The operator of an asbestos-riddled soil mound in Bangholme will be compelled to clean up even if they collapse into insolvency, says the state’s pollution watchdog EPA Victoria.
This month, VCAT affirmed an EPA order against soilworks operator ESI Projects Pty Ltd to clean up the contaminated soil at 576 Dandenong-Frankston Road.
A clean-up deadline of 29 December applies to the site, which features a mountainous pile of soil behind Jakupi Flowers.
It stands within the Green Wedge zone, just 400 metres away from worried residents at Willow Lodge retirement village.
At the tribunal, ESI submitted that remediation could cost up to $6 million and cause its insolvency.
The operator recorded a $382,000 operating loss for the ten months up to 30 April.
EPA southern metropolitan regional manager Viranga Abeywickrema said “alternative pathways” were available if ESI wound up.
“Victoria’s strong environmental laws provide alternative pathways to ensure that the liability of cleaning up pollution is borne by parties responsible for causing or permitting that pollution.
“EPA will continue to consider these alternative pathways as the need arises. the EPA wouldn’t comment on ESI’s financial circumstances.”
The soil comprised category B contamination – the second-highest level of hazardousness – including asbestos fragments.
EPA’s health advice to the community was “unchanged”, Abeywickrema said.
“The risk to neighbours remains low.
“EPA maintains regular contact with the community to provide up-to-date advice.”
ESI had a council-issued permit to accept ‘clean fill’ only on the site as well as an exclusive contract with landowner Jakupi Flowers to accept a minimum 400,000 cubic metres of soil over three years.
Last year, Greater Dandenong Council alleged ESI breached its permit. Last week, it declined to go into details.
“Greater Dandenong City Council is continuing to work with the EPA and the landowners to resolve this issue,” acting chief executive Sanjay Manivasagasivam said.
“As this remains an active investigation, we are unable to provide further comment.”
ESI had sought a VCAT review of the Environment Protection Authority notice to clean-up by 28 February this year, arguing it was “not the appropriate person” to receive the notice.
It submitted it did not know of the importing of contaminated material, and had went “above and beyond” required protocols in order to prevent it.
VCAT found that the notices can be served on people in management and control of the land, regardless of whether they caused or permitted the contamination.
They found that there was a “paramount duty to minimize the risk of harm”.
“Nothing that has been submitted or put to the Tribunal by ESI persuades us that the action of the Authority should be set aside.”
