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.
In spite of, and in direct contradiction to, the 2008 tribunal members being extremely clear that blasting was a “use” or “operational” activity and not a “construction” activity, man X. man Y and CASACIR determined that it was a “construction” activity, and not a “use” or “operational” activity, if they chose to interpret it that way.
The planning report, endorsed as part of the planning permit (clause 3.11), says “…blasting will occur 6 to 10 times per year. This equates to once every 5-8 weeks”, and Adrian Moore of Terrock said in his blasting report dated 12 September 2007, that “The initial production will require 6-10 small blasts per year (say 1 per month) and the increased production will require 6-10 larger blasts per year (again, say 1 per month)”. However, in he first four months of 2011, from 1 January to 28 April 2011 there were already been at least 6 blasts (that I know of).
Because the quarry breached the limits, DPI placed CASACIR’s Neerim North quarry under a “Section 110 Notice”, stating the absolute demand: “I hereby direct that the holder of this authority will ensure that monitoring reports for air blast and ground vibration include monitoring at the nearest sensitive location (140 Pearce Road) for all shots fired at the site for the next 12 months from the date of this notice”. The Notice was dated 6 May 2010 and there was no option as to whether or not to monitor and report the results. However, in spite of the clear requirements of that Notice, for (at least) the blasts on 28 March 2011 and 15 April 2011 there was no monitoring outside 140 Pearce Road! It seems that DPI did not even attend the blastings, or if they did, then there have been no apparent repercussions for failures to comply with the Notice.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR provided a letter to council dated 11 December 2009 in which it stated: “*I am proposing to apply for a permit to close Pearce Road, Neerim North for up to four times per year” (however, they had already closed the road 6 times that year (to 28 April 2011), and had not applied for or received the permit!), *”The road closure would only be for a maximum of 15 to 20 minutes” (but sometimes it was up to or more than 45 minutes – over double the maximum stated).
Man X, man Y and CASACIR claimed in their work plan [emphasis mine] “6.5 Where blasting is conducted within 200m of a public road, all traffic will be stopped during the period of pit clearance until after the “all Clear” is sounded”. However, during the blast 28 March 2011 one of the CASACIR representatives was on site and on the outward side of the road closing. It should be noted and is shown below, that he but did not wait until the road was opened again – and there was no “all clear” siren.
On 28 April 2011 I chartered a flight over the site (arriving at 11.10am and leaving 11.15am), knowing that blasting would take place that day, but also knowing that blasting had rarely, if ever, taken place earlier than 12 noon previously, and being fully prepared to abandon the flight if there was any indication that the blasting was immanent. However, it was clear that blasting was still an hour or more away. On the last aerial lap I took photos showing that they were still a long way from blasting – 5 Orica personnel were still filling the holes with emulsion, the stemming still had to be done, and at least three cars, one truck and one excavator (which was still being used at the time of flying over) still had to be moved out of the blasting exclusion zone and the roads still had to be closed. However, in spite of not being anywhere near ready to blast, they provided CASA with fraudulent information by telling them a fact that we had held up the blasting. This was further claimed by them at the Supreme Court as being absolutely true: “The allegations that Casacir provided inaccurate information to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority concerning its blasting operation is untrue and without basis. This allegation would appear to arise from an occasions on which the defendant had engaged the services of a pilot to fly her over the Casacir quarry operation in a light plane in order to obtain photographs as evidence of the operation. In this regard, [she] gave evidence at VCAT that this occurred in the course of her taking “flying lessons”. On the morning of 28 April 2011, a blasting operation was scheduled to take place at the Casacir quarry land when a light airplane believed to be carrying [her] circled the quarry, seriously interrupting and delaying the conduct and timing of the scheduled blasting operation on that morning, and also creating a potentially dangerous situation for the airplane and its occupants”. The reality is that, because there were still 5 people on the benches loading the blast holes, machinery was operating close by, the road was not closed, and the site was not clear – it proved that they were at least an hour from blasting under normal circumstances. Because they were claiming that what they said was absolutely true, it means that by flying over when I did (and I was only in the vicinity for 5 minutes), I saved the lives of at least 5 people, and saved Orica from being guilty of blasting their people (and therefore being heavily fined by WorkSafe). Remember that this claim was made by man X, man Y and CASACIR, not by me – I merely made the observation as a result of their claims. A photo of the people on the benches as I flew over is below.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning report (clause 3.11) and Jack Kraan’s witness statement (clause 4.10) both stated that “The quarry’s neighbours will be notified in advance of an impending blast. [Man X, man Y and CASACIR] have a standard procedure for doing this. 24 hours before the blast is scheduled, quarry staff ring all neighbours to advise them of the impending blast. They are also advised that they will be notified again approximately 1 hour prior to the blast being detonated. On the day of the blast, at least 1 hour before the blast, quarry staff will ring the neighbours informing them of the time of the blast.” Thus it was falsely presented to the 2008 VCAT members as absolute fact that there would be additional notifications to neighbours (presumably to allow them to access or egress their properties if required rather than being caught when they have to go out, as was often the case). Additionally, man X, man Y and CASACIR provided a letter to council dated 11 December 2009 in which it said: “Casacir’s Company Policy requires us to notify neighbours 24 hours ahead and 2 to 3 hours ahead of any blast” – but, again, they fail to do so (in fact, when I talked to Paul Kemp (the stated quarry manager), he said that he knew nothing about it!!). It appears that either man X, man Y and/or CASACIR do not have such a company policy, or they do not follow it – the claim of this additional notification was a misleading statement because they did not provide such additional notification.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s blasting specialist (Adrian Moore of Terrock) originally said that the faces from the previous quarry (buried under the rehabilitation) were generally facing south-east (and this was confirmed by man X, man Y and CASACIR’s first Figures 3 and 5). However, after the first work plan was unendorsed and man X, man Y and CASACIR created a new work plan (plus new specialist’s reports), they declared that the faces from the old quarry were facing due east (without any proof that they had any such new information, and in the face of reality). The truth was, of course, that the old faces were facing south-east (reality was different to their second claims). Man X (approved and authorised by both man Y and CASACIR) swore in his affidavit dated 6 September 2010 that there had had to be “reorientation of the old quarry benches” (so that they then did face east – but which they still did not do (they still faced south of east for a number of years)).
Further, at the 2008 tribunal hearing Adrian Moore (of Terrock) told the tribunal that if the flyrock/blasting exclusion zone was on land “owned or controlled” by others that man X, man Y and CASACIR had the right to get those people to move off their own land, and that if they didn’t then WorkSafe could make them move, and if they still refused to remove themselves from their own land, that the police would then be called in and remove them. However, legislation proves Adrian wrong, and both WorkSafe and the police have confirmed that they have no such authority to remove someone from their own property under those circumstances. All danger must be retained within the site boundaries. So either Adrian, reportedly an expert in his field, either did not know the legal requirements governing his field of expertise, or he deliberately provided inaccurate information on behalf of man X, man Y and CASACIR and with their approval.