The Victoria Ombudsman has harshly criticized the state’s environmental regulator for its management of contaminated soil from the West Gate Tunnel construction, saying the agency was “under pressure” to “fix” the problem. “and” potentially compromised “their ability to act independently.
Key points:
- Victorian village advocate Deborah Glass discussed how the EPA handled the toxic soil of the West Gate Tunnel project.
- The Ombudsman found that the EPA “did its job according to science,” but did not consult with the affected communities.
- The Ombudsman found that the EPA helped draft new regulations for the project, while publicly denying such involvement.
In her report to parliament this morning, ombudswoman Deborah Glass found that the Environmental Protection Authority helped create “tailor-made” environmental regulations for the project.
The tunnel works stopped in 2019 after the discovery of toxic chemicals PFAS, which led to a massive explosion of costs and a dispute between the project partners over who would charge the landfill bill.
Ms. Glass said in her report that there was “little doubt that the EPA was under pressure to” fix “the problem to get the project back.”
He found that the EPA eventually “did its job according to science,” but did not communicate properly and “increased fear and anxiety in the community.”
In December last year, the Victorian government announced a peace deal, which saw taxpayers contribute an additional $ 1.9 billion to the project, while Transurban added $ 2.2 billion and CPB John Holland agreed to give up everything. their profit margin and make significant losses.
Ms. Glass found that the EPA was initially willing to find safe ways to reuse contaminated soil, but that depended on more evidence, which builders said was not possible.
“The consortium in charge of delivering the project said that it could not access the boreholes on private property or under roads and that once started the tunnel boring machines could not be stopped,” said the Catalan Ombudsman.
One option discussed by “inter-agency representatives” in 2019 was to set “new pollution thresholds for PFAS so that the loot could be sold as clean fill materials.”
The EPA rejected this proposal as outdated with the rest of the country.
It meant that a new landfill was needed to take on the large volume of contaminated soil.
In 2020, the John Holland Consortium said it had bids for three landfills to catch contaminated land: they were in Bulla, Bacchus Marsh and Ravenhall.
The builder said it could not continue with the tunnel project “until each landfill operator obtains EPA approval.”
A dispute over the removal of toxic soil from the west gate tunnel delayed the project and caused a cost explosion. (ABC News: Patrick Rocca)
The former EPA executive director spoke with the Ombudsman about the pressures the organization is facing for the approvals of the three landfills.
“I thought it was a scandalous situation driven by the contractual agreement, rather than an environmental agreement,” they said.
The new regulations were eventually drafted by a working group that included representatives from the Department of the Environment, Territory, Water and Victory Planning, the West Gate Tunnel Project and the Major Transportation Infrastructure Authority.
The new regulations allowed sites to obtain EPA approval with an environmental management plan without the need for a license or works approval.
The regulations also removed the right to appeal a decision to the Victoria Civil and Administrative Court.
Finally, the EPA approved all three landfills.
The EPA was forced to revoke the approvals following the legal challenges
After community groups challenged the legal basis for EPA approval of landfill environmental management plans, the Ombudsman found that the regulator sought legal advice.
This council found that the EPA did not have enough documentation to approve the plans, and “detailed designs and an environmental auditor’s report” were especially lacking.
He found that the EPA did not have the power to grant conditional approval, as it had done.
The EPA executive director told the Ombudsman that “it’s a unique challenge for the new regulations.”
He said that as soon as the EPA found out about the mistake, he wrote to the landfill operators explaining that he had made a mistake in approving it and that they should resubmit the environmental management plans.
Ms. Glass found that the EPA was “closely involved in the development” of the new regulations, although the organization’s chief executive said the opposite on 3AW radio in 2020.
He found that these new regulations were created “to resolve a contractual issue between the Victorian government and the John Holland consortium.”
Although Ms. Glass said the new regulations “may not have reduced environmental protections compared to pre-existing permit tools,” he said it appeared the EPA had been pressured to help draft regulations by the government task force. “at the request of a private company”. contractor “.
Glass also criticized the EPA for being influenced by other government agencies.
“Being influenced by other agencies potentially compromised the EPA’s ability to act independently and decline approvals once proposals were submitted to them,” he said.
The EPA says it got the science right
Ms. Glass said that since March of this year, excavated soil testing of the project showed levels of PFAS “well below the level of danger,” which was in line with what the EPA had predicted in the its scientific evaluation.
He found that “the EPA did its job according to science.”
“He assessed that the danger was likely to be low, but took a prudent approach.”
The general manager of the organization maintained his management of the approval process.
“I do not accept statements that compromise the substance of the decision because of the importance of the project,” they said.
“In fact, our role was to make sure of the science of PFAS, the protection of the environment, human health through decision making.”
The community consultation “was a waste of time,” the watchdog said
The Ombudsman found that the EPA did not communicate properly with the communities affected by the potential landfills.
He found that there was a major concern in the community about the potential environmental and health consequences of dumping PFAS at the landfill and that there was a community perception that “West Melbourne was being used unfairly. as a ‘landfill’.
But the ombudsman found that the EPA did not have a meaningful interaction with community groups while the new regulations were being drafted.
A Bacchus Marsh resident told the Ombudsman, “I couldn’t sleep for weeks because I was worried that the ground would be so close not only to my children but to all of Bacchus Marsh.”
The ombudsman found that many community groups learned of the dumps proposed by the media instead of the EPA, and many groups said in their investigation that they had lost confidence in the agency.
“The EPA has built a reputation as a misleading and treacherous organization that will easily put short-term political and business interest ahead of its statutory duties,” the Moorabool Environment Group said.
The Ombudsman said the EPA said in its investigation that the consultation with the community was a “waste of time” due to the “level of community anger.”
“Indeed, the EPA thought it made no sense to consult because it knew what the community was thinking,” he found.
Following the publication of the report, the EPA said it had accepted all the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
The agency’s director general, Lee Miezis, said in a statement that the EPA agreed that it should have done more to consult with local communities.
“We recognize that the shortcomings in our commitment approach have caused distress. That is why we are sorry,” Miezis said.
“Our approval was based on a rigorous and thorough assessment of the risks to human health and the environment, informed by leading science and environmental protection best practice standards.
“The EPA is proud of its independence, balancing environmental and social considerations to protect Victorians from the harmful effects of pollution and waste.”
Posted 2 hours, 2 hours ago, Monday, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 PM, updated 53 minutes ago, 53 minutes ago, Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:19 AM