Workshop Backgrounds

Environmental Education to Develop Management Systems for the Local Environment

Workshop Series 1: Waste Management

6 November 2003

Analysis: Develop a Materials Flow Diagram using Waste Stream Analysis

Introduction:

A waste stream analysis takes a sample of collected waste and identifies all its components. Conducting a waste stream analysis provides a good snapshot of waste composition and is important for designing an integrated waste management plan that promotes avoidance, reduction, reuse, and recycling. Ongoing waste stream analysis can be used to track trends over time, compare results with other organisations, determine the success of waste programs and communicate information to stakeholders.

A Materials flow diagram illustrates the material inputs and outputs of a product or service. It can be used to trace how a material moves from point to point and any changes made to that material. Used in conjunction with the findings of a waste stream analysis, a materials flow diagram provides a picture of a local authority’s existing waste management system. The current performance and flaws in the system can be identified and addressed.

Exercise:

In three groups, develop a materials flow diagram using waste stream analysis for waste cloth, or tyres or paper.

Output:

The output of this exercise is a materials flow diagram for a certain waste product.

Learning Objectives:

The aim of this exercise is gain an understanding of material flow diagrams and waste stream analysis and their benefits.

NOTES

Workshop Series 1: Waste Management

6 November 2003

Simulation: Waste Handling Facility Accident

Introduction:

Despite an organisation’s best efforts, the possibility of accidents and other emergency situations still exist. Effective planning and preparation can reduce injuries, protect employees, neighbours and the environment and reduce asset losses.

An emergency preparedness and response plan is part of any environmental management system (EMS). This plan should be regularly reviewed; incorporate training; identify potential emergency situations; and include provisions for:

  • Assessing the potential for accidents and emergencies
  • Preventing incidents and their associated environmental impacts
  • Implementing plans/procedures for responding to incidents and periodic testing of the plans/procedures
  • Mitigating impacts associated with incidents.

Simulation Information:

The state pollution and environment authority ordered the local authority’s waste depot to empty a leachate dam of one of its tips. This dam was then to be converted from a poorly constructed dam to a structurally sound and appropriately designed leachate catch and treatment dam. The state pollution and environment authority advised that the leachate should be stored or disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.

Acting upon this order, the local authority pumped leachate out of the dam and dispersed it onto the ground over a number of days. The direction of the discharge was such that a large quantity of leachate flowed into the nature reserve and creek. The volume of flow cause some damage to plants in the nature reserve and the small size of the creek meant it had limited capacity to dilute contaminants.

Exercise:

In assigned groups (local authority, community, environmental authority), respond to the contamination/pollution incident, resolve any issues between the groups and develop an emergency preparedness and response plan for the waste facility.

Output:

The output of this exercise is an emergency preparedness and response plan for a waste facility.

Learning Objectives:

The aim of this exercise is to resolve conflicts between different groups, react to an emergency and develop an emergency preparedness and response plan.

For more Information:

Refer to Chapter 19 of the “Urban Environmental Management – Environmental Management System Training Resource Kit” and “Environmental Protection Authority v Bega Shire Council” attached, or website:

Workshop Series 1: Waste Management

6 November 2003

Simulation Attachment: Environment Protection Authority

vBega Valley Shire Council

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

Record of hearing

Judge Sheahan J

Number 50011-50013 of 1998

PartiesProsecutorENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

DefendantBEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCIL

Key issues•Unlawful disposal of waste on land - breach of Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 - plea of guilty

• Sentencing principles - extent of actual environmental harm at lower end of scale - deliberate acts attract special significance in sentencing

Statutes•Clean Waters Act 1970

•Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989

•Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995

•National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974

•Crimes Act 1900

•Clean Waters Regulations 1972

Hearing dates16 July 1998

JudgmentReserved

Date of judgment14August 1998

AppearancesProsecutorMs J Kelly, Barrister

DefendantMr S Austin, QC

SolicitorsProsecutorSteven Garrett of EPA

DefendantMr J Sautelle, Sautelle & White

Number of pages33

Summary of orders•In Matter Nos.50011 and 50013 of 1998 - the summonses are dismissed with no order as to costs.

•In Matter No.50012 of 1998

-the Defendant is convicted of the offence charged.

-the Defendant is to pay a fine of $50,000 within one month.

-the Defendant is ordered to pay the just and reasonable costs of the Prosecutor, within one month of their agreement or determination.

•Exhibits to be returned.

CONTENTS

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

THE RELEVANT FACTS

The Tip and the Nature Reserve

The Decisions and Actions of Council Relevant to the Charge (1996)

The Events of January 1997

Finding and Conviction

The Impact of the Incident

Subsequent Events

THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

THE COUNCIL’S MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

RELEVANT AUTHORITIES

Counsel for the Council

Counsel for the EPA

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS ON PENALTY

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

<pre>
IN THE LAND AND Matter Nos: 50011-50013 of 1998
ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Sheahan J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES14 August 1998
</pre>ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Prosecutor

v

BEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCIL
Defendant

JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

Bega Valley Shire Council (“Council”) appears in response to three charges in Class 5 of the Court’s jurisdiction.
They arise out of the same incident in January 1997, which did not come to the notice of the Prosecutor (“EPA”), until late in 1997.
In matters numbered 50011 and 50013, charges are brought for offences against the Environmental Offences & Penalties Act 1989 (“EOPA”) in respect of alleged breaches of s 16(1) of the Clean Waters Act 1970. The Prosecutor offers no evidence in respect of those two charges and agrees that they should be dismissed.
In matter No.50012 of 1998, the Council entered a plea of guilty on 16 April 1998 to the charge that:

“between 13 and 16 January 1997 inclusive at Merimbula … it committed an offence against the [EOPA] in that it did, without lawful authority, dispose of waste on land, contrary to s 63(1) of the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995” (“the Waste Act”) (emphasis added).

Section 63(1) provides:

“If a person, without lawful authority, disposes of waste on any land, the person and, if the person is not the owner of the waste, the owner, are each guilty of an offence against the [EOPA].”

Council is now before the Court on questions of conviction, penalty, and costs in respect of that remaining charge, the particulars of which are that:

  • The “waste” was “leachate containing phosphorus, ammonia, BOD’s, COD’s, organic nitrogen and suspended solids”; and
  • The “land” was Bournda Nature Reserve, having an area of 5831 ha, which was gazetted on 28 June 1972. (See s 49(3) of the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974).

Landfill leachate is defined in the evidence as the liquid that percolates through landfills, as a result of the infiltration of rainwater and/or groundwater, and the decomposition of waste. It typically contains high concentrations of dissolved substances and suspended solids, and may cause serious water pollution if not properly managed.
The volume of leachate which found its way onto the lands within Bournda Nature Reserve in this case is unknown, but the evidence suggests, and it has been agreed between the parties, that it amounted to “a large quantity, possibly millions of litres” (par 19 of Exhibit P1). In fairness to Council, none of the evidence suggests that any more than 2 million litres was involved.
The offence charged carries a maximum penalty, for a corporation, of $125,000 under EOPA s 8D(1)(a).

THE RELEVANT FACTS

The parties agreed to a Statement of Facts which was tendered as Exhibit P1. Not all of the contents of that agreed statement need be repeated in this judgment but the salient details are included in what follows.

The Tip and the Nature Reserve

Council is a multi-purpose country local government council, which has a population of 28,000 people, an area of 6,000 square kilometres, and a budget of $40 million per annum, but only 28% of its land is rateable.
It runs 6 landfill waste depots and 5 transfer stations (Exhibit C2).
One of the Council’s landfill waste depots is located on Sapphire Coast Drive, Merimbula (“the tip”), which is on a Crown Reserve, vested in Council.
It would appear that the tip site was set aside in 1953, and that the nature reserve was established or declared on 28 June 1972.
The presence of landfill odours within parts of the nature reserve must, therefore, be considered as typical of its background conditions, and the odours generated by the leachate in this case would be typical of those generated by a landfill operation. (Exhibit C1).
Maps of the district show the tip’s proximity to Bournda Nature Reserve, the southern and south-eastern boundary of which it adjoins (see Exhibits P3, P8, P9, P10 and P11).
The tip is located on the top of a ridge.
The terrain in the nature reserve near the tip is hilly and uneven, with the ground falling steeply to the north.
The area contains several gullies which all lead to a valley located some 400-500 metres from the northern boundary of the tip. A creek flows along the base of the valley in a north-east direction.
The water courses leading away from it are normally dry and would eventually reach perennial streams or water bodies. The topographic map indicates the creeks in the area are relatively small and would have limited capacity to dilute contaminants.
Dry conditions prevailed at the relevant time, and no leachate pollution is alleged to have occurred in any known watercourse.
Council appears to have adopted a rationalisation strategy which will reduce the number of landfill depots to two, one of which will be the existing facility at Eden, and the other a new facility at Jellat near Bega. The tip has a life expectancy of 6-12 months, and is expected to be closed in the near future.
Exhibit P2 indicates that Council makes no charge at the tip for what might be generally described as domestic loads, carried in by sedans, station wagons, and single axle trailers, but charges are levied for loads deposited by vehicles in excess of 1 tonne capacity.
Relevant information about the nature reserve is included in the extract of the relevant Plan of Management (Exhibit P13).
In conjunction with nearby Bournda National Park, the nature reserve “protect[s] a major part of a coastal land system” which in turn is part of “a beautiful, interesting, and in places spectacular, landscape. The nature reserve provides a scenic backdrop to the south-eastern Bega Valley”.
It has “geologically interesting features”, “most diverse temperate moist forests”, “significant plant species”, “a range of Aboriginal sites”, and a “variety of habitats” for “a diverse range of plant and animal communities, including several which are poorly preserved in the region”.
It is agreed between the parties that the nature reserve contains Late Devonian sediments/soils which are naturally low in nutrients, and that the vegetation in the area near the tip has adapted to soils of low nutrients (Exhibit P1 par 20).

The Decisions and Actions of Council Relevant to the Charge (1996)

In or around late 1995 or early 1996, Council’s Northern Manager of Building & Planning Services (“Fuller”) became concerned about the collection of leachate from the waste at the tip.
He instructed Council staff to construct a dam on the site to collect leachate and to allow the contents of the “operating cell” of the tip to be emptied into it.
The “operating cell” is the pit which is, at any particular time, currently receiving waste brought to the tip for disposal.
Exhibit P4 shows the collection of leachate waters in the dam, and Exhibit P11 shows the location of the cell close to the boundary of the nature reserve, and generally north of the dam, in the north-western end of the tip, parallel to the nature reserve which was about 3 metres away on a downhill slope.
In July 1996, there were discussions between Fuller and officers of the EPA about ensuring that no pollution occurred from the dam.
The relevant EPA officer was concerned about the stability of the wall of the leachate dam and that there be no over-topping or breach of that wall. Fuller told him that the Council intended pumping the leachate “back to the existing pits which are up the top”.
Following a further inspection by Fuller and an EPA officer in December 1996, the EPA wrote to Council on 10 December 1996 (Exhibit P5) setting out its concerns about the waste depot including the structure of the leachate dam, and recommending that the dam be drained prior to its removal or reinforcement:

“Council is directed to take immediate action to pump the polluted material from the poorly constructed dam and dispose or store such material in a (sic) environmentally acceptable manner. The dam should then be either removed or converted to a structurally sound and appropriately designed leachate catch and treatment dam”.

The letter observed that a failure of the dam, involving:

“The release of such a large volume of polluted waters (the black staining of the waters probably indicating that the leachate collected has a significant biochemical oxygen demand), would undoubtedly cause a significant adverse effect to the environment downstream”.

Council responded by letter dated 17 December 1996 (Exhibit P6) noting the concerns and indicating that “the dam will be pumped out and spray irrigated over the rest of the site. It is then Council’s intention to remove the dam”.
On or about 20 December 1996, Fuller instructed a contractor to pump leachate from the dam to the cell.
The Agreed Statement of Facts indicates that after some days of pumping it became apparent that there was a substantial amount of water in the cell, and that garbage was floating in it.
In late December 1996, Fuller took one month’s leave. No-one was specifically delegated to look after his job during that period, but Council had an “understanding” that two other officers, Allison and Arkinstall, would “oversee matters” at the tip.

The Events of January 1997

Fuller visited the tip on 7 January 1997 and gave instructions to someone (unidentified) to remove the hose from the cell, cut a drain and allow the leachate to run onto and irrigate the ground while the cell dried out.
Fuller did not notify anyone else of this decision and instructions - in particular, he did not tell Arkinstall or Allison.
The pump operator, Griffin, placed the hose outside the cell in an area close to the nature reserve, but when his pump failed, he left the site.
Fuller has since stated that he “trusted those involved to stop when they considered that the area had reached saturation”.
Council ganger, Grant, took over pumping operations on 10 January but no pumping took place on 10, 11 or 12 January.
After collecting a new pump and changing the battery, pumping recommenced on 13 January 1997.
The hose was on the ground, secured on or about 13 January 1997 to a steel “star picket” by a short length of wire, and the picket driven into the ground near the discharge end of the hose.
Grant followed the leachate flow into the nature reserve for a distance of about 500 metres. He dug two trenches into a V-shape to “act as a contour drain to allow the discharge to disperse into the bushland rather than just pour out in one continuous stream”.
Grant attended the site on a number of occasions on 13, 14, 15 and 16 January 1997 to fill the pump with fuel in order to continue the pumping operation.
The hose remained in its same position throughout that period, providing a 3 inch flow, observed by Wells, Council’s Tip Manager and Recycling Supervisor (a contractor to the Council).
On the afternoon of 16 January 1997, Allison followed the leachate path for approximately 65 metres into the nature reserve. Although the leachate was observed to be “foaming” and “green”, he did not order that the pumping be stopped.
On 16 January 1997 Wells saw “dark smelly water coming from the pipe and into the bush”. He neither reported what he had seen, nor tried to stop it (see photographs in Exhibit P12, taken approximately 16 January 1997).
Another Council officer, Everett, visited the tip on the afternoon of 16 January 1997.
He observed that the dam was nearly empty and ordered the pumping to cease. He had earlier arranged for three holes to be cut in the dam wall to act as a spillway. (The breaches of the dam wall are shown in the two photographs in Exhibit P7, taken 29 January 1997).
He also saw leachate flowing from the hose in the direction of the nature reserve.
It is agreed that pumping ceased at approximately 4pm on Thursday 16 January 1997.