Contractor avoids penalty over contaminated soil

A Golden Bay contractor has avoided penalty and prosecution after several tonnes of contaminated material disappeared without a trace.

About four cubic metres of HAIL material remain unaccounted for after the contractor dumped the material in a second contractor’s yard in May, where it was mixed with other fill materials.

The Ministry for the Environment’s Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is a compilation of activities and industries that are considered likely to cause land contamination resulting from hazardous substance use, storage or disposal.

The soil was contaminated with metals and hydrocarbons, and was taken from a Tākaka site that, according to the Tasman District Council, was previously used as a transport depot, for chemical storage and “uncharacterised fill”.

From the council’s detailed site investigation report, the risk to human health from metals in the soil was “moderate to high”.

Under the site’s remediation plan, it was supposed to have been taken to an authorised facility.

However, the council said in a statement that it was “unable to prove or suggest” where the material ended up.

It was deemed “too contaminated” to go to York Valley landfill without further testing and possible pre-treatment.

When asked why the council was not able to prosecute or issue an infringement notice, communications officer Tim O’Connell said it was effectively out of time, as the offence occurred three months before the council could issue notice.

The dumping of the material at the yard was on May 17, while the council was notified of the incident on August 14. The council’s investigation was completed by September 21.

Because the material was mixed with other fill, it was impossible for the council to identify the contaminated soil, nor was it practicable to use chemical analysis for the same reason, the statement said.

While the council was within the time limitation for a prosecution, mixing at the dump site and “not being able to easily identify the subject matter” meant there was insufficient evidence.

“The court would want evidence of the level of adverse environmental effect, and that evidence was no longer available,” O’Connell said.

However, the dumping in the yard, and not taking the soil to an approved facility, was in breach of the terms of resource consent and the remediation plan, which was also against the terms of the Resource Management Act.

O’Connell said the material was apparently dumped at the site without any approval from the company, as the company’s management denied any knowledge of the material, its source, or its level of contamination.

Given the circumstances, if it had been able, the council “would have approached this as an infringement matter”, meaning that if infringement action had been taken under the RMA, the contractor would have faced a fine of between $300 and $1000.

“We are pleased to have been made aware of the situation so we could reiterate to the contractor the error of their actions,” O’Connell said.