Drysdale Landfill Community Consultation Group Meeting

DRYSDALE LANDFILL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION GROUP MEETING

Meeting #8

Tuesday 27 February 2018 6.30pm – 8.30pm

Springdale Community Hall Drysdale Recreation Room, High Street, Drysdale

Facilitator: Jen Lilburn

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:

• To discuss issues and opportunities 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. Methane extraction
5. Cell 5 Update
6. Christmas period
7. Stockpile removal
8. Environmental Risk Management and Monitoring
9. Action plans relating to aquatic species that may be impacted by the landfill (Patrick Coutin, Action 1707.17)
10. Revegetation (Shane Middleton)
11. Landfill regulation (Carolyn Francis and Tanya McAteer, Action 1710.11)
12. Landfill licence compliance inspection (November 2017) (Carolyn Francis)
13. Update regarding EPA review of the Frederick Mason Creek report by Patrick Coutin (Carolyn Francis – Action 1707.7)
14. Additional data requested by Rosalind
15. Barwon South West Resource and Recovery Group Update

• Update on recycling (via Jen Lilburn, further comment by Rod Thomas)

1. Closure/the Future of the Site

• Rehabilitation Plan update (Rod Thomas/Shane Middleton)

1. Waste Management Strategy

• Update on community consultation group to inform the Waste Management Strategy (Action 1611.1)

1. Discussion of Priority Actions (if time permits)
2. Close – Next meeting

______

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

Anne Brackley, Rhonda Briscoe, Fiona Conroy (Victorian Farmers Federation), Mercedes Drummond, Ross Gulliver, Peter Kronborg (Committee for Bellarine), Chris and David Lean (Tuckerberry Hill), Kate Lockhart (Bellarine Landcare), Jim Mason (Bellarine Landcare), Neil McGuinness, David Neil (CoGG), Vicki Perrett, Ashley Pittard (Barwon South West Resource Recovery Group), Lewis Rowell, Phillip Wall/other CFA reps (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 document for the status of all outstanding actions.

1. Welcome

Jen Lilburn welcomed 10 attendees 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. Jen apologised as she felt that some elements of the discussion at the previous meeting had not been in accordance with the agreed code of conduct.

2. Operations/Capital Works Update

Methane extraction

David McNamara (Drysdale Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre Site Supervisor) explained that LMS Energy (Landfill Management Solutions), which is contracted to operate the methane extraction process at the Drysdale Landfill site, will install a generator to power the methane extraction process in late 2018.

What percentage of methane goes back into the grid through the methane extraction process?

David: All of the methane from the site will be extracted and monitoring points ensure that no methane escapes. The quality of the methane can vary and LMS Energy, which will manage the process, are currently trying to determine how much will go back into the grid.

What is the projected number of households that will be powered through this process? Does CoGG guarantee a level of output to the contractor (LMS) based on the supply of methane? How does CoGG generate revenue from this process? Does CoGG have a contract with LMS for a certain time? In the event that methane is not generated for as long as anticipated, is Council liable?

David/Shane/Rod Thomas (Manager Environment and Waste Services, CoGG): It is understood that 2,200 - 2,700 houses will eventually be powered, depending on the quality of the methane. The greater the amount of waste deposited, the more methane generated and the more households that can be powered. The Drysdale site will generate methane for up to 30 years. CoGG doesn’t generate any revenue from this process and has not contributed to the cost. LMS has invested significantly in the infrastructure to establish the process and it will take ten years for them to see a return on their investment, through the power that they generate. Council has a contract with LMS to remain on site until the methane has all been extracted. Council isn’t locked in to a minimum supply of methane for 30 years. LMS wears the risk.

What happens to the methane currently? Is there any infrastructure on site at the moment? How long has the methane been flared for? Is water added to the cells to boost methane production?

David/Shane: The methane currently gets captured and flared. There is a flare onsite and pipe infrastructure underground. Pipes to Cells 5 and 6 will be installed as part of the finalisation of those cells. The generator will be located near the transfer station. The current flare was installed in 2010 but methane has been flared for several years prior to that. Water is not added to the cells at Drysdale although there are other sites around the state that add water to accelerate the methane production process. These sites need require additional EPA approval.

Christmas Period

David Mc advised that the Christmas period was busy but uneventful.

Cell 5 Update and Stockpile Removal

David Mc / Shane Middleton (Waste Management Coordinator, CoGG) explained that the removal of the temporary stockpile currently situated on top of Cell 4A is anticipated for completion by June 2018, depending on the timing of the construction and lining of Cell 5. In the interim, the stockpile has been reshaped to a less stark profile. Cell 5 is the final cell to be constructed and the installation of its lining is expected to commence in mid-April. Following these works, one continuous liner will run between Cells 4A, 5 and 6. It is anticipated that Cell 6 will reach capacity in September/October 2018. The fill area of Cell 5 is twice the size of that of Cell 6 and, therefore, has greater capacity to hold more waste. The current projection of the remaining life of the landfill is approximately 9 years. CoGG w

Will these works include compliance with the audit requirement to be 100 metres from surface water?

Shane: No, these works are related to rehabilitation and include the use of an evapotranspiration cap which uses the depth of soil to cap the landfill. The EPA requires this cap to be trialled first at Drysdale to ensure that the soil is suitable for this purpose. This is a more natural solution to that of a geosynthetic clay liner.

3. Environmental Risk Management, Monitoring and Improvement

Action Plans relating to aquatic species that may be impacted by the landfill (Patrick Coutin; Action 1707.17)

Given Patrick’s absence, this item was not discussed.

At Patrick’s request, Jen had invited Parks Victoria (PV) and Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA) to attend this meeting, particularly given their respective Ramsar interests and responsibilities. Both organisations indicated that they had received and read Patrick’s report but declined the invitation citing other priorities and lack of evidence of impacts of the Drysdale site on Ramsar values. Jen forwarded their responses to Patrick and offered to forward them to other interested parties.

Carolyn Francis (Manager, South West Region, EPA) advised that the Draft Port Phillip Ramsar Site Management Plan is open for public comment until 1 March. Rosalind indicated that the Plan contains a lot of information for the Western Treatment Plant component of the Ramsar site, given Melbourne Water’s active management of that precinct but that the information is more scant for the Bellarine Peninsula portion of the Ramsar site. The Werribee Landfill is listed as a threat to the Ramsar site but there is no mention of the Drysdale Landfill. A workshop held in Queenscliff recently provided more information for the Bellarine Peninsula part of the site which should be reflected in the final Plan. Jen advised that the CCMA representative had said that Patrick’s report had led to the inclusion of an action in the Draft Management Plan relating to the need for a better understanding of catchment impacts on Ramsar site values.

Revegetation

Shane advised that, in accordance with the 2017 Revegetation Plan, revegetation works had commenced along the creek line and the bank of the east stormwater pond with a good rate of success to date. Plantings are currently being considered on the exposed stockpile area just west of the east stormwater pond to assist in the management of runoff at that site.

Comment: Peter and I (Rosalind) visited the site a couple of weeks ago and were impressed with the revegetation works that had been undertaken. We made an observation that there is currently an area of environmental weeds at the west stormwater pond site which could be cleared and replaced with appropriate species also.

How much money has been set aside in this and next year’s budgets for revegetation?

Rod: Revegetation is covered in our operating costs and it is not a strain on our budget. We are trying to revegetate as much of the non-active parts of the site as possible.

Landfill regulation (Carolyn Francis and Tanya McAteer, Action 1710.11)

Carolyn distributed a handout outlining the EPA’s role in landfill regulation (Attachment A). Carolyn explained that there are different types of landfills and that they are subject to works approvals and licencing. Landfill standards have increased over time as more information has become available regarding environmental risks. Landfills are licenced over the three main phases of their lifecycle, these being the operating, closed and aftercare phases. A critical component of EPA licencing is a monitoring requirement which covers aspects of the receiving environment including landfill gas, onsite and offsite groundwater, leachate, onsite and offsite surface water quality, odour, dust and noise. More detailed information can be provided on any of these aspects as required.

Carolyn outlined the EPA’s roles including ongoing oversight and regulation of EPA licenced sites, licence compliance and assessment, pollution incident response, policy development, proposal assessments and approvals, and a specialist technical expertise team who provide internal support to EPA staff. Within the EPA, each environmental sector has an appointed principal expert, who in the case of landfills is Nick Simmons. The EPA focuses on pollution aspects of the environment rather than other environmental aspects such as biodiversity, land use planning, water flow etc.

Are the monitoring results against the agreed criteria publicly available? Is the Drysdale site on track? How is leachate managed?

Carolyn: Yes, the primary mechanism by which this data is captured is the auditing program. The Drysdale site is audited every two years. This involves the EPA approved auditor reviewing all of Council’s monitoring data over the two year period and assessing the environmental impacts as well as the adequacy of the monitoring program. These reports are publicly available at the following link

https://portal.epa.vic.gov.au/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=ROLES://portal_content/epa_content/epa_roles/epa.vic.gov.au.anonrole/epa.vic.gov.au.searchanon&trans_type=Z010

Leachate carries a lot of contaminants and needs to be removed from the cells so that it doesn’t get into the groundwater or run off into surface water and cause environmental impacts. The Drysdale site currently pumps the leachate into a leachate dam and it is then evaporated. However, CoGG will move to a system whereby the leachate is pulled out of the cells and disposed directly to a sewer connection, thereby removing the need for the leachate dam.

What is Council’s responsibility to measure, record and report? Does Council have to monitor more frequently than every 2 years? Can Council make its regular monitoring results publicly available to give the community confidence that the facility is being run well?

Carolyn/Tanya McAteer (Field Team Leader, South West Region, EPA): Council’s responsibility is to comply with the EPA monitoring program and, in the Drysdale situation, participate in a two yearly EPA audit. If there are any licence breaches at any time, Council has a legal obligation to self-report. In addition to the two year audit, Council has to report annually against their licence and these are public documents accessible on the EPA website. Whilst it is not an EPA requirement that regular data collected from the monitoring program is made publicly available, there is no reason why the duty holder can’t publish their information. Furthermore, Council could make the EPA Audit and Annual Performance Statements available on its website.

Rod/Shane: In accordance with the EPA monitoring program for the site we monitor gas quarterly and groundwater six monthly. These results go into the two year audit report. We can look into the possibility of publishing the results but the raw data is very complex and difficult to understand.

The methane generation information is a good news story which could also be made available on the Council website.

Landfill licence compliance inspection (November 2017) (Carolyn Francis)

Tanya distributed a handout containing the results of the November 2017 EPA Compliance Inspection Report of the Drysdale Landfill (Attachment B). Under its licence, the site must be inspected annually, the most recent inspection being held on 23 November 2017 and attended by four EPA and five CoGG staff. All active areas were visited including the east stormwater pond, gas manifolds, Cells 4, 5 and 6, the water clarification plant and the south eastern boundary of the premises. Litter was discussed and litter pickers were observed at the active tip face. A review of the licence conditions was also undertaken which represented the first review of the new licence since its amendment in January 2017. The duty holder informs the EPA as to their compliance against each licence condition which can also involve the presentation of supporting documentation. No issues were observed during the site visit and no issues were raised during the licence condition review and discussion. The EPA requested additional monitoring data and a copy of the site’s Environmental Management Plan following the assessment. The assessment concluded that the site was being managed in a way that presented a low risk to the environment. Tanya stressed that a licence compliance inspection is undertaken on a particular day but does not mean that there aren’t issues at the site on other days. In addition to these scheduled routine inspections, the EPA also responds to incident reports.