Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
Bob Duncan was one of Anne’s colleagues, and an officer at DPI
Bob arranged with Peter McWhinney of council to meet and together do a “surprise” inspection at CASACIR’s Neerim North quarry site. However, Bob called in at CASACIR’s Mt Speed Quarry on the way through and told the manager there that he was going to meet with Peter to do a surprise inspection at the Neerim North quarry. Needless to say, the manager would have told the NN quarry of the intended visit (as I believe was the intent). Meanwhile, Peter, because Bob was later than expected, went into the NN quarry to let them know he was there. So much for a “surprise” visit – both Bob and Peter made sure that man X, man Y and/or CASACIR knew that the “surprise” visit would be taking place! Sadly, this was typical of the level of DPI’s “oversight”.
Bob repeatedly excused man X, man Y and CASACIR’s failures to comply, and deceived the community at a meeting, in particular about the 110 Notice that he had personally signed.
Bob did site inspections and at times failed to be entirely honest in findings in some of audit and site reports, particularly about the illegal works done on Kookaburra Creek. Even when he was entirely honest in his reports and audits, he failed to follow through and demand change or compliance with legal requirements. This included: (1) issues were noted and marked as serious but ignored, and (2) also being marked as satisfactory although being marked as serious breaches. For example:
Failures in just 2 of Bob’s audits
2.1 of Bob’s audit dated 9 March 2010 noted the requirement that “Posts erected to define boundary – clearly visible” and Bob answered “Northern boundary is not visible post to post” – my comments and observations: Clearly this was a breach yet nothing was enforced and, in fact, Bob didn’t even comment on it again in later audits in spite of the breach remaining. Further, Bob would have had to be able to see around corners and through hills to be able to have seen a number of the other posts in other locations. Clearly Bob felt it was not enforceable.
2.2 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the demand for “Signage posted at entrance” and in both audits Bob answered “Complaints or enquiry contact number needed” – my comments and observations: Bob could see that, 7 months and then 2 years after man X, man Y and CASACIR had commenced works at the quarry, they still had not complied with the demand for the proper signage details, yet he felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
3.5 of Bob’s audit dated 2 August 2011 noted the question: “Are there any area of the site or extraction area that may impact on public safety” and Bob answered: “Overburden stockpiled on old mounds at eastern side of pit. This need to be moved to reduce loading on old unconsolidated material placed on the down slop to the river and reduce potential for instability” – my comments and observations: This overburden was required to be removed by both council and DPI and Bob noted that it was something that could impact on public safety, yet he did not find that the fact that man X, man Y and CASACIR decided to (a) ignore instructions to remove the overburden, and (2) ignore public and environmental safety was a breach! Clearly Bob felt it was not an enforceable action – further he ignored the fact that not only did man X, man Y and CASACIR ignore the demand to remove it, but have since added to the enormous stack in direct breach of orders, and in breach of the conditions of their work authority and permit. Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
4.1 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 both noted the question: “Has a Fire Prevention Plan been prepared? (Risk assessment and controls for various scenarios are considered and contingencies actioned)”. In his 9 March 2010 audit Bob answered: “No”, and in his 2 August 2011 audit Bob answered: “Not yet developed. Risk assessment needed. Process is:- Risk assessment – For high and medium risk develop controls – Develop a readiness plan for the control – Develop a response plan if the risk eventuates”; 4.2 in his audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011both asked “Is a Emergency Response / Fire Response and Readiness Plan in place?”. In his audit of 9 March 2010 Bob answered “On wall in office not dated or signed” and his audit of 2 August 2011 he answered: “Fire response plan on wall in office not dated or signed A fire readiness plan is needed.”; 4.3 of his audit dated 2 August 2011 noted the requirement for “Fire fighting equipment (…, fire blankets, …and rake hoes?)” and Bob answered “No rake hoes or fire blankets” – my comments and observations: in relation to 4.1 – 4.3: it must be remembered that DPI dealt with the fires of Black Saturday (including by some of the DPI officers actually fighting the fires), and man X, man Y and CASACIR had the fires of Black Saturday burn through their Jindivick quarry. Therefore, it would be logical to have thought that man X, man Y and CASACIR would be eager to have fire protection measures in place, and that DPI would be eager to enforce them. Our property was just 140m from the quarry site and we had scorch marks around the entire house[1], with burnt sticks and bark on our verandah (the opposite side from the fires which were only about 8km away – so the fire could well have strongly impacted the quarry), but DPI were so unconcerned as to not enforce the requirements, and man X, man Y and CASACIR were so unconcerned that they did not take what was indeed minimalist action to prepare for the danger of fire (who knows if they have done so even yet, in 2018?). As stated, in spite of having gone through the black Saturday fires, the audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011, reveal that man X, man Y and CASACIR systematically refused to comply with DPI demands with regard to fire protection. For example, they refused to sign the emergency response, the fire readiness plan, and they steadfastly refused to equip the site with rake hoes or fire blankets. What irresponsible conduct on man X, man Y and CASACIR’s behalf, and what poor, lax and grossly insufficient oversight to not insist on compliance. So, even 2 years after opening the quarry, man X, man Y and CASACIR had still not complied and DPI had still not enforced it! Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
7.2 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the question: “Does the Work Authority comply with all WA conditions?”. Bob answered in his audit 9 March 2010: “No. Condition 13 needs to be completed. Copy of water management plan and licences required[2]” and in his 2 August 2011 audit, he answered “No, Refer to list in field report” – my comments and observations: The water management plan was not provided for a further 15 months, and no licence was applied for or granted up until at least mid-February 2014 i.e. 2.5 years later (it may have been applied for and granted since then, but it is doubtful. In fact, it is my personal opinion based on past experience (1) that there is a possibility that DPI won’t require a licence or permit (they didn’t require one in relation to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s illegal works on Kookaburra Creek), and (2) with man X, man Y and CASACIR possibly performing the works without applying for and/or obtaining a licence or permit to do the works (they did so in relation to the works on Kookaburra Creek). Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
7.3 in Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the question: “Has there been any non compliance issues with work plan conditions or environmental issues at the site or emanating from the site” and he noted in his audit 9 March 2010 the answer: “Yes. E.g. Use of non silenced drill, post the construction phase” and in his audit 2 August 2011 he answered “Yes – Refer to list” – my comments and observations: Bob noted the use of the unsilenced drill being a breach, and noted other breaches as listed in his field report, yet did nothing about them – clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
7.4 of audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must also notify any other relevant government department or agency of the non-compliance and/or incident” and audit 9 March 2010 answered “Not done” and audit 2 August 2011 answered “Not known to be done” – my comments and observations: Bob noted that there had been breaches, non-compliance issues and incidents and that they had to be reported, yet he also noted that they had not been reported – but did nothing about it. Clearly Bob felt that breaches and the non-reporting although a mandatory requirement, was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
7.5 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “Where requested to provide a written report on the non-compliance or environmental incident, the licencee must provide a written report within 5 business days of the request” and both audits answered “No request have [sic] been made” – my comments and observations: further to my comments of 7.4 above, it is clear that Bob did not demand any reporting, thus facilitating man X, man Y and CASACIR again getting away with non-compliances. Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
10.3 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “Contaminated runoff must be prevented from entering receiving waterways” and in both audits he answered “Sump waters that overflow the containment sump seep into water course via crack in the previously shattered pit rock floor” – my comments and observations: so, any contaminants (of which there were many, including hydrocarbons from all the refuelling done on the quarry floor in breach of their permit) were not permitted to enter Kookaburra Creek, but were nonetheless allowed to enter, certainly by the admitted seepage through the rock floor. Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth stopping the pollution.
11.3 in Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The license must not undertake any excavation work, store plant equipment or product or remove any vegetation, whether in part or in whole, within any buffer zone shown on the Approved Work Plan.” and in both audits Bob answered: “Building of the bunding in the buffer is [still] progressing” – my comments and observations: Bob noted that the bund was still being built in August 2011 in spite of the “use” having commenced in at least mid September 2009 (arguably late August 2009), there was the storage of overburden in the eastern buffer (see 3.5 above, and the overburden was still stored there in 2016 in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR being told a number of times to remove it. Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
12.3 of audits dated 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must ensure that all mobile machinery is thoroughly cleaned prior to coming onto or leaving a work area. High pressure cleaner is available rom another site” and in audit 2 August 2011 he answered “No evidence of use” – my comments and observations: I have taken aerial photos on many occasions and there was no evidence of any location for any such cleaning, and there was no evidence of cleaning being or having been performed. Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
13.1 of Bob’s audits dated 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must take all reasonable measures to prevent a dust release that causes averse impacts to the surrounding area and residents” with Bob answering in his audit 2 August 2011 that the “Use of controls is sporadic and visible dust emissions are problematic” – my comments and observations: dust frequently left the site in significant amounts and impacted us, and about which I complained – and about which DPI had identified a number of other times. Further, in spite of Anne defaming me by later emphatically telling EPA that they should not believe me because neither she nor Bob had been able to find any justification in my complaints (including my complaints as to dust), Bob noted that the dust releases wereproblematic (certainly at times), proving that Anne knowingly and deliberately defamed me. Bob noted that man X, man Y and CASACIR’s use of controls was “sporadic”, but Bob clearly believed that such “sporadic” control and such “problematic” emissions were either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
14.1 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must take all reasonable measures to ensure that noise emissions are minimised as far as practicable and comply with any limits set in the approved work plan” and Bob answered in both audits that: “Drill now fitted with acoustic shroud” – my comments and observations: Bob observed that the drill undertaken before the VCAT members to be used was certainly not being used at the times the DPI personnel were out at the site and that therefore all the required measures were not being used, but clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
17.1 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must take all reasonable measures to prevent contamination of the environment by the release of fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials” and he answered in his audit 9 March 2010 man X, man Y and CASACIR’s “Part [compliance] Fuel tank is bunded. Concrete slab to be installed for fuelling. Triple interceptor to be installed. Container to be installed for hazardous materials. Spill kit for in pit emergencies to be located in pit”, and in his audit 2 August 2011 he answered “Part [compliance] Fuel tank is bunded and fuelling pad is in place. Containment to be installed for hazardous materials. Spill kit for in pit emergencies to be located in pit. Service bay is not provided for mobile plant. The use of, and servicing in pit crushing plant needs to be managed”; 17.2 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted that “The licensee must ensure that all fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials are stored in accordance with the relevant requirements of AS1940:2004. The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids, and EPA guidelines Flammable liquids above 5000L or combustible liquids above 10,000L” and in his 9 March 2010 audit he answered “Part [compliance] Work in progress” and in his 2 August 2011 audit he answered “Part [compliance] Work in progress. Diesel tank is 9,2000 litres”; 17.3 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted that “The licensee must ensure that any drainage from an area where fuels, lubricants and/or hazardous materials are stored, and/or used is directed to a sump or interceptor trap”. In his audit dated 9 March 2010, Bob noted that it was “Proposed for inclusion into fuelling station” and in 2 August 2011 audit, Bob noted the “Inclusion into fuelling station with triple interceptor trap. Service bay/bays required for mobile plant”; and 17.4 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must ensure that all mobile plant and machinery, including mobile fuel storages re fitted with spill prevention and clean up equipment” and in both audits Bob answered that the “Spill kit to be provided” – my comments and observations of 17.1 to 17.4: There are a number of responses to Bob’s responses. (a) that all reasonable measures were to be undertaken to prevent contamination, (b) Bob noted that, even though it was required prior works commencing, the concrete slab had not been installed in January 2010 (in fact, installation was not commenced for a further 8 months (until September 2010) and wasn’t finished until October 2010 – until just prior to the enforcement hearing we instigated), (b) the triple interceptor trap was not installed even 7 months and, according to Bob, not even 2 years after man X, man Y and CASACIR had commenced works, (c) there was still no spill kit provided (it was required under planning permit condition 56 to have been installed priorto works commencing and here we were 7 month and even 2 years after works had commenced and it still was not provided), (d) there was no container for the storage of hazard material stored on site, even though it was a requirement, and (e) there was no service bay for mobile plant even though it was a requirement, (f) Bob noted that servicing of machinery occurred in the open quarry pit even though it was a requirement that it not be. Clearly Bob felt all those breaches that Bob acknowledged were not enforceable actions or were not worth enforcing.
21.4 of Bob’s audit dated 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must ensure that all roads on the tenement are properly formed surface treated, drained and maintained to provide for the safe operation of the road” and in his 2 August 2011 audit Bob noted that he had “Inspected roads on the site and adjacent and … [t]he pit entry road needs to be drained and sediment structures incorporated consistent with the working proposal” – my comments and observations: Bob noted that the road had to be drained but was not drained, and that none of the sediment structures were incorporated even though they were required. Clearly Bob felt they were not enforceable actions or were not worth enforcing.
25.1 of Bob’s audits dated 9 March 2010 and 2 August 2011 noted the requirement that “The licensee must conduct all works in accordance with the working hours in the Approved Work Plan and any working hour requirements of the planning permit” and both audits answered “Currently 7.00am to 6.00pm is complied with” – my comments and observations: Bob ignored the fact that haul trucks and other machinery were started up well prior to 7am, and that road trucks were allowed to arrive from prior to 6.30am as were heavy haulage trucks delivering haul trucks and/or drills – all very loud. Clearly Bob felt that it was either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
27.1 of audit dated 9 March 2010 noted his “Follow up on notice issued and instructions given by Inspector Anne Bignell in field report AB30090004 dated 17-12-09 Which pertained to:-
- Noise mitigation measures to be adopted to reduce noise of loading the crushing plant hopper (eg. Rubber lining, do not completely empty) as soon as possible. Copy of report to DPI on finalisation. … 3. Water spray to be used on crushing plant as soon as possible. Also, on page 11 it reveals the use on site of the ROCF9C (the totally unsilenced drill)” – my comments and observations: Bob noted the fact that Anne had noted the breaches of significant noise from the loading of crushing plant hoppers, the use of the drill not allowed to be used and undertaken not to be used (yet she defamed my by telling EPA in 2012 not to believe my complaints because neither she or Bob had been able to substantiate any of my complaints). Bob ignored that some of the items noted by Anne as breaches still continued to be breaches – but clearly Bob felt that they were either not enforceable, or not worth enforcing.
Failures in Bob’s field reports
In his field report dated 6 January 2010 Bob stated:
Purpose: I attended the quarry to observe the firing of a shot and the recording of data regarding blast parameters. I also enquired regarding the type of drilling rig in use and followed up on matters raised in [Anne’s] Field Report AB30090004 dated 16 December 2009
Compliance: The following outstanding matters were enquired after
1. That boundary and limit of extraction posts be surveyed and erected prior to commencement of production.
I observed that the boundary (Work Authority) posts were in place. The limit of extraction posts will be surveyed and installed prior to the months end. This work will coincide with the marking out of the Stage 1 surface boundary.
2. Fire fighting equipment and appropriate signs, training and fire response plan be implemented on site immediately.
This has not been actioned.
3. Copy of air blast and ground vibration reports to be forwarded to DPI immediately and prior to any further blasting.
Monitoring results for the initial three blasts are now available and will be posted to DPI.
The following additional matters were followed up
1. Noise mitigation measures be adopted to reduce noise of loading the crusher plant hopper (eg. Rubber lining, do not completely empty) as soon as possible…
It has been decided by CASACIR to install rubber lining to the crusher hopper. Following purchase of a suitable material this will be completed by end of January 2010.
3. Water sprays to be used as soon as possible.
These are in place, but may need to be increased if not found to be effective.
My comments and observations:
In relation to number 1 of “compliance”, Bob noted that “The limit of extraction posts will be surveyed and installed prior to the months end. This work will coincide with the marking out of the Stage 1 surface boundary”. Clearly this was either not done, or else the marking out of the stage 1 boundary was removed due to failures to comply with the requirements prior to the end of stage 1, but so that man X, man Y and CASACIR could move into stage 2 unrestricted. If it was marked out and the markings had been retained, then there would have been no confusion as to when man X, man Y and CASACIR had reached the end of stage 1, especially given that figure 3 of the work plan is very clear when the extremities of stage 1 were reached. As seen in Bob’s field report of 2 August 2011 (19 months later) he supposedly still did not know where the boundary was.
In relation to number 2 of “compliance”: even though man X, man Y and CASACIR had been through the Black Saturday fires, they were too negligent to comply with demands for compliance with regard to fire readiness.
In relation to number 1 of the “additional matters” that had had to be followed up on: Bob had clearly continued Anne’s ignoring of the fact that no mitigation measures had been put in place prior to works commencing (in spite of the planning permit’s demand that man X, man Y and CASACIR do so).
In relation to number 3 of the “additional matters” that had had to be followed up on: Bob had clearly noted that the water sprays were not used as at Anne’s site visit and field report of 16 December 2009 (over 4 months after man X, man Y and CASACIR having commenced works, and with man X, man Y and CASACIR’s claims (including sworn claim) that they had always had the sprays in place and in action from the very first works).
Clearly Bob found the breaches, and ongoing breaches, not worthy of a demand for compliance. No wonder man X, man Y and CASACIR believed they could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted to.
In his field report dated 2 August 2011, Bob stated:
Purpose: I entered the quarry to undertake a Work plan and conditions compliance audit and inspection in accordance with the department audit schedule.
It was observed that the site is approaching the boundary of Stage 1 and that stage 2 should be entered within the next 12 months triggering several requirements on the site under the Planning Permit and Working Proposal as follows: –
1. The installation of fixed plant timing is unclear due to varying timing (a couple of years, a few years, when floor area permits) in the Working proposal, however detail of the plant and its location would be appreciated.
2. An oil and lubricants storage facility compatible with the requirements of AS 1940:2004 needs to be established if lubricants are to be retained on site.
3. The “south west bund”, landscaping and truck park needs to be installed prior to the end of State 1 development. (working proposal page 20)
4. The site office, amenities and weighbridge need to be in place as per the plan by the end of Stage 1 (page 20)
5. The wetlands complex adjacent to the water dam in the south east needs to be constructed and vegetated by the middle of Stage 1 development. (page 25)
6. Sediment traps and concrete sediment retention structure need to be constructed on the main pit access road by end Stage 1 (page24)
7. Workshop and inclusive service area for plant maintenance needs to be installed and linked to a triple interceptor trap (page 28)
The Work Authority Conditions and the Work Plans were checked for compliance to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 and site conditions, and the following were identified as requiring attention [emphasis Bob’s].
1. Conditions 1.1 The power line easement running from the milking shed to the farm house needs to be removed from the title before the easement can be extracted.
2. Condition 2.1 Overburden storage is identified on the staging plans and the working proposal to be stored in temporary dumps on the west side of the site. Overburden placed on the east side of the pit will need to be removed. Overburden placed onto top of old dump on the east side of the pit above the water dam mustbe removed.
3. Condition 6.3 Fire risk management.
The operator needs to develop a fire readiness plan.
Typically this includes What, When and by Whom for:-
a. Fuel reduction over broad acres, transformer yards, tree plantations explosives magazines etc
b. Site clean up, tyres, fuel and lubricants, waste timber, old conveyor belt, scrap, etc.
c. Cleaning of vehicles, plant and to remove build up of oil and grease residue.
d. Electrical inspections of vehicle wiring, hydraulic lines and couplings, overhead wire clearances and structure integrity
e. Earth connections for transformers and other plant
f. Fire breaks established.
g. Safety refuges in place and accessible if necessary
h. Fire fighting equipment, pumps hoses extinguishers inspected, serviced, upgraded, replaced if necessary.
i. Other site specific matters.
4. Condition 7.1 Designated Parking areas and traffic flow.
The site activity is now such that a larger and more defined parking area is required for employees and visitors to the site. It would also be advisable to separate the heavy road haulage from light vehicles.
5. Condition 13. Copies of results are requested as detailed in the Monitoring Schedule Neerim North 15thMay 2009 prepared by Bell Cochrane & Assoc.
6. Condition 17.1 The operator must establish and implement a program to control and /or eradicate noxious weeds and pest animals. This needs to be done.
7. Condition 18. Dust Emissions. Dust releases are not to cause detrimental impacts on the surrounding are and residents. Dust generated by road traffic on the pit entry road was excessive at time of audit. Instruction Notice RD421100008 had been issued in respect of fugitive dust.
8. Condition 24. Internal Roads. The operator needs to consult with DPI and other agencies over the construction of roads for the placement of overburden on the western side of the site.
9. Please refer to the body of the audit for further information on these and other outstanding requirement for the operation.
My comments and observations:
In relation to number 1 of Bob’s “observations”, he noted (a) that there was no known timing for moving from stage 1 into stage 2 – but the limits of extraction were required by his field report of 6 January 2010 (17 months earlier) to have been surveyed and marked: “The limit of extraction posts will be surveyed and installed prior to the months end. This work will coincide with the marking out of the Stage 1 surface boundary”. Clearly this was either not done, or else the marking out of the stage 1 boundary was removed due to failures to comply with the requirements prior to the end of stage 1 and so that man X, man Y and CASACIR could continue into stage 2 unrestricted (which occurred) – if the site had been marked as required and the markings retained, there would have been no confusion as to when they reached the end of stage 1, especially given that figure 3 of the work plan is very clear when the extremities of stage 1 were reached; and (b) that the details of the plant and their locations had not been provided – this was in breach of work authority condition 26 and planning permit condition 1.
In relation to number 3 of Bob’s “observations”, he noted that south-west bund, plantings and truck parking area were not done and needed to be completed prior to the end of stage 1. The bund is now complete, but the plantings remain not done (7 years later Bob still does not believe in enforcing the work plan), and the truck park is not where indicated on the plan – there is significant storage of material for sale in that location instead in breach of the work plan. The fact that the planting are not done means that dust from the material for sale blows onto neighbouring properties, there would also be clear visibility of the material and the loading and unloading of the material, and there is no bund to protect neighbours from the noise of machinery loading and unloading the trucks. Clearly Bob does not see that severe impacts on neighbours as a result of his failure to enforce the work plan or conditions is of any material concern (to him).
In relation to number 4 of Bob’s “observations”, he noted that site office, weighbridge etc needed to be in place before the end of stage 1, but clearly considered it immaterial that this was not complied with.
In relation to number 5 of Bob’s “observations”, he noted that wetland area had to be constructed by mid stage 1. He made that observation while knowing that not only was mid stage 1 long past, but that man X, man Y and CASACIR had moved into stage 2 (according to figure 3 of their work plan), that there was not “wetland”, that there was no intention of providing a wetland, and that man X, man Y and CASACIR were in continued blatant and deliberate breach. Clearly this was immaterial to Bob.
In relation to number 6 of Bob’s “observations”, he noted that sediment traps and concrete sediment retention structures needed to be constructed on the main pit access road prior to the end of stage 1. However, in spite of the work plan being very clear as to the requirement for the sediment traps and concrete sediment retention structures, man X showed his ignorance of his requirements and of Bob’s demands, and expressed surprise under oath at VCAT that there were any such sediment traps and concrete sediment retention structures intended for the main haul road[3]– in addition, aerial photos revealed that there were no such traps or retention structures at least as at February 2014, and Google earth photos reveal that as at 2016 there were still none. But Bob doesn’t have any concern that the pollution ends up in Kookaburra Creek – if he had any care of concern he would enforce the conditions.
In relation to number 7 of Bob’s “observations”, he noted the demand that there be a workshop and inclusive service area for plant maintenance needs, and that it needed to be installed and linked to a triple interceptor trap – all prior to the end of stage 1. Man X, man Y and CASACIR did not construct this building, with servicing being often performed in the quarry pit and open paddocks surrounding the quarry. Clearly this failure to comply met Bob’s standards and did not need enforcement action against them.
In relation to “compliance”, Bob noted that there were 8 work authority conditions that had been breached (just 9 months after the enforcement application that we were forced to take out because DPI (and council) refused to enforce man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan conditions (and planning permit conditions), and where DPI deliberately and intentionally refused to even admit that there were any breaches). One of the breaches Bob noted above was in relation to the illegal storage of the overburden on the east side of the site where hesaid it “must” be removed from. However, even though Bob stated that it mustbe removed, he did not enforce this and, instead, allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to not only continue to illegally store the material in that location, but to add significant amounts to the piles.
Bob was also included in a number of Anne’s emails where she was deliberately misleading and deceptive and he did nothing but (1) support man X, man Y and CASACIR in their breaches, and (2) support Anne in her failures to enforce conditions.
Clearly Bob found both new and ongoing breaches not worthy of a demand for compliance. No wonder man X, man Y and CASACIR believed they could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted to. It is very clear to see that, for some reason Bob was more than willing to turn a blind eye to what man X, man Y and CASACIR were doing. The question I ask is: was Bob just a “toothless tiger”, or inept, or incompetent, or incompetent, or what? There was certainly some reason for his continued choice to look the other way – I make no hints, assertions, assumptions or accusations, I am merely noting what happened and asking “when his job was to assist in the overseeing and enforcing of compliance with conditions and legislation, why was Bob so willing and eager to look the other way and do nothing?” and “why was Bob so willing to throw us (and particularly me) under the bus so that man X, man Y and CASACIR were not held accountable for their breaches and their impacts on us and others?”
Why?
There is somuch more that could be said (and some of it is said on other pages), but I’ll leave it at that for now.
[1] Presumably from the “firestorm” winds that swirl around with horrendous momentum
[2] Condition 13: A copy of any flow and water monitoring programs and other management plans and licences as required by West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority is to be delivered to the District Manager prior to the commencement of associated or affected works.
[3] T33:23–T35:3, and especially: “I’m not with you there at all, we have no concrete sediment traps … I can’t even think, or, er understand what you are saying there, I didn’t think that there were any sediment traps that were associated with the drainage on the haul road”