The Supreme Court of Victoria has fined Hallam Road landfill operator Veolia $1 million for various breaches of its operating licence and failure to comply with the general environmental duty.
In late August 2024, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria commenced the civil proceeding against Veolia, shortly after the Supreme Court found Veolia breached its licence and the general environmental duty at the Hallam Road landfill in the case against its neighbour Winsome Anderson, who owned a 38-hectare property east of the landfill.
The court judgment delivered on 11 November by Justice Michelle Quigley has revealed additional breaches beyond those previously reported in the Anderson case.
Between July 2022 and September 2023, Veolia breached its operating licence by failing to take all practicable measures to prevent emissions of landfill gas from exceeding the action levels prescribed.
Although Veolia did implement several practical measures to prevent landfill gas emissions, there were five practical measures that Veolia failed to implement, including a consolidated Risk Management and Monitoring Program, adequate daily cover of waste in the active cell on 28 August 2023, regular inspection and maintenance of gas wells, a Landfill Gas Remediation Action Plan, and two response measures when the landfill gas levels exceeded limits at the landfill’s perimeter bores.
In the same period, Veolia was also found to have failed to implement odour source controls required under its licence and best-practice landfill guidelines, resulting in odours escaping off-site and impacting neighbouring land.
The EPA received more than 1,300 community complaints between January 2022 and December 2023, with officers detecting offensive odours during multiple inspections.
The company also breached two licence conditions related to leachate management, the contaminated liquid generated from decomposing waste.
Between July 2022 and June 2024, Veolia contravened a condition of its operating licence by failing to extract leachate on occasion from a number of the high cells such that the depth of leachate above the lowest point of the drainage layer does not exceed 300mm.
Between January and June 2024, Veolia contravened a condition of its operating licence by failing to ensure on occasion that leachate levels in the low cells were maintained at least one and a half metres lower than the groundwater as measured at the nearest downgradient bore.
The court revealed that Veolia struggled to maintain compliance with the two leachate level conditions due to the capacity constraints of its leachate management and treatment system, and the lack of an available market to accept leachate of the type generated by the Hallam Road landfill for disposal.
Veolia has sought and obtained expert evidence in relation to managing this leachate compliance issue. It has been working towards minimising any risk of harm to human health and the environment as reasonably practicable through a range of measures, including updating its leachate management infrastructure and developing and implementing its Leachate Management Plan.
According to the judgment, the $1 million fines will be paid into the EPA’s Restorative Project Account for the purposes of funding one or several restorative projects that benefit the community in the vicinity of the Hallam Road landfill.
In addition to the fines, Veolia has been ordered to publish a written adverse publicity notice on its website for a period of no less than 120 days, and on a newsletter of the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association Australia.
It has been ordered to undertake certain works at the landfill and to provide reports to the EPA to address matters concerning the management of landfill gas and leachate generated at the Hallam Road landfill.
Veolia has also been ordered to pay EPA the proceeding costs of $75,000.
The court noted that Veolia’s early admissions to the breaches and the action it had taken to remedy the breaches demonstrated “contrition, insight, and remorse”.
It also noted that the company self-reported the breaches at “the earliest opportunity”, which was required to do by its operating licence, and co-operated with the EPA in its investigation and throughout the proceeding.
