Construction and operation of a milk processing facility ... · Environmental Assessment Report –...

Environmental Assessment Report – Tamar Valley Dairy – 1 River Street Invermay

I

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Construction and operation of a milk processing facility (yoghurt manufacturing)

1 River Street Invermay

Tamar Valley Dairy Pty Ltd

Report and recommendations of the EPA Division Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority July 2011


II

Environmental Assessment Report

Proponent Tamar Valley Dairy Pty Ltd

Proposal Construct and operate a milk processing facility

Location 1 River Street, Invermay

NELMS no. 8097

DA number DA0504/2010

File 112053

Document

Class of Assessment

G:\EEO\EAS\P\Tamar Valley\Assessment Report\Tamar Valley Dairy 1 River St Invermay - Assessment Report - Final.docx

2A

Assessment process milestones

12 August 2010 Notice of Intent submitted

13 September 2010 EER Guidelines issued

18 October 2010 Permit application submitted to Council

12 April 2011 Application received by Board

16 April 2011 Start of public consultation period

3 May 2011 End of public consultation period

6 July 2011 Supplementary information submitted to Board

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

EER Environmental Effects Report

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

SD Sustainable development


IV


V

Table of Contents

1 Approvals process ..................................................................................... 1

2 SD objectives and EIA principles .............................................................. 2

3 The proposal ............................................................................................. 3

4 Need for proposal and alternatives ......................................................... 10

5 Public and agency consultation ............................................................... 11

6 Evaluation of environmental issues ......................................................... 12

7 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 24

8 References .............................................................................................. 25

9 Summary of appendices .......................................................................... 26


1

1 Approvals process

An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Launceston City Council on 18 October 2010.

The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection (4)(d) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being a milk processing works. Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 12 April 2011.

The assessment has been undertaken by the Director, Environment Protection Authority under delegation from the Board.

The Board required that additional information to support the proposal be provided in the form of an Environmental Effects Report (EER).

Several drafts of the EER were submitted to the Department for comment prior to its formal submission. A final EER was submitted to Launceston City Council with the permit application. The EER was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 16 April 2011. Advertisements were placed in The Saturday Examiner and on the EPA web site. The EER was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. Two public submissions (including the submission made by the EPA Division to ensure the EPA may join any appeal) were received.

On 12 May 2011, the Director requested that the proponent prepare an EER Supplement to address public, government agency (including DPIPWE) and Council comments on the EER. The EER Supplement was submitted by the proponent on 6 July 2011.


2

2 SD objectives and EIA principles

The proposal must be considered by the Director in the context of the sustainable development objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania (RMPS), and in the context of the objectives of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control System (EMPCS) established by the EMPC Act. The functions of the Board are to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act, and in particular to use its best endeavours to protect the environment of Tasmania, and to further the RMPS and EMPCS objectives.

The Director must undertake the assessment of the proposal in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles defined in Section 74 of the EMPC Act.


3

3 The proposal

A yoghurt manufacturing plant is proposed to be built and operated by Tamar Valley Dairy on a vacant block of land adjacent to the Tamar River, at 1 River Street, Invermay.

The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 2 of the EER. Figure 1 shows a lot plan for the proposal (taken directly from Appendix B of the EER), and Figure 2 provides an outline of the proposed building’s footprint (from Appendix D of the EER).

Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics

Activity

Construction and operation of a milk processing facility (manufacture of yoghurt), with a processing capacity of 60,000 litres of milk per 8 hour working day.

Location and planning context

Location 1 River Street, Invermay (Figure 1).

Land zoning Rural Zone (Launceston Planning Scheme 1996). Level 2 activities are a discretionary development in this zoning.

Land tenure The two land titles that comprise “1 River Street” (title reference 136579/2) and “River Street” (title reference 136819/1) are owned by Leslie Walter Dick of Acacia Expeditions Pty Ltd. An application is currently before Launceston City Council to have the titles consolidated and re-subdivided into two lots to accommodate the proposed development. It is proposed that Mr Dick will sell all necessary land to the proponent.

Existing site

Land Use Vacant, no previous known construction on the site. The site is highly disturbed with historical placement of fill material such as soil and rubble by previous owners, as well as being used as a scrap metal yard.

Topography Generally flat, with slight undulations consistent with historical placement of fill material.

The site is located immediately adjacent to the Tamar River and the mean site elevation is 3.6 metres AHD. The Launceston City Council earthen flood levee bank borders the eastern part of the site.

Geology The underlying geology of the area is mapped as “Estuarine deposits of clayey silt, silt, sand and subordinate gravel, supra-estuarine swamp and laterally derived alluvial deposits, unmapped man-made deposits including silt dredgings; in environments inferred to lie above frequent tidal influence”.

Soils The site has been filled historically with soil and general inert rubble. The depth of fill material is approximately 3.6 metres above the natural ground level.

Based on the flood plain location and the geology of the site, there is a high probability (greater than 70% chance of occurrence in the mapping unit) of acid sulfate soils being present.


4

Hydrology The site is immediately adjacent to the Tamar River and is classified by the Launceston Planning Scheme (1996) as being in the Invermay/Inveresk Flood Inundation Area.

There are no constructed drains, stormwater infrastructure or wetlands on the site. Stormwater at present runs directly into the Tamar River.

Fauna No threatened fauna have been observed on site and no suitable habitat for threatened fauna exists on site.

Flora A small population of Calystegia sepium (Swamp bindweed) (listed as rare under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 - TSPA) is present adjacent to the Crown Esplanade along the Tamar River.

Blackberry, and various agricultural broad leaf weeds (turnip weed, dandelion, thistle and fog grass) also exist on site.

Local region

Climate The Tamar Valley has a cool, temperate climate. The hilly topography of the Launceston area can cause highly variable weather patterns.

Temperatures recorded at nearby Ti Tree Bend show a mean annual maximum of 18.5°C and a mean annual minimum of 7.3°C. The region is dominated by winter rains, the least amount of wind in the winter (contributing to frequent morning fogs), and windy springs. Mean annual rainfall is approximately 677 mm.

Surrounding land and uses

The area immediately to the east of the site is the light industrial area of Invermay, which also includes some commercial and residential areas.

Directly opposite the site on the other side of the Tamar River is the residential area of Trevallyn.

To the north of the site are the Launceston City Council’s sediment retention ponds and the Ti Tree Bend wastewater treatment plant.

Immediately adjoining the site to the north on Crown Land is a canal which has been proposed to be developed into a docking channel. The docking channel proposal is not part of this proposal for the Tamar Valley Dairy.

Proposed infrastructure

Major equipment A new factory with a floor space of approximately 4,500 m2 will be constructed, to incorporate :

A warehouse/dry store;

Manufacturing area (consisting of an ultra-filtration plant, pasteurizing and homogenizing plant, cold storage milk silos, milk separator, incubation vats, and five packaging machines);

Cool store;

Natural gas-fired boiler; and

Staff amenities and administration area.

Other infrastructure

Car parking for 63 cars for staff, contractors and visitors.


5

Inputs

Water A reticulated water supply is available to the proposed factory. Approximately 60,000 litres per week is used for equipment rinsing and cleaning, and general factory washing.

Energy Electricity for manufacturing processes, refrigeration etc.

Natural gas consumed by the boiler.

Other raw materials

Fresh milk is supplied by National Foods in Burnie, and yoghurt flavourings are sourced locally.

Wastes and emissions

Liquid Liquid waste will be created by cleaning and wash down of factory operations, and staff amenities (toilets, wash basins, common areas etc.

All wastewater originating from the factory will be discharged to sewer via a Trade Waste Agreement with Ben Lomond Water.

Atmospheric Dust during the construction phase.

Use of the gas-fired boiler will create nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions.

Solid The factory generates cardboard, packaging and plastic wastes.

Noise Noise may be generated by processing equipment, the boiler, delivery vehicles and forklifts

Greenhouse gases

Greenhouse gas emissions will be created through consumption of electricity, natural gas, and diesel (relating to transport of milk to the site and products from the site). Apart from a small increase in emissions relating to increases in production, it is not expected that levels of greenhouse gas emissions will change substantially in comparison to the proponent’s current operations.

Commissioning and operations

Operating hours Normal operating hours will be 0630 to 1830 hours Monday to Friday.

Two staff members commence work at 0330 hours.

The boiler will operate 0400 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday.

Occasional weekend work on an ad-hoc basis may be required to fulfil commercial contracts.

Project timetable It is expected that construction of the new facility will take 6 months to complete following approval.

Other key characteristics

The proponent currently operates a yoghurt manufacturing facility on Montague Street, Invermay, approximately 500 metres away from the proposed facility.

kduttmer

Text Box

FIGURE 1: Lot Plan - Tamar Valley Dairy (from Appendix B of Environmental Effects Report)

Scale

Drawn

Approved

Designed

Client

Project

Title

Original Size

A1No Revision Drawn Date

Cad File No: Plot Date:

DatecCopyright

ENGINEERING EDGE Pty LtdACN 109 155 884

219 Invermay Rd, Invermay 7248t 6326 9805 - f 6326 9607

[email protected]

DO

NO

T SC

ALE

Accreditation No.

StucturalCert. No.

Accreditation No.

12110-A01 B

APPROVAL

AS SHOWN

S. COPPLEMAN R.NEVILLE

/

CC2211T CC2080J

FIGURE 2. Building Footprint - Tamar Valley Dairy. From Appendix D of Environmental Effects Report.


10

4 Need for proposal and alternatives

The proponent currently operates a Level 1 yoghurt manufacturing facility in Montague Street, Invermay, approximately 500 metres from the proposed new facility at 1 River Street. The current site is reaching operational capacity and new, larger premises are required to be able to continue to fulfil supply contracts.

The proponent requires a new site which meets the following characteristics:

An area greater than 1 hectare to be able to accommodate the factory, parking and site access;

Access to natural gas, sewerage connections with sufficient capacity, and reticulated water;

A location with sufficient separation distance between the factory and sensitive receptors;

Appropriately zoned land under the planning scheme; and

A location within the Tamar Valley, for marketing reasons.

It should be noted that Level 2 activities are prohibited in all (with some specific exceptions) land use zones except the “Rural” zone under the Launceston Planning Scheme (1996). This considerably limits the number of sites which meet the above criteria.

The following sites were considered, and reasons given for not pursuing the development at these sites:

Westbury -

o Ben Lomond Water indicated that the current sewerage system servicing Westbury did not have sufficient capacity to be able to handle the volumes and types of wastewater produced by the factory; and

o A number of existing production staff indicated that they would not travel to Westbury each day due to the increased distances and time involved in travel.

Possible locations at the Connector Park industrial estate and Killafaddy in Launceston were also considered but problems existed with zoning under the Launceston Planning Scheme and with distances to sensitive uses.


11

5 Public and agency consultation

A summary of the public representations and government agency/body submissions is contained in Appendix 1 of this report. The proponent’s response to those issues is contained in the EER Supplement.

Two representations were received (including the standard representation from the EPA). The main issues raised in the representations included:

Planning issues (relating to zonings and land use, and development in a flood risk area); and

Impacts of noise from machinery and vehicles on nearby residents.

The following Divisions/Areas of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment provided submissions on the EER:

Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch (Resource Management and Conservation);

Noise Specialist, EPA Division;

Air Specialist, EPA Division; and

Food and Textiles section Regulatory Officer, EPA Division.

The EER Supplement prepared by the proponent provides a response to each of the relevant environmental issues raised by the public and government agencies/bodies.


12

6 Evaluation of environmental issues

The environmental issues considered relevant to the proposal have been evaluated by the EPA Division. Details of this evaluation, along with recommended permit conditions, are shown in the table below.

Table 2: Assessment of environmental issues

Issue 1

FLORA AND FAUNA

Description of potential impacts

Construction of the new factory, and landscaping associated with the new facilities, may disturb or destroy a 16 x 12 metre patch of Swamp Bindweed (Calystegia sepium) which exists on the site (proposed Lot 2). Swamp Bindweed is listed as rare under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Act 1995.

The declared weed Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) is present in small amounts on the proposed Lot 2. Blackberry is widespread in the Launceston area and landholders are obliged to contain blackberry infestations. Other weeds are also present on site, including agricultural broad leaf weeds and grasses (turnip weed, thistle, dandelion, fog grass). Weeds may be spread off site via plant and machinery entering and leaving the site during the construction phase.

No threatened fauna or potential faunal habitat was observed at the site.

Management measures proposed in EER

The following management commitments have been proposed (provided in the EER Supplement):

EER Commitment 5: Establishing a temporary protective fence around the Calystegia sepium population, prior to construction.

EER Commitment 6: Remove weeds (by hand) around the Calystegia sepium to maintain appropriate growing conditions [prior to construction].

EER Commitment 7: Remove existing Rubus fruticosus plants and dispose of appropriately [during landscaping].

EER Commitment 8: Implement appropriate washdown procedures in accordance with appropriate Zone B requirements [prior to construction].

EER Commitment 9: Use herbicide sprays and hand weeding to manage turnip weed, dandelion, thistle and fog grass [prior to construction].

Public and agency comment

DPIPWE – Resource Management and Conservation (RMC) commented that the rare Swamp Bindweed was present in the vicinity of the proposed development and that the species should be taped off during construction so that they are not impacted upon by machinery or stockpiling of materials.

Evaluation and recommendation

It is noted that the Swamp Bindweed is incorrectly referred to as Great Bindweed in the Bushways Flora/Fauna report in Appendix G of the EER.

The commitments to protect the Swamp Bindweed from impacts of construction are considered appropriate management for the species. Commitments regarding management of weeds are also considered appropriate for this site.

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitments 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (covered by standard condition G6), and with permit condition FF1.


13

Issue 2

ABORIGINAL AND EUROPEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE


No issues of Aboriginal or European cultural heritage are known to exist on or near the site.


The following management commitment has been provided by the proponents (provided in the EER Supplement):

EER Commitment 10: In the unlikely event any Aboriginal or European cultural material is identified during construction, all activity within 10 m of the ‘find’ will cease immediately and the appropriate heritage authority notified. TVD will then take guidance from the relevant authority.


An Aboriginal heritage investigation was not required by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania as it was believed that this activity has a very low probability of impacting Aboriginal heritage.

Evaluation

The proposed construction and operation of the facility is unlikely to impact on cultural heritage, particularly given the highly disturbed and modified nature of the site.

Any relics discovered should be managed in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (refer Information Schedule LO4). It is also recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitment 10 (covered by standard condition G6).


14

Issue 3

NOISE


Noise from construction and operation of the yoghurt manufacturing facility may create nuisance for nearby residents.


Noise measurements were undertaken by the proponent and measurements presented in the EER. Existing ambient noise levels were considered to be high already because of the industrial nature of the area. The boiler and processing areas were identified as particularly noisy aspects of the operation.

The following management commitments were proposed in the original EER:

EER Commitment 15 (revised in the EER Supplement to #26): Clad boiler room and compressors to prevent noise emissions.

EER Commitment 16 (revised in the EER Supplement to #27): Keep loading bay curtain and doors closed during loading and unloading.


One representation was received from a resident of Trevallyn (directly across the Tamar River from the proposed new factory) with concerns regarding the lack of information provided in the EER on impacts of noise on residents on the western side of the Tamar River. Particular areas of concern in the representation were from early morning operations and vehicle arrivals, noise originating from the operation of the boiler, and forklift reversing beepers.

The noise measurements undertaken by the proponent and presented in the original EER indicated that noise levels of between 78 and 85 dB(A) at the front entrance of the existing factory were being experienced. Extrapolation of these noise levels by the EPA Division’s Noise Specialist gave an estimated noise level of approximately 65 dB(A) at the nearest residence (at a distance of approximately 410 metres from the factory and located directly across the Tamar River with no buildings or other forms of attenuation in place) and this was considered unacceptably high.

A supplement to the EER was requested (to be done by a suitably qualified professional) to confirm the existing noise emission levels and provide modelling of expected noise emissions from the new factory at nearby residences on both the eastern and western sides of the Tamar River. Draft noise emission limits were provided (based on actual ambient noise monitoring previously undertaken in the Trevallyn area by the EPA Division) to determine whether it was expected that the proposed new factory could comply with standard noise emission limits. More detailed information on vehicle arrivals and departures in the early mornings was also requested.


15

Evaluation

The EER Supplement contained a noise assessment which demonstrated that noise emissions from the proposed factory are likely to be within ambient levels for the area, and that the proposed factory is highly likely to be able to comply with the proposed noise emission limits. It is recommended that the proponent be required to undertake a post-commissioning noise assessment to confirm compliance with the proposed noise emission limits. It is also recommended that a complaints register be required to be maintained by the proponent. There is no history of noise complaints from the existing facility.

Operation of the boiler (particularly in early mornings) was a particular point of concern raised in the representation. Modelling undertaken for the EER Supplement predicted noise emissions at the nearest 18 residences, with all machinery running (including the boiler – although in practice this is unlikely to occur), to be well below the proposed noise emission limits. The boiler is to be located within the factory building on the eastern (Invermay) side. A number of warehouses and other industrial facilities are located between the proposed site at 1 River Street and the nearest residences, and this would be expected to provide adequate attenuation of any noise originating from the boiler. A requirement for a post-commissioning noise study would confirm the noise levels coming from the factory, however the modelling provided in the EER Supplement indicates that factory operations are unlikely to create noise nuisance for nearby residents.

The EER Supplement also provided details on movement and timing of delivery vehicles. No forklifts or other materials handling vehicles/machinery will be used outside the building. Forklifts are expected to be used daily after 6:30am and are electrically powered to reduce noise and air emissions inside the factory. Reversing beepers are required for occupational health and safety reasons, however the requirements for the factory to be well sealed for hygiene reasons results in the likelihood of noise disturbance for nearby residents from this machinery to be minimal.

The site’s layout is such that the only reversing of delivery trucks that will occur on site will be for dry and finished good deliveries to and from the warehouse door, which will require approximately 10 metres of reversing (corresponding to approximately 10 seconds of reversing beeper). Milk tankers are not required to reverse on site as they can drive in to the delivery area, and then continue to drive around the site to exit.

Milk tankers may arrive any time from 6am, 2 or 3 times per week, dry goods deliveries from 7am 2 times per week, and finished product picked up 2-3 times per week from 7am. The remainder of vehicles arriving in early mornings are light vehicles belonging to site workers. The recommended requirement for post-commissioning noise surveys should determine whether noise from truck and vehicle movements, particularly in the early mornings, is likely to be causing nuisance to nearby residents. The modelling provided in the EER Supplement indicates that this is unlikely to occur.

No new commitments were made in the EER Supplement in regards to noise. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitments 26 and 27 (covered by standard condition G6) and with the permit conditions G7 and N1, N2 and N3.


16

Issue 4

ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS


Nuisance dust may be created during construction due to earthmoving and movement of heavy vehicles on unsealed surfaces.

Combustion of natural gas results in air emissions of nitrogen oxides, with minor emissions of carbon monoxide, sulphur oxides, and very fine particulates. Nitrogen oxides can cause respiratory problems, and nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas.

Manufacturing of dairy products may create nuisance odours.


The following management commitments have been proposed (provided in the EER Supplement):

EER Commitment 28: Implement dust suppression strategies during construction when the site experiences high winds.

Section 4.8 of the EER states that this will be achieved through watering of the site during construction when high winds are being experienced and through limiting of vehicle speeds on the site to 8km/h. The proposed construction methodology (driving of piles) minimises the volume of soil requiring disturbance.

EER Commitment 29: Maintain the boiler to ensure optimal operating efficiency to reduce potential for environmental nuisance and harm.

Section 4.8 of the EER states that the gas-fired boiler will be installed and operated in accordance with Workplace Standards legislation.

Section 4.8 of the EER also states that the proponent stores all ingredients and products at the appropriate temperatures and that yoghurt manufacturing does not create objectionable odours beyond the boundaries of the factory, and that no odour complaints have been received in the history of the current operation.


No comments received.

Evaluation

Construction may create dust nuisance for neighbouring properties, and should be controlled so that dust will not pass the boundary of The Land at any time. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitment 28 (covered by standard condition G6) and with standard permit condition A1.

The existing facility operates a natural-gas fired boiler and will be relocating this same boiler to the proposed premises at 1 River Street Invermay (confirmed via pers.comm, Tangney1). This indicates that there is likely to be little change in emissions from the boiler and therefore little overall change in contributions of pollutants into the local airshed. The EPA Division’s air modelling specialist confirmed that the boiler in use is small in size and unlikely to contribute significant air emissions to the airshed. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitment 29 (covered by standard condition G6) regarding maintenance of the boiler.

There is no history of complaints in regard to odours from the existing facility. It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with the standard permit condition A2.

1 Email from Douglas Tangney, Pitt & Sherry - consultant to Tamar Valley Dairy, to Kate Düttmer (EPA Division), 10:06am 23 May 2011.


17

Issue 5

STORMWATER


During construction, sediments disturbed and exposed by earthworks may become entrained in stormwater and flow off site directly into the adjacent Tamar River, causing pollution and environmental harm.

Post-construction, stormwater running off the building roof and car parking area may pick up pollutants such as hydrocarbons, nutrients and sediments and flow to the Tamar River, causing pollution and environmental harm.

An unexpected spill of milk during delivery may cause nutrient-rich liquids to run into the adjacent Tamar River and contribute to pollution and eutrophication.


The following management commitments were proposed in the EER:

EER Commitment 11: Implement and maintain the CMP [Construction Management Plan] during construction

The CMP is included as Appendix K of the EER (provided in Attachment 3 of the permit) and includes installation of perimeter silt fencing, placement of ‘Sure-Gro filter socks’ (or similar) filled with scoria and sand around the site’s stormwater sump, and stockpile erosion control drains constructed around gravel/soil/building material stockpiles. These sediment controls will be removed following completion of construction and all disturbed surfaces have been stabilised and landscaped.

A number of other management commitments were proposed in the original EER in relation to stormwater management on site in regards to installation of an alarmed interceptor trap and flood gates where stormwater enters the Tamar, however these plans were modified following discussion with the EPA Division’s Regulatory Officer (see below).

EER Commitment 30 (from the EER Supplement): Any spills will be cleaned up as appropriate and if required, TVD will notify Workplace Standards, Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Launceston City Council and where potential exists for spills to enter the BLW [Ben Lomond Water] [sewer] network, they will also be notified.


The EPA Division’s Regulatory Officer requested further information on the proposed interceptor trap and alarm system, and information on operational/management plans with regards to maintenance and inspection of the system. There were particular concerns raised regarding the operational procedures in case of a major milk spill during delivery and transfer from tanker to milk storage silos, and the lack of consideration of the risks of milk entering the Tamar River.


18

Evaluation

A supplement to the EER was required to be prepared addressing the concerns regarding the proposed alarmed interceptor trap and operational plans around stormwater and spills. Significant improvements to plans for the facility were made to address these concerns, as described below.

A number of new commitments were provided in the EER Supplement to reflect modified plans regarding stormwater and spill management on site. For the full text of the new commitments refer to Attachment 2 of the permit conditions (provided in Attachment 2 of this report).

A commitment is made (EER Supplement Commitment 12) regarding supervision of milk deliveries and transfer of milk from tanker to storage silos. This will ensure that any spills of milk occurring during delivery can be rapidly detected and appropriate procedures put in place to manage the spill (EER Supplement Commitment 13).

Suction pumping techniques will be used which ensure that milk is suctioned from the truck to slio, so should any break in the line from tanker to silo occur, milk is not being continually pumped from the truck, but that the silo only takes in air and any transfer from the truck is stopped immediately (EER Supplement Commitment 14).

Should any milk spill from the tanker in the unbunded tanker parking bay, the drainage can be manually switched from being directed to stormwater, to being directed to sewer (EER Supplement Commitment 17). The area holding the storage silos will be bunded to hold 110% of the largest silo’s capacity (EER Supplement Commitment 15) (in line with standard permit requirements) and drainage in the silo area is directed towards the sewer rather than stormwater (EER Supplement Commitment 16), to ensure no major milk spills enter the stormwater system and eventually, the Tamar River. Further commitments are made in relation to repair of damaged silos (EER Supplement Commitment 19) and finally a commitment that no milk will enter the Tamar River (EER Supplement Commitment 18).

A stormwater interceptor will be installed to trap gross pollutants and allow removal before they enter the Tamar River (EER Supplement Commitment 20). A commitment has been made to inspect the condition of the interceptor on a regular basis (EER Supplement Commitment 21), and to install a ‘flood gate’ at the point where the stormwater enters the Tamar River, to ensure high water levels do not flood the interceptor trap (EER Supplement Commitment 24).

Additionally, the type of interceptor trap for stormwater has been changed from that originally proposed in the EER to be broader and shallower, so that the risk of intercepting potential acid sulfate soils during installation is reduced (see Issue 6).

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with the EER Supplement Commitments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 30 (and covered by standard permit condition G6).

It is also recommended that the proponent be required to comply with permit conditions E1 and E2.


19

Issue 6

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT OF POTENTIAL ACID SULFATE SOILS


The site has been mapped as being of a high risk of containing acid sulfate soils (ASS). When disturbed and exposed to oxygen during drainage or excavation works, potential ASS can oxidise and produce sulfuric acid which can move through the soil profile and cause release of acid and toxic metals. This can pollute waterways and corrode infrastructure2.


Construction engineers for the proponent advise in Appendix J of the EER that the factory is proposed to be constructed by driving wooden piles (300 to 350 in total) into the ground before laying a post-tensioned slab over the piles, resulting in minimal excavation of soil materials which may have the potential to form ASS. It is expected that the excavation of soils for sinking piles and for laying infrastructure on the site will be confined to fill material which has been imported to the site, rather than the original sediments (which pose the risk of exposure of ASS).

The following management commitments were proposed in the EER (provided in the EER Supplement):

EER Commitment 2: Excavate soils down to maximum of 3.1m AHD for the installation of structural piles.

EER Commitment 3: Excavate site soils down to a maximum depth of 2.2m AHD for the installation of services.

EER Commitment 4: No soil is to be removed from the construction site, unless the soil has been appropriately analysed, classified and authorised.


RMC advised that the area is listed as having high potential for acid sulfate soils to be present and that construction activities may result in acidic conditions in the soil and also negatively impact on the river environment.

RMC also advised that any fill brought on site should be sourced from a reputable quarry and that no material excavated on site is used as fill elsewhere, but disposed in accordance with Information Bulletin 105: Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal (Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000).

Evaluation

Initial investigations for ASS were undertaken on areas of land adjacent to the proposed site and found little risk of the presence of ASS, however the sampling methodology for the investigation was inconsistent with the requirements of the Tasmanian Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines and the results cannot be relied upon.

The EER Supplement contains additional commitments in relation to ASS:

EER Commitment 22: Any potential ASS identified during construction and excess to construction requirements will be stockpiled on site and managed in accordance with appropriate Tasmanian Guidelines.

EER Commitment 23: Any soils excess to construction requirements will be stockpiled on site and sampled for ASS and general contamination prior to disposal. If necessary, appropriate authorisation will be obtained prior to offsite disposal.

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitments 2, 3, 4, 22 and 23 (covered by standard condition G6), and with permit condition CN1.

2 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (2009). Tasmanian Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines.


20

Issue 7

SOLID WASTE


The yoghurt manufacturing process generates mainly liquid wastes (discussed under Issue 8 below). Solid waste generated by the proposal in the operational phase is mainly related to packaging materials (cardboard, plastics, etc). Inappropriate management and disposal of solid waste can be unsightly, become windblown and create litter off site and in the Tamar River.

Construction may generate waste excavated soils. This has been discussed under the previous issue (Issue 6).



EER Commitment 31: Separate all waste as it is generated and recycle as much as possible.

EER Commitment 32: Store solid waste in lidded waste bins.

EER Commitment 33: In the unlikely event that any hazardous solid waste materials require disposal, appropriate authorities will be notified and guidance sought to ensure suitable protocols are followed.



Evaluation

The proponent’s commitments to manage packaging waste are considered appropriate and it is recommended that the proponents be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitments 31, 32 and 33 (covered by standard condition G6).

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with standard permit condition WM1.


21

Issue 8

LIQUID WASTE


The proposal generates liquid waste from cleaning and washdown procedures within the factory, residual milk from silos, and from staff amenities, and is expected to generate approximately 15,000 litres of wastewater per day. Liquid wastes containing milk and cleaning products require treatment before release into receiving environments due to the high nutrient loadings of the milk and milk products and due to the chemicals contained in washdown waters.


Any spills occurring within the factory are captured and directed into the sewer. Stormwater and potential spills into stormwater (in outdoor areas of the factory) are discussed under Issue 5 and Issue 9.

Waste water from the factory is directed to the sewer for treatment at Ti Tree Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant and a Trade Waste Agreement will be put in place between Ben Lomond Water and Tamar Valley Dairy regarding treatment of wastewater. The proponents state in the EER that Ben Lomond Water have confirmed that the expected effluent is below acceptance criteria for biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, pH and suspended solids. The liquid waste will be high volume but low contaminant concentration.



Evaluation

It is recommended that the proponent be required to comply with permit conditions E3 and E4.


22

Issue 9

DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES


A number of hazardous corrosive chemicals are used in the cleaning and sanitising processes of the factory for food safety reasons. The chemicals pose a health and safety risk for employees if not handled appropriately, and may cause significant negative environmental impacts if spilled into the adjacent Tamar River.

The site is located within the Tamar River flood zone. Flooding of the factory may result in release of milk or chemicals into flood waters.



EER Commitment 30: Any spills will be cleaned up as appropriate and if required, TVD will notify Workplace Standards, Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Launceston City Council and where potential exists for spills to enter the BLW [Ben Lomond Water] network, they will also be notified.

EER Commitment 34: Store chemicals in a secure, bunded storage room.

EER Commitment 35: Maintain up to date copies of all relevant MSDS.



Evaluation

The proposed site is located within the Launceston City Council Planning Scheme’s (1996) Flood Risk Area which maps areas to be inundated by “floods of various intervals up to the 1% Annual Exceedance (1% AER) Probability Flood”. The site is also proposed to be located between the Tamar River and the Launceston flood levee bank. Additionally, the site as mapped on the LIST as being vulnerable to an indicative extreme storm surge flood with a modelled 8cm sea level rise by 2100. Flooding is therefore considered a substantial risk at this site and which may result in the unintended release of milk products and chemicals into flood waters.

According to the proponent’s consultant (Appendix E of the EER), the 1 in 100 year flood level (1% AER) corresponds to a height of 3.25m above sea level (Australian Height Datum, or AHD). The current level of the site, due to placement of fill material, is at 3.6m AHD. The floor of the factory is proposed to be located above this level with the consultant engineers planning to construct the finished floor level to 4.2m AHD which is approximately 1m above the estimated flood level for a 1 in 100 year flood event.

While the proponent states that they accept the risk of locating their business in a known flood zone, the risk of contamination of flood waters with milk, milk products, and the various chemicals to be kept on site, and planning in case of a flood, has not been addressed in the EER or EER Supplement. It is therefore recommended that the proponent be required to submit an Emergency Response Plan (permit condition G8) for approval by the Director prior to commissioning of the factory, which should address issues such as the maintenance of inventories of the chemical types and volumes kept on site, operational plans for the movement of chemicals, milk and milk products to higher ground during times of impending flood, and any other appropriate plans and measures to ensure that chemicals and milk products are kept out of flood waters during a flood event that may affect the factory.


23

Evaluation continued…

It is also recommended that the proponent be required to comply with EER Supplement Commitments 30, 34 and 35 (covered by standard permit condition G6), and with permit conditions H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 in relation to hazardous substances.

It should be noted that condition H1 includes “milk and milk products” as an “environmentally hazardous material” due to the negative impacts on water quality that may occur should a significant quantity of milk or milk product accidentally spill into the adjacent Tamar River.

The proponent should also refer to the information provided in the information schedule LO3 in regards to relevant legislation.


24

7 Conclusions

The EPA Division is of the view that:

(i) the RMPS and EMPCS objectives have been duly and properly pursued in the assessment of the proposal; and

(ii) the assessment of the proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Principles; and

(iii) the recommendations set out in this report accord with the Board’s responsibilities in relation to these objectives and principles.

This assessment has been based upon the information provided by the proponent in the permit application, EER and EER Supplement.

This assessment has incorporated specialist advice provided by Divisions of DPIPWE in relation to a number of key issues.

It is concluded that the proposal is capable of being managed in an environmentally acceptable manner such that it is unlikely that the RMPS and EMPCS objectives would be compromised, provided that the recommendations made in this report are satisfactorily implemented, including the commitments made by the proponent in the EER and EER Supplement.


25

8 References

Pitt & Sherry (2011a). Environmental Effects Report – Tamar Valley Dairy, 1 River Street, Invermay. Prepared for Guaraci Matteo, Tamar Valley Dairy Pty Ltd. Prepared by Douglas Tangney, April 2011.

Pitt & Sherry (2011b). Supplement: Environmental Effects Report – Tamar Valley Dairy, 1 River Street, Invermay. Prepared for Guaraci Matteo, Tamar Valley Dairy Pty Ltd. Prepared by Douglas Tangney, July 2011.


26

9 Summary of appendices

Appendix 1 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions

Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions, includes Attachment 2: Commitments


Appendix 1


Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Summary of issues raised by public and agency

submissions

Tamar Valley Dairy – 1 River St Invermay – Request for Supplement 12 May 2011 Page 1 of 3

Tamar Valley Dairy / Yoghurt manufacturing facility at 1 River Street Invermay

Summary of comments & request for supplement to EER

Relevant Public Submissions

Submission

No.

Chapter Issue Comment Further info

required?

Environmental

1 Section

4.7 of the

EER

Impacts of noise on

residents on the

western side of the

Tamar River

Quoted from the representation:

“The applicant gives absolutely no regard to the impact of the noise level and hence

nuisance to be encountered by the residential developments on the western side of the

Tamar River of 75-85 db to be anticipated outside the proposed building [emphasis from

the submission] or the low humming emanating from the proposed boiler or the forklift

beeper or the 2 vehicles arriving at 0300 hrs, the 20 vehicles at 0600 hrs, the 15 vehicles

at 0700 hrs or the 10 vehicles at 0900 hrs. There has also been no study done on the

amplification of the noise caused by travelling over water.”

Yes – see

detailed

information

on the

following

page.

Relevant Agency Comments

Agency Section Additional information required

Environmental

DPIPWE – EPA Division –

Regulatory Officer

Section 4.5 of the EER More detail is required on the mode of operation for the alarmed interceptor, including a

description of what events cause alarm activation, details of the interceptor’s design, and a

description of the operating procedures which will be followed when the alarm is activated.


Further Information Required – Noise Impacts

The following information is to be submitted as a separate document to the EPA Division’s Assessment Officer entitled “Supplement to the

Environmental Effects Report – Tamar Valley Dairy – 1 River Street, Invermay”. The Supplement should be marked as a “draft” until reviewed and

accepted by relevant officers of the EPA Division.

Based on noise measurements previously taken in Trevallyn by the EPA Division, it is likely that the following permit condition would be included in

any environmental permit conditions, should the development be recommended for approval:

Noise emission limits

1. Noise emissions from the activity when measured at any noise sensitive premises in other ownership and expressed as the equivalent

continuous A-weighted sound pressure level must not exceed:

1.1. 55 dB(A) between 0700 hours and 1800 hours (Day time); and

1.2. 50 dB(A) between 1800 hours and 2200 hours (Evening time); and

1.3. 50 dB(A) between the hours of 0600 hours and 0700 hours (early morning period); and

1.4. 40 dB(A) between 2200 hours and 0600 hours (Night time).

2. Where the combined level of noise from the activity and the normal ambient noise exceeds the noise levels stated above, this condition will not

be considered to be breached unless the noise emissions from the activity are audible and exceed the ambient noise levels by at least 5 dB(A).

3. The time interval over which noise levels are averaged must be 10 minutes or an alternative time interval specified in writing by the Director.

4. Measured noise levels must be adjusted for tonality, impulsiveness, modulation and low frequency in accordance with the Tasmanian Noise

Measurement Procedures Manual.

5. All methods of measurement must be in accordance with the Tasmanian Noise Measurement Procedures Manual.

It is considered that the nearest sensitive premises in other ownership are located on the western side of the Tamar River in Trevallyn at a distance

of approximately 410 metres from the proposed premises (at residences located on the eastern side of the West Tamar Highway).

Please note that it is the intention that these limits would apply in the Trevallyn area but they should also apply to residences on the eastern side of

the Tamar River (Invermay).

An acoustic consultant should be engaged to demonstrate Tamar Valley Dairy’s ability to meet the proposed environmental permit condition limits

provided above. It is recommended that the optimal way to demonstrate this would be for noise measurements to be taken of current operations,

for these measurements to be appropriately adjusted for the expected increases in throughput, and for basic noise level predictions to be provided

for a distance of approximately 410 metres (nearest noise sensitive premises in other ownership).


It should be noted that rough estimates calculated by the EPA Division’s noise specialist, using the data provided in the Environmental Effects

Report (EER) (in particular, a measured value of 82 dB(A) taken 5 metres from the exterior of the building - Table 4 of the EER), indicate that a

noise level of 65 dB(A) might be experienced at a distance of 410 metres from the proposed premises.

The following information should also be provided:

1. Provide details of the expected times of delivery of milk via tankers and the arrival, loading/unloading and departure of other heavy vehicles

which may use reversing alarms and/or operate refrigerated vehicles which may create noise nuisance.

2. At what times of day is it most likely that forklifts and other machinery/vehicles using reversing alarms will be used?

3. Provide a breakdown of the types of vehicles (light versus heavy, commercial/delivery versus personal transport, etc) listed on pages 24 of the

EER, in particular:

3.1. The 2 vehicles arriving at 0300 hours;

3.2. The 20 vehicles arriving at 0600 hours; and

3.3. The 15 vehicles arriving at 0700 hours.


Appendix 2

Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions

Construction and operation of a milk processing facility ... · Environmental Assessment Report –...

Documents

Transcript of Construction and operation of a milk processing facility ... · Environmental Assessment Report –...