By Peter Boyle
SYDNEY — Greenpeace divers collected liquid waste from the Caltex Kurnell refinery's underwater waste discharge pipes at 6.00 a.m. on February 14. They later delivered it to the company's executives in Caltex House, in the city, in several barrels marked "Toxic Waste — Return To Sender".
The Greenpeace action dramatised the fact that, 12 months after Caltex's illegal toxic waste dumping was first exposed by Greenpeace divers, and after promises by the Greiner state government to take action against the company, Caltex was dumping even more waste into the sea.
Caltex has admitted the illegal dumping but claims that its economic importance to the country is more important than the dangers pointed out by environmentalists.
According to Lynette Thorstensen, Greenpeace Australia's toxic campaign coordinator, all legal action against the company for previously exposed illegal dumping have been dropped, and the Greiner government has increased the amount of toxic substances Caltex is licensed to dump into the sea.
Nevertheless, Caltex exceeded these higher limits 22 times between July and December 1990 and a further 12 times in January. The State Pollution Control Commission (SPCC) plans to allow Caltex to legally pump even more toxic waste into the sea.
On January 25, 1990, Greenpeace divers plugged the refinery's underwater waste pipe and sampled the discharge. It was found to contain phenolic compounds at 29 mg/litre — nearly six times the amount allowed by the company's SPCC licence at the time.
At midnight on February 1, 1990, Caltex's SPCC licence expired; Greenpeace took samples from the discharge pipe early the next morning, after discharges were supposed to have ceased. This sample was found to contain phenol in concentrations 26 times the allowable level in the expired licence. A portion of the sample was given to the SPCC.
NSW environment minister Tim Moore announced that day that Caltex was to be prosecuted. But the only quick action ensuing from the government was the issue of an interim licence for Caltex to keep discharging waste into the sea.
On May 3, SPCC chairperson John Niland announced a new 12-month licence for Caltex, claiming that it "imposed a much stricter standard". He also promised that "any significant exceedances indicated either by self-monitoring or audit checks will result in further legal action through the Land and
Environment Court".
Prosecutions withdrawn
In August, the SPCC's lawyers withdrew five prosecutions (five months after issuing summonses) under the Environmental and Penalties Act, saying it would be unable to prove the illegal discharges had harmed the environment. Justice Paul Stein of the Land and Environment Court described this move as "extraordinary".
It transpired that a $30,000 study into the environmental effects of Caltex's toxic waste discharges had been commissioned by the SPCC. Dr Nicholas Holmes, a marine biologist from Newcastle University, carried out the study and concluded that prosecution under the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act was not feasible.
One of the reasons for this conclusion was the absence of sufficient data on the illegal discharges. For instance, there appeared to be no data on the nature of the oil and grease compounds in the discharge. Some of these compounds are more toxic than others.
But as long as most of the breaches are determined by "self-monitoring" and the company is not required to furnished samples or sampling data to the SPCC, prosecution for breaching the licence will remain difficult.
In October, Greenpeace obtained permission to examine SPCC files on Caltex and discovered that Caltex's new licence (May 1990-May 1991) to pollute allowed for the legal discharge of greater concentrations of phenols, non-filtrable residue, oil and grease (see table). This was disguised by providing for a more complex system of sampling.
Caltex was now allowed to discharge up to 1000 times the allowable limit for phenolic compounds provided under the Clean Waters Act.
Phenols are used as solvents in refining lubricating oils. They are toxic to humans and can cause nausea, vomiting and jaundice by ingestion. Inhalation can cause pulmonary edema, headaches, dizziness, tremors, convulsions and unconsciousness. It also causes cancers and tumors in mammals, and it can be tasted in the flesh of fish contaminated in a concentration of a mere 1 mg/litre. The new licence allows concentrations of 10 mg/litre, and recent breaches by Caltex involved concentrations of up to 29 mg/litre.
Despite the relaxation of the restrictions, the company continues to break the terms of the new licence. Caltex is required to notify the SPCC of any illegal discharges, but it does not provide
samples or sampling data to the SPCC.
'Close relationship'
Lyn Thorstensen told Â鶹´«Ã½ that the SPCC has a "long and uncomfortably close relationship with industry". The Commission's first director (1974) was Eric Coffey, who had previously been a director of Caltex Oil Company and a manager of a Caltex subsidiary, Australian Oil Refineries.
The cosy relationship emerges in the following notes which were attached by SPCC staff to a Caltex advice of 10 illegal discharges:
"It appears that since the revised sampling techniques employed by the Co, the results indicate that they cannot comply with the licence conditions at all times. I suggest that the Policy Branch (Water) look at this and maybe come up with a realistic figure."
Another note says: "I ... think we should be front runners in reviewing and setting the limit conditions on the licence and seek advice from the Clean Waters Branch Policy rather than passing the responsibility to them entirely. I will try and organise a 'Task Force' in the Commission to look at Oil Refinery Wastewater Discharge conditions."
Thorstensen says this indicates that the SPCC is looking at further relaxing Caltex's licence to allow levels of pollution the company is comfortable with. The Greiner government's latest move allows Caltex to dump more of its toxic waste into the sewerage system, already choked with toxic waste from other industrial plants.
Greenpeace says there is a "pervasive culture of cooperation with industry" in the SPCC which lies behind its failure to prosecute Caltex and other companies which breach the supposedly tough environmental laws in NSW.
"Despite government assurances and 12 months of increased activity by the SPCC, protection of the environment has gone backwards", said Thorstensen. "It is obvious that the Greiner government has no interest in reining in polluting companies or in reducing industrial pollution". Greenpeace wants environmental laws which implement "zero discharge and clean production programs" instead of issuing companies with licences to pollute.