Houses, roads and pathways are coated in dust and dirt by trucks entering and exiting Gateway WA project to upgrade commuter routes near the airport. A DER spokeswoman confirmed two of the premises had generated 61 dust complaints in the past 12 months. But no companies have been fined for failing to wash down truck tyres. Meanwhile, dirt and dust from trucks entering and exiting the $2.6 billion Elizabeth Quay development site at Barrack Square has been photographed polluting roads in the CBD. Contamination reports show that part of the site - one of 23 unlined former waste dumps dotted near the river - contains “concentrations of heavy metals, PAHS and hydrocarbons above human health guidelines”.

Trucks entering and exiting the Riverside project on the Swan River - to transform the eastern gateway into the city - track dirt onto city roads. The Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, which is in charge of the project, said that dust monitoring is installed around the site and that street sweeping was taking place several times a day to clean any “clean-fill limestone” from the roads. “The dust is not presenting any health or safety concerns,” MRA Acting Chief Executive Officer Sean Henriques said. Pictures reveal trucks entering and exiting the Elizabeth Quay development site, which contains contaminated soils, are depositing dirt and mud onto busy Perth streets. But Edith Cowan University environmental exposure scientist Associate Professor Andrea Hinwood said that there is no question that dust, particularly fine dust is an issue for human health.

“The source of the dust is also important because what we tend to do is measure the dust but we don’t measure the composition,” Professor Hinwood said. “If there are pollutants that are associated with dust that can be inhaled then that is a risk, then it is down to if a person or the population is exposed enough for it to be a health risk.” Ms Hinwood said cyclists and pedestrians would be much more at risk than motorists. Workers at Elizabeth Quay have recently dredged river soils - containing a cocktail of heavy metals, pesticides and asbestos above human health and ecological guidelines - to create a boat channel. They have also extracted acid sulphate soils as they dig to install cabling.

Both the MRA and Planning Minister John Day have repeatedly refused to release relevant documents that detail operating conditions and dust mitigation requirements at the site. Mr Day would also not answer questions on why the MRA would not make the documents publically available. An MRA spokeswoman instead issued a statement that said: “work on site is being carried out in accordance with the approved management plans which do not require rumble strips or a wheel wash for the works undertaken or the type of materials being transported to date.” Limestone access roads and “metal aggregates” have been placed at entry and exit points, it stated. But Fairfax Media has obtained part of the Site Management Plan which states that: “rumble strips will be installed at exits from the site” and “a wash-down facility is required” for transporting asbestos-laden dredge materials and to stop contaminated soils being spread during remedial works.

The MRA has confirmed that dredge material has been transported offsite and was either sent to a classified landfill facility or - if it was determined to be clean fill - was reused within the site. The plan states that: “If excavation and transport machinery traverse contaminated areas, soils may adhere to the vehicle wheels and/or mix with underlying clean soil and potentially be deposited on roads and possibly generate contaminated dust.” “The soils themselves may contain elevated levels of trace metals, hydrocarbons, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or asbestos fibres that should not be inadvertently spread into clean areas or onto public roads.” Opposition environment spokesman Chris Tallentire said secrecy surrounding the project and failure to stop trucks polluting nearby roads was appalling. “It’s clear from the Contaminated Sites Act that as Elizabeth Quay is a government authorised project it is the government that is responsible for the clean-up of the site,” Mr Tallentire said.

“There’s no excuse for incompetent or slipshod work when cleaning up a contaminated site: the risk to the community is too high.” Greens MP Lynn Maclaren has called for a high-level investigation to establish if dust on Perth roads was causing a public health hazard. “This is putting people at risk, especially with the operations that require licences,” Ms MacLaren said. “We know there are known health risks associated with those activities and the fact that there is no enforcement is outrageous.” Meanwhile, the MRA has also refused to provide construction or management documents for its other sites, including Riverside, where photographs reveal mud being spread offsite onto streets and pathways.

Near the airport, Main Road officials working on the $1 billion Gateways WA project – an upgrade of the area’s road and bridge network - have recently installed a wheel wash machine after photos show streets and nearby housing have been coated in dust. A spokeswoman for Gateways WA said a wheel wash has been installed because of the changing weather conditions. “Prior to this GWA has employed road sweepers to maintain the exit points from the site however the project has installed wheel wash facilities to assist with this process foreseeing the upcoming wet weather over the winter period,” the spokeswoman said. Opposition Planning spokeswoman Rita Saffioti said the public needs to be clear on what is required of government appointed developers. “There are significant environment issues identified by the Environmental Protection Agency [for Elizabeth Quay], including the disturbance and excavation of contaminated soils and sediments,” Ms Saffioti said.

“The public needs to be protected, and given the information available, we cannot be sure that currently is the case.” In the WA’s Environmental Protection Authority statement of reasons for not formally assessing the Elizabeth Quay project from January 2012, it now incorrectly states that the documents are available on the MRA’s website. “It is important to note that the EPA issued advice because it has confidence other regulatory processes already in place will meet the EPA's objectives,” an EPA spokeswoman said. "At the time, and in good faith, the EPA referred to links on the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority’s website." "Questions as to why the MRA no longer have the plans on their website are best directed to the MRA."