By Olivia Condous
The Victorian Ombudsman has condemned the state’s environmental regulator over the handling of the dumping of West Gate Tunnel Project (WGTP) spoil into the western suburbs.
The report, tabled by Ombudsman Deborah Glass in parliament on Tuesday, May 31, says the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) failed to properly engage with local community groups over the soil disposal, and lacked accountability which in turn increased local concern.
It also found the EPA had approved earlier versions of Environment Management Plans (EMPs) with “deficient information” due to government pressure “to ‘fix’ problems”, as well as overlooking the human rights of locals.
However, the report said the EPA’s decision to approve EMPs for spoil disposal was “environmentally sound” and didn’t place local communities at significant risk.
Melton and Bacchus Marsh residents raised strong concerns over the dumping of the soil, after the Maddingley Brown Coal and the Cleanaway site in Ravenhall were initially approved as possible sites to store the soil.
Bacchus Marsh Community Coalition member Kat Barlow said the report was “rightly scathing” of the EPA.
“It vindicates our longstanding community concerns that we weren’t being considered and no one had bothered to consult with us because they’d decided how we felt,” Ms Barlow said.
She said the community remained concerned about the EPA’s management of environmental issues and feared it’s approach was more reactive rather than responsive.
“We certainly remain concerned about community and environmental health,” Ms Barlow said.
“The EPA have asserted that they were trying to build trust within the communities, but we haven’t heard from the EPA.”
The Ombudsman launched the investigation in August 2021 following concerns from local communities near three sites in Bacchus Marsh, Ravenhall and Bulla approved by the EPA for the dumping of spoil from the WGTP, after the discovery of PFAS chemicals in the project’s groundwater.
“This failure to provide appropriate information and opportunities for communities to participate when making its approval decisions for sites to receive the spoil for the Project was unreasonable,” Ms Glass said.
“It also gave no specific consideration to human rights, even though human rights were very much a focus for affected communities, who were worried about the impact of PFAS on themselves and their children, as well as waterways and wildlife.”
EPA officials told the Ombudsman they believed at the time that consulting the community would be a “waste of time” and that discussions “could not be fruitful because of the level of anger in the community”.
The Ombudsman made four recommendations in its report, including a review in the approach to community engagement, consideration of improvements to the EPA’s Charter of Consultation, the implementation of a human rights assessment procedure and for the EPA to seek consent to publish the redacted EMPs and related reports.
The EPA said in a statement it accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations in full, and acknowledged their “shortcomings” in community consultation and engagement.
“While our decisions will always be based on science and the law, we have made significant improvements to how we engage with local communities about issues that affect them. This has been acknowledged by the Ombudsman in her report,” the EPA said.
