BLAXLAND WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EXTENSION
- Brian Marshall, 20/02/05

(See below for full evaluation)

The Development Application and Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to the Blaxland landfill extension was available for public comment from early December 2004 to February 18 2005. The Society has made a submission that covers a range of items, including concerns about a deficiency of the existing landfill operation at Blaxland, the current composition of the Blue Mountains' waste stream, aspects specific to the extension proposal, and possible misuse of the window of opportunity that the extension proposal provides. (Read More)

Public Heritage - On Sale
by Brian Marshall - August, 2004

The Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Budget) Bill 2004 was introduced to the Lower House as a cognate Budget Bill. This ensured that it passed through without debate. It has now passed through the Upper House where, being a money Bill, it was debated but could not be amended.

The Bill enables the Government to sell, for a pittance, more than 1 million hectares of public land, some of it in the Blue Mountains! How can this happen? The Department of Lands (under Minister Tony Kelly) will facilitate conversion of up to 11,500 individual leases, including 2,500 perpetual leases, from leasehold to freehold with a purchase price set at 3% of market value.

Even more alarming than the give-away prices is the loss of habitat. Many of the leases cover remnants or corridors of bush habitat in otherwise cleared land. Some will contain threatened plant and animal species, and endangered ecosystems, while others provide the migration routes that ensure genetic diversity. Indeed, due to their high conservation values, some 2000 of the leases were placed under a moratorium from sale in 1990. Mr Carr, then leader of the Opposition, secured the moratorium from the Greiner Government. It marked the turning point of a protracted battle during which Mr Carr consistently opposed the sale of Crown lands on a range of environmental arguments. For example, in 1983, he argued that the Liberal Government's plan to sell Crown land would court disaster. In his own words:

"There may not be a decision in this parliament that will reverberate down through the years like this one ... If that land is sold and much of it cleared, then there is no comeback. … If there is environmental degradation … as a result of that land passing into private ownership, there is no way a future government, no matter how good its environmental intentions, can rectify that wrong…"

How right he was then! The reverberations continue, but the shoe is now on the other foot.

Contrary to what you may hear or read, there are no safeguards in the Bill to prevent conversion to freehold and sale of leases with high conservation value. Much will rely on the environmental integrity of the Minister for Lands. The popular expression of 'putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank' springs to mind!

The Blue Mountains Conservation Society strongly opposes the sale of public lands and anticipates campaigning against such sales in the Blue Mountains.

If you wish to register a protest, please urgently contact Premier Carr, the Minister for Lands Tony Kelly, and the Minister for the Environment and Conservation Bob Debus (Parliament House, Sydney 2000) and tell them that:

as a stakeholder in public lands you are opposed to their conversion to freehold and sale; the moratorium on the conversion of leases to freehold, as originally secured by Bob Carr, must be retained; and, any lease proposed for conversion and sale should be listed and adequate time given for public consultation.

Kent Gillman (BMCC), together with a GHD representative, gave a formal presentation on the upgrade proposals to a Blue Mountains Conservation Society Monthly Meeting on 30 January 2004. On behalf of the Society (L-U subcommittee), I contacted Kent Gillman and discussed aspects of the proposal. A summary of his responses, some personal comments and recommendations were submitted to Management Committee on 24 July 2004 (Appendix 'A'). As a direct consequence, I wrote to Kent Gillman, on the Society's behalf, seeking additional information and registering support for certain aspects of BMCC's waste management programme (Appendix 'B'). An abridged version of the response from City Solutions (Kent Gillman) is in Appendix 'C'.

Nearly 5 months after the anticipated release date, a Development Application and the attached EIS (two substantial volumes) became available for public comment from early December 2004 to February 4 2005. Despite a request from the Society (in early December) that a longer period be granted, it was rejected by Brian Crane, Acting Manager, Environmental & Customer Services Group on January 4, 2005.

2.1 Pre-existing problems (sections 1 and 7, v. 1 )

The integrity of the current Cripple Creek diversion pipe is compromised such that leachate enters Cripple Creek. The general problem was identified in 2003 and a remediation proposal, which also included a leachate disposal system, was prepared in 2004 (section 7.7.3). A tender for the necessary work "was being called at the time of writing this EIS" (section 7.7.3). However, despite emphasising that the remediation system is not part of the landfill extension proposal (section 7.7.3), the EIS also states that the "proposal includes a leachate collection system for the landfill extension, which would be linked to the system being installed for the existing landfill" (section 1.2.1).

• The Society asks whether the tender for the remediation work has been called, or whether the matter has been deferred pending approval of the Development Application covering the extension proposal?
  
  
• Because remediation became necessary under EPA Licence 10039, the Society considers that delay without additional explanation is unjustified.
  

2.2 Need and alternatives (sections 5 and 9, v. 1; appendices C and E, v. 2)

The Blaxland landfill has an estimated operating life of only 12 months, while the life of the Katoomba landfill is less than 4 years (based on appendices C and E).

• The Society accepts that there is no question about the need for additional capacity.

Nevertheless, despite planning starting some years ago, it is reprehensible that the community is presented with a last-minute (or barely in time!) proposal; that is, with a situation where 'alternatives' are deemed not viable (e.g. extending the Katoomba landfill), unacceptable (e.g. mines and quarries within the Greater Lithgow City Council area), disproportionately expensive (options 2 and 3, section 9.2.5), or have implementation timeframes longer than the life of current landfills.

• The Society is unable to dispute the above claims. It consequently accepts that option 1 (extending Blaxland and accepting the Katoomba waste) is the only choice that is both currently available and economically acceptable to Council.
  
  
• The Society however emphasises that: (a) a situation where nearly 60% of the waste stream comprises organic waste (sections 5.6 and 9.1.7) is totally unacceptable - this must be stopped by reducing the bin size , having spot audits and imposing fines; (b) the proportion of non-recyclable plastic waste (of which a major proportion is plastic bags) is also unacceptable - the City of the Blue Mountains must either become a plastic bag free zone or the provision of plastic bags must incur a charge (as successfully applied in Ireland); (c) "development of strategies to manage and reduce waste" and promotion of "source reduction of both domestic and commercial waste" (section 9.3) are warm fuzzy phrases - but it is time (past time!) for strategies and non-punitive promotion to be supplanted by enacted plans with teeth. Council has achieved much through education, but should now realise that for some (many?) enforcement is necessary.

The EIS emphasises that alternative waste technology (AWT) (section 9.1.8) is not a panacea and that a landfill operation is needed for process-residuals and waste not amenable to the selected technology. It points out that, from an economic viewpoint, such a landfill should be within the Blue Mountains. Much is also said about the timeframe needed for the implementation of AWT and the care needed in selecting an appropriate form of AWT.

• The Society accepts this and acknowledges that Council is investigating various AWT possibilities. However, since Council is still 'investigating' AWTs and implementation of the selected technology could take in the order of 5+ years (section 9.1.8), the window of opportunity provided by the Blaxland extension is by no means excessive. The Society consequently believes that Council should commission a suitable organisation to analyse the City's waste processing needs and recommend an appropriate AWT. The time is past for treating AWT as an interesting theoretical exercise.

In March 2003 (appendix E), reference was made to the Netwaste sub-region comprising BMCC, Bathurst, Evans, Lithgow, Mudgee and Rylstone. The possibility was raised that, in the longer term, opportunities might develop for the disposal/treatment of waste in facilities located (perhaps!) at Lithgow. It was noted that there was little likelihood of this providing a solution to address the City's immediate concerns.

• The Society notes that waste disposal in disused open-cut coal mines (and presumably disused sand quarries?) is rejected because the Greater Lithgow City Council has a policy of not accepting external waste (section 9.1.9). In view of this, has any progress been made regarding a sub-regional facility?
  
  
• The Society is particularly concerned that the nebulous possibility of a sub-regional facility, when placed in the context of the differing councils' agendas, will delay serious consideration and implementation of AWT.

2.3 Aspects of the favoured proposal (section 8, v. 1; appendix F, v. 2)

• 2.3.1 Leachate treatment and disposal (sections 8.3.7 and 8.6.2, v. 1; sections F4.4.7 and F4.8.3, v.2)

The integration of leachate management from the old and new landfills was raised under item 2.1, but the apparent dependence of the remediation tender upon acceptance of the extension proposal remains. Thus, "Upgrading of the existing leachate management system is not part of the proposed development, but the leachate management system for the proposed extension area will be integrated with the upgraded system for the existing landfill" (section F4.4.7).

• In view of the staged nature of landfill, the Society seeks assurance that remediation work is not contingent upon the extension proposal and will not be delayed until development of the landfill extension is authorised.

Disposal of untreated leachate from both areas by injection irrigation should not influence surface water quality but, under dry conditions, could have a cumulative impact on leachate chemistry.

• Has this possibility been considered and will it be monitored?

Excess leachate will be treated to a quality suitable for discharge to the local sewerage system. The plant will have a capacity to treat "all leachate generated by the existing landfill site and the proposed extension, during the wettest month in a 10 year ARI (Average Reoccurrence Interval) wet rainfall year". This sounds impressive, but is it industry 'best practice'? Clearly, were the rainfall to exceed the 1 in 10 year wet weather event, the capacity of the leachate dam would be inadequate and there would be an overflow of untreated leachate, either to sewer or perhaps down Cripple Creek (sections 8.6.2 and F4.8.3).

• The Society therefore asks whether the dam and plant should have the capacity to cope with more extreme precipitation, perhaps the wettest month in a 15-20 year ARI, bearing in mind that this is the minimum life expectancy of the landfill extension?
  
  
• Alternatively, are there any design features (other than the dam) that would confine or divert leachate overflows and avoid the adverse consequences of extreme precipitation?

2.3.2 Landfill gas exploitation (sections 1.2.1, 7.7.2, 8.6.4 and F4.8.4)

A proposed landfill gas management system, involving extraction wells and a gas-flaring unit, would service both the existing and extended landfills (sections 1.2.1 and 7.7.2).

Cumulatively, the existing and extended landfills emit significant quantities of methane, carbon dioxide and other minor gases. Based on modelling studies, the existing landfill is currently at peak emission, whereas emission from the extended landfill is expected to peak ~2020. The cumulative gas generation is predicted to continue at potentially exploitable levels for another 40-50 years (section F4.8.4). The intention is to extract and flare-off the gas to minimise odour, while the gas composition and recovery are monitored over a 3-6 month period. If monitoring substantiates the modelling, the gas could be used to generate electricity. However, the "energy recovery plant is not part of the proposed development, but would require further environmental assessment and approval" (section F4.8.4).

• Although recognising the need for monitoring to provide data, the Society is disappointed that exploitation of this valuable source of energy is little more than 'a possibility' and not a provisional part of the development application.
  
  
• Modelling shows that methane generation is currently at ~60% of its peak output (Fig. F4-1). The Society believes that, to maximise the potential return, Council should expedite both the investigation and, if justified, supplementary development application.

2.4 Ecological assessment (section 15, v. 1; appendix H, v. 2)

The two itemised recommendations in the executive summary (section H, p.4) are accepted by the Society, which also endorses the view that certain "areas on the site be regenerated and that native vegetation be reconstructed on other currently exposed areas' (section H, p.4). However, there is some concern over the limitations of the investigation.

Blue Mountain Wilderness Services Pty. Ltd. is a 'local' organisation, but no reference was made in 'Methodology' (section 15.3, v. 1; section H3, v.2) to specific consultations with knowledgeable and independent local persons. This may have been an oversight or deemed to be superfluous.

• Did such consultations take place and, if yes, what did they reveal?

The flora and fauna field survey, other than 1 day in January, comprised 5 sequential days in October. This restricted investigation is recognised in section H3.6 p.11, where fauna that might use the site were not detected "due to dormancy, inactivity or cryptic habits" or due to "being nomadic or migratory". Flora survey uncertainty is recognised in sections 15.4.1 and H5, where it is recorded that 3 Threatened Species and 1 ROTAP (Rare or Threatened Australian Plant) may occur as seedlings and/or small regrowth, but were not observed during the survey. undertaken.

• The Society considers that a more substantial investigation of fauna over different seasons should be undertaken.
  
  
• It similarly believes that a floral survey should investigate the possibility of seedlings and small regrowth; if found, and where practicable, the plants should be transferred to sites of regeneration.

Although the three bulleted items (above) may not change the report substantially, the Society is guided by the Precautionary Principle and its application (section 26.2). It also recognises that fundamental consideration in all development be given to conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity (section 26.4).

2.5 Bushfire considerations (section 24, v. 1; appendix N, v. 2)

The APZ (Asset Protection Zone) is conservatively established as 30m and comprise an IPA (Inner Protection Area - fuel is minimised) of 20m and an OPA (Outer Protection Area - fuel is progressively reduced from the outer periphery inward to the IPA) of 10m. It is pointed out that an "APZ can comprise various types of vegetation and does not necessarily require complete clearing or lack of vegetation" (section 24.3.1, p. 24-4).

• The Society hopes that proper attention will be paid to the quoted statement.

To minimise the flora and fauna impacts of clearing, bushland will generally not be removed outside the footprint of the landfill extension. In areas where activities are within 30m of bushland (that is, a 30m APZ cannot be deployed), alternative management practices will include a 15m APZ developed as an IPA (section H5.3.2). A fire trail will be developed as a 6m wide reserve (to be treated as an IPA) around the perimeter of the development area (section H5.5.3).

• The Society endorses these practices, but hopes that the fire trail IPA will be part of (not additional to) the ~15m APZ in those areas where a 30m zone is not practicable.

2.6 Justification and Concluding Statement (sections 29 and 30 v. 1)

Section 29.5 concludes that the proposed development is justified on the basis of 4 ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Development) principles.

• Based on the matters raised in many of the bulleted comments in items 2.1-2.4 (above), the Society contends that the development fails to satisfy one or more of the principles.

In section 29.6 p. 29-4, the Society endorses much of paragraphs 2 and 3. It does however take issue with the notion that the proposed development "gives the community ultimate control over its own destiny as it does not involve a long-term waste contract with an external provider". It also acknowledges that whereas "there is sufficient time to properly investigate and implement other high cost solutions such as alternative waste technology", the window of opportunity is small and should not founder on the belief that 'future technological advancement' will solve the problem.

• The Society suggests that the proposal only provides a short-term solution and that the small window of opportunity should be urgently embraced.

The EIS team concludes that the proposed development should "be approved subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Environmental Impact Statement" (section 30.2, p. 30-6).

• The Society is in broad agreement with the conclusion, but would add the rider that further attention be paid to the items raised and bulleted in this evaluation.

3.1 Conclusions

3.1.1 The Society acknowledges that the proposed development is the only relatively short-term, practical, waste management solution to the limited capacities remaining at the Blaxland and Katoomba facilities.

3.1.2 The proposal provides Council with a window of opportunity for determining and implementing a long-term waste management solution; this should not be squandered.

3.1.3 The Society accepts that the EIS has addressed the majority of the issues and has generally proposed measures that ameliorate most of the identified problems.

3.1.4 Without detracting from the spirit of 3.3, small components of the proposed development fail to satisfy one or more of the ESD principles.

3.1.5 The series of bulleted items raised in the present evaluation should be examined and, where practicable, comprehensively addressed.

3.2 Recommendation

3.2.1 That the Society forwards this evaluation of the EIS to Council.

3.2.2 That the Society respectfully requests Council to provide a written response to the bulleted items outlining any intended actions.

3.2.3 That for any additional work undertaken as a consequence of 3.2.1, it is respectfully requested that Council keeps the Society fully informed.

- Dr Brian Marshall, Mr Ron Withington
January 31 2005

Blaxland 'Tip' Upgrade Summary

Kent Gilman (BMCC), together with a GHD representative, gave a formal presentation on the upgrade proposals to a BMCS Meeting many months back. I contacted Kent (4780 5767, 30/06/04) to ascertain progress. He commented as follows (my comments are in italics):

1. The full EIS will be out late in July - it will go on display for about 30 days and be open to comment; if BMCS has concerns, it might be best to wait until the EIS is available This seems reasonable, regardless of whether or not BMCS opposes/supports aspects of the science and technology of the EIS, or elects to adopt a philosophical position.

2. He would prefer not to release piecemeal information (other than that on the BMCC website) in advance of the formal release date.

3. The west-east transport of waste has been addressed in terms of using bigger compactor vehicles to reduce the number of journeys; a proposal for smaller rubbish bins will shortly go before Council; similarly, Council are investigating making the City of the Blue Mountains a plastic bag free area; more efficient sorting of rubbish and increased kerb-side mulching will hopefully reduce the amount of waste. BMCS could certainly throw its weight behind measures to reduce the amounts of waste and improve recycling.

4. Discussions have been had with RATS to ameliorate strictly local issues that are unlikely to concern the broader community.

5. There is a strong community feeling that we should not 'export our rubbish'. I think that this is a little self-serving on behalf of BMCC in that waste disposal may be welcomed in some areas west of the Blue Mountains. In any case, the life of the Blaxland upgrade is said to be about 15 years, so unless there is a major technological breakthrough, exporting rubbish could then become a necessity.

The accompanying document 'Blaxland Waste Management Facility Upgrade' is from the BMCC website. It presents the Council's arguments for expanding the Blaxland facility. Essentially they say that Blaxland has less than 18 months left and Katoomba has 4-5 years. Of the available options (extension of the local landfills, technological innovations, and exporting waste - they seemingly discount the possibility of a site within the council area), BMCC has elected to take the short- to medium-term view and extend the life of Blaxland 'Tip'. This gives the BMCC breathing space, within which it hopes that 'improvements in technology' will solve the long-term problem. Why face a problem today, if it can be put off till tomorrow? This approach is fine, provided that the breathing space is not wasted!

The 'BWMFU' document contains provision to download an annotated air-photo map and an 18-page Community Workshop report. I shall not forward these by email, because downloading will be a lengthy business. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly about the 'Tip', it would be useful if you were to download what additional data you need and bring it to the Monday night meeting (July 5).

- Brian Marshall, 01/07/04

Blue Mountains Conservation Society
Inc ABN 38 686 119 087
PO Box 29 Wentworth Falls
NSW 2782
Phone: (02) 4757 1872 -
Fax: (02) 4757 1753
E-Mail: bmcs@bluemountains.org.au
Web Site: www.bluemountains.org.au
Nature Conservation Saves for Tomorrow
17/08/04



Mr Kent Gilman,
BMCC,
Katoomba

Dear Kent,

Blaxland Waste Management Facility Upgrade I last spoke to you by phone on 30/06/04 regarding the Blaxland upgrade and the full EIS that you anticipated would become available in late July. The Conservation Society has subsequently considered your comments, together with the information provided on the BMCC website, and has resolved as follows:

• That the Society will develop a position on the proposal, once the EIS is released and made available for community comment.
  
  
• That BMCC be asked to respond to the ensuing questions:

  (a) Given that the Katoomba facility will reach capacity in about 4 years and that it is not planned (at this time) to further extend the landfill capacity, what expansion (if any) is included within the 4-year time frame?
  
  (b) What factors have been identified (at this time) that limit further expansion of the Katoomba facility?
  
  (c) What is currently being done to identify and implement alternative waste technologies, particularly since the introduction of such technologies has a protracted lead-time? "

• That the Society fully supports BMCC's moves towards: (a) smaller rubbish bins, (b) making the City of the Blue Mountains a plastic bag free region,(c) more efficient sorting and recycling of waste and (d) expansion of the kerb-side mulching program.
  
  

City Solutions Reference File: C06866
10th September 2004

Prof Brian Marshall
Blue Mountains Conservation Society
PO Box 29 Wentworth Falls
NSW 2782



Dear Prof Marshall,

SUBJECT: Blaxland Waste Management Facility (WMF) - upgrade

• North - by Yosemite creek
• South - by tree line and site boundary
• West - by Woodlands Road
• East - by the hanging swamp

What is currently being done to investigate AWT systems for the city.

Council is currently investigating the AWT systems by the following:

• Preparation of a comprehensive "Resource Recovery System" (AWT) report investigating the various systems and their costs, benefits and potential applications for the Blue Mountains
• Site inspections of the new $70M Waste Service NSW "UR-3R" (AWT) plant at Eastern Creek landfill
• Site inspections of large enclosed composting systems in Port Macquarie and Melbourne
• Site inspection of the new $60M Woodlawn (Goulburn) "bio-reactor:" landfill
• Participation at the NSW waste conference where AWT systems will be a key theme of the event
  
  Council is keenly aware of potential successes (Earthpower) and failures (Wollongong) of AWT systems in the Australian context. With this in mind Council is researching the issues carefully.
  
  Council also appreciates the support of the Society in the areas of plastic bag reduction programs, variable bins programs ad ever improving resource recovery systems
  
  Yours faithfully
  Kent Gillman Waste & Resources Coordinator