A litany of systemic failures within Wollongong City Council is to blame for the organisation’s massive asbestos dumping stuff-up, an independent review has found.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A scathing report from the NSW Internal Audit Board (IAB), released on Tuesday, has hauled the administration over the coals for the bungle, in which the council unwittingly dumped asbestos-containing waste on public land in a bid to stop other illegal rubbish.
An auditor was asked to investigate the debacle after asbestos fragments were discovered in 10 waste piles – which had been installed by council staff to try to deter and impede other dumpers – along the Old Princes Highway between Waterfall and Bulli Tops in May.
During the investigation, further contaminated waste was found in mounds along Wyllie Road at Kembla Grange.
The IAB report found a lack of appropriate management systems, poor communication, ‘‘confusion and ignorance’’ from staff about legislation and environmental requirements, and inadequate supervision and support ‘‘contributed directly to the mounding incident’’.
In addition, a series of ‘‘systemic issues’’ within the council contributed to the ‘‘failure of oversight’’ and resulting asbestos contamination.
For instance, there was a lack of management oversight of the waste mounds project, with the staff member responsible for the project ‘‘working independently, without a clear project plan or adequate supervision and reporting requirements’’.
‘‘While the Waste Services section requested monthly reports from the project owner... there was no follow-up with the project owner when reports were not received,’’ the report said.
‘‘In fact, no project reports were prepared for the 10 months between July 2014 and May 2015 and senior... division managers did not follow up on either process or progress.’’
Speaking at a rare media conference following the release of the report, a contrite general manager David Farmer said it was ‘‘very disappointing’’ and embarrassing for the council.
‘‘I was extremely disappointed, there’s no doubt about that, but when things happen you have to deal with them, you have to develop a plan and you have to fix them,’’ he said.
‘‘Like it or not, we are a large organisation with many, many moving parts and the critical thing is not what happened, but how do you deal with it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.’’
Mr Farmer said he, as the head of the organisation, was ultimately responsible for the council’s failures, but indicated the fiasco had ‘‘raised some issues about certain staff performance’’.
He would not comment when asked if any heads would roll, apart from saying staff performance issues had been identified.
Despite the long list of criticisms and failures highlighted in the audit report, Mr Farmer maintained his previous stance that the unusual dumping prevention method had ‘‘fundamentally’’ been a success.
‘‘Our intention was always good. If you read the report... it is very disappointing, but it shows everyone trying to do the right thing,’’ he said.
He said the council still needed to work out a method of dealing with the ongoing problem of illegal dumping, which cost the council $420,000 in the last financial year.
The costs of removing the failed mounds and commissioning an audit have already topped $120,000, with further costs to follow as the council continues to manage the fall out of the asbestos dumping issue.
The IAB made 50 separate recommendations to rectify the council’s failures and avoid future risk of asbestos contamination.
In a report to councillors, Mr Farmer has addressed these points and recommended the adoption of a ‘‘rectification plan’’, which will be debated at the council meeting on Monday.
- Lack of project co-ordination and management oversight
- Poor communication to internal and external stakeholders
- Confusion about waste management legislative requirements and the term ‘‘clean fill’’
- Staff and supervisors working autonomously and without adequate supervision
- City works division sourced unclassified waste materials from construction sites for re-use on mounding projects
- Lack of clear guidelines on waste management and materials handling processes
- Inadequate management, supervision, support and accountability
- Pressure among certain staff to save money for council through cost and time efficiencies even where work practices do not comply with internal procedures or regulatory requirements
- Contractors’ responsibilities and accountabilities poorly defined
- Waste removed from work sites not classified or tracked