August 2019 @)...KASA Consulting Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd 2019-030 Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon and Production Expansion Version 1, August 2019 Page vi GLOSSARY Term Definition

Version Description Author Reviewed By Date

1 Draft FB PJ

0 Draft to client, Meateng & JEG PJ Harvey Beef 13/08/2019

1 Final to DWER Harvey Beef 16/08/2019

Report

2019-030

Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon and Production Expansion

DWER Licence Amendment Application Supporting Document

Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd

Date: August 2019

~ > n 0 :::l en C: -...+ -• :::l

cc

I I

@) HARVEY

BEEF WIHUN AUSTRALIA

KASA CONSULTING Environment I Safety I Quality

KASA Consulting Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd

2019-030 Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon and Production Expansion Version 1, August 2019

Page ii

This page has been left blank intentionally.



Page iii

REPORT DISCLAIMER

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client in accordance with the Agreement between KASA Consulting and the client. KASA Consulting accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any person who is not party to the Agreement.

This report has been prepared based upon the scope of services defined by the client, observations made during the site visit, discussions with site personnel and interpretation of the documentation made available by the client. KASA Consulting has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of information supplied by the client.

Copyright and any other Intellectual Property arising from the report and the provision of services in accordance with the Agreement belongs exclusively to KASA Consulting and may not be reproduced or disclosed to any person other than the client without the express written permission of KASA Consulting.



Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Approvals Process ......................................................................................................................... 1

Current Abattoir Production ............................................................................................................ 2

Proposed Increase in Abattoir Production ...................................................................................... 2

Overview of Current Wastewater Treatment System ...................................................................... 2

Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) .................................................................................. 2

2 Location and siting ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Siting context ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Surrounding Land Use ................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Topography ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Specified ecosystems, groundwater and water resources .................................................................. 5

Specified Ecosystems .................................................................................................................... 5

Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Public Drinking Water Source Areas .............................................................................................. 7

Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................................ 7

Flora and Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Soil type ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Acid Sulfate Soils ........................................................................................................................... 9

3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL).................................................................................... 11

Current Wastewater Treatment Overview ..................................................................................... 11

Proposed CAL ............................................................................................................................. 11

Production Expansion .................................................................................................................. 22

4 RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 28

4.1 Risk assessment for proposed amendments .................................................................................... 28

Key Environmental Risks ............................................................................................................. 28

5 EXISTING REGULATORY CONTROLS - LICENCE l6395/1993/16............................................ 34

6 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 39

7 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 40

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.2.5

2.1.1

2.4.1

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.4.4

2.4.5

2.5.1

3.1.1

3.1 .2

3.1.3

4.1.1



Page v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Harvey Beef Prescribed Activities ..................................................................................................... 1

Table 2-1: Sensitive Land Uses and Distance from Prescribed Premises........................................................... 4

Table 2-2: Specified ecosystems and environmental values (DWER, 2019) ....................................................... 5

Table 2-3: Soil and sub-soil characteristics ........................................................................................................ 9

Table 3-1: BOD and nutrient values for Harvey Beef Wastewater Treatment System ....................................... 21

Table 3-2: Nutrient Application Criteria for Treated Wastewater ....................................................................... 23

Table 3-3: Predicted Nutrient Loadings ........................................................................................................... 24

Table 3-4: Estimated Annual Nutrient Removal by Crop (kg/yr)) ...................................................................... 25

Table 3-5: Estimated Nett Application of Nutrients to Soil (kg/yr)) .................................................................... 25

Table 3-6: Groundwater Monitoring Results (2019) ......................................................................................... 27

Table 4-1: Environmental Risk Assessment for Proposed Project .................................................................... 30

Table 5-1: Proposed Monitoring Program ........................................................................................................ 34

LIST OF PLOTS

Plot 3-1: Indicative Wastewater Generation vs Production ............................................................................... 23

Plot 3-2: Gross TN and TP Application to Soil via Irrigation of Wastewater ...................................................... 24

Plot 3-3: Net nutrient loading rates for total current and proposed irrigation at maximum capacity .................... 26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1-2: Premises Layout ............................................................................................................................. 1

Figure 1-3: Proposed CAL................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 1-4: Premises Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2-1: Soil Types ..................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3-1: Proposed CAL Sections ................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3-2: Wastewater Treatment System Process Flow Diagram .................................................................. 19

Figure 5-1: Water Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................................... 37

Figure 5-2: Soil Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................................. 38

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: CAL Conceptual Design Report (Johns Environmental, 2019)

Appendix B: CAL Construction Quality Assurance Plan

Appendix C: CAL Risk Assessment (Johns Environmental, 2019)



Page vi

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

AER Annual Environmental Report

ANC Acid Neutralising Capacity

ASS Acid Sulfate Soils

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CAL Covered Anaerobic Lagoon

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

DWER Department Water and Environmental Regulation

EP Act Environmental Protection Act, 1986

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

NIMP Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan

PBI Phosphorus Buffering Index

PDWSA Public Drinking Water Source Area

pHF measure of soil pH of a soil:water paste

pHFOX measure of soil pH after rapid oxidation with hydrogen peroxide

RENOIR Removal of NitrOgen for IRrigation

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SWIA South West Irrigation Area

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant



Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Harvey Beef Abattoir and Rendering Facility are located on the corner of Seventh Street and Uduc Rd, Harvey, approximately 2 km west of the Harvey townsite, and 140 km south of Perth (Figure 1-1). The occupier of the premises is Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd (Harvey Beef).

The abattoir and rendering facility are located on Lot 3, with irrigation to adjoining and nearby land as shown in Figure 1-2. The facility is prescribed under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and has been licenced since 1993. The current licence is L6395/1993/16 last amended on 5 April 2019.

Prescribed activities at the site are outlined below.

Table 1-1: Harvey Beef Prescribed Activities

Premises

Category Description Activity

15 Abattoir

(>50,000 tpa) Premises on which animals are slaughtered.

16 Rendering operation

(>10,000tpa)

Premises on which substances from animal

material are processed or extracted.

55

Livestock saleyard

or holding pen

>10,000 animals/yr

Premises on which live animals are held pending

their sale, shipment or slaughter.

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report presents information and data to support Harvey Beef’s application to amend licence L6395/1993/16 to permit the following:

• Construction, commissioning and operation of a new Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) to supersede the existing anaerobic pond (Pond 1) (Figure 1-3); and

• Increase in licenced production capacity as prescribed under Category 55 from 170,000 animals per year to 250,000 animals per year.

1.2 Background

Approvals Process

A project scoping meeting with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) was held on 23 May 2019 in the Bunbury Regional Office, where DWER was briefed on the abovementioned proposals by Harvey Beef and their appointed environmental and engineering consultants.

DWER advised at the meeting that the proposals could be most efficiently assessed by DWER as an amendment to licence L6395/1993/16 under Part V, Division 3 of the EP Act rather than a Works Approval.

1.2.1.1 Stakeholder Consultation

Given the nature and scale of the proposal, and the fact that potential environmental and public nuisance risks will be minor and localised, Harvey Beef has focussed its consultation on the project to the following stakeholders:

• Briefing of DWER licensing officer (Elizabeth Whisson) in Bunbury on 23 May 2019;

• Preliminary discussions with Merv Stewart representing the Shire of Harvey Town Planning division on 9 July 2019 in relation to the Development Application; and

• with members of the Harvey community residing closest to the facility on 8 November 2018 and 15 August 2019.

1.2.1



Page 2

Current Abattoir Production

The current approved annual licenced throughput prescribed under licence L6395/1993/16 is 220,000 tonnes of beef products (HSCW), and within the rendering facility approximately 120,000 tonnes per annum of renderable material. Abattoir throughput is currently limited by the livestock capacity limit which is currently restricted to up to 170,000 animals per year.

Proposed Increase in Abattoir Production

Harvey Beef proposes to take advantage of current market opportunities and seeks to increase the current Category 55 production capacity limit by applying for a licence amendment under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EP Act); the proposed production expansion being sought is to hold and process up to 250,000 head/year.

Overview of Current Wastewater Treatment System

Wastewater generated from the abattoir and rendering plant is currently directed through primary (solids removal) and secondary (anaerobic and RENOIR (Removal of Nitrogen for Irrigation) ponds. Treated wastewater is directed through a series of four maturation ponds prior to irrigation of pastures and crops on the premises as part of Harvey Beef’s cropping programme. To date, the management and monitoring of irrigated wastewater has been conducted in accordance with DWER licence L6395/1993/16 as well as the DWER approved Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan (NIMP) (Harvey Industries Group, 2018).

Treated wastewater has historically been irrigated over 28 paddocks totalling 122.2 hectares. In November 2018, Harvey Beef applied for an amendment to the licence to extend the available irrigation area by an additional 21.85 hectares (Figure 1-4); the expanded irrigation area is on lots 105 and 106 on Plan 202106, located on the south side of Uduc Rd and immediately south of the existing irrigation area. Following its assessment of the proposal, DWER approved the amendment on 5 April 2019 thereby increasing the total available irrigation area to 144 ha.

Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL)

In addition to the proposed production increase, Harvey Beef proposes to install a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) to replace the existing anaerobic pond.

The new CAL will be located on Lot 145 of Plan 2492 and covers an area of approximately 4 ha (thereby reducing the proposed available irrigation area to 140 approximately 180m to the north-west of the processing facility, as shown in Figure 1-3. The CAL is designed to accept current wastewater generation volumes as well as the anticipated volumes generated from the proposed progressive increase in production rates (up to 250,000 head/year).

The CAL will offer the following key environmental benefits:

• the ability to capture biogases generated from wastewater that would otherwise be released to atmosphere, thereby reducing the potential for odour generation from anaerobic treatment of wastewater;

• reduced reliance on natural gas through the use of captured methane from the CAL for use in boilers within the abattoir thereby reducing the greenhouse footprint of the facility; and

• ongoing reliable anaerobic treatment of wastewater which is critical to nitrogen removal;

• reduced potential for groundwater seepage of nutrients given the use of a High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner with permeability of at most 1X10-9m/s.

Further detail on the proposed CAL description is provided in Section 3.1.2. The CAL design report which forms the basis of the engineering design and capacity of the CAL is provided as Appendix A (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a).

1.2.2

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.2.5

KalgoorliePerthHARVEY

LOCALITY

Figure:

Harvey Industries GroupUdoc Road, Harvey

1-1

LOCALITY

350000mE

I

I

; 350000mE

0 10km 4 "'' "' Author: P. Jansen

400000mE

Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd Covered Anaerobic Lagoon and Production Expansion Project

Regional Location

450000mE

(@ HARVEY

Eill BEEF ;;;;:

450000mE

Figure:Legend

Aerial Photography: Landgate (Jan 2017)

Paddock Boundary

Premises BoundaryCadastral Boundary 1-2

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

I

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

394000mE

394000mE

394500mE 395000mE

394500mE 395000mE


Premises Layout

395500mE

395500mE

Aerial Photography: NearMap (Dec 2018)

Figure:

1-3

I

i

394200mE

50m 4)tffiif Author: P. Jansen Drawn: CAD Resources - www.cadresourres.can.au

Date:A Rev: A A4 Tel: (08) 9246 3242 - Fax: (08) 9246 3202

394400mE

394400mE


Proposed CAL

394600mE

® HARVEY m;;BEEF:mr

394600mE

Figure:Legend


Paddock Boundary

Paddocks Irrigated by Pond 3Paddocks Irrigated by Pond 6

Premises BoundaryCadastral Boundary

Water Storage AreaTreated Water Pipeline 1-4

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

I

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

-

394000mE

394000mE

394500mE 395000mE

394500mE 395000mE


Premises Infrastructure

395500mE

395500mE



Page 4

2 LOCATION AND SITING

2.1 Siting context

Harvey Beef’s premises is located on the corner of Seventh Street and Uduc Rd, Harvey, approximately 2 km west of the Harvey townsite, and 140 km south of Perth Figure 1-1. The main entrance of the facility is on Seventh Street, with the main buildings being located on Lot 3 of Plan 70328. Adjoining and nearby paddocks are used for irrigation and are shown on Figure 1-4Figure 1-2.

The land is zoned as intensive farming under the Shire of Harvey’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (District Scheme) and includes restricted use area 6 (abattoir) and restricted use area 4 (abattoir and holding paddocks with 30 m of dense native vegetation between the buildings and Uduc Rd and around the wastewater lagoons). The surrounding land includes land uses such as stock grazing, farm stay accommodation, viticulture and intensive horticulture.

Surrounding Land Use

Surrounding land use is predominantly rural. Table 2-1 below lists the closest sensitive land uses to the Prescribed Premises which may be receptors relevant to the proposed amendment.

Table 2-1: Sensitive Land Uses and Distance from Prescribed Premises

Sensitive Land Uses Distance from Prescribed Premises

Residential premises (rural)

Seven residential premises located within 450 m south of the existing irrigation area, with two being immediately on the south side of Uduc Rd.

Nine and six residential premises located within 400 m East and North respectively of the existing irrigation area.

Residential premises located 200 m west and east of the recently approved irrigation area

Five additional rural premises located within 600 m of the recently approved irrigation area (southeast, south-southeast, south, southwest and west).

The closest residential premises to the CAL is approximately 500 m to the northeast.

Residential area Residential areas are located approximately 850 m and 2.3 km east of original and recently approved irrigation area respectively.

Accommodation Farm stay accommodation is located approximately 300 m west and 880 m northwest of the existing and recently approved irrigation area respectively.

2.1.1



Page 5

2.2 Climate

The climate in the Harvey area is warm temperate Mediterranean with distinct seasons. Summers are dry and warm to hot with mean daily maximums around 31°C in January and February. Winters are wet and cool with mean daily minimums around 8°C in July and August.

Seasonal and annual variation in climate results from the occasional migration of the subtropical anticyclone belt. In summer, winds can be strong, primarily from the east in the morning and from the west and south-west in the afternoon. Winter winds are dominated by the periodic passage of frontal systems with prevailing wind conditions from the south-west.

Most rainfall occurs between May and September and the long-term annual rainfall is around 962 mm as measured at Wokalup BoM Station (No.009642) near Harvey (BoM, 2019). Average monthly evaporation varies from about 63 mm in June to 279 mm in January.

2.3 Topography

The premises area as occupied by Harvey Beef extends over approximately 2.3km from east to west, with topography sloping gently towards the west over that length at an average of approximately 0.2%.

Based on publicly available LiDAR data for the proposed CAL location, the surface levels at the site are between approximately RL 28.5 m relative to Australian Height Datum (AHD) and RL 29 m AHD (Douglas and Partners, 2019).

2.4 Specified ecosystems, groundwater and water resources

Specified Ecosystems

DWER defines specified ecosystems as areas of high conservation value and special significance that may be impacted as a result of activities at or emissions and discharges from a Premises. For Harvey Beef, the distances to specified ecosystems are shown in Table 2-2, which also identifies the distances to other relevant ecosystem values which do not fit the definition of a specified ecosystem and groundwater and water sources (DWER, 2019).

Table 2-2: Specified ecosystems and environmental values (DWER, 2019)

Specified ecosystems and other

environmental receptors

Distance from the Premises

Geomorphic wetlands Swan Coastal Plain

(management)

Premises located within: Swan Coastal Plain – Semeniuk, Palusplain (seasonally waterlogged), flat, multiple use. There are no wetlands in proximity to the premises.

Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet – Harvey Estuary) Policy

1992 (EPP)

The Premises and proposed irrigation area are located approximately 500 m south of the area protected under the EPP.

Surface water The Premises is located within the Harvey Irrigation District proclaimed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. The Harvey Dam is located 4.8 km east and the Harvey Main Drain located 2.3 km NE of the Premises. The Harvey Diversion Drain is located 1.6 km S of the proposed irrigation area. A stream is located 50 m NW of the premises boundary and current irrigation area. Existing agricultural drainage networks are located adjacent and through the Premises, along Seventh St, Uduc Rd and Government Rd (Wellesley River diversion drain).

2.4.1



Page 6

Specified ecosystems and other

environmental receptors

Distance from the Premises

These drainage networks flow to the Harvey River Diversion Drain discharging into the ocean near Myalup, approximately 19 km downstream. Resource enhancement (sumpland and dampland) wetlands are located approximately 4.8 km west of the proposed irrigation area.

Groundwater The South West Coastal Groundwater Area, proclaimed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, is located 4.7 km west of the proposed irrigation area.

Harvey Beef has a production bore onsite; however, it is rarely used due to unsuitable water quality for processing purposes. There are 51 registered groundwater bores within a 3 km radius, most of which are for production purposes associated with livestock and domestic requirements.

The nearest licence to take groundwater, for the Harvey Golf Club, is located approximately 5.8 km west of the proposed irrigation area.

The depth to groundwater as measured from recently installed groundwater monitoring wells indicate that levels were up to 2.61 mbgl at licenced bore MW3.

Information gathered by DWER in 2015 (DoW 2015) shows that depth to groundwater at the irrigation area ranges from 1 to 2 metres below ground level.

A groundwater monitoring bore, owned by DWER and located 500 m west of the irrigation area, shows the maximum groundwater table to be approximately 1 m below ground level. It is noted that, according to the DoW 2015 information, this bore is located adjacent to an area that was found to have a depth to groundwater of 0.6 – 1 m below ground level.

The Perth Groundwater Map shows that the groundwater salinity at the premises is 1,500 – 3,000 mg/L, which is considered brackish.

Hydrology

In addition to the specified ecosystems summarised in Table 2-2 above, the following information has been adapted from the Statewide River Water Quality Assessment conducted by the former Department of Environment (DoE, 2004) and the DoW (DoW, 2008a).

The Harvey Beef premises is located within The Harvey River Basin which covers 1,930 km2 of land in the south-west region of Western Australia. Numerous small streams and rural drains service the low-lying coastal plain parts of this basin. Harvey River is the largest river system with its headwaters starting 45 km inland on the Darling Plateau, before traversing the escarpment and coastal plain and discharging into the Harvey Estuary. Rainfall varies from an annual average of about 800 mm near the coast to 1,200 mm at the headwaters. Small upland river reaches on the plateau service a number of dams supplying fresh potable water to nearby cities and townships. Many waterways in the coastal areas have been straightened, diverted and incised to prevent flooding of local townships and to enable rapid drainage of agricultural land. The Harvey River catchment has also been subject to two other large modifications to its natural flow regime, including construction of a diversion drain in the 1930s (which enabled high river flows to be diverted to the ocean) and construction of the Dawesville Channel in 1994 (to increase tidal flushing of the eutrophic Harvey Estuary).

The premises is located within the Korijekup Drainage Area, approximately 2 km west of the Harvey townsite. There are no wetlands in proximity to the premises; treated wastewater is used to irrigate the paddocks surrounding the abattoir which are systematically cropped and harvested seasonally. The irrigation areas are managed to prevent irrigated water runoff into the existing agricultural drainage networks such as the Uduc

2.4.2



Page 7

Road drain (Sub C System) or Government Road Drain, which flow to the Harvey River Diversion Drain discharging eventually into the ocean near Myalup.

As the property has been modified for agricultural use for an extended period and surface water and drainage managed regionally through an extensive system of road and major drains, there are no streams or wetlands present. Resource enhancement (sumpland and dampland) wetlands are located approximately 4.8 km west of the proposed irrigation area.

Public Drinking Water Source Areas

A search of the DWER database was undertaken to assess whether the site is located in a Public Drinking Water Source Area (PDWSA). As at June 2019, the site is not located in a PDWSA. The closest PDWSA is the Stirling Dam Catchment Area, located approximately 14.5 km east of the site. Given the distance from the site, the potential for the PDSWA to be impacted by the proposed development is considered to be negligible.

Hydrogeology

The Harvey Beef premises lies within the Harvey Irrigation area which is underlain by the Waroona flow system which flows in a westerly direction from the Darling Scarp. The water table fluctuates seasonally and intersects the ground surface in many parts of the Harvey area in winter. The seasonal variation in the regional water table is approximately 1 to 2 m.

The Guildford Formation (under the Pinjarra plain) is a superficial aquifer that underlies the entire South West Irrigation Area (SWIA). In the Guildford Formation clay member south of Waroona, the groundwater is generally brackish (1,500-7,000 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)) to saline with a maximum measured concentration of 22,900 mg/L TDS. Additional site-specific information on local groundwater quality is presented further in this chapter.

Harvey Beef have a production bore on site which is rarely used due to limitations in water quality, rendering bore water unsuitable for processing purposes. As agricultural properties in the area are part of the South West Irrigation Harvey Central Pipe Scheme, there is limited downstream use of superficial groundwater. A bore search was conducted through the DWER (formerly DoW) Information Branch covering a 3 km radius from the corner of Uduc Road and Seventh Street. A total of 51 groundwater bores are registered, most of which are for production purposes associated with livestock and domestic requirements.

In June 2019, Harvey Beef commenced monitoring of three groundwater monitoring bores installed in accordance with amended licence conditions imposed by DWER. Monthly monitoring of the bores includes pH, conductivity and standing water levels. The most recent monitoring round indicates that winter water levels at these bores range between 0.87 m to 1.7 m below ground. Anecdotal evidence of perimeter agricultural drains which indicate a surface expression of groundwater indicate water levels at least 1.5m below natural ground level. The nearest DWER operated bores (ID63301020 and ID 6330123) display historical occurrences in water levels between 2m to 5m below ground level.

Geotechnical investigations conducted at two bore locations sited at the proposed CAL location in June 2019 determined that the depth to groundwater at the site was between 1.7 mbgl and 4.8 mbgl.

Field tests of sampled groundwater bores indicated pH values of approximately 6.3 to 6.8. Total Dissolved Solids were measured at between 2,100 mg/L to 2,138 mg/L

Further discussion on the protection and management of groundwater risks during construction and operation of the CAL is discussed in Section 3.1.2. The management of nutrients as a result of irrigation under an expanded production scenario is presented in Section 3.1.3.

2.4.3

2.4.4



Page 8

Flora and Vegetation

Land surrounding the vicinity of the premises has been previously cleared for intensive farming uses. Land owned by Harvey Beef is currently used for stock holding and grazing prior to processing.

Harvey Beef actively manages its paddock areas in accordance with an approved NIMP (Harvey Industries Group, 2018) and therefore these cropped paddocks and pastures maintain an excellent coverage of vegetation. Agricultural pasture management practices and regular rotation of livestock throughout the property ensure that over grazing or over stocking of paddocks is prevented to maintain the integrity of pasture areas and soil integrity, thereby assisting with optimising pasture productivity and avoiding soil erosion as far as practicable.

Where necessary, seasonal irrigation waters used to supplement treated wastewater is sourced from the South West Irrigation Harvey Central Pipe scheme.

2.5 Soil type

The Harvey Beef abattoir and surrounding irrigation land are located on the Swan Coastal Plain. Soil of the Swan Coastal Plain is dominated by coastal dune system soils which are inherently deep, sandy and have a very low capacity to retain nutrients (McArthur & Bettenay, 1974). The soils which the Harvey Beef farm is situated on however, possess very different soil characteristics to the Swan Coastal Plain, with soils at the premises being sampled and shown to consist of heavier loam and clay soils with a very large capacity to retain applied soil nutrients.

Figure 2-1 shows the Harvey Beef farm is located on deep loamy duplex earth and semi-wet soils (SoilTech Soil & Pasture Consulting, 2015).

Soil mapping carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA) also shows soil types on the Harvey Beef premises to include:

• 213PjSWP6c (blue polygons): Very gently undulating alluvial terraces and fans. Moderate to moderately well drained uniform friable brown loams, or well-structured gradational brown earths; and

• 213Pj_P3 (green polygon): Flat to very gently undulating plain with deep, imperfect to poorly drained acidic gradational yellow or grey-brown earths and mottled yellow duplex soils, with loam to clay loam surface horizons.

Geotechnical investigations conducted at the proposed CAL location through the installation of three boreholes identified the following (Douglas and Partners, 2019):

• Topsoil – dark brown, fine to medium grained sandy topsoil, with clay, encountered to depths of between 0.2 m and 0.3 m at all test locations.

• Clay/Sandy Clay – orange-brown mottled grey, grey mottled yellow-brown, medium plasticity clay/sandy clay encountered below the topsoil to depths of at least 5 m at all test locations.

Harvey Beef has conducted annual soil sampling of numerous geo-positioned sites across each irrigation area since 2007. Soil sampling at the recently approved Phoenix paddocks irrigation area was included in the 2018 soil sampling round taking the total number of soil sampling sites to 78.

In 2018, soil sampling was conducted at 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm depths in 2007, and then annually at 0-10 cm at all sites, and 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm at selected sites Figure 5-2. Soil samples have been tested for nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, Phosphorus Buffering Index (PBI), potassium, sulfur, organic carbon, electrical conductivity (EC) and pH. The most recent soil sampling data collated in 2018 is provided in Appendix 2 of the NIMP (Harvey Industries Group, 2018).

2.4.5



Page 9

The vast majority of soils sampled (92%) have very high PBI levels (>100). Generally, PBI levels in the soil are greater than 260 (and are greater than 198 in the Phoenix paddocks) indicating a large capacity for soil phosphorus sorption.

Soil data collected across the current irrigation area from soil sampling sites with similar soil type to the proposed irrigation area show that the concentration of phosphorus (measured as phosphorus (Colwell)) and nitrogen (measured as nitrate-nitrogen) in the soil decreases with increasing depth (measured at 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm and 20-30 cm).

Table 2-3 summarises soil types and characteristics relevant to the irrigation area.

Table 2-3: Soil and sub-soil characteristics

Soil and sub-soil characteristics

Description

Soil type classification Soils at the proposed irrigation area are flat to very gently undulating with deep, imperfect to poorly drained acidic gradational yellow or grey-brown earths and mottled yellow duplex soils, with loam to clay loam surface horizons (NIMP, 2018). This is the same soil type as approximately half of the paddocks currently irrigated (see Figure 2-1).

Acid sulfate soil risk Moderate to low acid sulfate soil disturbance risk. Refer Section 3.1.2.2.7.

Acid Sulfate Soils

Published acid sulfate soil risk mapping indicates that the site is located in an area of "moderate to low risk of acid sulfate soils within 3 m of the natural soil surface".

Concurrent with geotechnical investigations, an acid sulfate soils investigation was undertaken including the collection and analysis of soil samples at the proposed CAL location (Douglas and Partners, 2019). The assessment determined:

• The results for pHF at the sampling locations were recorded between 4.3 and 7.8 and therefore were not indicative of actual acid sulfate soils;

• pHFOX results which are less than 3 in combination with a strong or extreme reaction are indicative of potential acid sulfate soils. The results for pHFOX were reported between 2.9 and 6.1 and included one result out of 24 where pHFOX was less than 3;

• Calculated net acidity values using SPOS, excluding ANC, were above the adopted action criterion of 0.03%S for 5 of 24 samples submitted for analysis. Exceedances were reported at depths of between 1.0 m and 3.0 m to a maximum net acidity of 0.065% S.

A peer review of the ASS results was commissioned (Rambol, 2019) and concluded that the ASS risk at this site is low. This was on the basis that pHFOX recorded is indicative of some neutralising capacity in the sediments. Groundwater pH and sulfate:chloride ratios further justify the low ASS risk at the CAL site.

Further discussion on ASS risk and proposed contingency measures (commensurate with the low ASS risk during soil excavations for the CAL) is discussed in Section 3.1.2.2.7.

2.5.1

Figure:Legend

Paddock BoundaryPinjarra P6c Phase (PjSWP6c)

Premises BoundaryCadastral Boundary

Aerial Photography: Landgate (Jan 2017), Soils: DAFWA

Pinjarra P3 Phase (PjP3)

2-1

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

I

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE --

394000mE

394000mE

394500mE 395000mE

394500mE 395000mE


Soil Types

395500mE

395500mE



Page 11

3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION

The following sections describe the key elements proposed as part of this proposal, namely the design, construction and operation of the CAL, as well as the proposed production expansion from 170,000 animals per year to 250,000 animals per year.

3.1 Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL)

Current Wastewater Treatment Overview

Wastewater generated from the abattoir and rendering facilities are currently treated via a series of ponds including the anaerobic pond and the RENOIR (Removal of Nitrogen for Irrigation) pond before being directed to three maturation ponds in series where additional nitrogen removal occurs. Treated wastewater is pumped from either Pond 3 or Pond 6 via flood irrigation channels to paddocks comprising of a combination of crop and pasture systems which utilise nutrients in irrigated wastewater.

As of January 2019, 144 ha of Harvey Beef land was available for irrigation. The irrigated paddock areas are shown in Figure 1-4. 4 ha of paddock area 7S3 will be removed from the available irrigation area for placement of the CAL.

The proposed increase in production presents an opportunity to upgrade the existing WWTP at Harvey Beef. Wastewater is well suited to organic (COD) reduction by anaerobic treatment, although generally beef processing wastewater is not amenable to reliable treatment in the modern high rate anaerobic reactors typically employed by other industries. This is due to moderate levels of oil and grease and suspended solids (TSS) which affect high rate systems (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a).

Proposed CAL

The proposed construction and operation of the CAL forms a key component of Harvey Beef’s proposal to upgrade the existing wastewater treatment system. The CAL will be located approximately 180 m to the north-west of the processing facility (Figure 1-3), in a paddock adjacent to Eighth Street and approximately 200 m to the closest northern property boundary. Set back distance from Eighth Street to the base of the CAL batter wall is approximately 45 m. A new gated entrance may be provided on Eighth Street for direct access to the CAL (Meateng, 2019a).

The CAL will replace the current anaerobic pond. It has been designed and sized to treat process and yard wastewater from the facility for a throughput of 250,000 head/year over 6 days/week at peak season (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a).

The proposed upgrade will include a HDPE cover to capture the released biogas (primarily methane) that would otherwise go to atmosphere. The recovered biogas will then be used in a steam boiler or directed to an on-site flare. The capture and reuse of biogas will significantly reduce the odour and greenhouse footprint of the facility.

A HDPE liner will also be installed to minimise the potential for seepage into the groundwater table.

3.1.2.1 CAL Design

As detailed in the CAL design report (Appendix A) (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a), the primary performance criterion for the new CAL is to achieve long term average (52 weeks) of 85% minimum COD removal from the facility wastewater to maximise biogas production and ensure reasonable loading on the downstream RENOIR pond.

The CAL design for the Harvey Beef meat processing facility is based on the following (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a):

3.1.1

3.1.2



Page 12

• Production: The CAL is sized to treat wastewater generated from the abattoir and rendering process for a throughput of 250,000 head/year over 6 days/week at peak season. The design assumes that there is at least one non-process day per week.

• System integration: Figure 3-2 illustrates the proposed integration of the proposed CAL with the existing treatment system. It assumes that the existing anaerobic pond will be decommissioned once the new CAL comes up to specified performance. The CAL will treat the combined flows from:

o The existing saveall which accepts the bulk of flow from the abattoir and rendering facilities. This unit removes oil and grease and TSS removal at the current flows.

o The yard flows. It has been assumed that the yard pond will remain for the foreseeable future (treating only yards flow).

• Flow: it has been assumed that annual median process wastewater will be produced at approximately 2,600 litres/head/day at 833 head/day, 6 days/week peak season1. This translates to 2.17 ML/production day and 13 ML/week. The same wastewater production metric per head was used for all production throughputs to estimate flow.

3.1.2.1.1 CAL Sizing

In addition to the anticipated flow rates and sources discussed above, the CAL sizing considers the following:

• CAL type: The design is a positive pressure CAL in which biogas may accumulate under the cover to pressures of 20 – 70 Pa. The biogas is then removed by a blower connected to a perimeter wall gas extraction system of suitable design. This allows a degree of biogas inventory to be held under the cover at low pressure.

• Working volume: the CAL capacity will be limited to a maximum of 24.0 ML at a water level depth of 5.0 metres.

• Freeboard: the design allows for a freeboard of 1.0 metre which protects the biogas collection system from foam, crust and excessive working level and provides gas inventory. The extensive freeboard also minimises the risk of overtopping under normal operation, and far exceeds typical DWER and industry standards for 300 mm freeboard provisions.

• CAL base to top of wall depth: the total depth of the pond will be 6.0 metres, including the 1 m freeboard. Taking into account groundwater levels during the planned construction period in summer 2019/20 when water levels are lowest, it is proposed that the base of the pond will lie approximately 3.4 m below natural ground level (Figure 3-1).

Whilst this may present a deviation from separation distance to the highest groundwater level mark in winter as recommended in WQPN 26 (DoW, 2013), additional measures will be in place to prevent a risk to groundwater including the use of a HDPE geomembrane liner with permeability of at most 1X10-9m/s at the pond base and walls.

• Preferred geometry: as shown in Figure 1-3 and Figure 3-1, the CAL will be 70 m in width and 110 m in length (inside top of wall dimensions) at 3:1 H:V for the inner wall batter. Based on the geotechnical assessment, the CAL will have a 7.6 m wide bank wall at the crest allowing for perimeter access at the top of the pond and have an external batter with a 3:1 gradient slope.

1 The design allows for processing at 1,000 head per day, 6 days per week during peak periods, subject to market demand.

Figure:

3-1

1000 6600

39000

69000

84200

99740

6600 1000

6600 1000

80000

110000

140740

125200

1000 6600

SWALE

ANCHOR TRENCH (1200 x 600)

BOTTOM COVER (1.5mm HDPE)

TOP COVER OFFSET 1m FROM T.O. BATTER (2mm HDPE)

ANCHOR TRENCH (1200 x 600)

BOTTOM COVER (1.5mm HDPE)

TOP COVER 1m OFFSET FROM T.O. BATTER 2mm HDPE

---------------

--------------------------------

Client:@ !Om ./~ KASA I "I LTIN~

-~"' , L

HA RV E y Author: P. Jansen "" BE E F "' 1-==--='-"---'--'--;-----'--'-'='------j Drawn: CAD Resources~ www.cadresources.can.au

Date: Au 2019 Rev:A A4 Tel: (08) 9246 3242 ~ Fax: (08) 9246 3202


Proposed CAL



Page 14

• COD loading: it is anticipated that COD loadings will be approximately 0.38 kg/m3/day with the BOD loading at about half that value. This is the design loading for the 833 head/day, 6 days/week2 at peak season and assumes 10% bypass to the RENOIR. For this option, in winter (off-peak) the COD loading remains the same. These are relatively low loadings and are due to the reasonably low COD concentration in the raw wastewater feed to the CAL.

• The 2019 FY COD loadings for the new CAL are 0.28 kg/m3/day and 0.21 kg/m3/day for peak season and off-peak, respectively. All other throughput forecasts have loadings between these values.

• Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT): an HRT of 14.4 days has been allowed for at peak season for the 833 head/day, 6 days/week1. This increases to 19.5 days (peak) and 27 days (off-peak) for the FY2019 throughput.

• Cover & lining: The CAL would be covered with HDPE fixed by a perimeter anchor trench with a HDPE liner on the walls and base.

3.1.2.1.2 Water Quality Protection Notes

The former Department of Water (now DWER) has published the following guidance in relation to the selection and installation of liners for containing potentially contaminated water:

• Liners for containing pollutants, using synthetic membranes, Water quality protection note 26 (DoW, 2013a)

• Liners for containing pollutants, using engineered soils, Water quality protection note 27 (DoW, 2013b);

Whilst it is understood that DWER currently do not impose the application of these guidelines to all proposals, the CAL design and construction has considered the guidance and adopted relevant aspects to ensure that seepage of contaminants to groundwater is mitigated as far as possible.

The primary method of seepage prevention is the adoption of the HDPE liner on the base and walls of the CAL. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.2.9, Harvey Beef will implement a Construction Quality Assurance Plan (Appendix B) which will ensure that the installation of the liner is conducted appropriately, with verification and quality assurance checks completed prior to commissioning of the CAL.

3.1.2.1.3 Seepage

Negligible seepage is anticipated since the installed HDPE liner should achieve hydraulic conductivity less than 1 x 10-9 m/s.

2 The design allows for processing at 1,000 head per day, 6 days per week during peak periods, subject to market demand.



Page 15

3.1.2.2 CAL Construction

3.1.2.2.1 Construction Duration and Schedule

Subject to the timely receipt of regulatory approvals, it is proposed that construction activities will be carried out during the dry summer months between December 2019 to March 2020 when groundwater level is at its lowest. The following sections provide an overview of key construction phase activities.

The majority of construction activities will generally take place between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on a weekday. If required, the construction work may extend to Saturday but there will be no planned work on Sundays or public holidays.

3.1.2.2.2 Earthworks

Site earthworks will include:

• Implementation of soil erosion and sediment controls before construction commences, in order to minimise erosion of the site and direct clean runoff away from the site.

• Clearing and stripping the excavation area of any remnant vegetation, trees, stumps, roots and other debris from the already cleared site. Removing topsoil from the excavation area and stockpiling outside of the excavation area for later use.

• Excavation of clayey subsoil to the specified depth and stockpiling the material for reuse in constructing the CAL bund walls.

• Preparing and ensuring that the dam base subgrade is sufficiently compacted for wall stability and liner installation.

• Mixing the excavated soil, adjusting the moisture condition as required and constructing the bund walls in compacted layers to the design wall profile and batter slopes. All internal earthen surfaces to be smooth and free of sharp objects to accommodate a synthetic HDPE liner.

• Preparing the top of the bund wall for perimeter access and an anchor trench for securing the base geomembrane liner and cover.

• Placing topsoil on the external exposed embankment and sow grass for erosion control.

• Construction of perimeter road access.

• Installation of perimeter fencing and signage around the top of the CAL preventing unauthorised access.

• Installation of associated water, pumps & biogas pipelines.

• Installation of the synthetic HDPE geomembrane liner of permeability of at most 1x10-9m/s.

• Filling of the lagoon. It is reiterated that whilst the base of the CAL will be below the highest groundwater level mark, the hydrostatic head from the contents of the CAL, together with the underdrainage system (if required) will ensure that the liner integrity will not be affected by upward pressure from groundwater.

• Cover installation for capture of biogas for combustion in a flare or existing boiler.

• Installation of an emergency vent and standalone biogas flare.

As previously detailed, all construction activities will be overseen by a project management team and work will be monitored and checked for compliance with the quality control procedures outlined in the project CQAP (Appendix B).



Page 16

3.1.2.2.3 Traffic

During construction of the CAL, there is expected to be minimal additional vehicles, primarily for consultants, requiring off-street parking opposite the main plant entrance on Seventh Street. The majority of traffic movement will be isolated to the CAL construction zone off Eighth Street.

Site construction activities will require a few operator and contractor vehicles to access the site on a daily basis during the six-month construction period. Heavy construction vehicles such as scrapers, dozers, excavators and water carts will remain on site while being used for bulk earthworks over a 12 to 16-week period. Additional daily movement of tip trucks along Eighth Street may be required for any imported fill during construction of the earth embankment.

3.1.2.2.4 Noise Management

Whilst assigned noise criteria under Regulation 7 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 do not apply to construction sites; all construction activities will conform to Regulation 13 of the Noise Regulations.

Few construction tasks are expected to generate noise to the extent that they would be of concern to the closest residential receptors. General construction noise would typically be limited to engines of plant and equipment and would be scheduled to occur between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm daily.

3.1.2.2.5 Stormwater

Given that construction will be scheduled during summer, the potential for stormwater generation will be negligible. Should there be a rain event, stormwater runoff from topsoil or subsoil stockpiles will be directed to temporary sediment traps, such that the release of sediment laden runoff into surrounding agricultural drains will be minimised.

3.1.2.2.6 Dust Control

Dust control of the construction area and Eighth Street will be addressed by the using a water cart as required. The water cart will be on site for moisture conditioning of soil fill.

All excavated soil will be stockpiled for later reuse in the construction of the lagoon embankments. All material lay down positions will be located within the boundaries of the property, and to the north of the construction site.

Stormwater runoff originating from topsoil or subsoil stockpiles will be controlled by suitable sediment traps. All soil stockpiles areas will be rehabilitated as soon as practical after material has been removed.

3.1.2.2.7 Acid Sulfate Soils

ASS investigations undertaken at the CAL location have determined that the potential environmental risks associated with the identification and management of acid sulfate soils is limited.

Earthworks will be conducted during summer where the water table is lowest, and the risk of rainfall occurring to the extent that leachate can be generated and exported from the construction site is highly unlikely, particularly given proposed drainage controls and containment of excavated stockpiles.

The lack of sensitive ecological receptors in the vicinity of the project area further minimises the environmental risk.

Notwithstanding, where there is potential for acid generation, the application of lime to stockpiles may be considered by Harvey Beef as an appropriate contingency measure.

3.1.2.2.8 Dewatering

Hydrogeological and geotechnical assessments commissioned by Harvey Beef indicate that minor dewatering of the construction site, over a limited period may be required. Anticipated volumes of inflow into the



Page 17

excavation is likely to be less than 1L/s. If required to provide safe working conditions, dewatering at or around the excavation may be undertaken with the limited volume of dewatering effluent generated being directed into the Harvey Beef wastewater treatment pond system.

The volumes and duration of dewatering, if required, are not anticipated to trigger the requirement to obtain a 26D or 5C licence from DWER under the Rights in Waters Irrigations Act 1914, given that the following exemption trigger applies (Douglas and Partners, 2019):

a) the only water that can be taken from the well is from the water table aquifer; and

b) water is taken from the well solely for the purpose of removing underground water to facilitate construction or other activity (that is, dewatering); and

c) the water is taken at a pump rate not exceeding 10 litres per second over a period of less than 30 consecutive days; and

d) the volume of water taken over the period referred to in paragraph (c) does not exceed 25 000 kL.

As a worst-case scenario, the maximum volume of water likely to be dewatered assuming a flow rate of 1L/s for a duration of 4 months is less than half of the licence trigger.

Should dewatering of the CAL excavation be needed, it is proposed to install and utilise a subsoil drainage system to collect and redirect groundwater away from the excavation. The need for and specific design of this drainage system for managing groundwater at the excavation will be determined at the detailed design phase prior to construction.

3.1.2.2.9 Construction Quality Assurance

In order to ensure that the construction of the CAL, and in particular, the installation of the base HDPE liner is conducted in accordance with design specifications, a Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP) has been prepared (Appendix B) (Meateng, 2019b). THE CQAP addresses the following key elements:

• Scope of Works covered by the CQAP;

• Roles and Responsibilities;

• Inspection, testing and verification protocols;

• Construction Quality Assurance parameters;

• Non-conformance management and reporting.

At the completion of construction, a final Construction Report will be prepared including all Certification records to demonstrate that the works were completed in accordance with the Design Drawings and the Specifications. This report may be utilised to support any Compliance Document requirement imposed by DWER in the amended licence.

3.1.2.3 Commissioning Phase

An appropriate commissioning plan, that sets out the process and methodology for successful commissioning of the new CAL and associated equipment, will be prepared as part of the forthcoming detailed design phase. The biological commissioning of the CAL post construction typically takes up to three (3) months, requiring sufficient time for growth of bacterial mass needed to handle the organic load from the incoming wastewater. Over this period, the commissioning activities will include:

• Testing of wastewater pumps and controls systems.

• Seeding the CAL with anaerobic bacteria sourced from the existing anerobic pond.

• Initial influent feed to the CAL, of wastewater from the saveall providing raw feed for biological activity;



Page 18

• Continual monitoring of loading levels in the CAL during the commissioning period.

• Once there is sufficient biogas captured, the Flare can then be commissioned and inspected for certification.

o Associated training of Harvey Beef personnel to ensure they are able to monitor and troubleshoot key parameters of the upgraded wastewater treatment system.

o Instructing maintenance staff in the operation of the flare and ancillary equipment.

During commissioning, plant wastewater will be pumped to both the existing anerobic pond and the new CAL until commissioning is completed and the CAL is performing as expected. Over time, wastewater infeed to the existing anerobic pond will diminish to a point where the pond can be decommissioned.

Final inspection of the biogas installation will be carried out by a gas inspector designated by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety Energy Safety Division who will issue a certification of compliance that the installation complies with all relevant Australian Standards and regulations.

Figure:

3-2

WastewaterFrom Kill Floor

PaunchBoning RoomRenderingStormwater

WastewaterFrom Yards

Hardstand YardsTruck wash

YardsPond

ContraShear

Saveall CAL Renoir Pond 5

Pond 4

Pond 3 Pond 6Effluent toIrrigation

Effluent toIrrigation

Client:@ ./~ KASA I "I LTIN~

-~"' ,L

HA RV E Y Author: P. Jansen "" BE E F "' i-=------'----'-"----'~'---'-'-'--l'----1 Drawn: CAD Resources~ www.cadresources.can.au

Date: Au 2019 Rev:A A4 Tel: (08) 9246 3242 ~ Fax: (08) 9246 3202


Process Flow Diagram



Page 20

3.1.2.4 Operating Phase

Following commissioning, the operation of the CAL and monitoring of its performance and integrity will be integrated into the current Harvey Beef asset management and monitoring procedures. This will include environmental inspections and monitoring of CAL inflow and outflow rates and of water quality parameters to ensure these are within design specifications.

3.1.2.4.1 Flare

A skid mounted flare complete with controls and instrumentation, will be installed adjacent to the CAL, for combustion of the captured methane-rich biogas. When there is build-up of biogas pressure under the CAL cover and the gas is not being used in the existing boiler, the biogas will be directed to the flare for combustion. Biogas will enter the flare via a knock-out pot and will then be drawn into a fan feeding the combustion stack and ignited by an interrupted LPG gas pilot. The flare will be designed to operate at low to medium pressure, typically 0 to 100 Pa, and continuous burning in a wide range of biogas flow. This avoids the need for biogas storage and keeps the pressure under the CAL cover relatively constant.

The flare skid will be installed at natural ground level on the south side of the CAL and have a stack height of between 6 to 8 metres. The height of the stack will protrude above the height of the CAL but will not be visually prominent when viewing the existing plant infrastructure. The flame will be fully enclosed within the tubular stack and there will be no visible flame from flaring operation. The installed flare will have minimal visual impact to the surrounding community.

3.1.2.4.2 Emergency Vent

A diaphragm pressure relief assembly, as shown below, will be installed on the crest of the CAL bund wall and will act as an automatic mechanical vent to relieve the pressure under the CAL cover.

Plate 3.1: CAL Flare Plate 3.2: CAL Emergency Vent



Page 21

3.1.2.4.3 Stormwater

The area where the proposed CAL is to be located has a natural fall in ground level towards Eighth Street. Grassed swales will be constructed on the north and south side of the CAL to minimise any potential impact on the CAL embankments by diverting uncontaminated stormwater away from the CAL, toward the Eighth Street roadside swale.

The CAL cover typically floats on the surface of the wastewater which is one meter below the crest of the walls and will collect rainfall. A standard feature of the design will be to use stormwater pump(s) to remove stormwater that has been accumulated on the cover. The stormwater will be pumped into two small holding tanks, located on the CAL wall with overflow piped and finally discharged into an existing swale on the eastern side of the CAL.

3.1.2.4.4 Wind Effects Control

In order to secure the HDPE cover over the CAL under windy conditions, the cover will be weighted using a series of HDPE pipes filled with water to minimise cover movement. The weighted pipes will also direct stormwater to collection places on the cover for pump out. The holding tanks will be connected to the weighted pipes and valving will allow control of the water ballast across the cover.

3.1.2.4.5 Anticipated Treated Effluent Water Quality

Anticipated water quality for the upgraded Wastewater Treatment System is described in the CAL Design Report (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a) provided as Appendix A.

Anticipated water quality is summarised in Table 3-1. This table presents design concentrations for key parameters including BOD and nutrients for the existing treatment system (RENOIR, P3 and P6) and the CAL and takes into account the increased throughput proposed as part of expanded production scenario (250,000 animals/year).

The predicted final water quality at Ponds 3 and 6 are key, as these are the locations from which irrigated wastewater will continue to be sourced.

The CAL design and functionality has specifically taken into account the final nutrient (TN and TP) concentrations required to maintain compliance with DWER licence limits for nutrient loads.

Further improvements to the final water quality of irrigated wastewaters may be also achieved through upgrades and optimisation of the RENOIR pond performance. The need for and extent of implementation of such upgrades will be determined following a period of monitoring of the upgraded wastewater treatment system as a whole in 2020.

Table 3-1: BOD and nutrient values for Harvey Beef Wastewater Treatment System (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a)

Parameter CAL Design Feed Ex RENOIR1 Ex P3 and P6

(final effluent irrigated)

Median Median Max Median Max

BOD2 (mg/L) 2,750 30-50 100 20 - 30 70

TN (mg/L) 200 75 100 50 70

TP (mg/L) 35 20 40 20 40 1Assumes pro rata flow of 2.5ML/day 6 days/week with 10% raw feed to RENOIR 2 BOD results are for non-filtered sample



Page 22

Production Expansion

3.1.3.1 Proposed Increase in Production

In addition to the introduction of the CAL into the wastewater treatment process, Harvey Beef proposes to increase the currently licenced production limit at the abattoir in order to allow the company to take advantage of market opportunities.

In terms of the DWER prescribed categories, it is proposed to increase the approved premises design capacity under Category 55 (Livestock saleyard or holding pen) which limits the annual throughput to 170,000 animals per year. Harvey Beef proposes to progressively expand its production to 250,000 animals per year.

No change is considered necessary to the current Category 15 (Abattoir) premises production throughput limit, which is currently set at 220,000 tonnes (HSCW) of beef cattle slaughtered per year. At a throughput of 250,000 animals per year, the equivalent HSCW of beef cattle will remain under the current limit.

It is important note to that in order to realise the increase in production, no other modifications to the premises as relevant to the DWER licence are deemed necessary. The increase will occur progressively over a few years and is likely to be achieved by the year 2024.

The increase in production will be achieved through extended kill shifts and operation over a 6-day week rather than the current nominal operating week of 5 days.

3.1.3.2 Anticipated Irrigation Volumes

The volumes of wastewater irrigated are generally proportional to water consumption within the facility.

In estimating the likely hydraulic load on the upgraded wastewater treatment system, as well as the resultant increase in irrigation volumes, a wastewater generation factor of 3.0 kL/hd slaughtered was applied. This adopted value is not inconsistent with standard industry practice; but is slightly elevated and accounts for a 15% loading to accommodate incident rainfall over a 5 ha catchment area covered by the wastewater treatment ponds and localised runoff.

Plot 3-1 depicts the anticipated wastewater generation over the progressive expansion of production.

3.1.3



Page 23

Plot 3-1: Indicative Wastewater Generation vs Production

3.1.3.3 Irrigation area

As previously discussed, in November 2018 Harvey Beef applied for an amended Licence to extend the available area for irrigation by an additional 21.85 hectares (Phoenix paddocks) (see Figure 1-2).

The extended irrigation area was approved by DWER thereby offering a total of 140 ha of Harvey Beef owned land to be utilised for irrigation, excluding the 4ha of paddock area where the CAL will be located (Paddock 7S3).

3.1.3.4 Anticipated Nutrient Loads to Irrigation Areas

DWER licence L6395/1993/16 (as amended in April 2019) prescribes the following load-based limits for the irrigation areas.

Table 3-2: Nutrient Application Criteria for Treated Wastewater

Parameter Licence Loading Limit

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 30 kg/ha/day

Total Nitrogen (TN) 400 kg/ha/year

Total Phosphorus (TP) 120 kg/ha/year

In assessing the potential impacts of the proposed expansion, an analysis of the nitrogen and phosphorous loads was undertaken considering the following key aspects:

• The anticipated final water quality (TN, TP, BOD) of treated effluent including the effect of wastewater treatment through the CAL in series with the existing pond systems;

• The anticipated increase in the volumes of wastewater generated for the expanded production scenarios; and

800,000

700,000

600,000

~ 500,000

-5 =-6 400,000 ·;::; .. -~ -~ 300,000

200,000

100,000

0

170,000 head/year 200,000 head/year 220,000 head/year

- Wastewater Generated -e-Production

250,000 head/year

300,000

250,000

200,000

~ "'CJ

:S 150,000 §

:e

100,000

50,000

0

::, "'CJ

e Q.



Page 24

• The ongoing uptake of nutrients by irrigated crop systems established over the newly expanded 140 ha paddock areas, excluding the 4ha of paddock area where the CAL will be located (Paddock 7S3).

Table 3-3 and Plot 3-2 present a comparison of the nutrient loading rates over the 140 ha irrigation area from the currently approved 170,000 head/yr, progressively increasing to 250,000 head/yr, relative to current licence limits. The data indicates that nitrogen and phosphorous loadings are predicted to comply with current licence limits under the expanded scenario.

Table 3-3: Predicted Nutrient Loadings

Production Scenario Gross TN

(kg/ha/yr)

TN Limit

(kg/ha/yr)

Gross TP

(kg/ha/yr)

TP Limit

(kg/ha/yr)

Approved 170,000 head/year 181

400

72

120 200,000 head/year 213 85

220,000 head/year* 234 94

250,000 head/year* 267 107

Note: Gross nutrient load estimates are based on:

• Final water quality data presented in Section 3.1.2.4.5 (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a)

• Wastewater generation of 2.6kL/hd plus 15% factor to account for incident rainfall;

• 140 ha of available irrigation area.

Plot 3-2: Gross TN and TP Application to Soil via Irrigation of Wastewater

450

400

350

300

> i 250 C 0 I 200

150

100

50

0 170,000 head/year

- Gross TN (kg/ha/yr)

200,000 head/year 220,000 head/year 250,000 head/year

- Gross TP (kg/ha/yr) --TP Licence Limit (kg/ha/yr) - TN Licence Limit (kg/ha/yr)



Page 25

As detailed in the Harvey Beef Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan (NIMP) (Harvey Industries Group, 2018), a total of five crop systems are utilised over designated irrigation areas and consist of a combination of selected crop or pasture species. Selection of crop system components is based on the following:

• Their combined ability to uptake nutrients, but also to meet the intent of an integrated farm management system that moulds pasture management with stock control and feeding.

• Selection of crop species is a combination of high yielding cultivars and the ability to maintain stock condition (quality) in the most cost-effective manner.

• Ultimately a perennial based pasture ryegrass/clover system that is renovated every 5-7 years would be preferred as this has high yielding and quality attributes as well as the flexibility to be conserved for fodder and fed off farm.

• Temperate perennial based pastures also have the ability to use nutrients over winter / early spring when sub-tropical species (such as Kikuyu) are dormant.

• The system combinations allow a planned approach to implementing a year-round pasture production system rather than just a seasonal one.

• The maize and annual ryegrass system allows for high annual yields while also acting as a ‘cleaning’ phase for perennial pastures (e.g. laser levelling, weed control, reducing soil compaction). It also offers the highest ‘export’ of nutrients as the dry matter is conserved and exported off the paddock.

Table 3-4 summarises the anticipated nutrient uptake by irrigated crops, based on the crop selection and predicted nutrient uptake rates for each system within the expanded 140 ha irrigation area, as described in Section 6 of the NIMP (Harvey Industries Group, 2018), excluding the 4ha of paddock area where the CAL will be located (Paddock 7S3).

Table 3-4: Estimated Annual Nutrient Removal by Crop (kg/yr))

Nutrient N P

Kikuyu Removal (kg) 7,259 495.72

Annual Ryegrass & Maize Removal (kg) 14,516 3,729.96

Annual Ryegrass & Millet Removal (kg) 2,572 376.24

Annual Ryegrass & Sudan Grass Removal (kg) 9,031 1,406.46

Dryland 0 0

Table 3-5 and Plot 3-3 detail the resultant nett application of nitrogen and phosphorous to soils via irrigation of treated wastewater under various production scenarios leading up to the processing of 250,000 head/year.

Table 3-5: Estimated Nett Application of Nutrients to Soil (kg/yr))

Nett Annual Irrigation (kg/ha/yr) Nett TN Nett TP

170,000 head/year -51 31

200,000 head/year -19 44

220,000 head/year 3 52

250,000 head/year 35 65

Note: Nett nutrient load estimates are based on:

• Final water quality data presented in Section 3.1.2.4.5 (Johns Environmental Group, 2019a)

• Wastewater generation of 2.6kL/hd plus 15% factor to account for incident rainfall;

• 140 ha of available irrigation area.

• Nutrient uptake capability in Table 3-4



Page 26

Plot 3-3: Net nutrient loading rates for total current and proposed irrigation at maximum capacity

The data indicates that for the projected irrigated nutrient loads generated for the expanded 250,000 head/year production scenario, and with continued implementation of the cropping system in accordance with the NIMP, a substantial proportion of the irrigated nitrogen and phosphorus loads will be utilised by crops and prevented from seeping into the groundwater table. Based on projected final water quality and wastewater generation for the expanded scenario, application of irrigated wastewater to the available 140 ha of irrigation area will result in a nett negative nitrogen load, i.e. it is anticipated that crops will utilise all available TN in wastewater.

400

350

300

250

200

i ~ 150

100

so

0 -ad/year 220,000 head/year 250,000 head/year

-SO

-100

- NettTN - Net tTP - TN Licence Limit {kg/ha/yr) - TP Licence limit (kg/ha/yr)



Page 27

3.1.3.5 Groundwater Monitoring Update

In accordance with DWER licence condition 2, Harvey Beef installed three groundwater monitoring bores shown in Figure 5-1. Other than a baseline sample, one round of sampling has been completed to meet licence requirements. Results will be assessed and reported to DWER as part of the AER. Based on a preliminary review of nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in monitored bores, the data shows that concentrations of all nutrients are low, and with no indication of any significant change between upgradient and downgradient bores. Further monitoring will expend the current dataset and is expected to confirm the benefits of the cropping system in utilising irrigated nutrients and preventing nutrient seepage into groundwater.

Table 5 presents a summary of key monitored parameters to date.

Table 3-6: Groundwater Monitoring Results (2019)

Site pH TDS TN TP BOD

Date 9 May 27 Jun 9 May 27 Jun 9 May 27 Jun 9 May 27 Jun 9 May 27 Jun

MW01 5.4 5.9 2,450 2,490 <0.5 1.0 <0.01 <0.01 <2 <2

MW02 5.1 5.6 1,085 1,150 0.2 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <2 <2

MW03 4.7 3.6 3,350 3,600 0.6 0.4 0.06 <0.01 6 2 All results other than pH are in mg/L

3.1.3.6 Revisions to Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan

The current version of the NIMP (Harvey Industries Group, 2018) was submitted to DWER as part of the last licence amendment to extend the cropping area to include the Phoenix paddocks. That version of the NIMP (version 4) assessed the scenario for a production increase to processing 200,000head/year.

Whilst the anticipated management measures and controls in the NIMP are appropriate for managing nutrients under the 250,000 head/year, subject to DWER approval of this licence amendment application, Harvey Beef will submit an updated Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan to reflect the proposed increase in licenced production capacity, as well as inclusion of reference to the CAL as part of the upgraded wastewater treatment system.

The revised NIMP (version 5) will take into account pending monitoring data from installed groundwater bores, as well as monitoring of irrigated effluent water quality and soil sampling scheduled for Quarter 4 of 2019.



Page 28

4 RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Risk assessment for proposed amendments

Key Environmental Risks

The proposed upgrade of the wastewater treatment to include the CAL is not expected to significantly increase or alter the potential environmental impacts of the licensed facility; operational environmental risks can continue to be managed via Harvey Beef’s environmental management, monitoring and reporting systems and regulated under DWER licence conditions.

The CAL will offer the following key environmental improvements to the current WWTP:

• the ability to capture biogases generated from wastewater that would otherwise be released to atmosphere, thereby reducing the potential for odour generation from anaerobic treatment of wastewater;

• reduced the reliance on natural gas through the use of captured methane from the CAL for use in boilers within the abattoir thereby reducing the greenhouse footprint of the facility; and

• reliable anaerobic treatment of wastewater which is critical to nitrogen removal;

• reduced potential for groundwater seepage of nutrients given the use of a High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner of permeability at most 1 X 10-9 m/s.

Notwithstanding, an independent desktop review was conducted to identify and assess the significance of environmental risks associated with the operation of the proposed CAL (Johns Environmental Group, 2019b).

The risk assessment is provided as Appendix C. Key risk areas that were considered included:

• Failure to meet licence condition limits;

• Contamination of surface and groundwater;

• Odour generation;

• Light overspill;

• Noise;

• Visual amenity;

• Fire;

• Biogas release;

• Loss of organic treatment performance upon start-up.

Construction related risks were discussed in Section 0 and relate to:

• Noise generation;

• Stormwater and erosion control;

• Construction dust generation;

• Construction related traffic;

• Acid Sulfate Soils; and

4.1.1



Page 29

• Dewatering

Given proposed controls and mitigation measures, potential impacts from each of those factors is deemed to present a low to moderate environmental risk, essentially for the reasons detailed in Section 0 and Appendix C.

The nature of risks associated with the production expansion are not considered to be different to that previously assessed by DWER (DWER, 2019).

Table 4-1 summarises the key environmental risks associated with the proposal, and focusses solely on the risks deemed relevant to DWER’s Decision Report.



Page 30

Table 4-1: Environmental Risk Assessment for Proposed Project

Risk Event Reasoning

Source/Activities Potential Emission

Potential Receptor Potential Pathway

Potential Adverse Impact

Consequence Likelihood Risk Justification

Category 15 (Abattoir),

Category 16 (Rendering operation)

and

Category 55 (Livestock saleyard or holding pen)

Onsite disposal of wastewater via irrigation to

140 ha designated

irrigation area excluding the

4ha of paddock allocated for the

new CAL.

Wastewater to land with excessive

contaminants.

Surface water: existing agricultural drainage network

located immediately south of the majority of the existing and

immediately north of the new irrigation

areas.

Direct discharge to land.

Discharge to existing drainage

network from overland flows.

Surface water contamination

affecting ecosystem

health.

Moderate Possible Medium Net nutrient loading rates (which take into account crop nutrient uptake) for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, at the proposed expanded production capacity of 250,000 hd/yr, with irrigation over 140 ha) are estimated to be 65 and 35 kg/ha/yr respectively. Whilst nett nitrogen loadings are predicted to be within the WQPN 22 guideline of 300 kg/ha/yr for TN, phosphorous loadings have been estimated to exceed the 50 kg/ha/yr guideline.

Existing licence controls and revision of the current NIMP will ensure that risks are managed such that there are no adverse risks to the surrounding environment.

Depth to groundwater is

approximately 1 to 2 m below ground

level.

Infiltration to groundwater

Groundwater contamination

affecting ecosystem

health.



Page 31






Wastewater to land with excessive hydraulic loading.

Surface water: existing agricultural drainage network

located immediately south of the majority of the existing and

immediately north of the new approved irrigation areas.

Direct discharge to land.

Discharge to existing drainage

network from overland flows.

Surface water contamination

affecting ecosystem

health.

Moderate Possible Medium As the proposed available irrigation area totals 140 ha, the hydraulic loading rate is not a limiting factor for irrigation at the Premises.

Excess runoff and potential pollution of groundwater and surface water could occur on a scale that includes on and off-site impacts at a mid and low level respectively.

Existing licence controls and a revised NIMP should ensure that potential risks are managed such that there are no adverse risks to the surrounding environment.


typically 1 to 2 m below ground level.



affecting ecosystem

health.



Page 32






Odour

Several closest residential premises

(rural) located approximately 50 m

N, E and S of existing irrigation

area and 200 m W and E of the

expended (Phoenix) irrigation area.

Air / wind dispersion

Potential amenity impacts

Slight Unlikely Low

The separation distance between the source and potential receptors is sufficient noting that fugitive odour from irrigation of the treated wastewater on the proposed available 140 hectares of irrigation area is expected to be insignificant compared to abattoir and rendering operations onsite and the treatment of wastewater in the onsite wastewater treatment pond system.

There have been no complaints reported to DWER in relation to odour in at least the last 3 years.



Page 33






Operation of Covered

Anaerobic Lagoon and

Flare

Seepage of wastewater to groundwater


typically 1 to 2 m below ground level.



affecting ecosystem

health.

Minor Unlikely Medium

The CAL design will include a HDPE geomembrane liner (with permeability of at most 1x10-9m/s) on the base and walls. A CQAP will be implemented to ensure that the liner is installed in accordance with specifications and is independently verified.

Operation of Covered

Anaerobic Lagoon and

Flare

Odour Nearest residences are approximately 500m from CAL

Air / wind dispersion

Potential amenity impacts

(nuisance) Slight Unlikely Low

Refer Appendix C - CAL

Risk Assessment for DWER – Harvey Beef



Page 34

5 EXISTING REGULATORY CONTROLS - LICENCE L6395/1993/16

Licence L6395/1993/16 was amended in April 2019 to authorise the increase in irrigation area from 122 to 144 ha, at a throughput of 170,000 head/yr and rendering capacity of not more than 120,000 tpa.

The Licence specifies conditions to regulate:

• Specified emissions

• General emissions

• Site infrastructure and equipment

• Renderable Material acceptance and monitoring criteria

• Waste and by-product management specifications

• Emissions to land loading limits

• Emissions and discharge monitoring3

• Soil sampling and monitoring requirements1

• Groundwater monitoring1

• Record keeping and Annual reporting

This Licence amendment application is to support the increase in production capacity to 250,000 head/yr.

Harvey Beef understands that new conditions may be imposed to regulate the construction and operation of the CAL and flare, but it is considered that no additional conditions would be required to regulate wastewater management and irrigation as existing conditions are considered appropriate.

In particular, Harvey Beef will continue to monitor the range of parameters described in the table below, the following monitoring as prescribed in the licence will continue to be implemented for the expanded operations:

Table 5-1: Proposed Monitoring Program

Monitored Parameter Method Frequency Purpose Responsibility

Volume of water consumed

(kL/month). Flow meter readings. Weekly For internal records.

Environmental

Officer

Volume of water irrigated

(kL/month).

Flow meter readings

from individual paddock

irrigation data.

On use

Monitor quantity of

water from Pond 3B

and 6A used for

irrigation and use

figure to determine

nutrient inputs to

paddock sub-areas A,

B and C as prescribed

the licence.

Environmental

Officer

Farm Manager

3 Refer to Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 for licenced surface and groundwater, as well as soil monitoring locations.



Page 35


Water quality of effluent

irrigated including TN; TP; 5-

day Biochemical Oxygen

Demand (BOD); Electrical

Conductivity (EC) or TDS; Total

Oil and Grease and pH.

Australian Standard

5667.1: 1998 - Water

Quality – Sampling:

Guidance on the design

of sampling programs,

sampling techniques

and the preservation

and handling of

samples.

Locations shown on Figure 5-2.

Monitoring will be in

accordance with DWER

licence condition 11.

Monthly

Ensure compliance

with NIMP, and DWER

licence conditions.

Environmental

Officer

Groundwater Quality at

licenced bores MB01, MB02

and MB03 (Figure 5-1)

Australian Standard

5667.1: 1998 - Water

Quality – Sampling:

Guidance on the design

of sampling programs,

sampling techniques

and the preservation

and handling of

samples.


Monitoring will be in

accordance with DWER

licence condition 13.

Quarterly

Ensure compliance

with revised NIMP, and

DWER licence

conditions.

Working condition of internal

drainage system and WWTP,

including the CAL.

Visual inspections. Daily

Ensure plant, ponds

and other drainage

infrastructure is

maintained in good

working condition.

Environmental

Officer

Health of vegetation in

paddocks and presence of

weeds species.

Visual inspections. Monthly

Identify any cases of

vegetation ill health or

weed infestations thus

impacting on nutrient

uptake.

Farm Manager

Ponding and soil erosion in

paddocks. Visual inspections. Regularly

Ensure no soil eroding

or ponding occurs. Farm Manager

Soil quality including pH,

salinity, TP, TN, Potassium (K),

Phosphorus Buffering Indices

(PBI).


Certain sites will be sampled at 3 depths (10, 20 and 30 cm).

Annually

Monitor condition of

soil and assess

residual nutrient

Farm Manager

with advice from

Agronomic and

Horticultural



Page 36


All other sites will be sampled at 10 cm.

Monitoring will be in accordance with DWER licence condition 12.

concentrations as a

result of irrigation.

Consultant as

needed

Crop annual yield (dry

biomass).

In accordance with

DAFWA guidelines.

Annually or

as needed at

the end of

rotation

/harvest

Plant growth response

as a result of irrigation.

Farm Manager

with advice from

Horticultural

Consultant as

needed

Leaf tissue analysis. In accordance with

DAFWA guidelines.

Annually or

as needed at

the end of

rotation

/harvest

Actual plant nutrient

uptake.

Farm Manager

with advice from

Horticultural

Consultant as

needed

Figure:Legend


Paddock Boundary

Paddocks Irrigated by Pond 3Paddocks Irrigated by Pond 6Premises Boundary

Cadastral Boundary

Water Monitoring Site

5-1

392500mE 393000mE

I

392500mE 393000mE

0 -

393500mE 394000mE

393500mE 394000mE

394500mE 395000mE

394500mE 395000mE


Water Monitoring Locations

395500mE

395500mE

Figure:Legend


Paddock Boundary

Paddocks Irrigated by Pond 3Paddocks Irrigated by Pond 6Premises Boundary

Cadastral Boundary

Soil Monitoring Indicative Location

5-2

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

I

392500mE 393000mE 393500mE

• -

394000mE

394000mE

,;d' KAO.A I TII

~ Author: P. Jansen

394500mE 395000mE

394500mE 395000mE


Indicative Soil Monitoring Locations

395500mE

395500mE



Page 39

6 CONCLUSIONS

Harvey Beef is seeking an amendment to its environmental licence L6395/1993/16 to permit the upgrade of its existing wastewater treatment system through the introduction of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) which will supersede the current anaerobic pond (Pond 1) at the Harvey Beef Abattoir and Rendering facility.

In addition, Harvey Beef proposes to progressively increase its production rate at the abattoir to take advantage of market opportunities and to service an increasing demand in meat products in the State and overseas. The increase in production will not require other additional infrastructure or pollution controls that would warrant DWER approval, other than the CAL, but can be realised through the introduction of a six-day working week and/or extension of operating shifts.

Consultation with DWER indicated that the application could be applied for and assessed as an amendment to the existing licence rather than a Works Approval.

This licence amendment supporting document together with the appended CAL design report presents a description of the proposal, identifies the relevant environmental impacts, and assesses the significance of residual environmental risks in the context of existing and proposed design and operational controls, as well as the applicability of existing licence conditions in regulating the potential impacts.

The introduction of the CAL presents several benefits, not least the opportunity to optimise anaerobic treatment of wastewater generated from the facility. The CAL offers the opportunity to offset existing energy (natural gas) usage in boilers by capturing and burning biogases generated from the wastewater; emissions which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere. Whilst greenhouse gas abatement is outside the remit of Part V of the EP Act, the reduction in Harvey Beef’s greenhouse footprint is considered a positive environmental initiative.

The production increase will generate additional wastewater requiring treatment and disposal. Harvey Beef anticipates that the introduction of the CAL together with implementing opportunities to optimise the existing wastewater treatment system will improve the final water quality. The need for and extent of implementation of such upgrades will be determined following a period of monitoring of the upgraded wastewater treatment system as a whole in 2020.

Notwithstanding the above, the extension of the irrigation area as approved by DWER in April 2019, offers significant benefits in the management of irrigated wastewater over cropped paddocks and pasture. Harvey Beef has a demonstrated track record in implementing the NIMP for the premises to maximise the uptake of irrigated nutrients year-round, and to prevent degradation of soils, surface and groundwater quality.

As part of the CAL design, primary measures to prevent the potential for groundwater contamination include the application of a geomembrane liner with permeability of at most 1 X 10-9 m/s, with robust quality assurance and controls to ensure that the liner integrity is not compromised.

Harvey Beef anticipates that the proposed production expansion and installation of the CAL to the existing wastewater treatment system can be managed through a licence amendment, with minor updates to existing licence conditions and the DWER decision report.



Page 40

7 REFERENCES

Andrew, J. (2015, October 21). Email Correspondence to Ian Millichamp (Farm Manager, Harvey Beef): 2015 Soil Data.

BoM. (2019). Climate Statistics for Australian Locations, Monthly Climate Statistics, Wokalup, Site No.009642. Retrieved July 21, 2016, from Bureau of Meteorology: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_009642_All.shtml.

DER. (2015). Compliance Inspection Checklist and Report for Licence: L6395/1993/15, Premises: Harvey Beef abattoir. Perth, WA: Department of Environment Regulation, Government of Western Australia (inspection date: 18 March 2015; letter dated: 17 June 2015).

DEWR. (2007). Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Intensive Livestock - Beef Cattle, v3.1. Canberra, ACT: Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Commonwealth of Australia (May 2007).

DoE. (2004). Statewide River Water Quality Assessment. Retrieved from Department of Environment: http://apostle.environment.wa.gov.au/idelve/srwqa/index.jsp.

Douglas and Partners. (2019). Acid Sulfate Soil and Groundwater Investigation, Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon . Perth.

DoW. (2008). Water Quality Protection Note: Irrigation with nutrient-rich wastewater (WQPN 22). Perth, WA: Department of Water, Government of Western Australia (July 2008).

DoW. (2008a). Statewide River Water Quality Assessment. Retrieved April 27, 2015, from Department of Water, Government of Western Australia: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/idelve/srwqa/.

DPI. (2012). Making Better Fertiliser Decisions For Cropping Systems in Australia. NSW: Department of Primary Industries.

DWER. (2019). L6395/1993/16 Licence Amendment Decision Report. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, Perth. Retrieved from file://kasaconsulting.sharepoint.com%40ssl/DavWWWRoot/Shared%20Documents/1.%20Projects/Harvey%20Beef/22.%20CAL%20&%20Production%20Expansion/Ref%20Docs/L6395-1993-16d%20-%20Decision%20Report.pdf

Harvey Beef. (2016). Harvey Beef Abattoir: Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan. Harvey Beef - Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd (Version 3) (August 2016).

Harvey Beef. (2016). Standard Operating Procedure, Irrigation of Treated Wastewater - SP E09.04. Harvey Beef - Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd (Revision 3, revised 27/07/2016).

Harvey Industries Group. (2018). Harvey Beef Abattoir, Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan (Version 4). Unpublished report prepared for Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd (November 2018).

Johns Environmental Group. (2019a). Sizing of the Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) for Harvey Beef. Brisbane.

Johns Environmental Group. (2019b). Harvey Beef DWER CAL Risk Assessment. Brisbane.

KASA Consulting. (2015). Harvey Beef Licence Renewal - Supporting Document. Unpublished report prepared for Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd (KASA Report No. 2015-150b) (July 2015).

McArthur, W. M., & Bettenay, E. (1974). Development and Distribution of Soils of the Swan Coastal Plain, W.A. Melbourne: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia.

Meateng. (2019a). Application for Planning Consent - Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon. Victoria: Meateng.

Meateng. (2019b). Construction Quality Assurance Plan. Victoria: Meateng.



Page 41

Rambol. (2019). Review of: Report on Acid Sulfate Soil and Groundwater Investigation Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon Eighth Street, Harvey, WA. Project 96583.01. Douglas Partners June 2109. Perth.

SoilTech Soil & Pasture Consulting. (2015). Phosphorus buffering capacity of soils on the Harvey Industries Group Farm. Unpublished report prepared for Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd (June 2015).



Appendices

APPENDICES



Appendices

Appendix A: CAL Conceptual Design Report (Johns Environmental, 2019)

Johns Environmental Group Pty Ltd ABN 42 613 187 849, ACN 613 187 849

PO Box 534 Aspley QLD 4034 Australia Tel 07 3863 0051 www.johnsenv.com.au

Sizing of the Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) for Harvey Beef

Prepared for: Harvey Beef, Harvey, WA Attention: Wayne Shaw Prepared by: Johns Environmental Group, Brisbane Author: Dr. Mike Johns & Louis Fredheim

30 July 2019

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL

JE concept CAL design 91100 Harvey Beef DWER P a g e | 2 30 July 2019 ©Johns Environmental 2019. Commercial-in-Confidence. This document contains intellectual property belonging to Johns Environmental. It may not be reproduced for third parties without written approval from Johns Environmental.

Document Management Job No. 91101 Author: Dr. Mike Johns & Louis Fredheim QA: Justin Galloway Date Issued: 30 July 2019 This version: Revision DWER Final Filename: JE concept CAL design 91100 Harvey Beef Rev DWER Final Date Issued: 25 June 2019 Previous version: Revision DWER Filename: JE concept CAL design 91100 Harvey Beef Rev DWER Date Issued: 15 March 2019 Previous version: Final Filename: JE concept CAL design 91100 Harvey Beef Client input finalised: Yes Sub-consultant : None This report has been developed by Johns Environmental and has been generated solely for the use of Harvey Beef for its beef processing facility at Harvey WA. This report contains specialist in-house intellectual property and know how belonging to Johns Environmental. It is issued Commercial-in-Confidence. Distribution of the report in any form to third parties without written approval from Johns Environmental is prohibited. No liability is accepted by Johns Environmental Group Pty. Ltd., or any employee, for the use of the report by third parties, or for use with other facilities, without prior written approval.

2019 Johns Environmental Group Pty. Ltd.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Executive Summary Following an intensive sampling campaign in late 2018 to characterise the flows and composition of the wastewater from the Harvey beef processing facility, Johns Environmental has generated a concept design for evaluation by Harvey Beef. The design takes into account current and future forecast production increments, integration of the CAL with existing components of the wastewater treatment system and seasonal variations in climate and throughput. The design proposes a 24 ML working volume CAL with a 2mm HDPE cover to capture the biogas generated by the microbial mass in the CAL. The CAL would operate as a positive pressure system (typically 20 – 70 Pa under the cover) with some degree of cover inflation. Initially, it would operate in a slightly underloaded, but still acceptable range of COD loading increasing to a more normal loading as production increases with time. This is beneficial for achieving a successful start-up of the new CAL. An indication of positioning the CAL on the preferred site is provided. To some extent, there is considerable flexibility in the geometry (length:width ratio) and depth of the CAL. The dimensions provided are not suitable for construction, since geotechnical investigations and cut & fill estimates may require changes in the civil design. At the future 5,000 head/week throughput (Option 1), approximately 4,000 m3/day of biogas at about 70%v/v methane (~ 83 GJ/day useful energy) would be generated during peak season. This is equivalent to 28,000 m3 biogas per week. During production days, peak biogas generation would be somewhat higher with a fall-off during non-production days, although there tends to be a lag carrying into Monday. The flare has been sized to cope with peak biogas. During off-season, biogas production falls due to reduced operating days, daily throughput and lower ambient temperatures. Our estimate is that in winter the CAL would operate at about 27oC, which still allows for excellent rates of treatment. We predict a ~10% reduction in biogas production to 3,550 m3/day of biogas at 70%v/v methane for the future off-peak season. We have provided a sensitivity analysis which provides an estimate of biogas production in peak and off-peak seasons for the forecast range of throughputs anticipated in the coming years. The uncertainty around any individual estimate of biogas production is approximately ±15%. It is worth noting that the raw wastewater is relatively weak in terms of organic content (avg COD of 5,500 mg/L) relative to other beef processing facilities in Australia where COD values are often higher (> 7,500 mg/L). This requires a compromise between COD loading and hydraulic retention time in the design. An estimate of BOD5 and nutrient levels in the final irrigated effluent at the ultimate throughput of 250,000 head/year is provided after taking into account the impact of higher flows and loads on the existing treatment system downstream of the new CAL.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 4 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2 Concept CAL Design ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Design Information & Assumptions ................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Design Requirement ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 CAL Sizing ...................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Biogas Train Sizing ........................................................................................................................ 11

3 Impact of Production and Seasonality on Biogas Production ........................................................ 13

3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Outcomes for Biogas Production .................................................................................................. 13

4 Downstream WWTP ................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Description of downstream system .............................................................................................. 15 4.2 Predicted RENOIR Pond effluent quality ...................................................................................... 15 4.3 Final treated effluent quality ........................................................................................................ 16

Appendix One – Wastewater Sampling Summary ............................................................................... 17

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Abbreviations

ADWF = average dry weather flow

BOD5 = biochemical oxygen demand (measured in 5 days at 20°C) (mg/L).

CAL = Covered Anaerobic Lagoon

CAPEX = capital cost

CH4 = methane

COD = chemical oxygen demand (mg/L)

DAF = dissolved air flotation

DS = dry solids (usually %)

EC = Electrical conductivity

EGSB = Expanded Granular Sludge Blanket reactor

HDPE = High Density Polyethylene

HRT = hydraulic retention time (days)

HSCW = hot standard carcass weight (tonne)

H2S = Hydrogen Sulphide

JEG = Johns Environmental Group Pty Ltd

ND = Not Determined

NH3-N = ammonia-nitrogen concentration (mg/L)

NO2-N = nitrite-nitrogen concentration (mg/L)

NO3-N = nitrate-nitrogen concentration (mg/L)

O&G = Oil and Grease (mg/L)

OLR = organic loading rate (usually kgCOD (or BOD)/m3.d)

TDS = Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)

TKN = Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L)

TN = Total Nitrogen concentration (mg/L)

TP = Total Phosphorus concentration (mg/L)

TSS = Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

UASB = Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactor

VFA = volatile fatty acids (mg/L as acetic acid)

WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

LIST of UNITS oC = degrees Celcius

CMH = cubic metres per hour (of gas)

CO2-e = carbon dioxide equivalents (usually tonne)

kg/m3.d = loading rate in kilograms per cubic metre per day

kPa = kiloPascals. Standard atmospheric pressure = 101.3 kPa.

kL/d = kilolitres (cubic metres) per day

mg/L = milligrams per litre = ppm.

ML = Megalitres (1,000 kL)

mmH2O = millimetres of water pressure.

Pa.g = Pascal, SI unit of pressure. “g” indicates “gauge pressure” – pressure above

atmospheric pressure base.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


1 Introduction

1.1 Scope of Work

Johns Environmental was engaged by Harvey Beef to provide a concept design of a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) to replace the existing naturally crusted anaerobic pond. The agreed scope of work was:

1. Provide Harvey Beef with a concept design for a greenfield covered anaerobic lagoon (CAL) at the Harvey site. The concept design would include the working volume of the CAL, approximate dimensions, estimated biogas production & methane content and recommended peak biogas flow. The design would allow subsequent preliminary costing of the design by others with input from us (not part of this scope).

The design report would also address the following specific issues raised by Harvey Beef:

Understand how the gas yield will vary with seasonal variation in livestock numbers (peak and off-peak seasons) and ambient temperature.

Ensure the calculation around gas yields and other key parameters are sufficiently transparent that the calculations can be followed to understand the level of uncertainty involved. This can then be used by Harvey Beef to calculate the uncertainty in payback calculations.

2. Design and assist Harvey Beef to conduct a wastewater sampling campaign with interpretation of the results by us to ensure that the CAL design is based on correct wastewater characterisation. This includes on-site assistance to ensure the sampling setup is appropriate and Harvey Beef personnel are trained and competent to perform the sampling.

In addition, Johns Environmental has reviewed the impact of the increased production on the downstream RENOIR and maturation ponds to provide an estimated final treated effluent quality for irrigation. This document summarises the findings of the work.

1.2 Background

The proposed increment in production at the Harvey Beef processing facility and issues with the existing anaerobic pond require the company to consider a replacement anaerobic technology to treat present and future wastewater. The wastewater is well suited to organic (COD) reduction by anaerobic treatment, although generally beef processing wastewater is not amenable to reliable treatment in modern high rate anaerobic reactors (UASB, EGSB, etc) typically employed by other industries. This is due to moderate levels of oil & grease and TSS which seriously affect high rate systems. Modern CAL designs have been installed successfully by Johns Environmental in Australian beef processing facilities since 2007 and have performed reliably to reduce COD levels, provide energy-rich biogas and largely eliminate greenhouse emissions due to the release of non-combusted methane-rich biogas. Harvey Beef is well suited to this technology and has sufficient area available. This report summarises a concept design for a CAL to replace the existing anaerobic pond and capable of treating wastewater from the current throughput and future expansion. The design is based on a successful sampling campaign undertaken by Harvey Beef in conjunction with Johns Environmental in late 2018 to obtain suitable characterisation of wastewater flows, composition and physical properties as a basis for the design.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


2 Concept CAL Design This section outlines the sizing and dimensions of our preferred design for Harvey Beef.

2.1 Design Information & Assumptions

The concept CAL design for the Harvey Beef meat processing facility is based on the following design information and assumptions:

Production: The CAL is sized to treat process and yards wastewater emitted from the facility for a throughput of 250,000 head/year over 6 days/week at peak season. The design assumes that there is at least one non-process day per week. Table 1 captures our understanding of the most recent forecast changes in production at the facility over the next few years. The CAL has been sized to ensure that it can operate satisfactorily at all throughput shown.

System integration: Figure 1 indicates the proposed integration of the proposed CAL with the existing treatment system. It is assumed that the existing anaerobic pond will be decommissioned once the new CAL comes up to specified performance. The CAL will treat the combined flows from:

o The existing saveall which comprises the bulk of flow. This unit appears to operate very effectively with respect to oil & grease and TSS removal at the current flows. For the concept design, no consideration of need to upgrade this unit for higher flows has been made.

o The yards flows. It has been assumed that the yards pond will remain for the foreseeable future (treating only yards flow).

Flow: Annual median process wastewater discharge of 2,600 litres/head/day at 833 head/day, 6 days/week peak season. This translates to 2.17 ML/production day and 13 ML/week. The same wastewater production metric per head was used for all production throughputs to estimate flow. In our experience, a double-shift beef processing operation may be more efficient than a single shift on this basis, but we have not taken this into account.

RENOIR bypass: The primary design is based on the continuation of a 10% bypass flow (same composition as CAL feed) to the RENOIR pond. This means that some potential biogas production is lost. However, some bypass is essential for nitrogen removal. The impact of this bypass on biogas has been modelled and is indicated later in this report.

CAL feed concentrations: These have been taken from the outcomes of the sampling campaign conducted in December 2018 (See Appendix 1). Design values are given in Table 2. The wastewater is weaker in terms of organic concentration (COD) than most integrated beef processing facilities in Australia, despite reasonably average wastewater volume generation by industry standards. There appears to be no inhibitory properties in the wastewater.

Temperature. The temperature of the wastewater discharge from the DAF was hot. The average temperature (in early summer) averaged 44oC. Yards wastewater was much cooler (average 25oC). Overall, we have assumed that the CAL will operate in the 35-38oC range during summer, reducing to an average of about 27oC in winter. These are based on actual performance data from other CALs (for beef processing plants) at a similar latitude to Harvey in Australia. The high wastewater temperature is a potential concern.

Climate data. Sourced from the Bureau of Metereology (BOM) stations Wokalup (009642) and Bunbury (009955).

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Table 1. Forecast Production incorporated into the CAL Design

Timeframe Head/year head/wk peak

kill shifts head/d peak

d/wk peak Sat d/wk off peak

FY 2019 163,000 3,650 1 670 5 300 4

FY 2020 170,000 4,140 1 690 6 0 4 fewer 4d weeks & more Sats

FY 2021 178,000 4,380 1 730 6 0

3,650 1 730 0 5 off-peak

FY 2022 189,000 4,380 1 730 6 0 longer peak period cf 2021

3,650 1 730 0 5 off-peak

FY 2023 195,000 4,998 1 833 6 0

4,165 1 833 0 5 off-peak

FINAL 250,000 4,998 1 833 6 0 OPTION 1 maintain year round

6,000 2 1,000 6 0 OPTION 2 peak

4,165 1 833 0 5 OPTION 2 off-peak

Notes to Table 1: 1. Typically a double-shift kill operation leads to improved water efficiencies per head. This has not been accounted for in the concept design (it would probably not

change biogas production much, but would improve treatment efficiency for a given CAL size).

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Figure 1. Wastewater treatment system process flow diagram

Harvey BeefLot 113 Seventh Street,Harvey, WA, 6220

Harvey Beef WWTP PFD Johns Environmental Pty LtdPh 07 3863 0051 PO Box 534

ASPLEY Q 4034Date: 1 February 2019

Dwg No: 91-002 Revision : AThis drawing © Johns Environmental 2019

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONNOT TO SCALE

WastewaterFrom Kill floor

PaunchBoning roomRendering Stormwater

EffluentTo Irrigation

CAL Renoir Pond 5

Pond 4

Pond 3 Pond 6

Contrashear

SaveallSaveall sump

EffluentTo Irrigation

WastewaterFrom Yards

Hardstand yardsTruck wash

Yards PondYards sump

F

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Table 2. Design Values for feed composition

Parameter Units Saveall Yards Design feed composition

Flows (late 2018) kL/d 1,450 250 1,700

pH - 7.0 7.3 7.0

Temp oC 44 25 41

EC µS/cm 1,600 2,300 1,700

TSS mg/L 1,000 800 1,000

O&G mg/L 350 15 320

BOD (filtered) mg/L 800 400 750

COD mg/L 6,000 2,000 5,500

2.2 Design Requirement

The primary performance criterion for the new CAL is to achieve long term average (52 weeks) of 85% minimum COD removal from the facility wastewater to maximise biogas production and ensure reasonable loading on the downstream RENOIR pond.

2.3 CAL Sizing

The concept CAL design is described below. The CAL is sized for the 833 head/day, 6 days/week final Option 1 at peak season, since this puts the largest organic load on the lagoon of all the various throughput forecasts.

CAL type: The design is a positive pressure CAL in which biogas may accumulate under the cover to pressures of 20 – 70 Pa. The biogas is then removed by a blower connected to a perimeter wall gas extraction system of suitable design. This allows a degree of biogas inventory to be held under the cover. If preferred, biogas could be stored in an adjacent biogas storage unit.

Working volume: 24.0 ML at a water level depth of 5.0 metres. This can be made more shallow, but at the cost of a larger footprint. We anticipate that the shallow groundwater table will dictate the degree to which the CAL can be constructed below natural ground level.

Freeboard: 1.0 metre. The high freeboard protects the biogas collection system from foam, crust and excessive working level and provides gas inventory.

CAL base to top of wall depth: 6.0 metres.

Preferred geometry: 69 m width & 110 m length (inside top of wall dimensions) at 2.5:1 H:V inner wall batter. Note that the geometry is relatively flexible both geometry and pond depth can be adjusted to fit the site and ground conditions within limits. The inner wall batter depends on site conditions and geotechnical advice.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


COD loading: 0.38 kg/m3/day with the BOD loading at about half that value. This is the design loading for the 833 head/day, 6 days/week final Option 1 at peak season (see Table 1) and assumes 10% bypass to the RENOIR. For this option, in winter (off-peak) the COD loading remains the same. These are relatively low loadings and are due to the reasonably low COD concentration in the raw wastewater feed to the CAL.

For comparison, the 2019 FY COD loadings are 0.28 kg/m3/day and 0.21 kg/m3/day for peak season and off-peak, respectively. All other throughput forecasts have loadings between these values.

Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT): 14.4 days at peak season for the 833 head/day, 6 days/week final Option 1 at peak season (see Table 1). This increases to 19.5 days (peak) and a long 27 days (off-peak) for the FY2019 throughput. The construction of this CAL and its commissioning at the lower loadings and longer HRTs associated with the lower throughputs for the years 2020/21 should make the commissioning of the CAL easier. The relatively small HRT is possible due to the near optimal temperatures for anaerobic activity in the CAL.

Cover & lining: The CAL would be covered with 2mm HDPE fixed by a perimeter anchor trench. Our preference is for a 1.5 mm HDPE liner on the walls and base.

Figure 2 indicates preliminary proposed siting assuming the CAL dimensions above. The very inner rectangle indicated represents the inside top of wall dimensions at 2.5:1 H:V inner wall batter. The second (and larger) rectangle represents the outer top of wall assuming a 5m wide top of wall width. This is the minimum commensurate with anchoring the CAL cover in an anchor trench. The largest rectangle represents the footprint assuming the CAL is 4m above natural ground level with an outer wall batter of 5:1 H:V. Based on these assumptions, the CAL has a total footprint of 160m x 119m. This is indicative only and will depend on site and groundwater conditions.

2.4 Biogas Train Sizing

Biogas production from the CAL will change significantly as the throughput increases along the forecast profile indicated in Table 1. The temperature and COD loading of the CAL also play a role. These factors are evaluated in Section 3. The sizing of the biogas train and flare has been done based on peak daily biogas production in peak season at 5,000 head/wk throughput (Option 1). For Option 1:

Our best estimate of biogas production in peak season (summer) is 168 m3 per hour (24/7) at a design methane level of 70%. This assumes that 10% of the total wastewater flow bypasses the CAL and goes directly to the RENOIR system. Section 3 below includes a sensitivity analysis with respect to this. This represents ~4,000 m3 biogas per 24 hours.

This is approximately 83 GJ/day of useful energy. A high efficiency (40%) gas engine could expect to produce about 385kW of electricity from this biogas.

Adding a standard peaking factor and accounting for the possibility of the CAL receiving 100% of the flow, it is recommended that the flare is sized for a peak biogas flow of 500 m3/h with good turndown capability.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Figure 2. Siting of CAL

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


We evaluated the impact of the cooler off-peak winter season on CAL biogas production and estimate that it may be approximately 10% less due to CAL cooling – reducing to 148 m3 per hour (24/7) during this time. This is due to bacterial kinetic response to temperature (i.e. they perform more slowly at cooler temperatures).

It should be noted that general experience in the meat industry is that some material may accumulate in the CAL during the cooler winter period, and then be digested during the warmer summer period leading to additional biogas in summer. The increase in biogas due to this effect is difficult to quantify with any accuracy.

3 Impact of Production and Seasonality on Biogas Production

3.1 Methodology

As part of this concept design, a sensitivity analysis has been performed to determine the impact of seasonality (through both reduced production and cooler CAL operating temperatures during off-peak seasons) on biogas production. Biogas production has been estimated as a fraction of the total COD removed in the CAL at a given operating temperature. The COD removal is the estimated by:

applying a first order kinetic equation incorporating a temperature-adjusted kinetic rate constant and the HRT of the CAL, and

adjusting it based on lengthy in-house experience with CAL operation in the red meat processing industry.

Harvey Beef have indicated (as per Table 1), that they plan on processing fewer animals in the winter off-peak season for some years/options. Accordingly, there will be two main factors impacting biogas production from the CAL in the off-peak season:

Fewer animals being processed will reduce the organic load to the CAL, which will in turn reduce the quantity of biogas produced, since less organic material is available to the bacteria for biogas production.

Lower air temperatures in winter will cool the water in the CAL, which slows the biochemical reactions, ultimately resulting in lower biogas production.

3.2 Outcomes for Biogas Production

The impact of each of these effects can be seen in Figure 3 below. The x-axis represents the different processing regimes that Harvey Beef are forecast to progress through as they approach their final goal of 5,000 head/week. The y-axis (biogas yield) is the estimated hourly biogas production. It is important to note that this is the 24/7 value – in other words it is the weekly biogas production divided by the total hours in a week (168). This smooths biogas production to a comparable value regardless of the operating profile of the facility (e.g. 4 or 5 days/week). Hence total peak season biogas production would be calculated as:

hourly biogas value (from Figure 3) * 168 * wks/peak season.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


For example, for the final Option 1, peak season biogas production is 168 m3/h (B – including 10% bypass). Assuming the peak season ran 12 weeks, total peak season biogas yield is: 168 * 168 * 12 = 338,688 m3 of biogas at avg 70% methane. For each production scenario, the biogas quantity (24/7 m3/h value) is given based on average biogas yield for peak processing at summer temperatures with 90% of the wastewater flow going to the CAL. This is the most realistic value for peak season. The values are tabulated below.

Figure 3. Predicted biogas generation under production scenarios

Table 3. Estimated biogas generation (m3/hr 7 day basis)

Year Average Biogas Yield Peak season (m3/hr 7db)

2019 124

2023 146

Final Option 1 168

Final Option 2 195

As expected, biogas production increases steadily as Harvey Beef process greater numbers of animals in the different operating regimes. The ‘Final Option 1’ operating regime is expected to produce approximately 30% more biogas than the 2019 regime. It is important that Harvey Beef consider this variability when calculating power generation from biogas or designing any biogas combustion systems. It is challenging to give an accuracy of these biogas estimates due to the complexity of the biological process and the day-day variability in wastewater composition. Our opinion is that these average biogas (24/7) yields are ± 15% accounting for these uncertainties. Note that actual daily biogas production will vary far more – more being generated on production days, and less on Sundays and Mondays. The inventory of biogas under the cover typically assists in smoothing this variability in practice.

250

200

-~ ... .... ~ .s 150

JI -.SI > 100 ~ ... ,Q a, so

0 ' ' ' ' 2019 2023 Fina l 1 Fina l 2

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


4 Downstream WWTP

4.1 Description of downstream system

The effluent produced by the new CAL will be further treated in the series of ponds existing downstream before being irrigated. Figure 1 shows the layout of these ponds. All effluent from the CAL will pass through the downstream RENOIR aerated pond, where the effluent is mixed and aerated to allow for further COD and nitrogen removal. Approximately 10% of the raw wastewater is fed to this pond to fuel microbial denitrification reactions. The effluent then passes through a series of four maturation ponds, which enact some additional treatment including nitrogen removal. Treated effluent is irrigated from either Pond 3 or Pond 6.

4.2 Predicted RENOIR Pond effluent quality

The growth in production will increase both the flow and loads of COD and nutrients on the RENOIR aerated pond. The pond has been in service almost 15 years and has performed reliably. Johns Environmental have rerun the design to estimate performance at the 250,000 head/year throughput (Table 4). The quality given in Table 4 is our best estimate subject to good operation of the pond and regular raw feed to guarantee sufficient denitrification. Note that a higher total phosphorus concentration into the RENOIR pond was used to estimate effluent quality. The value from the sampling campaign (Appendix 1) appears to be unaccountably low. The existing pond will benefit from augmentation to ensure compliance with the final effluent specifications as production increases through the period outlined in Table 1. In particular, it is probable that biological sludge production will increase considerably in the RENOIR due to the increase in COD load. For that reason, it is recommended that a there is an upgrade to a suitable mechanical waste sludge dewatering system to actively manage the quantity of waste sludge as it becomes necessary. For phosphorus control, the provision of an appropriate chemical dosing system into the RENOIR pond may be required to obtain the final 5 – 10 mg/L of phosphorus removal necessary for compliance. The precipitated phosphorus can then be extracted via the sludge dewatering system. Due to the versatility of the RENOIR pond, other improvements can be considered if required to ensure compliance.

Table 4. Estimated quality from RENOIR pond

Parameter Median concentration (mg/L)

Max concentration (mg/L)

BOD5 30 - 50 ~ 100

Total nitrogen 75 ~ 100

Total phosphorus 20 40

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


4.3 Final treated effluent quality

Table 5 provides our best estimate of final treated effluent concentrations to irrigation at 250,000 head/year production. This assumes that the existing maturation ponds (Ponds 3 – 6) are retained. The BOD5 concentration will be sufficiently low to ensure that the irrigated water has no offensive odour. The concentrations in Table 5 are unfiltered samples. In maturation ponds, this value can be increased by contributions due to seasonal algal growth, which has no detrimental impact on irrigated pasture or crops. Some further reduction in total nitrogen in the downstream ponds post-RENOIR is assumed, since this feature is seen in the existing operation. This is probably due in part to ammonia volatilisation. The RENOIR is designed to generate an effluent where ammonia is the major form of nitrogen present in the treated effluent, since this is the most beneficial form for pasture. The total phosphorus in the treated effluent is almost entirely in the inorganic phosphate form. No further reduction in TP concentration is assumed in the maturation ponds.

Table 5. Final treated effluent quality to Irrigation

Parameter Median concentration (mg/L)

Max concentration (mg/L)

BOD5 20 – 30 ~70

Total nitrogen 50 ~70

Total phosphorus 20 ~40

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Appendix One – Wastewater Sampling Summary



Harvey Beef Wastewater Sampling Summary Johns Environmental 20 February 2019 Johns Environmental were engaged by Harvey Beef to develop a sampling regime of their wastewater, to ultimately inform the concept design of a new Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL). This report summarises the wastewater flow and quality data for the site, sourced from files provided by Harvey Beef personnel and from the sampling regime.

Flow Wastewater flow data was sourced from a number of files provided by Harvey personnel, including Saveall Flow Meter Readings.xlsx, Flowmeter Recordings.xlsx and HB Flowrate Table 6 Dec 18. The two major flows to a new CAL would be the saveall effluent and the yards flow. Data from May 2018 to November 2018 was used to generate Table 1 below:

Table 1. Median flow values from May 2018 to November 2018

Parameter Units Value Source Kill throughput head/day 650 Recorded Total water usage L/head 2,600 Calculated by HB kL/day 1,700 Calculated by JEG Saveall wastewater flow kL/day 1,450 Flowmeter Yards wastewater flow kL/day 250 Calculated by JEG

The total water usage daily flow was calculated from the daily kill throughput and the recorded water usage metric. The yards flow was calculated as the difference between the total water usage and the flow of wastewater through the saveall. This equates water usage (i.e. into the plant) with total dry weather wastewater flow to the existing anaerobic pond/Renoir pond. In most modern Australian beef processing facilities, the fraction of total wastewater to water in is in the range 90 – 100%. Hourly flow data for the saveall effluent was recorded for the week of 5 – 11 December. This is graphed below in Figure 1 and indicates the wastewater production profile for processing days. There is relatively

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL

Harvey Beef wastewater sampling summary P a g e | 2 20 February 2019

little day – day variation. This pattern conforms to that seen at other Australian beef processing sites. The sum of the hourly flow data for each 24 hour period resulted in total daily saveall flow values that agreed well with the average for the total daily flows recorded over the May – November 2018 period.

Figure 1. Hourly saveall flowrates for 5th to 11th December 2018

Quality Wastewater quality data was sourced from laboratory reports from ARL, who analysed the wastewater samples collected by Ashleigh Evans from Harvey Beef. The wastewater samples produced by the facility were as follows:

• Saveall effluent (production hours – sampled 8am, 10am, 12pm and 4pm); • Saveall effluent (cleaning hours – sampled 8pm, 10pm, 1am and 3am); and • Yards pond effluent

The saveall effluent samples were collected by autosampler to generate a single composited sample for each day. Due to challenges finding a safe and suitable sampling point for the autosampler, the yards pond samples were collected and composited manually. The averaged results are provided in Table 2. The average concentration values for the “ex saveall (combined)” column in Table 2 is calculated from the sum of the mass loads in the production and cleaning streams. The full data set is provided in Appendix A. Overall the results look authentic, but the concentrations typically on the dilute side relative to integrated beef meat plants in Australia - perhaps reflecting the high per head water usage (~ 2,600 L/head). The laboratory results revealed that the composition of the saveall effluent samples from the production and cleaning periods of the production day was reasonably similar (Table 2). The COD concentration is of critical importance for predicting biogas output and CAL design. Appendix A, Table 3 lists COD data for the saveall effluent (production period). A single high result (15,000 mg/l) stands out from the remaining 4 results. The cause of this event was not determined and lifts the average in Table 2 significantly. It is not unusual to see COD values of this level occasionally. Nevertheless, we will perform sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of a lower overall COD on the design as a precaution. For other sample points, COD variation was within the expected range.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00

Save

all F

low

rate

(kL/

hr) 5-Dec-18

6-Dec-18

7-Dec-18

8-Dec-18

10-Dec-18

11-Dec-18

average

• • A

X

• +

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Table 2 . Wastewater composition data (average values) from sampling regime Nov & Dec 2018

Parameter Units Ex Saveall (production)

Ex Saveall (clean)

Ex Saveall (combined)

By calculation

Ex Yards pond

pH (on-site) N/A 6.8 7.2 7.0 7.3 Temp (on-site) oC 45.4 40.6 44.0 25 EC (on-site) µS/cm 1,700 1,460 1,625 2,300 TSS mg/L 1,275 960 1,175 800 O&G mg/L 283 466 350 15 fBOD mg/L 672 1,042 790 400 COD mg/L 6,400 5,200 6,000 2,000 NOx mg/L 0 0 0 0 TN mg/L 180 225 200 200 TP mg/L 12.0 7.0 10.0 18 Cl mg/L 234 242 240 - SO4 mg/L 30 26 28 - Co mg/L ND ND ND - Cu mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.02 - Ni mg/L ND ND ND - Zn mg/L 0.3 0.2 0.2 - These wastewater flow and quality values will form the design basis for the concept design of the new CAL by Johns Environmental.

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Document Management Job No. 91100 Author: Louis Fredheim QA: Mike Johns This Version Final Date Issued: 20 February 2019 Filename Harvey Beef wastewater sampling summary Feb 19.docx Sub-consultants None This report has been developed by Johns Environmental and has been generated solely for the use of Harvey Beef. No liability is accepted by Johns Environmental, or any employee, for the use of the report by third parties without prior written approval. 2019 Johns Environmental

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL


Appendix A – Wastewater Quality Data Tables 3 to 5 below summarise the wastewater quality data of the samples collected by Harvey Beef and analysed by ARL. Table 3. Saveall outlet composition (production hours – daily composites)

Date pH EC TSS O&G fBOD COD NOx TN TP Cl SO4 Co Cu Ni Zn Sample ID µS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

3/12/2018 Mon 6.7 1,400 1,100 210 880 4,900 0.18 170 15 210 36 0 0.04 0 0.44 ARL 18-18096 4/12/2018 Tue 6.6 1,900 1,800 870 670 15,000 0.30 220 12 230 0 0 0.02 0 0.21 ARL 18-18252 6/12/2018 Thu 6.7 1,800 1,400 140 600 3,600 0.02 200 9 240 33 0 0.02 0 0.30 ARL 18-18354

10/12/2018 Mon 6.7 1,700 140 75 490 4,700 0 160 10 250 49 0 0.02 0 0.15 ARL 18-18481 11/12/2018 Tue 6.7 1,700 800 120 720 3,800 0 150 14 240 30 0 0.02 0 0.19 ARL 18-18585

Table 4. Saveall outlet composition (non-production hours – daily composites)

Date pH EC TSS O&G fBOD COD NOx TN TP Cl SO4 Co Cu Ni Zn Sample ID µS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

3/12/2018 Mon 7.3 1,400 700 110 1,100 5,500 0.58 190 5.3 240 30 0 0.04 0 0.20 ARL 18-18096 4/12/2018 Tue 6.3 1,600 920 1,200 1,100 5,400 0.19 230 6.4 250 0 0 0.02 0 0.13 ARL 18-18252 6/12/2018 Thu 6.6 1,300 920 330 620 3,000 0.18 190 8 210 29 0 0.02 0 0.19 ARL 18-18354

10/12/2018 Mon 6.6 1,600 860 330 790 5,200 0 200 7 250 46 0 0.01 0 0.12 ARL 18-18481 11/12/2018 Tue 6.3 1,400 1,400 360 1,600 6,900 0 320 8.1 260 24 0 0.01 0 0.20 ARL 18-18585

Table 5. Yards pond outlet composition

Date pH EC TSS O&G fBOD COD NOx TN TP Sample ID µS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

13/11/2018 Tues 7.2 1,900 1,200 31 350 2,200 0.09 200 21 ARL 18-17048 17/12/2018 Mon 7.3 2,700 450 20 440 1,800 0 220 16 ARL 18-18956 18/12/2018 Tue 7.2 2,300 1,700 10 380 2,600 0.01 210 22 ARL 18-19046 19/12/2018 Wed 7.5 2,400 390 8 390 1,800 0 190 17 ARL 18-19118 20/12/2019 Thur 7.3 2,200 300 10 350 1,500 0 160 15 ARL 18-19207



Appendices

Appendix B: CAL Construction Quality Assurance Plan

MEATENG

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN

For the construction of a new Covered Anaerobic Lagoon

for

Harvey Beef Abattoir

113 Seventh Street.

Harvey, WA, 6220

Ref: 347 039

2nd of July, 2019

Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP)

Proposed Covered Anaerobic Lagoon

347 039 Harvey Beef, WA

2nd July, 2019 MEATENG

File Path: S:\SITES\Harvey Beef (E G Greens)\347 035 Covered Anaerobic Lagoon\00 Authorities\DWER Application\CQAP - Const Quality

Assurance Plan\Harvey - CAL Construction Quality Assurance Plan 190702.docx

This document has been prepared by:

MEATENG

653 Riversdale Road,

Camberwell, Victoria, 3124.

AUSTRALIA

Telephone: +61 3 9836 6688

Facsimile: +61 3 9830 1849

ACN: 136 476 698

This document is and shall remain the property of Meateng Pty. Ltd. The document may only be used for the

purposes for which it was commissioned and not to be used or copied without the written authorisation of

Meateng Pty. Ltd.

Document revision status:

Rev Status of Document Issued Prepared by Issued to

1 Draft for Internal Review 19 Jun 19 P. Thompson (Meateng) J. Downes (Meateng)

S. Harvey (Meateng)

2 Final Document Issued 02 Jul 19 P. Thompson (Meateng) P. Jansen (KASA consulting)





Harvey - CAL Construction Quality Assurance Plan 190702 (i)

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Location.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Purpose of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan ................................................................. 2

1.4 Scope of Works ......................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Specifications and Design Drawings .......................................................................................... 3

2. Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 CQAP Compliance & Independent Testing................................................................................. 4

3. Inspection, Testing and Verification .............................................................................................. 5

3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Contractor Responsibility .......................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Inspection Activities .................................................................................................................. 6

3.4 Inspection Test Plans ................................................................................................................ 6

3.5 Testing, Monitoring, Verification and Certification .................................................................... 7

3.6 Documentation......................................................................................................................... 7

4. Construction Quality Assurance Parameters ................................................................................. 8

4.1 Earthworks - Preconstruction.................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Earthworks - Compacted Fill ..................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Earthworks – Subsoil Drainage System (if required) ................................................................ 10

4.4 Geofabric Underlay ................................................................................................................. 10

4.5 Geomembrane Liner & Cover ................................................................................................. 10

4.6 Wastewater Pipework ............................................................................................................ 11

4.7 Biogas Flare Installation .......................................................................................................... 12

5. Hold Points ................................................................................................................................. 12

6. Non-conformance Reports .......................................................................................................... 13

7. Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 14

8. Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix A: Example ITP document ................................................................................................. 15

Appendix B: Non-Conformance Report Template ............................................................................. 16





Harvey - CAL Construction Quality Assurance Plan 190702 (ii)

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1 Location Plan for Harvey Beef Processing Facility ........................................................... 1

Table 1 Roles and Responsibilities of Roles of Key Personnel ....................................................... 4

Table 2 Technical Qualifications of CQAP certifiers ...................................................................... 5

Table 3 CQA Parameters – Preconstruction ................................................................................. 8

Table 4 CQA Parameters – Compacted Fill ................................................................................... 9

Table 5 CQA Parameters – Subsoil Drainage System .................................................................. 10

Table 6 CQA Parameters – Geofabric Underlay .......................................................................... 10

Table 7 CQA Parameters – HDPE Liner & Cover ......................................................................... 11

Table 8 CQA Parameters – Wastewater Pipework ..................................................................... 11

Table 9 CQA Parameters – Biogas Flare and Pipework ............................................................... 12

Table 10 Hold Points ................................................................................................................... 13

List of Abbreviations

• CAL Covered Aerobic Lagoon

• CQA Construction Quality Assurance

• CQAP Construction Quality Assurance Plan

• DWER Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

• EPCM Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Management

• GHG Greenhouse Gas

• GTA Geotechnical Testing Authority, Level 1 Supervisor

• HDPE High Density Polyethylene

• HIG Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd

• HP Hold Point

• JEPL Johns Environmental Group Pty Ltd

• NCR Non-Conformance Report

• SOW Scope of Works

• WQPN Water Quality Protection Notice





Harvey - CAL Construction Quality Assurance Plan 190702 Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Location

This Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP) has been prepared for the design and construction of

a Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) at Harvey Beef processing plant, Harvey Western Australia. The

plant is located approximately 2km west of the township of Harvey and 140km south of Perth.

Figure 1 Location Plan for Harvey Beef Processing Facility

The proposed works are to upgrade the existing on-site wastewater treatment system with the

inclusion of a new Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL). The new CAL will be located approximately 175m

to the north-west of the processing facility, as shown in figure 1 above, in a paddock adjacent to

Eighth Street and approximately 250m to the closest northern property boundary.

This CQAP provides details of construction quality requirements that will be undertaken during the

construction phase.






1.2 Project Background

The Harvey Beef processing facility currently is licensed by the Department of Water and

Environmental Regulation (DWER) to process up to 170,000 head of cattle a year. The facility produces

beef, hides and rendered product for both the domestic and export markets.

As part of the proposed works, HIG also anticipate increasing plant throughput to 250,000 cattle per

year.

The new CAL will be designed for the increased throughput, be based on a turkey-nest design and

retain 24ML of wastewater for biological treatment prior to discharge for pasture irrigation. The pond

will have a HDPE liner to minimise environmental risk and any potential leakage to surface and ground

water.

The proposed upgrade will include a HDPE cover to capture the released biogas (primarily methane),

that would otherwise go to atmosphere. The recovered biogas will then be used in a steam boiler or

on-site flare, significantly reducing the impact on GHG emissions.

Overall the proposed CAL will deliver an improved environmental outcome for irrigation and

significantly reduce the emissions of CO2-e emitted from the facility.

This CQAP refers specifically to the construction of the proposed CAL including general earthworks,

installation of geomembrane liner, biogas flare, pipework and associated equipment.

1.3 Purpose of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan

The purpose of this CQAP is to provide an overview and framework of the controls that will be

implemented to ensure a high quality of construction by verifying that works are completed in

accordance with the project and process engineering design, specifications and detailed drawings. The

design and CQA parameters will be consistent with the following DWER guidelines:

• WQPN 26, “Liners for containing pollutants, using synthetic membranes”, August 2013.

• WQPN 39, “Ponds for stabilising organic matter”, February 2009.

This CQAP provides definition and outlines the quality management approach that is to be adhered to

by the project consultants and contractors involved with the construction works. Quality assurance

will be validated through the integrated system of quality assurance procedures detailed in this plan.

This CQAP details milestone and hold points for main construction activities, including;

• Soil Drainage;

• Earthworks & Compacted fill;

• Geotech Underlay, Liner & Covers;

• Wastewater pipework.






It is noted that further detailed inspection and test procedures (ITPs) will be developed by each

contractor for approval by the Project Manager, prior to any site works. The ITPs will cover the

construction of the CAL and other associated works including installation of wastewater pits, pumps,

biogas flare & gas train etc.

The records and documentation of construction activities as outlined in this CQAP will provide

evidence that construction was performed according to the design specifications and industry

standards.

The CQAP provides a methodology to ensure the construction works are ultimately delivered fit-for-

purpose. Other construction management systems for environmental and work health and safety

management, are important but do not form part of the CQAP and are to be addressed separately.

1.4 Scope of Works

The wastewater treatment system upgrade will consist of the construction of:

a) A 24ML covered anaerobic lagoon;

o General earthworks, erosion and sediment control measures and associated drainage

o Installation of Geofabric underlay

o Installation of 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane base liner

o Installation of 2.0 mm thick DHPE geomembrane cover

o Stormwater/rainwater removal system

o Biogas pressure emergency vent and take-off pipework

b) Associated wastewater pits, pumps & pipework,

c) An enclosed biogas flare;

d) Pipework and gas train to feed the biogas to an existing steam boiler;

e) Associated electrical controls.

All site activities will be managed by the Project Manager to ensure work is undertaken and complies

with CQAP systems and controls.

1.5 Specifications and Design Drawings

Johns Environmental (JEPL) has prepared the process engineering design for the CAL and upgrade of

the wastewater system. In regard to construction, refer to Johns Environmental report ‘Sizing of the

Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) for Harvey Beef’, dated 25 June 2019.

Meateng, have been engaged to provide engineering service to Harvey Beef and as an EPCM provider,

will undertake the overall project management and construction supervision and quality control for

the site works.






Douglas Partners have already carried out Geotechnical investigation of the preferred site and will be

providing supplementary geotechnical and civil advice. Other consultants will be engaged during the

design phase of the project, to provide other design services such as the detail civil design, hydraulic

design and electrical engineering drawings etc.

The construction quality ITP’s are to be read in conjunction with the technical specification and design

drawings for the works. The CQAP and ITP’s are support documents and do not replace the

specifications or drawings.

2. Roles and Responsibilities

2.1 Overview

This section describes and documents the roles and responsibilities of the key personnel who will be

involved in the design, supervision of the construction including the approval and implementation of

the CQAP. The table below identifies the roles and responsibilities of Key Personnel.

Table 1 Roles and Responsibilities of Roles of Key Personnel

Company Contact Role in Activity Responsibility in Activity

Harvey Beef Wayne Shaw Client representative HIG General Manager

Harvey Beef Shonn Dolphin Client representative HIG Project Engineer

Meateng Stephen Harvey Design Oversight Review of Design & Specifications

Meateng Peter Thompson Project Manager Project Manager, CQAP implementation

Johns Environmental

Mike Johns Technical Process Designer

Process Design, Certification, Training and Commissioning

Johns Environmental

Louis Fredheim Technical Process Designers

Process Design, Certification, Training and Commissioning

Selected contractors will be contracted to provide labour, material and equipment to construct the

project in accordance with the design plans and specifications. As such, each contractor will be

responsible for controlling the quality of their own work via procurement controls, inspections and

tests to achieve the required standards of quality and documented as per CQAP requirements.

2.2 CQAP Compliance & Independent Testing

During site works, Meateng will oversee CQAP implementation and compliance of construction works

in general. Expertise from other third-party specialists will combine to provide an overall verification

of quality to project specifications.






A Geotechnical Level 1 Supervisor will be engaged for continual inspection and testing of earthworks

during subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of fill to ensure that work will be to a high

standard and that AS3798-2007: Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential

developments is followed. A report will be issued upon completion of the earthworks providing a

summary of on-site test results and a comparison to the design earthworks Specifications.

To provide additional assurance on project implementation, it is proposed that ExcelPlas undertake

independent quality assurance and reporting of earthworks surface preparation, confirmation of liner

weld integrity, lab testing of samples and checking of geomembrane installation to ensure the works

are fit for purpose.

Johns Environmental (JEPL) will be responsible for the initial seeding of the CAL, commissioning

activities, training of relevant personnel and monitoring of CAL performance. JEPL will take a leading

role during the commissioning phase and verify particular CQAP requirements for successful

completion of the project.

The table below summarises the Technical Qualifications of key persons who will be certifying the

Works for CQAP compliance.

Table 2 Technical Qualifications of CQAP certifiers

Personnel Company Technical Qualification

Peter Thompson Meateng Master of Business Administration, Grad Dip Business Administration, Grad Dip Project Management

TBA GTA (yet to be engaged) Certified Geotechnical Level 1 Supervisor

TBA ExcelPlas Suitable NATA accreditation

TBA Gas Inspector (yet to be engaged)

Certified Gas Inspector for type B appliances

Mike Johns Johns Environmental BTech (Hons) and PhD in Biochemical Engineering

Louis Fredheim Johns Environmental Bachelor's Degree (Hons), Chemical and Environmental Engineering

3. Inspection, Testing and Verification

3.1 Overview

This section outlines the methodology that will be used to confirm that the construction works meets

the design criteria as specified in the design Drawings and Specifications. This section describes the

specific QA parameters for inspection, testing and verification.






3.2 Contractor Responsibility

Each contractor is responsible for the quality of their work and health and safety of their site

personnel. During the construction of earthworks, HIG will engage a qualified Level 1 Supervisor on

site to ensure earthworks are conducted in accordance with the design requirements. Contractors for

other construction work will be supervised by project engineers from Meateng and Johns

Environmental.

3.3 Inspection Activities

Sufficient inspections, independent sampling and testing, and monitoring activities will be performed

to ensure compliance with the specifications. The results of these inspections, sampling and testing,

and monitoring activities will be documented in a variety of appropriate methods such as:

a) Photos;

b) Reports;

c) Check sheets; and

d) Inspection and Test Plans (ITP’s).

Checklists typically contain the details of inspection and the ITP specifies when the inspection is to be

performed. An ITP may refer to different checklists for each inspection point, or it may refer to a code

or standard that sets out the requirements for what and how the check must be performed. See the

section below on ITP’s.

Any work found not to be in accordance with the specification will be immediately brought to the

attention of the Project Manager representative for correction and annotated on the “Non

Conformance Report,” with the corrective action taken.

3.4 Inspection Test Plans

Examples of an ITP has been attached to this document as Appendix A.

The ITP document describes in detail: by whom, when and how a particular works element will be

inspected or tested. The purpose of the ITP is to plan and document the procedure and sequence that

will be implemented and adhered to during construction in order to ensure conformity with the design

and specifications and provide evidence that the works have been conducted as such.

Items to be specified in an ITP are:

a) The work element that will be checked/inspected/tested (e.g. soil compaction, pump capacity,

liner & cover installation/integrity, pipework etc.);

b) The performance specification or document that requires this item to be checked (usually it is

the contract or document specification);

c) The reference document that according to design quality assurance controls an item will be

inspected/tested (an industry standard or a statutory requirement);

http://marketplace.qualityinconstruction.com/products/inspection-and-test-plan-template-itp

http://marketplace.qualityinconstruction.com/products/inspection-and-test-plan-template-itp






d) The type of inspection and test that needs to be performed (visual inspection, document

approval etc.);

e) The frequency that this inspection and test needs to be performed (e.g. for concrete slump

test: once for every batch, or hydraulic/electrical loads and capacity testing);

f) The objective criteria/tolerance parameters that will determine if the inspection/test for that

item has passed;

g) Documents that will be prepared and filed as a record of pass (usually a signed-off check sheet

by a suitably qualified person); and

h) The responsibilities of each party involved in the project (Client, Contractor’s Representatives).

Throughout construction all civil, electrical, hydraulic and biogas works will be regularly inspected and

verified at points indicated on the ITPs.

3.5 Testing, Monitoring, Verification and Certification

For independent testing and reporting on civil earthworks, refer to section 2.2 above.

The supplier and installer of geomembrane material will be required to provide material data sheets

and certificate of conformance, along with completed ITP’s that have been verified by the appropriate

person.

For independent testing, verification and reporting on geomembrane installation, refer to section 2.2

above.

Design of associated electrical works will be undertaken by an electrical engineer and installed by A-

Grade electricians in accordance with the relevant Electrical Australian Standards. All installed

electrical works will have electrical safety certificates issued certifying that electrical work complies to

regulatory requirements, has been checked, tested and is safe to operate.

Hydraulic design of associated pipework and selection of pumps will be provided by hydraulic

engineers in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards. Upon completion and inspection of

the hydraulic works a report will be provided certifying the works have been completed in accordance

with the hydraulic Specifications.

The biogas pipe system, from CAL to combustion plant, will be designed and commissioned by

qualified engineers and technicians. Installation of pipework will be carried out, tested and

commissioned by a licensed gas fitter. A gas inspector designated by the Department of Commerce

and Energy Safety Division will inspect the installation and issue a certification of compliance that the

installation complies with all relevant Australian Standards and regulations.

3.6 Documentation

During construction each Contractor will be responsible for their own Quality Control, including daily

checks and testing. However, the Project Manager and relevant Engineer(s) will provide Quality

Assurance and oversight of the Contractor’s Quality Control procedures.






The Project Manager or representative will document the results of the quality assurance inspections

and testing and monitoring activities on a weekly basis for submitting to Meateng for project records.

Throughout the construction phase of the project, the following documentation will be compiled as a

record of construction conformance to specifications.

• Third-party reports;

• Site construction reports and photos;

• Certificates of material conformance;

• Summary of test results;

• Completed ITP’s and associated documents;

• Any non-conformance documentation

• Certificates of compliance;

• As-built drawings;

All documentation will be audited by the Project Manager and records kept by Meateng on behalf of

the client.

4. Construction Quality Assurance Parameters

4.1 Earthworks - Preconstruction

The following parameters outlined in the table below shall be checked to ensure that the site is ready

for bulk earthwork construction.

Table 3 CQA Parameters – Preconstruction

Item Parameter Frequency Responsibility

1. Review dewatering requirements and if required engage appropriate contractor and monitor progress.

Prior to mobilizing on site Project Manager

Contractor

2. Meet with the earthworks contractor to review, plans and specifications, construction planning and tasks, and CQAP / ITP documentation.

During site mobilization Project Manager

[HP]

3. Review measures for:

stockpile leachate control, surface and storm water control and storm water diversion, erosion control measures, pumping locations, storm water retention, and discharge requirements.

Prior to commencing site works

During Construction

Project Manager

Earthworks Contractor

[HP]

4. Review site benchmarks for location and methods for maintaining vertical and horizontal control.

Prior to commencing site excavation

Project Manager

Contractor

[HP]






4.2 Earthworks - Compacted Fill

The following parameters outlined in the table below shall be checked to ensure that the compacted

material has been constructed to meet the requirements of the Geotechnical report, Specification and

civil drawings.

Table 4 CQA Parameters – Compacted Fill


1. At the completion of stripping, the foundation shall be prepared in accordance with the geotechnical report and inspected by the Geotech Level 1 Supervisor.

Prior to placement of filling GTA

2. Density testing should be undertaken at a frequency not less than presented in AS3798

At the completion of each layer GTA

3. Testing of proposed soil material for compliance with the specified requirements.

Prior to use within dam walls. Contractor, Level 1

[HP]

4. Mixing of soil to ensure clods are broken up and material is free of rocks and debris.

Prior to placement of soil for compaction.

GTA

5. Material being placed is of sufficient moisture content to meet the specified requirements.

Prior to placement of soil for compaction.

GTA

6. Material is being compacted with approved compaction equipment and each layer thickness does not exceed 250 mm nominal

compacted thickness.

During construction. GTA

7. Material being placed is being compacted to meet the specified density requirements.


8. Prior to the installation of a subsequent layer the previous layer has been sufficiently scarified and there are no laminations between layers of material.

During construction. Level 1 – GTA

9. Ensure the new compacted material has been keyed-in to an adjacent existing material.


10. In-situ compacted material has been installed to achieve the specified maximum dry density requirements.


11. Finished compacted surface is smooth with no significant cracking.

Upon completion of compaction works.

GTA

[HP]

12. Review of survey information and tolerances. Prior to survey works. Contractor, Project Engineer

13. Survey of construction works by licensed surveyor.

Upon completion of works. Contractor

[HP]






4.3 Earthworks – Subsoil Drainage System (if required)

The following parameters shall be checked to ensure that any subgrade and subsoil drainage system

have been constructed to meet the requirements of the Specification and civil drawings.

Table 5 CQA Parameters – Subsoil Drainage System


1. Inspection of subsoil drainage trench and grid alignment.

Prior to and during installation of subsoil drainage system.

Contractor, GTA Project Manager

2. Inspection of subsoil drainage system construction, ie. gradient, straightness and anchorage etc.

During installation of subsoil drainage system.


[HP]

3. Inspection of drainage sump location and construction.

Prior to and during installation of groundwater sump.

Contractor, GTA

4. Inspection of subgrade surface for soft spots and for shape and grading of surface.

Prior to installation of compacted subgrade base.


6. Review of survey information. Prior to installation of geofabric liner.

Contractor

7. Survey of subgrade surface and subsoil drainage system by surveyor (if required)

Prior to installation of geofabric liner.

Contractor, GTA

4.4 Geofabric Underlay

The following parameters shall be checked to ensure that the geofabric underlay has been installed to

meet the requirements of the Specification and Drawings.

Table 6 CQA Parameters – Geofabric Underlay


1. Submission of manufacturer’s QA

documentation.

Prior to lining works commencing and as per Technical Specification.

Geomembrane Supplier

2. Inspection of finished clay surface to be lined. Prior to installation works commencing.

GTA


[HP]

3. Inspection of installed underlay to meet the specified requirements.

All sheets as being installed. Contractor

[HP]

4.5 Geomembrane Liner & Cover

The following parameters shall be checked to ensure that the HDPE Liner & Cover has been installed to

meet the requirements of the Specification and Drawings.






Table 7 CQA Parameters – HDPE Liner & Cover


1. Submission of manufacturer’s QA documentation.

Prior to lining & cover works commencing and as per Technical Specification.


2. Inspection and identification of HDPE material surface for defects or damage.

During and after installation, entire placed surface to be inspected.


3. Inspection of panel overlap to meet the specified requirements. Every seam to be fully welded to quality specifications.

All panels and seams Geomembrane Supplier

[HP]

4. All defects and damage to the HDPE panels

shall be repaired as per the specified requirements. Each repair shall be recorded.

All defects. Geomembrane Supplier

5. All HDPE panels shall be installed during specified weather conditions.

All panels. Geomembrane Supplier

6. The liner and cover material shall be secured in approved anchor trenches.

In all areas indicated on the drawings.


4.6 Wastewater Pipework

The following parameters shall be checked to ensure that the Wastewater pipework system has been

constructed to meet the requirements of the Specification and Drawings.

Table 8 CQA Parameters – Wastewater Pipework


1. Inspection of pipe type and size. All pipes. Plumber

Hydraulic Engineers

2. Setout of pipe route by licensed surveyor Prior to piping installation. Surveyor

[HP]

3. Inspection of piping alignment and spacing. During installation and prior to connecting.

Plumber

4. Inspection of pipe welding and jointing. During installation. Plumber

[H]

5. Inspection of installed pipework system. After installation. Hydraulic Engineers

Project Manager

[HP]






4.7 Biogas Flare Installation

The following parameters shall be checked to ensure that the biogas flare has been installed to meet

the specification and state regulations.

Table 9 CQA Parameters – Biogas Flare and Pipework


1. Setout of foundation and hold down bolts During installation of the foundation slab.

Project Engineer

[HP]

2. Inspection for correct installation of the Flare skid and stack

After installation Flare Supplier

3. Inspection of pressure intensifier (if required) During installation Project Engineer

4. Inspection of pressure relief assembly During installation Project Engineer

5. Inspect welding and jointing of installed gas piping.

During installation Gas fitter

Project Engineer

[HP]

5. Hold Points

Hold points will be implemented during the construction process, beyond which work must not

proceed without authorisation by the appropriate suitably qualified person(s). These apply to critical

aspects of the Works that cannot be inspected or corrected at a later stage because they will no longer

be accessible. A variety of ‘witness points’ are also required when review, observation, inspection or

undertaken tests on any component, method or process of work, although these do not require a hold

on further works (e.g. pipe joints in backfilled trenching).

Hold points and witness points will be nominated in relevant work sections of technical specifications.

HIG and its nominated representative(s) will arrange for site inspections at appropriate stages to

support approvals at hold and witness points as defined on the ITPs.

Hold Points will be used where:

a) There is a need to put a hold on construction activities until an inspection and tests have

passed;

b) Work cannot be inspected later because a problem could be covered up;

c) Critical inspections are required when cost of rework would be high if problems are discovered

later; and

d) To enhance the level of control at specific construction milestones.






Additional hold points will be listed on contractor ITPs alerting the project team when a hold point is in

effect. The CQAP details hold points which have been marked as [HP] in the construction quality

assurance parameter tables.

Table 10 Hold Points

Item Item Key Elements

1. Pre-construction Review construction plans

Review construction control measures

Review site benchmarks

2. Compacted Fill Testing of proposed soil material.

Compacted surface

3. Subsoil Drainage System Inspection of subsoil drainage system construction.

4. Geotextile Fabric Underlay Inspection of subsoil surface

Inspection of installed underlay.

5. HDPE Liner & Cover Inspection of panel overlap and weld seams.

6. Wastewater Pipework Survey of pipe route.

Inspection of piping prior to back-fill of trenches

Inspection of installed pipework system.

7. Biogas Flare Installation Survey of pipe route.

Inspection of installed gas pipework system.

6. Pre-fill inspection of CAL Inspection of liner, penetrations, sludge removal pipework

7. Pre-commissioning Inspection of cover & biogas handling system including emergency vent.

6. Non-conformance Reports

Non-conformance will be identified through inspections, hold points and testing during construction

or commissioning activities. Possible non-compliances include non-compliance with the QA

Parameters outlined in this CQAP, Design Drawings and Specifications.

All non-compliances will be registered and controlled using a Non-Compliance Form. Where detected,

any non-compliance not meeting specified limits will be investigated by the Project Manager to

determine the extent of non-conformance.

Identified corrective measures will be implemented as soon as possible including modification of

construction methods and operational techniques if necessary, to avoid recurrence and minimise any

adverse impacts.

All non-compliances will be reported to the Project Manager and clearly identify the corrective/

preventative actions taken and the close-out date.

HIG will be notified immediately of:






a) Any non-compliance with the Contract requirements;

b) A breach of any Statutory Requirement for the protection of the environment; or

c) The receipt of any notice, order or communication received from a regulatory authority.

The template to be used for all Non-Conformance Form has been attached to this document as

Appendix B.

7. Reporting

Construction performance on a regular basis will be reported by Meateng to HIG and will include any

photographs of work progress.

On completion of construction works, a final Certification Report will be prepared by Meateng and

issue to the client. The report will confirm that work has been performed in compliance with CQAP

documentation and completed in accordance with the Design Drawings and the Specifications.

8. Appendices

The following documents are attached here-to as appendices:

Appendix A: Example ITP document

Appendix B: Non-Conformance Report Template


Appendix A: Example ITP document

ITP No: Legend: Sign-off Parties

Revision: N No Action Required W Witness Con Contractor

Description: Compacted Fill for WWTP Dams Issued: I Inspection H Hold GTA Level 1 Supervisor

Client: Northern Australia Beef Limited (NABL) Prepared by: T Test D Document Insp Inspector

Location: Abattoir at Livingstone, NT Approved by: V Verification C Certify PM Project Manager (Meateng or Client Representative)

1 Documentation Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature

1.1 Verification of Work Method Statement Con Project Program None Required

H N N V

2 Earthworks Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature

2.1 Review of Inspection, Measuring, Test

Equipment for suitability and accuracy

GTA Equipment Calibration None Required

N T / V N N

2.2 Survey establish and agree existing survey

bench marks

Surveyor Field Inspection None Required

H N N I

2.3 Cleaning & grubbing Con Field Inspection None Required

H N N I

2.4 Removal of topsoil Con Field Inspection None Required

H N N I

2.5 Test or inspect excavated material for

suitability for filling prior to use

GTA Ongoing Testing of Excavated Material by

Level 1 Supervisor prior to Use

GTA Report

N T / V N N

2.6 Survey excavated area, both coordination &

depth


H N N I

2.7 Test or inspect imported material for

suitability prior to use

GTA Ongoing Testing of Imported Material by

Level 1 Supervisor prior to Use

GTA Report

N T / V N N

3 Filling / Backfilling Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature

3.1 Inspection of loose layer thickness GTA Field Inspection None Required

N I N N

3.2 Weekly Compaction GTA Ongoing Compaction Testing GTA Report

N T N N

3.3 Final visual check of earthwork and survey

release for next activity including

benchmarks

Surveyor Field Inspection Letter of Acceptance

H N I N

3.4 Conduct final survey & record prior to

release of compacted area


N N N I

4 Subsoil Drainage Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature Activity Initials Signature

4.1 Confirmation that the subsoil drainage has

been laid beneath the dams

Con Field Inspection None Required

H N N I

Scope of Works Drawings

Resp.Activity DescriptionTask

No

Controlling Procedure Requirements

or Other Instructions

INSPECTION AND TEST PLAN

Scope of Works

Drawings

Scope of Works

Drawings

Scope of Works

Drawings

AS3798

Specification

Drawings

AS1141, AS1289

Scope of Works

Drawings

Specification

Drawings

AS1141, AS1289

Specification

Drawings

Level 1 Supervisor (GTA)Contractor (Con)

SIGN-OFF ACTIONS

Inspector (Insp)

Specification, Drawings

Density testing of each layer at a

frequency not less than in AS3798

Scope of Works

Survey

Scope of Works

Drawings

AS3798

Acceptance CriteriaVerifying Documents

(Test Results)

All equipment fit for purpose

Project Manager (PM)

Verification of Work Method Statement

from Client.

-1 I l I ! l

r


Appendix B: Non-Conformance Report Template

Non-Conformance Report

No ………………

SECTION A - TO BE COMPLETED BY ORIGINATOR

1. Originator: Date:

Area of concern: Customer complaint Audit Safety Supplier Product Design Environment

Site Training Work Instruction/Form/Document Other ........................................

Problem:

Urgency Rating: High Medium Low Response Due Date:

Expected Completion Date:

Response Due Date: High = 24 hours, Medium = 5 working days, Low = 10 working days

Responsible:

SECTION B - TO BE COMPLETED BY RECIPIENT

3. What was done to fix the immediate problem:-

(Attach evidence, correspondence etc.)

4. Root Cause:

5. Preventative Action/Improvement:

6. Estimated Costs to Complete or to Improve:

7. Completion:

Signed:

Date:

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • •



Appendices

Appendix C: CAL Risk Assessment (Johns Environmental, 2019)



CAL Risk Assessment for DWER – Harvey Beef

Prepared for Harvey Beef by Johns Environmental, Brisbane. 24th June 2019

JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL

2017. 1.18

CAL Risk Assessment for DWER – Harvey Beef JOHNS ENVIRONMENTAL

CAL Risk Assessment 2 24 June 2019

Document Management Job No. 91101 Authors: Mike Johns & Louis Fredheim This version: Revision 0 Date Issued: 24 June 2019 Issued to: Filename: Harvey Beef DWER CAL Risk Assessment Jun 19 Rev 0 QA: Dr Bronwen Butler Client input finalised: Yes Subconsultant : None This report has been developed by Johns Environmental and has been generated solely for the use of Harvey Beef for its beef processing facility at Harvey WA. No liability is accepted by Johns Environmental, or any employee, for the use of the report for other facilities, or by third parties without prior written approval.

© 2019 Johns Environmental Pty. Ltd.



Risk Assessment

Table 1. Risk Assessment of the proposed Development

Activity Aspect Potential Impact

Inherent Risk

Summary of impact avoidance and controls

Residual Risk

Cons L/hood Risk

Ranking Cons L/hood

Resid.

Risk

Wastewater treatment

Treated Water Quality

Fails to meet environmental authority compliance limits

Major Likely High

• Operation of the CAL and flare using operational procedures & operator training.

• Use of water testing on-site.

• Monitoring of CAL performance per monitoring plan in CAL Operating & Maintenance Manual (OMM).

• Large CAL volume buffers varying composition of raw wastewater.

• Robust anaerobic technology selected.

Minor Rare Low

Overflow or failure of the wastewater treatment infrastructure could result in contaminants entering surface drainage channels

Major Possible High

• Wastewater is transferred to the CAL via an enclosed pipe system.

• Design freeboard of 1 metre in CAL.

• Level sensors and alarms used in CAL.

• Duty/standby pumps for wastewater to and from the WWTP.

• Regular checks of dam water levels and pump operation by WWTP operator.

• Operational procedures & operator training.

Slight Unlikely Low

Failure of the wastewater treatment infrastructure could result in contaminants entering groundwater Major

Almost Certain

Extreme

• Wastewater is transferred to the CAL via an enclosed pipe system.

• HDPE liner installed in CAL by experienced geomembrane specialist.

• Regular checks of CAL walls by WWTP operator.

• Operational procedures & operator training.

Slight Rare Low




Inherent Risk


Residual Risk

Cons L/hood Risk

Ranking Cons L/hood

Resid.

Risk

Odour emissions

Odour emissions from wastewater treatment plant could cause a nuisance impact to neighbours

Major Likely High

• Integrity of pipework and CAL inspected regularly and rectified if required.

• Wastewater quality monitoring is undertaken to ensure treatment of contaminants to effluent quality limits.

• Covered anaerobic lagoon to capture odour and incineration of CAL biogas in biogas flare.

• Continuous monitoring & alarming of flare operation.

• WWTP operator procedures & training.

• CAL located 500m from nearest sensitive receptor to the northeast.

• Complaints recording & response system in place.

Minor Rare Low

Greenhouse emissions

Contribute to Australia’s greenhouse emissions inventory

Moderate Almost Certain

High

• Covered anaerobic lagoon to capture methane and incineration of CAL biogas in biogas flare.

• Continuous monitoring & alarming of flare operation.

• Weighted emergency vent system to ensure releases only occur in emergency.

Slight Possible Low

Noise Nuisance

Moderate Unlikely Medium

• Low noise flare selected.

• VSD equipped equipment for low noise start.



Slight Unlikely Low

Light Nuisance

Moderate Unlikely Medium • Flare equipment selected to emit minimal

light.

• CAL located 500m from nearest sensitive

Slight Unlikely Low




Inherent Risk


Residual Risk

Cons L/hood Risk

Ranking Cons L/hood

Resid.

Risk

receptor to the northeast.

• Minimal lighting installed.


Visual Amenity of dams & CAL

Minor Unlikely Medium


• Earthworks consistent with surrounding environment – “natural appearance”.

Slight Unlikely Low

Severe storm

Heavy winds damage flare or other equipment, inundation of water on CAL cover

Minor Possible Medium

• Stormwater pump system to remove water quickly from CAL cover.

• CAL cover designed for high rain;

• Flare foundations to be designed using appropriate wind loading rates for the site.

• CAL cover pressure kept low to prevent over-inflation of the cover. Stresses on the cover minimised.

• No unsecured items left around ponds.

Minor Rare Low

Grass fire Damage to equipment

Major Unlikely Medium

• Ponds are surrounded by de-vegetated areas;

• External pond batters maintained to prevent overgrowth of vegetation.

Moderate

Rare Medium

Unplanned biogas release

Flash fire at CAL cover, equipment damage and personnel injury Odour complaints

Major Unlikely Medium

• Emergency vent releases excess biogas 3m above ground level;

• Specialist cover installers used during construction;

• CAL fenced off to unauthorised access;

• Positive pressure under the CAL cover at all times – prevents ingress of oxygen into cover.

• Low pressure under CAL cover minimizes emission rate in event of damage

Minor Rare Low




Inherent Risk


Residual Risk

Cons L/hood Risk

Ranking Cons L/hood

Resid.

Risk

• Gas detectors worn by all personnel in the vicinity of the CAL.

• Regular inspections of CAL cover to identify points of excessive wear and damage.

Facility Shutdown

Loss of organic treatment performance upon startup

Moderate Likely High

• Robust treatment technology selected. Bacteria are capable of remaining ‘dormant’ during periods of low/no flow into the wastewater treatment plant.

• Downstream Renoir system ensures any additional COD loading from CAL is adequately treated.

• Shutdowns rarely exceed 2 weeks.

• Large CAL volume buffers impact;

• Operator training

Minor Rare Low

•



Appendix One. DWER Risk Definitions The risk definitions used in preparing this report are given in a summarised version below. A fuller definition of the risk matrix is found on the DER website under “Risk Assessments: Part V, Division 3, Environmental Protection Act 1986”.

Table 2. DWER Risk Matrix

Almost Certain Medium High High Extreme Extreme

Likely Medium Medium High High Extreme

Possible Low Medium Medium High Extreme

Unlikely Low Medium Medium Medium High

Rare Low Low Medium Medium High

Likelihood v Consequence

Slight Minor Moderate Major Severe



Table 3. DWER Risk Criteria

Consequence Lrkehhood

The following critena will be used to determine the consequences of a risk event occumng: The following criteria will be used to determine the llkehhood of the risk event occumng.

Environment Publlc Health• and Amenity (such as a,r and water quallty, noise, and odour)

Severe . on-site impacts: catastrophic . Loss of life Almost The risk event is expected to occur in most . off-site impacts local scale: high level or above . Adverse health effects: high level or ongoing medical Certain circumstances

. off-site impacts wider scale: mid level or above treatment

. Mid to long term or permanent impact to an area of high . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for public health) are

conservation value or special significance• significantly exceeded

. Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for environment) are . Local scale impacts: permanent loss of amenity

significantly exceeded

Major . on-site impacts: high level . Adverse health effects: mid level or freQuentmedical Likely The risk event will probably occur in most . off-site impacts local scale: mid level treatment circumstances

. off-site impacts wider scale: low level . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for public health) are exceeded

Short term impact to an area of high conservation value or . Local scale impacts: high level impact to amenity .

special significance• . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for environment) are exceeded

Moderate . on-site impacts: mid level . Adverse health effects: low level or occasional medical Possible The risk event could occur at some time . off-site impacts local scale: low level treatment

. off-site impacts wider scale: minimal . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for public health) are at risk of

not being met . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for environment) are at risk of Local scale impacts: mid level impact to amenity not being met

. Minor . on-site impacts: low level . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for public health) are likely to be Unlikely The risk event will probably not occur in . off-site impacts local scale: minimal met most circumstances.

. off-site impacts wider scale: not detectable . Local scale impacts: low level impact to amentty

. Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for environment) likely to be met

Slight . on-site impact minimal . Local scale: minimal impacts to amenity Rare The risk event may only occur in exceptional . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for environment) met . Specific ConseQuence Criteria (for public health) crtteria met circumstances

A Determination of areas of high conservation value or special significance should be informed by the Guidance Statement Environmental Siting

• In applying public health criteria, DER may have regard to the Department of Health's, Health Risk Assessment (Scoping) Guidelines

"on-site" means within the prescribed premises boundary