DRYSDALE LANDFILLCOMMUNITYCONSULTATIONGROUP MEETING

Meeting #5

Tuesday30 May20176.30pm –8.30pm

Springdale Community Hall Drysdale Recreation Room,High Street,Drysdale

Facilitator:Jen Lilburn

PURPOSEOF THEMEETING:

  • The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues associated with the Drysdale Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre

AGENDA

  1. Welcome
  2. Meeting Introduction and apologies
  3. Operations Update
  4. Management of major rainfall events
  5. New clarifier
  6. Site supervisor
  7. What is the evacuation alarm for? Update on malfunctions during April
  8. Pumping of water into the quarry
  9. Capital Works Update
  10. Leachate to sewer link
  11. Stormwater Diversion
  12. Environmental Risk Management and Monitoring
  13. Recent meeting involving some community members and CoGG with EPA (Carolyn Francis)
  14. EPA General Update (Carolyn Francis)
  15. Have methane levels exceeded EPA limits? (Rod/Shane/Ben Poole)
  16. Frederick Mason’s Creek Incentive Program
  17. Revegetation Plan (Matt Bolton, Thompson Berrill Landscape Design)
  18. Closure/the Future of the Site
  • Has CoGG got in place the required financial assurance for post-closure rehabilitation?
  • Discussions regarding the future use of the site – how, when, what process?
  1. Outstanding Actions
  2. Close
  • Next Meeting – tbc – 25 July or later in August?

______

PRESENT

Community / Chris Lean (Tuckerberry Hill) , David Lean (Tuckerberry Hill), Fiona Conroy (Victorian Farmers Federation),Tom O’Connor (Committee for Bellarine), Peter Kronborg (Committee for Bellarine), Rosalind Ellinger (Bellarine Landcare), Rhonda Briscoe, Kate Lockhart (Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association and Bellarine Landcare), David Harris (Geelong Sustainability Group), Ross Gulliver, Karl Camden-Burch, Jim Mason (Bellarine Landcare) Lynne Mason (Bellarine Landcare), Chris Carnaby, Andrew Brown (Bellarine Bin Hire)
City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) / Shane Middleton, Rod Thomas, David McNamara, William Tieppo
Others / EPA Victoria:Ben Poole, Carolyn Francis

APOLOGIES

Patrick Coutin, Neil McGuinness (Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association), David Neil (CoGG), Vicki Perrett (Geelong Sustainability Group), Ashley Pittard (Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group),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 reduce the overall length 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: A comprehensive list of all outstanding actions and their status is contained within the DLCCG Actions Update document which should be read in conjunction with these Minutes.

Action Number / Action
Action 170530.1 / Rod to disseminate Eastern Dam water testing results to DLCCG members
Action 170530.2 / CoGG to ensure that the after-hours emergency call out service has the correct CoGG contact details and follows appropriate procedures
Action 170530.3 / CoGG to investigate the need to have the evacuation alarm armed after hours
Action 170530.4 / CoGG to audit contractor’s practices in the disposal of leachate and provide assurances to the DLCCG that practices are compliant and appropriate
Action 170530.5 / CoGG to consider an environmental solution for stormwater management at the landfill site over an engineering solution
Action 170530.6 / DLCCG members to provide feedback to CoGG on the draft stormwater and vegetation plans by 30 June
Action 170530.7 / CoGG to consider combining the stormwater management and revegetation plans into one plan/solution
Action 170530.8 / Following the incorporation of comments, CoGG to distribute a revised plan to the DLCCG for presentation and discussion at the next DLCCG meeting
Action 170530.9 / CoGG to report back to the DLCCG on the maximum allowable height relative to earlier cells and depth of cap of Cell 5
Action 170530.10 / CoGG to plant vegetation in the road reserve along Portarlington-Queenscliff Road to screen the landfill subject to Vicroads approval
Action 170530.11 / EPA to bring finalised actions and timeframes arising from the community meeting with EPA to the next DLCCG meeting
Action 170530.12 / 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 170530.13 / Rod to keep DLCCG updated as to key timelines associated with the Frederick Mason’s Creek Incentive Program
Action 170530.14 / Rod to clarify the financial provision set aside to fund rehabilitation works post site-closure
Action 170530.15 / CoGG to clarify whether the disused CoGG quarry is included in the future use of the site discussions and plans
Action 170530.16 / Commence preliminary discussions about future use of the site at the next DLCCG meeting
Action 170530.17 / Rosalind to table a copy of the bore hole data report at a future DLCCG meeting and to provide CoGG with a copy once available

1.Welcome

Jen Lilburn welcomed 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 thanked those who provided comment on the DLCCG Terms of Reference and referred attendees to the refined Code of Conduct which will ensure the meetings will be positive and productive.

2.Operations Update

Site Supervisor

David McNamara was appointed to the role of Drysdale Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre Site Supervisor in April 2017.

Management of major rainfall events, new clarifier, pumping of water into quarry

Rod Thomas (Manager Environment and Waste Services, CoGG) explained that heavy rainfall in late April resulted in over 250 mm fall at the landfill site, representing what we understand is two 1-in-100 year events during a 5 week period. All of the stormwater was captured in either the eastern dam or the excavated Cell 5, which currently doesn’t have waste in it. CoGG will release the water from the eastern dam to provide more freeboard so that, if there is another large rainfall event, the water doesn’t flow downstream untreated. A water clarifier onsite will remove any turbidity from the water and it will be tested to national standards before it is released. CoGG has also pumped some of the stormwater from the eastern dam into the northwest quarry to enable freeboard in the eastern dam. This water hasn’t come into contact with waste and it is also tested against NATA and State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) standards prior to release.

Question: Will the water in the quarry be released into the Creek?

Rod: We will pump in a relatively small amount of water so, whilst the water level in the quarry may rise a couple of feet in the short term, it will ultimately level out back into the water table.

Question: A clarifier removes suspended solids. Do you measure for dissolved organic solids ie Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)?

Shane Middleton (Waste Management Coordinator, CoGG): Yes - we have to meet the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy so all parameters, not just turbidity, have to be below nominated figures before water can be released into a watercourse.

Carolyn Francis (Manager South West Region, EPA):By way of explanation of the above for all present, Carolyn added that BOD and COD are measures of whether there is organic material in the water that is going to use up oxygen. High levels of BOD or COD are undesirable.

Following the meeting, Rod clarified that a review of the testing has shown that, though an extensive range of nutrients, pH, salinity, metals etc. was tested, BOD/COD were not tested. They are not expected to be high, but Council will now undertake follow up testing to confirm.

A number of potential contamination concerns were raised by meeting participants including:

  • danger of cross contamination of water bodies by birds as identified in the Auditor’s Report
  • potential contaminants in the water in the quarry which then enter the groundwater
  • whether testing for contaminants includes heavy metals
  • whether water taken from the dam is tested before it is put into the quarry, particularly given that the road crosses the creek line three times with vehicles and rubbish trucks
  • a desire to see the test results
  • whether the water table is being contaminated
  • the potential for water contaminated after testing, hence a lack of certainly about the quality of water going into the groundwater
  • are the tests occurring daily at the same time, same location, same depth? Is there a guideline? What is the period of time between the samples being sent off and the results being received? If it’s too long, the purpose of the testing has been negated.

In response to these concerns Rodand Shane explained that testing is undertaken for all parameters and test results can be made available to the DLCCG. The samples are sent to a nationally accredited laboratory for analysis.When the stormwater is released into the watercourse, testing is undertaken every 30 minutes. Testing is automated through the clarifier so the results are immediate.

Ben Poole (Environment Protection Officer, EPA) clarified that there are two types of testing undertaken. A full suite of tests isperformed prior to the stormwater release and samples sent to the accredited laboratory. The second set of testing is of a more limitedset of parameters undertaken onsite during the release.

Carolyn explained thatCoGG sought EPA approval to discharge into the quarry. Part of EPA’s decision making is to weigh up the alternatives, in this case, a potential discharge from the stormwater dam into the creek that would have been uncontrolled and potentially high in sediment. It was, therefore, considered to be a preferable short-term option to discharge to the quarry. The approval is a Section 30A approval under the Environment Protection Act and there are monitoring and reporting requirements attached to that approval.

Ben explained that the Auditor’s recommendation around potential cross contamination from birds was specifically related to the situation occurring in which an active cell was next to a newly constructed cell. This is no longer the case. Carolyn explained that rapid changes in the quality of water in a large stormwater dam from birds or vehicles would be unusual. Whilst there may be seasonal changes, there would otherwise need to be a specific reason for the water quality to change from good quality one day to poor the nexte.g.a spill.

Comment: The cross contamination issue whereby masses of birds move between the active cell to the built cell and then drink and sit on the dam which is right next door for hours and hours is very obvious to anyone who has observed it. So this is still very much an issue which the Auditors should be well noting.

Shane: The clarification process will also address any impact that the birds may have.

Comment: As long as it is clarifying for all those sorts of contaminants that were discussed before, not just turbidity.

Shane: Yes, it is the whole suite.

Action 170530.1: Rod to disseminate Eastern Dam water testing results to DLCCG members

Questions: How long does the water clarification process take? (so the freeboard can be diminished rapidly ready for the next flood). Does it have the capacity to match flood levels?

Rod: We will start to release clarified water within the next week. The current clarifier is hired and the permanent one will be onsite within a month. This will enable us to mimic the natural regime of water flows as much as possible through the creek line – i.e. as it rains, the clarified water will be released downstream. It has the capacity to pump 1 megalitre/day.

Comment: During the recent rainfall events, Mason’s Creek didn’t flood. Every other creek and some roadways had environmental flows whilst Mason’s Creek lifted its flow a bit, but not much. It was remarkable how much water was missing. So, in terms of contribution to the environment, we want natural water back into the creek to get the flows going again.

Rod/Shane: Yes, point taken. We will have a look at that and will do what we can, where applicable, to release water downstream. But it is a big dam so it’s certainly having an impact on the flow. There are other local dams that haven’t quite filled up, preventing creek flow.

Comment: Our dam didn’t overflow and it has overflowed in the past. I’m not sure whether the water flowing across, into and down Founds Road has had an impact or not. Or maybe some dams have been built upstream of us that we are not aware of.

Following the meeting, a community member suggested that Mason’s Creek didn’t flow during those rainfall events as the Mason’s Creek Catchment received a lot less rain than other catchments across the Bellarine Peninsula at that time.

Evacuation Alarm

Dave McNamara (Drysdale Landfill Site Supervisor) advised that the emergency evacuation alarm activated one April night when there was some dew in the air and moisture got into the back of the switch and set it off. It was repaired the next day and there haven’t been any further issues.

Comment: It went off twice, one week prior to the incident you are talking about. I phoned twice, once at 1 am to advise that it was going off and again at 2 am to advise that it was still going. After I phoned the second time, the lady said she would put it through. She obviously didn’t believe me the first time. I received a phone call the next day to apologise for not believing me.

Dave: There may have been a period of time during the transition from Ray to myself that the after-hours call out company didn’t have the correct contact details. There was some confusion as to whether the alarm was a security alarm or the evacuation alarm.

Will Tieppo (Director - City Services, CoGG): This is good feedback which will be passed on to the after-hours emergency service call out, which is contracted.

Question: What is that alarm for? Does it need to be an armed audible alarm after hours when no one is onsite?

Dave: If there is an incident onsite, the alarm alerts onsite personnel to a dangerous incident (e.g. fire, car reversing into a cell etc) and evacuates everyone to the assembly points. It ispossibly not needed after hours.

Shane: There is a separate security alarm that goes to our security service contractor. The evacuation alarm shouldn’t have gone off in the first place.

Comment: The security alarm is also audible. Why can’t it be a flashing light and a notification to the security company rather than an audible alarm that can be heard by the neighbours? Apparently there are two security alarms, one at the beginning and then a second one.

Question: Does it have anything to do with gas?

Dave: No, nothing at all. It is purely for activation in the event of an onsite incident.

There was some disagreement amongst attendees as to whether it was preferable to fix existing alarms or disable them after hours.

Action 170530.2: CoGG to ensure that the after-hours emergency call out service has the correct CoGG contact details and follows appropriate procedures
Action 170530.3: CoGG to investigate the need to have the evacuation alarm armed after hours

3.Capital Works Update

Leachate to sewer link

Rod explained that this project will be going out to tender shortly. It will take 12 weeks to advertise, evaluate and award the tender and the construction timeline is estimated at approximately 6 weeks.

In answer to a question, Shane reminded participants that the leachate from the lined cells is pumped into the evaporation dam next to the transfer station. In the past, that evaporation dam was big enough to deal with the leachate through evaporation. Now, with the new cells coming online, CoGG needs to build either another evaporation dam or a link to sewer. The link to sewer option is a far more durable and sustainable solution. The cost of both options is similar.

The sewer link will go into Whitcombes Rd and then join up at the new big roundabout on the main road.

Clarity was sought on the current process of leachate disposal following its departure from the landfill site. Concerns raised included:

  • where the purification happens
  • whether the leachate ends up on the sea
  • the leachate’s current disposal location and whether it is being properly treated and disposed of
  • suspicious observances of contractor practices at Point Lonsdale (suspected dumping of leachate in the bush)
  • the need for assurances that the existing contractor is disposing of the leachate correctly

Ben and Carolyn explained that the Black Rock Treatment Plant receives the majority of the waste water from the Geelong area. It is treatedbefore discharge to the sea. It also has Class A treated water which goes to irrigation. A second pipe has been built from Torquay to cater for new development. The solids that come out of that treatment process get turned into pellets and used as fertilizers. The Black Rock site is licensed separately by the EPA under a raft of guidelines for managing treatment plants and bio solids.