Environment Protection Authority v Ecolab Pty Ltd

Reported Decision: (2002) 123 LGERA 269

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Environment Protection Authority v Ecolab Pty Limited [2002] NSWLEC 206

PARTIES:

PROSECUTOR
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT
Ecolab Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S):

50049 of 2002

CORAM:

Cowdroy J

KEY ISSUES:

Prosecution :- pollution of waters

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 22
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, s 120(2), s 123(a), s 241

CASES CITED:

Axer Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (2001) 113 LGERA 357;
Cabonne Shire Council v Environment Protection Authority (2001) 115 LGERA 304;
Cameron v R (2002) 187 ALR 65;
Camilleri's Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority (1993) 32 NSWLR 683;
Environment Protection Authority v Rail Infrastructure Corporation [2002] NSWLEC 37;
Newcastle City Council v Pace Farm Egg Products Pty Ltd [2002] NSWLEC 66;
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 301;
State Pollution Control Commission v White Wings Limited (unreported, Land and Environment Court, 1 November 1991)

DATES OF HEARING:

21/10/2002

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

11/29/2002

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

PROSECUTOR
Mr P Barley (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS
Environment Protection Authority

DEFENDANT
Mr R Wilcher (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS
Baker & McKenzie

JUDGMENT:

- 2 -

IN THE LAND AND

ENVIRONMENT COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

50049 of 2002

COWDROY J

29 November 2002

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

Prosecutor
v

ECOLAB PTY LIMITED

Defendant

Judgment

Introduction

1 The Environment Protection Authority (“the EPA”) charges Ecolab Pty Limited (“the defendant”) with an offence against s 120(2) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the POEO Act”). Section 120(2) of the POEO Act, extant at the date of the offence, provided that “A person must not cause any waters to be polluted”.

2 The defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge and agreed to pay the EPA’s costs in the amount of $12,000. Accordingly, only the issue of penalty remains to be determined by the Court.

The Offence

3 The incident giving rise to the charge (“the spillage”) occurred on 6 June 2001 at 6 Hudson Avenue, Castle Hill (“the premises”) at which the defendant operated a factory and warehouse. At 12.30 pm on that day a contractor to the defendant, Mr Carl Allegra had transported drums of chemicals to the defendant’s premises on his truck. Mr Allegra was unloading a 1,000 litre tank of a liquid containing 12.5 per cent sodium hypochlorite (“bleach”) with a forklift truck when, as a result of impact, a protruding valve on the tank was torn off causing the tank to rupture. Between 500 and 600 litres of bleach flowed from the tank and entered a stormwater drain. Preventative action was taken when an employee of the defendant took control of the forklift and moved the container into a position where the leakage was stemmed. The spillage was then reported to a senior employee on the premises who in turn informed Mr Ken Blee, the defendant’s Operation’s Manager. The bleach travelled…