Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale
solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory
burden
Turlough F. Guerin
Climate Alliance, Advisory Board Chair, 5 Retreat Crescent, Sunbury 3429, Victoria, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Governance
Risk management
Renewable energy
Solar photovoltaic (SPV)
Construction management
Planning approvals
Environmental management
Utility scale solar energy (USSE)
Constraints
Regulatory burden
A B S T R A C T
The overwhelming benefits of building solar power plants instead of fossil fuel powered sites for new generation
capacity outweigh the less significant risks, some of which are identified in this study on the construction stage
of a utility-scale solar energy (USSE) project. This project confirmed and clarified the nature of environmental
and community risks to be expected on Australian construction sites. Expected risks from desk top studies and
related planning requirements captured the majority of those risks actually experienced in the field during the
construction phase. The large number of approval conditions (set by the relevant regulatory authorities; state
and local) for the construction stage of the project, are arguably excessive compared with the risk profile of the
project, and the overall positive benefits to the environment, economy and local community. The environmental
and community risks of greatest concern (including dust control, optimising vegetation growth under the
panels, waste management, a lack of common understanding of expectations for local job opportunities), while
planned and eventually managed, could have been more efficiently addressed by further upfront investigations,
and questioning and enhancing the governance processes by the engineering procurement construction (EPC)
entity (or constructor). For example, managing the end-of-life packaging materials (EOLPMs) was a specific
unexpected risk on the project during the construction stage, which can be overcome on future remote location
projects by enhancing the design and execution of project-level contracts and securing partners such as resource
recovery companies or other end users (of EOLPMs) at the earlier, planning stage. Recommendations for
regulators include to reduce approval constraints on new low-emissions electricity developments, particularly at
the state and local government level. These should be considerably less onerous than building new fossil fuel
electricity generation infrastructure. A sharper focus on regulatory red tape reduction will enhance USSE project
adoption.
1. Introduction
1.1. Establishment of renewable energy industry in Australia
Australia's National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development (ESD) launched in 1992, encouraged federal, state/
territory and local governments to pursue ESD, with climate change
being identified as a threat to a sustainable future. With energy
(electricity) production being the primary source of Australia's emis-
sions, governments at all levels are recognising the need to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The development of low or zero GHG
emission energy technologies such as solar, wind and other sources of
renewable energy plants, is essential to achieving significant reductions
in national GHG emissions.
1.2. Regulatory incentives
The Australian Government's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
(MRET) scheme was established in 2001 to expand the renewable
energy market and increase the amount being utilised in Australia's
electricity supply. The Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme is an
expansion of the MRET and has been established to encourage
additional generation of electricity from renewable energy sources. In
February 2011, the Enhanced Renewable Energy Target (ERET) was
also introduced which consisted of the Small-scale Renewable Energy
Target (SRET) and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET).
This was done to provide greater certainty for households, large-scale
renewable energy developments and installers of small-scale renewable
energy systems like solar panels and solar water heaters. Currently the
total installed capacity of solar PV (including all forms) is 2% of the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.040
Received 2 August 2016; Received in revised form 2 February 2017; Accepted 6 February 2017
E-mail address: turlough.guerin@hotmail.com.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 333–348
1364-0321/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
MARK

global installed capacity (Fig. 1).
1.3. Growth of photovoltaic (PV) solar in Australia
Only in the past decade have solar PV systems come to the fore in
meeting Australia's energy and emissions reduction challenge [1–3].
Utility scale systems are relatively new to the Australian energy
landscape with the emergence of 10–20 MW installed systems being
constructed in the past 5 years. An indicator of this is the trends in
employment in renewable energy activities including employment
activities related to all solar power systems with an installed capacity
of 40 kW or greater (referred to as large scale in Fig. 2). In practise,
large scale solar includes two broad types of solar power infrastructure.
The first is a larger version of roof-top solar PV installations, typically
sited on the roof of commercial operations such as shopping centres,
hospitality clubs or factories. The owner of this type of infrastructure is
usually seeking to defray a significant electricity expense. The second
type of large scale solar infrastructure is a dedicated solar farm, or
power station, allowing the electricity producer to supply electricity to
the grid for sale to third-party customers. In Australia, this type of
infrastructure will allow its owner to gain accreditation under the
LRET. In both cases, employment in renewable energy activities relates
to those direct employment activities needed to carry out the installa-
tion of the large scale solar, such as site preparation, system design,
system installation, project management and administration. In prin-
ciple, it also includes employment related to the ongoing operation and
maintenance of large scale solar power infrastructure (Fig. 3) [4].
During the period shown, employment growth has been slow in the
large scale solar sector with full time equivalents (FTE) growing from
10 to 800 FTE.
1.4. Environmental and community impacts and risks
There is little known of the impacts of large scale solar systems on
the environment or the communities in which they are constructed
and/or operated in, particularly from the published literature from
Australia. Environmental impacts of utility scale solar energy (USSE)
systems occur at differential rates and magnitudes throughout the
project's lifespan (i.e., construction, operation, and decommission) of a
power plant, which varies between 25 and 40 years [5]. Such impacts
relate to biodiversity, water use and consumption, soiling and dust,
human health and air quality, transmission corridors, and land-use and
land-cover changes reported for international studies [6–8]. Other
comprehensive studies include those also by a range of international
researchers [9–14].
Treyer and Bauer [9] recognise in the middle east, from LCA
analysis studies, that the practical way forward to reduce carbon
emissions will include a mix of low emissions energy approaches.
Scognamiglio [10] argues that ground-mounted large photovoltaic (PV)
arrays are the least-cost design solution for installing PV, they account
for the majority of the solar power installed to date. With the increase
of both the number and size of installations, the attention to their
impacts in terms of land-use and land-transformation is growing, as
well as concerns about landscape preservation and possible losses of
ecosystem services. Scognamiglio [10] argues the current fixed mount
design is generally straight-forward and is aimed to maximise energy
generation given a certain land area and brings forward the holistic
idea that PV systems should be designed as an element of the landscape
they belong to, according to an ‫׳‬inclusive‫׳‬ design approach that does
not focus only on the overall energy efficiency of the system, but
extends to other additional ecological and landscape objectives.
An overview of the current status of CdTe solar cells and modules
with respect to life cycle management of raw materials is provided, and
is an important part of considering USSE system risks [15,16]. Actively
managing raw materials throughout the product life cycle can help to
manage cost and conserve resources for large-scale PV deployment.
Among the various materials management strategies, a primary factor
influencing the material intensity of PV systems is module conversion
efficiency. Material and energy usage across life cycle stages (module
manufacturing, balance of systems, collection and recycling) have been
documented in life cycle inventories. An example of life cycle materials
management is water management, where specific strategies include
minimising electricity use in PV module manufacturing, improving PV
module efficiency, deploying tracking systems, developing a water
balance for PV manufacturing facilities, minimising grading during
construction, using dry brush cleaning methods during operation, and
recycling end-of-life systems. Due to low life cycle water usage, solar PV
provides a potential path forward for addressing the energy–water
nexus with solar desalination as an example application [15].
1.5. Limited published experience in Australia
In Australia there are now several USSE systems in the construction
as well as the operations and maintenance stage. There is a lack of
Fig. 1. Cumulative solar PV installed in Australia as a proportion of world total (Source:
IEA PVPS 2017).
Fig. 2. The size of business of the PV market as a proportion of country GDP (Source: IEA PVPS 2017).
T.F. Guerin Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 74 (2017) 333–348
334

information however, on the commercial costs of compliance to
construct and operate such USSE power plants, and their environ-
mental and community impacts. Costs for compliance should theore-
tically be lower (than fossil fuel generation) given that with renewable
energy infrastructure, there is lower total risk over the life of the
project. This paper aims to address this lack of published information.
2. Scope
The overall scope of the current construction project was to provide
the foundation for large-scale, grid‐connected, solar power to play a
significant role in Australia's electricity supply and to operate within a
competitive, highly regulated electricity market. Other objectives of the
project were to:
• Develop a large scale solar industry in Australia.
• Encourage regional development.
• Provide research infrastructure.
• Develop Australian intellectual property in solar power generation.
• Develop and share technical, environmental, and community and
economic knowledge from the broader program.
The project has been designed to accelerate the delivery of large-
scale, grid‐connected solar power into the National Electricity Market
(NEM), and demonstrate the government's and industry's commitment
to USSE projects and cleaner electricity generation in Australia. The
overall construction works for the project was expected to take 18
months. Specifically, the main construction activities included earth-
works, civil installation, electrical and connection works. The total
value of the project was approximately $300 million (AUD). These
stages are described in Table 1.
3. Purpose
The specific purpose of the current study was to compare planned
environmental and community risks (which were to be ascertained
during the construction planning stage) with those actually encoun-
tered in the field during construction, including lessons learnt. The
results of the study would be made available to help further project
constructors anticipate unexpected risks and better manage those that
were planned for.
This paper describes the environmental and community issues and
approval conditions, their expected versus actual impacts, and costs to
implement and manage at a USSE solar photovoltaic (SPV) site in
Eastern Australia.
The potential impacts and management of related specific issues
such as soils, site access and traffic, air quality, hazard and risk (e.g.
bushfire), social and economic impacts, land use and end of life
management of wastes, are also discussed.
4. Methods
4.1. Background
The construction site was identified as the preferred location, based
on the following:
• Availability of an abundant solar resource,
• Access to connect to the electricity grid,
• Availability of appropriate land,
• Suitability in terms of the interests of other stakeholders and
• Expected minimal impact on the environment.
The project site is located in Central West NSW, approximately
10 km west of the nearest township. The project was constructed on
entirely rural land and was located on one land parcel. Approximately
250 ha of land was required for the plant which has a design capacity of
up to approximately 100 MW (MW). Along with the solar plant, the
development included the installation and operation of a 132 kV
transmission line, approximately 4 km in length. The solar plant
consists of more than one million photovoltaic (PV) modules. The
modules were mounted on steel post and rail (table) support structures
up to 2 m in total height. Supporting infrastructure includes the
installation of above and underground electrical conduits, construction
of a substation, site office and maintenance building, provision of
perimeter fencing, unsealed access road and the transmission line.
Specifically, the construction project included the following ele-
ments:
• Solar energy collection using solar photovoltaic modules using thin
film technology (modules or panels forming arrays).
• A system of inverters, step up transformers and ring main units
throughout the arrays.
• Aboveground and underground electrical conduits and cabling to
connect the arrays to the inverters and transformers.
• Marshalling switchgear to collect the power from the multiple array
blocks.
• 33 kV/132 kV transformer substation and switchgear.
• 132 kV transmission line to connect into existing national electrical
network (NEM or electricity grid).
• A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) control system.
• A site office and maintenance building.
• Internal access tracks to allow for site maintenance.
• Perimeter security fencing and landscaping.
Fig. 3. Employment in large scale renewable energy in Australia (Source: ABS 2017).
335

Selected elements are further described in the following section:
Solar arrays. The arrays are approximately 2 m in height, consisting
of solar panels, mounted on fixed steel post and rail support structures
(tables). The ground surface under the arrays is soil with natural
vegetation which is mowed and sprayed with knock-down herbicides as
required.
Substation. The substation is located in the southwest corner of the
project area (nearest location to site offices). It includes a busbar,
circuit breakers, current transformers, voltage transformers, and a 33/
132 kV transformer.
Transmission line. This is constructed with a transmission line
using spun concrete poles with 6 circuit wires, 2 earth wires. Poles are
approximately 25 m in length and 250–300 m apart.
Operations and maintenance (O & M) building. This is a pre-
fabricated structure that contains offices, facilities, and a site control
centre.
Site fencing. Site fencing (10 km in total length) consists of chain
wire fence with 3 barb on top with top and bottom rail with 1800 mm
high heavy duty fabric. Avifauna reflectors were positioned on every
fifth fence panel.
Access tracks (right of way). A combination of existing and new
unsealed access tracks were used to provide access from the main road
to the project site. New or upgraded sections of track were constructed
to cater for heavy trucks and machinery required during construction.
Access for construction of the transmission line south of the main road
(entry to site) also used existing tracks where possible, with new
temporary tracks provided for construction.
4.2. Overall objectives of approval conditions and approval
assessments
The project was approved in 2013 with the overall conditions of the
development consent as:
• Prevent, minimise, and/or offset adverse environmental impacts;
• Set standards and performance measures for acceptable environ-
mental performance;
• Require regular monitoring and reporting; and
• Provide for the ongoing environmental management of the devel-
opment.
Specifically, there were 296 project approval conditions that the
project was required to comply with excluding those applicable to its
operations and maintenance, and decommissioning stages. Scoping
studies were conducted including an environmental impact statement
(EIS) and documents defining the mitigation measures required. An
assessment report was prepared by the planning regulator in 2013. A
preliminary constraints analysis was used to inform the location of
infrastructure in the early planning phase, to avoid environmental
impacts where possible. Impacts of the constructed solar plant related
primarily to the clearing of vegetation for the solar plant and associated
infrastructure, construction noise, construction traffic and dust. The
main impacts associated with the operation and maintenance stage
were expected to relate to visual impact and temporary reduction in
agricultural production at the site. Construction started in early 2014
and was completed in mid-2015. All of the planning and legal
requirements were described along with their controls in the project's
construction environmental management plan (CEMP) which itself was
comprised of numerous specialised subplans e.g. noise. The prelimin-
ary investigations undertaken for the proposed development indicated
that the key environmental issues for the plant included vegetation
clearing and management (ecology), surface hydrology, Aboriginal
heritage, visual amenity, logistics, noise, air quality and dust manage-
ment.
4.3. Site location
The local area is characterised by rural activities on large holdings.
The project site has an elevation of approximately 180 m Australian
Height Datum (AHD) across the site and is on a mostly cleared,
relatively flat land area. The surroundings of the site comprise
predominantly rural activities on large holdings. In this area, popula-
tion density is low.
4.4. Geology and hydrological conditions
Geological and hydrogeological information was obtained from
assessing historical records used during the EIS stage. The site lies
on the border of two geological regions, the Great Artesian Basin and
the Lachlan Fold Belt. The Great Artesian Basin spans 22% of Australia
(1.7 million square kilometres), covering a large area of Queensland
and also including parts of NSW, South Australia and the Northern
Territory. The Lachlan Fold Belt is located across NSW and Victoria
and is characterised by deformed, Palaeozoic deep and shallow marine
sedimentary rocks, cherts and mafic volcanic rocks. It is important to
note that there are no defined floodways within the property, indicating
that local drainage is mainly sheet flow following the gentle grade from
south‐west to north‐east. Sheet flow is initiated when the soil profile is
saturated (typically after 20 mm or more of rainfall), when rainfall
intensities exceed soil infiltration rates or when flows from external
Table 1
Scope of work included in the construction stage.
Construction phase Activity
1. Mobilisation/Site Preparation Installing perimeter fencing around the site
Locating temporary construction offices and construction equipment to the power station site
Earthworks for construction of power station access road and construction parking areas
Minor grading and trimming of areas for permanent site office and switchyard
Minor grading and trimming in array areas
Installation of onsite erosion and sediment controls
2. Construction Install steel support posts for array tables
Trenching and wiring of underground cabling (DC and AC)
Attachment of tilt brackets and rails using pre-fabricated steel members
Connection of PV modules to the brackets
Installation of inverter and transformer skid
Commencement of site rehabilitation works within the power station development area
3. Commissioning Commissioning and testing of solar plant, noting that each array block would be commissioned as it is completed.
4. Demobilisation Removal of temporary construction facilities and completion of works within the power station development area and of temporary access
tracks within the power station site.
Notes:
1. The construction stage involved earthworks, structural and electrical works.
336

catchments flow onto the property. The north‐eastern corner, which
has the lowest elevation, is the outlet to any water draining through the
property. The geology posed no barriers to installing the posts, which
holds the tables, which in turn secure the PV modules.
4.5. Soil description
Soil at the site is mapped as the Summervale soil landscape. The
Summervale landscape is part of the colluvial slopes and plains and
flow lines associated with Girilambone Beds. The soils in the region
contain red and brown chromosols, red kandosols and sodosols and
commonly called red loams or heavy cracking clays, indicative of
extensive oxidation. The NSW Natural Resources Atlas (NR Atlas)
[17] indicates the soils are relatively stable and have some resilience to
disturbance. Rural land capability mapping indicates that the site is not
subject to severe limitations, and is generally suitable for cultivation.
Soil properties were determined by a commercial laboratory assessing
soil fractionation, metal concentrations and other properties such as
organic matter. Soil classification and tests were conducted using
conventional soil assessment methods previously described. The soil
was prone to bogging after 20 mm or more of rain.
4.6. Site climate
The mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 25.7
and 11.7 °C, respectively. Maximum summer temperatures peak at
34 °C. Annual rainfall is 446 mm. Maximum irradiance occurs in the
summer months from December to March. Temperature, rainfall and
relative humidity was measured at the main office at the site and
recorded on a continuous basis.
4.7. Risk assessment process
After the initial scoping site assessments conducted in 2012 and
2013, a risk assessment was undertaken to characterise the likely
environmental risks, including during the operation and maintenance
stages of the solar plant. The aim of the risk assessment was to ensure
that all relevant risks were investigated and mitigated, relative to the
degree of environmental and community risk represented from initial
studies. The risk rating for each impact was a product of the
consequence of an impact occurring and the likelihood of the impact
occurring. A Hazard Risk Workshop or HAZID group has determined
the scope of the analysis and considered what could happen if someone
or the environment is exposed to each hazard. The risks were evaluated
using a risk assessment matrix and therefore the prioritisation placed
on the action for control measures implemented based on the risk
management standard ISO 31000. The identification of control mea-
sures for health, safety and environment (HSE) and community risks
was developed at this workshop, following the Hierarchy of Controls
Principle. A separate risk assessment was undertaken post construction
to evaluate the actual risks. At this latter time an assessment was made
of the complexity of implementing the controls (as experienced in the
field) for each of the specific groups of approval conditions.
4.8. Waste management & resource use
Construction wastes were segregated on site in managed resource
handling facility areas, into damaged steel posts, tables, electrical cable,
used cable reels, rubber fittings, fencing materials and other damaged
equipment and the principles of the waste hierarchy were applied to all
of the waste streams [18]. Broken panels (modules) were repacked into
original boxes and returned to the manufacturer. Panel (module)
packaging comprising of wooden pallets, heavy duty virgin fibre
cardboard, plastic strapping and polypropylene plastic overwrap was
pre-processed (i.e. baled) on site for transporting off-site for further
processing, re-use and/or recycling. The majority of wood and card-
board were shredded for on-site use as mulch and soil amendment.
Segregated waste and resources were removed from the site on a
weekly or monthly basis to a licensed waste and end-of-life resource
handler.
4.9. Fauna management
Fauna survey methods employed included habitat assessment,
microbat surveys, anabat analysis, nocturnal surveys, targeted surveys,
weekly, monthly HSE inspections, and inspections of relocated habitats
and trenches. Construction works were conducted such that minimum
disturbance was incurred on fauna. Day and night deflectors were
strategically placed around the infrastructure boundary security fence
(one every 5th panel for its 10 km length) to avoid avifauna collisions.
Several fauna handlers were trained on site by an accredited fauna
handler and were present during all vegetation clearing work (10 ha in
total), and at least one was present on each work shift. Training and
inductions addressed the risks of equipment-fauna interactions and
how to mitigate these risks. Trench inspections were conducted twice a
day (approximately a total of 110 km of open trenching on site during
the construction stage). Where hollow bearing trees were identified,
and had to be moved as part of the clearing for the project, they were
safely relocated to cause minimal disturbance. Further, additional
hollows, nest boxes and habitats were created to replace and offset
for impacts on fauna potentially impacted by the project. All nest boxes
and hollows were inspected by the Project Environmental Manager and
the Project Environmental Representative on a monthly basis. The
security fence was monitored at least 1–2 days per week for fauna
interactions. All fauna interactions related to the project were reported
internally and externally to regulatory authorities [19].
4.10. Flora, soil and water management
A minimal amount of clearing was conducted for the construction
works. This included 10 ha in total of native bushland compared with
250 ha required for the entire solar plant area. Vegetation growth
under the solar panels (modules) was encouraged to grow to the extent
that it covered bare soil. Over and above this, it was either slashed,
mowed or treated with knockdown herbicides to ensure excessive
growth did not overgrow onto the module surfaces and allow fauna to
flourish under the module arrays. Disturbed areas, outside of the areas
overshadowed by arrays, were allowed to rehabilitate by natural
processes of self-seeding (from wind-blown native grass seeds).
Soil was managed in conjunction with vegetation cover to optimise
growth under solar arrays while balancing the overgrowth of vegeta-
tion, which would impact on fauna and shade solar panels. Surface
water run-off was retained on site through diversion drainage and a
dam. Trafficking vehicles off the access roads and alleys was avoided to
minimise soil compaction, creation of dust and minimising bogging of
vehicles after rain.
Water was pumped from a source located several kilometres away
and then dispensed into water carts on site where it was predominantly
used for dust suppression. A critical component to the civil works was
the establishment of the water download pipe area, along with the
provisioning of remote water provided by pipeline and a dam for
reticulation located just outside the northern boundary of the project
site. Erosion controls were compliant to the relevant government
standard [20].
4.11. Fire and bushfire management
A fire and bushfire management plan was developed in conjunction
with local fire services personnel. This included strategic placement of
fire fighting equipment across the plant and in vehicles. It also included
a prevention approach for annual clearing of fire breaks around site
boundary, fire drills for all site personnel, annual inspections by local
337

fire services and communications including non-smoking policy, fire
prevention and firefighting strategies.
4.12. Camp management
A separate local government approval process was followed to
establish, operate and decommission the camp used for housing
construction personnel during the construction stage. Local traffic to
and from the camp and to the site and other locations in the local
township, was managed by the camp manager and the construction
project manager, and was largely self-regulated by the workforce. Self-
reporting of hazards e.g. noise, incorrect route followed, was encour-
aged (using hazard reports and HSE Inspections).
4.13. Traffic, road and logistics management and optimisation
Given the remote site location and large quantities of goods
required for construction, logistics on and off site were expected to
pose a risk for the project. An intersection (turning lane) for the main
road entry into the site was constructed as part of the project to reduce
off-site traffic hazards. Onsite traffic was contained to designated roads,
access areas, and alleys through appropriate site design, signage as well
as training and awareness sessions, and use of the daily hazard card
reporting, daily, weekly and monthly HSE inspections and audits. A
security system was established on site for all personnel entering the
site including blood alcohol testing as mandatory. Road dilapidation
reports were prepared before and after construction. During the
project, an improvement was made to the main supply route for
getting modules to the site from overseas.
4.14. Noise monitoring
Noise monitoring was conducted with portable equipment (Digitech
QM1589, level range: 30–130 dB +/−1.5 dB and frequency range of
31.5 to 8000 Hz). It was conducted at site boundary locations and at
the nearest receptors (neighbours), 1.5 km from the centre of the
construction footprint. At peak construction, the hours of work (and
noise generation) were extended. The EPC conducted noise monitoring
across the site and at each of the closest receptors on a weekly basis
including during post-pounding, which occurred early in the construc-
tion program. A total of more than 250 noise measurements were taken
on the project.
4.15. Community engagement and complaints management
An internationally recognised framework for community engage-
ment (IAP2 Guidelines) [21] was adopted and a community consulta-
tion process was deployed throughout the project including a monthly
meeting of project and community members at the Community
Consultation Committee meetings in local townships [21]. During the
18 months of construction, the project engaged with the local commu-
nity formally on a monthly basis and informally on an as-required
basis. A structured process was used and an agenda and minutes were
published. In addition, numerous visits to the construction site were
made by local community members (800 individuals entered site in
total) throughout this period. Visual impact assessments studies were
also conducted, including an individual assessment of 17 potential
viewing locations.
4.16. Health, safety and environmental system and incident
investigations
An integrated HSE management system was developed and im-
plemented which included an incident investigation procedure. The
HSE system met the requirements of ISO14001, AS 4801, and the
Australian Commonwealth Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner
(OFSC) requirements [22]. Investigations were conducted after each
HSE incident to determine root causes and prevent re-occurrence.
There were three environmental incidents, which included minor fluid
spills, and two complaints. One audit was conducted by the OFSC
during the construction stage. The 5 Why process was used to
determine underlying root causes and actions taken to limit further
machinery fluid spills [23,24].
5. Results and discussion
The overall benefits of the project were compelling. With the
exception of road preparation, the project did not require large-scale
earthworks and all impacts to the site were reversible. The project has
delivered significant social and environmental benefits on a local, state
and federal level and have global environmental benefits on the basis
that the development will lower emissions created in the production of
electricity. The project also did not significantly affect the conservation
values nor agricultural output of the locality. The development will
have indirect benefits as it will decrease costs to the community as a
result of a reduction in the externalities involved with burning fossil
fuels, such as those resulting from particulate air pollution and
emissions.
The solar plant avoids approximately 200 kt CO2 equivalent per
annum by replacing fossil fuel-based energy. The low emission
intensity of the project is therefore compliant with The National
Greenhouse Strategy in Australia which aims to lower the emissions
intensity associated with electricity production. The solar plant will also
result in the avoidance of the ongoing consumption of water that would
otherwise have been used in coal or other fossil fuel fired power
stations for cooling purposes.
The solar plant is expected to generate approximately 233 GWh of
renewable energy each year over the operating life of the plant (25
years). This equates to approximately 1.3% of the LRET for the first
year of targeted operation (2015) and 0.6% of the total LRET target to
2020. The solar plant generates enough renewable energy to power up
to the equivalent of 33,000 average Australian homes.1
5.1. Overview of the project planning risks
Using the risk assessment process, including the HAZID assess-
ment and reviewing the compliance record for the construction stage of
the project, a prioritised assessment of the planning approval condi-
tions was developed. This assessment rolled up the approval conditions
into those that were administrative in nature, as well as those related to
environmental performance and environmental management and
reporting. An overview of the approval conditions, their expected
impact or risk to completion of the project and observed impacts,
including an estimate of cost impact on the project, are summarised in
Table 2. The highest priority issues from the assessment, included
waste (EOLPMs), dust and flora and groundcover management. These
and others are further described in Table 3.
5.2. Community engagement
5.2.1. General
Community engagement is critical to the successful delivery of large
infrastructure projects such as the solar plant in this publication [25].
Proposed USSE projects need to consider community acceptance as
part of the approval process though there is no universal guidelines for
establishing solar SPV landscapes with community input [10].
Support from the local communities and key stakeholders for the
current project was very positive overall, with the communities highly
engaged and supportive. This involved early engagement (with the
1
This is assuming approximately 19kWh is used per household.
338

community) and other key stakeholders as part of developing the
community consultation plan which required a focused effort to
implement [21].
During construction, the local council raised concerns regarding the
socio-economic impacts of the proposal, such as the source of the
workforce, where they will be accommodated and impacts on local
services. The percentage of the construction workforce from the local
area was low at approximately 5%, and the remaining large percentage
of workers were needed to be sourced from outside the local shire area
due to specialised skills required. In terms of accommodation, a work
camp was established (see earlier subsection).
In addition to the local jobs at the peak of the construction stage
and encouragement of regional development, the project maximised
the use of local Australian contractors, manufacturing facilities and
materials during construction, to a value of approximately $1 million
(AUD) per month over the construction period. Further, the con-
structed site provides ongoing support for local community activities
such as the operator company funding sporting events.
The development and construction of the solar plant generated
significant interest within the local community and also at a regional,
state and national level. Senior key stakeholders, political dignitaries,
interest groups, community groups and media outlets were all keen to
visit the solar plant during the construction, which in turn generated
further interest from other stakeholders and interest groups.
5.2.2. Worker behaviour in host communities
Worker behaviour reflects on the individual, their organisation and
also the project. Consequently, it was critical that workers understood
that they were guests in the local community and needed to be
respectful. For the solar plant, the EPC established a “camp” to provide
accommodation for the construction workers. As part of initiatives to
normalise relationships between solar plant workers and the local
community an open day and barbeque (i.e. open air cook-up) was held
at the solar plant. This helped the local community to better under-
stand the project and see what was happening for themselves. Despite
the overall positive engagement with the local community, there were a
small number of events that caused local disturbances in the commu-
nity though these were not raised as formal complaints to the project.
5.2.3. Community engagement meetings
Community engagement meetings were tailored to meet the
requirements of the local community. The local community were keen
to be involved in a formal community consultative committee (CCC)
process which regularly involved several community members on the
committee. The meetings were also open to the general public, which
resulted in a mix of “regulars”, new community members and
potentially tourists at each meeting. Being prepared to be flexible to
meet the needs of the local community, and adjust the consultation
style, resulted in an engaged and informed community.
5.2.4. Local employment expectations
Employment opportunities in regional communities in Australia
can be limited. As a result, major infrastructure projects like the solar
plant construction in this publication create a high expectation of
employment and local business. It is important to engage with local
employment agencies early and establish a link with them and the
contractors looking to source workers without over promising what the
project is likely to offer. These agencies can help to match the skills of
the local workers with those being sort by the contractors. Early
engagement will also provide an opportunity for any project-specific
training. Local employment benefits both the local community, the
contractor and the project.
Advertising for local workers considered a range of channels including
local print media, flyers in local employment agencies and supermarkets,
radio and websites were used. All enquires were responded to in a timely
manner and applicants kept informed of any changes.
Table2
ObservedVersusExpectedPlanningandApprovalsRisks.
Generalapproval
conditions
SpecificgroupingsofapprovalconditionsNo.conditionsOwnervsEPC
responsible
Riskprofileb
Relativecost(%of
un-budgeted
spend)a
Expectedrisk
(HAZID
Process)
Observed
riski
Complexityof
integrationof
controls
Observednon-
conformancesh
GeneralAdministrative
conditions
Obligationtominimiseharmtoenvironment;
Stagingofproject;Structuraladequacy(of
buildings);Complianceawareness(ofstaff,
contractors,visitors);Disputeresolution
19Owner1.7LM-HM-HL
Environmental
Performance
Health,safetyandfacility(infrastructure)placement
issues;Campmanagementc
issues(i.e.offsite)
32EPC2.1M-LHHH
Fireandbushfiremanagement2EPC0.9MVHL-MH
Dangerousgoods,chemicalandspillmanagement3EPC0.2MM-LLM
Dustandairqualityd
1EPC8.5HVHVHVH
Waterquality2EPC6.4MVLVLVL
Soilandwatermanagemente
9EPC10.6MHHH
Wastemanagement&resourceuse11EPC26LVHH-VHVH
Utilitiesincludingpowerlineinstallation1Owner0.2MMLL
Floramanagementincludinggroundcoverandweed
managementg
2EPC5.1MVHHVH
Faunamanagementincludingsnakecaptureand
relocation
1EPC1.3MVHM-HM
Visualamenityprotection(treeplanting)8Owner6.4LVLVLVL
Noisemanagementincludingcontrols20EPC0.4M-HLMM-L
(continuedonnextpage)
339

Table2(continued)
Generalapproval
conditions
SpecificgroupingsofapprovalconditionsNo.conditionsOwnervsEPC
responsible
Riskprofileb
Relativecost(%of
un-budgeted
spend)a
Expectedrisk
(HAZID
Process)
Observed
riski
Complexityof
integrationof
controls
Observednon-
conformancesh
Trafficandtransportmanagementegonsitevehicle
speeds,loadingroutesforlogistics,modificationto
siteentryf
42EPC10.6MM-HHH
AboriginalandEuropeanheritagemanagement9EPC1.1MVLVLL
Perimeterfencingincludingbirdstrikeprevention1EPC0.85MLLL
Environmental
managementand
reporting
EnvironmentalRepresentative(statutoryroleon
statesignificantdevelopmentsinplanning
jurisdiction)
7EPC/Owner1.7HHLL
Constructionenvironmentalmanagementplan
(CEMP)
36EPC/Owner8.5MHML
Operationalenvironmentalmanagementplan
(OEMP)
15EPC2.6HHHL
BiodiversityOffsetManagementPlan(BOMP)35Owner/EPC2.6MLML
Trafficmanagementplanforoffsiteroads12Owner/EPC0.6MVLVLL
Incidentreporting1EPC/Owner0.2MLM-HL
Regularreporting(includingprojectupdates,
communityconsultationreports)
1EPC/Owner0.2LLML
CommunityConsultation11Owner/EPC0.85MLML
Complaints10Owner/EPCHMLL
Compliancetracking6EPC0.85HVHMM
Cumulativeeffects1EPC/OwnerLVLLL
Notes:
a
Costs:Thesearethoseinexcesstopreparationofplanningdocumentsandcostsofsiteenvironmentalpersonnelandareaproportionofanestimatedtotalof$2.35m(AUD).Thesearebasedonestimatesoftimeinputandexpensesassociated
withthefullcompliancewitheachoftheapprovalconditionsincludingtheproductionofapprovaldocumentationtocomplywithconditions,timeandresourcesusedduringtheconstructionphase.Itexcludesanycostsassociatedwiththe
operationsandmaintenancephaseoftheproject.Singlelargestspenditemwasduetocompliancetowasteandresourcere-userequirements.
b
Expected/unexpectedpriority:Groupingsofapprovalconditionswereclassifiedaccordingtotheexpectedversusactualriskpresentedtotheproject,beforeandaftertheconstructionstages,respectively.Theriskprofilewascalculatedusing
theriskassessmentmatrixusedacrosstheprojectduringaHAZIDmeeting12monthspriortoconstruction.Ofthe27specificconditioncategories,only12wereidentifiedduringtheHAZID.Thisisatleastpartlyduetothefactthatsomeofthe
categorieswerearequirementoftheapprovalconditionsandnotaresultofHAZIDprocess.TheriskassessmentprocessfollowedtheprotocoldescribedintheISO31000onRiskmanagement.
c
Campmanagement:Acamplocatedinthenearesttownshipprovidedhousing10kmawayfromconstructionsiteinlocalcommunity.Housedupto250personnelduringpeakconstruction.Healthandsafetywasinrelationtothecampsetting
andenvironment.
d
Dust:Compliancetoapprovalconditionsrequireddailycartingofwaterfromsourcetoworkfront.Thereweretwoeventswherethedustlevelsweresohighonsite,workshadtobeshutdownresultingindowntimeandcostsfortheEPC.The
soiltypewasaredclayloam.Actualtestsundertakenonsoilfromthesiterevealedthatthefinefractionof<1mmrepresented44%ofthesoilfraction,revealingahighsusceptibilitytowind-blowndustgeneration.Thebroaderissueofairquality
i.e.vehicleemissions,wasconsideredandevaluatedasa“low”risk.The“veryhigh”rankingfornon-conformanceswasduetothedustinterferingwithworkersontheworkfront.
e
Soilandwatermanagement:Thoughtherewerenosignificantrisksinmeetingthecompliancerequirementsforsoilmanagement,compliancetowatermanagementwasextensive,requiringthepurchasingandrecordingofallwaterusageand
ofwatertransportfromlocallicenceholder.Earthworksvaluing$250K(AUD)wereundertakeneventhoughtheactualfloodriskswererelativelylowandequivalentto1:100to1:200yearfloodrisk.
f
Trafficandtransport:Themajorityofthecosts(approximately$240KAUD)wereassociatedwithmakingtheentrancetothesitesafewithrespecttomainroadtrafficinteractions.Therelativelyhighnon-conformanceswereprimarilydue
excessivespeedofvehiclestravellingonthesite.
g
Flora:Themajorityofcostswerethoseassociatedwithapplicationofknock-downherbicide,slashingandmowingofgrasswithintheconstructionfootprint(underandimmediatelyaroundtheSPVarrays).Thesecostswillvaryaccordingto
climateandsoiltype.Spreadingofweedswasnotidentifiedasanissueuntil12monthsintotheconstructionstage.
h
Observednon-conformances:Itisnotedthatnon-conformancesareself-reportedasobservedduringdaily,weeklyandmonthlyinspectionandhazardreportsfromsitepersonnel.Low=<10reports;M=10–100reports;H=100–200reports;
VH=>200reports
i
Itisnotedthattheobservedrisks,wherethesewerehigherthanmedium,werereducedtomediumorlowerduringtheproject.
340

Qualitative feedback from local opinion leaders in the community
suggested that overall while it was recognised the project added
significantly to the community, the expectations it would provide
higher levels of employment (than actually delivered) were consider-
able.
5.3. Environmental and community performance
5.3.1. Overview
The following factors were considered in the construction project
and have been raised by previous researchers [13]. Permitting and
regulatory constraints for USSE vary with land ownership (e.g., public
versus private land), ecological characteristics (e.g., undisturbed versus
previously degraded, critical habitat for rare species) and cultural
significance. From the perspective of the community, the benefits of
renewable energy development need to be weighed against the loss of
ecological function, loss of public access, and the loss of irreplaceable
cultural resources. From a perspective of energy development alone,
possible delays from permitting requirements and regulatory reviews
may be seen as having negative effects on financial returns. Like other
forms of renewable energy, each USSE project will have its own unique
set of social, cultural, environmental, technical, and political character-
istics. Project implementation may be further complicated by volatile
electricity prices, costs for land acquisition and materials, in addition to
environmental regulations and legislation that may vary across county,
state, and national boundaries.
5.3.2. End of life materials management
Broken modules generated on the site during construction (3000 in
total) were contained on-site and prepared for return to the manu-
Table 3
A Description of the Highest Priority Approval Conditions with the Most Non-Conformances Reported During Construction Phase.
Highest priority issues with most non-
conformances
Description of issue
Camp • At the peak of construction 250 personnel were based at the construction camp (10 km from site and within local
township)
• Local travel between the camp, town centre and construction site, caused several residents to raise concerns about the
issue of vehicle noise at consultation committee meetings
Fire and bushfire management • High day time temperatures (regularly > 30 °C during late spring/summer) and lush growth during winter and spring
meant conditions were conducive to fire
• Fire breaks were required especially during the summer, when the site has most vegetative growth
• Sheep were not able to be used to control vegetation growth under arrays due to the ready access sheep had in reaching
electrical leads from panels/modules and from the relatively low height of the low edge (600 mm) of the installed
panels/modules (where sheep could damage installed panels/modules)
• One smoking event in the field by a workforce member (panel installation crew) led to a single localised fire event within
the arrays during peak construction (no damage incurred)
Dust and air quality management • The extent of the dust problem was not recognised until alleys were created within the construction footprint
• Dust generation led to non-conformances being raised on a daily basis by site personnel using hazard cards and from
formal planned daily, weekly, and monthly inspections
• Causes were from vehicular traffic on access roads, alleys. Total trafficable distances on the site are approximately
110 km.
• Two half days of construction were lost due to dust problems on site (site was shut down using the stop work authority)
• Electricians were most effected by dust as it effected fine work such as joining and soldering
• The dust issue was complicated by neighbours that also generated dust that entered onto construction site on an
unpredictable basis (from trucks travelling on adjacent dusty farm roads)
Soil and water management • Water consumption ranged between 150 and 350 kL per day during construction which was high and represented a
demand for dust suppression
Waste • The project required the installation of more than a million solar panels which were wrapped in cardboard and
transported to site on wood pallets (total combined mass of approximately 2000 t).
• The management of end of life packaging materials (EOLPMs) was not planned for until the construction program had
started so a management solution was not adequately considered (and therefore costed) prior to the initiation of
construction stage when there were a wider range of management options.
• Remote site location (600 km from closest major city) meant recycling or re-use of EOLPM was limited by available
transport and associated costs
• State EPA approval was sought and obtained for onsite re-use of the majority of packaging materials (for soil
rehabilitation) after on-site shredding.
Flora management • The critical challenge was in striking a balance between allowing sufficient vegetative growth to limit dust generation
(under arrays) and keeping growth sufficiently low so as to not attract snakes, or to be problematic for electricians or
panel installers, or to cover panels.
• A combination of mowing, slashing (with tractor driven apparatus) and herbicides were used. Access to vegetation was
limited due to the presence of posts and SPV modules (which could be damaged by agricultural equipment)
Fauna management • Reptile handling was planned for in the CEMP however, on the project it was not expected that large number of snakes
were likely to be present
• 20 snakes were captured and relocated during the construction phase (note: more than 20 were identified; not all were
able to be captured and relocated)
• These were of greatest concern to workers installing panels during hot days i.e. above 30 °C after cool periods
• No bird deaths were reported due to strikes on fence lines or within or on the SPV infrastructure
Traffic and road transport management • The entry and exit from the site was identified as an issue at the planning stage due to the high speed limits on the main
road (110 km/h) and a nearby blind corner (300 m from site entrance) on that road near the turn off to the construction
site. The hazard became obvious when personnel started to mobilise to site during the initial stages of the construction
stage. A special entry had to be constructed to enable safe ingress and egress of traffic from site.
• Traffic speeds on site were monitored daily and was a regular source of hazards
• Restricting all vehicles to the allowed transit areas was challenging and regular source of hazards
Notes:
1. It is noted that although concerns were raised regarding vehicle noise around the town and camp, no formal complaints were submitted to the project on this issue.
2. A chemical dust suppressant was procured for the site (40 kL of calcium lignosulphonate) after construction was started. When used, it was applied the day before and then trafficked
on the following day. By doing this, the dust suppression was largely ineffective as it required a lengthy curing process prior to trafficking on.
341

facturer for re-use. There were no uncontained spillages of modules (or
module fragments) and therefore release of cadmium telluride (CdTe),
the semi-conductor material from the modules.
The constructor also had a commitment to sustainability leadership
which applied to all aspects of construction, operations and waste
management. This included the proper management of EOLPMs.
Therefore, a disciplined litter minimisation and collection regime was
put in place ensuring the site was kept clean with respect to litter and
extraneous, wind-blown wastes. In relation to the bulk of the EOLPMs,
the project made available a small proportion (1000 units) of used
pallets, plastic and cardboard, offsite for re-use. One packaging unit
consisted of a virgin (thermally treated only) wooden pallet (36 kg)
with no chemicals present, a cardboard box (22 kg) (stapled to the
pallet) with ribbing internally to protect the panels in transit, plastic
overwrap (0.3 kg) and 4 m of thin plastic strapping. All remaining
wood and cardboard EOLPMs (approximately 27,000 units), were
shredded for on-site incorporation into the soil as an amendment (to
improve soil properties). This work was completed at the end of the
construction stage. All plastics (approximately 30 t) were collected,
baled and recycled offsite. Fig. 4 illustrates the EOLPM challenges and
issues on the site.
Logistics was a limiting factor in enabling further quantities of used
packaging to be recycled or re-used offsite, with transport costs too
high and the value of resources insufficient to enable it to occur
commercially to any further extent. Managing the EOLPMs therefore
led to high costs to the project (due to remote location) that could have
been reduced by more clearly defined contracts (between constructor
and its primary contractor) and identification of uses for the solar panel
packaging materials earlier in the project (i.e. prior to construction).
These costs were a large proportion of the unallocated environmental
and community budget for the project.
5.3.3. Dust generation and control
During the construction stage of the project, visible dust was
observed present during many of the weekly and monthly inspections.
This was generated from vehicular traffic on roads and alleys, from
bare soil areas including road verges, as well as sources from offsite.
This was due to the high fines content of the soil, the extensive on-site
road network (approximately 110 km in total, including alleys within
the arrays), and dry, windy site conditions. The earthworks and
subsequent stages required extensive laydown areas, which also
generated dust, and which were required to be rehabilitated prior to
handover to the O & M Team. The high levels of vehicular movement to
and within the site during construction put an excessive burden on the
project to meet its rehabilitation commitments, due to vehicles driving
over rehabilitation areas, as well as generating dust. Full rehabilitation
of the disturbed areas on the site was achieved (other than within the
solar plant footprint).
Though not leading to any material environmental or community
problems, higher than anticipated onsite dust generation led to the loss
of 1 full day of work during peak construction.
Another issue that has potential to impact USSE projects is dust
deposition or soiling [13]. Dust deposition can incur a negative impact
to solar generation performance by decreasing the amount of solar
radiation absorbed by panels. Even suspended dust in the near surface
atmosphere decreases the amount of solar radiation reaching the panel
surface. Deposition on solar panels or mirrors is site-specific and
modulated by several factors, including soil parent material, micro-
climate, and frequency and intensity of dust events, but several studies
have demonstrated energy production losses exceeding 20% for utility
scale PV systems [13]. In the current study there was no negligible
derating of power output as a result of dust deposition on the panels.
In Australia, water is a scarce resource. Relatively large volumes of
water (350 kL per day) were used to suppress dust. Although some
days this was above the upper allowable limit under the approval
conditions (of 300 kL), overall the approval conditions for water
consumption were met.
Fig. 5 illustrates the dust challenges and issues on the site.
5.3.4. Flora and groundcover management
There was an ongoing challenge, during construction, to balance the
need for vegetative growth to suppress dust, and at the same time limit
the amount of vegetation growth to avoid shading and other hazards. If
allowed to grow too high, this vegetation would interfere with sun
capture and create unsafe conditions for field workers e.g. attracting
snakes. During construction, costs of knock down herbicide spraying
were material to the compliance program. Slashing within the arrays
was also undertaken and, on occasions, mowing due to limited access
within the arrays.
While there were no fires that caused damage to the facility or
environment, there was a high ongoing risk from bush fires and
(although limited) careless behaviour from the workforce (i.e. not
observing the site's no smoking policy). Minimising groundcover
reduces this risk.
Fig. 6 illustrates the groundcover challenges and issues on the site.
5.3.5. Environmental outcomes and lessons learnt
A series of performance targets and criteria were set for the project
in order to meet the stringent environmental approval conditions for
the project during construction. The targets set were largely met during
the construction stage. The highlights in the environmental perfor-
mance of the project are summarised as follows:
• Although identified as a likely risk during the planning stage, visual
assessments and loss of agricultural land, were not issues that
eventuated as material on the project.
• All bird habitats (166 hollows and nest sites combined) were
conserved and offset by creating more habitats that those potentially
impacted (at a ratio of approximately 3:1).
• No noise complaints were reported as a result of the project, though
there were minor disturbance events noted to have occurred in the
camp and local township.
• After the start of construction, a new rail route was negotiated to
secure deliveries of modules to a local rail yard. This had the effect of
reducing 800 km of road freight, to 80 km. This reduced fuel usage,
emissions and reduced road transport risks.
• Overall, no non-compliances were determined by the regulatory
agencies nor were there any recorded for the project against any of
the 296 approval conditions.
These targets are further listed in Table 4.
The key lessons learnt from implementation of the project approval
conditions during construction were the need to improve EOLPM
contractual management, minimise and mitigate dust generation, and
striking the balance between too little and too much vegetative growth
under the arrays. These learnings are described in Table 5.
Ways to minimise environmental and social impacts in future USSE
construction projects have previously been identified [13] and include:
(1) understanding the environmental implications of siting decisions
using adequate inventories of species and processes, (2) monetising the
actual value of natural capital and ecosystem services attributed to a
parcel of land, (3) siting USSE systems on land that maximises
energetic output and minimises economic and environmental costs,
(4) having individuals and entities involved with long-term commit-
ments to the project, and (5) requiring developers to internalise costs.
These factors are generally encompassed in the approvals processes
adopted in Australia through the EIS, scoping and feasibility studies.
5.3.6. Outcomes from community engagement, lessons learnt and a
consideration of project risks
While the community engagement was considered successful on the
project, the following lessons were learnt which can be transferred to
342

Fig. 4. End of life packaging materials. (A) Stacked pallets with cardboard boxes removed; (B–C) Internal structure of cardboard boxes for safe transit of panels; (D) Upside down view
of pallet aﬃxed to box (with glue and staples); (E) A range of waste types are generated prior to establishment of on-site waste segregation facility; (F) baled plastic overwrap for oﬀsite
recycling.
343

other large-scale solar construction projects in remote areas of
Australia:
• As large‐scale renewable projects are typically located in regional
areas, consideration needs to be given to the distance and time
required to deliver the community engagement activities.
• In addition to allocating appropriate numbers of experienced
community engagement professionals within the project owner,
EPC and developer teams, co‐ordinated upfront planning is required
to ensure timely, best practise delivery of community engagement.
• Trust is built up if the same person(s) build and maintain relation-
ships with local businesses and community leaders, attend the local
business and agricultural fairs and open days, and facilitate site
visits. Engagement should start early.
• Allow ﬂexibility with community engagement activities. What might
work in one community, might not be suitable for another commu-
nity. The formal CCC meetings held for this project were appropriate
but may not work at other locations.
• As a project developer, owner or EPC, be aware of the impact on a
local community that the increased worker inﬂux can have on small
communities. This needs appropriate resources to manage and
ongoing communication with the workforce and back the other
way to the local (regional) council. A better way of accommodating
such itinerant populations may be integrating them into existing
township housing infrastructure (i.e. instead of building accommo-
dation camps).
• Controlled visits to the solar plant and camp helped with community
engagement with community members being able to better relate to
the project, including an understanding and appreciation of the
challenges faced by such projects. Therefore, more time should be
factored into this aspect of the community approvals and compli-
ance to maximise the greater value of the site.
Fig. 5. Groundcover. (A) Excessive groundcover with potential to interfere with light capture, treated by slashing and herbicide though dust was not an issue in this instance (B); (C)
Bare ground under arrays; (D) Shredded mulch produced from onsite processing of EOLPM and used to rehabilitate bare soil, reducing dust and enhancing soil properties; (E–F)
Adequate groundcover, which helps to reduce dust generation.
344

5.4. Constraints to technology adoption of USSE systems
An assessment and understanding of technology adoption is
important in commercial endeavours that attempt to apply new science
or adapt existing scientific principles to real world problems. This has
been addressed previously by the author in the application of technol-
ogies to address environmental problems [26]. Reflections by the
author on the barriers to adoption (of USSE systems) on this particular
project were considered, as well as those constraints expected in very
different construction contexts, that is, in developing countries. For
example in Australia in the current study, the geopolitical risks for
developing USSE solar PV projects are relatively low because of
stability of government and policies (at least until 2020 in relation to
renewable energy policy). On the other hand, these risks are expected
to be higher in developing countries. In developing countries, the
financial risks are relatively high and generally higher than those in
developed countries, given the challenges in accessing capital. While
technical risks are usually higher in developing nations (mainly due to
lack of suitable expertise), environmental risks are typically lower due
to the lower regulatory standards set in those countries. While not
comprehensive nor quantitative, Table 6 provides an indicative sum-
mary of risks for establishing USSE solar PV projects, including those
relating to environment and community issues.
6. Conclusion
Overall, the construction of a 100+
MW installed capacity solar
power plant was successful from a planning and approvals perspective.
The technical environment- and community-related risks identified at
the planning stage, although not always as predicted in terms of their
magnitude, were however, effectively managed, enabling a seamless
handover of the power plant at the O & M stage.
The following were aspects of environmental management and
community consultation, and the approval processes, that provide
opportunities for improvement in future projects:
Fig. 6. Dust. (A) Early stage layout of the land for placement of posts; (B) Fine dust on internal road obscuring water cart (actually in operation); (C) Limited vegetation under arrays
enables dust to be generated; (D) trenching activity opens up areas for dust generation (E) alleys within the solar arrays are a major source of dust; (F) Dust has the potential to enter
cabinets and infrastructure, potentially impacting electrical and mechanical equipment.
345

Table4
Outcomes,MeasuresandTargetsRelatedtoEnvironmentalandCommunityImpactsfromtheProject.
ImpactareaMeasureDescriptionTargetActualActualmeasure/Quantity
Powergeneration/exportRehabilitationofimpactedareasduring
transmissionlineinstallation(%)
Landwasclearedofnativevegetationforarrayand
transmissionlineinstallation
100%100%10ha
InstalledcapacityPlannedinstallation:102MW.!00%100%102MW±4MW
PowergenerationDesignpoweroutput:233,000MWh233,000MWhr
TotalconstructionfootprintAreawasformerlydrylandcroppingandsheepgrazing100%100%250ha
No.ofpostsinstalledApproximately300,000steelpostswereinstalled100%100%300,000
No.ofpanels(modules)installedSolarPVmillionpanels/moduleswereinstalledonabove
groundposts/tables.
100%100%1.36million+3000replacementpanels
Planningandenvironment
Objectives
StaffawarenessAllstafftobeawareoftheirenvironmentalobligations100%100%800visitors(individualsiteentries)
TrenchinginspectedTrenchingwaspreparedforinstallationofACandDCcabling100%100%110kmoftrenchingwasopenintotal
No.offaunadeathsFaunadeathswereduetomachine-faunainteractions.0201injurywassustainedbyabird
No.ofNoisecomplaintsEmanatingfromconstructionactivitiesonthesiteandatthe
residentialcamp
00Noformalcomplaintsreceived(reproject)
No.environmentalrelatedincidentsZeroreportableincidents.Thisdatawasextractedfromthe
HSEincidentregister.
03Note:numerousenvironmentalissueswereraisedashazard
observations
No.ofnon-conformancesPriortopracticalcompletion,anindependentauditwas
conductedagainstapprovalconditions
05Non-conformanceswereraisedinauditandclosedout
CommunityconsultationmeetingsAllplannedmeetingstooccur.100%100%
CommunitycomplaintsComplaintsrelatedtoanyaspectoftheprojectconstruction
stage
02Complaintsrelatedtoindustrialrelations
CompliancetocomplaintresponsetimeframesCloseoutprocessforindividualcomplaints100%100%Allcompletedasplanned
EnvironmentalRepresentative(ER)inspectionsThesewerescheduledonamonthlybasis100%100%ERworkedindependentlytoproject
No.ofHollowBearingTrees(HBT)protectedHollowbearingtrees(HBTs)wereexpectedtobedisturbed
duringtheconstructionstage.
100%100%Approximately50habitatswereimpacted.Thesewerereplaced
by166nestboxesandhollows
WastetolandfillWastegeneratedfromofficeactivityincludingfoodscraps020tNocouncilpickupserviceduetoremotelocation
%panels/modulesreturnedtomanufacturer1.36millionsolarPVpanels/moduleswereinstalled100%100%3000
CompliancetoaudittimeframesAndcompletionofcorrectiveactions100%80%Auditsandinspectionswereconductedweekly,monthlyandat
6–12month(external)
FaunarelocationsandreleaseSnakesandreptilesweretoberelocatedtolesshazardousi.e.
non-workareas
100%95%Approximately20snakereleasesoccurred
NestsitesoftheGrey-crownedbabbler(GCB)
protected
Theseweretheonlyendangeredspeciesidentifiedaslivingin
theconstructionarea
100%100%3potentialnests(ofGCBs)wereidentified
No.ofnestboxtypes(speciestargeted)Fivedifferentbirdspecies(includingtheGCB)wereidentified
aslivingintheconstructionarea
100%80%4outof5typesofrecommendednestboxeswereconstructed
andplacedinadjacentoffsetarea
Notes:
1.Itwasnotedthatthetwocomplaintswerenotprojectrelated.
2.Only20tofofficewasteand100tofconstructionwastes(mainlyusedconcrete),totaling120toutofalarger2000tfromEOLPM,weresenttolandfill.
3.Arelativelysmallnumber(3000)wereidentifiedasbrokenduringconstructionandimmediatelyafterpracticalcompletionoftheconstructionstage(duetocrackingfromexcessivepressureoninstallationand/orphysicaldamage).
4.Atotalof296approvalconditionswereapplicabletothesiteduringtheconstructionstageofthedevelopment.
346

Table 6
A Qualitative Assessment of the Constraints and Risks to Uptake and Adoption of USSE Projects.
Issue grouping Description Context of constraints & relative risk ranking
Developed Developing
Geopolitical Unfavourable policies and regulations for investment, project tendering and implementation L M-H
Long distance and inability to support project over its life L M-H
Political instability and unrest in construction zones L H
Strong competition with incumbent energy supplies H L
Financial Lack of financial incentives and challenges (including expenses) of availing the project to these
incentivising funds
M M-H
Grid parity of renewables M-H L
Cost of land acquisition H L
Absence of long term power purchase agreement (PPA) H L-M
Cost of feasibility assessments H M-H
No financial investment decision post-feasibility assessment (i.e. sunk costs) H M-H
Technical Absence of an integrated approach from business case development, planning, execution and
operations and maintenance (O & M)
L H
Project award process L H
Construction supply chain risks e.g. customs delays, limited equipment quality L H
Entrepreneurial and management support L H
Lack of availability of reliable solar resource M M
Geotechnical limitations of potential construction zone M M-H
Reliability of performance of EPC or contractors/vendors M-H H
Availability of a network connection (grid connection) or offtake M-H H
Transport of supplies to site and site access (or right of way) M-H H
Social Availability of skilled and reliable labour M-H H
Disruption to local community M L
Lack of recognition of the influence of community power (energy) organisations as market players M-H L
Community resistance or scepticism L-M L
Environmental Soiling of panels, shading and presence of air pollution L-M M-H
Suitable zoning for site placement and local government acceptance and land availability M-H L
End of life packaging materials (EOLPMs) issues M-H M-L
Flora and fauna management M-H L-M
Drainage and potential for pooling of flood waters M M
Restrictions imposed by environmental policies, approvals and permitting H L
High costs of environmental permitting and social engagement H L-M
Notes:
1. Note that this is not a comprehensive listing of risks in developing and developed jurisdictions for USSE markets but provides a flavour of the types of practical risks expected
2. Risk categories identified from various sources including from references cited in the text and input from referees.
3. Definitions of risk: “High risk” means more difficult to overcome; “Low risk” means less difficulty to overcome constraints.
Table 5
Lessons Learnt and Recommendations from Implementing As Per Approval Conditions.
Critical issue Key learnings & recommendations Risk
Waste management & resource use • Ensure responsibilities for management of end of life packaging materials (EOLPMs) are agreed prior to start of
construction works to enable optimal resourcing
• Seek local businesses prior to construction that can purchase and add value to cardboard, plastic and wood and any other
streams of resources that are unable to be used by the construction project such as steel posts, electrical cable drums (reels)
• Utilise local government support services that encourage and/or enable industrial ecology networks/interactions
High
Dust & air quality • Recommend undertaking further inquiries regarding potential dust generation at the planning stages (to enable improved
mitigation)
• Negotiate agreements with neighbours that could reasonably be expected to generate dust so that on dusty days the type and
amount of work can be adjusted as needed
• Increase objectivity of assessment of dust levels to enable more constructive discussions regarding the risks that dust poses
and to improve the management of industrial relations matters e.g. install dust monitoring equipment on boundary
High
Flora management • This issue depends largely on the soil conditions and prevailing climate at site.
• Recommend seeking the advice early in the construction program of a rangeland agronomist (or crop/grassland agronomist)
to assess the most effective way to balance plant growth cover and dust mitigation requirements
• At design stage recommend costing the modification of the standard installation height to be increased (est. 10–20 cm) to
accommodate the possibility of running sheep within the arrays (i.e. so that leading edge of module does not cause sheep to
become caught (under module)
High
Road establishment • Form roads sufficiently early in the project so that they are established and conditioned prior to any expected heavy rainfall
which can help reduce road repairs and off road travel which increases the costs for rehabilitation
High
• For high dust potential sites, at the time of establishing access roads on the site, it is advisable to apply dust suppressants
such as lignosulphonate based products early in the program to allow them to cure properly before trafficking on them.
Water management and Quality
Issues
• Where waterway crossings are required under the approval conditions, there may be benefit as a proponent (developer) in
independently assessing the need for civil works and structures. It is highly unlikely that the water structure will ever be
used during the lifetime of the project.
Medium
Weather monitoring • Recommend investment in high quality weather stations with multiple measurement locations to enable increased
information for providing specific information to the workforce
Medium
347

• There were discrepancies between the expected versus actual risks
as was shown during the construction stage of the project. While
there will always be such discrepancies on developments, for new
solar plant construction projects, particular attention should be paid
to logistical issues relevant to managing waste resources (or
EOLPMs) at the end of the project. These logistical issues were
acutely felt given the remote location of the site, and could have been
addressed by clearer delineation of contract ownership for handling
these materials. EOLPM issues require extensive planning in remote
locations and therefore should be explored before the construction
stage.
• The costs associated with unplanned or poorly planned management
of environment and community planning approval commitments
can be material for large scale renewable energy projects. For
example the costs associated with managing the EOLPMs repre-
sented a relatively large proportion of environmental-related, un-
allocated compliance costs for the project (over and above labour
costs).
• There was an ongoing challenge on site to balance excessive
vegetation growth with the need for dust-suppressing groundcover,
and to do this in a timely, cost effective manner minimising the use
of herbicides. It is advisable for developers to seek rangeland
agronomy advice early in light of the potential spend on herbicides
and weed/grass control.
• To enhance and optimise the relationship with local communities,
there is an opportunity to improve the quality of communication
such that leaders in the community are assisted to understand the
complexity of solar SPV construction and know that the likely
probability of local community members gaining work will be
relatively small given the specialised expertise required. Project
developers and project employers are advised to effectively manage
the perceptions of local communities in these aspects.
• Local community members expressed a strong interest in a viewing
platform being constructed at the site. This was not considered
during the planning stage and in fact the planning requirements
were contrary to this community expectation. Future utility-scale
projects should more closely examine community expectations
regarding viewing of the project (during construction and during
operations and maintenance stages) and the underlying assumption
that the viewing of the constructed facility will always be negative.
This expectation will need to be balanced against the risks from
reflection onto roads which is a potential safety hazard for road
users. It is noted here that since completion of this project, a similar
project in Eastern Australia is planning the construction of a viewing
platform which was not part of the original planning approvals.
• Environmental co-benefits can occur when existing agricultural land
is co-located with solar. With potential minimal risks to food
security, co-location schemes can reduce land deficits for food and
fibre production. Opportunities for future research and business
process improvement, which would be of benefit to project devel-
opers, have been identified previously. For example, at the design
stage, allow for animal grazing on site as a mechanism for safe and
effective control of vegetative growth, including obtaining feasibility
and costs of raising the height of the lower edge of the panel above
the average height of sheep. Future projects should address this by
factoring in an exploration and trialling of such co-uses.
Overwhelmingly the overall findings from this project, which show
that the environmental and community impacts are positive and not
detrimental, illustrate that the degree of regulation over this large scale
solar project was unnecessarily high, and burdensome, given the low
impacts from the construction stage of the project and the benefits that
have and will come out of the investment. Environmental and planning
regulators need to consider the disincentives of high levels of regula-
tions at such sites and the negative impact such over-regulation can
have on future investment in the renewable energy sector.
Funding declaration and conflicts of interest
The author received no funding for the study design, data collec-
tion, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report. It was
the sole decision of the author to submit the article for publication.
References
[1] Nicholls A, Sharma R, Saha TK. Financial and environmental analysis of rooftop
photovoltaic installations with battery storage in Australia. Appl Energy
2015;159:252–64.
[2] Outhred H, Retnanestri M. Insights from the experience with solar photovoltaic
systems in Australia and Indonesia. Energy Procedia 2015;65:121–30.
[3] Simpson G, Clifton J. Picking winners and policy uncertainty: stakeholder
perceptions of Australia's renewable energy target. Renew Energy 2014;67:128–35.
[4] Anonymous. 4631.0 - Employment in Renewable Energy Activities, Australia,
2014–15 - Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In: ABS, editor. Canberra:
Australian Government; 2017.
[5] Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V. Environmental impacts from the solar energy
technologies. Energy Policy 2005;33:289–96.
[6] Colombo E, Rocco MV, Toro C, Sciubba E. An exergy-based approach to the joint
economic and environmental impact assessment of possible photovoltaic scenarios:
a case study at a regional level in Italy. Ecol Model 2015;318:64–74.
[7] Cucchiella F, D'Adamo I, Lenny Koh SC. Environmental and economic analysis of
building integrated photovoltaic systems in Italian regions. J Clean Prod
2015;98:241–52.
[8] Dubey S, Jadhav NY, Zakirova B. Socio-economic and environmental impacts of
silicon based photovoltaic (PV) technologies. Energy Procedia 2013;33:322–34.
[9] Treyer K, Bauer C. The environmental footprint of UAE‫׳‬s electricity sector:
combining life cycle assessment and scenario modeling. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;55:1234–47.
[10] Scognamiglio A. Photovoltaic landscapes: design and assessment. A critical review
for a new transdisciplinary design vision. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;55:629–61.
[11] Good C. Environmental impact assessments of hybrid photovoltaic–thermal (PV/T)
systems – A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;55:234–9.
[12] Hosenuzzaman M, Rahim NA, Selvaraj J, Hasanuzzaman M, Malek ABMA, Nahar
A. Global prospects, progress, policies, and environmental impact of solar photo-
voltaic power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:284–97.
[13] Hernandez RR, Easter SB, Murphy-Mariscal ML, Maestre FT, Tavassoli M, Allen
EB, et al. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;29:766–79.
[14] Turney D, Fthenakis V. Environmental impacts from the installation and operation
of large-scale solar power plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3261–70.
[15] Sinha P. Life cycle materials and water management for CdTe photovoltaics. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2013;119:271–5.
[16] Sinha P, Kriegner CJ, Schew WA, Kaczmar SW, Traister M, Wilson DJ. Regulatory
policy governing cadmium-telluride photovoltaics: a case study contrasting life
cycle management with the precautionary principle. Energy Policy 2008;36:381–7.
[17] Anonymous. New South Wales Natural Resource Atlas. Sydney2016.
[18] Guerin TF. Heavy equipment maintenance wastes and environmental management
in the mining industry. J Environ Manag 2002;66:185–99.
[19] Anonymous . Fauna Survey Methods. New South Wales: Office of Environment &
Heritage; 2016.
[20] Anonymous . Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction, 4th ed..
Parramatta, New South Wales: NSW Government; 2004.
[21] Anonymous . Quality Assurance Standard in Community and Stakeholder
Engagement. Wollongong, New South Wales: The International Association for
Public Participation (IAP2); 2015.
[22] Anonymous . Federal Safety Commissioner (FSC) Audit Criteria Guidelines.
Canverra, ACT: Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner (OFSC); 2015.
[23] Guerin TF. An investigation into the cause of loss of containment from the supply of
mini-bulk lubricants. Eng Fail Anal 2015;54:1–12.
[24] Guerin TF. Root causes of fluid spills from earthmoving plant and equipment:
implications for reducing environmental and safety impacts. Eng Fail Anal
2014;45:128–41.
[25] Brook J, Clark S. Establishing the Social Licence to Operate Large Scale Solar
Facilities in Australia: Insights from Social Research for Industry. Melbourne,
Victoria: Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA); 2015.
[26] Guerin TF. Why sustainable innovations are not always adopted. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2001;34.
348

Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden

Similar to Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden (20)

More from Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA

More from Turlough Guerin GAICD FGIA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluating expected and comparing with observed risks on a large-scale solar photovoltaic construction project: A case for reducing the regulatory burden