EPA has major conflict of interest over landfill

One of our readers points out that the Central Coast is different than SydneyOne of our readers points out that the Central Coast is different than Sydney

In response to the media release from EPA’s, Mr Adam Gilligan, (CCN Jan 28), entitled ‘Katandra Poultry Farm fined $7,500 by EPA’, it is good to know the EPA is closely watching over the Community’s interest.

Regrettably, none of Mr Gilligan’s laudable sentiments appears to apply to the giant landfill site at Central Mangrove, about to get much bigger. Perhaps Mr Gilligan would like to take an interest in this operation also, or is it untouchable?

“Good sediment and erosion controls in place”? No. There are an estimated 19 million litres of sedimentladen water sitting in just one excavated area, Cell W, which is supposed to be kept empty for receipt of a lining and yet more fill.

“Sediment-laden waters leaving the site and entering watercourses?” Yes. Both Hallard’s Creek and Stringybark Creek have been the recipient of multiple sediment-laden run-off events and this water flows directly into the Central Coast’s drinking water supplies via Mardi Dam.

“The EPA expects licensees to comply with their licence at all times?” Unless you are big business, and then it will reissue multiple licences to suit the breaches, as with Environmental Protection License No. 11395 for Central Mangrove Waste Landfill.

“Penalty notices are one of a number of tools the EPA can use to achieve environmental compliance, including formal warnings, licence conditions, notices and directions, mandatory audits, enforceable undertakings, legally binding pollution reduction programs and prosecutions.”

So, since 1998, when the DA was approved, which tools has the EPA used to enforce compliance at the Landfill, now that the original approval for 80,000 m3 of fill to re-contour a golf course has blown out to 800,000 m3 ? Following a cosy deal between The EPA, Gosford Council and the operator in 2014, it now has approval for an additional 1,317,503 m3 of fill to be placed in the original site.

What exactly may we expect of a “proportionate regulatory response”? When the EPA, through waste levies, has made and will make millions of dollars from this landfill, it is valid to ask the question, ‘is there not a huge conflict of interest here’? Should the regulator also be the benefactor? Should the operator be permitted to do its own monitoring and reporting, as happens now?

The Mountain Districts Association has recently presented a 163-page submission calling for a Commission of Enquiry into the Landfill to The Premier’s Office, Parliament House. Please support us in any way that you can.

Email, Feb 5, 2016 Marilyn Steiner, Mountain Districts Association