Rollo Trevor Hein appeals EPA clean up order for 120,000 cubic metres of dumped rubbish

Asbestos, PVC pipes and cow manure were among 48 swimming pools worth of rubbish allegedly dumped at a regional airfield in a decade-long operation to extend its runway.

Asbestos, PVC piping and cow manure were among 48 swimming pools worth of rubbish allegedly dumped at regional airfield in a covert plan which lasted at least a decade, according to court documents.

A Pallamana airfield and gyrocopter flight operator, allegedly allowed 120,000 cubic metres of waste to be disposed at the property using some to extend the runway before he was busted by chance.

Landowner Rollo Trevor Hein, and Rollo’s Airfield Pty Ltd, are appealing an Environment Protection Authority clean up order issued in August last year, after the agency found he had used concrete and soil to extend his runway.

The agency alleges Hein, also the company’s sole director, allowed construction and demolition waste, including “bonded asbestos containing material” to be dumped at 214A Pallamana Road on or before December 13, 2009 and until November 14, 2019.

The airfield allegedly accepted rubbish including asbestos. Picture: Google Maps

According to documents tabled in the Environment, Resources and Development Court, dumped rubbish also included paper, door mats, fabrics, plastic food wrappings, cans, glass, plastic, tyres, metal items, PVC pipes, green waste, cow manure and waste soils.

Hein was allegedly caught out when EPA officers, in October, 2019 were returning to Adelaide along the South Eastern Freeway and saw a truck with a semi trailer loaded with waste travelling towards Murray Bridge.

After watching the truck dispose of waste at the site, officers found no record of EPA authorisation.

“Waste appears to have been used to raise the level of the (two) earth-covered runways,” documents reveal.

“At the end of one of the runways, uncovered piles of waste up to approximately ten metres high could be seen.”

Hein allegedly admitted he was allowing people to dump waste, including soil and concrete, to “extend a runway so that large aircraft could take off from the site”, but he did not permit asbestos, plastic, tyres “or anything that blows around”.

However, the agency alleged Hein would often not inspect the waste until after disposal, and would cover unauthorised waste with soil.

The EPA alleges around 120,000 cubic metres of rubbish was dumped at the airfield. Picture: Google Maps

Hein allegedly told officers he did not know where the waste came from and had no information or records regarding waste volumes.

The EPA issued an environment protection order on November 15, 2019 for operating a landfill depot without authorisation and to stop him receiving waste.

However, on February 17 the following year, an EPA aerial survey of the site established that approximately 120,000 cubic metres of material, including waste and waste soils, had been deposited since at least 2009.

The agency alleges Hein made “insufficient inquiries” to identify the composition of waste and required “insufficient documentation” relating to its source.

He also allegedly covered the waste “unsatisfactorily” without conducting any sorting, processing or testing.

The agency said Hein created an environmental nuisance which had the potential to cause harm to groundwater or the nearby Salt Creek and Preamimma Creek, and cause landfill gas emissions.

However, Hein argued the clean up order was “invalid” on the grounds that it was issued to two separate legal entities, who were not jointly engaged in or responsible for any relevant activity.

He also stated the respondent was “wrong to regard itself as satisfied that either appellant had caused the alleged environmental harm referred to in the clean up order”.

“The respondent was wrong to regard itself as satisfied that the alleged environmental harm was caused by the contravention or contraventions of the Environment Protection Act,” appeal documents stated.

He also argued the order’s requirements were “invalid for lack of specification of the qualifications that the consultant is required to have” and the requirements of the order were “invalid” and “unreasonable”.

The matter returns to court in December.