Fines for environmental damage: summary of recent cases.

The Environment Court has recently released sentencing notes relating to two prosecutions taken by Environment Canterbury relating to actual or potential contamination of water.  

• A Christchurch company, Barrs Ltd, was fined $4000 following a guilty plea that its contractor discharged contaminants onto land that may have entered water. The case was heard in the Christchurch District Court on May 24.

• Resource Recycling Technologies (NZ) Limited was fined $3500 after pleading guilty to discharging contaminants, namely hydrocarbons to land from its industrial and trade premises, without resource consent. This case was also heard in the Christchurch District Court on May 24.

• In a third and more recent case, Smith Crane and Construction Limited, was fined almost $54,000 after pleading guilty to discharging contaminants without resource consent. The company was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court on September 9, 2010.

In March 2009, Barrs Ltd was contracted to develop a building platform on a site located at Prestons Road, Christchurch. The company subcontracted the excavation work to Dumelow Contracting Ltd, during which, underground water was encountered. Barrs provided Dumelow with a pump to de-water the site, and as a result, water containing sediment was discharged into the nearby Styx River.

Dumelow Contracting Ltd pleaded guilty and was fined for its role in this offence in a separate case on March 18, 2010. In regard to Barrs Limited, Judge Borthwick said that under Section 340 of the Resource Management Act, the defendant company was liable for the activities of its employees or agents as though it had personally committed the offence.

The Judge dismissed the notion that Barrs was one step removed from Dumelow and noted that neither company understood the rules that applied to such an activity.

Judge Borthwick accepted that Barrs Ltd had no previous convictions and had not directly profited from its actions, but noted that the company had not entered an early guilty plea (as was the case with Dumelow Contracting). Barrs Ltd was fined $4000 and ordered to pay court costs of $130 and solicitors costs of $113.

In the second case, Environment Canterbury officers inspected Resource Recycling Ltd’s premises in Chapman’s Road, Woolston in June 2009. The inspection revealed machinery stored on unsealed ground with oil ponding on the surface. Soil samples collected from the area and tested had significant levels of hydrocarbon contamination. Pools of oily water were also found in a truck wash and oily water had also run off into an interceptor causing it to become clogged with sediment. Soil samples from the truck also confirmed the presence of hydrocarbons, which were also found near stored containers and in the area of a fuel container.

Environment Canterbury then issued the company with an abatement notice. Judge Borthwick said that the company had complied with its terms and had taken remedial steps, including removing all the contaminated soil, increasing the size of the bunded concrete pad, drafting an environmental plan and increasing the level of staff awareness in regard to a spills procedure and undertaking ongoing reporting to the regional council.

The Judge dismissed the company’s claim that the discharges were accidental and pointed out that they had occurred over a period of time. However, there was no evidence of further discharges escaping from the site following the incident or that the area remains contaminated.

The Judge took into consideration that the company had incurred around $40,000 in costs to remediate the site, had no previous convictions and had entered an early guilty plea. The company was fined $3,500 and ordered to pay court costs of $130 and solicitors costs of $133.

Kim Drummond, Environment Canterbury director regulation, said that in the case of Barrs Ltd and Dumelow Contracting Ltd, neither company had inquired as to whether resource consent was required to remove the water from the excavated site in the manner proposed.

“It is important that companies who subcontract work or hire external parties are aware of all legal obligations and recognise that they are liable if anything goes wrong. It is not good enough to lay the responsibility with another party and claim to be a step removed from the damage to the river. Companies that do not take steps to become informed of the rules, or do so but fail to communicate them to external parties, will be held accountable.”

Mr Drummond said although the regional council accepted that Resource Recycling Ltd’s offending was unintentional, the company had been careless, and this was not a mitigating factor.

“It is not sufficient for a company or individual to claim that such incidents are an accident or they were unaware that they had occurred until it was too late. They need to be diligent and proactive in monitoring all activities taking place on a site for which they are responsible so that adverse environmental effects are avoided.”

The prosecution of Smith Crane and Construction Ltd coincided with a case taken against the company by the Christchurch City Council.

“This case was taken in response to poor site management and operating practices that fell below expected industry standards. The company was operating without the correct resource consents and had persistent compliance problems and infringements,” said Mr Drummond.

“Mr Smith discharged industrial chemical containers onto the site which included paint, abrasive blasting material, petrol, diesel and general demolition waste and this occurred over a period of several years.

“The company’s site is above a sensitive groundwater zone supplying drinking water to Christchurch city and the significance of the fine imposed by the Judge confirms that the protection of our water resources is paramount.”