When a community group spends months researching health risks and formally requests action to protect Victorian families, the last thing you’d expect is a copy-paste response that completely ignores the evidence. Yet that’s exactly what EPA Victoria delivered when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence about the health dangers of living near petrol stations.
The Research-Based Request That EPA Victoria Chose to Ignore
Safe Separations sent EPA Victoria a comprehensive, evidence-based request highlighting a glaring gap in the state’s environmental protection framework. The email, reproduced in full below, presented compelling scientific evidence and drew comparisons with other Australian jurisdictions that actually protect their communities:
“Dear EPA Victoria,
I am writing on behalf of Safe Separations (safeseparations.org), a Victorian community initiative advocating for scientifically supported minimum distances between petrol stations and sensitive locations such as homes, schools, childcare centres and aged-care facilities.
We have reviewed EPA Victoria’s Separation Distance Guidelines (August 2024), which provide comprehensive guidance for numerous industrial activities. However, we are deeply concerned by the apparent absence of specific recommended setback distances for service stations from sensitive land uses, particularly given the substantial health evidence and the clear guidance provided by other jurisdictions.
The Western Australia Department of Health maintains clear minimum separation distances of 50 metres for service stations operating during normal business hours and 100 metres for 24-hour service stations. This guidance is based on robust scientific evidence, including peer-reviewed studies investigating residential proximity to petrol stations and cancer outcomes. These studies have consistently demonstrated increased cancer risks, particularly childhood leukaemia, for people living close to service stations.
EPA Western Australia similarly provides separation distances of 50m and 100m for different categories of service stations. The Northern Territory EPA also includes service stations in their separation distance framework.
The scientific literature clearly establishes that service stations contribute significantly to concentrations of benzene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in surrounding air. Benzene has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen. Research demonstrates that the highest health risks occur within 50 metres of service stations, with evidence showing increased risks of cancer, particularly childhood leukaemia, respiratory illnesses, and birth defects.
While EPA Victoria’s guidance on “Specific land uses in planning” acknowledges service stations as requiring “special consideration during planning because of greater potential risk of harm to human health and the environment”, the focus appears limited to contamination issues from underground petroleum storage systems rather than addressing air quality and health risks from ongoing operations.
Given this concerning disparity between EPA Victoria’s approach and that of other Australian jurisdictions, and in light of the substantial health evidence, we formally request that EPA Victoria provide clear answers to the following questions:
Why does EPA Victoria not include specific recommended setback distances for service stations in its Separation Distance Guidelines, when clear health evidence exists and other Australian jurisdictions provide such guidance?
What specific health risk assessment has EPA Victoria conducted regarding service station emissions and proximity to sensitive land uses?
How does EPA Victoria justify the absence of air quality-based setback distances for service stations when your own guidelines state that these facilities pose “greater potential risk of harm to human health”?
Will EPA Victoria commit to updating its Separation Distance Guidelines to include evidence-based minimum setback distances for service stations, consistent with other Australian jurisdictions?
The protection of Victorian communities, particularly vulnerable populations including children, should be EPA Victoria’s highest priority. We respectfully but firmly request that EPA Victoria provide a detailed written response explaining the current policy position within 30 days and commit to incorporating service station setback distances in future guideline updates.
The current situation leaves Victorian communities without the health protections afforded to residents in other Australian states. This is unacceptable and requires urgent attention.
We look forward to your prompt and comprehensive response.”
1st June 2025 – SafeSeparations.org
EPA Victoria’s Insulting Response: A Masterclass in Bureaucratic Evasion
After receiving this detailed, evidence-based submission highlighting serious health risks to Victorian families, EPA Victoria’s response was nothing short of scandalous:
“Thanks for contacting EPA Victoria.
We believe best practice design and operation of service stations can minimise many environmental risks.
We provide guidance on our website with reference to the Australian Standards for separation distances. EPA Victoria does not set these standards.
Contamination from underground petroleum storage systemsOur following publications may also be of interest
The design, installation and management requirements for underground petroleum storage systems (UPSS)
Victorian underground petroleum storage systems: A guide to preventing and managing leaks and spills
Leak detection for underground petroleum storage systems
If you need any further help, please contact us on 1300 372 842.”
1st June 2025 – EPA Victoria
The Science EPA Victoria Refuses to Acknowledge
Let’s be clear about what EPA Victoria chose to ignore. The scientific evidence linking petrol station proximity to serious health risks is overwhelming and growing:
Childhood Leukemia Risk: Research published in peer-reviewed journals shows that children living within 50 meters of petrol stations face significantly increased leukemia risks. A comprehensive Italian study found children living less than 50 meters from petrol stations had more than double the risk of leukemia compared to those living over 1000 meters away, with the risk being even higher for older children.
Benzene Exposure: The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified benzene as a Group 1 carcinogen. Studies consistently show that service stations contribute significantly to benzene concentrations in surrounding air, with concentrations ranging from 1 to more than 5 parts per million – well above recommended exposure limits.
Worker Health Impacts: Research on petrol station workers shows cancer risks of approximately one in 10,000 from long-term benzene exposure. If trained workers wearing protective equipment face these risks, what about children playing nearby?
Other States Protect Their Communities – Why Not Victoria?
While EPA Victoria apparently believes “best practice design” is sufficient protection (without defining what that means), other Australian jurisdictions actually protect their residents:
Western Australia: The Department of Health maintains clear minimum separation distances of 50 metres for normal hours service stations and 100 metres for 24-hour operations, explicitly acknowledging the health risks from gaseous emissions.
Northern Territory: Includes service stations in their comprehensive separation distance guidelines, recognizing the need for protective buffers.
Even EPA Victoria’s own 2024 Separation Distance Guidelines provide detailed recommendations for dozens of industrial activities – from chemical storage (1000 metres) to petroleum storage (500 metres). Yet mysteriously, the actual retail of petroleum to the public warrants no protection at all?
The Guidelines That Protect Everyone Except Victorians
EPA Victoria’s 2024 guidelines are comprehensive, providing separation distances for industries including:
- Bulk storage of chemicals: 1,000 metres
- Chemical storage and warehousing: 100 metres
- Storage of petroleum products over 2,000 tonnes: 500 metres
- Quarrying operations: 500 metres (doubled from the previous 250 metres)
Yet the retail sale of petroleum directly to consumers – in densely populated areas, often adjacent to homes and schools – apparently requires no protection buffer whatsoever.
A Response That Insults Victorian Intelligence
EPA Victoria’s response demonstrates either stunning incompetence or deliberate evasion. Let’s break down their non-answers:
“We believe best practice design and operation of service stations can minimise many environmental risks” – This meaningless platitude completely ignores the extensive research on air quality impacts and health risks from routine operations.
“We provide guidance on our website with reference to the Australian Standards” – The request specifically asked about health-based separation distances, not engineering standards for tank installation.
“EPA Victoria does not set these standards” – Yet EPA Victoria sets separation distances for dozens of other industries. Why not petrol stations?
Focus on contamination only – All suggested publications deal exclusively with underground storage contamination, completely ignoring the air quality and health concerns raised.
The Real Cost of EPA Victoria’s Negligence
This isn’t just about bureaucratic incompetence – it’s about real health impacts on real families. While other states protect their children with evidence-based setbacks, Victorian families are left to discover too late that their dream home is within the cancer risk zone of a 24-hour petrol station.
The 2024 case of a Perth development assessment panel explicitly referencing the Department of Health WA’s position paper on petrol station separation distances shows how health authorities in other states actively engage with planning decisions. In Victoria, we get form letters about tank leak detection.
EPA Victoria: Comprehensive Protection for Industry, None for Communities
Perhaps most damning is EPA Victoria’s own acknowledgment that service stations require “special consideration during planning because of greater potential risk of harm to human health and the environment”. Yet when pressed to translate this recognition into actual protective measures, they defer to engineering standards about tank design.
Meanwhile, EPA Victoria’s 2024 guidelines meticulously protect communities from quarrying dust (500m), chemical storage (up to 1000m), and even sewage treatment plants (with complex mathematical formulas based on population served). But emissions from petrol stations, which include known carcinogens like benzene? Apparently not worth a single meter of protection.
The Questions EPA Victoria Hopes You Won’t Ask
EPA Victoria’s non-response raises disturbing questions:
- What industry pressure influenced the exclusion of petrol stations from separation guidelines?
- How many planning decisions have proceeded without health protection because EPA Victoria provides no guidance?
- What legal liability does EPA Victoria face for ignoring known health risks?
- How does EPA Victoria justify protecting Victorians from quarry dust but not petrol station carcinogens?
A Call for Accountability
EPA Victoria’s dismissive response to months of community research represents everything wrong with regulatory capture and bureaucratic indifference. While their counterparts in Western Australia and Northern Territory provide clear, health-based protection for their communities, EPA Victoria hides behind engineering standards and tank inspection schedules.
Victorian families deserve better than form letters and deflection. They deserve the same health protections afforded to every other Australian state. Most of all, they deserve regulators who take their responsibilities to public health seriously.
The science is clear. Other jurisdictions act on it. EPA Victoria’s excuses have run out.
Safe Separations continues to advocate for evidence-based minimum distances between petrol stations and sensitive land uses. Contact your local member of parliament and demand better health protection for Victorian communities. Our children’s health shouldn’t be a postcode lottery.