IMPORTANT NEWS
Important Public Meeting Regarding the importation of carcinogenic material entering into the Tomerong quarry
Monday 19 th March at 7:30pm at Tomerong Hall
Invited:
EPA, Council staff and councillors, Shelly Hancock
(member for South Coast), Mayor, Residents and media.
http://www.tomeronghall.com/
http://www.tomerong.com/tomerong-community- forum.htm
EPA, Council staff and councillors, Shelly Hancock
(member for South Coast), Mayor, Residents and media.
http://www.tomeronghall.com/
http://www.tomerong.com/tomerong-community- forum.htm
Questions requiring answers for community meeting 19 th March 2018
Tomerong Community Forum
PO Box 1100,
Tomerong NSW 2540
www.tomerong.com email; [email protected]
Date; 5 th Match 2018
Questions requiring answers for community meeting 19 th March 2018
As neither Council DA consent conditions and EPA licence approves the importation of
material and the exportation of material other than the extracted shale product, the
operators of the quarry have been using it as a transfer station and receiving and exporting
waste products. They have been issued penalty notices from Council for this offence of
operating a transfer station and receiving waste.
As the material brought into the quarry is classified as waste, as they have “no Consent or
licence” to import it for blending purposes, then under the under the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997 all waste is required to be tracked. Even if the operators state
that it was for road pavement, base and sub base structures we refer to the following extract from
www.epa.nsw.gov.au 1 Resource Recovery Exemption under Part 9, Clauses 91 and 92 of the Protection
of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014. The coal ash exemption 2014
The extract reads “Regardless of any exemption provided by the EPA, the person who causes or
permits the application of the substance to land must ensure that the action is lawful and consistent
with any other legislative requirements including, if applicable, any development consent(s) for
managing operations on the site.
The receipt of coal ash remains subject to other relevant environmental regulations in the POEO Act
and Waste Regulation. For example, a person who pollutes land (s. 142A), or water (s. 120), or causes
air pollution through the emission of odours (s. 126), or does not meet the special requirements for
asbestos waste (Part 7 of the Waste Regulation), regardless of having an exemption, is guilty of an
offence and subject to prosecution.
This exemption does not alter the requirements of any other relevant legislation that must be met in
utilising this material, including for example, the need to prepare a Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
Failure to comply with the conditions of this exemption constitutes an offence under clause 91 of the
Waste Regulation.”
Based on the information above and the close ties Shoalhaven Quarries and SCE Recycling
[Nowra] have with their Parent company SCE-Aust, who operated Dump 21[contaminated]
depot near Port Kembla and as their main business was slag we fear that other
contaminated material may have been brought to site illegally and “blended” and in the
interest of Public health and safety request answers to all the following questions.
[2]
EPA:
1. Is the EPA aware of any asbestos buried in the quarry, have any clearance certificates
been issued? We believe asbestos is on site and request diligent investigation not
“farming”. What is the EPA’ s position on material buried outside consent or
licencing conditions and with regard to the POEO Act?
2. In the interest of public health and safety will the EPA “track” what material and/or
slag has been imported into the quarry from 2009 and has it been handled/stored
and disposed of according to hazmat regulations and the POEO Act? [refer SCE-Aust
website advocating importation of slag and other materials]
3. Will the EPA advise other relevant Government Department’s [Dept of Health/Water
etc] of the contaminated material illegally imported into the quarry and enforce
rigorous testing of our tank water [sludge at bottom of tanks], our schools and areas
along transport routes in close proximity to the quarry, the silt traps on the property
and Tomerong creek downstream, as with no dust protection we all could have
experienced contamination? This testing can be funded under the POEO Act
“polluter pays”. The Community are the innocents in this issue and we will be
pursuing this if need be though any and all legal channels available.
4. Dust photos show plenty of dust generated by quarry and tail out dust by trucks
which have not diminised since 2009. Can the EPA provide written or photographic
evidence that all wheel washing and/or dust controls in accordance with the POEO
Act and quarry licence were in place and fully operational during their yearly
inspections
5. The Community has raised the issue of dust, material being imported into the quarry
since 2009 to 2017 with Council, from Mr Russ Pigg General Manager and his
Directors and staff. Does the EPA have any correspondence from Council advising of
our concerns?
6. Will the EPA consider that Member for South Coast Shelley Hancock be our direct
community liaison between govt departments and the Forum on this matter as a
means on enforcing compliance and providing assurance to her community?
7. Was the EPA aware in any inspections, correspondence that material was being
imported and did they receive appropriate SDS {Safety Data Sheets] for their
records?
[3]
Shoalhaven City Council [Staff]
1. The Current Quarry Operator advocated the importation of slag amongst other
materials into the quarry in his webpage and was found to be importing fly ash in
2016, Slag and fly ash have cacogenic properties and according to HAZMAT
guidelines must be stored in appropriate hoppers containers etc. What is Councils
position on the risk exposure to workers/community/council roadworkers etc?
2. Was Council staff aware that imported products were being mixed with extracted
material. [There is evidence in DA90/1912 that Tomerong Quarry were advised by
formal letter refD12/187315 in 2012.] If so why was the community/ council workers
and people exposed to the potentially cacogenic/hazardous material not advised of
such?
3. Council instigated Court orders [sec 15] against the quarry for exceeding 1,000
tonne/day [Condition 14[h] of consent] in 2012, they were withdrawn on the basis
that the quarry would comply, the quarry has breached this numerous time in fact
135 days in one year alone. This is a clear breach of the L&E court orders and DA
consent. Why did Council not enforce compliance with orders by requesting
weighbridge records? Why did Council only issue 3 fines on the above not
prosecute to the full extent on this obvious breach of consent? TCF knows of other
incidents where a landowner has cut down several trees and been fined for each
tree, why not the same?
4. John Hatton AO [ former shire council president, member for South Coast 1973-
1995] wrote to GM Russ Pigg urging him to take diligent action on reports of non-
compliance of this quarry in 2011 urging him to take a” meaningful, fair, non-
partisan process and action by SCC” Any Investigation on compliance did not amount
to much as the quarry continuously breached its consent up until 2017. What is the
response of the General Manager on this issue?
5. Why has Council staff approved sec 96 modifications allowing a 17-year extension of
operating consent without enforcing the conditions of the consent. The exit roads
are still not sealed, nor is there a dust free area around the weighbridge and office
/car park refer DA90/1912 and DS02/1087.
[4]
How can Council claim to be non-partisan when one operation gets 17-year
operational extension without compliance of consent allowed and a similar
operation has to put in a full DA to relocate an office and weighbridge on its quarry?
6. Rehabilitation;
The DA is acted over the land, the landowners are not in a position to fund
rehabilitation.
Past and present quarry operators have sold of rehabilitation material for an
illegal commercial profit. Council is aware of this, why has council not
prosecuted prior to 2017?
There are volumes of letters to Mr. Russ Pigg and his staff expressing grave
concerns that the ratepayers will be faced with the rehabilitation costs. At
the April 2017 meeting Quarry operator said approx. 800,000 tonnes would
be needed to rehabilitate. Despite letters dated from 2009 to 2018 to Mr
Pigg, and a motion moved by Councillor Findley, carried by Councillors in
2012 to have staff prepare a report on the Rehabilitation issue the TCF is not
aware of any consent conditions surety or deed of arrangements in place. We
are still exposed Why?
“Note; the Forum for 5years has advised the Manager and then Director that
the Forum was advised from the Mines Inspectorate that it had no consent
on the rehabilitation as it was not a mine but a clamshell quarry and that
Council is the “consent authority”
Why was a Mining Operation and Rehabilitation Plan prepared by the quarry
in 2011 and lodged in 2012 not assessed by Council staff? Even if not fully
compliant it does not take over 5 years to get it approved?
Summation;
We want to feel safe from potential harmful/hazardous material caused by
the quarry operators. State Govt and Council jointly has a duty of care to
provide this.
We wish our State member to act in our best interest and pursue this issue
diligently and rigorously to provide clearance and closure.
We wish our State member to enforce whatever means necessary to ensure
the offending companies and individuals are fined to the full extent for the
risk to public health and safety imposed on us.
[5]
The Residents of Tomerong and the Forum have raised concerns for many
years over this operation and our concerns until very recently have fallen on
deaf ears, at both a local Govt and State level and we would relish a full
investigation of this matter.
Regards
Tomerong Community Forum
Kate Child Peter Allison
Secretary President
PO Box 1100,
Tomerong NSW 2540
www.tomerong.com email; [email protected]
Date; 5 th Match 2018
Questions requiring answers for community meeting 19 th March 2018
As neither Council DA consent conditions and EPA licence approves the importation of
material and the exportation of material other than the extracted shale product, the
operators of the quarry have been using it as a transfer station and receiving and exporting
waste products. They have been issued penalty notices from Council for this offence of
operating a transfer station and receiving waste.
As the material brought into the quarry is classified as waste, as they have “no Consent or
licence” to import it for blending purposes, then under the under the Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997 all waste is required to be tracked. Even if the operators state
that it was for road pavement, base and sub base structures we refer to the following extract from
www.epa.nsw.gov.au 1 Resource Recovery Exemption under Part 9, Clauses 91 and 92 of the Protection
of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014. The coal ash exemption 2014
The extract reads “Regardless of any exemption provided by the EPA, the person who causes or
permits the application of the substance to land must ensure that the action is lawful and consistent
with any other legislative requirements including, if applicable, any development consent(s) for
managing operations on the site.
The receipt of coal ash remains subject to other relevant environmental regulations in the POEO Act
and Waste Regulation. For example, a person who pollutes land (s. 142A), or water (s. 120), or causes
air pollution through the emission of odours (s. 126), or does not meet the special requirements for
asbestos waste (Part 7 of the Waste Regulation), regardless of having an exemption, is guilty of an
offence and subject to prosecution.
This exemption does not alter the requirements of any other relevant legislation that must be met in
utilising this material, including for example, the need to prepare a Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
Failure to comply with the conditions of this exemption constitutes an offence under clause 91 of the
Waste Regulation.”
Based on the information above and the close ties Shoalhaven Quarries and SCE Recycling
[Nowra] have with their Parent company SCE-Aust, who operated Dump 21[contaminated]
depot near Port Kembla and as their main business was slag we fear that other
contaminated material may have been brought to site illegally and “blended” and in the
interest of Public health and safety request answers to all the following questions.
[2]
EPA:
1. Is the EPA aware of any asbestos buried in the quarry, have any clearance certificates
been issued? We believe asbestos is on site and request diligent investigation not
“farming”. What is the EPA’ s position on material buried outside consent or
licencing conditions and with regard to the POEO Act?
2. In the interest of public health and safety will the EPA “track” what material and/or
slag has been imported into the quarry from 2009 and has it been handled/stored
and disposed of according to hazmat regulations and the POEO Act? [refer SCE-Aust
website advocating importation of slag and other materials]
3. Will the EPA advise other relevant Government Department’s [Dept of Health/Water
etc] of the contaminated material illegally imported into the quarry and enforce
rigorous testing of our tank water [sludge at bottom of tanks], our schools and areas
along transport routes in close proximity to the quarry, the silt traps on the property
and Tomerong creek downstream, as with no dust protection we all could have
experienced contamination? This testing can be funded under the POEO Act
“polluter pays”. The Community are the innocents in this issue and we will be
pursuing this if need be though any and all legal channels available.
4. Dust photos show plenty of dust generated by quarry and tail out dust by trucks
which have not diminised since 2009. Can the EPA provide written or photographic
evidence that all wheel washing and/or dust controls in accordance with the POEO
Act and quarry licence were in place and fully operational during their yearly
inspections
5. The Community has raised the issue of dust, material being imported into the quarry
since 2009 to 2017 with Council, from Mr Russ Pigg General Manager and his
Directors and staff. Does the EPA have any correspondence from Council advising of
our concerns?
6. Will the EPA consider that Member for South Coast Shelley Hancock be our direct
community liaison between govt departments and the Forum on this matter as a
means on enforcing compliance and providing assurance to her community?
7. Was the EPA aware in any inspections, correspondence that material was being
imported and did they receive appropriate SDS {Safety Data Sheets] for their
records?
[3]
Shoalhaven City Council [Staff]
1. The Current Quarry Operator advocated the importation of slag amongst other
materials into the quarry in his webpage and was found to be importing fly ash in
2016, Slag and fly ash have cacogenic properties and according to HAZMAT
guidelines must be stored in appropriate hoppers containers etc. What is Councils
position on the risk exposure to workers/community/council roadworkers etc?
2. Was Council staff aware that imported products were being mixed with extracted
material. [There is evidence in DA90/1912 that Tomerong Quarry were advised by
formal letter refD12/187315 in 2012.] If so why was the community/ council workers
and people exposed to the potentially cacogenic/hazardous material not advised of
such?
3. Council instigated Court orders [sec 15] against the quarry for exceeding 1,000
tonne/day [Condition 14[h] of consent] in 2012, they were withdrawn on the basis
that the quarry would comply, the quarry has breached this numerous time in fact
135 days in one year alone. This is a clear breach of the L&E court orders and DA
consent. Why did Council not enforce compliance with orders by requesting
weighbridge records? Why did Council only issue 3 fines on the above not
prosecute to the full extent on this obvious breach of consent? TCF knows of other
incidents where a landowner has cut down several trees and been fined for each
tree, why not the same?
4. John Hatton AO [ former shire council president, member for South Coast 1973-
1995] wrote to GM Russ Pigg urging him to take diligent action on reports of non-
compliance of this quarry in 2011 urging him to take a” meaningful, fair, non-
partisan process and action by SCC” Any Investigation on compliance did not amount
to much as the quarry continuously breached its consent up until 2017. What is the
response of the General Manager on this issue?
5. Why has Council staff approved sec 96 modifications allowing a 17-year extension of
operating consent without enforcing the conditions of the consent. The exit roads
are still not sealed, nor is there a dust free area around the weighbridge and office
/car park refer DA90/1912 and DS02/1087.
[4]
How can Council claim to be non-partisan when one operation gets 17-year
operational extension without compliance of consent allowed and a similar
operation has to put in a full DA to relocate an office and weighbridge on its quarry?
6. Rehabilitation;
The DA is acted over the land, the landowners are not in a position to fund
rehabilitation.
Past and present quarry operators have sold of rehabilitation material for an
illegal commercial profit. Council is aware of this, why has council not
prosecuted prior to 2017?
There are volumes of letters to Mr. Russ Pigg and his staff expressing grave
concerns that the ratepayers will be faced with the rehabilitation costs. At
the April 2017 meeting Quarry operator said approx. 800,000 tonnes would
be needed to rehabilitate. Despite letters dated from 2009 to 2018 to Mr
Pigg, and a motion moved by Councillor Findley, carried by Councillors in
2012 to have staff prepare a report on the Rehabilitation issue the TCF is not
aware of any consent conditions surety or deed of arrangements in place. We
are still exposed Why?
“Note; the Forum for 5years has advised the Manager and then Director that
the Forum was advised from the Mines Inspectorate that it had no consent
on the rehabilitation as it was not a mine but a clamshell quarry and that
Council is the “consent authority”
Why was a Mining Operation and Rehabilitation Plan prepared by the quarry
in 2011 and lodged in 2012 not assessed by Council staff? Even if not fully
compliant it does not take over 5 years to get it approved?
Summation;
We want to feel safe from potential harmful/hazardous material caused by
the quarry operators. State Govt and Council jointly has a duty of care to
provide this.
We wish our State member to act in our best interest and pursue this issue
diligently and rigorously to provide clearance and closure.
We wish our State member to enforce whatever means necessary to ensure
the offending companies and individuals are fined to the full extent for the
risk to public health and safety imposed on us.
[5]
The Residents of Tomerong and the Forum have raised concerns for many
years over this operation and our concerns until very recently have fallen on
deaf ears, at both a local Govt and State level and we would relish a full
investigation of this matter.
Regards
Tomerong Community Forum
Kate Child Peter Allison
Secretary President
News about the Hall ...
The car park has recently been upgraded to a hard surface with parking line-marking. Many thanks to Shoalhaven City Council who provided this for us and to the Tomerong Forum who added timber stoppers!
Plans for upgrading of the Hall
The School of Arts Committee has a number of proposals under consideration for improvement of the Hall and facilities. These include: Addition of Disabled toilet facilities and performer Change Room (our next major project).
Expansion of back verandah. Addition of verandah on Northern side to mirror that on the Southern - plus levelling off the ramp to side door. Completion of stage refurbishment. Upgrade of Storeroom. Renovation of existing toilet facilities. Repainting of the inside of the Hall. Upgrade of the pathways and other sections of the grounds.
Plans have been given Council approval and the tender process has begun. More information will be posted as it becomes available.
Expansion of back verandah. Addition of verandah on Northern side to mirror that on the Southern - plus levelling off the ramp to side door. Completion of stage refurbishment. Upgrade of Storeroom. Renovation of existing toilet facilities. Repainting of the inside of the Hall. Upgrade of the pathways and other sections of the grounds.
Plans have been given Council approval and the tender process has begun. More information will be posted as it becomes available.
