Nolan Consulting Pty Ltd - Planning › ... › John-Nolan.pdf · Expert Witness Report - John Nolan Nolan Consulting Pty Ltd HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 2 (f) The identity of the person

Melbourne Regional Landfill Expansion Panel

Expert Witness Report - John Nolan

Prepared for, and instructed by, Harwood

Andrews Lawyers on behalf of Melton City

Council

15 September 2016

A211-01

Nolan Consulting Pty Ltd

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx

Table of Contents

1 Expert evidence information.......................................................... 1

2 Facts, considerations and assessment .......................................... 3

2.1 Definitions ................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Location ................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Information sources ................................................................................ 3 2.4 Aspects of the proposed extension considered .............................. 3

3 Consolidated opinions ................................................................. 15

4 Statements and declarations ....................................................... 18

4.1 Statements .............................................................................................18 4.2 Declaration by the expert ..................................................................18

5 References..................................................................................... 19

Appendix

A: Curriculum Vitae – John Nolan

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 1

1 Expert evidence information

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Planning Panels Victoria Guide to Expert

Evidence. The guide identifies the information that must be included in an expert witness report.

(a) Name and address of the expert

John Gerard Nolan


PO Box 1238

Surrey Hills North VIC 3127

(b) Expert's qualifications and experience

Qualifications

B. Eng. (Civil)

M. Eng. Sci.

Dip Ed (Secondary)

Experience

35 years of experience as a hydrogeologist, environmental engineer and waste management

specialist. A copy of my CV is attached as Appendix A.

(c) Statement identifying area of expertise to make the report

My areas of expertise relevant to making this expert witness report are:

landfill auditing;

environmental risk assessment;

EPA licence compliance;

EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM compliance;

groundwater and surface water; and

landfill gas.

I am an Environmental Auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 in both the

natural resources and industrial facilities categories.

I made observations of the environment associated with the existing landfill, the proposed landfill

extension, and the local surrounds during a drive along Middle Road, Hopkins Road, Riding Boundary

Road, and Christies Road on 12th September 2016.

(d) A statement identifying any other significant contributors to the report

Nil.

(e) All instructions that define the scope of the report

All instructions that define the scope of this report are written. I received written instructions from

Harwood Andrews on behalf of Melton City Council on 7th September 2016.

The instructions were to prepare an expert witness report and present evidence on Council’s behalf

at the Panel hearing in relation to aspects of the proposed landfill extension that are relevant to my

expertise as identified in Section 1(c) above.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 2

(f) The identity of the person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert has

relied on and the qualifications of that person

Nil.

(g) The facts, matters and all assumptions upon which the report proceeds

Section 2 of this report.

(h) Summary of opinion

Section 3 of this report.

(i) Statements

Section 4.1 of this report.

(j) Signed declaration

Section 4.2 of this report.

(k) Reference to those documents and other materials the expert has considered in making this

report

The primary documents are:

1 Golder Associates (2016), “Information to Support Works Approval Application, Proposed

Melbourne Regional Landfill (MRL) Extension, Ravenhall” prepared on behalf of Landfill

Operations Pty Ltd, February 2016 including relevant appendices.

2 Melton City Council (2016), “Submission to Planning Permit application PA2016/5118 and

Works Approval application 1002191 - Extension to the landfill at 408 - 546 Hopkins Road,

Truganina and 1154 - 1198 Christies Road, Ravenhall”, dated 14 July 2016.

3 Tract Consultants (2016), “Melbourne Regional Landfill Extension Planning Permit Application

Report - 408 - 546 Hopkins Road, Truganina and 1154 - 1198 Christies Road, Ravenhall”,

prepared on behalf of Landfill Operations Pty Ltd, February 2016 including relevant

appendices.

All reference documents including the primary documents are listed in Section 5 of this report.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 3

2 Facts, considerations and assessment

2.1 Definitions

The term “site” refers to the proposed Works Approval area. The term “property” is the planning

permit application area.

2.2 Location

The address of site and property is 408-546 Hopkins Road, Truganina and 1154-1198 Christies Road,

Ravenhall. It is located about 25 km west of Melbourne’s CBD. The Planning Permit application seeks

an extension of 311 ha and the Works Approval application (WAA) seeks an extension of 210 ha.

2.3 Information sources

The documents considered in the preparation of this report are listed in Section 5 (References).

2.4 Aspects of the proposed extension considered

The aspects of the proposed extension that have been considered in this report are:

the need for the landfill extension;

compatibility with quarry;

concept design;

annual performance statement (APS) reporting of past performance;

2014 audit of landfill operations;

groundwater separation distance;

groundwater quality;

buffer to surface water;

surface water management;

monitoring program;

landfill gas (LFG) risk assessment.

The evidence and opinions relevant to these aspects are presented below in Table 1.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 4

Table 1 – Evidence and Opinions

Aspect Evidence Opinion

1 The need for

the landfill

extension

The Draft Metropolitan Waste and Resource

Recovery Implementation Plan (MW&RRIP) presents

the Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery

Implementation Infrastructure Schedule. Part B is for

Existing Landfills in metropolitan Melbourne. The

draft MW&RRIP is referenced in Golder Associates

(2016) and the Tonkin and Taylor Needs Assessment

[Appendix A of Golder Associates (2016].

The draft MW&RRIP:

lists the Melbourne Regional Landfill in

Ravenhall (MRL) as a putrescible landfill with

potential to operate beyond 2026;

states that while the landfill has the capacity to

operate for 30 years and beyond, it is limited by

planning and works approvals; and

states that if resource recovery priority actions 1

and 2 are implemented, the need to schedule

new landfills for up to 2042 would be removed,

however existing landfills that have the

potential to operate beyond 2026 would still be

needed.

The Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery

Group proposes to work to reduce the need for

scheduling new landfills and prioritise the use of

existing metropolitan landfills, to not schedule

additional landfills and to undertake a mid-term

review of the MW&RRIP to assess the impact of all

priority actions on the resource recovery market,

assess the impact on the resource recovery and

landfill markets of all Regional Implementation

Additional landfill airspace will be required beyond that

scheduled up to 2026 to receive the waste generated within

metropolitan Melbourne irrespective of the MW&RRIP

resource recovery priority action scenarios.

This additional airspace could be met by extensions of

existing landfill(s) and/or new landfills within and/or outside of

the metropolitan region.

Planning is required to protect Melbourne’s future landfill

capacity including buffers

In the absence of a new secure long term landfill site to

service Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs and the lack of

more aggressive resource recovery action targets to those

presented in the draft MW&RRIP, protection of the land

surrounding the Ravenhall property from the encroachment

of sensitive and incompatible land uses is desirable.

The final MW&RRIP and adjacent regional W&RRIPs should

establish arrangements to provide for the disposal of residual

waste generated in metropolitan Melbourne post 2026 that

provides certainty for the community and industry.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 5


Plans, and to determine the need for long term

landfilling.

No new landfills are proposed within the

metropolitan region or the Gippsland region

(adjacent to the south-east metropolitan area

where the greatest need is as the existing landfills

are likely to be closed by 2026).

2 Compatibility

with quarry

Both applications do not appear to describe

relevant elements of the quarry’s endorsed Work

Plan including rehabilitation plan. In particular the

following quarry related information does not

appear to have been provided:

maximum allowable depth of basalt extraction;

post closure water management concept; and

rehabilitation requirements.

It is not possible to determine if the applications are

compatible with the quarry’s endorsed Work Plan. This

creates uncertainties affecting the:

approach to landfill design if the base of excavation is at

or below the watertable;

compatibility of extraction rate with filling rate. Tract (2016)

states that the nature of the quarry means its staging

across the permit application area is difficult to determine

with precision;

compatibility of water management strategy, particularly

off-site discharge post closure; and

compatibility of end uses including final surface profile

and level.

3 Design

concept

Golder Associates (2016) The proposed base and side wall liners and leachate

collection system appears to be consistent with a Type 2

landfill as described in the EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM.

It is uncertain as to whether the required 2 m separation

distance from waste to the watertable will be maintained.

(See Aspect 6 below).

It is assumed that interim capping will be placed in

accordance with the EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM. Delayed

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 6


placement would result in an increase in the leachate

generation rate.

The capping design is generally consistent with a Type 2

landfill under the EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM.

The stormwater management plan [Golder Associates

(Appendix L)] is very conceptual in relationship to post

closure and does not adequately address water demand,

generation and disposal requirements. (See Aspect 8 below).

4 APS reporting

of past

performance

The most recent APS for the landfill, that was

available at the time of this report, was completed

by Landfill Operations for the 2014-15 financial year.

Non-compliances were reported for six of the 26

licence conditions. These related to:

discharge of waste beyond the property

boundary (litter and mud);

litter beyond property boundary;

elevated leachate levels;

LFG concentrations above Landfill BPEM action

levels;

inadequate rehabilitation progress;

exceedance of pre-settlement contour plan

(PSCP) levels

Actions to prevent reoccurrences were identified.

Section 22 of Golder Associates (2016) advises that

Landfill Operations has operated the MRL site since

1 March 2015 and all non-compliances were due to

past actions of previous operator, and that since

taking over the site Landfill Operations has

Non-compliances did occur within the 2014-15 post March

2015 period when the landfill was operated by Landfill

Operations. These related to litter, leachate, LFG, and PSCP

exceedances. While these non-compliances were, to a

significant degree, due to past actions of the previous

operator it should have been possible to avoid the litter

incident and excess leachate could have been tankered off

site.

Examination of the 2015-16 APS would assist in identifying

recent environmental performance and in assessing the

ability and commitment of Landfill Operations to meet future

licensing obligations. This must be submitted to the EPA by 30

September.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 7


undertaken operational improvements to ensure

environmental performance in accordance with

the regulatory framework and requirements.

One pollution abatement notice for tracking of mud

onto Christies Road was issued on 17 June 2015 and

revoked on 15 December 2015.

5 2014 Audit of

Landfill

Operations

An audit of the landfill operations was completed

by Tonkin and Taylor’s Tony Kortegast for the period

up to 30 June 2014 [Kortegast (2014)]. A review of

the following activities was carried out as part of

the audit:

• landfill operations;

• licence compliance;

• LFG risk management; and

• monitoring program.

The landfill was found to have been run in a manner

consistent with that of most other large Victorian

Type 2 landfill sites. Site operations had improved

since 2013 and were considered adequate.

Leachate levels of two to three times licensed

conditions were identified. Some impact on

groundwater due to increased rates of leakage

from old clay-lined cells is likely [see AECOM

Hydrogeological Assessment (HA) in Golder

Associates (2016) at Appendix D].

LFG monitoring showed that methane

concentrations exceeded the Landfill BPEM action

level in three bores associated with the closed

Stage 1 area and north and east of the early Stage

The audit of landfill operations report did not attach full

leachate, groundwater and LFG monitoring data sets.

Examination of the operations audit for the period to June

2016 and the comprehensive monitoring report to June 2016

would assist in identifying recent environmental performance

and in assessing the ability and commitment of Landfill

Operations to meet future licensing obligations.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 8


2 cells. Surface Landfill BPEM methane action levels

were exceeded at 43 locations, 40 of which were in

Stage 2. Monitoring also indicated the potential for

LFG migrating within the site and possibly from the

site from the early Stage 2 Cells.

In advance of the next audit, a comprehensive

monitoring report was recommended to be

completed.

The next audit is for the period up to 30 June 2016. It

is due by December 2016.

6 Groundwater

separation

distance

Section 6.9 of Golder Associates (2016) states the

landfill cells are designed to ensure the base of the

waste is at least 2 m above the water table (Figures

25 and 26 cross sections) which would meet the

minimum separation requirement for Type 2 landfills

prescribed by Section 5.1.3 of the EPA(2015) Landfill

BPEM. This is based upon the Hydrogeological

Assessment (HA) prepared by AECOM [Appendix D

of Golder Associates (2016)].

The minimum floor levels of the top of the leachate

layer (base of waste) of individual cells are not

provided.

The Figure 25 and 26 cross sections are insufficient to

accurately determine the lowest waste level in each cell. The

base of waste in Cells 1 and 2 is shown to be close to the

watertable in the southern part of the southern landfill portion

(long sections E and F).

The AECOM HA shows the maximum monitored watertable

level at monitoring bore MB03 to be 49 m AHD. Based upon

this the south-east corner of the southern portion of the

proposed landfill extension is assumed to be about 50 m AHD

which appears to be close to the base of waste.

The AECOM HA watertable modelling incorporates

extraction for dust suppression purposes from Bores

1 to 4 located within the lower basalt aquifer south

of Riding Boundary Road.

While dust suppression is required for quarrying and landfilling

activities the water demand will reduce significantly post

closure. This will result in some watertable recovery which will

reduce the waste to watertable separation distance. This post

closure scenario does not appear to have been modelled

[AECOM HA; Appendix D of Golder Associates (2016)].

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 9


The impact of recharge from the storage ponds post closure

does not appear to have been modelled [AECOM;

Appendix D of Golder Associates (2016)].

There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the 2 m

minimum separation requirement for a Type 2 landfill as

prescribed by Section 5.1.3 of EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM will be

achieved within all cells.

7 Groundwater

quality

The AECOM Hydrogeological Assessment

(Appendix D of Golder Associates 2016) states the

minor constituents including ammonia as N, Total

Organic Carbon and Manganese indicate

increasing leachate impacts at monitoring bores

MB07 and MB08 (downgradient of Stage 1). It is

noted that both bores have been drilled in locations

that have consistently been compromised by

surface water incursions from an adjacent

composting area during periods of flooding.

While this conclusion is possible, it is also possible that the

Stage 1 landfill may be the cause.

Most Stage 2 cells have included geosynthetics in the liner

design to reduce seepage.

Leachate levels were reported by AECOM (2016) as being

elevated within Stage 2 cells.

The Kortegast (2014) Audit of Landfill Operations

report concluded that while there is evidence that

leachate may be impacting on groundwater

downgradient of Stage 1, and may be having some

effect down-gradient of the early Stage 2 cells,

there is no indication that impacts are significant.

The AECOM HA concluded that the groundwater

quality information indicates no significant leachate

impact on groundwater at the site and the

beneficial uses of groundwater are not impacted at

all by leachate migration.

The Groundwater Chemistry Time Series Plots shown in

Appendix B of the AECOM (2016) is too coarse to assess water

quality trends in monitoring bores apart from those

immediately down-gradient of Stage 1.

The times series chemistry data would need to be assessed

before confirming the Kortegast (2014) and AECOM (2016)

conclusions.

AECOM (2016) advises that long term simulation of

leachate migration from the proposed landfill cells

at a seepage rate compliant with EPA (2015)

A 2,000 mg/L increase in salinity (Total Dissolved Solids – TDS) is

significant.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 10


Landfill BPEM indicates that the resultant

groundwater salinity in the aquifer immediately

beneath the landfill (layer 3) may rise by as much as

2,000 mg/L, 50 years after closure of the last cell.

Based upon this the hydrogeological assessment should have

considered the impact of:

such significant increases on other contaminants including

organics and metals on Segment C beneficial uses; and

a higher seepage rate, as a worst case scenario, on

Segment C beneficial uses.

8 Buffer to

surface water

Section 6.4 of Golder Associates (2016) states that

the proposed landfill cell boundary (south-west

corner of Cell 4) is located a minimum of 100 m

from land subject to inundation from Skeleton Creek

to the south west of the site (Plate 1). Two tributaries

of the creek will be removed by the Quarry

operations in accordance with their Work Authority

and a portion will be incorporated into the

Stormwater Management System for the extension.

It notes rainfall runoff from this tributary will be

collected in Storage Ponds 20 and 22 as part of the

Stormwater Management System and that a buffer

distance of greater than 100m will be maintained

from this tributary to the North Portion landfill cells.

It concludes that there is no surface water within

100m of the proposed extension.

The Environment Protection Act 1970 defines water

to include any reservoir, tank, billabong,

anabranch, canal, spring, swamp, natural or

artificial channel, lake, lagoon, waterway, dam,

tidal water, coastal water or groundwater.

The eastern extent of inundation from Skeleton Creek is ill-

defined. As such it is possible that the extent of inundation is

within 100 m of the proposed Cell 4.

The northern tributary of Skeleton Creek is currently within

100 m of the northern portion of the proposed extension (see

Figure 1 of Golder Associates (2016). Golder Associates (2016)

suggests it may not be a waterway as it does not have a

defined creek bed or bank and stream flow only occurs after

rainfall events. The Waterway Determination Guidelines of the

Water Act 1989 suggests a waterway may be a natural

channel where water regularly flows without defined beds

and banks.

The northern tributary may be greater than 100 m from the

landfill due to the diversion to the west as part of the

quarrying rehabilitation activities. It would be necessary to

consider the quarry’s endorsed work plan and planning

permit to check this.

Clarification of whether the northern tributary of Skeleton

Creek is classified as surface water should be sought. This is

required to determine if the 100 m buffer distance from

surface waters will be met (EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM,

Table 5.2).

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 11


9 Surface

water

management

The stormwater management plan (Golder

Associates (2016) Appendix L) includes Storage

Ponds. Storage Ponds are defined as stormwater

ponds located on the floor of the quarry that

collects rainfall runoff from the portion of the landfill

cap (final and intermediate) that is below the

surrounding surface level. The stored stormwater is

either pumped for re-use by the quarry operator or

Landfill Operations or evaporated. Water will

evaporate from Storage Ponds due to the net

deficit of evaporation.

It will be critical to ensure the intermediate cap is installed as

required under the EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM to ensure that

runoff into the Storage Ponds is not contaminated.

The water demand will reduce substantially post closure.

Therefore it may be necessary to discharge water from the

Storage Ponds offsite via pumping in perpetuity. This

requirement would need to be addressed in a Section 173

Agreement or a similar instrument.

The stormwater management plan states:

At the locations where the Sediment Ponds are

discharging offsite, we propose the stormwater

ponds will restrict outlet flows to pre-development

greenfield runoff rates. We propose to restrict outlet

flows by selecting a suitably sized outlet pipe or

installing a flow control device on the outlet pipe

such as an orifice plate or weir. The location of

discharge points will aim to either avoid or minimise

contact with areas of cultural heritage significance

such as along the South Portion western boundary

and along Riding Boundary Road. Control measures

will be implemented during construction to protect

cultural heritage.

The Sediment Ponds are defined as Discharge

Ponds - short term stormwater ponds located at

surface level that collects rainfall runoff from the

above ground position of the landfill cap.

The discharge points do not appear to be shown.

Peak discharge rates should be estimated and the likely

works required to protect the downstream environs should be

provided to assess the feasibility of this proposal.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 12



Storage Ponds need to manage rainfall runoff from

the proposed landfill cap without discharging

collected water offsite. These types of ponds are

proposed where the collected water drains onto

the quarry floor, which will be located

approximately 10 m below natural ground level.

At the locations where the proposed stormwater

ponds are located within the quarry floor, it is not

possible to gravity outlet from the proposed

stormwater ponds to the external catchment.

Storage Ponds overflow is directed towards the

quarry floor for increased evaporation and

groundwater recharge.

The modelling off these ponds has not been provided. It is not

clear as to whether the model includes dust suppression as a

discharge mechanism.

The AECOM groundwater model has not considered the

impact of increased groundwater recharge from the storage

ponds on the required 2 m separation distance between

waste and the watertable (See Aspect 6).


We understand based on our discussions with

Landfill Operations that in the short term, and while

Boral are operating a quarry at the site, the

capacity of the Storage Ponds located on the

quarry floor will be managed by Boral and Landfill

Operations pumping collected stormwater. The

collected stormwater will then be re-used on site in

landfill operations and cap irrigation and/or will

evaporate from the Storage Ponds. Post closure, the

water collected could be transferred to supply

neighbouring land owners.

In the long-term, and when Boral have ceased

quarrying operations at the site, the proposed

ponds located within the quarry footprint will

function as an infiltration pond or Storage Pond. A

The demand for use by neighbouring land owners has not

been identified. Considerations are time of year that

discharge will be required and water quality.

Long term storage of water on site, without discharge, with

infiltration will increase the watertable level.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 13


water balance for each of the ponds located within

the quarry floor has been undertaken to estimate

the pond capacity and dimensions.

10 Preliminary

Monitoring

Program

Appendix N of Golder Associates (2016).

Golder Associates (2016) advises that the

Preliminary Monitoring Program (PMP) is preliminary

only to show the intent of the Monitoring Program

envisaged for the proposed extension using reports

prepared for the Works Approval Application.

The PMP is general in nature and does not include a full risk

assessment or prescribe the frequency and extent of

monitoring. For example the leachate monitoring program

does not identify the risk of the 300 mm leachate level being

exceeded nor the monitoring frequency to determine

compliance with this condition.

11 LFG Risk

assessment

An adaption of the Environment Agency UK (2004)

Guidance on the management of landfill gas has

been used to undertake a qualitative LFG risk

assessment. [Golder Associates (2016): Appendix H].

Due to the location of the site and conservative

buffer zones, the risks are considered to be

insignificant to acceptable. [Golder Associates

(2016): Appendix H].

The adaption of the Environment Agency UK (2004) Guidance

on the management of landfill gas is an acceptable

qualitative risk assessment method.

The Golder Associates (2016) LFG risk assessment advice that

the pathways to the north, east and south-west are

incomplete (Appendix H, pages 21-22) only applies to

subsurface migration due to the extraction of basalt.

Subsurface migration is possible in these directions where

there is an unsaturated zone on the quarry floor. Subsurface

migration is not constrained to the north-west and south-east

of the South Landfill Portion. Emissions to the atmosphere

within the quarried area, outside of the landfill footprint, will

be greater where the unsaturated zone is shallow.

The likelihoods for each hazard assumes that the existing

controls are effective and do not fail.

The LFG risk assessment should consider the implications of

short term failures/accidents. The Environment Agency UK

(2004) refers to the following examples of accident and failures

scenarios that should be considered:

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 14


deep-seated fire and its effect on LFG containment and

emissions;

failure of leachate extraction systems and the effect of

this on LFG management;

failure or flares;

failure of gas treatment plant/engines; and

extraction system failure.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 15

3 Consolidated opinions

The opinions presented in Table 1 (Section 2) are consolidated below. The extent of research

undertaken to form these opinions is outlined in Table 1.

Aspect 1: The need

Additional landfill airspace will be required beyond 2026 to service the waste generated within

metropolitan Melbourne irrespective of the level of resource recovery achieved under the

WM&RRIP priority scenarios.

This additional space must be provided by existing landfills and/or new landfills within and/or

outside of the metropolitan region. No new landfills are proposed within the metropolitan region

or the Gippsland region (adjacent to the south-east metropolitan area where the greatest need

is as the existing landfills are likely to closed by 2026).

Planning is required to protect Melbourne’s future landfill capacity including buffers from the

encroachment of sensitive and incompatible land uses.

In the absence of a new secure long term landfill site to service Melbourne’s south-eastern

suburbs and the lack of more aggressive resource recovery targets, protection of the Ravenhall

buffers is desirable.

The final MW&RRIP and adjacent regional W&RRIPs should establish arrangements to provide for

the disposal of residual waste generated in metropolitan Melbourne post 2026 that provides

certainty for the community and industry.

Aspect 2: Compatibility of proposed landfill extension and quarry

It is not possible to determine if the applications are compatible with the quarry’s endorsed Work

Plan. This creates uncertainties affecting the:

approach to landfill design if the base of excavation is at or below the watertable;

compatibility of quarry extraction rate with landfill filling rate;

compatibility of water management strategy, particularly off-site discharge post closure; and

compatibility of end uses including final surface profile and level.

Aspect 3: Landfill design concept

The Works Approval application design concept is generally consistent with the EPA (2015)

Landfill BPEM and other relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and guidelines. Aspects which

may not be consistent are outlined below in this consolidated set of opinions.

Aspects 4 and 5: Past performance

Litter, leachate, LFG, and PSCP EPA licence non-compliances occurred within the last quarter of

2014-15 when the landfill was operated by Landfill Operations, the current licence holder, and landfill

extension proponent.

Examination of the 2015-16 APS, the operations audit to June 2016 and the annual monitoring

report to June 2016 would assist in identifying recent environmental performance and in assessing

the ability and commitment of Landfill Operations to meet future licensing obligations.

Aspect 6: Groundwater separation distance

There is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the 2 m minimum separation requirement for a Type 2

landfill as prescribed by Section 5.1.3 of EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM will be achieved within all cells.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 16

While this can be addressed during the design process, which requires auditor review and EPA

approval, it would require consideration of long term wet periods, recharge from storage ponds and

reduced groundwater/surface water usage for dust suppression in the long term.

Aspect 7: Groundwater quality

A 2,000 mg/L increase in salinity (TDS) is significant. Based upon this the hydrogeological

assessment should have considered the impact of:

such significant increases on other contaminants including organics and metals on

Segment C beneficial uses; and

a higher seepage rate, as a worst case scenario, on Segment C beneficial uses.

Aspect 8: Buffer to surface water

The eastern extent of inundation from Skeleton Creek may be within 100 m of the proposed

Southern Landfill Portion as the extent of inundation is ill-defined.

Clarification of whether the northern tributary of Skeleton Creek is classified as surface water

should be sought. This is required to determine if the 100 m buffer distance from surface waters

will be met [EPA (2015) Landfill BPEM, Table 5.2].

Aspect 9: Surface water management

Peak discharge rates should be estimated and the likely works required to protect the downstream

environs should be provided to assess the feasibility of this proposal.

The modelling of the below ground storage ponds has not been provided. It is not clear as to whether

the model includes dust suppression as a discharge mechanism.

The AECOM groundwater model has not considered the impact of increased groundwater recharge

from the storage ponds on the required 2 m separation distance between waste and the watertable.

The demand for use by neighbouring land owners has not been identified. Considerations are time

of year that discharge will be required and water quality.

Long term storage of water on site, without discharge and with infiltration, will increase the watertable

level.

Aspect 10: Preliminary Monitoring Program

The preliminary monitoring program is general in nature and does not include a full risk assessment or

prescribe the frequency and extent of monitoring. For example the leachate monitoring program

does not identify the risk of the 300 mm leachate level being exceeded nor the monitoring frequency

to determine compliance with this condition.

Aspect 11: LFG risk assessment

The adaption of the Environment Agency UK (2004) Guidance on the management of landfill

gas is an acceptable qualitative risk assessment method.

The Golder Associates (2016) LFG risk assessment advice that the pathways to the north, east and

south-west are incomplete (Appendix H, pages 21-22) only applies to subsurface migration due

to the extraction of basalt. Subsurface migration is possible in these directions where there is an

unsaturated zone on the quarry floor. Subsurface migration is not constrained to the north-west

and south-east of the South Landfill Portion. Emissions to the atmosphere within the quarried area,

outside of the landfill footprint, will be greater where the unsaturated zone is shallow.

The likelihoods for each hazard assumes that the existing controls are effective and do not fail.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 17

The LFG risk assessment should consider the implications of short term failures/accidents. The

Environment Agency UK (2004) guidance refers to the following examples of accident and

failures scenarios that should be considered:

deep-seated fire and its effect on LFG containment and emissions;

failure of leachate extraction systems and the effect of this on LFG management;

failure or flares;

failure of gas treatment plant/engines; and

extraction system failure.

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 18

4 Statements and declarations

This conclusion includes the expert’s statements and declaration in accordance with the Planning

Panels Victoria Guide to Expert Evidence.

4.1 Statements

4.1.1 Questions falling outside the expert's expertise

I am not an expert in the determination of the extent of surface waters for the purpose of determining

the whether the EPA(2015) Landfill BPEM Type 2 surface water buffer of 100 m has been meet

(Table 5.2). The assumptions which underpin my opinion on this matter are presented in Table 1.

4.1.2 Whether the report is incomplete or inaccurate in any respect.

Not to my knowledge.

4.2 Declaration by the expert

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of

significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

John Nolan

Nolan Consulting

15th September 2016

15 September 2016




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 19

5 References

Environment Agency UK (2004), “Guidance of the management of landfill gas”, dated

September 2004.

EPA (2015) “Best Practice Environmental Management Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation

of Landfills”, Publication 788.3, August 2015.

Golder Associates (2016), “Information to Support Works Approval Application, Proposed Melbourne

Regional Landfill (MRL) Extension, Ravenhall” prepared on behalf of Landfill Operations Pty Ltd,

February 2016 including appendices.

Kortegast, Tony (2014), “Boral Recycling Pty Ltd Environmental Audit Report 2013/14, Boral Western

Landfill, Truganina, Deer Park, VIC”, CARMS 64171-10, a Tonkin and Taylor report prepared for Landfill

Operations, September 2014.

Landfill Operations Pty Ltd (2015), “2014-15 Annual Performance Statement”.

Melton City Council (2016), “Submission to Planning Permit application PA2016/5118 and Works

Approval application 1002191 - Extension to the landfill at 408 - 546 Hopkins Road, Truganina and

1154 - 1198 Christies Road, Ravenhall”, dated 14 July 2016.

Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group (2015), “Draft Metropolitan Waste and

Resource Recovery Implementation Plan”, November 2015.

Tract Consultants (2016), “Melbourne Regional Landfill Extension Planning Permit Application Report

- 408 - 546 Hopkins Road, Truganina and 1154 - 1198 Christies Road, Ravenhall”, prepared on behalf

of Landfill Operations Pty Ltd, February 2016.




HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 20

Appendix A

Curriculum Vitae – John Nolan

Page 1

JOHN NOLAN

CURRICULUM VITAE

POSITION

Director, Nolan Consulting

Director and Deputy Chair,

Waste Aid

Former Director and Chair,

Sustainable Resource Use

Former Chair, OakTree

Foundation.

John is the Managing Director and Principal Consultant of Nolan Consulting

and the Deputy Chair of Waste Aid.

He has held previous positions as a Board Member of ECO-Buy, Chair of the

Oaktree Foundation, Chair of Sustainable Resource Use, Managing Director

of Nolan-ITU, National Water and Environment Sector Leader for Hyder

Consulting, a member of Sustainability Victoria’s Expert Reference Group –

Waste Management, the Victorian State President of the Waste

Management Association of Australia, and the Chair of the Independent

Technical Review Panel for the Benambra Gold Mining Project in East

Gippsland.

John has over 30 years’ experience in the provision of specialist

hydrogeological, environmental and advisory consultancy services. His

clients have included state and federal government agencies, water

authorities, catchment management authorities, and waste management

authorities, as well as corporates and SMEs.

John has directed a diverse range of projects covering hydrogeological

and environmental assessment and approvals (water, extractive industries,

pulp and paper, and waste industries), water recycling, life cycle

assessment, strategic waste management, organics processing, and landfill

design, construction and operations. He has been a key driver for the use of

tools to guide policy development and decision making, particularly in

packaging, recycling and technology comparisons.

John is a Victorian Environment Protection Authority accredited

environmental auditor for industrial facilities and natural resources

management. He has conducted both statutory and non-statutory audits

across the water, waste management and natural resource management

sectors.

His expertise extends to expert witness roles that, to date, includes 40 cases

encompassing civil litigation, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

hearings, government-appointed panels, and commissions of inquiry.

In the past decade John has supported public and private sector

organisations to improve their governance arrangements and strategic

planning processes.

John’s consultancy work is highly regarded by governments of all levels and

major companies.

Former Director, ECO-Buy

QUALIFICATIONS

BEng (Civil), University of

Melbourne, 1978

MEngSc, University of

Melbourne, 1984

Dip Ed, Secondary –

Hawthorne Institute of

Education, 1984

MEMBERSHIPS

Engineers Australia

Consult Australia

Australian Institute of

Company Directors

Australian Water Association

International Association. of

Hydrogeologists,

Waste Management

Association of Australia.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

Organisational Governance

Strategic planning

Environmental Engineering

Waste management

Resource Efficiency

Hydrogeology

Environmental auditing

LANGUAGES

English

Page 2

Page 2 JOHN NOLAN

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Independent Review

John is recognised as technical specialist in the water and environment sectors. In this capacity he has

undertaken independent reviews for a wide range of projects, both large and small. These have included Project

Director for the UR-3R waste management facility independent reviewer role on behalf of GRL, Waste Services

NSW and the Commonwealth Bank, the due diligence review of the Visy Pulp and Paper mill at Tumut, the

commissioning audit of the new Ballarat North wastewater treatment plant, the environmental audit of the

health of the Goulburn River for the Minister for Water and Environment, the Due Diligence Technical review of

the Victorian Desalination Plant on behalf of the financier’s as well as advisor to the Financer’s Engineer for the

VDP delivery, the review of the Victorian composting industry on behalf of Department of Environment and

Primary Industries (DELWP), and acting as the Chair and Hydrogeological specialist Independent Technical

Review Panel the Benambra Gold Mining Project in East Gippsland.

Hydrogeology

Hydrogeology is John’s core technical skill area. He commenced as a hydrogeologist with Australian

Groundwater Consultants in 1980, gained his M. Engineering Science in 1984 with groundwater solute transport

modelling as his thesis. Since then he has worked as a consultant and in the public sector with the Geological

Survey of Victoria and the Rural Water Commission.

His hyrogeological experience covers regional groundwater resource assessments, regional salinity and land

management assessments, water supply investigations, mine and quarry dewatering, water recycling, landfill

and contaminated site assessments, and managed aquifer recharge.

1994 – Present Nolan Consulting, Managing Director

2014 – Present Deputy Chair, Waste Aid

2011 – 2015 Chair, Sustainable Resource Use

2010 – 2013 Non-executive Director, Oaktree Foundation

2012 – 2013 Chair, Oaktree Foundation

2012 – 2016 Member, Expert Reference Group – Integrated Waste Management

2013 – Present Member, Advisory Board, Regional Development Company

2000 - Current Accredited Environmental Auditor, Industrial Facilities and Natural Resources

2010 - 2012 Non-executive Director, EcoBuy Ltd

2005 - 2009 Hyder Consulting, National Sector Leader, Water & Environment

1995 - 2005 Nolan-ITU, Managing Director

1990 - 1994 GHD, Principal Hydrogeologist

1986 - 1990 Geological Survey of Victoria/ Rural Water Corporation, Principal Hydrogeologist

1984 - 1985 Coffey and Partners, Hydrogeologist

1981 Construcciones Maritimas Mexicanas, Offshore Construction Engineer

1980 Australian Groundwater Consultants, Hydrogeologist

1979 Charlett and Moore, Civil Engineer

Page 3

Page 3 JOHN NOLAN

John played a senior role in the Senversa project team for the “Risk Assessment Framework to consider the return

of brackish water to aquifers from groundwater desalination” undertaken on behalf of the EPA in 2010. John has

also undertaken over 20 audits of landfill operations throughout Victoria in which he has applied and interpreted

the SEPP (Groundwater of Victoria). He has also verified numerous risk assessments and monitoring programs.

John has recently lead a team of EPA accredited auditors in discussions with the EPA on the licence reform

process as it relates to landfill auditing. John enjoys an excellent relationship with G-MW, SRW, WMW, and DELWP

groundwater teams.

Environmental Impact Assessments and Approvals

John has project-managed many significant environmental impact assessments in Victoria, NSW, and Tasmania.

These involved multidisciplinary teams and high-level negotiation with planning and other government regulatory

authorities.

Key industry groups that John has also prepared environmental impact assessments for span pulp and paper,

chemical processing, food processing, water authorities, mining, quarrying, and developers. Clients have

included Visy Pulp and Paper, CSR, Murray Goulburn, Norske Skog, and Rio Tinto.

Natural Resource Management

In the mid 1980s to early 1990s, John worked with the Geological Survey of Victoria and the Rural Water

Commission where he was instrumental in preparing salinity management plans for both irrigation and dryland

areas. John also developed a number of regional groundwater models including the Victorian and NSW Riverine

Plains. He has been an advisor to DELWP and Victorian Catchment Management Authorities on salinity and

catchment health issues. He was the project director for the mapping of East Gippsland’s natural resources in

behalf of the East Gippsland CMA.

As a consultant, John has helped to develop land and water management plans for the NSW Murray and Lower

Murray/Darling Regions.

He has managed several high-level independent reviews of environmental programs involving a diverse pool of

stakeholders. A notable example is the independent environmental review of Victoria's surface drainage that

John completed for the DELWP and the Murray Darling Basin Authority.

Water resources

Over the past 30 years John has lead numerous water resource assessment projects covering both surface water

and groundwater. These have been undertaken for water authorities, the mining and quarry industry, and the

pulp and paper industry.

From a groundwater perspective he has undertaken regional groundwater investigations (involving drilling, water

quality assessments, and groundwater modelling) and has undertaken hydrogeological assessments for landfills,

contaminated sites, quarries, mines and other industrial facilities. He has also been a key contributor to the

establishment and management of Groundwater Management Plans and Water Supply Protection Areas.

John has recently undertaken S53V audits for Sewerage System Management Plans for East Gippsland Water

and Barwon Water. He has also assisted DELWP and the EPA develop the State’s policy for groundwater

desalination including brine reinjection.

Clients include Southern Rural Water, Wimmera Mallee Water, Goulburn-Murray Water, Murray Darling Basin

Authority, urban water authorities, Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Barro Group, Boral

Resources, Norske Skog, and Visy Pulp and Paper.

Recycled water

John has been a key contributor to development of public and private recycled water schemes throughout

Australia.

Page 4

Page 4 JOHN NOLAN

John’s longstanding involvement with the Victorian, NSW, and Tasmanian water industries centres on developing

sustainable water recycling schemes, remediation strategies, approvals procurement for new facilities, as well as

facility audits and impact assessments of existing facilities.

He has provided advice to water authorities and the private sector in relation to more than 40 wastewater

recycling facilities. These authorities have included Yarra Valley Water, Western Water, Sorrell Council, Clarence

Council, Glenelg Water, Coliban Water, North-East Water, Goulburn Valley Water, and South-West Water. Private

sector clients have included Norske Skog, and Murray Goulburn.

Strategic Waste Management Planning

John has been providing expert advice to state and local governments, regional waste management groups

and boards, industry (service providers and generators) and peak industry bodies since the 1994 introduction of

nationally-consistent legislation on waste minimisation and management. He has been a key contributor to the

development of sustainable waste and resource recovery management strategies for Melbourne, Adelaide,

Sydney, SA, regional Victoria, and Tasmania.

During this time, John oversaw the development of waste management and minimisation strategies for

metropolitan Melbourne, metropolitan Adelaide, the southern two-thirds of Australia, and several regional waste

management groups. In addition, he undertook peer reviews for Regional NSW Waste Management Plans.

In recent years, John has been the specialist advisor on kerbside recycling. In this capacity, he has prepared

model collection and sorting contracts, tenders and preferred service standards. He also provided strategic

advice to councils on future waste management directions.

John was the peer reviewer for Nolan-ITU’s benchmark national kerbside efficiency study conducted on behalf

of the National Packaging Covenant Council.

Further to aforementioned contributions, John has also delivered expert advice relevant and appropriate to

infrastructure developments such as landfills, transfer stations, recycling sorting facilities, and composting plants

for private sector and local government clients. This also included advice on residual waste treatment

technologies and litter management strategies.

John was a member of Sustainability Victoria’s Waste Management Expert Reference Panel up until June 2016.

Key clients include Sustainability Victoria, EPA, DELWP, Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group,

ZeroWaste SA, and the Gippsland Regional Waste and Resource Recovery Group.

Organics Management

John has project-managed the development of several organics management strategies for local government

authorities, regional waste management groups and the private sector, including the piggery industry. In

addition, he developed facility design concepts and prepared approvals documentation for several

composting facilities, including odour management strategies. These strategies involved collecting and

processing information used for food, green, and commercially-sourced organics market activities.

He also held project director roles where he was directly involved in and contributing to auditing, case studies,

and training within the food services sector.

John recently reviewed the performance of the composting industry in Victoria for DELWP as part of the reform of

the waste management industry.

Key clients have included Sustainability Victoria, MWRRG, NEWRRG, ZeroWaste SA, SA Waste Management

Committee, and DELWP.

Page 5

Page 5 JOHN NOLAN

Landfill Management

John’s contribution in this field captures design, environmental approvals of proposed landfills, environmental

assessments of existing or closed facilities, landfill rehabilitation, and environmental audit. He has acted as an

expert witness in relation to planning appeals for new facilities and has also been involved in developing

concept designs for liners, capping, cell construction, groundwater management, and leachate collection. In

relation to the latter, John was responsible for a range of numerical models developed specifically for this

purpose.

Another keynote facet of John’s work in this field includes the assessment of markets for existing and proposed

facilities, and the relevant development and implementation of marketing strategies.

John has conducted over twenty S53V operational audits of Victorian landfills in his capacity as an accredited

environmental auditor.

Environmental Auditing

In his capacity as an EPA-certified Environmental Auditor (for both Industrial Facilities and Natural Resource

Management), John has conducted facility environmental audits for industries such as pulp and paper, resource

recovery, chemical processing, primary, food manufacturing, as well landfill, quarrying industries and water

authorities.

His portfolio includes environmental management systems prepared in accordance with ISO 14001.

Some of John’s clients in this area have included Norske Skog, Visy Pulp and Paper, Goulburn Murray Water, and

the EPA.

One of John’s major projects involved an environmental audit looking into the health of the Goulburn River (NSW)

on behalf of the Minister for Environment and Water. The assessment was primarily driven by a significant fish kill

event occurring in January 2004. John also completed an audit of Corangamite CMA progress against targets.

Contaminated Sites Assessments and Remediation

John has conducted contaminated site assessments, risk assessments, and developing remediation strategies for

facilities in Victoria, NSW, Tasmania, and South Australia.

These projects generally entailed preparing site histories, as well as sampling and monitoring soil and

groundwater samples. John was also responsible for identifying key receptors and beneficial use requirements

based on the end-use of the site, and to carry out risk assessments and to develop remediation options. Several

of these projects involved negotiations with EPA-appointed environmental auditors.

Major clients have included Alcoa Australia, ANI, Banco Group of Companies, Telstra, CCA, Esso Australia, Norske

Skog and the Department of Defence.

Expert Witness

John is routinely called on to act as expert witness for civil cases, planning panel hearings, and commissions of

inquiry. Over the past decade he has been an expert witness in over 40 cases in Australia and overseas. He has

presented expert evidence for cases involving groundwater, surface water, wastewater and waste

management & recycling across several industry sectors.

Nolan Consulting Pty Ltd - Planning › ... › John-Nolan.pdf · Expert Witness Report - John Nolan Nolan Consulting Pty Ltd HA Rpt V1 2016_09_15.docx 2 (f) The identity of the person

Documents