2008 when the area around the pump house flooded, etc. (Photo 36)" NSE Response to allegation: The design of the pumping station is noted earlier in this response (See page 3). This pumping station operates independently from the settling ponds and other site water controls.
Within the October 29, 2008 interview you indicated that the water in Photo 36 was draining to the roadway ditch via the driveway and that the picture pretty much tells the story. Subsequent to the interview, NSE conducted a follow up inspection of the pump house area. Elevation data collected during this inspection indicates that a significant additional volume of water compared to what is present in Photo 36 is required to result in an offsite discharge exiting from the driveway. During site audits, there has been no indication of settling pond or site water control failure. Additional evidence was not provided to support the allegation concerning the settling ponds and other site water controls.
Transportation of Coal Allegation:
NSE Response to Allegation: During all audits, trucks were confirmed to be tarped and free of loose debris upon exiting the site. As taken from your October 29, 2008 interview, Photo 37, is intended to indicate dust. With respect to Dust, please refer to the earlier response (See page 8). With respect to the allegation of stockpiling and processing, please refer to the earlier response (See page 6). Apparently
Environment's Inspector fails to comprehend Photo 37
illustrates that the typical coal truck leaving the site is not free of loose
coal fines or debris when he's not doing his scheduled audit, and evidently fails to ever observe first hand.
Wetlands
Rehabilitation
"Visual inspection of the site shows that the excavations are not in accordance with the approved progressive rehabilitation plan. Instead, all the woodlands and wetlands west of the old haul road behind the Prince Mine have been clearcut and excavated and dynamited and mined as fast as possible since "reclamation" activities began in September 2006. (Photos 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49) NSE Response to Allegation: The daily and long term operation of mine incorporates progressive reclamation. During site inspections, visual evidence of progressive reclamation is clearly visible within and around the mining blocks. PCL has addressed a great number of existing environmental liabilities since the operation began in September 2006. Concerning the mining approach, an adequate level of site performance bonding is held by DNR Mineral Resources Division.
Allegation: "The anonymous Citizens Liaison Committee has not met since 19 March 2007, there have been no public information sessions or any public consultation or community involvement whatsoever, the requirements for a reclamation plan have not been submitted while the CLC has publicly refused to meet with the community or our elected representatives. (CLC letter attached)" Page 12 of 14
With respect to the CLC, please refer to the earlier response (See page 5). For clarity, Schedule L of the Approval identifies the reclamation plan is required to be updated every 3 years from the date of issuance of the Approval.
Site Specific Conditions
"Despite numerous requests, to date NSDE has been unable to provide a map outlining the approved mine site boundaries or specify the approved size of the area, nor define the meaning of approved "Mining Blocks", marked in yellow on the map. (Photo 50)" This directly relates to the matter of the "Notice of Appeal" to the Supreme Court you are involved with. Pioneer Coal Limited is Approved to operate the Surface Coal Mine and Reclamation Project within the footprint that is identified in Schedule A of the Approval. If you wish to review a hardcopy of the Industrial Approval, which includes the footprint, copies are available for viewing at the Sydney NSE office and the three Northside Libraries. For a clearer understanding of the mining blocks it would be more suitable to contact the mine or the CLC to gain this knowledge. The Mine Manager can be contacted at (902) 578-9511 or the CLC at (902) 563-4011.
Allegation:
Confirmed from site inspections, the facility is operating within it's delineated boundary as identified within Schedule A of the Approval. Photo 51 identifies an area that has been harvested of trees. Tree harvesting is not a recognized activity under the department's Activities Designation Regulations. The white stake depicted in Photo 51 is a Nova Scotia Crown stake, not a site boundary.
Page 13 of 14
The public is an important source of information relating to compliance with or violations of the Environment Act, associated regulations and Approvals. NSE promotes and facilitates the reporting of legitimate environmental offences. In conclusion, from a review of what is alleged, the information provided to the department, file information, the activity to date at this site, review of the Environmental Assessment, Industrial Application, applicable supporting documentation and the Terms and Conditions of the Pioneer Coal Limited Surface Coal Mine and Reclamation Project Approval (2006-051995), sufficient information to support the allegations is not present for NSE to proceed further with the investigation. The Department is closely monitoring the operation and will continue to ensure that Pioneer Coal Limited operates in compliance with the Industrial Approval, Environment Act and applicable legislation throughout the operational and reclamation aspects of this project.
As noted earlier, the department will continue to collaborate with our federal counterparts with respect to the occurrence observed in Coal Hollow Brook. As well, the department will continue to collaborate with DNR with respect to the review of the matter concerning the pooling water adjacent to a wetland. NSE will provide you with an update as additional information becomes available throughout the review of these matters.
Should you have any other matters this office can address, please feel free to contact me at (902) 563-2100 or via email at lanqilbd@gov.ns.ca . Brad Langille Inspector Specialist
cc: Mark Farrell, District Manager, NSE Page 14 of 14 |
As
noted from the October 29, 2008 interview Photo 35 depicts the September 11,
2008 blast and was provided for informational purposes. Photo 35 was not
intended to portray the August 21, 2008 blast. 
Allegation: 
Whether it's a monitoring well or a surface water sampling location, the fact is
both Pioneer Coal and the Environment Department have supposed to have been monitoring
Coal Hollow Brook all along. If the required monitoring was
done then why didn't Environment's Monitoring and Compliance Inspector know something was wrong long before affected landowners filed an Application for Investigation?
So Inspector Langille can collect his own evidence and can investigate his own monitoring data that's not available to the public when it suits him.
CASM's testing of the excavated pit by the shore showed evidence of salt water
intrusion. Excavation #2 has not proceeded according to the approved reclamation plan, why not? Has NSE identified any salt water intrusion from the mining activities?
There was an extreme precipitation event and the area around the pump house obviously flooded. What additional evidence does the Inspector need that the system was not capable of pumping the runoff into the underground workings as required by the Approval? Why did the area flood, where did the water come from, where did the water go? If there was nothing wrong why did they install a new pipeline to the underground portals? At the interview the Inspector asked if the water was draining to the roadway ditch. The ditch is full of tall grass so you can't see it,
but you could hear a torrent of water gushing through the culvert at the driveway, so the question was answered to the best of our knowledge. Evidently the Inspector collected his elevation data long after Pioneer dug up the area to install a new pipeline, and evidently he fails to consider what the volume of water was before Photo 36 happened to be taken by a passerby.
"Visual
inspection at the front gate shows that trucks are not clean and free of loose
coal fines or debris prior to leaving the site. There is also evidence of
stockpiling and processing of coal at the site which was not included in the
environmental assessment and approval process. (Photo 37) " 
Wetlands have been discussed previously in this
report (See page 6&7). 
Evidently NSE chooses to continue to ignore their wetlands policy and what the 
Allegation: 
When and where was the public consultation on the present "reclamation plan" as required by the Approval? Evidently having an anonymous CLC that holds secret meetings is NSE's definition of "public consultation".
Allegation: 
Schedule A of the Approval states that "The facility is outlined in yellow as highlighted in Figure 1-2", shown in Photo 50. But in July 2007 Pioneer Coal strip mined an area outside of the approved mining bocks outlined in yellow and despite the Minister's statements that this area would not be mined. This led to questions of where else is Pioneer Coal allowed to mine outside of the facility outlined in yellow in Figure 1-2, where is the approved "footprint" and what's it's size? If the Inspector doesn't know where the footprint of the approved Mining Blocks is then how does he monitor and inspect it for compliance? If the public has to appeal to the Supreme Court to get anwers to such simple pertinent questions, what else is the government hiding about this project?
"Visual
inspection of the site shows that disturbance has extended beyond the 4 foot
boundary stake behind the stockpiles. (Photo 51)" 
Since NSE "is closely monitoring the operation", what more information does the public need to provide for the Inspector to proceed with an investigation of the complaints and gather his own first hand evidence? As CASM's evidence shows, NSE considers Poneer Coal to be in compliance just because their Inspector consistently fails to observe the very obvious environmental offences that everyone else can see. And evidenty there's no reason to have any faith or trust in NSE's ability to protect our environment from the predictable adverse effects of strip mining when they're so busy turning a blind eye and covering up for the mining company.
If the collective powers that be still cannot figure out what's happening at Coal Hollow Brook since Pioneer Coal started blasting and excavating in the area, and would not even know about it if the public hadn't monitored and inspected the site themselves, then what happens when the moratorium expires and they start the remediation and reclamation of the other sites across the Cape Breton Regional Municipality of over 110,000 people? Obviously calling the Environment Department is an exercise in futility.
A lot of good that does! Any wonder why the public doesn't waste their time calling the Environment Department? Is their Point Aconi "test case" considered a sucess that justifies lifting the moratorium on "reclamation" of the
13 January 2009 Nova Scotia's Environmental Assessment and Approval process is flawed, the Monitoring and Compliance process is flawed, and the Investigation process is flawed. Getting Mark Parent off the hook and making former DNR czar David Morse Minister of Environment doesn't fix the problems. Since the very beginning, the Environment Department has turned a deaf ear to what everyone has tried to tell them, has turned a blind eye to what everyone can see, has ignored the documented scientific facts and monitoring data, and refuses to acknowledge the obvious adverse effects on local residents. Local residents whose homes are being shaken by the weekly blasts and covered in smoke and dust, and disturbed by noises 24/7, and the brook through their properties has turned orange etc., have no one to call. There is no one acting on behalf of the people and communities affected by Pioneer Coal's "reclamation" project at Point Aconi, we have no say in the matter. The government's anonymous Community Liaison Committee that holds secret meetings is a revolting disgrace that no honourable person cares to be associated with, but apparently NSE won't listen to anyone else. When local residents contact NSE's Inspector he tells us to get our own evidence, or to contact Pioneer Coal's Site Manager who either doesn't answer the phone or threatens the public with his truck. When we go over the Inspector's head to the District and Regional Managers, Executive Director, Minister, and Premier they just pass the buck back to the Inspector and the circle jerk starts all over again. Because of the public's concerns based on past experiences with strip mining in the region, Schedule D(f) of the Industrial Approval requires Pioneer Coal to "bear all expenses incurred in carrying out the environmental monitoring required under the terms and conditions of this Approval". During the 2006 election campaign, the Minsters and the Premier came to town and repeatedly assured the public that this project would be closely monitored for compliance every step of the way. But despite all the resources at his disposal, NSE's Inspector has repeatedly failed to observe obvious and predictable problems at the mine site that he has the power to prevent but instead grants "exemptions" for Pioneer Coal, at the Minster's discretion. If the Environment Act and regulations are to have any meaning: 1. We need environmental Inspectors and Investigators with eyes in their heads and some common sense, and who aren't bought off by the mining companies and politicians to cover up for them, or squelched for asking pertinent questions. And who can read a map, and recognize water when they see it and collect samples in a timely manner. 2. We need a justice system that protects the rights of the people, and enforces the environmental regulations on the mining companies instead of finding loopholes and pathetic excuses for them. 3. We need a democratic government that honestly informs the public of what they're doing at the clean up, remediation, reclamation, rehabilitation or whatever at the old Prince Mine site in Point Aconi and province wide, and 4. We need an Approval process that requires the community's informed consent, not just of the MLA and some bureaucrats in Halifax. 5. We need a public independent panel review of strip mining Point Aconi and the province's other proposed reclamation sites across CBRM before the moratorium is lifted in April 2009, and before DNR and NSE unilaterally issue any more mining permits under the pretext of "cleaning up" old mine sites. 6. We need an independent review of burning high sulphur coal at the province's power plants and NSE's lack of enforcement of air quality regulations. As the evidence in the Section 115 Application goes to show, Nova Scotia's Environment department has failed the people of Point Aconi, again. It doesn't matter what we try to do to protect our community and water resources from the well known adverse effects of strip mining, NSE's turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to local residents' well founded concerns. During the course of this investigation NSE's Inspector told us to call DOT and DNR and DFO and Devco and Environment Canada ourselves, he wouldn't do it. 7. We need an Environment department that does the job it's meant to do, and treats the public with all due respect. 8. We need a One Window process for the people and communities being adversely affected by these mining projects instead of being excluded from the process altogether or given the runaround at best. 9. We need field inspectors and managers and directors and ministers who actually walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, and even then don't know what they're talking about. Rodney MacDonald and his Cabinet Ministers have had their chance to prove they can cleanup their flagship test case in Point Aconi the "environmentally right way" and with proper public consultation. Their three years are up in April! 10. We need those responsible held accountable for what they've done to over 100 acres of healthy coastal woodlands and wetlands and wildlife habitat and local residences at the mouth of the Bras d'Or Lakes despite what everyone tried to tell them. Otherwise, who's next? New Environment Minister Morse is invited to respond to the public's concerns but naturally there's no reason to hold our breath. |
2006 - Along Sherie Lee Lane, Point Aconi: |
|
|
"It is abundantly clear that the land on this property is in a derelict state, from years of underground mining and bootlegging. There can be no question that a significant effort is required to return this property to a safe and productive state, and it remains my conviction that the best means to effect this is to allow the remaining coal to be recovered, and to allow this recovery to pay for the remediation. I believe that the end result will be a benefit for the land and for the community."
| Home | Documents | News | Status | Comments | Links | Contact Us |