Jet Group Australia Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2017] NSWLEC 1588

Jet Group Australia Pty Ltd v Environment Protection Authority [2017] NSWLEC 1588

In light of insufficient site-specific hydrological data, existing water pollution, and application of the precautionary principle, it is appropriate to require a leachate liner with permeability of 1 x 10-9 m/s (or equivalent GCL) for both the operational area and leachate dam. A financial assurance of $200,000 is appropriate to protect against costs of environmental remediation, recognizing that large-scale offsite disposal after fire is unlikely, but water pollution remediation cost is a relevant risk.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Environment Protection Licence Refusal (class 1) / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Environment Protection Licence granted (with conditions); exhibits returned.
Legal Topics
['environment Protection Licence' 'water Pollution' 'leachate Management' 'financial Assurance' 'composting' 'licence Conditions']
['environmental Law'] ['environment Protection Licence' 'water Pollution' 'leachate Management' 'financial Assurance' 'composting' 'licence Conditions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Environment Protection Licence Refusal (class 1) / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What are the appropriate conditions (including liner permeability and financial assurance) to attach to the Environment Protection Licence for composting and resource recovery at 76 Nomad Road, Toronto, NSW?']

Ratio Decidendi

In light of insufficient site-specific hydrological data, existing water pollution, and application of the precautionary principle, it is appropriate to require a leachate liner with permeability of 1 x 10-9 m/s (or equivalent GCL) for both the operational area and leachate dam. A financial assurance of $200,000 is appropriate to protect against costs of environmental remediation, recognizing that large-scale offsite disposal after fire is unlikely, but water pollution remediation cost is a relevant risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Environment Protection Licence granted (with conditions); exhibits returned.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Environment Protection Licence for the carrying out of a scheduled activity at 76 Nomad Road, Toronto, NSW is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The exhibits are returned.']