You are here:

• Home  |  Waste   |  Landfills   |  Maddingley Brown Coal – Bacchus Marsh

 

EPA Victoria has completed its review of the secondary beneficial reuse authorisation held by Maddingley Brown Coal Pty Ltd (MBC) and considered the company’s application for a new SBR.

Background

The company operates a landfill at Bacchus Marsh, under an EPA licence, which allows the acceptance of Category C contaminated soil and solid inert industrial waste.

A firewall between the landfill and the adjacent coal mining operation is required by the Department of Primary Industries to protect the coal reserve and by EPA as part of its operating licence.

The current SBR allows the company to use Category C soil to build the firewall and pay the landfill levy on five of every eight tonnes of soil used.

The decision-making framework has substantially changed since the decision to issue the existing SBR in 2008. The Industrial Waste Resource Regulations (IWR Regulations) have come into effect, landfill levy rates have increased, new waste treatment technologies have been developed and best practice continues to evolve.

To assist in its decision-making process, EPA invited submissions and held a conference of those submitters, under section 20B of the Environment Protection Act (the Act).

The decision

1. EPA has decided to refuse the application for a new SBR.
2. EPA will amend the company’s licence to include the firewall as a discrete landfill cell, whereby
   • MBC can continue to use Category C soil to construct the firewall;
   • all regulatory requirements for landfills will apply to Category C waste deposited into the firewall, including payment of the full levy, provision of a financial assurance (FA), and phased-in compliance with the Best Practice Environmental Management (Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation standards of landfills) (the BEPM).
3. MBC’s existing SBR is to continue in effect until (but not beyond) its expiry date of 30 June 2011, so as to allow MBC a reasonable time to update its business practices before the transition of the firewall operation from the SBR to the licensing regime.
4. To provide clarity to Victorian industry, EPA under the IWR Regulations will issue a classification, with management options, for contaminated soils. A draft of the classification is to be released soon, to allow time for consultation before the proposed start date of 1 July 2011.

Rationale for the decisions

The 20B Conference report recommended that EPA clearly articulate the reasons for its decision, referencing the relevant provisions of the Act, regulations and policies. The reasons are set out in the document below.

Rationale for the decisions (PDF 34KB)

Response to other comments

Additionally, submitters raised questions in the following areas:

• Firewall construction and the revised landfill BPEM requirements
  The BPEM was amended in September 2010. The licence amendment requires that all future stages of the firewall be constructed in accordance with the revised BPEM.
• The basis for the firewall
  The firewall thickness is based on calculations of the thickness of contaminated soil required to prevent the temperature of the coal from exceeding 40 degrees Celsius, even in the event of a landfill fire that continued for 12 months.
• Compliance with licence and audit
  EPA has noted these comments and will take them into account in its ongoing assessments of MBC’s operations.
• Land use planning approvals at the site
  These are matters for Moorabool Shire Council.

Submissions

SITA Australia Pty Ltd

Daniel Fyfe (PDF 637KB)

Enviro West Western Region Environment Centre - Harry van Moorst

• Floc (PDF130KB)
• Auditing Issues (PDF 79KB)
• Failure to Meet Landfill Requirements for Cat C Soil (PDF 475KB)
• Maddingley Review Submission (PDF 1.35MB)

Jani Breider

• MBC landfill exemption review (PDF85KB)
• MBC 20B conference additional concerns issues

Hanson Landfill Services P/L

• Sam Bateman (PDF 45KB)

Hi-Quality Quarry Products Pty Ltd

• GHD Pty Ltd (PDF 55KB)
• David Nagle (PDF 55KB)

At the recent section 20B conference of submitters, a request was made that all submitters be invited to let EPA post their submissions (minus any commercial-in-confidence information) on EPA's website. Only five submitters took up the invitation, and their submissions are now available above. In publishing them, EPA is not endorsing or verifying the content of any assertions or contentions they contain.

Top