A soil-works operator says it went “above and beyond” required protocols as it fights against an order to clean up a contaminated soil mound in Bangholme’s Green Wedge.
ESI Projects had sought a review at VCAT against an EPA Victoria order to remove the contaminated soil at the 576 Frankston-Dandenong Road site.
As the VCAT contest started on 25 August, the towering mound allegedly riddled with toxic asbestos and heavy metals has been untouched since the order expired six months earlier.
The mound stands just 400 metres from residents at Willow Lodge retirement village.
The contamination was in alleged breach of the operator’s EPA licence to accept clean-fill soil only.
In his opening remarks at VCAT, ESI Projects’ barrister conceded that the contaminated ‘clean fill’ came from a Renex soil-treatment facility in Dandenong South via a third party.
However, ESI Projects’ had done due diligence in checking soil brought on the site, including visual inspections and nine lab test reports that claimed it was clean, he argued.
The category-B contamination would not have been visible to the naked eye, the lawyer said.
ESI Projects was not disputing a separate EPA order to remove asbestos fragments from a different part of the site, the lawyer said.
Its policies and procedures were “sufficient”, went “above and beyond” what was required but “unfortunately nothing is fool-proof”, he said.
On the other hand, EPA’s barrister told the tribunal that ESI project’s procedures were inadequate, including in securing the premises from unauthorised deliveries.
She argued ESI’s arrangement with landowner Jakupi Flowers showed it was the occupier and responsible for waste on the site.
As part of a three-year agreement in 2023 to accept a minimum 400,000 cubic metres of fill, ESI was given “unlimited access” to the site at “reasonable times”.
ESI was paid by customers who deposited their soil, and in turn paid Jakupi $4 plus GST per cubic metre.
Under the arrangement, Jakupi was not to allow other entities to bring soil or materials on the land without ESI Project’s consent.
In opening remarks, ESI Projects argued that it was “not the appropriate entity” to be issued the Environmental Action Notice to remove the contaminated soil.
EPA’s barrister noted ESI Project’s claim that there were “unauthorized deliveries” of soil without ESI’s knowledge.
But even if ESI was “completely the innocent party”, it was best-placed to do the clean-up, EPA’s lawyer said.
The hearing was set down from 25-28 August in front of VCAT senior members Picha Djohan and Ian Potts.
