DRYSDALE LANDFILLCOMMUNITYCONSULTATIONGROUP MEETING

Meeting #7

Tuesday31October20176.30pm –8.30pm

Springdale Community Hall Drysdale Recreation Room,High Street,Drysdale

Facilitator:Jen Lilburn

PURPOSEOF THEMEETING:

  • To discuss issues associated with the Drysdale Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre

AGENDA

  1. Welcome
  2. Meeting Introduction, acknowledgment of Country and apologies
  3. Operations/Capital Works Update (David McNamara)
  4. Clarifier
  5. Methane extraction
  6. Stormwater diversion
  7. Cell 5 Update
  8. Environmental Risk Management and Monitoring
  9. Revegetation (Shane Middleton)
  10. Update regarding EPA review of the Frederick Mason Creek report by Patrick Coutin (Carolyn Francis – Action 1707.6)
  11. Interest in/timing of technical discussion relative to above report (Action 1707.6)
  12. Response to community/EPA meeting (Carolyn Francis – Actions 1705.11 & 1707.4))
  13. Interest in EPA presentation relating to the EPA’s role in landfill regulation generally and specifically at the Drysdale Landfill? (Action 1705.12)
  14. Original EPA licence (Carolyn – Action 1707.10)
  15. Barwon South West Resource and Recovery Group Update (Ashley Pittard)
  • Regional Waste Implementation Plan (Action 1707.3)
  • E-waste Plan
  1. Closure/the Future of the Site
  • Current/projected fill rates (Action 1707.9)
  • Rehabilitation Plan update (Rod Thomas)
  1. Discussion of Priority Actions (if time permits)
  2. Close – next meeting – February??

______

PRESENT

Community / Chris Lean (Tuckerberry Hill),Tom O’Connor (Committee for Bellarine), Peter Kronborg (Committee for Bellarine), Rhonda Briscoe,Lawrie Beck, Rosalind Ellinger (Bellarine Landcare), Patrick Coutin, Rob Sloan, David Hall, Janet Shanahan, Kate Lockhart (Bellarine Landcare)
City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) / Shane Middleton, Rod Thomas, David McNamara, David Neil
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) / Tanya McAteer, Carolyn Francis
Others / Barwon South West Waste Resource and Recovery Group (BSWWRRG): Ashley Pittard

APOLOGIES

Peter Berrisford, Anne Brackley, Ross Gulliver, David Lean, Jim Mason (Bellarine Landcare), Neil McGuinness, Phil Wall (CFA)

Note that CFA representatives will attend meetings when there are matters of relevance on the agenda.

About these Minutes

These minutes were produced by Sally Chandler-Ford. We aim to provide detailed minutes that cover the key information that was provided in the meeting. However, these minutes are not intended to be a transcript of the meeting, and discussions, comments and questions have been summarised to improve the readability of this document.

Presenters were given the opportunity to review the notes relating to their item to ensure the discussion was accurately summarised, and that it details best available knowledge at the time of the meeting. Additional comments received after the meeting have been highlighted as such.

A briefer account of the meeting is provided in the meeting Snapshot.

MINUTES FROM THE MEETING

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FROM THIS MEETING

Note: See the DLCCG Actions Update documentfor the status of all outstanding actions.

Action Number / Action
Action 1710.1 / CoGG to consider scaled threshold procedures (based on landfill cell heights) for site closure during high wind events
Action 1710.2 / CoGG to consider increased boundary fence heights to assist in containing litter onsite
Action 1710.3 / David McNamara to provide his contact details to nearby landowners for ease of contact in the event of litter escapes onto private property
Action 1710.4 / CoGG to confirm proposed vegetation species to be planted on phytocap
Action 1710.5 / CoGG to consider Bellarine Landcare for advice and supply of tubestock/seed etc. for the phytocap
Action 1710.6 / CoGG to check planning restrictions/conditions for works at height greater than 70 metres
Action 1710.7 / CoGG to produce the Pre-settlement Capping Contours Plan as a side profile to enable the comparison of eventual cell heights across the site
Action 1710.8 / EPA to email the October 2016 EPA Audit Report to Chris Lean
Action 1710.9 / CoGG to confirm the depths of the additional groundwater test bores.
Action 1710.10 / EPA to convene the technical discussion with interested community members to discuss the content of Patrick Coutin’s report
Action 1710.11 / EPA to make a presentation on the EPA’s role in landfill regulation generally and specifically at the Drysdale Landfill at a future DLCCG meeting
Action 1710.12 / EPA to confirm the date of the premises plan.
Action 1710.13 / BSWWRRG to confirm CoGG population growth rates used in the development of the ten year Regional Waste Implementation Plan.
Action 1710.14 / Ashley Pittard (BSWWRRG) to attend every second or third DLCCG meeting.
Action 1710.15 / Rod to discuss building within buffer zones with Lawrie after the meeting
Action 1710.16 / Rod to discuss access to the Masons Creek Incentive Program with Janet after the meeting
Action 1710.17 / Patrick requested an item on the February 2018 agenda to discuss a species that has National and State Action Plans

1.Welcome

Jen Lilburn welcomed 18attendees to the meeting and explained her role as an independent facilitator to ensure that everyone present has the opportunity to contribute and be heard by other attendees.

2.Operations/Capital Works Update

Clarifier

David McNamara (Drysdale Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre Site Supervisor)explained that the new clarifier will remove sediment from stormwater that has collected onsite prior to its release downstream. This stormwater has not come into contact with any waste. Itwill be housed in a new shed next to the eastern dam near Cell 6. The clarifier is expected to be operational within the next two weeks. It will not generate any noise other than the water moving through it.

Shane Middleton (Waste Management Coordinator, CoGG) (in answering a question): The stormwater pipe was constructed to move water through the site in the event of high rainfall and it hasn’t been required as yet. It will not be used as part of the clarification process.

The presence of large amounts of litter on and off site was discussed and was of significant concern to community members. Comments and questionsrelated to matters including:

  • litter coming out of the stormwater pipe near the eastern boundary of the site, accumulating along the eastern fenceline, getting caught in boundary fencing and in trees and moving onto nearby properties
  • whether the threshold (for the receipt of waste in high wind events) needs to be variable depending on the height of the cell that is currently in operation
  • whether CoGG is managinglitter problems by covering waste as soon as it landed, as has been practice in the past
  • management of litter is a perennial problem that has been happening for a long time
  • an EPA inspection report identified inadequate fence height as a problem. A four metre fence is required
  • if volatile plastics from the landfill site reach Swan Bay (as part of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park) and the marine environment, this would contravene the National Parks Act.

David Mc: The bags near the stormwater pipe will be windblown bags rather than coming out of the stormwater pipe. We have had a number of windy days recently and, given that the cell is currently at a certain height, we are experiencing some litter escapes. We conduct onsite and offsite litter controls to retrieve litter. In high-wind conditions, we can restrict and/or divert the receival of some waste from regular controlled truck movements and loads but we can’t control all movements.

Cell 5 (once operational) will be at a lower height and enable us to use alternative cell faces during high wind events. Neighbours are able to return litter that has escaped from the landfill free of charge. The practice of covering waste as soon as it is deposited is still undertaken. The increase in the problem is possibly due to the fact that the current operating cell is closer to the site boundary.Council will look at raising the height of boundary fencing, although this creates additional problems during high winds as litter gets caught in fences,which act like a sail and can collapse completely.

Shaneadvised that a project currently underway is exploring the practicalities and economic benefits of grinding kerbside waste to be used as a covering mechanism within the landfill.

Action 1710.1: CoGG to consider scaled threshold procedures (based on landfill cell heights) for site closure during high wind events
Action 1710.2: CoGG to consider increased boundary fence heights to assist in containing litter onsite
Action 1710.3: David McNamara to provide his contact details to nearby landowners for ease of contact in the event of litter escapes onto private property

Methane extraction

David Mc advised that, as outlined at the previous DLCCG meeting, seven wells have been installed in Cell 4A for methane gas extraction and conversion to energy. A generator will be installed in mid- November following which the methane extraction process will produce enough energy to eventually power approximately 4,500 homes.

David Mc/Shane (in response to questions): The shed will be approximately the size of a shipping container and will be located next to the flare. There will only be one generator at the site and it will draw methane from closed cells for approximately 30 years, although the volume of methane will reduce each year.

Stormwater diversion

Shane explained that works on the stormwater diversion project are complete and water is currently being piped into the dam. There are no plans to divert the water into the creek at this stage.

Shane/Dave Neil(Team Leader Waste Services) (in response to questions): The dam hasn’t reached the freeboard level but the clarifier has been installed to manage any overflow and release water downstream if required. Water hasn’t been pumpedinto the quarry for 3-4 months. It was a one-off event.

Carolyn Francis (Manager, South West Region, EPA): The temporary EPA approval issued to pump water into the quarry was not an ongoing approval and not part of the EPA licence. The temporary approval has now expired.

Cell 5 Update

David Mc advised that a small amount of material is being removed from Cell 4A to enable the floor liner in Cell 4A to join with the floors of Cell 5 and Cell 6. The material will then be returned to its original position. These works are expected to be completed within two weeks.

Carolyn: These works require EPA approval as they will result in the tipping face becoming larger for the duration of the works. It will be a temporary approval only. The EPA will need to make sure that Council have adequate plans in place to ensure that the litter is adequately managed as a larger more exposed tipping face will generate a greater potential for litter. One of the advantages of these meetings is that, whilst the EPA doesn’t get a lot of direct pollution reports about the site, the discussions around litter tonight have highlighted the need to ensure that it is appropriately managed through this approvals process.

Are you talking about the mound that has grown?

David Mc/Shane: No, the mound is the phytocap, which is an alternative form of capping where a 2m thick soil layer is used to cap a cell. Vegetation is then planted on top to extract moisture from the cell. The EPA requires it to be trialled first to ensure that the soil and vegetation suit the local climate.

The phytocap and eventual cell height was discussed. Comments and questions included:

Phytocap:

  • Will native vegetation be planted on the phytocap? Will a range of vegetation trials be run to test different grasses, shrubs, species etc.?
  • What is the timeframe for determination of success of the trial?
  • Bellarine Landcare would be interested in providing tubestock, direct seeding material, advice etc.
  • Is the 2 metre phytocap within the existing air space of the landfill meaning that the landfill actually decreases by 2 metres to accommodate the phytocap?

Eventual cell height:

  • Is the pre-approved contour related to the pre-existing landscape? Does the pre-approved contour plan specify pre-existing landscape height or lower?
  • Statements from a long term neighbour that the current landfill height is significantly higher than the pre-landfill profile such that views and vistas have disappeared
  • The first cell is much higher than the pre-existing level ever was. Why did the EPA approve it to that level?
  • What is the highest point on the Pre-settlement Capping Contours Plan?Anything above 70 metres above sea level constitutes a ‘Significant Landscape Overlay’ in the planning scheme and has certain restrictions and planning permit requirements. Given this, how did the height of 76 metres get approved?
  • Even though CoGG may be working to the legal requirements, plans approved and issued twenty years ago may now not be considered acceptable. There needs to be a balance between working to the letter of the law and what is reasonable now
  • Is Cell 1 going to be the highest cell on the site?

Shane: The vegetation will most likely be native species as they are the most tolerant. The timeframe to determine the success of the trial is at least 2 years. Council will follow guidelines that have been developed for these trials based on research, on-ground experiences and knowledge on the subject. The trial will also be audited by an experienced auditor. The 2 metre soil thickness would be the maximum. There is an approved pre-capping contour and then the cap is on top of that. The pre-approved contour was determined to fit in with the surrounding landscape, and the Pre-Settlement Capping Contours Plan was distributed at the July DLCCG meeting. This Plan is part of the EPA licence and this is what CoGG is working to. The highest point on the Pre-Settlement Capping Contours Plan is approximately 76 metres. We will check the Significant Landscape Overlay to determine the restrictions that the overlay places on use and development on land at heights greater than 70 metres. Works proposed by Council will be limited to revegetation with grasses. Council can provide side profiles of the eventual cell heights. I have previously confirmed that the eventual cell heights will be no higher than the current levels.

Carolyn: The purpose of a cap is to avoid water infiltrating into the cells. The two main forms of capping are either an impermeable cap (typically clay and geomembrane) or a phytocap where the plants remove the water out of the soil and cap. Phytocaps are relatively new in Victoria and, therefore, approvals are subject to site specific trials. If the trials can’t demonstrate that it will be an effective solution, the default is back to the traditional cap. The EPA has staff experienced in this field, andthese proposals are referred to these staff for review and assessment.

Carolyn: One of the challenges of this site is that the original landfill establishment pre-dated the EPA works approval process and licencingwas related more to litter management. The EPA focuses on issues around environmental protection such as litter, drainage, capping, water quality etc. Beyond that, there are land use planning issues, such as height, land form, visual impacts etc. which also require approval, but not from EPA. Both approvals need to be obtained and one doesn’t override another. Some existing sites do have tensions between environmental controls and ideal land use planning outcomes. Issues with heights and planning overlays sit within land use planning.

Is it possible that some of the conversations around changing community expectations, changing contours, eventual height levels etc. might be part of the closure and rehabilitation planning process?

Rod Thomas (Manager Environment and Waste Services, CoGG): Yes, I’m happy to discuss those issues as part of that process but I don’t have any answers at the moment.

Carolyn: There will be some practical limitations also. For example, lowering height levels of cells that have been capped and rehabilitated would be challenging and may result in lower environmental outcomes. Whilst anything is open for discussion, there will be some limitations on what the EPA will consider acceptable in terms of long term environmental protection.

After the meeting, CoGG clarified that the highest point on the Pre-Settlement Capping Contours Plan is 78.5 metres.

Action 1710.4: CoGG to confirm proposed vegetation species to be planted on phytocap

After the meeting, CoGG confirmed that native vegetation species will be planted on the photocap including, but not necessarily limited to, Bellarine Yellow Gum, various wattles, Silver Banksia, Drooping Casuarina, Sweet Bursaria, Common Wallaby-grass, Common Tussock-grass, Spiny Mat-rush and Kangaroo Grass.

Action 1710.5: CoGG to consider Bellarine Landcare for advice and supply of tubestock/seed etc. for the phytocap
Action 1710.6: CoGG to check planning restrictions/conditions for works at height greater than 70 metres
Action 1710.7: CoGG to produce the Pre-settlement Capping Contours Plan as a side profile to enable the comparison of eventual cell heights across the site

Shane/Dave N (in response to questions): Bores have been and will be installed into the waste pre-capping to draw the methane up. The bores are then covered by the phytocap and they will pipe the methane back to the generator. Pure methane is heavier than air but landfill gas is never pure methane. The phytocap is not permeable and won’t change the way that methane is managed. If it did, the EPA would not approve it.