This presentation looks at:
- Liabilities and opportunities for local government form closed landfills
- VAGO’s report, State Government’s response and current strategies and practices implemented across Victoria
2. Outline
> EPA regulation of closed landfills
> Closed Landfill Guidelines 2012
> Notices issued
> VCAT challenges
> VAGO audit of landfill management
> Active and closed landfills
> September 2014
3. How many closed landfills in
Victoria?
> Operating landfills (approx. 100)
> Licensed or unlicensed (remedial notice) EPA
> Closed landfills (~unknown)
> Remedial notice/s EPA
> Planning identification (i.e. Overlay) PA / RA
> 2009 – EPA assessment
> 115 closed landfills (closed pre-1999)
> 2013 Draft MWRR Strategic Plan
> 40 closed landfills (Melbourne, excluding Mornington Peninsula)
4. EPA Regulatory Approach
> Issue notices to identify occupier and produce
documents
> Issue series of PANs to occupier or operator)
> Hydrogeological assessment
> Landfill rehabilitation plan
> Aftercare management plan and monitoring program
> Implement plans until auditor determines that landfill poses no risk
> Require PA/RA to maintain 500m/200m buffer
distance for 30yrs post closure or be satisfied
that reduction is appropriate (s.53V audit)
5. Rehabilitation Standard
> BPEM – Siting, Design, Operation and
Rehabilitation of Landfills (788.2 - Oct 2014)
> Capping; leachate; LFG; monitoring
> Closed Landfill Guidelines (1490 – Dec 2012)
> Impose BPEM standard or lesser augmentation (undefined)
> Legislation amended periodically since 1950
> Landfills closed and rehabilitated to standards at that time
> EPA remedial notices revisiting rehabilitation
> Retrospective application of standards
6. RK recommendation to
Council’s
> Identify closed landfills in municipalities
> Assess each landfill
> Lateral extent of each landfill
> Landfill infrastructure (capping, leachate, LFG, monitoring,
drainage)
> Monitoring data (LFG, leachate, groundwater, surface water)
> Risk assessment (protection of human health)
> Develop and implement remedial works to
protect the community (and the Council)
7. RK recommendation to
Council’s
> Potential litigation or EPA intervention
retain experts through lawyers to maintain
legal professional privilege
> Privilege may be waived at the Council’s discretion
> Retain expert advice on any EPA notice
issued (cost of compliance?) file
application for review in VCAT within 21 days
of issue
> Outcome closed landfill rehabilitated and
managed to protect community (and Council)
preferably with EPA agreement
8. VAGO Audit
> Scoping survey to all councils (Feb 2014)
> Selected 4 municipalities (2 regional and 2 metropolitan)
> Audit Specification (March 2014)
> Objective: determine if landfills appropriately, designed,
managed and rehabilitated to prevent unacceptable risk to public
health and environment
> Assess:
> EPA administration of regulatory framework and compliance
> Active landfills operated in compliance with framework
> Closed landfills managed in compliance with framework
> Report (September 2014)
9. VAGO Audit
> Assumption
> All landfills owned by LG or private entity
> No consideration of Crown land State Government owner
> Findings
> EPA developed better risk based approach
> Closed landfills not effectively managed (localised risk)
> EPA & LG slow to implement key initiatives
> complexity & cost
> shortfalls in EPA risk based approach
> complex, and at time ambiguous, EPA policy/guidelines
> uncertainty of roles and responsibility
10. VAGO Audit
> Recommendations
> 15 recommendations (5 for LG and 10 for EPA)
> EPA & DEPI develop options for Minister to use landfill levy to
fund rehabilitation of high-risk landfills
> No consideration of Crown land State Government owner
> Comments
> Recommendations to LG consistent with RK advice
> Understates cost of rehabilitation to BPEM standard
> No recognition that State Government is an owner of closed
landfills or that EPA has not issued any notice to State Gov’
> Distribution of landfill levy skewed to State Gov not LG