Alcoa Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1366

Land and Environment Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alcoa Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited v Holroyd City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1366 Hearing dates: 16 October and 2 November 2012 Decision date: 02 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 1 Before: Moore SC Decision: For the directions to permit making consent orders to uphold the appeal, see para (7). Catchwords: Pollution; permitted discharges to air; impact on surrounding properties Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alcoa Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited (Applicant)

Holroyd City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Mr C Norton Mr A Seton (solicitor) Solicitors Clayton Utz (Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 10803 of 2012

Judgment 1SENIOR COMMISSIONER: When the matter was originally before me (as proposed consent orders to increase the permitted emission level of hydrogen chloride [known more commonly as hydrochloric acid] fumes from the Alcoa Aluminium Recycling Plant at Yennora), I heard evidence from Dr John Brodie (a resident) and from Mr Ishmael (the author of a technical report provided in support of the proposal). I also asked a number of questions of Mr Ishmael during the course of his evidence about the potential impact of hydrogen chloride vapour discharges on not merely the residential premises in the vicinity of the currently operating plant but also other adjacent industrial premises. 2As a consequence of this evidence, I made a number of suggestions to the parties to improve the consent orders as then proposed. The improvements (arising from Dr Brodie's evidence, the written submissions received by the council from other residents and from Mr Ishmael's evidence) dealt with two matters: * First, the degree of transparency and availability of information to the local community and its community consultative committee; and * Second, the need, as I saw it, for some examination to be undertaken of the possibility (putting it at no higher a level of concern than that) of the potential for impact on workers in industrial premises in the vicinity of the plant. 3The concern about workers in industrial premises in the vicinity of the plant arose from one of the community submissions that was made to the proposal - that is one made on behalf of Colorcraft Printing Pty Ltd who operate from premises in close-ish proximity to the plant. The evidence of Mr Ishmael was that those premises were not these premises most proximately likely to be impacted by the vaporous discharges if there were in fact to be any such impact but were premises, generally speaking, immediately to the east. 4The parties have conferred further and a revised set of consent orders was provided to me. These have subsequently been further modified in light of discussions between me and the representatives for the parties this morning. 5The result is that the proposed modification to the applicant's conditions of consent will now be significantly improved both in terms of the communication with the local community and the transparency of availability of data as well as by the requiring of the applicant to seek to procure a test (against the relevant Australian Standards) of the discharges of hydrogen chloride as they might, and I stress only might, impact on the adjacent industrial premises to the east. 6The process permits the making permanent of the increased discharge limits (if such a study is undertaken) and makes provision against the eventuality that the operator is unable to procure the cooperation of the relevant premises for the carrying out of such a testing regime. As a consequence, I am satisfied that it is now appropriate to make the consent orders in the proposed revised terms subject to those terms being provided to me electronically to enable me to make orders in chambers. 7Therefore, I give the following directions: (1)The respondent is to provide me with, through the Court's email system, an electronic version of the now revised proposed consent orders electronically and to file a copy in hard copy by the close of business on Monday 12 November 2012. (2)The matter is set down for mention before me at 9.15 on Thursday 15 November 2012. (3)If direction (1) is complied with I will make orders in chambers and vacate the mention. (4)Liberty is given to relist before me on two days notice if required. Tim Moore Senior Commissioner DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 March 2013