Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan€¦ · IMP Environmental (IMP) propose to establish an anaerobic digestion and fertiliser batching facility at the Longford

Development Proposal

and

Environmental Management Plan

for the IMP Environmental Longford Anaerobic Digester Facility

August 2010

IMP Environmental 2/145 Flinders Lane Melbourne, VIC 3000 T +61 3 9018 2233 [email protected] www.impenvironmental.com.au

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Title 3

1.2 Proponent 3

1.3 Proposal Summary 3

1.4 Related proposals 4

1.5 Applicable environmental legislation, standards and guidelines and Government policies 4

1.6 Public Consultation 4

2 Proposal Description 5

2.1 Proposal Overview 5

2.2 Site Plan 10

2.3 General Location 10

2.4 Off-site Infrastructure 10

2.5 Technical and Management Alternatives 11

3 Existing Environment 12

3.1 Planning Aspects 12

3.2 Environmental Aspects 13

3.3 Socio-Economic Aspects 17

3.4 Alternative Sites 17

IMP Environmental - DPEMP

4 Potential Effects and Their Management 18

4.1 Air Emissions 18

4.2 Liquid Waste 25

4.3 Groundwater 26

4.4 Noise Emissions 27

4.5 Solid and Controlled Waste Management 28

4.6 Dangerous Goods 29

4.7 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Values 30

4.8 Marine and Coastal 31

4.9 Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depleting Substances 31

4.10 Heritage 32

4.11 Land Use and Development 32

4.12 Visual Effects 33

4.13 Socio-Economic Issues 33

4.14 Health and Safety Issues 35

4.15 Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment 35

4.16 Fire Risk 36

4.17 Infrastructure and Off-Site Ancillary Facilities 36

4.18 Environmental Management Systems 37

4.19 Cumulative and Interactive Effects 38

5 Monitoring and Review 39

6 Decommissioning and Rehabilitation 40

Commitments 41

Conclusion 42


References 43

Drawing G02 Proposed Plant Layout 45

Drawing G03 Digester Facility Layout 47

Drawing G04 Fertiliser Batching Facility Layout 49

Appendix A Classification of Project 51

Appendix B DPEMP Project Specific Guidelines 54

Appendix C Assurance of Process Viability 58

Appendix D Title Information 61

Appendix E Ecological Assessment 64

Appendix F Air Dispersion Modelling Report 104

Appendix G Longford WWTP: EPN No. 7407/2 132

Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Calculations 159

Appendix I Visual Amenity Photos 161

Appendix J Risk Assessment 166


Executive Summary

Introduction

This DPEMP has been prepared by IMP Environmental (IMP) in support of their application for a permit to construct and

operate an anaerobic digester and fertiliser batching facility in Longford in Tasmania. The facility will process organic material,

which is otherwise disposed of as waste, to produce high quality biological soil conditioner and renewable energy.

Proposal Description

IMP propose to establish the facility at the Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). A ready source of organic

material is available from the Swift abattoir in Longford approximately 1km from the site. The proposed facility will treat the

organic material to produce three outputs - renewable energy in the form of biogas, as well as liquid and solid soil

conditioner. The renewable energy will be used onsite, while the liquid and solid digestate will be enhanced with agricultural

microbes and trace minerals to create biological soil conditioner; these products will be sold into the Tasmanian agricultural

sector and to wholesalers.

The facility will address a number of local environmental concerns, in particular the current problems with odours and the

diversion of organic material from the existing WWTP and disposal to landfill.

The facility is being designed to accommodate a throughput of 50 tons of material per day, however it will be initially

constructed to process 30 tons of material per day, which will produce 26,400 litres of liquid fertiliser, 1.5 tons of solid

fertiliser and 4,800m3 of biogas per day.

The proposed development includes (illustrated in Drawing G03) an anaerobic digestion facility comprising staff amenities, a

warehouse, three horizontal fermentation 240m3 tanks, two 50m3 tanks and one 600m3 tank; a fertiliser batching facility

comprising a large warehouse containing a series of tanks, amenities and office space; and paving for access and various

storage and operational areas.

The implementation of the facility will serve to benefit a number of stakeholders, including the abattoir and other producers of

organic material by decreasing their environmental disposal compliance and associated costs (increased viability); Ben

Lomond Water (Water Authority) by decreasing the load on the WWTP; the Northern Midlands Council by decreasing the

number of community complaints to be handled; Local residents by decreasing environmental nuisance factors (odour,

outfall); and lastly the local farmers by providing access to high quality agricultural products.

Existing Environment

From a planning perspective, the site is approximately 1km north-west of Longford, and is included on the Ben Lomond

Water WWTP, however the zoning classification is Rural Intensive. The Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995 does not

preclude the development based on the zoning overlay. The land surrounding the site and the WWTP is used for primary

production, the nearest property within a residential zone is approximately 1.3km south east of the WWTP.

From an environmental perspective, the topography of the area is characterised by gently undulating valleys, due to the

underlying geology being comprised of undifferentiated sediments and alluvial gravels, and accordingly the major

geomorphological feature of the area is the South Esk River. The soils in and around the site are characterized by a thin

topsoil with an extensive clay substrata. An ecological assessment of the site found an absence of threatened flora, fauna

and vegetation types from the proposed disturbance footprint. Groundwater in the area can be characterised as Category A

for Environmental Value and Use, while the predominant surface water bodies in the vicinity of the site are Back Creek, the


1

South Esk River and the Macquarie River. The site is not anticipated to be inundated by up to a flood event with an Annual

Exceedence Probability of 1:100, only 16 seismic events have occurred in an area within a 25km radius of the site since

1900, and the area surrounding the site is developed agricultural land, which while not precluding the risk of fire, mitigates

the possibility of severe bushfire affecting the site and immediate surrounds. One private reserve exists within 1km of the site,

a small conservation zone approximately 750m north west of the site, however no areas of high quality wilderness are

located within 25km of the site.

Socio-economically, Longford is a regional centre within the Northern Midlands Council Municipality. The land surrounding

Longford is considered to be rich pasture land, and agriculture is the main industry of the area, along with manufacturing.

The population of Longford as of 2006 was 4,265 people, with an average age of 40. The key stakeholders for the proposed

development play an important role in the socio-economic context of the Longford area. The WWTP has long had problems

managing the flow of organic material from the Swift abattoir in Longford, resulting in environmental impacts relating to air

and water emissions. A number of measures have been implemented to manage these issues, to varying degrees of

success. Underpinning this history is the importance the abattoir plays in terms of the local economy – it is the largest

employer in the Longford area, plays a key role in the meat industry in northern Tasmania in terms of farmers and

consumers, and provides many secondary economic benefits to the town and immediate area. If the proposed development

is successful, all stakeholders will benefit.

At the project feasibility stage, IMP met with representatives from the NMC to discuss the project. Council was strongly

encouraging and recommended the site location. IMP approached BLW who were equally encouraging and subsequently

made arrangements for the leasehold. No other sites were considered more appropriate.

Potential Effects and Their Management

Assessments have been made of the potential for the construction and operation of the proposed facility to effect many

aspects of the environment. Where a potential effect is identified and evaluated as having a potentially negative impact,

mitigation measures have been tabled. Potential effects identified during the construction phase will in the main be

addressed in a Construction Environmental Management Plan. Some of the potential effects identified for the operational

phase, and subsequent mitigation measures proposed include generation of odour emissions in the crushing process, which

will be mitigated by the design and construction of a biofilter to treat the air in the crusher void; the potential loss of liquid

material in the event of failure of process equipment has been mitigated by the design of bunding around the site to contain

spills and leaks; new noise sources have been housed inside facilities to mitigate potential effects; small volumes of inorganic

waste will be generated when it is removed from the organic material, this waste will be contained and disposed of to an

approved facility.

Monitoring and Review

On-going monitoring of the efficacy of mitigation measures and potential impacts of the facility is required to determine if the

project is meeting obligations stated in the DPEMP, and subsequent permit conditions. The key aspects requiring monitoring

will be noise and odour emissions.

Decommissioning and Rehabilitation

There is no plan for the decommissioning of the proposed facility in the foreseeable future. In the event that the facility

becomes redundant a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan will be produced.


2

1 Introduction

1.1 TitleIMP Environmental - Anaerobic Digestion and Fertiliser Batching Facility

1.2 ProponentThe proponent of the proposed development is IMP Environmental.

IMP Environmental (ABN: 36 073 892 636)

Level 2, 145 Flinders Lane

Melbourne

VIC 3000

The contact for this project is:

Ned Halliday

Phone: +61 409 102 399

Email: [email protected]

1.3 Proposal SummaryIMP Environmental (IMP) propose to establish an anaerobic digestion and fertiliser batching facility at the Longford Waste

Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), 2080 Bishopsbourne Rd, Longford, Tasmania.

The key objective of the proposed facility is to process high volumes of organic material from local sources in Longford. The

proposed facility will process the organic material to produce three outputs - renewable energy in the form of biogas, as well

as liquid and solid soil conditioner. The renewable energy will be used onsite, while the liquid and solid digestate will be

enhanced with agricultural microbes and trace minerals to create biological soil conditioner; these products will be sold into

the Tasmanian agricultural sector and to wholesalers.

The facility will address a number of local environmental concerns, in particular the current problems with odours and the

diversion of organic material from the existing WWTP and disposal to landfill.

The facility is estimated to cost approximately $7.5 million to construct.

The facility has been designed to accommodate a total throughput of 50 tons of material per day, however initial

construction of process equipment will be to accommodate 30 tons of material per day. When the capacity upgrade

eventuates, IMP are confident of satisfying the environmental commitments made in this application and expected permit

conditions.


3

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

1.4 Related proposalsTo IMP’s knowledge, no related developments are proposed in the region.

1.5 Applicable environmental legislation, standards and guidelines and

Government policiesThis proposal was referred to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Board in the form of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in

November 2009. The Director of Environmental Management responded to the NOI declaring the proposal to be a Level 2

activity under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) (see Appendix A).

As a Level 2 activity the proposal requires approval from the EPA Board. Approval is also required from Northern Midlands

Council under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). These two tiers of assessment are undertaken

concurrently and relate to different aspects of the project. The Board assessment is in accordance with the land use

planning considerations under the Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995. Council is not required to assess any matter

already addressed in the Board’s assessment.

No matters of National Environmental Significance have been identified as relevant to this project and hence a Referral under

the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA) is not considered to be

required.

In addition to the standard approval process, the proposed development will also have to comply with a broad range of

environmental and planning legislation, guidelines, standards and policies. The details of such documents are outlined

through the relevant sections of this DPEMP. The Project Specific Guidelines (PSGs) issued for this DPEMP are included in

Appendix B.

1.6 Public ConsultationComprehensive public consultation is planned during the project implementation, specifically relating to the adjacent

landholders. An information pack explaining the project will be sent to adjacent landholders and property owners along the

section of Bishopsbourne Rd from the plant entrance to Illawarra Rd. This information will also serve as an invitation to a

meeting at the Northern Midlands Council chambers or another suitable venue, where representatives of IMP will be

available to answer questions and explain specific aspects of the project. A public notice will be listed in the local paper

summarizing the proposed project.

A project launch involving key stakeholders is planned for the second half of 2010, therefore these public consultation

activities will be timed to coincide with this launch date. [Commitment 1]


4

2 Proposal Description

2.1 Proposal Overview

2.1.1 GeneralThis DPEMP addresses IMP’s intention to construct and operate an anaerobic digestion and fertiliser batching facility at the

Longford WWTP.

The proposed works consist of an anaerobic digester plant capable of treating 30 tons per day of organic material, a fertiliser

batching facility, and various infrastructure to support the enterprise, namely tanks and warehouses.

The purpose of the plant is to treat organic material that is otherwise disposed of in an unsatisfactory manner, thereby

dealing with issues such as odour emissions, effluent outfall into the local river and impact to associated ecosystems, and

long term landfill issues such as leachate generation and methane emissions. The facility will produce renewable energy in

the form of biogas, and liquid and solid soil conditioner which will be sold as commercial products.

2.1.2 Major Equipment and Facilities

Figure 1 Major Process Equipment

Crushing AcidicDigestion

Anaerobic DigestionAerobic Digestion Storage (Gas

& Liquid)

Filtration Inoculation

Fermentation

Storage (Fertiliser)

Input Storage


5

2.1.3 ProcessThe anaerobic digestion equipment and expertise will be provided by Dongmun, a company with a long history in organic

material processing. A letter addressing the viability of the proposed process, noted as a key issue in the PSGs, is included

in Appendix C.

Table 1 Mass Balance - Process Flow

Process

Equipment

Description Drawing

Reference

Time Temperature Material

Quantity

(Daily)

Input Storage

Organic material is pumped into the 50m3

enclosed input storage tank storage tank from

delivery truck. A proprietary screw-type mass

separator system uses the principle of inorganic

material being heavier than organic material to

remove the inorganics. Small amounts of

inorganic waste are generated and managed.

Drawing G03

P1

30 tons

organic

material

CrushingOrganic material is crushed to uniform size to

increase surface area.

Drawing G03

P2

Bio-scrubber

Wet scrubber type filter captures air emissions

from crusher. Water used is re-circulated to

digestion process.

Drawing G03

P3

AcidicDigestion

Two 50m3 tanks where material undergoes early

stages of digestion in naturally occurring acidic

conditions which reduces the pH of the

material. Inorganic removal is also undertaken

as per the input storage tank.

Drawing G03

P4, P5

2 to 4

days30 to 45°C

Anaerobic Digestion

Three horizontal plug flow modular units of

240m3. Each unit has a screw auger running its

length to move material through the digester.

The digestion process begins with bacterial

hydrolysis of the input materials in order to

break down insoluble organic polymers such as

carbohydrates and make them available for

other bacteria. Acidogenic bacteria then convert

the sugars and amino acids into carbon dioxide,

hydrogen, ammonia, and organic acids. Ace-

togenic bacteria then convert these resulting

organic acids into acetic acid, along with addi-

tional ammonia, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide.

Methanogens finally are able to convert these

products to methane and carbon dioxide.

Drawing G03

P6, P7, P8

20 to 25

days45 to 55°C


6

Process

Equipment

Description Drawing

Reference

Time Temperature Material

Quantity

(Daily)

Storage (Gas & Liquid)

600m3 tank holding digestate, with void in cone

headspace for biogas, piping work to extract

biogas and piping work to feed digestate into

aerobic digester. Generation of biogas contin-

ues during this storage.

Drawing G03

P9

4,800m3

biogas

Biogas Engines

Biogas powered generators to produce

electricity and heat. Biogas is piped off from the

gas buffer to the biogas engine generator room.

It is anticipated that when the facility operates at

maximum throughput, 6000 kWh of power will

be generated per day. The biogas engines

represent significant cogeneration opportunities,

as elements of the facility require direct heating.

Drawing G03

P10Up to 180°C

6000 kWh

electricity

Aerobic Digestion

High pressure, high temperature, fully enclosed

unit. Digestate and compressed air undergoes

aerobic digestion and odourous gas is recircu-

lated to accelerate process. This is the “de-

odourising” aspect of the plant, serving to re-

move pathogens and odour from the digestate.

Drawing G03

P11

2 to 5

days60 to 70°C

Filtration

Proprietary system for separation of solid

digestate from liquid digestate comprising

organic coagulant dosing / mixing / settling /

filter media / tanks. The solid digestate is

produced at 1.5 tons per day.

Drawing G03

P12

24,000 litres

liquid

digestate

1.5 tons solid

digestate

Fermentation

The fertiliser batching facility brews agricultural

microbes for the inoculation of the liquid

digestate. The mother culture is brewed with a

molasses nutrient source in 10m3 tanks.

Drawing G04

P13 - P1835 to 40°C

Inoculation

The filtered liquid is pumped to the fertiliser

facility at a rate of 1000 litres per hour (24,000

L/day). The digestate is inoculated with the

brewed mother culture and trace minerals at a

ratio of 1:10. This mix is retained in 25m3 tanks.

Drawing G04

P19 - P26

7 to 10

days

+ 2,400 litres

microbes &

trace minerals

= 26,400 litres

liquid fertiliser

Storage (Fertiliser)

The biological soil conditioner is held in a 50m3

storage tank for filling of tankers and 1000 litre

Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs).

Drawing G04

P27


7

2.1.4 Raw MaterialsThe input for the facility is 30 tons of organic material per day sourced from local producers. The bulk of the material is likely

to be supplied by the Swift abattoir in Longford being comprised of approximately 12 tons of sludge and 17 tons of paunch

per day.

2.1.5 Energy RequirementsThe facility has a number of energy requirements, energy sources and cogeneration opportunities. General power

requirements include pump operation, lighting and process equipment.

In terms of heating requirements, the fertiliser facility requires a constant temperature of 37°C for the fermentation of

agricultural microbes mixed with the digestate. The digester facility has two pieces of process equipment requiring heating,

the acidic tanks (30 to 45°C) and the digesters themselves (45 to 55°C). The digester facility has two heat producing pieces

of process equipment, the aerobic digester (60 to 70°C) and the biogas engine producing upwards of 180°C in waste heat.

The intent is for the site to become self sufficient for energy; this will depend on the efficiencies of cogeneration design and

the energy potential of the organic material feedstock.

2.1.6 Waste SourcesThe key source of waste identified is inorganic material separated from the feedstock before and after the crusher. The

amount of this waste generated is contingent on the nature of the organic material supplied. It is anticipated that the material

emanating from the abattoir would have only minor amounts of inorganic material such as sand from animal hooves or

fragments from animal coats. These solid inorganic wastes separated from the feedstock will be immediately transferred to

sealed storage vessels, located within bunded areas, to minimise odour emissions and prevent and liquid emissions. If

necessary, the bins could be maintained under a slight negative pressure and air (with potential odour contamination)

transferred to the bio-scrubber. It is anticipated that the accumulation of solid waste will be relatively small, with transfer to

off-site disposal likely to occur at an approximate weekly frequency.

2.1.7 Waste TreatmentThe inorganic waste will be disposed of to a licensed disposal facility in accordance with local regulations.

2.1.8 Wastewater Discharge PointsWastewater discharge is limited to domestic sewer for staff amenities.

2.1.9 Atmospheric Discharge PointsBiogas engines installed inside the digester plant warehouse structure, in a generator room, with an emission stack design of

20m height. Minor emissions to atmosphere are anticipated from biogas engine exhaust. Atmospheric discharge modeling

has undertaken according to the relevant Tasmanian EPA guidelines.

Potential odour emissions from the crusher will be managed with a positive displacement air pump and a bio-scrubber.

2.1.10 Noise SourcesThe proposed facility will be low noise, given the nature of the key elements of the process relying on biological processes as

opposed to mechanical processes. The biogas engines will generate noise, however the generator room will be constructed

with noise dampening baffling. Other noise sources are limited to pump operation and general operational works.


8

2.1.11 Production CapacityThe proposed facility will have a processing design capacity of 30 tons of organic material per day, which is estimated to

generate 26,400 litres of liquid fertiliser, 1.5 tons of solid fertiliser and 4,800m3 of biogas per day.

Table 2 Production Capacity

Production Daily Capacity Annual Capacity

Processing of organic material 30 tons 10,800 tons

Liquid fertiliser production 26,400 litres 9,504,000 litres

Solid fertiliser production 1.5 tons 540 tons

Biogas production 4,800m3 1,728,000m3

2.1.12 Hours of OperationThe proposed facility will operate on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. The main activities such as

delivery of organic material and despatch of fertiliser will be limited to regular work hours, 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

[Commitment 2].

2.1.13 Vehicle MovementsIt is anticipated that truck movements will be between 3 to 5 10-ton trucks per day, both inward and outward. Truck

movements would likely be limited to weekdays, during the hours of 7am to 5pm.

2.1.14 ConstructionSite works to include ground preparation, foundation construction, assembly of plant and construction of infrastructure,

paving and finishing.

The main elements of the anaerobic digestion facility are pre-fabricated in Korea at the Dongmun facility. These will be

shipped to the site and will only require assembly.

Construction works will include the following:

• Minor vegetation clearing

• Site grading / ground preparation

• Foundation construction

• Establishment of hard stand and paving of designated areas with bunding

• Installation of site drainage network including stormwater management and sumps

• Establishment of roadway

• Installation / Construction of tanks for fertiliser facility

• Construction of warehouses

• Installation of anaerobic digestion plant

2.1.15 CommissioningExpected period of 1 to 3 months of trialing the plant operation will be undertaken by Dongmun and IMP. Commissioning will

involve bringing the anaerobic digesters online one at a time, with a capacity of 10 tons per day each.


9

2.2 Site PlanSite plan attached as Drawing G02.

2.3 General LocationThe WWTP is located at 2080 Bishopsbourne Road, west of Longford.

Figure 2 General Location Plan

2.4 Off-site InfrastructureThe proposed development is not expected to require any upgrade of offsite features such as roads, power supply, water

supply, sewer or stormwater.


10

2.5 Technical and Management AlternativesThe dynamic nature of the generation, disposal and treatment of organic material in and around Longford when set against

the socio-economic aspects of the region have combined to create a pressing environmental issue, based on odour

problems and downstream disposal of liquid waste.

The implementation of an anaerobic digestion facility is perhaps the only solution that serves to benefit all stakeholders, as

follows:

• Abattoir and other producers of organic material – decreased environmental disposal compliance, costs

(increased viability)

• BLW Water Authority – decreased load on WWTP

• NMC – decreased handling of complaints

• Local residents – decreased environmental nuisance factors (odour, outfall)

• Local farmers – access to high quality agricultural products

The high temperature of the digestion process (55°C in the anaerobic digesters, 70°C in the aerobic digester) eliminates

pathogens.


11

3 Existing Environment

3.1 Planning Aspects

3.1.1 Location and Associated InfrastructureThe location of the site is provided in Section 2.3. The key elements from a planning perspective include:

• The site is approximately 1km north-west of Longford

• The site is included on the BLW WWTP, however the zoning classification is Rural Intensive

• Proposed infrastructure includes (illustrated in Drawing G03):

- An anaerobic digestion facility comprising staff amenities, a warehouse, three horizontal fermentation

240m3 tanks, two 50m3 tanks and one 600m3 tank

- A fertiliser batching facility comprising a large warehouse containing a series of tanks, amenities and

office space

- Paving for access and various storage and operational areas

3.1.2 Land Tenure and Title DetailsThe WWTP at 2080 Bishopsbourne Rd is owned and operated by BLW. The specific project site is leased by IMP from BLW.

The specific site area is formally contained in the following title:

Certificate of Title (CT) Volume (Vol.) 132421 Folio (Fol.) 1.

This title is provided in Appendix D.

3.1.3 Planning ControlsThe site is subject to the provisions of the Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995, both general and specific, and in

particular Part 9 ‘Rural Zone Provisions’.

3.1.4 Rights of wayThere are no rights of way on the title.

3.1.5 Land use and planning historyThe specific landholding has been part of the WWTP since the plant was constructed. Anecdotal evidence exists of the site

being utilised for spreading and drying of sludge when desludging lagoons.

3.1.6 Adjacent land useThe land surrounding the site and the WWTP is used for primary production, predominantly grazing and cropping on land

classified as being within the Rural Agricultural Zone, on comparatively large landholdings. The nearest property within a

residential zone is approximately 1.3km south east of the WWTP.


12

3.2 Environmental Aspects

3.2.1 General Physical Characteristics

Figure 3 Plan showing GW bores, conservation areas, Back Creek, flood mapping

The site is located on Bishopsbourne Rd 1km west of the Longford township. The land in this region is predominantly

agricultural, serviced by the Longford-Cressy irrigation system.

Topography

The general topography of the area in which the site is located falls towards Back Creek east of the site at a gradient of

approximately 0.01. More broadly the area is comprised of gently undulating valleys resulting from outcrops of older

volcanics and deposition of alluvial gravel, sands and till.

Geology

The underlying geology is comprised of undifferentiated Cainozoic and Quaternary sediments, and Tertiary alluvial gravels,

with poorly consolidated clays, sands and silts of the Launceston Tertiary Basin.

Geomorphology

The South Esk River is the major feature of the area, with the main geomorphic features of the area being fluvial in nature.

The South Esk River above Perth has a catchment of approximately 3,350km2 while the Macquarie River drains an additional

3,800 km to the south of Longford.


13

Soils

The soils in and around the site are characterized by a thin topsoil with an extensive clay substrata. The site has been

mapped as comprising the Brickendon soil type – “Deeply weathered brown textured contrast soils with a sandy topsoil

containing water worn quartz gravels overlying a clayey subsoil, found between the Brumby and Woodstock surfaces of the

Launceston Basin.“1

Fauna and Flora

Impact to flora and fauna was identified as a key issue in the PSGs. Accordingly, an ecological assessment of flora and fauna

at the site was undertaken on 12th February 2010 by ECOtas (Appendix E). The assessment found that the absence of

threatened flora, fauna and vegetation types from the proposed disturbance footprint means that permits and specific

approvals relating to these natural values would not be required. The findings are summarized in Section 4.7.

Groundwater

The Mineral Resources Tasmania lists 5 registered groundwater bores within 1km of the site (Figure 3), details of which are

provided below in Table 3.

Table 3 Groundwater Bore Details

Bore ID Depth Standing

Water Level

Depth Water

Struck

Yield Total

Dissolved

Solids

3777 152.4 m 2 m (30/09/68) N/A N/A 341 mg/L

3840 29.9 m N/A 27.4 m 0.38 L/s 545 mg/L

3939 21.3 m N/A 17.1 m 0.07 L/s 480 mg/L

3779 26.0 m N/A 23.8 m 0.32 L/s 900 mg/L

3778 25.9 m N/A 24.4 m 0.25 L/s N/A

Surface Water

The predominant water bodies in the vicinity of the site are Back Creek, the South Esk River and the Macquarie River. Back

Creek starts below West Base at an elevation of 162m and ends at an elevation of 132m flowing 18.7km into the South Esk

River. The South Esk River starts near Mathinna Plains at an elevation of 810m and ends near Trevallyn dropping

approximately 811m over its 255km length, featuring 37 creeks and rivers flowing into it. The Macquarie River starts below

Hobgoblin at an elevation of 606m and drops approximately 472m over its 189km length, ultimately merging with the South

Esk River.


1 Brickendon SPC

14

Climate Data

The following is a summary of data from the Cressy Research Station (Main Office) of the Bureau of Meteorology.

Table 4 Climate Data

Climate Parameter Climate Average

Mean Maximum Temperature 23.6°C (January & February)

Annual Mean Maximum Temperature 17.2°C

Mean Minimum Temperature 0.9°C (July)

Annual Mean Minimum Temperature 5.1°C

Mean Annual Rainfall 627mm

Mean Monthly Rainfall 52.5mm

Figure 4 Climate Data

3.2.2 Natural Processes and Hazards

Flooding

The Macquarie River flows into the South Esk River at Longford. Longford is within the upper part of the large flood plain

known as the Hadspen Retarding Basin and when river levels are high water backs up considerably into the Macquarie River

as well as spreading out down stream at Longford. As illustrated in Figure 3, the confluence of these water bodies makes the

Longford area susceptible to flood events. Figure 3 also illustrates that the site is not anticipated to be inundated by up to a

flood event with an Annual Exceedence Probability of 1:100.

0

7.5

15.0

22.5

30.0

January April July October

0

17.5

35.0

52.5

70.0

Tempe

rature (°C)

Rainfall (m

m)

Mean Maximum Temperature Mean Minimum Temperature Mean Rainfall


15

Seismic

An output from the Geoscience Australia Database indicates 16 seismic events have occurred in an area within a 25km

radius of the site since 1900, the maximum magnitude event measured 2.7 on the Richter scale, in September 1977 (Figure

5).

Figure 5 Seismic Events Within 25km of Site Since 1900

Fire

The area surrounding the site is developed agricultural land, which while not precluding the risk of fire, mitigates the

possibility of severe bushfire affecting the site and immediate surrounds.

3.2.3 Conservation Reserves and Areas of Special Conservation SignificanceOne private reserve within 1km of the site, a small conservation zone (Reserve ID 10031) approximately 750m north west of

the site, on the opposite side of Bishopsbourne Road. It is not expected that this reserve will be impacted by the proposed

development (Figure 3). A Natural Values Atlas Report is included with the ecological assessment in Appendix E

3.2.4 High Quality Wilderness Areas No areas of high quality wilderness are located within 25km of the site.


16

3.3 Socio-Economic AspectsLongford is a regional centre within the NMC Municipality which was first settled by Europeans in 1808. The land

surrounding Longford is considered to be rich pasture land, and agriculture is the main industry of the area, along with

manufacturing. Other key industries include retail, healthcare and social assistance. The population of Longford as of 2006

was 4,265 people, with an average age of 40.

The key stakeholders for the proposed development play an important role in the socio-economic context of the Longford

area. The WWTP has long had problems managing the flow of organic material from the Swift abattoir in Longford, resulting

in environmental impacts relating to air and water emissions. A number of measures have been implemented to manage

these issues, to varying degrees of success. Underpinning this history is the importance the abattoir plays in terms of the

local economy – it is the largest employer in the Longford area, plays a key role in the meat industry in northern Tasmania in

terms of farmers and consumers, and provides many secondary economic benefits to the town and immediate area. If the

proposed development is successful, all stakeholders will benefit.

3.4 Alternative SitesAt the project feasibility stage, IMP met with representatives from the NMC to discuss the project. Council was strongly

encouraging and recommended the site location. IMP approached BLW who were equally encouraging and subsequently

made arrangements for the leasehold.


17

4 Potential Effects and Their Management

4.1 Air Emissions

4.1.1 Existing ConditionsThe air quality at the site is greatly impacted by the WWTP operations, in particular the aerators operating in Lagoon 2.

Anecdotal evidence gathered through communication with stakeholders suggests that the air quality in the Longford area is

greatly impacted by the WWTP.

4.1.2 Performance RequirementsThe facility is to operate in a manner in which the environmental values tabled in 4.1.1 are protected or improved, by

identifying and mitigating fugitive odour emissions. Schedule 2 (Design Criteria) and Schedule 3 (Odour Criteria) from the

Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 detail the maximum concentrations of specific pollutants.

The environmental values to be protected under the Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 are:

• the life, health and well-being of humans

• the life, health and well-being of other forms of life

• visual amenity

• the useful life and aesthetic appearance of buildings, property and materials.


18

4.1.3 Potential EffectsThe facility is a sealed, closed loop process. The delivery of organic material will be in enclosed trucks certified for the

movement of organic material. The local producers will be required to adhere to the relevant storage and transport

requirements.

Table 5 Assessment of Potential Odour Sources

Potential Odour

Source

Assessment Mitigation

Key Process

Equipment Odour

Generation Potential:Input Storage Tank (P1) Closed vessel – release of odourous

emissions prevented by sealing of tank

outlets.

Depending on interface design between delivery vehicle

and tank, contingency planning to accommodate

venting displaced air to bio-scrubber (P3).

In case of failure, contingency planning to maintain

atmospheric pressure by venting of gases to bio-

scrubber.Crusher (P2) Potential source of odour emissions

during the loading sequence and

crushing phase, most likely emanating

from volatile organics and inorganics

such as ammonia.

Crusher is located inside the digester plant warehouse

structure, fitted with a positive displacement pump to

draw clean air into the void space, while the potentially

odourous air is forced through the bio-scrubber (P3).

Acidic digestion tanks

(P4 & P5)

Closed pressure vessels – release of

odourous emissions prevented as tank

outlets do not release to atmosphere.

In the event of process failure, maintenance or other,

design provision made for ventilation of potentially

odourous air downstream to fermentation tanks or to

bio-scrubber.

Fermenters (P6-P8) Closed pressure vessels – release of




design provision be made for ventilation of potentially

odourous air to flare. bio-scrubber. Lower explosion limit

(LEL) of methane at 20 oC is 5.1%. Suggest that

fermenter and storage tank emergency venting be sent

to a flare.Storage Tank (P9) Closed pressure vessels – release of




design provision made for combustion of bio-gas via a

flare.

Generation System

(P10)

Exhaust from generation system

considered in Ausplume Model

(Appendix F).

Design of exhaust stack based on Ausplume model

outputs. Stand-by flare for combustion of biogas if

engine unavailable. Aerobic Digester (P11) Closed pressure vessels– release of



Aerobic digestion acts as a deodourising

phase of the process. Presence of

oxygen in a mixed environment prevents

creation of biogas.



odourous air to bio-scrubber.


19

Potential Odour

Source


Filter (P12) Process liquid stripped of offensive

Odours in P11.

None

Fermentation Tanks

(P13-P18)

Process includes degassing period,

vented through an “S” bend. Airlock for

over-pressure regulation producing a

very slight sweet molasses Odour.

None

Inoculation Tanks (P19-

P26)

Process liquid stripped of offensive

Odours in P11.

None

Storage Tank (P27) Process liquid stripped of offensive

Odours in P11.

None

Process liquid

transfer pointsA. Feedstock to final

product:Delivery Tanker into

Input Tank (P1)

Potential for odourous air to be

generated during transfer of feedstock

into tank.

Depending on interface design between delivery vehicle

and tank, contingency planning to accommodate

venting displaced air to bio-scrubber (P3).

Input Tank (P1) to

Crusher (P2)

Closed piping system – sealed pressure

rated piping prevents emissions to

atmosphere.



odourous air to bio-scrubber via tank downstream of

piping.

Crusher (P2) to Acid

Tanks (P4 & P5)



atmosphere.




piping.

Acid Tanks (P4 & P5) to

Fermenters (P6-P8)



atmosphere.




piping.

Fermenters (P6-P8) to

Storage Tank (P9)



atmosphere.




piping.

Storage Tank (P9) to

Aerobic Digester (P11)



atmosphere.



odourous air to bio-scrubber or flare (if methane

present).

Aerobic Digester (P11)

to Filter (P12)


odours in P11.





20

Potential Odour

Source


Filter (P12) to

Inoculation (P19-P26)


odours in P11.





to Storage (P27)


odours in P11.




Storage (P27) into IBCs

or Tanker


odours in P11.




B. Additional Process

Liquid Inputs:Molasses delivery and

movement into mixing

tank

Potential for production of a very slight

sweet molasses odour.

None

Movement of soil

conditioner additives

(molasses, fulvic acid,

Aqualan Q, agricultural

microbes, yeast) from

mixing tank into

Fermentation Tanks

(P13-P18)

Process liquid does not contain offensive

odours.

None

Fermentation Tanks

(P13-P18) to


Process liquid does not contain offensive

odours.

None.

Biogas management:

Biogas generation in

Fermenters (P6-P8)

Closed pressure vessels– release of



Design to relevant Australian Standards

Transfer of biogas and

liquid from Fermenters

(P6-P8) to Storage (P9)





Transfer of biogas from

Storage (P9) to Gas

Buffer in Generation

System (P10)






21

Potential Odour

Source


Generator exhaust

management

Development emissions estimation and

dispersion modeling of the biogas engine

exhaust. This modeling will take into

account local meteorological data and

factors including mass emissions rates,

stack parameters including location,

height and diameter, building downwash

from building dimensions, and local

terrain.

Stack design based on report outputs (20m

Other Potential

Sources of Odour

Generation:Inorganic Material

Collection (at P1 and

P4 & P5)

Potential source of Odour emission as

material removed from process liquid

may be odourous

Solid inorganic wastes separated from the feedstock will

be immediately transferred to sealed storage vessels,

located within bunded areas, to minimize odour emis-

sions and prevent liquid emissions. If necessary, the bins

could be maintained under a slight negative pressure

and air (with potential odour contamination) transferred

to the wet scrubber. It is anticipated that the accumula-

tion of solid waste will be relatively small, with transfer to

off-site disposal likely to occur at an approximate weekly

frequency.

Filtered solids (from

P12)

Solid soil conditioner, having undergone

anaerobic and aerobic digestion, is

expected to be free from odour.

None

Bio-scrubber (P3) The wet scrubber pumps potentially

odourous air into its base and up through

trickle filtered absorbent plastic

fragments that are kept constantly via the

pumping of liquid through the top of the

vessel. The downward movement of

water provides nutrients for the odour

consuming microbes then pools in the

base of the unit. This used liquid is

added to the digester feedstock stream.

Design of bio-scrubber capacity to manage odourous air

from crusher (P2) on continual basis and provision for

increased capacity in contingency planning included in

this assessment.

Sumps and Drains In the event of process failure and loss of

process liquid prior to aerobic digestion

(P11), there is potential for odourous

emissions if process liquid comes into

contact with air, likely in sumps and

drains.

Sumps and drains designed to accommodate rapid

extraction and management of liquids to prevent impact

to air amenity. Solid material collected is ups and drains

can be reprocessed through the input tank whilst liquid

material can be pumped directly into the digester.


22

Potential Odour

Source


H2S scrubber Closed pressure vessels– release of



Depending on the final configuration of

the generator system (P10), a H2S

scrubber may be required to treat the

biogas prior to combustion in order to

reduce the H2S concentration to 400

ppm.

H2S scrubbers are comprised of a caustic buffer tank, a

biogas blower, the desulferizer vessel, buffer pump and

electronic control cabinet. Often two desulferizer vessels

are used to provide a redundant system when the other

is being maintained or inoperable, or can be used in

parallel if required. The buffer is replace every 2000

hours of operation. A scrubber operating as designed

should have minimal odour, however in the event of

release of odours through seals, opening for

maintenance, process failure, or other, design provision

be made for ventilation of potentially odourous air to bio-

scrubber. Storage, transfer and

transport of soil

conditioner

Solid soil conditioner, having undergone

anaerobic and aerobic digestion, is

expected to be free from odour.

None

Returned pallets Pallets to be cleaned after use and

before return to facility.

Depending on quality of pallet cleaning, contingency

planning to accommodate venting displaced air to bio-

scrubber (P3).

The biogas from the digester plant will be combusted in generators to produce combined heat and power. IMP

commissioned Hodson & Associates to undertake emissions estimation and dispersion modeling of the biogas engine

exhaust (Appendix F). This modeling took into account local meteorological data and factors including mass emissions rates,

stack parameters including location, height and diameter, building downwash from building dimensions, and local terrain.

The findings are summarized below:

• The Ausplume Air Dispersion modelling reveals that the predicted concentrations of the majority of the air

contaminants are well below their respective Design Criteria. The predicted H2S content is 68% of the EPA

Design Criteria limit. Based on the emission data, the modelling and the conservative assumptions made

concerning the emission of H2S (assuming the maximum sulphur level in fuel, and that 0.25% of the sulphur is

converted to H2S), it is concluded that the emissions from a 20m stack will comply with the Tasmanian EPA

Air Policy ground level Criteria and the in-stack limits.

All other pieces of process equipment have been assessed and not determined to be likely further sources of odour

emission or potential impact to air during normal operations. In the event of process failure, there is a risk of odour impact to

air. When considered against the proposed best practice operation guidelines, spill containment and contingency planning

and the existing environment, this risk can be considered minimal, however the design of the plant will incorporate response

measures to mitigate odour impact to air that can be implemented within 24 hours [Commitment 3].

There is potential for air emissions during construction, namely from construction vehicles and dust generation from

earthworks.

4.1.4 Mitigation MeasuresTo mitigate the potential emission source at inlet and crushing, the crusher is located inside the digester plant warehouse

structure. The crusher is fitted with a positive displacement pump to draw clean air into the space, while the potentially

odourous air is forced through a bio-scrubber (Drawing G03 Reference P3). The bio-scrubber pumps potentially odourous

air into its base and up through trickle filtered absorbent plastic fragments that are constantly kept wet. The downward

movement of water collects the odourous pollutants and pools in the base of the unit. This water is added to the digester

feedstock stream.


23

To mitigate the potential emission sources during construction, all vehicles will be maintained to an acceptable standard,

dust will be managed in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) [Commitment 4].

Following construction during the commissioning phase, an assessment of air emissions from sources identified in 4.1.3 will

be undertaken, and a measure of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures undertaken. This measure will take into

account occupational exposure and impact to adjacent land users.


24

4.2 Liquid Waste

4.2.1 Existing ConditionsThe site is located on the existing Longford WWTP, which accepts Longford town sewerage and trade waste from the Swift

abattoir. It is understood the WWTP currently discharges to Back Creek.

4.2.2 Performance RequirementsThe objectives of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 are to:

• focus water quality management on the achievement of water quality objectives which will maintain or

enhance water quality and further the objectives of Tasmania's Resource Management and Planning System;

• ensure that diffuse source and point source pollution does not prejudice the achievement of water quality

objectives and that pollutants discharged to waterways are reduced as far as is reasonable and practical by

the use of best practice environmental management;

• ensure that efficient and effective water quality monitoring programs are carried out and that the responsibility

for monitoring is shared by those who use and benefit from the resource, including polluters, who should bear

an appropriate share of the costs arising from their activities, water resource managers and the community;

4.2.3 Potential EffectsDisposal of effluent from the digester process was identified as a key issue in the PSGs, however given the nature of the

proposed development, whereby the generation of liquid fertiliser is a key platform of the business, the generation of liquid

waste is limited. Liquid flows within the facility are all enclosed, measured and monitored as part of the manufacturing

process. Loss of material is not anticipated, given the concept of the liquid being a key commodity in the process. For

contingency planning, if the need to drain a liquid holding element arises, the liquid material will be retained to be reinstated

into the process when the element is brought back on line.

4.2.4 Mitigation Measures

Liquid Flows

The mitigation for generation of liquid waste is driven by the concept of the liquid flows as a high value resource. The optimal

performance of the facility is based on the material passing through the various items of enclosed process equipment

described in Section 2. There is no chance for the liquid to come into contact with the environment, other than in the event

of a failure of some nature. In the event of a failure, the bunding design is such that the total capacity of the plant will be

retained within the bunded area. The material will be recovered and reintroduced to the facility. The loss of material is not

economic.

Stormwater Management

Stormwater capture from the roofs of facilities is part of the site design (Drawing G02). This captured water will be used for

onsite purposes, i.e. toilets, amenities, cleaning etc. Stormwater design for a 1 in 100 year event has been accommodated.

Given the enclosed nature of the facility, the operational requirement to maintain good housekeeping within the bunded area

in the event that liquid recovery is required means that stormwater will not come into contact with any of the process

material. The design of the interception pits within the bunded area will accommodate stormwater flows through manually

operated valves. The release of stormwater will be to natural surface drainage immediately surrounding the facilities.

Discharge to municipal sewerage system

Discharge to sewer will be limited to plumbing facilities for the 6 to 8 staff onsite, and to wastewater generated during

maintenance of facility elements.


25

4.3 Groundwater

4.3.1 Existing ConditionsAs tabled in Section 3.2.1, there is no data available for groundwater at the site. Nearby groundwater bores (Figure 3) have

published TDS measurements ranging from 341 to 900 mg/L, which defines the groundwater as being in Category A for

Environmental Value and Use according to the SPWQM; therefore the beneficial uses to be protected include drinking water

(Where groundwaters have TDS levels below 500 mg/L, TDS levels should be maintained below these levels wherever

practicable), irrigation, industry, stock and ecosystem protection.

4.3.2 Performance RequirementsIn relation to groundwater, the requirements to be met are detailed in the following legislation and policy:

• Water Management Act 1999

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

• Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource

Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for

Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Volume 1 October 2000

• ANZECC and ARMCANZ National Water Quality Management Strategy, Guidelines for Groundwater

Protection in Australia September 1995

The key performance requirement for the proposed development is the protection of beneficial use of groundwater, defined

in the SPWQM as being based on total dissolved solids (TDS).

4.3.3 Mitigation MeasuresIt is not anticipated that groundwater will be impacted during construction. Excavation and foundation design will be

undertaken upon the completion of a pre-construction geotechnical survey of the site, which will include consideration of the

intersection of groundwater. If shallow groundwater is detected, the likely result will be modification of engineering design to

avoid the need for groundwater management by raising design depths. The other potential hazard identified is the use of fuel

and hydraulic oil for construction equipment. These substances will be managed according to the requirements tabled in

Section 4.6.

The risk of groundwater impact during operation is considered to be very low. As stated in Section 4.2, the liquid involved in

the process is considered a valuable resource, and the facility is designed to efficiently and effectively manage liquid flows.

Design has also accounted for the capture and reclamation of material in the event of a failure or spill.


26

4.4 Noise Emissions

4.4.1 Existing ConditionsThe WWTP currently operates under the conditions tabled in Environment Protection Notice 7407/2 (Appendix G). Noise

emissions are limited depending on three time periods during the day (the time interval over which noise levels are averaged

is established at 10 minutes) 40 dB between 10pm and 8am (Night), 45 dB between 8am and 6pm (Day) and 50 dB

between 8am and 6pm (Evening).

There are no other fixed sources of noise in the immediate vicinity of the site. Other dynamic sources of noise in the

immediate vicinity may include farm machinery and vehicular traffic on Bishopsbourne Road.

4.4.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation relating to noise emissions in Tasmania is the Environmental Pollutions Control Act 1994 (Section 53),

which contains minor provision for the management of environmental noise in accordance with National Environmental

Protection Measures. Other policies to be considered include:

• Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2006

• Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995

4.4.4 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresIt is anticipated that noise emissions will increase during the construction phase of the development, with likely sources

including construction equipment and machinery and general construction activities. Given the existing conditions outlined in

4.4.1, the impact of this extra noise generation is considered to be low. Mitigation will include public consultation as outlined

in Section 1.6, in conjunction with limiting construction activities to normal work hours.

The operation of the facility will be below the limits tabled in EPN 7407/2 for the WWTP. The new sources of noise are

identified as follows:

Table 6 New Noise Sources

Process

Equipment

Drawing Reference Expected outside

noise level

Crusher Drawing G03 Reference P2 < 20 dB

Pumps Drawing G03 from Reference P2 < 20 dB

Biogas Engines Drawing G03 Reference P10 < 20 dB

Mitigation measures have been included in the design of the facility; whereby those elements of the facility with the potential

to generate the most noise have been moved inside and in the case of the biogas engines, design of a sound dampening

generator room.


27

4.5 Solid and Controlled Waste Management

4.5.1 Existing ConditionsThe existing waste management situation involving the Longford Swift abattoir and the WWTP involves the disposal of

controlled waste via Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) treatment, pumping to the WWTP’s Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (CAL) and

introduction into the WWTP lagoon system. At the time of writing, this situation has proved unsatisfactory for the

management of the waste, for a number of reasons.

4.5.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to solid and controlled waste management for the proposed development is

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000

• Movement of Controlled Waste Between States and Territories – National Environment Protection Measure

(NEPM)

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010

4.5.3 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresDuring the construction phase, it is anticipated that waste construction materials, packaging and putrescible waste will be

generated. These materials will be stored in designated zones or in covered bins in appropriate areas and disposed of

according to regulations to recycling or approved waste disposal facilities. Opportunities for the minimization of waste

generation and recycling will be identified in the CEMP.

During operation it is anticipated that solid waste will be generated when inorganic material is separated from the feedstock

before and after the crusher. The amount of this waste generated is contingent on the nature of the organic material

supplied. It is anticipated that the material emanating from the abattoir would have only minor amounts of inorganic material

such as sand from animal hooves or fragments from animal coats. This waste will be contained in covered bins for removal

to an approved solid waste disposal facility [Commitment 5]. It is noted that controlled waste will be transported to the site

when organic material is delivered from the abattoir. The approved waste transport trucks that make these deliveries will

operate under the Controlled Waste Tracking System.


28

4.6 Dangerous Goods

4.6.1 Performance RequirementsConstruction and operation of the facility must adhere to the requirements of the following legislation and policy in relation to

dangerous goods:

• Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail

• Dangerous Goods Act 1998

• Australian Dangerous Goods Code

• Australian Standards 1940 – “The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids” and 3780 –

“The storage and handling of corrosive substances”

4.6.2 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresDuring construction, the management of fuel, lubricants and other chemicals will be in accordance with the relevant

standards and legislative requirements, and follow the storage and handling procedures tabled in the CEMP. The CEMP will

document the nature of these dangerous goods in detail.

During operation of the proposed facility, Material Safety and Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all dangerous goods will be

maintained onsite at all times. Emergency procedures will be documented and emergency equipment will be available in all

storage areas. Spill management will be documented and spill management equipment will be available in all areas where

hazardous substances and dangerous goods are stored. All dangerous goods will be stored in appropriate containers in

designated areas. Containers will be clearly and correctly labelled so the contents are easily identified. [Commitment 6]


29

4.7 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Values

4.7.1 Existing ConditionsAn ecological assessment of flora and fauna at the site was undertaken on 12th February 2010 by ECOtas (Appendix E).

The assessment found that the absence of threatened flora, fauna and vegetation types from the proposed disturbance

footprint means that permits and specific approvals relating to these natural values would not be required. The findings are

summarized below:

Vegetation Types

The study area supports the following TASVEG mapping units, namely: “Extra-urban miscellaneous” (FUM) and “Permanent

easement” (FPE). These mapping units are not classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature

Conservation Act 2002.

Flora Species

No flora species, listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, were recorded from the study area.

Fauna Species

No fauna species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Commonwealth

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, are known from within or near the study area. Species listed

as “protected wildlife” on the schedules of the Wildlife Regulations 1999 were not detected and no products of such species

(e.g. nests, den sites, etc.) were recorded such that additional permits under these regulations will not be required. There is

likely to be marginal potential foraging habitat for several species including the wedge-tailed eagle, spotted-tailed quoll,

masked owl, tasmanian devil and eastern barred bandicoot. Given the existing high level of anthropogenic disturbance within

and surrounding the study area, the additional installation of the anaerobic digester facility is unlikely to deleteriously impact

further on the potential habitat of these species.

Weed Species

Four species, classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were

detected from the study area: Ulex europaeus (gorse), Rubus fruticosus .agg (blackberry), Amaranthus albus (tumble

pigweed) and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel). The species have already been quite effectively managed through a slashing

regime. Post-construction follow up management (e.g. hand-spraying of weed outbreaks) should be considered for these

species to inhibit invasion to surrounding properties. A more complex site-specific weed management plan is not considered

warranted.

4.7.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to biodiversity and nature conservation values for the proposed development is:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

• Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

• Weed Management Act 1999

• Nature Conservation Act 2002

• Wildlife Regulations 1999

• Forest Practices Act 1985

4.7.3 Mitigation MeasuresThe assessment of the proposed development against the relevant flora and fauna management legislation has indicated

that the only specific mitigation measures recommended relate to weed management. The main concern is to minimise the


30

risk of invasive exotic species becoming more widely established in the municipality. It is recommended that any debris,

including topsoil and cut vegetation (both of which may contain propagules of weed species), created from development

works be removed from the site and disposed of at a recognised municipal refuse management facility (in accordance with

any local government regulations). [Commitment 7]

4.8 Marine and CoastalN/A

4.9 Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depleting Substances

4.9.1 Existing ConditionsThe disposal of the equivalent throughput of the proposed facility, namely 30 tons per day or 10,800 tons per year, in terms

of landfill GHG emissions is 11,880 t CO2-e per year (calculation provided in Appendix H)

4.9.2 Performance RequirementsGreenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions have been estimated using the National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors, prepared

by the Department of Climate Change for use by companies and individuals to estimate greenhouse gas emissions for

reporting under various government programs and for their own purposes.

The methods for calculating emissions derived from the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement)

Determination 2008 and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Technical Guidelines June 2009,

designed to support reporting under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

The default emission factors listed have been estimated by the Department of Climate Change using the Australian

Greenhouse Emissions Information System (AGEIS).

4.9.3 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresDuring construction of the proposed development, GHG emissions will be minimal, including construction machinery,

associated transport to and from the site, and energy use during construction. IMP will undertake to ensure that machinery

and equipment is maintained in good working order, unnecessary transport is minimised and energy is utilised efficiently, in

order to limit GHG emissions.

During operation of the proposed facility, GHG emissions are estimated at 489.5 t CO2-e per year (calculation provided in

Appendix H). This calculation was derived from the NGA Factors. The estimated emissions are generated from trucking

transport movements and the combustion of biogas to produce electricity. Conversely, the combustion of biogas will enable

the proposed development to be self sufficient for electricity, which reduces the need for electricity supply and the

associated indirect GHG emissions.). Measured against the existing GHG emissions calculated in 4.9.1, this represents a

reduction of approximately 11,000 t CO2-e per yea


31

4.10 Heritage

4.10.1 Existing ConditionsA number of assessments of cultural and indigenous heritage have been undertaken for the site and its surrounds. There are

no listed sites of either Aboriginal heritage or cultural significance within the extent of the proposed development.

4.10.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to heritage values in the context of the proposed development are:

• The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995,

• The Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995

4.10.3 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresGiven the intrusive works associated with excavation of foundations, the CEMP will detail provision that if material of potential

cultural significance is encountered, works will cease and Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania will be contacted immediately for

further advice. [Commitment 8]

4.11 Land Use and Development

4.11.1 Existing ConditionsThe existing Longford WWTP is located within an “Attenuation Special Area”, defined in Clause 15 of the Northern Midlands

Planning Scheme 1995. This area is delineated based on the Standard Recommended Attenuation Distance (SRAD) set

down by the Division of Environmental Management, Department of Environment and Land Management (1996). The

nearest property zoned as residential is approximately 1.4km south-east of the WWTP, outside the attenuation area.

As tabled in Section 3.2.3, a small conservation zone is located approximately 750m north-west of the site, on the opposite

side of Bishopsbourne Road. It is not anticipated that this reserve will be impacted by the proposed development.

Adjacent land uses and their zoning primarily support rural and agricultural activities.

4.11.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to land use in the context of the proposed development are:

• Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

• Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

4.11.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresIt is anticipated that the proposed development is unlikely to have an impact on current or future use of this land.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Northern Midlands Planning

Scheme 1995 and LUPAA.


32

4.12 Visual Effects

4.12.1 Existing ConditionsThe visual landscape of the site of the proposed development is characterized by the existing WWTP, built up treatment

lagoons, surrounded by open pastures.

There are no obvious vantage points in the vicinity of the site where tourists or recreational land users will have their view of

the landscape impacted by the proposed development. Consideration has been given to the view of the landscape from the

Longford township looking west from the Longford Football Ground, Bulwer St, High St, Malcombe St and Hay St (Appendix

I).

The site is hidden from view from Bishopsbourne Rd.

4.12.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to visual amenity in the context of the proposed development are:

• Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

• Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995

4.12.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresThe maximum height of the proposed development is designed at 8m, which will be a warehouse structure. The design of

the development has taken visual impact into consideration, and accordingly the exterior of large warehouse structures will

be a natural green colour to reduce visual impact, with non-reflective material used where possible. The site is part of the

WWTP, which periodically has plant and associated equipment onsite to perform maintenance such as desludging lagoons.

4.13 Socio-Economic Issues

4.13.1 Total Capital InvestmentThe total capital investment for the proposed development is approximately $7.5 million.

4.13.2 Impacts on Local and State Labour MarketsDuring the construction of the development, it is anticipated that local contractors will be engaged where needed to assist

with the construction.

During the operation phase, it is anticipated by IMP that the proposed development will employ five people on a full time

basis, with a sixth person required on an ad-hoc basis.

4.13.3 Impacts on Upstream and Downstream IndustriesProducers of organic material, namely in this instance, the Swift abattoir in Longford, will benefit from a cost effective and

drastically improved environmental method of disposal.

The agricultural industry in Tasmania will benefit from the availability of a high quality biological fertiliser, and the concept of

‘nutrient cycling’, whereby the potential of material is unlocked rather than disposed of will be introduced.

Another benefit to local and statewide industries is the substitution of imported product for locally produced fertiliser which

will have positive net economic benefit for Tasmania.


33

4.13.4 Local Raw MaterialsThe main components of the digester facility will be purchased partly assembled, however the warehouse and the fertiliser

facility will be manufactured and constructed from locally sourced materials utilizing local expertise. These materials will

include tanks, warehousing, pipes, pumps.

The organic material feedstock will all be sourced locally from Northern Tasmania.

4.13.5 Infrastructure EffectsIt is not anticipated that the proposed development will impact on recreational, cultural, health or sporting facilities and

services.

4.13.6 Community Demographic ImpactsThe proposed development is not expected to result in significant community impacts. The proposed facility is considered to

be relatively small in scale. However it should be noted that there will be a number of Korean technicians employed to install

the plant. These technicians will live locally for a period of time.

4.13.7 Impacts on Land ValuesGiven the site’s location within an existing utility services zone, the projected impact upon land values is not considered to be

significant. Air and noise impacts will be mitigated through a number of engineering measures as discussed in Sections 4.1

and 4.4 respectively, with the likely result an overall positive impact (improvement) in air quality. Increased heavy vehicle

movement is unlikely to have an impact on the surrounding properties due to the site’s proximity to Illawarra Rd, which

already carries heavy vehicle traffic .

4.13.8 Economic ImpactThe proposed development will have a positive impact on the local, regional and state economies.

On a local level, the producers of organic material will benefit from reduced costs for disposal and environmental compliance

– which in turn increases the viability of their respective operations, maintaining or increasing their ability to participate in the

local economy as employers and business users of utilities and local services.

From an energy perspective the IMP project will be self sufficient for its own energy requirements. Thus not adding to the

drain on local electricity supply.

On a regional level, the agricultural industry in Northern Tasmania will benefit from access to high quality, locally produced

biological fertiliser, and by using this product they can close the loop and become part of the nutrient cycle.

On a state level, Tasmania will become the first state to host a commercially independent anaerobic digestion facility

producing high quality biological fertiliser.


34

4.14 Health and Safety Issues

4.14.1 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to health and safety in the context of the proposed development are:


• Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998

• Australian Standard 4804 Occupational Health and Safety Systems

• Northern Midlands Council Policy 12 Occupational Health and Safety

• Northern Midlands Council Policy 13 Occupational Health and Safety Requirements for Contractors

4.14.2 Potential Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresHealth and safety management during the construction phase of the proposed development will adhere to the requirements

of the Northern Midlands Council Policy 13 Occupational Health and Safety Requirements for Contractors.

The development of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) [Commitment 9] for the operation of the proposed

development will incorporate the health and safety requirements of Northern Midlands Council Policy 12 Occupational Health

and Safety, the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998. Issues that

the EMP will address include the identification of safety hazards and controls, procedures for operational control of

equipment, specific training requirements, emergency response procedures and incident management.

4.15 Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

4.15.1 Performance RequirementsThe key document relating to hazard analysis and risk assessment in the context of the proposed development is Standards

Australia HB 203:2006 Environmental risk management - Principles and process

4.15.2 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresA preliminary risk assessment has been undertaken for the proposed project (see Appendix J). The risk assessment process

identified a number of potential hazards with serious consequences, however the application of mitigation measures using

the hierarchy of control (elimination, substitution, engineering, administration and protection) has served to minimise the risk

of each.


35

4.16 Fire Risk

4.16.1 Existing ConditionsThe location of the proposed facility is adjacent to a utility services zone, not prone to bushfire. It is considered unlikely that

bushfire would reach the proposed facility as it is surrounded by areas of agricultural land.

4.16.2 Performance RequirementsThe key legislation and policy relating to fire risk in the context of the proposed development are:

• Fire Services Act 1979; and


4.16.3 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresThe construction of the proposed facility will involve the use of some flammable materials, such as fuels for construction

equipment. These materials will be used, stored and transported in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Act 1998. The

risk of fire during construction is considered to be low, however appropriate fire fighting equipment (such as fire

extinguishers) will be available on site.

The design and operation of the proposed facility will demonstrate compliance with both the Fire Services Act 1979 and the

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, as well as all relevant Australian Standards. In particular the generation, storage and

use of biogas will adhere strictly to these performance requirements, and will include emergency response measures

incorporated into the design of all biogas-related process equipment.

All management measures relating to prevention and response to fire at the proposed facility will be incorporated into an

Emergency Response Plan, which will be developed prior to commissioning [Commitment 10]. The proposed facility will also

be supplied with appropriate fire equipment including fire extinguishers, fire blankets, water pumps and fire alarms.

All electrical infrastructure will be constructed in full compliance with the Tasmanian Electricity Code to minimise risk of

electrical faults that may act as ignition sources.

4.17 Infrastructure and Off-Site Ancillary Facilities

4.17.1 Performance RequirementsThe key performance requirements are for the construction and operation of the proposed facility not to significantly impact

upon the local road networks, power or water supply. The upgrade to the site access will comply with the relevant Austroad

Guidelines, NMC regulations and relevant Australian Standards.

4.17.2 Potential Effects and Mitigation MeasuresThe operation of the facility is anticipated to lead to a minor increase in trucking movements (approximately 3 to 5 trucks per

day) within the vicinity of the facility. The power and water requirements for the development are considered minimal and are

not anticipated to have a significant affect on local supplies.


36

4.18 Environmental Management SystemsBoth the construction and operational phases of the proposed project have the potential to result in environmental impacts.

The framework for addressing environmental performance and continual improvement will be addressed in an EMP that will

be prepared for the operational phase of the project.

4.18.1 Construction Environmental Management PlanThe construction of the facility will be undertaken in accordance with a CEMP that will account for all construction impact

mitigation measures discussed throughout Section 4 of this document.

4.18.2 Operational Environmental Management Plan (EMP)Following construction it will be the responsibility of IMP to prepare and implement an Operational EMP prior to

commissioning. This EMP will reviewed and updated within 24 months of operation.

It is expected that the EMP will encompass the relevant issues identified in Section 4, and include, but not be limited to the

following key elements:

Site Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage entry and exit from the site. The site management procedures will

include:

• Development and implementation of an induction program to be provided to all employees

• Identification of areas requiring restricted access and methods for ensuring this occurs

• Installation and maintenance of appropriate signage

Odour Management

Development and implementation of a system to minimise odour generation during operation.

The odour management procedures will include:

• Identification of areas within the site that may be prone to odour emissions

• Development of odour control systems to minimise potential odour emissions

• Development of processes to ensure odour emissions are minimised from vehicles delivering material to the

facility

• Development of a system to document complaints relating to odour

Water Management

Development and implementation of a water management system. The water management procedures will include:

• Identification of final site drainage design

• Maintenance of bunding and associated release valves

• Development of procedures to manage spills of hazardous materials and deal with their removal

Noise Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage and control noise emissions.

All equipment and machinery will be operated in accordance with the requirements of Part 3, Division 3, “The exposure

standard for noise”, of the Tasmanian Workplace Health and Safety Regulations


37

Fire Management

Development and implementation of a system to prevent and control the escape of fire during operation.

The fire management procedures will include:

• Identification of all processes that may create a potential fire hazard

• Minimisation of potential fuel on site (including natural fuels)

• Development of fire fighting and emergency notification procedures

• Provision of fire fighting equipment such as extinguishers, blankets and water pumps

• A procedure for management of plant in the event of fire ingress to site from surrounding areas

Waste Management

Development and implementation of a system to manage the storage and disposal of all waste materials created during the

works. The waste disposal procedures will include:

• Identification of potential waste materials generated during operation

• Identification of statutory requirements and a waste tracking procedure

• Provision of storage facilities and procedures for waste generated

• Identification of suitable off site disposal for waste generated

4.19 Cumulative and Interactive EffectsThe proposed development is not anticipated to create any significant cumulative impacts associated with other existing or

known developments in the area.


38

5 Monitoring and Review

On-going monitoring of the efficacy of mitigation measures and potential impacts of the facility is required to determine if the

project is meeting obligations stated in the DPEMP, and subsequent permit conditions. The key aspects requiring

monitoring, include:

• Noise Emissions; and

• Odour Emissions.

As the quantity of water to be discharged in to the municipal sewer is minimal, monitoring of water discharges is not

considered necessary.

5.1 Noise MonitoringNoise survey design will be developed in consultation with the EPA Division. Noise monitoring will be undertaken within 2

months of commissioning of the facility and, assuming compliance, on an as needs basis there-after. [Commitment 11]

5.2 Odour EmissionsTo monitor odour, and other potential impacts not considered suitable for on-going monitoring, a complaints and incidents

register will be developed and maintained.

Any complaints received from neighboring residents, motorists and any other members of the general public will be recorded

in the register.

Any accidents, or incidents resulting in the potential for personal or environmental harm or nuisance will be reported to the

appropriate authority as soon as practicable. [Commitment 12]

5.3 Post Commissioning ReviewA review of operations and associated management plans will be undertaken 12 months after commissioning of the facility

(and at three-yearly intervals thereafter) and will include all results of the regular monitoring programs. [Commitment 13]


39

6 Decommissioning and Reha-bil itation

There is no plan for the decommissioning of the proposed facility in the foreseeable future and as such it is not expected that

a detailed decommissioning and rehabilitation plan will be required for some time. In the event that the facility becomes

redundant a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan will be produced and provided to the Director, Environment Protection

Authority at least three months prior to decommissioning. [Commitment 14]


40

Commitments

Table 7 Commitments

Number Details DPEMP

Reference

Responsible

Party

1 IMP commit to undertake public consultation regarding the proposed development,

including a commitment to make information available directly from the proponent.

1.6 IMP

2 IMP commit to limit main work activities to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday. 2.1.12 IMP

3 IMP commit to implementing odour control response measures within 24 hours of

complaint being received.

4.1.3 IMP

4 IMP commit to maintaining all construction vehicles to an acceptable standard, and

manage dust in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan

(CEMP)

4.1.4 IMP

5 IMP commit to disposing of inorganic material to an approved facility. 4.5.3 IMP

6 IMP commit to the handling of dangerous goods handling according to appropriate

regulations.

4.6.2 IMP

7 IMP commit to disposing of debris created from development works be removed

from the site and disposed of at a recognised municipal refuse management facility.

4.7.3 IMP

8 IMP commit to ceasing construction work if material of potential cultural significance

is encountered, and contacting Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania immediately for further

advice.

4.10.3 IMP

9 IMP commit to the development of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) prior

to commissioning.

4.14.4 IMP

10 IMP commit to the development of an Emergency Response Plan prior to commis-

sioning.

4.16.3 IMP

11 IMP commit to undertaking noise monitoring within 2 months of commissioning of

the facility and, assuming compliance, on an as needs basis thereafter.

5.1 IMP

12 IMP commit to maintenance of a complaints and incidents register, particularly for

odour emissions.

5.2 IMP

13 IMP commit to undertake a review of operations and associated management plans

12 months after commissioning of the facility (and at three-yearly intervals thereafter)

5.3 IMP

14 In the event that the facility becomes redundant, IMP commit to producing a

decommissioning and rehabilitation plan and providing it to EPA at least three

months prior to decommissioning.

6 IMP


41

Conclusion

IMP Environmental’s proposed anaerobic digestion and fertiliser batching facility is a project in which, through careful

management, a very broad number of stakeholders will benefit from its success.

First and foremost, the project is a commercial enterprise that is endeavoring to convert a waste into a resource, and sell the

resource in the Tasmanian marketplace. However, the project neatly fills a gap in the nutrient cycle, completing the loop

between agriculture and industry.

The proposed facility will have a net positive environmental impact, ranging from improvements to local odour conditions,

reduced GHG emissions, minimisation of traditional waste disposal and prevention of nutrient loss in agriculture. The

potential negative effects to environment including failure of process equipment that may lead to spills or loss of material

have been assessed and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design and operational procedure of the

facility.

The proposed facility represents an opportunity for Tasmania to position itself at the leading edge of waste minimisation,

renewable energy production and regenerative agricultural practice; an opportunity to strengthen the state’s enviable

environmental landscape.


42

References

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Northern Midlands Planning Scheme 1995

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004

State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997

Water Management Act 1999

Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and Resource Management

Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality, Volume 1 October 2000

ANZECC and ARMCANZ National Water Quality Management Strategy, Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia

September 1995

Environmental Pollutions Control Act 1994

Draft Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2006

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995

Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000

Movement of Controlled Waste Between States and Territories – National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM)

Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010

Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail

Dangerous Goods Act 1998

Australian Dangerous Goods Code

Australian Standards 1940 – “The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids” and 3780 – “The storage and

handling of corrosive substances”

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Weed Management Act 1999


43

Nature Conservation Act 2002

Wildlife Regulations 1999

Forest Practices Act 1985

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Technical Guidelines June 2009

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007

The Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995,

Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998

Australian Standard 4804 Occupational Health and Safety Systems

Northern Midlands Council Policy 12 Occupational Health and Safety

Northern Midlands Council Policy 13 Occupational Health and Safety Requirements for Contractors

Standards Australia HB 203:2006 Environmental risk management - Principles and process

Fire Services Act 1979

Brickendon Soil Profile Class


44

Drawing G02: Proposed Plant Layout


45

46

Drawing G03: Digester Facil ity Layout


47

48

Drawing G04: Ferti l iser Batching Facil ity Layout


49

50

Appendix A: Classif ication of Project


51

52

53

Appendix B: DPEMP Project Specif ic Guidelines


54

55

56

57

Appendix C: Assurance of Process Viabil ity


58

Dongmun I.R.S Co.LTD #1106,#803,110,Haksan Blfg,Kwangjang-dong Kwangin-Gu,143-802,Seoul,Korea/ Tel:822-3437-6602 FAX:822-3437-6601

To the Director, Environment Protection Authority,

I am writing to you as President and Technical Manager of Dongmun I.R.S., a

Korean company that designs, manufactures, and operates anaerobic digestion

plants to treat organic waste. We will provide the plant for the Dongmun / IMP

digester project at Longford in Tasmania. I have over 27 years experience in

the wastewater and waste treatment industry. The Korean Ministry of

Environment has certified the Dongmun technology, because the Dongmun

organic waste treatment system was developed with close cooperation by The

Korean Ministry of Environment and Dongmun I.R.S.

Viability of proposed process

We have examined the data from the waste (feedstock) sources coming from

the Swift Longford abattoir, and can report that we are very pleased that the

results show a high BOD and COD, both good indicators of suitability of

material for our process. The presence of oil and grease will mean that our

process will need to be tailored to accommodate these elements by anaerobic

microbes such as hydrolytic bacteria, acidogenic bacteria (Clostridium),

acetogenic bacteria (acetate and H2-producing bacteria, such as Syntobacter

wolini and Syntrophomonas wolfei) and methanogenic bacteria (Methanosarcia

and Methanothrix).

Given my experience of treating a variety organic waste, I can firmly

vouch for the ability of the Dongmun technology to treat the waste stream

from the Longford abattoir.

The Dongmun digester plant handles any organic waste stream by bacterial

hydrolysis of the input materials in order to break down insoluble organic

polymers such as carbohydrates and make them available for other bacteria.

Acidogenic bacteria then convert the sugars and amino acids into carbon

dioxide, hydrogen, ammonia, and organic acids. Acetogenic bacteria then

convert these resulting organic acids into acetic acid, along with additional

59

ammonia, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Methanogens finally are able to

convert these products to methane and carbon dioxide. The remaining outputs

are liquid and solid fertiliser.

Dongmun I.R.S. has successfully installed 4 anaerobic digestion plants in

South Korea treating a variety of organic waste streams.

Process controls and contingencies

The plant will be fully computer controlled – every processing unit has

several sensors installed and connected to the monitoring room, all treatment

processes will be monitored and controlled semi-automatically.

A contingency plan for the case of digester failure is of utmost importance to

plant operation. To avoid the failure of the plant, we will install three

digester units - the capacity of two digesters are designed for such an

emergency case to cover the entire treatment capacity, so that during the

maintenance of one unit or bacterial re-seeding of one unit, we can operate

the system with two digesters and sustain the normal operation of the plant.

The site master plan will include the appropriate grading, interception pits,

bunding and emergency storage to contain any spills.

Lastly, I am strongly committed to the principles of sustainability, and I see an

ideal fit for the Dongmun technology in the Australian, and particularly the

Tasmanian context. Dongmun and IMP are committing significant capital

towards this project, and we have the utmost confidence that our plant will

deliver results that will benefit both us and the community.

Yours sincerely,

SH Joo

60

Appendix D: Tit le Information


61

RESULT OF SEARCHRECORDER OF TITLES, TASMANIAIssued pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980

SEARCH OF TORRENS TITLE

VOLUME

132421FOLIO

1

EDITION

1DATE OF ISSUE

26-Jul-1999

SEARCH DATE : 30-Apr-2010SEARCH TIME : 03.53 pm

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

Parish of LONGFORD, Land District of WESTMORLAND Lot 1 on Plan 132421 Derivation : Part of 445A.1R.0P. Granted to M L Smith Prior CT 131591/1

SCHEDULE 1

C180241 TRANSFER to NORTHERN MIDLANDS COUNCIL Registered 26-Jul-1999 at 12:00 pm (MF:2562o/473)

SCHEDULE 2

Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any

UNREGISTERED DEALINGS AND NOTATIONS

No unregistered dealings or other notationsEND OF SEARCH.

Warning: The information appearing under Unregistered Dealings and Notations has not been formally recorded in the Register.

62

63

Appendix E: Ecological Assessment


64

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania

Mark Wapstra ABN 83 464 107 291 business ph.:(03) 62 513 212 28 Suncrest Avenue email: [email protected] personal ph.: (03) 62 283 220 Lenah Valley, TAS 7008 web: www.ecotas.com.au mobile ph.: 0407 008 685

ECOtas…providing options in environmental consulting

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SITE OF PROPOSED ANAEROBIC DIGESTER CONSTRUCTION, LONGFORD WASTE WATER

TREATMENT PLANT, TASMANIA

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for IMP Environmental Solutions

24 February 2010

65


Ecological Assessment of Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant (Anaerobic Digester Site) i

CITATION

This report can be cited as: ECOtas (2010). Ecological Assessment of Site of Proposed Anaerobic Digester Construction, Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant, Tasmania. Report by Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania (ECOtas) for IMP Environmental Solutions, 24 February 2010.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ned Halliday (IMP Environmental Solutions) provided background documentation. John Stebbing (Ben Lomond Water) facilitated access and further on-site background site information.

AUTHORSHIP

Field Assessment: Brian French

Report Production: Brian French, Mark Wapstra

Vegetation Mapping: Brian French

Base Data for Mapping and Aerial Photography: TasMap, DPIPWE & Google Earth

Photography and Other Digital Imagery: Brian French

Cover illustration: View southeast along the existing treatment ponds.

66


Ecological Assessment of Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant (Anaerobic Digester Site) ii

CONTENTS

SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................3

PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT......................................................4

Purpose .....................................................................................................................4

Scope........................................................................................................................4

Limitations .................................................................................................................4

Qualifications..............................................................................................................4

Permit .......................................................................................................................4

THE STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................................5

METHODS .........................................................................................................................6

Nomenclature.............................................................................................................6

Database analysis .......................................................................................................6

Botanical survey .........................................................................................................6

Zoological survey ........................................................................................................6

RESULTS...........................................................................................................................7

Vegetation types.........................................................................................................7

Comments on TASVEG mapping ...............................................................................7

Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study ...............................................7

Priority plant species ...................................................................................................9

Weed species ........................................................................................................... 11

Disease management ................................................................................................ 12

Priority fauna ........................................................................................................... 12

RECOMMENDATIONS (including a discussion of legislative and policy implications)..................... 15

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 16

67


Ecological Assessment of Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant (Anaerobic Digester Site) 3

SUMMARY

General

Ned Halliday (IMP Environmental Solutions) engaged ECOtas (via Mark Wapstra) to conduct an ecological assessment to support a DPEMP for the construction of an anaerobic digester at the Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant, Longford.

Ecological assessment of the area took place on 12 February 2010 by Brian French (ECOtas).

Vegetation Types

The study area supports the following TASVEG mapping units, namely: “Extra-urban miscellaneous” (FUM) and “Permanent easement” (FPE). These mapping units are not classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002.

Flora Species

No flora species, listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, were recorded from the study area.

Fauna Species

No fauna species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, are known from within or near the study area.

Species listed as “protected wildlife” on the schedules of the Wildlife Regulations 1999 were not detected and no products of such species (e.g. nests, den sites, etc.) were recorded such that additional permits under these regulations will not be required.

There is likely to be marginal potential foraging habitat for several species including the wedge-tailed eagle, spotted-tailed quoll, masked owl, tasmanian devil and eastern barred bandicoot. Given the existing high level of anthropogenic disturbance within and surrounding the study area, the additional installation of the anaerobic digester facility is unlikely to deleteriously impact further on the potential habitat of these species.

Weed Species

Four species, classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were detected from the study area: Ulex europaeus (gorse), Rubus fruticosus .agg (blackberry), Amaranthus albus (tumble pigweed) and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel). The species have already been quite effectively managed through a slashing regime. Post-construction follow up management (e.g. hand-spraying of weed outbreaks) should be considered for these species to inhibit invasion to surrounding properties. A more complex site-specific weed management plan is not considered warranted.

Plant Disease

No evidence of plant disease was noted.

Recommendations

The absence of threatened flora, fauna and vegetation types from the proposed disturbance footprint means that permits and other approvals under the legislative mechanisms applicable to these values will not be required. Minor management recommendations are provided in relation to the presence of “declared weeds”.

68



PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT

Purpose

Ned Halliday (IMP Environmental Solutions) engaged ECOtas (via Mark Wapstra) to conduct an ecological assessment to support a DPEMP for the construction of an anaerobic digester at the Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant, Longford.

Scope

This report relates to:

flora and fauna species of conservation significance, including a discussion of listed threatened species potentially present, and other species of conservation significance/interest;

vegetation types (forest and non-forest, native and exotic) present, including a discussion of the distribution, condition, extent, composition and conservation significance of each community;

plant disease and weed management issues.

This report follows, in a general sense, the government-produced Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments (DPIPWE 2009) in anticipation that the report (or extracts of it) may be used as part of various approval processes that may be required for activities on the site.

Limitations

In the case of the present assessment, there were no limitations with respect to access to the study area. Access was from an existing access road, and through easily traversed vegetation types.

The flora and fauna survey was undertaken on the 12 February 2010. Many plant species have ephemeral or seasonal growth or flowering habits, or patchy distributions (at varying scales), and it is possible that some species were not recorded for this reason (especially late spring-summer flowering grasses, herbs and lilies). However, every effort was made to sample the range of habitats present in the survey area to maximise the opportunity of recording the majority of species present (particular those of conservation significance). The authors are satisfied that the timing of the survey is appropriate to detect the majority of threatened flora species potentially present, based on several assessments of many parts of the Northern Midlands region in recent years. The survey was also limited to vascular species: species of mosses, lichens and liverworts were not recorded. However, a consideration is made of species (vascular and non-vascular) likely to be present (based on habitat information and database records) and reasons presented for their apparent absence.

Qualifications

Except where otherwise stated, the opinions and interpretations of legislation and policy expressed in this report are made by the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the relevant agency. The client should confirm management prescriptions with the relevant agency before acting on the content of this report.

Permit

All plant material was collected under DPIPWE permit TFL08070 (in the name of Brian French). Relevant data will be entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas database by the authors. Some plant material may be lodged at the Tasmanian Herbarium by the authors.

69



THE STUDY AREA

The study area (Figure 1) comprises UPIs 5600607, 5600606, GEW31 and 5600611.

The study area is surrounded by private property that is predominantly productive agricultural land with a reserved forest remnant to the east of the study area.

There is no native vegetation within the proposed study area as the site is a modified environment for waste water treatment purposes and prior to this was agricultural land. Elevation varies from 150 to 155 m a.s.l.

The study area is underlain by Tertiary sediments (non-marine sequences of gravels, sands, silt, clay and regolith).

Land tenure and other categorisations of the study area are as follows:

Private property (Ben Lomond Water, ex Northern Midlands Council);

Northern Midlands municipality;

Midlands Bioregion (according to the description of IBRA 4 boundaries in the Forest Botany Manual);

Northern Midlands Bioregion (according to the IBRA 5 boundaries used by several government agencies).

Figure 1. Location of the study area.

70



METHODS

Nomenclature

All grid references in this report are in GDA94, except where otherwise stated. Vascular species nomenclature follows Buchanan (2009) for scientific names and Wapstra et al. (2005) for common names. Fauna species scientific and common names follow the listings in the cited Natural Values Atlas reports (DPIPWE 2010).

Database analysis

Two databases holding ecological values information were interrogated, namely:

the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas, accessed through the online Natural Values Report feature, producing a report titled 38467_Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant (DPIPWE 2010) – appended to this report for reference;

the Forest Practices Authority’s online version of the Threatened Fauna Manual (now referred to as the Fauna Values Database) accessed through FPA’s website (Longford 5039 1:25000 mapsheet report accessed 24 February 2010).

Botanical survey

Ecological assessment of the area took place on 12 February 2010 by Brian French (ECOtas). The primary purpose of the botanical assessment was to enable the production of a vegetation map showing the extent, condition and classification of each of the forest vegetation types present. Detection and confirmation of sites for threatened flora was also an objective of the assessment.

The survey aimed to assess the range of habitat types present in the study area (at the broad scale e.g. vegetation type, altitude variation, and at the finer scale e.g. microhabitats such as open grassy areas, drainage depressions, disturbed sites, etc.).

Reference to topographic maps (Longford 5039 1:25 000 scale TASMAP), vegetation maps (i.e. TASVEG) and aerial photography (Google Earth) established the approximate range and distribution of topographic and habitat variation present in the study area.

Detailed plots recording all vascular species, vegetation structure and site characteristics were undertaken in representative vegetation types. Running species lists, and additional species associated with specific vegetation types, habitat features or sites (e.g. drainage depressions etc.), were also recorded on the route through the study area. Plot data and species lists can be supplied on request (but note that relevant information is included in the report text).

Zoological survey

Potential habitat for threatened fauna (as listed on databases referred to above) was assessed by reference to the vegetation types and site characteristics present. The presence of mammals, birds, frogs and reptiles was determined by opportunistic discovery (e.g. sightings and calls) during the main botanical assessment, and evidence such as tracks, scats and other signs.

71



RESULTS

Vegetation types

Comments on TASVEG mapping

TASVEG mapping (as shown in the cited Natural Values Atlas report) maps the area as “Agricultural land” (FAG) and “Water” (OAQ). Ground-truthing indicated that the study area would be better described “Extra-urban miscellaneous” (FUM) because it a highly modified environment that has a considerable amount of disturbance and infrastructure associated with the treatment plant. Note that the “Water” (OAQ) mapping represents the settling ponds associated with the waste water treatment facility.

Vegetation types recorded as part of the present study

Vegetation types have been classified according to Harris & Kitchener (2005) From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Conservation priorities alluded to in Table 1 are taken from Schedule 3A of the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (DPIPWE 2010). Table 1 provides information on the vegetation type identified from the study area with notes provided on condition.

Figure 2 indicates the existing vegetation within the study area (as per TASVEG mapping) and Figure 3 indicates the revised vegetation mapping of the study area.

Figure 2. Existing vegetation within the proposed sand mining area.

72



Table 1. Vegetation communities present in study area.

TASVEG unit

(Harris & Kitchener 2005) Conservation priority Comments

Extra-urban miscellaneous (FUM) Not threatened

The proposed construction is an altered environment that has been used for waste water treatment for a long period. The remnant vegetation is dominated by species such as Dactylis glomeratus (cocksfoot), Rubus fruticosus agg. (blackberry) and Trifolium repens (clover) with a substantial weedy component dominated by Holcus lanatus (yorkshire fog). The area is currently being used for infrastructure storage and waste soil dumping.

Permanent easement (FPE) Not threatened

The access road to the treatment facility is a narrow section of land with a few native plant species persisting in what is essentially an agricultural context. The easement is “slashed” annually, however, native plants such as Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood), Themeda triandra and Lomandra nana are common.

Figure 3. Revised vegetation map of the study area (with relatively recent aerial photography underlain).

73



Priority plant species

No plant species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, were recorded from within the study area.

Table 2 provides a listing of priority flora from within 500 m and 5000 m of the study area, with comments on whether potential habitat is present for the species, and possible reasons why a species was not recorded. Note that the survey was not restricted to the species listed in Table 2 but considered the potential presence of any threatened flora.

Table 2. Priority flora records from within 5000 m of boundary of study area.

Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2010) and other sources

as indicated. Habitat descriptions are taken from TSU (2003), except where otherwise indicated.

Species Status TSPA

EPBCA Observations Comments

Records within 500 m of the study area

Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily)

r -

2 records

Potential habitat (grassy forests and woodlands, open rocky sites) is marginally present within the study area on the road access easement to the treatment plant. This species has been recorded nearby in the past – this area has since been cleared. The species was not located (survey would have detected species, if present, as fruiting inflorescences would have still been present).

Caesia calliantha (blue grasslily)

r -

1 record As above.

Records within 5000 m of study area

Alternanthera denticulata (lesser joyweed)s

e -

1 record The species occurs in swamps and riparian zones. Potential habitat is absent from the study area. The species was not detected.

Arthropodium strictum (chocolate lily)

r -

3 additional records See section above.

Asperula subsimplex (water woodruff)

r -

1 record

The species occurs in swamps and aquatic habitats (e.g. old drains, dam edges, etc.). Potential habitat is absent from the study area. The species was not detected.

Brunonia australis (blue pincushion)

r -

10 records

Potential habitat (grassy forests and woodlands) is marginally present within the study area on the road access easement to the treatment plant. The species was not located (survey would have detected species, if present, as old flowerheads would have still been present).

Caesia calliantha (blue grasslily)

r -

1 record See section above.

Callitriche umbonata (winged waterstarwort)

r -

1 record The species occurs in swamps and aquatic habitats. Potential habitat is absent from the study area. The species was not detected.

74



Species Status TSPA


Dianella amoena (grassland flaxlily)

r EN

1 record

Potential habitat (grassy forests and woodlands, open rocky sites) is marginally present within the study area on the road access easement to the treatment plant. The species was not located (survey would have detected species, if present, as distinctive blue fruit is present in late summer)

Isoetes elatior (tall quillwort)

r -

2 records Potential habitat (rivers, streams and wetlands) is absent from the study area. The species was not detected.

Juncus amabilis (gentle rush)

r -

1 record

Potential habitat (wet soaks and seepage areas, especially near roadsides) is marginally present along the access road. The perennial species was not located.

Lepidium pseudotasmanicum (shade peppercress)

r -

1 record

Potential habitat (virtually any disturbed environment) is abundant within the study area. A search for favoured bare ground habitats under trees failed to locate this species.

Lobelia pratioides (poison lobelia)

v -

1 record Potential habitat (rivers, wet soaks, swamps and seepage areas) is absent from the study area. The species was not located.

Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife)

v -

1 record As above.

Myriophyllum integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil)

v -

1 record As above.

Persicaria decipiens (slender waterpepper)

v -

1 record As above.

Pilularia novae-hollandiae (austral pillwort)

r -

1 record As above.

Pterostylis ziegeleri (grassland greenhood)

v VU

1 record Potential habitat (high quality native grasslands and grassy woodlands) is absent from the study area. The species was not detected.

Ranunculus pumilio var. pumilio

(ferny buttercup)

r -

1 record

Potential habitat (grassy forests and woodlands) is marginally present within the study area on the road access easement to the treatment plant. The species was not located.

Rumex bidens (mud dock)

r -

1 record Potential habitat (rivers, wet soaks, swamps and seepage areas) is absent from the study area. The species was not located.

Scleranthus fascicularis (spreading knawel)

v -

1 record

Potential habitat (native grassland, grassy forests and woodlands) is marginally present within the study area on the road access easement to the treatment plant. This perennial herb was not located.

Trithuria submersa (submerged watertuft)

r -

1 record Potential habitat (wet soaks, swamps and seepage areas) is absent from the study area. The species was not located.

Viola cunninghamii (alpine violet)

r -

1 record

Potential habitat (subalpine habitats) is absent from the study area. This record is probably one of the common lowland Viola species. This species was not located.

Xerochrysum palustre (swamp everlasting)

- VU

1 record Potential habitat (wet heathlands and swamps) is is absent from the study area. The species was not located.

75



Weed species

The study area supports areas of altered vegetation that has had a long history of disturbance. The study area has been used for agriculture pasture for grazing and in recent years, as a waste water treatment plant. As such, introduced and “weedy” species dominate the vegetation within the study area. Figure 4 indicates the location of “declared” weed species recorded during the current study.

Four species classified as “declared weeds” within the meaning of the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 were recorded: Ulex europaeus (gorse), Rubus fruticosus .agg (blackberry), Amaranthus albus (tumble pigweed) and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel). These species were scattered across much of the study area and have largely been contained due to regular maintenance such as mowing of the facility.

Figure 4. Location of declared weed species recorded during the current study.

The study area falls within the Northern Midlands municipality, for which the following criteria apply to the detected species:

Amaranthus albus (tumble pigweed): Zone A (“isolated occurrences);

Ulex europaeus (gorse) and Foeniculum vulgare (fennel): Zone B (“widespread occurrences”);

Rubus fruticosus (blackberry): Zone B (“localised infestations”).

76



In relation to “Zone A” species, “eradication” is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities that have isolated occurrences only. The ultimate management outcome for these municipalities is achieving and maintaining the total absence of the species from within municipal boundaries.

In relation to “Zone B” species, “containment”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities who have problematic infestations but no plan and/or resources to undertake control actions at a level required for eradication. The management outcome for these municipalities is ongoing prevention of the spread of declared weeds from existing infestations to areas free or in the process of becoming free of these weeds.

In this case, any significant development will largely eliminate the exotic species mentioned above due to their location within the proposed construction zone. Any construction activities have the potential to introduce additional weeds on to the property but the risk of this is relatively low given the well-defined (and sealed) access route to the title boundary and the well-defined title area. However, it is recommended that any debris, including topsoil and cut vegetation (both of which may contain propagules of weed species), created from development works be removed from the site and disposed of at a recognised municipal refuse management facility (in accordance with any local government regulations) or buried/burnt on site (if this is in accordance with local government regulations). The main concern is to minimise the risk of invasive exotic species becoming more widely established in the municipality. The four species detected from the study area have already been quite effectively managed through a slashing regime. Post-construction follow up management (e.g. hand-spraying of weed outbreaks) should be considered for these species to inhibit invasion to surrounding properties. A more complex site-specific weed management plan is not considered warranted.

Disease management

The Forest Botany Manual (FPA 2005) and Rudman (2005) indicate that none of the vegetation types present within the study area are susceptible to the root-rot pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi. No evidence of the pathogen was noted.

Priority fauna

Table 3 lists threatened fauna species recorded from within 5 km of the study area and discusses the potential of these species to be present on the site, based on the predicted vegetation types, site characteristics derived from mapping, and knowledge of the species in the wider area.

Table 3. Priority fauna records from within 5000 m of boundary of study area.

Species listed below are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA); vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). Information below is sourced from the DPIW’s Natural Values Atlas (DPIPWE 2010) and FPA (2010).

Species Status TSPA


Records within the study area

There are no records within the study area

77



Species Status TSPA


Records within 5000 m of study area

Accipiter novaehollandiae (grey goshawk)

e -

No database records

The Natural Values Atlas report (DPIPWE 2010) indicates the potential for this species to occur in the area. FPA (2010) describes potential habitat (for other 1:25000 mapsheets) as “wet eucalypt forest with blackwood/myrtle understorey, blackwood swamp, E. brookeriana wet forest, melaleuca and leptospermum forest”. These habitat elements are entirely absent from the study area. No grey goshawks were sighted during the surveys. No grey goshawk nests were detected.

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi (wedge-tailed eagle)

e EN

1 record (nest #1692) within 5000 m of the

study area.

There is one known nest relatively close to the study area (3.5 km to the west). Potential habitat is described as “large tracts (more than 10 ha) of eucalypt or mixed forest” (FPA 2010). This habitat is absent from within the study area and from within 1000 m of the study area (any nearby forest is remnant in nature and open in structure). virtually absent from near the study area.

Catadromus lacordairei (catadromus carabid

beetle)

v -

1 record

Potential habitat is described as “dry native woodlands with cracking clay soils on basalt” (FPA 2010). This record is from between Woodstock Lagoon Conservation Area and Bishopsbourne Road, 2.5 km to the southwest of the study area. Potential habitat is absent from the study area.

Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus

(spotted-tailed quoll)

r VU

1 record

Potential habitat is described (for both the eastern and spotted-tailed quolls) as “all wetter forest types, coastal heath and bush-pasture interfaces” (FPA (2010). The study area marginally meets this broad habitat description records from the wider area indicate that the study area is likely to form part of the home range of one or more individuals or pairs. No evidence of this species was observed (such as scats or dens).

Galaxias fontanus (Swan galaxias)

e EN

No database records

Potential habitat is described as “in catchment upstream of sites listed” (FPA 2010). Both of the records are in tributaries of Brumbys Creek. The study area is not upstream of the listed sites. There is no potential habitat present.

Hydroptila scamandra (caddisfly)

r -

No database records

Potential habitat is described as “immediate vicinity (within 500 m) of the known site” (FPA 2009). The record is 12 km to the east on the South Esk River. The study area is not near the listed site. There is no potential habitat present.

Lathamus discolor (swift parrot)

e EN

1 record

Potential habitat is described as “Breeding range (comprising foraging and nesting habitat) is within 10 km of the coastline (nearest coast including shores, bays, inlets or peninsulas). Foraging habitat: all Eucalyptus ovata – E. viminalis shrubby forest (OV), grassy E. globulus forest (GG) and E. globulus wet forest floristic communities (subsumed into R) or any forest type with >10% E. globulus canopy cover. Nesting habitat: Eucalyptus trees present > 70cm dbh, with hollows present” (FPA 2010). These habitat elements are entirely absent from the study area (the database record would indicate a miscellaneous sighting only).

78



Species Status TSPA


Litoria raniformis (green and gold frog)

v VU

7 records

Potential habitat is described as “permanent and temporary water bodies (streams, ponds, dams) with vegetation in and around them” (FPA 2008). There is no potential habitat present.

Oecetis gilva (caddisfly)

r -

No database records

Potential habitat is described as “immediate vicinity (within 500 m) of the known site” (FPA 2010). The record is 12 km to the east on the South Esk River. The study area is not near the listed site. There is no potential habitat present.

Pasmaditta jungermanniae (snail – cataract gorge)

v -

No database records

Potential habitat is described as “wet forest with mossy/rocky sites” (FPA 2010). These habitat components are absent from the study area.

Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii

(eastern barred bandicoot)

- VU

3 records

The records listed probably represent roadkill or spotlight records. Potential habitat is described as “grassy woodlands, native grasslands, mosaics of pasture and ground cover, including shrubby weeds” (FPA 2010). These habitat components are present throughout the study area, and it is reasonable to assume that the species will be present in the wider area and the study area itself. No evidence of this species was noted (such as distinctive diggings).

Prototroctes maraena (australian grayling)

v VU

No records

Potential habitat is described as “middle and lower reaches of coastal rivers including the Rubicon River” (FPA 2010). This habitat is entirely absent from within or near the study area.

Sarcophilus harrisii (tasmanian devil)

e EN

2 records

Potential habitat (which is virtually any vegetation type) is present within the study area. There are no opportunities for den sites throughout the study area as there is no woody debris, old wombat burrows ot rocky outcrops present. No distinctive scats of this species were recorded.

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp. castanops

(tasmanian masked owl)

e -

3 records

The records are likely to be sightings because FPA (2010) does not list any known nest sites. Potential habitat is described as “lowland dry sclerophyll forest with old growth components” (FPA 2010). FPA’s Known Threatened Species Range Boundaries map for the species indicates that the study area falls within the “core range” of the species. Potential foraging habitat for this species is marginally present within the study area but no suitable nesting trees were observed near the area.

No fauna species, listed as threatened on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, are known from within or near the study area.

There is likely to be marginal potential foraging habitat for several species including the wedge-tailed eagle, spotted-tailed quoll, masked owl, tasmanian devil and eastern barred bandicoot. Given the existing high level of anthropogenic disturbance within and surrounding the study area, the additional installation of the anaerobic digester facility is unlikely to deleteriously impact further on the potential habitat of these species.

79



RECOMMENDATIONS (including a discussion of legislative and policy implications)

Some commentary is provided below with respect to the key threatened species and vegetation management legislation and polices. Note that there may be other relevant policy instruments in addition to those discussed.

Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

A permit will not be required under Section 51 of this Act because no threatened species listed on the Act will be disturbed.

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

There is potential habitat for three species listed on this Act, namely Perameles gunnii subsp. gunnii (eastern barred bandicoot), Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil), and Dasyurus maculatus subsp. maculatus (spotted-tailed quoll), although habitat for the latter two species is highly marginal.

The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts provides a Significant Impact Guidelines policy statement (CofA 2006) to determine if referral to the department is required. In our opinion, the installation of the anaerobic digester facility within existing highly modified land will not constitute a “significant impact” with respect to the Tasmanian devil, eastern barred bandicoot and spotted-tailed quoll because while there will be a loss of some marginal potential habitat of these species, the loss is not such that it is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species, reduce the area of occupancy of an important population, fragment an existing important population into two or more populations, adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species, disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline, result in invasive species that are harmful to a threatened species becoming established in the threatened species’ habitat, introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999

Four species located within the study area are subject to statutory Weed Management Plans under the Weed Management Act 1999 (see information on weed section of DPIPWE’s web site). The study area falls within the Northern Midlands municipality, which for the management of three species is classified as a “Zone B” municipality and for one as a “Zone A” municipality.

In relation to “Zone A” species, “eradication” is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities that have isolated occurrences only. The ultimate management outcome for these municipalities is achieving and maintaining the total absence of the species from within municipal boundaries.

In relation to “Zone B” species, “containment”, within the meaning of the Weed Management Act 1999, is the most appropriate management objective for municipalities who have problematic infestations but no plan and/or resources to undertake control actions at a level required for eradication. The management outcome for these municipalities is ongoing prevention of the spread of declared weeds from existing infestations to areas free or in the process of becoming free of these weeds.

In this case, any significant development will largely eliminate the exotic species mentioned above due to their location within the proposed construction zone. Any construction activities have the potential to introduce additional weeds on to the property but the risk of this is relatively low given

80



the well-defined (and sealed) access route to the title boundary and the well-defined title area. However, it is recommended that any debris, including topsoil and cut vegetation (both of which may contain propagules of weed species), created from development works be removed from the site and disposed of at a recognised municipal refuse management facility (in accordance with any local government regulations) or buried/burnt on site (if this is in accordance with local government regulations). The main concern is to minimise the risk of invasive exotic species becoming more widely established in the municipality. The four species detected from the study area have already been quite effectively managed through a slashing regime. Post-construction follow up management (e.g. hand-spraying of weed outbreaks) should be considered for these species to inhibit invasion to surrounding properties. A more complex site-specific weed management plan is not considered warranted.

Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002

The study aea does not support any vegetation types classified as threatened under Schedule 3A of this Act. There are no constraints under this Act on the installation of the anaerobic digester facility within existing highly modified land.

Tasmanian Wildlife Regulations 1999

No species, or products (e.g. nests, dens, etc.) of species, listed on schedules of the Regulations (i.e. “specially protected wildlife”, “protected wildlife”, “partly protected wildlife”), will be knowingly disturbed. There are no constraints under this Act on the installation of the anaerobic digester facility within existing highly modified land.

Tasmanian Forest Practices Act 1985 and associated regulations

A Forest Practices Plan (FPP) is required for most “clearing” activities in areas of forest and woodland (and for some activities within threatened non-forest native vegetation). Usually, an FPP is only required for clearing activities that exceed certain thresholds i.e. 1 ha or 100 tonnes of timber, from any one property in any calendar year. The present proposal will require limited to no clearing, sch that an FPP will not be required.

REFERENCES

Buchanan, A.M. (2009). A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania and Index to The Student’s Flora of Tasmania. Tasmanian Herbarium Occasional Publication No. 7, Tasmanian Herbarium, Hobart. (2009 web edition as downloaded from http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/Herbarium/ TasVascPlants.pdf).

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIPWE) (2010). Natural Values Report Nos. 38467_ECOtas_Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Department of Primary Industries & Water (DPIW) (2010). Threatened Native Vegetation Communities List April 2007 as per Schedule 3A of the Nature Conservation Act 2002. http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/AWAH-6547ZL?open

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIPWE) (2009). Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments, Reporting on the Impact of Proposed Activities on the Natural Values and Providing Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts on these Values. Development and Conservation Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

81



Forest Practices Authority (FPA) (2005). Forest Botany Manual: Module 5 – Midlands Region. Forest Practices Authority, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) (2010). Threatened Fauna Manual Mapsheet Display Longford 5039 current as at 24 February 2010, and hyperlinked species profiles and range boundary maps. http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=20.

Harris, S. & Kitchener, A. (editors) (2005). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.

Rudman T. (2005). Interim Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Guidelines. Nature Conservation Report 05/7, Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart.

Threatened Species Unit (TSU) (2003). Notesheets for various threatened species listed in Table 1. DPIPWE, Hobart.

Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. & Gilfedder, L. (2005). The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.

82

Natural Values Atlas ReportAuthoritative, comprehensive information on Tasmania's natural values.

Report number: 38467

Reference: Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant

Requested For: ECOtas

Timestamp: 11:47:18 AM Wednesday 24 February 2010

Threatened Flora: buffers 500m and 5000m

Threatened Fauna: buffers 500m and 5000m

Conservation Significance Flora: Not requested

Conservation Significance Fauna: Not requested

TasVeg: buffer 1000m

Threatened Non-Forest: buffer 1000m

Geoconservation: buffer 1000m

Private Reserves: buffer 1000m

The centroid for this query GDA94 507829,5395804 falls within:

1:25000 Map: 5039 LONGFORD

Property: 2968250 2080 BISHOPSBOURNE ROAD,LONGFORD TAS 7301

Page 1 of 21

DEPARTMENT of PRIMARY INDUSTRIES and WATER 83

E: 506892 E: 508706N: 5396804 N: 5396804

E: 506892 E: 508706N: 5394844 N: 5394844

Threatened flora within 500 metres

Page 2 of 21



Page 3 of 21


For more information about threatened species, please contact the Manager, Threatened Species Section.

Telephone: (03) 6233 8759


ID Species Common Name SS NS Observers Date Location (GDA94)

1049838 Arthropodium strictum chocolate lily r J.B. Davies 27-Nov-2008 507574,5395991 +/- 10m.


1049840 Caesia calliantha blue grasslily r J.B. Davies 27-Nov-2008 507605,5395937 +/- 10m.


Page 4 of 21


E: 502392 E: 513206N: 5401304 N: 5401304

E: 502392 E: 513206N: 5390344 N: 5390344


Page 5 of 21



Page 6 of 21



Telephone: (03) 6233 8759



228047 Alternanthera denticulata lesser joyweed e A North 05-May-2000 509712,5397483 +/- 100m.

1021264 Arthropodium strictum chocolate lily r Micah Visoiu 09-Dec-2002 506412,5400883 +/- 100m.

943574 Arthropodium strictum chocolate lily r K Johnson 07-Nov-2003 509562,5392563 +/- 50m.



462681 Arthropodium strictum chocolate lily r L Gilfedder 511912,5398583 +/- 100m.

258419 Asperula subsimplex water woodruff r A North 05-May-2000 509712,5397483 +/- 100m.

300904 Brunonia australis blue pincushion r Craig Hawkins 503737,5396033 +/- 100m.

1021220 Brunonia australis blue pincushion r Micah Visoiu 09-Dec-2002 506412,5400883 +/- 100m.

930756 Brunonia australis blue pincushion r Craig Hawkins 07-Dec-2000 503712,5396083 +/- 100m.



476713 Brunonia australis blue pincushion r Louise Gilfedder 503312,5396183 +/- 100m.





1021262 Caesia calliantha blue grasslily r Micah Visoiu 09-Dec-2002 506412,5400883 +/- 100m.

928635 Caesia calliantha blue grasslily r Karen Johnson 07-Nov-2003 509592,5392723 +/- 50m.

1049840 Caesia calliantha blue grasslily r J.B. Davies 27-Nov-2008 507605,5395937 +/- 10m.

227465 Callitriche umbonata winged waterstarwort r R.J. Fensham 28-Jan-1984 510562,5396683 +/- 350m.

404468 Dianella amoena grassland flaxlily r EN J Kirkpatrick 1984 509512,5393883 +/- 100m.

228092 Isoetes elatior tall quillwort r D.I. Morris 15-Jul-1971 510412,5396783 +/- 100m.

228093 Isoetes elatior tall quillwort r D.I. Morris 15-Apr-1972 510462,5395733 +/- 250m.

1021258 Juncus amabilis gentle rush r Micah Visoiu 09-Dec-2002 506412,5400883 +/- 100m.

862717 Lepidiumpseudotasmanicum

shade peppercress r A North 16-Nov-1994? 503412,5393583 +/- 100m.

228090 Lobelia pratioides poison lobelia v H.N. Barber 19-Nov-1951 510112,5395183 +/- 5000m.

945453 Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife v Denis IMorris 06-Mar-1975 510402,5396283 +/- 200m.

940077 Myriophyllumintegrifolium

tiny watermilfoil v R.J. Fensham 28-Jan-1984 510552,5396813 +/- 600m.

955287 Persicaria decipiens slenderwaterpepper v A North 05-May-2000 509712,5397483 +/- 100m.

227569 Pilularia novae-hollandiae austral pillwort r B Robinson 27-Nov-1988 512412,5397083 +/- 100m.

566841 Pterostylis ziegeleri grassland greenhood v VU L Gilfedder 05-Nov-1992? 511912,5398583 +/- 100m.

227444 Ranunculus pumilio var.pumilio

ferny buttercup r A North 28-Oct-1997 509812,5396483 +/- 100m.

257387 Rumex bidens mud dock r D.I. Morris 08-Nov-1978 510912,5396983 +/- 1000m.

227927 Scleranthus fasciculatus spreading knawel v Richard Barnes 17-Mar-2000 506812,5394083 +/- 100m.

227188 Trithuria submersa submerged watertuft r J. Smith 11-Dec-1998 503612,5395183 +/- 100m.

1021252 Viola cunninghamii alpine violet r Micah Visoiu 09-Dec-2002 506412,5400883 +/- 100m.

403844 Viola cunninghamii alpine violet r Jamie Kirkpatrick 1984 511912,5399083 +/- 100m.

287866 Xerochrysum palustre swamp everlasting VU R.J. Fensham 25-Nov-1985 504212,5393683 +/- 2000m.


Page 7 of 21


E: 506892 E: 508706N: 5396804 N: 5396804

E: 506892 E: 508706N: 5394844 N: 5394844

Threatened fauna within 500 metres

Page 8 of 21



Page 9 of 21



(based on Habitat Mapping)


Telephone: (03) 6233 8759


Species Common Name SS NS Potential Known Core

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN 1 0 0

Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN 1 0 0

Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU 1 0 0

Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl e 1 0 1

Galaxias fontanus swan galaxias e EN 1 0 0

Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU 1 0 0

Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e 1 0 0

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp.castanops

masked owl (tasmanian) e 1 0 1


Page 10 of 21


E: 502392 E: 513206N: 5401304 N: 5401304

E: 502392 E: 513206N: 5390344 N: 5390344


Page 11 of 21



Page 12 of 21



(based on Habitat Mapping)


Telephone: (03) 6233 8759



1023559 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN Leigh Walters 14-Jul-2008 504154,5396734 +/- 0m.

719995 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN 31-Dec-1976? 507058,5396647 +/- 18500m.

1023558 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN Leigh Walters 14-Jul-2008 504335,5396818 +/- 0m.

711563 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN 03-Jun-1979? 507058,5396647 +/- 18500m.

343280 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN Peter GCale 05-Feb-2001 503687,5397208 +/- 100m.

949440 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN 01-Jan-1800 507613,5400184 +/- 200m.

1065974 Catadromus lacordairei catadromus carabid beetle v Simon Fearn 19-Jul-2007 505500,5394600 +/- 10m.

895939 Dasyurus maculatussubsp. maculatus

spotted-tailed quoll r VU K Little 07-May-1976? 508451,5400346 +/- 1850m.

877423 Lathamus discolor swift parrot e EN P Marmion 05-Oct-1988? 512612,5397183 +/- 3000m.

306078 Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU Stewart Blackhall 28-Oct-1992? 504712,5394183 +/- 1000m.

549457 Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU 07-Nov-1960? 511223,5394792 +/- 670m.

302546 Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU P Swatowski 510112,5395183 +/- 1000m.

305697 Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU Peter Brown 02-Jan-1994? 510312,5396583 +/- 1000m.



855365 Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU Jim Nelson 503712,5395183 +/- 100m.

895198 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU K Little 26-Aug-1973? 511223,5394792 +/- 1850m.

895449 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU K Little 511226,5396642 +/- 1850m.

895450 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU K Little 26-Aug-1973? 512612,5394789 +/- 1850m.

1075955 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN Bill Cox 18-Nov-2004 504775,5394050 +/- 2m.

343298 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN Peter GCale 05-Feb-2001 503687,5397208 +/- 100m.

359210 Tyto novaehollandiaesubsp. castanops

masked owl (tasmanian) e A Sayer 17-Sep-1963? 510945,5394792 +/- 9000m.


masked owl (tasmanian) e 04-Sep-1973? 510112,5394933 +/- 1000m.


masked owl (tasmanian) e Phil Bell 25-May-1996? 509487,5398183 +/- 100m.

Species Common Name SS NS Potential Known Core

Aquila audax subsp. fleayi wedge-tailed eagle e EN 1 0 0

Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN 1 0 0

Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU 1 0 0

Pasmaditta jungermanniae snail (cataract gorge) v 1 0 0

Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl e 1 0 1

Galaxias fontanus swan galaxias e EN 1 0 0

Litoria raniformis green and golden frog v VU 1 0 0

Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU 1 0 0

Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e 1 0 0

Tyto novaehollandiae subsp.castanops

masked owl (tasmanian) e 1 0 1


Page 13 of 21


E: 506393 E: 509207N: 5397304 N: 5397304

E: 506393 E: 509207N: 5394343 N: 5394343

TasVeg communities within 1000 metres

Page 14 of 21



Page 15 of 21


For more information about TASVEG maps, please contact the Coordinator, Tasmanian Vegetation Mapping Program.

Telephone: (03) 6233 4501


ID Code Community Emergent Species

101480319 FAG Agricultural land Eucalyptus amygdalina

101478373 DAZ Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits

101478369 OAQ Water, sea

101478371 DVG Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland

101478372 FUM Extra-urban miscellaneous

101480210 DAZ Eucalyptus amygdalina inland forest and woodland on Cainozoic deposits



101481079 FAG Agricultural land

101478370 FAG Agricultural land Eucalyptus amygdalina


Page 16 of 21


*** No threatened non-forest communities found within 1000 metres. ***

Threatened non-forest communities within 1000 metres

Page 17 of 21


*** No Geoconservation sites found within 1000 metres. ***

Geoconservation sites within 1000 metres

Page 18 of 21


E: 506393 E: 509207N: 5397304 N: 5397304

E: 506393 E: 509207N: 5394343 N: 5394343

Private reserves within 1000 metres

Page 19 of 21



Page 20 of 21


For more information about the Private Property Conservation Program, please contact the Manager, Private Property Conservation

Program.

Telephone: (03) 6233 6569


CID Category Name Reserve ID

1109132 Conservation Covenant 10031


Page 21 of 21


Appendix F: Air Dispersion Modell ing - Generator Exhaust


104

52 Grant Street, East Malvern 3145 A.C.N. 080 420 319 Tel: (61) (3) 9572 1303

Victoria, Australia Fax: (61) (3) 9572 1393

Email: [email protected] A.B.N. 35 080 420 319 Mobile: 0417 573 746

REPORT

Ausplume Air Dispersion Modelling of Emissions

from the proposed EcoSolutions Generator

IMP Environmental Pty Ltd, Tasmania

August 2010

105

Report: Ausplume Air Dispersion Modelling from the proposed Eco Solutions Generator Page 2


August 2010

Report: Ausplume Air Dispersion Modelling of Emissions from the proposed EcoSolutions Generator


Background

SEMF Pty Ltd commissioned Hodson & Associates Pty Ltd to conduct a series of Ausplume Air Dispersion

Modelling “runs” of emissions to air from the proposed Eco Solutions Generator, Tasmania. The key

objective of the air dispersion modelling was to assess the predicted level of compliance of the emissions

from the proposed Eco Solutions Generator with the Design Criteria stated in Schedule 2 of the Tasmanian

Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004. Hodson & Associates have successfully applied the

Victorian EPA approved Ausplume Air Dispersion Modelling software program to assist a wide range of

national, multi-national and local client organizations in their assessment of the predicted level of

compliance and/or impact of emissions from both planned and operating facilities with current

environmental requirements as defined in State environment protection policies.

Methodology

The Ausplume Air Dispersion Modelling of emissions was conducted by applying the current version,

Version 6, of the Victorian EPA Ausplume Gaussian Plume air dispersion model. The meteorological data

file (Modmetsamp.met) and terrain file (EcoSolutions_MGA25m.ter) were provided by the Tasmanian EPA.

Surrounding Terrain and Terrain File

The terrain surrounding the site consists of gentle rolling hills with the terrain rising to the west and falling

to the east. Wind patterns follow the terrain, therefore, as the plume travels from the site, it will be affected

by the terrain. The plume may also impact on elevated terrain surrounding the site, resulting in higher

pollutants concentrations at ground level (refer to diagram below).

It is therefore important to include the surrounding terrain within the Ausplume model, so its affect can be

considered. The terrain file supplied by EPA consists of a 101 x 101 grid over the area surrounding the site.

The graphic, overpage, provides details of the terrain surrounding the site (its location is marked with a ‘+’).

Plume Centre Line

106



August 2010

107



August 2010

Meteorological Data File

Weather conditions will affect the way a plume of air disperses. Therefore, the Ausplume model requires a

metrological file containing hourly meteorological data. A meteorological file was not available for the site.

In such instances, a "Metsamp" file is provided with the model which contains a sample of extreme weather

conditions which are likely to result in high ground level pollutant concentrations. The original metsamp file

only contains the various weather conditions in a single wind direction. This is suitable if the terrain is flat

and, therefore, the impact of the plume is similar in all directions. However, when terrain needs to be taken

into account (as in this case), a single wind direction will not assess the various impacts due to the differing

terrain profiles in each direction. Therefore, the metsamp file was modified by EPA, by replicating the

metsamp weather conditions in 10 degree increments over the full 360 degrees. In this manner, the

Ausplume model will be able to predict worst case ground level concentrations in each direction and include

the affect of the surrounding terrain.

Building Affects

Buildings and structures around an exhaust stack, including the building on which the stack is located, can

affect the way in which the exhaust plume is dispersed. Ausplume can include any large building or

structure and include its affect on the plume. For this exercise, several buildings and a large tank have been

included, as shown below (the blue coloured dot defines the relative location of the Generator exhaust

stack).

108



August 2010

+Ox & CO Emission Calculations

Emission data was sourced from the Generator engine manufacturer. This data had been corrected to "dry"

conditions. Table 1 shows the calculations that were used to determine the actual emission rate at the

discharge conditions.

Table 1 Calculated NOx and CO emission concentrations

+Ox (as +O2)

CO

Manufacturers Data in ppm

(dry and at discharge O2)

182 ppm 613 ppm

Emission data wet in ppm

(11% moisture)

182 x (100 - 11)% = 162 ppm 613 x (100 - 11)% = 546 ppm

Emission data in mg/m3 at 0

oC

162 / 22.4 x 46 = 333 mg/m3 546 / 22.4 x 28 = 683 mg/m

3

Emission data at 120oC (discharge

conditions)

333 x 273 / (273 + 120) = 231 mg/m3 683 x 273 / (273 + 120) = 474 mg/m

3

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Emission Calculations

The engine supplier specified a maximum sulphur content in the fuel of 700 mg/10kWh of energy. By taking

this maximum sulphur content value, it is possible to calculate the amount of SO2 and Hydrogen Sulphide

emitted from the Generator. Note: All of the sulphur will normally oxidise to SO2, with only trace amounts

of H2S present. For the purposes of the Ausplume modelling exercise, a conservative approach was used

and, as such, 0.25% of the sulphur is assumed to be discharged as H2S.

Maximum sulphur content of biogas = 700 mg/10kWh = 70 mg/kWh

Fuel lower calorific value = 6.9 kWh/Nm3

Table 2 SO2 and H2S Calculations

Sulphur

Sulphur (mg/Nm3) 70 mg/kWh x 6.9 kWh/Nm

3 = 483 mg/Nm

3

SO2 H2S

99.75% of this sulphur

as SO2 & 0.25% as H2S

(@ 20oC)

483 mg/Nm3 x 99.75% x 64/32

= 963 mg/Nm3 H2S

483 mg/Nm3 x 0.25% x 34/32

= 1.28 mg/Nm3 H2S

Concentration at 120oC

(discharge conditions)

693 mg/Nm3 x (273 + 20) / (273 + 120)

= 718 mg/m3 SO2

1.28 mg/Nm3 x (273 + 20) / (273 + 120)

= 0.95 mg/m3 H2S

109



August 2010

Discharge Conditions

Temperature

The exhaust from the Generator is typically at 500oC. However, the exhaust from this unit will be passed

through a heat exchanger to recover energy for use in the process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the

operations. However, the temperature of the exhaust will not be below 120oC to ensure that moisture does

not condense out of the exhaust gases. If this were to occur, the moisture would combine with the SO2 (a

very soluble and acidic gas) resulting in accelerated corrosion of the stack and a significant shortening of its

useful life.

Velocity

Based on the engine manufacturer's emission data and confirmed by the local engine supplier, the engine

discharge is 1459 Nm3/h (20

oC, wet). Correcting this to the discharge conditions of 120

oC, the volume flow

rate would be:

1459 Nm3/h x (273 + 120)/(273 + 20) = 1956 m

3/h = 0.543 m

3/s (120

oC, wet - ie. discharge conditions)

The proposed exhaust diameter is 0.2 m (0.1 m radius), therefore, the exhaust velocity will be:

0.543 m3/s / (0.1

2 x π) = 17.3 m/s (at discharge conditions)

Summary of Ausplume Air Dispersion Model Input Data

Table 3, below, presents the stack and emission data and characteristics that were provided by SEMF Pty

Ltd and EcoSolutions and the engine manufacturer for the proposed EcoSolutions Generator.

Where existing background levels of pollutants are present, these background levels need to be taken into

account in order to determine the total exposure level. Background 70th percentile NO2 and CO levels were

provided by EPA for inclusion in the Ausplume model, as shown below in Table 3.

Table 3 Proposed EcoSolutions Generator Stack and Emission Data and Characteristics

Temperature 120oC

Velocity 17.3 m/s

Stack Diameter 0.2 m

Stack Hight 20 m

Coordinates (x,y) 50792, 5395576

Elevation 148 m

Pollutant Emission Rates

NOx (expressed as NO2) 231 mg/m3 x 0.543 m

3/s = 125 mg/s

SO2 718 mg/m3 x 0.543 m

3/s = 390 mg/s

CO 474 mg/m3 x 0.543 m

3/s = 257 mg/s

H2S 0.95 mg/m3 x 0.543 m

3/s = 0.52 mg/s

Background Levels (70th Percentile)

NO2 9.2 µg/m3

CO 512 µg/m3

110



August 2010

Ausplume Air Dispersion Model Results

Table 4, below, presents the outcome of the Ausplume Air Dispersion Model with a 20 m stack height. The

table presents comparison of the predicted 99.9th percentile concentration values for NO2, SO2 and H2S and

the maximum value for CO, along with the EPA’s Design Criteria.

Table 4 Comparison of EPA Design Criteria and Predicted Concentrations of Air Contaminants

Contaminant Averaging

Time

Design

Criteria (ppm) Design Criteria

(µg/m3 @ 20

oC)

Predicted 99.9th

percentile (µg/m3)*

% of Design

Criteria

NOx (as NO2) 1 hour 0.16 310 22.6 7%

SO2 1 hour 0.20 530 41.9 7.9%

H2S 3 minutes 0.0001 0.14 0.0958 68%

CO 8 hours 9 10,480 530 (maximum) 5%

* - All the maximum concentrations occur off-site.

Contour plots of the pollutant levels, along with the Ausplume model output files are presented in the

following pages.

In-Stack Pollutant Policy Limits

The Tasmanian EPA Air Policy also includes several in-stack pollutant limits. The only limit relevant to the

proposed Generator is the NO2 limit of 2 g/m3 @ 7% O2. As shown in the Table 3, the discharge from the

Generator is 0.231 g/m3 @ 7.8% O2 (0.245 g/m

3 @ 7% O2). Therefore, the discharge complies with the in-

stack EPA Air Policy limit.

Conclusion

The Ausplume Air Dispersion modelling reveals that the predicted concentrations of the majority of the air

contaminants are well below their respective Design Criteria. The predicted H2S content is 68% of the EPA

Design Criteria limit. Based on the emission data, the modelling and the conservative assumptions made

concerning the emission of H2S (assuming the maximum sulphur level in fuel, and that 0.25% of the sulphur

is converted to H2S), it is concluded that the emissions from a 20 m stack will comply with the Tasmanian

EPA Air Policy ground level Criteria and the in-stack limits.

Vic Natoli

Environmental Specialist – Auditor/ Ausplume Modelling

111

Rep

ort

: A

usp

lum

e A

ir D

isp

ersi

on M

od

elli

ng f

rom

the

pro

pose

d E

co S

olu

tio

ns

Gener

ato

r

P

age

8

IMP

Envir

on

menta

l P

ty L

td,

Tas

mania

Au

gu

st 2

01

0

112

Rep

ort

: A

usp

lum

e A

ir D

isp

ersi

on M

od

elli

ng f

rom

the

pro

pose

d E

co S

olu

tio

ns

Gener

ato

r

P

age

9

IMP

Envir

on

menta

l P

ty L

td,

Tas

mania

Au

gu

st 2

01

0

113

Rep

ort

: A

usp

lum

e A

ir D

isp

ersi

on M

od

elli

ng f

rom

the

pro

pose

d E

co S

olu

tio

ns

Gener

ato

r

P

age

10

IMP

Envir

on

menta

l P

ty L

td,

Tas

mania

Au

gu

st 2

01

0

114

Rep

ort

: A

usp

lum

e A

ir D

isp

ersi

on M

od

elli

ng f

rom

the

pro

pose

d E

co S

olu

tio

ns

Gener

ato

r

P

age

11

IMP

Envir

on

menta

l P

ty L

td,

Tas

mania

Au

gu

st 2

01

0

115



August 2010

AUSPLME MODEL OUTPUT FILES

1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - NOx (Modifed Metsample File) ________________________________________________ Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units microgram/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+06 Constant background concentration 9.20E+00 Terrain effects Egan method Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m Use the convective PDF algorithm? No DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.400m Adjustment for wind directional shear None PLUME RISE OPTIONS Gradual plume rise? Yes Stack-tip downwash included? Yes Building downwash algorithm: PRIME method. Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60 Partial penetration of elevated inversions? No Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table (in K/m) is used: Wind Speed Stability Class Category A B C D E F ________________________________________________________ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 WIND SPEED CATEGORIES Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80 WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Rural" values (unless overridden by met. file) AVERAGING TIMES 1 hour _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - NOx (Modifed Metsample File)

116



August 2010

SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS ________________________________________________ STACK SOURCE: 1 X(m) Y(m) Ground Elev. Stack Height Diameter Temperature Speed 507920 5395576 148m 20m 0.20m 120C 17.3m/s ______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 25 22 19 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 Along-flow distance from stack -14 -13 -10 -8 -7 -9 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 Across-flow distance from stack -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 25 27 27 27 26 25 22 19 15 15 19 Along-flow distance from stack -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -10 -9 -7 -8 -10 Across-flow distance from stack 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 28 27 26 24 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 Along-flow distance from stack -12 -14 -15 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -17 -16 -15 Across-flow distance from stack 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 (Constant) emission rate = 1.25E-01 grams/second No gravitational settling or scavenging. _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - NOx (Modifed Metsample File) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ________________________________________________ The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 506674.m 506699.m 506724.m 506749.m 506774.m 506799.m 506824.m 506849.m 506874.m 506899.m 506924.m 506949.m 506974.m 506999.m 507024.m 507049.m 507074.m 507099.m 507124.m 507149.m 507174.m 507199.m 507224.m 507249.m 507274.m 507299.m 507324.m 507349.m 507374.m 507399.m 507424.m 507449.m 507474.m 507499.m 507524.m 507549.m 507574.m 507599.m 507624.m 507649.m 507674.m 507699.m 507724.m 507749.m 507774.m 507799.m 507824.m 507849.m 507874.m 507899.m 507924.m 507949.m 507974.m 507999.m 508024.m 508049.m 508074.m 508099.m 508124.m 508149.m 508174.m 508199.m 508224.m 508249.m 508274.m 508299.m 508324.m 508349.m 508374.m 508399.m 508424.m 508449.m 508474.m 508499.m 508524.m 508549.m 508574.m 508599.m 508624.m 508649.m 508674.m 508699.m 508724.m 508749.m 508774.m 508799.m 508824.m 508849.m 508874.m 508899.m 508924.m 508949.m 508974.m 508999.m 509024.m 509049.m 509074.m 509099.m 509124.m 509149.m 509174.m and these y-values (or northings): 5394320.m 5394345.m 5394370.m 5394395.m 5394420.m 5394445.m 5394470.m 5394495.m 5394520.m 5394545.m 5394570.m 5394595.m 5394620.m 5394645.m 5394670.m 5394695.m 5394720.m 5394745.m 5394770.m 5394795.m 5394820.m 5394845.m 5394870.m 5394895.m 5394920.m 5394945.m 5394970.m 5394995.m 5395020.m 5395045.m 5395070.m 5395095.m 5395120.m 5395145.m 5395170.m 5395195.m 5395220.m 5395245.m 5395270.m 5395295.m 5395320.m 5395345.m

117



August 2010

5395370.m 5395395.m 5395420.m 5395445.m 5395470.m 5395495.m 5395520.m 5395545.m 5395570.m 5395595.m 5395620.m 5395645.m 5395670.m 5395695.m 5395720.m 5395745.m 5395770.m 5395795.m 5395820.m 5395845.m 5395870.m 5395895.m 5395920.m 5395945.m 5395970.m 5395995.m 5396020.m 5396045.m 5396070.m 5396095.m 5396120.m 5396145.m 5396170.m 5396195.m 5396220.m 5396245.m 5396270.m 5396295.m 5396320.m 5396345.m 5396370.m 5396395.m 5396420.m 5396445.m 5396470.m 5396495.m 5396520.m 5396545.m 5396570.m 5396595.m 5396620.m 5396645.m 5396670.m 5396695.m 5396720.m 5396745.m 5396770.m 5396795.m 5396820.m DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres) No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT 1 507920 5395576 148.0 0.0 _____________________________________________________________________________ METEOROLOGICAL DATA : Modified METSAMP file. All directions in 10 degree i _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in microgram/m3) Averaging time = 1 hour Rank Value Time Recorded Coordinates hour,date (* denotes polar) 1 2.49E+01 18,15/02/00 (507374, 5394920, 0.0) 2 2.48E+01 18,26/02/00 (507249, 5395020, 0.0) 3 2.47E+01 18,04/02/00 (507499, 5394845, 0.0) 4 2.45E+01 18,08/03/00 (507174, 5395145, 0.0) 5 2.42E+01 18,19/03/00 (507149, 5395295, 0.0) 6 2.40E+01 18,24/01/00 (507624, 5394770, 0.0) 7 2.40E+01 18,30/03/00 (507174, 5395445, 0.0) 8 2.29E+01 18,13/01/00 (507774, 5394795, 0.0) 9 2.26E+01 18,10/04/00 (507149, 5395570, 0.0) 10 2.21E+01 10,04/02/00 (507624, 5395070, 0.0) 11 2.21E+01 10,15/02/00 (507549, 5395145, 0.0) 12 2.20E+01 19,15/02/00 (507524, 5395095, 0.0) 13 2.20E+01 10,26/02/00 (507499, 5395220, 0.0) 14 2.20E+01 10,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 15 2.20E+01 21,23/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 16 2.20E+01 21,25/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 17 2.20E+01 07,27/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 18 2.20E+01 17,28/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 19 2.20E+01 03,30/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 20 2.20E+01 13,31/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 21 2.20E+01 23,01/02/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 22 2.19E+01 10,08/03/00 (507449, 5395295, 0.0) 23 2.19E+01 10,19/03/00 (507424, 5395395, 0.0) 24 2.19E+01 19,04/02/00 (507624, 5395070, 0.0) 25 2.19E+01 10,30/03/00 (507349, 5395470, 0.0) 26 2.19E+01 19,26/02/00 (507474, 5395195, 0.0) 27 2.18E+01 19,08/03/00 (507399, 5395270, 0.0) 28 2.17E+01 19,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 29 2.17E+01 10,10/04/00 (507374, 5395570, 0.0) 30 2.17E+01 21,03/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 31 2.17E+01 21,05/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 32 2.17E+01 07,07/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 33 2.17E+01 17,08/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 34 2.17E+01 03,10/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 35 2.17E+01 13,11/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 36 2.17E+01 23,12/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 37 2.17E+01 19,30/03/00 (507324, 5395470, 0.0) 38 2.17E+01 19,19/03/00 (507349, 5395370, 0.0) 39 2.16E+01 20,18/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 40 2.16E+01 20,20/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0)

118



August 2010

41 2.16E+01 06,22/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 42 2.16E+01 16,23/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 43 2.16E+01 02,25/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 44 2.16E+01 12,26/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 45 2.16E+01 22,27/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 46 2.16E+01 21,01/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 47 2.16E+01 21,03/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 48 2.16E+01 07,05/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 49 2.16E+01 17,06/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 50 2.16E+01 03,08/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 51 2.16E+01 13,09/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 52 2.16E+01 23,10/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 53 2.15E+01 21,07/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 54 2.15E+01 21,09/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 55 2.15E+01 07,11/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 56 2.15E+01 17,12/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 57 2.15E+01 03,14/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 58 2.15E+01 13,15/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 59 2.15E+01 23,16/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 60 2.15E+01 20,12/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 61 2.15E+01 20,14/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 62 2.15E+01 06,16/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 63 2.15E+01 16,17/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 64 2.15E+01 02,19/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 65 2.15E+01 12,20/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 66 2.15E+01 22,21/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 67 2.15E+01 11,04/02/00 (507749, 5395270, 0.0) 68 2.15E+01 21,12/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 69 2.15E+01 21,14/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 70 2.15E+01 07,16/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 71 2.15E+01 17,17/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 72 2.15E+01 03,19/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 73 2.15E+01 13,20/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 74 2.15E+01 23,21/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 75 2.15E+01 21,29/03/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 76 2.15E+01 21,31/03/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 77 2.15E+01 07,02/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 78 2.15E+01 17,03/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 79 2.15E+01 03,05/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 80 2.15E+01 13,06/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 81 2.15E+01 23,07/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 82 2.15E+01 20,03/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 83 2.15E+01 20,05/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 84 2.15E+01 06,07/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 85 2.15E+01 16,08/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 86 2.15E+01 02,10/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 87 2.15E+01 12,11/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 88 2.15E+01 22,12/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 89 2.15E+01 10,13/01/00 (507824, 5395045, 0.0) 90 2.14E+01 20,23/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 91 2.14E+01 20,25/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 92 2.14E+01 06,27/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 93 2.14E+01 16,28/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 94 2.14E+01 02,30/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 95 2.14E+01 12,31/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 96 2.14E+01 22,01/02/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 97 2.14E+01 21,18/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 98 2.14E+01 21,20/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 99 2.14E+01 07,22/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 100 2.14E+01 23,27/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0)

119



August 2010

1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - SO2 (Modifed Metsample File) ________________________________________________ Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units microgram/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+06 Constant background concentration 0.00E+00 Terrain effects Egan method Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m Use the convective PDF algorithm? No DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.400m Adjustment for wind directional shear None PLUME RISE OPTIONS Gradual plume rise? Yes Stack-tip downwash included? Yes Building downwash algorithm: PRIME method. Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60 Partial penetration of elevated inversions? No Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table (in K/m) is used: Wind Speed Stability Class Category A B C D E F ________________________________________________________ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 WIND SPEED CATEGORIES Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80 WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Rural" values (unless overridden by met. file) AVERAGING TIMES 1 hour _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - SO2 (Modifed Metsample File) SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

120



August 2010

________________________________________________ STACK SOURCE: 1 X(m) Y(m) Ground Elev. Stack Height Diameter Temperature Speed 507920 5395576 148m 20m 0.20m 120C 17.3m/s ______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 25 22 19 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 Along-flow distance from stack -14 -13 -10 -8 -7 -9 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 Across-flow distance from stack -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 25 27 27 27 26 25 22 19 15 15 19 Along-flow distance from stack -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -10 -9 -7 -8 -10 Across-flow distance from stack 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 28 27 26 24 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 Along-flow distance from stack -12 -14 -15 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -17 -16 -15 Across-flow distance from stack 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 (Constant) emission rate = 3.90E-01 grams/second No gravitational settling or scavenging. _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - SO2 (Modifed Metsample File) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ________________________________________________ The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 506674.m 506699.m 506724.m 506749.m 506774.m 506799.m 506824.m 506849.m 506874.m 506899.m 506924.m 506949.m 506974.m 506999.m 507024.m 507049.m 507074.m 507099.m 507124.m 507149.m 507174.m 507199.m 507224.m 507249.m 507274.m 507299.m 507324.m 507349.m 507374.m 507399.m 507424.m 507449.m 507474.m 507499.m 507524.m 507549.m 507574.m 507599.m 507624.m 507649.m 507674.m 507699.m 507724.m 507749.m 507774.m 507799.m 507824.m 507849.m 507874.m 507899.m 507924.m 507949.m 507974.m 507999.m 508024.m 508049.m 508074.m 508099.m 508124.m 508149.m 508174.m 508199.m 508224.m 508249.m 508274.m 508299.m 508324.m 508349.m 508374.m 508399.m 508424.m 508449.m 508474.m 508499.m 508524.m 508549.m 508574.m 508599.m 508624.m 508649.m 508674.m 508699.m 508724.m 508749.m 508774.m 508799.m 508824.m 508849.m 508874.m 508899.m 508924.m 508949.m 508974.m 508999.m 509024.m 509049.m 509074.m 509099.m 509124.m 509149.m 509174.m and these y-values (or northings): 5394320.m 5394345.m 5394370.m 5394395.m 5394420.m 5394445.m 5394470.m 5394495.m 5394520.m 5394545.m 5394570.m 5394595.m 5394620.m 5394645.m 5394670.m 5394695.m 5394720.m 5394745.m 5394770.m 5394795.m 5394820.m 5394845.m 5394870.m 5394895.m 5394920.m 5394945.m 5394970.m 5394995.m 5395020.m 5395045.m 5395070.m 5395095.m 5395120.m 5395145.m 5395170.m 5395195.m 5395220.m 5395245.m 5395270.m 5395295.m 5395320.m 5395345.m 5395370.m 5395395.m 5395420.m 5395445.m 5395470.m 5395495.m 5395520.m 5395545.m 5395570.m 5395595.m 5395620.m 5395645.m 5395670.m 5395695.m 5395720.m 5395745.m 5395770.m 5395795.m 5395820.m 5395845.m 5395870.m

121



August 2010

5395895.m 5395920.m 5395945.m 5395970.m 5395995.m 5396020.m 5396045.m 5396070.m 5396095.m 5396120.m 5396145.m 5396170.m 5396195.m 5396220.m 5396245.m 5396270.m 5396295.m 5396320.m 5396345.m 5396370.m 5396395.m 5396420.m 5396445.m 5396470.m 5396495.m 5396520.m 5396545.m 5396570.m 5396595.m 5396620.m 5396645.m 5396670.m 5396695.m 5396720.m 5396745.m 5396770.m 5396795.m 5396820.m DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres) No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT 1 507920 5395576 148.0 0.0 _____________________________________________________________________________ METEOROLOGICAL DATA : Modified METSAMP file. All directions in 10 degree i _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in microgram/m3) Averaging time = 1 hour Rank Value Time Recorded Coordinates hour,date (* denotes polar) 1 4.88E+01 18,15/02/00 (507374, 5394920, 0.0) 2 4.85E+01 18,26/02/00 (507249, 5395020, 0.0) 3 4.85E+01 18,04/02/00 (507499, 5394845, 0.0) 4 4.77E+01 18,08/03/00 (507174, 5395145, 0.0) 5 4.69E+01 18,19/03/00 (507149, 5395295, 0.0) 6 4.61E+01 18,24/01/00 (507624, 5394770, 0.0) 7 4.61E+01 18,30/03/00 (507174, 5395445, 0.0) 8 4.28E+01 18,13/01/00 (507774, 5394795, 0.0) 9 4.19E+01 18,10/04/00 (507149, 5395570, 0.0) 10 4.02E+01 10,04/02/00 (507624, 5395070, 0.0) 11 4.02E+01 10,15/02/00 (507549, 5395145, 0.0) 12 3.99E+01 19,15/02/00 (507524, 5395095, 0.0) 13 3.99E+01 10,26/02/00 (507499, 5395220, 0.0) 14 3.99E+01 10,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 15 3.98E+01 21,23/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 16 3.98E+01 21,25/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 17 3.98E+01 07,27/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 18 3.98E+01 17,28/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 19 3.98E+01 03,30/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 20 3.98E+01 13,31/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 21 3.98E+01 23,01/02/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 22 3.98E+01 10,08/03/00 (507449, 5395295, 0.0) 23 3.98E+01 10,19/03/00 (507424, 5395395, 0.0) 24 3.98E+01 19,04/02/00 (507624, 5395070, 0.0) 25 3.97E+01 10,30/03/00 (507349, 5395470, 0.0) 26 3.96E+01 19,26/02/00 (507474, 5395195, 0.0) 27 3.92E+01 19,08/03/00 (507399, 5395270, 0.0) 28 3.91E+01 19,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 29 3.90E+01 10,10/04/00 (507374, 5395570, 0.0) 30 3.89E+01 21,03/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 31 3.89E+01 21,05/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 32 3.89E+01 07,07/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 33 3.89E+01 17,08/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 34 3.89E+01 03,10/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 35 3.89E+01 13,11/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 36 3.89E+01 23,12/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 37 3.89E+01 19,30/03/00 (507324, 5395470, 0.0) 38 3.89E+01 19,19/03/00 (507349, 5395370, 0.0) 39 3.86E+01 20,18/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 40 3.86E+01 20,20/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 41 3.86E+01 06,22/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 42 3.86E+01 16,23/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 43 3.86E+01 02,25/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0)

122



August 2010

44 3.86E+01 12,26/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 45 3.86E+01 22,27/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 46 3.86E+01 21,01/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 47 3.86E+01 21,03/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 48 3.86E+01 07,05/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 49 3.86E+01 17,06/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 50 3.86E+01 03,08/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 51 3.86E+01 13,09/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 52 3.86E+01 23,10/01/00 (507924, 5395370, 0.0) 53 3.85E+01 21,07/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 54 3.85E+01 21,09/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 55 3.85E+01 07,11/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 56 3.85E+01 17,12/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 57 3.85E+01 03,14/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 58 3.85E+01 13,15/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 59 3.85E+01 23,16/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 60 3.85E+01 20,12/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 61 3.85E+01 20,14/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 62 3.85E+01 06,16/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 63 3.85E+01 16,17/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 64 3.85E+01 02,19/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 65 3.85E+01 12,20/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 66 3.85E+01 22,21/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 67 3.84E+01 11,04/02/00 (507749, 5395270, 0.0) 68 3.83E+01 21,12/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 69 3.83E+01 21,14/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 70 3.83E+01 07,16/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 71 3.83E+01 17,17/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 72 3.83E+01 03,19/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 73 3.83E+01 13,20/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 74 3.83E+01 23,21/01/00 (507874, 5395370, 0.0) 75 3.83E+01 21,29/03/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 76 3.83E+01 21,31/03/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 77 3.83E+01 07,02/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 78 3.83E+01 17,03/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 79 3.83E+01 03,05/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 80 3.83E+01 13,06/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 81 3.83E+01 23,07/04/00 (507724, 5395545, 0.0) 82 3.83E+01 20,03/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 83 3.83E+01 20,05/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 84 3.83E+01 06,07/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 85 3.83E+01 16,08/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 86 3.83E+01 02,10/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 87 3.83E+01 12,11/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 88 3.83E+01 22,12/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 89 3.82E+01 10,13/01/00 (507824, 5395045, 0.0) 90 3.82E+01 20,23/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 91 3.82E+01 20,25/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 92 3.82E+01 06,27/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 93 3.82E+01 16,28/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 94 3.82E+01 02,30/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 95 3.82E+01 12,31/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 96 3.82E+01 22,01/02/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 97 3.82E+01 21,18/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 98 3.82E+01 21,20/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 99 3.82E+01 07,22/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 100 3.82E+01 23,27/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0)

123



August 2010

1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - H2S (Modifed Metsample File) ________________________________________________ Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units microgram/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+06 Constant background concentration 0.00E+00 Terrain effects Egan method Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m Use the convective PDF algorithm? No DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.400m Adjustment for wind directional shear None PLUME RISE OPTIONS Gradual plume rise? Yes Stack-tip downwash included? Yes Building downwash algorithm: PRIME method. Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60 Partial penetration of elevated inversions? No Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table (in K/m) is used: Wind Speed Stability Class Category A B C D E F ________________________________________________________ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 WIND SPEED CATEGORIES Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80 WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Rural" values (unless overridden by met. file) AVERAGING TIME: 3 minutes. _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - H2S (Modifed Metsample File) SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS ________________________________________________

124



August 2010

STACK SOURCE: 1 X(m) Y(m) Ground Elev. Stack Height Diameter Temperature Speed 507920 5395576 148m 20m 0.20m 120C 17.3m/s ______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 25 22 19 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 Along-flow distance from stack -14 -13 -10 -8 -7 -9 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 Across-flow distance from stack -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 25 27 27 27 26 25 22 19 15 15 19 Along-flow distance from stack -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -10 -9 -7 -8 -10 Across-flow distance from stack 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 28 27 26 24 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 Along-flow distance from stack -12 -14 -15 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -17 -16 -15 Across-flow distance from stack 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 (Constant) emission rate = 5.20E-04 grams/second No gravitational settling or scavenging. _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 ________________________________________________ Eco Solutions - H2S (Modifed Metsample File) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ________________________________________________ The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 506674.m 506699.m 506724.m 506749.m 506774.m 506799.m 506824.m 506849.m 506874.m 506899.m 506924.m 506949.m 506974.m 506999.m 507024.m 507049.m 507074.m 507099.m 507124.m 507149.m 507174.m 507199.m 507224.m 507249.m 507274.m 507299.m 507324.m 507349.m 507374.m 507399.m 507424.m 507449.m 507474.m 507499.m 507524.m 507549.m 507574.m 507599.m 507624.m 507649.m 507674.m 507699.m 507724.m 507749.m 507774.m 507799.m 507824.m 507849.m 507874.m 507899.m 507924.m 507949.m 507974.m 507999.m 508024.m 508049.m 508074.m 508099.m 508124.m 508149.m 508174.m 508199.m 508224.m 508249.m 508274.m 508299.m 508324.m 508349.m 508374.m 508399.m 508424.m 508449.m 508474.m 508499.m 508524.m 508549.m 508574.m 508599.m 508624.m 508649.m 508674.m 508699.m 508724.m 508749.m 508774.m 508799.m 508824.m 508849.m 508874.m 508899.m 508924.m 508949.m 508974.m 508999.m 509024.m 509049.m 509074.m 509099.m 509124.m 509149.m 509174.m and these y-values (or northings): 5394320.m 5394345.m 5394370.m 5394395.m 5394420.m 5394445.m 5394470.m 5394495.m 5394520.m 5394545.m 5394570.m 5394595.m 5394620.m 5394645.m 5394670.m 5394695.m 5394720.m 5394745.m 5394770.m 5394795.m 5394820.m 5394845.m 5394870.m 5394895.m 5394920.m 5394945.m 5394970.m 5394995.m 5395020.m 5395045.m 5395070.m 5395095.m 5395120.m 5395145.m 5395170.m 5395195.m 5395220.m 5395245.m 5395270.m 5395295.m 5395320.m 5395345.m 5395370.m 5395395.m 5395420.m 5395445.m 5395470.m 5395495.m 5395520.m 5395545.m 5395570.m 5395595.m 5395620.m 5395645.m 5395670.m 5395695.m 5395720.m 5395745.m 5395770.m 5395795.m 5395820.m 5395845.m 5395870.m 5395895.m 5395920.m 5395945.m 5395970.m 5395995.m 5396020.m 5396045.m

125



August 2010

5396070.m 5396095.m 5396120.m 5396145.m 5396170.m 5396195.m 5396220.m 5396245.m 5396270.m 5396295.m 5396320.m 5396345.m 5396370.m 5396395.m 5396420.m 5396445.m 5396470.m 5396495.m 5396520.m 5396545.m 5396570.m 5396595.m 5396620.m 5396645.m 5396670.m 5396695.m 5396720.m 5396745.m 5396770.m 5396795.m 5396820.m DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres) No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT 1 507920 5395576 148.0 0.0 _____________________________________________________________________________ METEOROLOGICAL DATA : Modified METSAMP file. All directions in 10 degree i _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in microgram/m3) Averaging time = 3 minutes Rank Value Time Recorded Coordinates hour,date (* denotes polar) 1 1.13E-01 18,15/02/00 (507349, 5394895, 0.0) 2 1.13E-01 18,26/02/00 (507224, 5394995, 0.0) 3 1.12E-01 18,04/02/00 (507499, 5394845, 0.0) 4 1.10E-01 18,08/03/00 (507174, 5395145, 0.0) 5 1.08E-01 18,19/03/00 (507074, 5395270, 0.0) 6 1.06E-01 18,24/01/00 (507624, 5394770, 0.0) 7 1.06E-01 18,30/03/00 (507174, 5395445, 0.0) 8 9.77E-02 18,13/01/00 (507774, 5394770, 0.0) 9 9.58E-02 18,10/04/00 (507124, 5395570, 0.0) 10 9.38E-02 10,04/02/00 (507624, 5395070, 0.0) 11 9.38E-02 10,15/02/00 (507549, 5395145, 0.0) 12 9.36E-02 10,26/02/00 (507499, 5395220, 0.0) 13 9.25E-02 10,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 14 9.25E-02 10,08/03/00 (507399, 5395270, 0.0) 15 9.21E-02 10,30/03/00 (507324, 5395470, 0.0) 16 9.19E-02 10,19/03/00 (507349, 5395370, 0.0) 17 9.04E-02 10,10/04/00 (507349, 5395570, 0.0) 18 8.89E-02 19,15/02/00 (507499, 5395070, 0.0) 19 8.86E-02 10,13/01/00 (507824, 5395020, 0.0) 20 8.80E-02 19,04/02/00 (507599, 5395020, 0.0) 21 8.74E-02 19,26/02/00 (507474, 5395195, 0.0) 22 8.65E-02 19,08/03/00 (507349, 5395245, 0.0) 23 8.58E-02 19,30/03/00 (507324, 5395470, 0.0) 24 8.57E-02 19,19/03/00 (507349, 5395370, 0.0) 25 8.55E-02 19,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 26 8.54E-02 18,21/04/00 (507099, 5395720, 0.0) 27 8.48E-02 10,21/04/00 (507374, 5395670, 0.0) 28 8.40E-02 20,12/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 29 8.40E-02 20,14/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 30 8.40E-02 06,16/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 31 8.40E-02 16,17/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 32 8.40E-02 02,19/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 33 8.40E-02 12,20/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 34 8.40E-02 22,21/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 35 8.39E-02 20,23/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 36 8.39E-02 20,25/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 37 8.39E-02 06,27/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 38 8.39E-02 16,28/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 39 8.39E-02 02,30/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 40 8.39E-02 12,31/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 41 8.39E-02 22,01/02/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 42 8.38E-02 20,07/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 43 8.38E-02 20,09/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 44 8.38E-02 06,11/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0)

126



August 2010

45 8.38E-02 16,12/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 46 8.38E-02 02,14/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 47 8.38E-02 12,15/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 48 8.38E-02 22,16/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 49 8.36E-02 20,14/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 50 8.36E-02 20,16/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 51 8.36E-02 06,18/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 52 8.36E-02 16,19/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 53 8.36E-02 02,21/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 54 8.36E-02 12,22/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 55 8.36E-02 22,23/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 56 8.35E-02 20,03/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 57 8.35E-02 20,05/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 58 8.35E-02 06,07/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 59 8.35E-02 16,08/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 60 8.35E-02 02,10/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 61 8.35E-02 12,11/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 62 8.35E-02 22,12/02/00 (507799, 5395370, 0.0) 63 8.33E-02 20,18/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 64 8.33E-02 20,20/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 65 8.33E-02 06,22/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 66 8.33E-02 16,23/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 67 8.33E-02 02,25/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 68 8.33E-02 12,26/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 69 8.33E-02 22,27/03/00 (507699, 5395495, 0.0) 70 8.31E-02 10,02/01/00 (507924, 5395020, 0.0) 71 8.20E-02 19,10/04/00 (507324, 5395570, 0.0) 72 8.20E-02 11,04/02/00 (507724, 5395245, 0.0) 73 8.20E-02 20,01/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 74 8.20E-02 20,03/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 75 8.20E-02 06,05/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 76 8.20E-02 16,06/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 77 8.20E-02 02,08/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 78 8.20E-02 12,09/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 79 8.20E-02 22,10/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 80 8.19E-02 18,02/01/00 (507924, 5394795, 0.0) 81 8.18E-02 20,25/02/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 82 8.18E-02 20,27/02/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 83 8.18E-02 06,29/02/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 84 8.18E-02 16,01/03/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 85 8.18E-02 02,03/03/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 86 8.18E-02 12,04/03/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 87 8.18E-02 22,05/03/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 88 8.10E-02 20,29/03/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 89 8.10E-02 20,31/03/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 90 8.10E-02 06,02/04/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 91 8.10E-02 16,03/04/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 92 8.10E-02 02,05/04/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 93 8.10E-02 12,06/04/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 94 8.10E-02 22,07/04/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 95 8.09E-02 11,15/02/00 (507649, 5395245, 0.0) 96 8.07E-02 11,19/03/00 (507549, 5395445, 0.0) 97 8.06E-02 11,24/01/00 (507774, 5395170, 0.0) 98 8.03E-02 11,26/02/00 (507624, 5395320, 0.0) 99 8.03E-02 21,23/01/00 (507849, 5395370, 0.0) 100 8.03E-02 03,30/01/00 (507849, 5395370, 0.0)

127



August 2010

1 _______________________________________________ Eco Solutions - CO (Modifed Metsample File) _______________________________________________ Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units microgram/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+06 Constant background concentration 5.12E+02 Terrain effects Egan method Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m Use the convective PDF algorithm? No Averaging time for sigma-theta values 60 min. DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Sigma-theta Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.400m Adjustment for wind directional shear None PLUME RISE OPTIONS Gradual plume rise? Yes Stack-tip downwash included? Yes Building downwash algorithm: PRIME method. Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60 Partial penetration of elevated inversions? No Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table (in K/m) is used: Wind Speed Stability Class Category A B C D E F ________________________________________________________ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 WIND SPEED CATEGORIES Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80 WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Rural" values (unless overridden by met. file) AVERAGING TIMES 8 hours _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 _______________________________________________ Eco Solutions - CO (Modifed Metsample File) SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

128



August 2010

_______________________________________________ STACK SOURCE: 1 X(m) Y(m) Ground Elev. Stack Height Diameter Temperature Speed 507920 5395576 148m 20m 0.20m 120C 17.3m/s ______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 25 22 19 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 Along-flow distance from stack -14 -13 -10 -8 -7 -9 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 Across-flow distance from stack -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 15 15 19 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 25 25 27 27 27 26 25 22 19 15 15 19 Along-flow distance from stack -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -10 -9 -7 -8 -10 Across-flow distance from stack 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 28 27 26 24 22 19 15 15 19 22 24 26 Effective building height 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Along-flow building length 22 24 26 27 27 27 25 25 27 28 27 26 Along-flow distance from stack -12 -14 -15 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -17 -16 -15 Across-flow distance from stack 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 (Constant) emission rate = 2.57E-01 grams/second No gravitational settling or scavenging. _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 _______________________________________________ Eco Solutions - CO (Modifed Metsample File) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS _______________________________________________ The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 506674.m 506699.m 506724.m 506749.m 506774.m 506799.m 506824.m 506849.m 506874.m 506899.m 506924.m 506949.m 506974.m 506999.m 507024.m 507049.m 507074.m 507099.m 507124.m 507149.m 507174.m 507199.m 507224.m 507249.m 507274.m 507299.m 507324.m 507349.m 507374.m 507399.m 507424.m 507449.m 507474.m 507499.m 507524.m 507549.m 507574.m 507599.m 507624.m 507649.m 507674.m 507699.m 507724.m 507749.m 507774.m 507799.m 507824.m 507849.m 507874.m 507899.m 507924.m 507949.m 507974.m 507999.m 508024.m 508049.m 508074.m 508099.m 508124.m 508149.m 508174.m 508199.m 508224.m 508249.m 508274.m 508299.m 508324.m 508349.m 508374.m 508399.m 508424.m 508449.m 508474.m 508499.m 508524.m 508549.m 508574.m 508599.m 508624.m 508649.m 508674.m 508699.m 508724.m 508749.m 508774.m 508799.m 508824.m 508849.m 508874.m 508899.m 508924.m 508949.m 508974.m 508999.m 509024.m 509049.m 509074.m 509099.m 509124.m 509149.m 509174.m and these y-values (or northings): 5394320.m 5394345.m 5394370.m 5394395.m 5394420.m 5394445.m 5394470.m 5394495.m 5394520.m 5394545.m 5394570.m 5394595.m 5394620.m 5394645.m 5394670.m 5394695.m 5394720.m 5394745.m 5394770.m 5394795.m 5394820.m 5394845.m 5394870.m 5394895.m 5394920.m 5394945.m 5394970.m 5394995.m 5395020.m 5395045.m 5395070.m 5395095.m 5395120.m 5395145.m 5395170.m 5395195.m 5395220.m 5395245.m 5395270.m 5395295.m 5395320.m 5395345.m 5395370.m 5395395.m 5395420.m 5395445.m 5395470.m 5395495.m 5395520.m 5395545.m 5395570.m 5395595.m 5395620.m 5395645.m 5395670.m 5395695.m

129



August 2010

5395720.m 5395745.m 5395770.m 5395795.m 5395820.m 5395845.m 5395870.m 5395895.m 5395920.m 5395945.m 5395970.m 5395995.m 5396020.m 5396045.m 5396070.m 5396095.m 5396120.m 5396145.m 5396170.m 5396195.m 5396220.m 5396245.m 5396270.m 5396295.m 5396320.m 5396345.m 5396370.m 5396395.m 5396420.m 5396445.m 5396470.m 5396495.m 5396520.m 5396545.m 5396570.m 5396595.m 5396620.m 5396645.m 5396670.m 5396695.m 5396720.m 5396745.m 5396770.m 5396795.m 5396820.m DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres) No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT 1 507920 5395576 148.0 0.0 _____________________________________________________________________________ METEOROLOGICAL DATA : Modified METSAMP file. All directions in 10 degree i _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in microgram/m3) Averaging time = 8 hours Rank Value Time Recorded Coordinates hour,date (* denotes polar) 1 5.30E+02 08,30/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 2 5.30E+02 08,10/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 3 5.30E+02 16,13/01/00 (507874, 5395320, 0.0) 4 5.30E+02 16,24/01/00 (507824, 5395320, 0.0) 5 5.29E+02 08,08/01/00 (507924, 5395395, 0.0) 6 5.29E+02 08,25/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 7 5.29E+02 16,08/03/00 (507699, 5395445, 0.0) 8 5.29E+02 08,05/04/00 (507749, 5395545, 0.0) 9 5.29E+02 24,08/02/00 (507849, 5395445, 0.0) 10 5.29E+02 24,23/03/00 (507774, 5395520, 0.0) 11 5.29E+02 08,14/03/00 (507774, 5395495, 0.0) 12 5.29E+02 24,06/01/00 (507924, 5395420, 0.0) 13 5.29E+02 08,19/01/00 (507899, 5395420, 0.0) 14 5.29E+02 24,17/01/00 (507899, 5395420, 0.0) 15 5.29E+02 16,19/03/00 (507649, 5395470, 0.0) 16 5.29E+02 16,04/02/00 (507774, 5395320, 0.0) 17 5.29E+02 16,15/02/00 (507749, 5395370, 0.0) 18 5.29E+02 16,30/03/00 (507624, 5395520, 0.0) 19 5.29E+02 24,12/03/00 (507774, 5395495, 0.0) 20 5.29E+02 16,02/01/00 (507924, 5395320, 0.0) 21 5.29E+02 16,26/02/00 (507699, 5395395, 0.0) 22 5.29E+02 08,03/03/00 (507774, 5395445, 0.0) 23 5.29E+02 08,21/02/00 (507799, 5395420, 0.0) 24 5.29E+02 24,03/04/00 (507749, 5395545, 0.0) 25 5.29E+02 24,15/02/00 (507574, 5395170, 0.0) 26 5.29E+02 24,01/03/00 (507799, 5395470, 0.0) 27 5.28E+02 24,26/02/00 (507499, 5395220, 0.0) 28 5.28E+02 24,04/02/00 (507624, 5395070, 0.0) 29 5.28E+02 16,31/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 30 5.28E+02 08,16/04/00 (507724, 5395570, 0.0) 31 5.28E+02 08,27/01/01 (507949, 5395395, 0.0) 32 5.28E+02 16,10/04/00 (507624, 5395570, 0.0) 33 5.28E+02 24,28/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 34 5.28E+02 24,23/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 35 5.28E+02 24,25/01/00 (507849, 5395395, 0.0) 36 5.28E+02 24,24/01/00 (507724, 5395045, 0.0) 37 5.28E+02 24,19/03/00 (507424, 5395395, 0.0) 38 5.28E+02 24,08/03/00 (507474, 5395320, 0.0) 39 5.28E+02 16,11/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 40 5.28E+02 24,03/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 41 5.28E+02 24,05/02/00 (507824, 5395420, 0.0) 42 5.28E+02 24,19/02/00 (507824, 5395470, 0.0)

130



August 2010

43 5.28E+02 24,30/03/00 (507349, 5395470, 0.0) 44 5.28E+02 24,01/01/00 (507924, 5395395, 0.0) 45 5.28E+02 24,03/01/00 (507924, 5395395, 0.0) 46 5.28E+02 24,18/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 47 5.28E+02 24,20/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 48 5.28E+02 16,09/01/00 (507924, 5395395, 0.0) 49 5.28E+02 16,26/03/00 (507749, 5395520, 0.0) 50 5.28E+02 24,12/01/00 (507899, 5395420, 0.0) 51 5.28E+02 24,14/01/00 (507899, 5395420, 0.0) 52 5.28E+02 24,25/01/01 (507949, 5395420, 0.0) 53 5.28E+02 24,29/03/00 (507749, 5395545, 0.0) 54 5.28E+02 24,31/03/00 (507749, 5395545, 0.0) 55 5.28E+02 16,21/01/01 (507974, 5395295, 0.0) 56 5.28E+02 24,07/03/00 (507774, 5395495, 0.0) 57 5.28E+02 24,09/03/00 (507774, 5395495, 0.0) 58 5.28E+02 16,06/04/00 (507749, 5395545, 0.0) 59 5.28E+02 16,20/01/00 (507899, 5395420, 0.0) 60 5.28E+02 16,15/03/00 (507749, 5395470, 0.0) 61 5.28E+02 24,10/04/00 (507374, 5395570, 0.0) 62 5.28E+02 24,14/04/00 (507749, 5395570, 0.0) 63 5.28E+02 24,25/02/00 (507774, 5395445, 0.0) 64 5.28E+02 24,27/02/00 (507774, 5395445, 0.0) 65 5.28E+02 16,04/03/00 (507774, 5395445, 0.0) 66 5.27E+02 24,14/02/00 (507799, 5395420, 0.0) 67 5.27E+02 24,16/02/00 (507799, 5395420, 0.0) 68 5.27E+02 16,22/02/00 (507799, 5395420, 0.0) 69 5.27E+02 24,13/01/00 (507824, 5395045, 0.0) 70 5.27E+02 08,27/04/00 (507699, 5395620, 0.0) 71 5.27E+02 24,20/01/01 (507949, 5395395, 0.0) 72 5.27E+02 24,22/01/01 (507949, 5395395, 0.0) 73 5.27E+02 08,09/10/00 (508099, 5395645, 0.0) 74 5.27E+02 16,21/04/00 (507624, 5395620, 0.0) 75 5.27E+02 08,04/08/00 (507949, 5395745, 0.0) 76 5.27E+02 24,09/04/00 (507724, 5395570, 0.0) 77 5.27E+02 24,11/04/00 (507724, 5395570, 0.0) 78 5.27E+02 08,16/01/01 (507999, 5395370, 0.0) 79 5.27E+02 16,17/04/00 (507724, 5395570, 0.0) 80 5.27E+02 16,28/01/01 (507949, 5395395, 0.0) 81 5.27E+02 24,13/08/00 (507974, 5395720, 0.0) 82 5.27E+02 24,02/08/00 (507949, 5395745, 0.0) 83 5.27E+02 08,28/09/00 (508074, 5395670, 0.0) 84 5.27E+02 08,24/07/00 (507924, 5395770, 0.0) 85 5.27E+02 16,21/01/00 (507899, 5395470, 0.0) 86 5.27E+02 08,31/10/00 (508124, 5395570, 0.0) 87 5.27E+02 16,01/02/00 (507874, 5395470, 0.0) 88 5.27E+02 24,14/01/01 (507974, 5395420, 0.0) 89 5.27E+02 08,15/08/00 (507974, 5395745, 0.0) 90 5.27E+02 16,07/02/00 (507849, 5395445, 0.0) 91 5.27E+02 08,13/02/00 (507849, 5395445, 0.0) 92 5.27E+02 08,26/08/00 (508024, 5395745, 0.0) 93 5.27E+02 08,20/10/00 (508124, 5395620, 0.0) 94 5.27E+02 16,16/03/00 (507824, 5395520, 0.0) 95 5.27E+02 16,23/02/00 (507849, 5395495, 0.0) 96 5.27E+02 16,22/03/00 (507774, 5395520, 0.0) 97 5.27E+02 08,28/03/00 (507774, 5395520, 0.0) 98 5.27E+02 24,24/08/00 (507999, 5395720, 0.0) 99 5.27E+02 08,11/11/00 (508099, 5395545, 0.0) 100 5.27E+02 16,13/02/00 (507849, 5395445, 0.0)

131

Appendix G: Longford Waste Water Treatment Plant - Environment Protection Notice No. 7407/2


132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

Appendix H: Greenhouse Gas Calculations


159

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimate

Category Source Value UnitsEnergy Content Factor

Emission Factor CO2

Emission Factor CH4

Emission Factor N2O

Calculated Emissions

CO2


CH4


N2OTotal t CO2-e

Stationary Energy Biogas 1728000 m3/annum 0.04 0.00 4.80 0.03 0.00 312.70 1.95 314.65Transport Trucks (Diesel) 65 kL/annum 38.60 69.20 0.20 0.50 173.09 0.50 1.25 174.84

Total 489.49

Landfill Abattoir 10800 tons/annum 1.1 11880

160

Appendix I: Visual Amenity Photographs


161

Site Photos


162

Site Photo

View from Hay St


163

View from High St

View from the Longford Football Ground


164

View from Malcombe St

View from Bulwer St


165

Appendix J: Risk Assessment


166

Level Descriptor Description A Almost certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances B Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances C Possible Could occur D Unlikely Could occur but not expected E Rare Occurs only in exceptional circumstances From Standards Australia HB 203:2006 Environmental risk management - Principles and process Table 4(A)

Level Descriptor Example detail description

1 Catastrophic Death, toxic release off-‐site with detrimental effect, huge financial loss 2 Major Extensive injuries, loss of production capability, off-‐site release contained with outside assistance and little detrimental impact, major

financial loss 3 Moderate Medical treatment required, on-‐site release contained with outside assistance, high financial loss 4 Minor First aid treatment, on-‐site release immediately contained, medium financial loss 5 Insignificant No injuries, low financial loss, negligible environmental impact. From Standards Australia HB 203:2006 Environmental risk management - Principles and process Table 4(B)

Consequence Likelihood Catastrophic Major Moderate Minor Insignificant

Almost Certain Extreme Extreme Extreme High High Likely Extreme Extreme High High Moderate Possible Extreme Extreme High Moderate Low Unlikely Extreme High Moderate Low Low Rare High High Moderate Low Low

Extreme Risk Immediate action required High Risk Senior management attention needed Moderate Risk Management responsibility must be specified Low Risk Manage by routine procedures From Standards Australia HB 203:2006 Environmental risk management - Principles and process Table 4(C)

167

Event / Impact to: Effect Mitigation Likelihood Consequence Risk Air Emission Odour impact to neighbours Bio-‐scrubber for emission sources, contingency

measures for process failure Possible Insignificant Low

Liquid waste Spill of process liquid, impact to environment Design of plant layout to incorporate liquid interception and collection (bunding etc)

Unlikely Insignificant Low

Stormwater contamination Design of stormwater interception and collection systems for re-‐use


Groundwater Spill, groundwater impact Design of liquid waste and stormwater systems as above


Noise Noise impact to neighbours High noise producing elements contained in soundproofed area in warehouse


Solid waste Loss of material, impact to environment Use of approved waste transporters and adherence to the requirements of the Controlled Waste Tracking System

Unlikely Minor Low

Dangerous goods Spill, impact to environment Adherence to appropriate legislative and policy requirements


Biodiversity Loss of species or habitat, weed propagation Ecological assessment of the proposed development site, minor weed management


Heritage Disturbance of culturally significant aboriginal material

Incorporate procedure for identification of potentially significant material and notification of relevant authority into Construction Environmental Management Plan

Rare Minor Low

Health and Safety LTI, loss of life Development and adherence to appropriate OH&S policies including training

Unlikely Minor Low

Fire Damage to equipment, explosion, injury, loss of life

Construction, design and operation of proposed development to comply with relevant legislative and policy requirements to prevent and mitigate risk associated with fire

Unlikely Minor Low

168

Documents

Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan€¦ · IMP Environmental (IMP) propose to establish an anaerobic digestion and fertiliser batching facility at the Longford