bullsbrook ai facility environmental assessment 46 …...1 wpk2020-013_001_kmc_v1.docx final 18...

2 Bulwer Street PERTH WA 6000

T: (+61) 8 9227 2600 F (+61) 8 9227 2699

www.auroraenvironmental.com.au

Bullsbrook AI Facility Environmental Assessment

46 Gaston Road, BULLSBROOK 6084

Prepared For: Westpork Pty Ltd

1/7 Foundry Street MAYLANDS WA 6051

Report Number: AP2020-041

Report Version: V1

Report Date: 18 March 2020

Louise-c

Received - Back Dated


i

DISCLAIMER

This document has been produced in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Aurora Environmental (“Aurora”) and the client for whom it has been prepared (“Client”). It is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the Client in its engagement of Aurora and prepared using the standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by Environmental / Occupational Health and Safety consultants in the preparation of such documents.

Any person or organisation that relies on or uses the document for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by Aurora and the Client without first obtaining the prior written consent of Aurora, does so entirely at their own risk and should not alter their position or refrain from doing so in reliance of this document. Aurora denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be suffered as a consequence of relying on this document for any purpose other than that agreed by Aurora.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Aurora Environmental has implemented a comprehensive range of quality control measures on all aspects of the company’s operation.

An internal quality review process has been applied to each project task undertaken by us. Each document is carefully reviewed and signed off by senior members of the consultancy team prior to issue to the client.

Document No: WPK2020-013_001_kmc_V1

Report No: AP2020-041

Author: Kate McCormack Senior Environmental Engineer

18 March 2020

Signature Date

Reviewed by: Noel Davies Principal

18 March 2020

Signature Date


ii

DISTRIBUTION

NO. OF COPIES

REPORT FILE NAME REPORT STATUS

DATE PREPARED FOR INITIALS

1 WPK2020-013_001_KMC_V1.docx Draft 11 March 2020 Westpork Pty Ltd KM

1 WPK2020-013_001_KMC_V1.docx Final 18 March 2020 Westpork Pty Ltd KM


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 APPLICANT DETAILS AND OPERATOR OF PREMISE 1

1.2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY 1

1.3 LOCATION, TENURE, ZONING AND LAND USE 2

1.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY 2

2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 3

2.1.1 Environmental Protection Act 1986 3

2.1.2 State Planning Policy No 2.5 Rural Planning and Fact Sheet: Piggeries 3

2.1.3 EPA Guidance - Separation Distances 4

2.1.4 Environmental Guidelines for New and Existing Piggeries (DPIRD, 2000) 4

2.2 ANIMAL WELFARE 5

2.2.1 PIGS – MODEL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS 5

3 AI FACILITY DESCRIPTION 6

3.1 STOCK NUMBERS 6

3.2 SITE LAYOUT AND OPERATION 6

3.2.1 Solid Waste 6

3.2.2 Water Usage 6

3.2.3 Wastewater Effluent 6

3.2.4 Disposal of Carcasses 6

4 PREMISES DESCRIPTION 7

4.1 CLIMATE 7

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY 7

4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 7

4.3.1 Acid Sulfate Soils 7

4.4 HYDROLOGY AND WETLANDS 7

4.5 HYDROGEOLOGY 7

4.6 FLORA AND VEGETATION 8

4.7 INDIGENOUS HERITAGE 8


iv

4.8 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS 8

5 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND MANAGEMENT 9

5.1 RISK ASSESSMENT 9

5.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 12

5.1.1 Objectives 12

5.1.2 Applicable Standards and Guidelines 12

5.1.3 Potential Environmental Impacts 12

5.1.4 Management and Mitigation Strategies 12

5.1.5 Contingency Measures 12

5.1.6 Targets and Limits 12

5.1.7 Environmental Risk 12

5.2 ODOUR 12

5.2.1 Objectives 12







5.2.8 Acceptability of Risk Event 14

5.3 NOISE MANAGEMENT 15

5.3.1 Objectives 15







5.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT 16

5.4.1 Objectives 16






v



6 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS RISK ASSESSMENT 17

6.1.1 Emission/Risk Event, Pathway and Receptor 17

6.1.2 Controls 17

6.1.3 Risk Rating Determination 17

6.1.4 Acceptability of Risk Event 18

7 REFERENCES 19

TABLES IN TEXT

A. LICENCE CATEGORIES

B. STOCK NUMBERS ONSITE

C. LOCAL RECEPTORS

D. EMISSIONS AND DISCHARGES RISK ASSESSMENT

E. LEVEL 1 ODOUR ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS – PIGS IN CONVENTIONAL SHEDS


vi

ATTACHMENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

1. Certificate of Title

2. Site Layout and Setbacks

3. Construction and Elevation Details

4. DWER’s Guidance Statement: Risk Assessment


vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DWER Department of Water and Environment Regulation

DPLH Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

DPIRD Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development

DoW Department of Water

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

LPS Local Planning Scheme

m meter

SPP State Planning Policy

SPU Standard Pig Units

TEC Threatened Ecological Communities

WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission


Aurora Environmental WPK2020-013_001_kmc_V1 Page 1 of 19 18 March 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

Aurora Environmental (Aurora) was commissioned by Westpork Pty Ltd (Westpork) to prepare a Development Application for the Bullsbrook Artificial Insemination (AI) facility. The proposed facility is located at 46 Gaston Road, Bullsbrook (the ‘site’), in the City of Swan approximately 45 kilometres (km) north east of Perth, Western Australia.

Westpork is an experienced operator in the pork production industry, owning or managing eight pig production facilities at various locations around Western Australia. This Development Application and supporting information provides details of the AI facility operation, and how any potential risks from the proposal will be minimised.

1.1 APPLICANT DETAILS AND OPERATOR OF PREMISE

The registered owner of the property is NewCo Mills Pty Ltd. The portion of the premise proposed for the piggery operations is to be leased and operated by Westpork Pty Ltd. The contact details for NewCo Mills and Westpork are listed below:

Owner Contact:

Neil Ferguson

Director – NewCo Mills Pty Ltd

Phone: +61 8 9271 2844

Operator Contact:

Neil Ferguson

Chief Executive Officer – Westpork Pty Ltd

[email protected]

Phone: +61 8 9271 2844

Operator Address:

1/7 Foundry Street

Maylands, WA 6051

Premise Address:

46 Gaston Road

Lot 1780 of Plan 106107 (Certificate of Title Volume 2065 Folio 88)

Bullsbrook, WA 6084

1.2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Westpork Pty Ltd plans to construct a pig Artificial Insemination (AI) facility with the capacity to house a maximum of 188 boars. Boars will be housed in a conventional, deep litter shed lined with saw dust. Pens will be cleaned out and bedding material replaced every 18 weeks. Spent bedding and manure will be immediately removed from site for reuse. There will be no liquid waste or effluent treatment system onsite.

The shed will be ventilated with a combination of vertical and horizontal fans designed to maximize mixing and limit any potential odour generation. Active boars will be ‘milked’ for semen, one to



three times per week at the semen collection pen area in the shed. The semen will be processed in the onsite laboratory and distributed to other farms.

1.3 LOCATION, TENURE, ZONING AND LAND USE

The site is located at 46 Gaston Road (Lot 1780), Bullsbrook, WA, in the City of Swan with a total area of 60.84ha which is currently cleared of native vegetation and accommodates two sheds/structures in the southern portion of the lot. The property has two road frontages, Gaston Road to the south and Morley Road to the north. Under the City of Swans ’s Local Planning Scheme No. 17 the site is zoned ‘Rural’. A copy of the title is provided in Appendix 1.

1.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY

The site is located in the City of Swan. The proposal has been discussed with the City of Swan, suggesting that the proposed landuse is consistent with the existing zoning, with approval required at the discretion of the Council.



2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

2.1.1 Environmental Protection Act 1986

The proposed piggery does not constitute a prescribed activity under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and therefore does not require a works approval or licence from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER). There are two categories under Schedule 1-Prescibed Premises that relate to the operation of piggeries and they are summarized in Table A.

TABLE A: LICENCE CATEGORIES

LICENCE CATEGORY DESCRIPTION PRODUCTION OR DESIGN CAPACITY

2 – Part 1 Intensive piggery: premises on which pigs are fed, watered and housed in pens.

1 000 animals or more

69 – Part 2 Intensive piggery: premises on which pigs are fed, watered and housed in pens.

More than 500 but less than 1 000 animals

Due to the small scale of the proposed operation, the production capacity does not trigger the 500 animals threshold required for registration/licensing.

Clearing of native vegetation, if necessary, would require a permit under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 unless an exemption applies. No clearing of native vegetation is proposed for this facility.

2.1.2 State Planning Policy No 2.5 Rural Planning and Fact Sheet: Piggeries

State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning (SPP 4.3; WAPC, 2016) and the Fact Sheet: Piggeries (Nov, 2018) recognise animal premises (piggeries) as an essential rural activity with developments generally supported and encouraged on rural land provided rural amenity and environmental impacts can be effectively managed. The SPP is designed to assist State Government agencies and local government councils in addressing potential environmental issues and land use conflicts between poultry farms and neighbouring land uses. The policy sets a number of parameters that should be considered in the planning context, including:

• Scale of the Proposal

• Access to Water

• Flooding

• Vehicle Access

• Visual Impacts

• Buffers

• Waste Management



It should be noted that the Piggery fact sheet states that the use of new technology, careful site planning and contemporary management techniques may allow substantial reductions to buffer distances prescribed in Government policy and industry standards. Impact minimization strategies may include:

• Vegetation screening and landscaping;

• Optimal shed location, building materials and shed design;

• Off-site composting; and

• Mechanised approaches to shed ventilation, climate control and cleaning.

These factors are all considered in the evaluation of potential environmental risk of the development.

2.1.3 EPA Guidance - Separation Distances

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) have issued Guidance No. 3 (EPA, 2005) which recognises that the intensive farming of pigs requires the consideration of buffers for noise and/or odour. Buffers of up to 2,000m are recommended for operations with between 50 and 500 pigs and sensitive land uses. Land uses sensitive to emissions include residential developments, hospitals, hotels, motels, hostels, caravan parks, schools, nursing homes, childcare facilities, shopping centres, playgrounds, and some public buildings. Some commercial, institutional and industrial land uses which require high levels of amenity or are sensitive to particular emissions may also be considered “sensitive land uses”. Examples include some retail outlets, offices and training centres, and some types of storage and manufacturing facilities (EPA, 2005).

As noted in the current SPP Fact Sheet, substantial reductions to buffer distances prescribed in Government policy and industry standards may be applicable dependent on the specific nature of the development.

2.1.4 Environmental Guidelines for New and Existing Piggeries (DPIRD, 2000)

The Environmental Guidelines (DPIRD, 2000) provides recommended separation distances for piggeries and associated facilities based on the number of pigs. For a piggery operation with between 50 and 500 pigs, the separation distance recommendations as follows:

• 2,000m from townsite boundary;

• 1,000m from special rural;

• 300 metres from any isolated rural dwelling, dairies, industries;

• 100 metres from public road;

• 50m from neighbouring rural property boundaries;

• Not permitted in Public Drinking Water Source Areas;

• 300m from major water courses and rural water impoundments;

• 300m from bores, wells and soak for private drinking water supply; and

• 100m from bores, wells and soak for private drinking water supply.

These recommendations were also considered when assessing the design and suitability of this project.



2.2 ANIMAL WELFARE

2.2.1 PIGS – MODEL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS

The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Pigs (Revised) was prepared by the Animal Welfare Working Group (AWWG) within the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) committee system in 2007. The document guides the care and management of pigs so that the basic needs of food, water, space, socialisation, accommodation/shelter and health care are of an adequate standard. The proposed piggery operation will be operated in accordance (at a minimum) with this standard.



3 AI FACILITY DESCRIPTION

3.1 STOCK NUMBERS

The facility has a capacity to house a maximum of 168 boars in pens and 20 boars in a quarantine, resulting in a of maximum 188 boars onsite at any one time. The quarantine area will be used to introduce replacement boars into the facility. The proposed maximum stock numbers and associated Standard Pig Unit (SPU) value of the herd are provided in Table B. The facility will initially be stocked with 120 boars and gradually increased by 20 boars at a time until the 188 boar capacity us reached.

TABLE B: STOCK NUMBERS ONSITE

PIG CLASS SPU FACTOR

MAXIMUM STOCK NUMBER OF

ANIMALS SPU

Boars 1.600 188 301

3.2 SITE LAYOUT AND OPERATION

All pigs will be housed in a conventional, ventilated piggery shed constructed of zincalume, masonry, insulation panel walls and a sealed concrete floor. The boars will be housed individually in pens that are lined with a minimum of 100mm of saw dust. Water will be available at all times, with food provided daily. The general layout and elevation details of the AI facility are provided in Appendix 3.

The boars will be ‘milked’ for semen, 1 to 3 times per week at the semen collection pen area. The semen will be processed in the laboratory and distributed to other farms. Retired bores will be shipped off site.

3.2.1 Solid Waste

Sawdust and associated manure in the pens will be cleaned out and replaced with fresh material at least once every 18 weeks. In practice one third of the shed cleaned on a six week cycle so that the whole shed is cleaned over an 18-week period. All waste material will be transported to an offsite facility for reuse. No sawdust or manure will be stockpiled onsite.

3.2.2 Water Usage

Clean water is required for drinking and cooling. Fresh water for the operations will be supplied from a licenced groundwater bore located onsite. The expected water usage is less than 1ML/year.

3.2.3 Wastewater Effluent

No wastewater is generated onsite from the piggery operations. The staff amenities will be serviced using an approved, onsite septic system.

3.2.4 Disposal of Carcasses

A low mortality rate is expected from the AI operation, with the expected number of deaths being five per year. Dead pigs will be composted onsite in a dedicated, sealed, low permeability concrete composting bunker, with composting undertaken in line with industry recommendations.



4 PREMISES DESCRIPTION

4.1 CLIMATE

The Bullsbrook area is described as having a Mediterranean climate, characterised by hot dry summers and mild wet winters. Winds in the area during the warmer months are typically characterised by offshore (easterly) breezes during the morning followed by corresponding onshore breezes (from the southwest) as the land cools during the afternoon/evening. During the cooler months (May to August) winds are typically from the west/northwest during the morning, swinging to the east/southeast in the afternoon.

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The piggery is located at approximately 47 metres Australian Height Datum (mAHD) which is slightly higher than the surrounding land areas to the south, indicating suitability for the development.

4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The site is underlain by the Yanga Soil Subsystem which generally consists of deep sands (NationalMap (2020) which is part of the Perth Basin but is west of the Darling Scarp.

• Yanga System (Ya) White to pale grey at surface yellow at depth fine to medium-grained moderately sorted subangular to subrounded minor heavy minerals of eolian origin Acid Sulfate Soils

4.3.1 Acid Sulfate Soils

Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) is the common name given to soils and sediments containing iron sulfides. When exposed to air due to drainage or disturbance, these soils produce sulfuric acid, often releasing toxic quantities of iron, aluminium and heavy metals. A search of NationalMap (2020) was undertaken to determine the risk of ASS onsite. The soil type on the site is mapped as Moderate to Low risk of ASS occurring within 3m of natural soil surface but high to moderate risk of ASS beyond 3m of natural soil surface. No excavation greater than 3m is required for the project.

4.4 HYDROLOGY AND WETLANDS

The Department of Water (DoW) Water Register (accessed March 2020) indicates the piggery is located in the Ellen Brook surface water area, with a minor tributary traversing the site. The site is within a two kilometres buffer of Threatened Ecological Community (TEC): Organic Mound Springs of the Swan Coastal Plain, and 1.2 km east and downstream of the nearest Mound Spring. As such, the indoor operation is not expected to have any impact on the hydrology of the area.

4.5 HYDROGEOLOGY

The piggery is located in the Radar groundwater sub-area, and the Swan Groundwater Area. The site is not within a Public Drinking Water Source Area or a proclaimed groundwater area.



4.6 FLORA AND VEGETATION

The site has been historically cleared of native vegetation. The development is not expected to impact on significant flora species, and does not include the clearing of any native vegetation.

4.7 INDIGENOUS HERITAGE

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System determined that site intersects with one Heritage Place No.3525 Ellen Brook: Upper Swan. The boundary of the Ellen Brook Aboriginal Heritage Site extends beyond the site, mapped over a wider area. Due to the site being heavily modified/, it is considered highly unlikely that development of the site will impact the Heritage Place.

4.8 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS

The property is zoned rural under the City of Swan’s Local Planning Strategy (LPS). The predominant landuse in the area is general rural including livestock and horticulture. Appendix 2 shows the location of the facility on the lot and also the setbacks from the property boundaries.

Four isolated rural dwellings are located within 1km of the site. Details of each of these sites are summarised in Table C.

TABLE C: LOCAL RECEPTORS

ADDRESS DISTANCE FROM PIGGERY OPERATIONS

RECEPTOR RECOMMENDED SEPARATION DISTANCE 1

COMMENT

Bullsbrook Townsite 4,300m South East Bullsbrook Townsite

2,000m Meets recommended separation distance

101 Morley Road, Bullsbrook

173m from west boundary

402m west AI operation

Isolated Rural Dwelling

300m Meets recommended separation distance

24 Gaston Road, Bullsbrook

185m east of property boundary

730m south east of AI operation



294 Muchea-South Road, Bullsbrook

185m east of property boundary

880m east of AI operation



Lot 57 Almaria Parade, Bullsbrook

580m north east of property boundary

880m north east of AI operation



Note 1 – Based on the Recommendations in the DPIRD (2000)



5 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND MANAGEMENT

5.1 RISK ASSESSMENT

A risk analysis has been undertaken for all aspects of the operation of the piggery, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Australian and New Zealand Standards AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management ̶ Principles and Guidelines and HB 203:2012 (Managing Environment-Related Risk), using DWER’s Guidance Statement: Risk Assessment (Appendix 4).

Qualitative risk analysis was used to evaluate the significance of emissions and discharges (Table E). The risk analysis was undertaken assuming the proponent controls were in place. The consequence and likelihood descriptors used in Table D are the same as those presented in Table 1 – Risk Criteria Table in DWER (2017) guidance. Aurora has determined the risk rating based on the consequence and likelihood of the risk event/emission occurring.



TABLE D: EMISSIONS AND DISCHARGES RISK ASSESSMENT

SOURCES OF EMISSION AND DISCHARGE

PATHWAY RECEPTOR PROPONENT CONTROLS POTENTIAL IMPACT

CONSEQUENCE ON RECEPTOR LIKELIHOOD RISK RATING Emission

(type and quantity

Emission event (normal/upset)

Odour emissions

Odour from piggery operations and from removal of spent bedding (once every 6 weeks).

Air Four residences located within 1 km from the site boundary.

• Piggery ventilation fans discharge vertically increasing mixing and minimizing odour.

• Keeping the pigs clean and dry. Maintaining pig health to minimize loose stools, and providing clean and hygienic conditions within the sheds.

• Frequently and regularly clean flooring and other dirty and dusty surfaces.

• Pig carcasses composting will be undertaken using standard industry practice with suitable bulking/cover material to ensure adequate compost balance and minimize odour emissions.

No detectable impacts to amenity are expected to residents, once the controls are implemented.

Slight Unlikely Low

Noise emissions

Operation of the piggery.

Air Four residences located within 1 km

• The operation is not inherently noisy as minimal loading and

No detectable impacts to amenity are

Slight Unlikely Low



from the site boundary.

unloading of animal and all animals remaining within the piggery enclosure at all times.

expected to residents.

Smoke emissions from a bushfire

Bushfire Land Air

Four residences located within 1 km from the site boundary.

• Firebreaks around the property which are regularly maintained.

• Firefighting equipment available onsite and maintained.

• Firefighting training for onsite personnel.

Any fires that start will be managed immediately and it is expected that any damage to vegetation would be minimal.

Slight Unlikely Low



5.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.1.1 Objectives

To maintain the hydrological regimes of groundwater and surface water so that existing and potential uses, including ecosystem maintenance, are protected.

5.1.2 Applicable Standards and Guidelines

• Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000).

• Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 2004.

• National Environmental Guidelines for Piggeries - second Edition (APL, 2010).

• Piggery Manure and Effluent Management and Reuse Guidelines (APL, 2015a)

5.1.3 Potential Environmental Impacts

Discharge of solid waste material can elevate the nutrient content of the soils promoting the growth of crops.

5.1.4 Management and Mitigation Strategies

The following solid waste management measures are implemented:

• Solid waste material will be removed from sheds on an eighteen week cycle with one third of the shed every six weeks. Solid waste will be loaded directly into trailers for removal offsite. No solid waste will be stockpiled on site.

5.1.5 Contingency Measures

Cleaning of out spent bedding will be not commence until the truck is onsite to remove waste.

5.1.6 Targets and Limits

No solid waste on the ground surface.

5.1.7 Environmental Risk

Following the implementation of management measures the risk to groundwater is low.

5.2 ODOUR

5.2.1 Objectives

To minimise any potential impact to the amenity of surrounding land users.


The generation of odour impacts is directly related to the strength or odour concentration associated with the source, its characteristics (if it is offensive or pleasant), frequency of occurrence, duration of exposure and also the size of the odour source. The extent to which odour becomes a nuisance to a neighbour is also related to the separation distance between the source and the neighbour.

The main odour sources from the typical piggery operations are:



• Pig sheds – Dirty pigs smell as their body warmth encourages anaerobic breakdown of the manure on their skins (APL, 2015c).

• Treatment ponds (mainly the anaerobic pond, although the facultative pond can become odourous if it is overloaded) (not applicable for this operation).

The NEGP (APL, 2010) states that an odour assessment aims to establish whether odour emissions from a piggery will have an unreasonable impact on offsite receptors. It is assumed by the authors of the NEGP that if the distance between a piggery and a receptor is less than the calculated separation distance, than an unreasonable impact may occur.

The Level 1 and Level 1.5 Assessment is described further in Section A5 (page 113) of (APL, 2010). The method used to conduct the Level 1 assessment is the calculation method (Section A5.2 on page 114).

The calculation method uses the formula:

separation distance (D) = N0.55 x S1 x S2 x S3

N = number of standard pig units (SPU)

0.55= piggery size exponent determined using the results of modelling.

S1= piggery design factor for estimating the relative odour potential for the piggery design selected for a particular site (S1 = effluent removal factor, S1R x effluent treatment factor, S1T).

S2 = piggery siting factor for estimating the relative odour dispersion potential for the selected piggery site (S2 = receptor type factor, S2R x surface roughness factor, S2S).

S3 = terrain weighting factor for estimating the potential changes to odour dispersion, in situations where meteorological conditions may be influenced by local terrain influences.

Aurora has calculated the required separation distance from the piggery and dwellings as shown in Table E. The location of the nearest rural residences and described in Section 4.8.

TABLE E: LEVEL 1 ODOUR ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS – PIGS IN CONVENTIONAL SHEDS

Potential Receptor

Number of SPU

S1 Design Factor

S2 Siting Factor

S3 Terrain Factor

Required Separation distance (km)

Receptors within the Separation Distance

Rural Dwellings 301 1 x 0.5 =0.5

Deep litter system, pigs on a single batch of litter >7 weeks

Litter removed from site

11.5 x 1.0 = 11.5

Rural Dwelling x Limited ground cover / short grass

1

sloping terrain (1-2%) upslope of site

133m 0



Regardless of the separation distances, the management of potential odour impacts as outlined in Section 5.2.4 will be implemented.


Offensive odours can impact on the amenity of the surrounding land users.


The site is well buffered from surrounding rural residential receptors. No rural residential properties are located within the calculated maximum S-factor buffer of 133m from the piggery.

Best practice odour management guidelines for piggeries as outlined in Minimising Odour from Piggeries (APL, 2015c) has been reviewed. Management and mitigation measures at the piggeries will include:

• Keeping the pigs clean and dry. Maintaining pig health to minimize loose stools and providing clean and hygienic conditions within the sheds.

• Frequently and regularly clean flooring and other dirty and dusty surfaces.

• Prompt disposal of mortalities offsite.

All ventilation fans have been designed to discharge vertically and horizontally (compared with the standard which discharge horizontally) to maximize mixing of gases, and thus significantly reducing odour risk.


Any odour complaints will be investigated to determine source and remedial action immediately implemented. Westpork will advise the complainant of the corrective action taken and the preventative measures proposed to prevent future disturbance to the complainer.


No impact on the surrounding land users.


In accordance with DER (2017) where appropriate to do so, specific criteria have been used to determine the consequence at the receptor most affected by the emission (i.e. surrounding residents). Therefore, Aurora considers the ‘Specific Consequence Criteria’ to be the DWER odour criteria. As this odour criterion is predicted to be easily met, the consequence has been deemed ‘slight’. The likelihood of affecting receptors is considered ‘rare’.

The risk rating for the risk event of odour impacting residents is assessed as ‘Low’.

5.2.8 Acceptability of Risk Event

The risk event of odour emissions impacting amenity of residential receptors is considered ‘Acceptable’.



5.3 NOISE MANAGEMENT

5.3.1 Objectives

The objective of noise management is to protect the amenity of nearby residents from noise impacts resulting from activities associated with the piggeries by ensuring the noise levels meet statutory requirements.


Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.


Noise sources from an operational piggery are:

• Operation of pig sheds, specifically ventilation fans (small, medium or large).

• Pigs – Moving of the pigs within the finishing shed by operators causes them to squeal or grunt at a sound power level of 80 dB (A).

Due to the minimal movement of stock, the AI operation is not inherently noisy.


The piggery will be operated to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Routine observations and inspections will be undertaken in regard to noise. Onsite management will be informed of the results of inspections and observations and will implement contingency actions to ensure compliance with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.


If complaints suggest that noise impacts are occurring a site, an inspection will immediately be conducted by Westpork management to determine the source. If the source can be readily addressed, this will be rectified and action taken to prevent a recurrence. If the source requires changes in the design or management of the piggeries to be addressed the facility production rate will be reduced to the extent necessary to prevent noise impacts while the design change is implemented.

Westpork will advise the complainant of the corrective action taken and the preventative measures proposed to prevent future disturbance to the complainer.


During operations the noise limits will not exceed those specified in Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and no complaints will be received from surrounding land users.


Due to non-constant nature of the noise sources, and the distance to the nearest residence (greater than 400m away from the operations), it is unlikely the amenity of residences will be significantly impacted. The risk is considered to be low.



5.4 FIRE MANAGEMENT

5.4.1 Objectives

To prevent fire from occurring and to effectively extinguish any fires.


Relevant Building Design Codes for fire control.


The sources of ignition at the piggeries are associated with failure of mechanical equipment (e.g. ventilation fans or plant). Bushfire may also occur from naturally occurring events (e.g. lightning strikes). A fire that is started at the Site has the potential to cause damage and loss of surrounding vegetation on neighbouring lots, and to potentially injury or kill local residents. Damage to their property may also occur.


Fire prevention measures to be implemented are:

• Firebreaks around the property which are regularly maintained.

• Firefighting equipment available onsite and maintained.

• Firefighting training for onsite personnel.


In the unlikely event that a fire occurs, Westpork employees will, if present on site and it safe to do so, attack the fire with extinguishers and/or mobile firefighting equipment. It is envisaged that this would be sufficient in most circumstances and ensure that any fire would be minor in nature.


No bushfires attributed to the operation of the piggery.


Any fires that start on the premises should be managed within minutes of starting and it is expected that any damage to vegetation would be minimal. The risk is considered very low.



6 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1.1 Emission/Risk Event, Pathway and Receptor

Noise and dust emissions will be generated during construction of the new AI Facility.

Noise is a ‘vibration of any frequency, whether transmitted through air or any other physical medium’. It is commonly recognised as an emission of sound but may also include ground or structure-borne vibration (DER, 2016). Noise emissions can affect amenity, and in extreme cases human health through damage or injury to ears / hearing ability or permanent deafness. Most commonly noise affects amenity, especially if the noise contains tonal or annoying characteristics.

Dust particles are dispersed in air. Human health effects of dust tend to be associated with particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10um or less (<PM10). These particles tend to remain suspended in the air for longer periods and can penetrate into the lungs (DEC, 2011).

The nearest sensitive receptor to noise and dust emissions is a rural residence located on 101 Morley Road, Bullsbrook.

6.1.2 Controls

Noise will be managed through the implementation of the following controls:

• Construction completed between 7:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays and between 7:00am and 2:30pm on Saturdays only.

• Modern well–maintained equipment used.

Dust will be managed through the implementation of the following controls:

• Exposed soil will be wetted down prior to and during construction activities.

• In the event significant dust is generated, construction activities will cease until additional controls can be implemented or any unusual weather conditions abate.

6.1.3 Risk Rating Determination

Construction noise is expected to be intermittent within a three-month period, however the likelihood of noise emissions impacting residential receptors is ‘Rare’ given the residential receptors are greater than 400m away from source.

The noise emissions will have a ‘Minor’ consequence as the sound onsite will be low level, minimal offsite impacts and low-level impacts to amenity.

The likelihood of dust emissions impacting residential receptors is ‘Rare’ given the residential receptors are 400m away from the source and over this distance <PM10 particulate concentrations are unlikely to be distinguishable from background concentrations.

Similarly, the limited scale of construction operations and the proposed controls will limit dust generation, therefore the likelihood of dust emissions impacting adjacent industrial premise is ‘Rare’.

The dust is unlikely to move offsite, will have minimal on-site impact, and minimal impacts to amenity, therefore the consequence is considered to be ‘Slight’.

The risk rating is assessed as ‘Low’.



6.1.4 Acceptability of Risk Event

The risk event of noise and dust emissions during construction impacting amenity of rural residential receptors is considered ‘Acceptable’.



7 REFERENCES

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australian and New Zealand (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

Australian Pork Limited (2010) National Environmental Guidelines for Piggeries – Revised (Second Edition), available at: http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/environment/national-environmental-guidelines-for-piggeries/

Australian Pork Limited (2015a) Piggery Manure and Effluent Management and Reuse Guidelines, available at: http://australianpork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BMP02_MOFP_2015_06_lr.pdf.

Australian Pork Limited (2015b) Minimising Odour from Piggeries, available at: http://australianpork.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BMP02_MOFP_2015_06_lr.pdf.

Australian Pork Limited (2016), PigBal4 V4.0.94, http://australianpork.com.au/industry-focus/environment/waste-management-pigbal/

DAFWA, Department for Agriculture and Food Western Australia (2000) Environmental Guidelines for New and Existing Piggeries. Bulletin 4416.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2011) A guidelines for managing the impacts of dust and associated contaminants from land development sites, contaminated sites remediation and other related activities.

Department of Environment Regulation (DER) (2017) Guidance Statement: Risk Assessments, available at www.der.wa.gov.au

Department of Environment Regulation (DER) (2016) Draft Guideline on Environmental Noise for Prescribed Premises.

NationalMap (2017) NationalMap, available at: https://nationalmap.gov.au/

Tucker, RW, McGahan, EJ, Galloway, JL and O’Keefe, MF, (2010) National Environmental Guidelines for Piggeries - Second Edition, APL Project 2231, Australian Pork Ltd, Deakin, ACT , Australia.

bullsbrook ai facility environmental assessment 46 …...1 wpk2020-013_001_kmc_v1.docx final 18...

Documents