huon aquaculture paramatta creek fish oil & protein …epa.tas.gov.au/documents/huon aquaculture...

transport | community | industrial & mining | carbon & energy

Huon Aquaculture Paramatta Creek

Fish Oil & Protein Extraction Plant

Environmental Effects Report

Prepared for: Huon Aquaculture Client representative: Scott Nolan Date: 29 October 2015 Rev 02

pitt&sherry ref: HB14614H002 EER 31P Rev 02/SLR

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Part A - Proponent information ........................................................................................................ 2 3. Part B - Project description .............................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Description of project ........................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Project area .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Map and site plan ................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Rationale and Alternatives .................................................................................................... 9

4. Part C - Potential environmental effects ..........................................................................................10 4.1 Flora and fauna ....................................................................................................................10 4.2 Rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries .................................................................................11 4.3 Significant areas ...................................................................................................................11 4.4 Air emissions ........................................................................................................................12 4.5 Liquid effluent ......................................................................................................................18 4.6 Solid wastes .........................................................................................................................20 4.7 Noise emissions ...................................................................................................................21 4.8 Transport impacts ................................................................................................................21 4.9 Other off-site impacts ..........................................................................................................22 4.10 Hazardous substances and chemicals ...................................................................................22 4.11 Site Contamination ..............................................................................................................22 4.12 Sustainability and climate change ........................................................................................24 4.13 Cultural heritage ..................................................................................................................24 4.14 Sites of high public interest ..................................................................................................25 4.15 Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................................25

5. Part D – Management commitments ..............................................................................................26 6. Part E – Public consultation .............................................................................................................28

List of figures Figure 1: Schematic of base components of the salmon oil processing plant ............................................. 6 Figure 2: Location map of HUON Parramatta Creek existing site and of proposed oil extraction facility. .... 7 Figure 3: Aerial view of existing processing facility and proposed outbuilding. .......................................... 9 Figure 4: Modelled Odour Concentration Results (100 percentile) ..........................................................16 Figure 5: Modelled Odour Concentration Results (99.5 percentile) .........................................................17

List of tables Table 1: Indicative analysis of wastewater from the proposed salmon oil processing plant ......................18 Table 2: Influent wastewater characteristics at Parramatta Creek (March 2014 – March 2015) ...............19 Table 3: Results of groundwater monitoring in bore G1 located about 50 m to the north-east of the proposed oil plant ....................................................................................................................................23 Table 4: Commitments .............................................................................................................................26


Appendix A GEA Separator technical specifications Appendix B Biomega salmon oil processing plant technical drawings Appendix C Letters of agreement for technical support Appendix D Site general layout Appendix E Odour modelling report Appendix F Location of groundwater monitoring bores Appendix G Aboriginal Heritage Unanticipated Discovery Plan

Prepared by: …………………………………………………. Date: 29 October 2015 Dr Sophie Le Roux Reviewed by: …………………………………………………. Date: 29 October 2015 Dr Ian Woodward Authorised by: …………………………………………………. Date: 29 October 2015 Dr Ian Woodward

Revision History

Rev No.

Description Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by Date

00 Environmental Effects Report

S. Le Roux I. Woodward I. Woodward 23/07/2015

01 Typo correction I. Woodward I. Woodward I. Woodward 30/07/2015

02 Revised EER report following EPA comments

S. Le Roux I. Woodward I. Woodward 29/10/2015

© 2015 pitt&sherry This document is and shall remain the property of pitt&sherry. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form is prohibited.

pitt&sherry ref: HB14614H002 EER 31P Rev 02/SLR 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Huon Aquaculture Group (HUON) operates a fish processing facility at Parramatta Creek and in doing so generates fish waste. Currently the waste is directed to a range of off-site uses undertaken by others, primarily the production of pet food and fertilizers. HUON proposes to replace those off-site uses with an on-site oil and protein extraction plant. The plant will utilize the existing by-product and waste streams, and biotechnology to produce quality salmon oils and fish proteins for supply into domestic and global stock feed ingredient markets. A Notice of Intent (NOI) for the plant was submitted to the Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) on 10 July 2014. Project specific guidelines were subsequently provided by the EPA for the preparation of an Environmental Effects Report (EER). HUON is also preparing a separate NOI for an approximately 2.5 times production increase for its facility but that will be a separate and subsequent approval process. The oil and protein extraction plant is a discrete, stand alone addition to its existing facility and will not require significant consequential changes to the facility. The plant will initially be operated at a level commensurate with the existing production rate of the facility. However, the plant has the capacity to process the waste volumes generated by the proposed increased production rates.

1.2 Objectives

This EER has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Effects Report Guidelines - Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd – Salmon Oil Processing Facility – Sassafras, Latrobe (the Guidelines). The objectives of the EER are to provide information about the potential environmental effects from the proposed plant.


2. Part A - Proponent information

HUON Tasmanian Salmon is a premium product grown in an environmentally sustainable manner. HUON was established in 1988 by Peter and Frances Bender, when the salmon farming industry first commenced in the region around Dover in the far south of Tasmania. As the scale of the business grew there needed to be more effective & efficient ways to meet the commercial demand. Significant investments in marine operations were focused on equipment that would ensure each salmon was able to live a stress free existence. In 2002, Peter & Frances launched the HUON brand in the market. This required investments in harvest and wet processing capability. HUON began marketing their fish in under their own brand in May 2002. In 2005, HUON purchased Springs Smoked Seafood (a former customer) which provided the enterprise with salmon smoking capability and instant access to the retail packaged goods market. In 2006, HUON built and commissioned a new recirculation hatchery – the first of its kind in Australia. In 2010, HUON opened a world-class salmon processing facility at Parramatta Creek in the north Tasmanian region of Sassafras. In 2014, HUON began the construction of a new smokehouse plant at the Parramatta Creek site for the relocation of the smoking capacity from the Adelaide Hills, South Australia. HUON is proposing to install the plant to ensure self-sufficiency and eliminate the need for third party processing of our by-product and waste streams. An oil and protein extraction plant aligns with the company’s ongoing sustainability program and objective of utilising every component of its salmon in a commercial manner. HUON is a vertically integrated company that manages the salmon life cycle from egg to plate. The HUON management team are experienced in all facets of aquaculture, salmon farming, and food processing; and sales and marketing. The company was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in October 2014. Tasmanian Office: (Primary address for this application) HUON Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd PO Box 42 Dover TASMANIA, 7117

ACN: 067 386 109

Tel: 03 6295 8111 Fax: 03 6295 8161 www.huonaqua.com.au Primary Contact: Secondary Contact: Scott Nolan Rod Smith General Manager – Processing Business Manager – Product Innovation Mob: 0429 181 433 Mob: 0427 316 745 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.huonaqua.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


3. Part B - Project description

3.1 Description of project

General description of the proposed activity, including method of operation and the main items of equipment.

Timeframe in which the activity is proposed to occur.

Operating hours.

Specify production rates and describe any seasonal variations.

Contractual arrangements with third party service providers for installation, commissioning and maintenance of the plant and associated odour control system should be described and the experience of each contractor outlined.

3.1.1 General description

HUON proposes to establish an oil and protein extraction plant to convert existing process by-product and waste streams into oil and stock feed components (fishmeal and protein concentrate) using low temperature biotechnology and separation systems. The HUON fish processing facility at Parramatta Creek, Sassafras, currently undertakes wet processing and value adding of a total gross volume of 12,500 tonnes of salmon per annum. These volumes include the by-product and waste components. The wet processing line includes gutting machines, hand gutting, and quality grading. The value adding processes include filleting, skinning, trimming and portioning equipment. Waste by-products include viscera from the gutting line and heads, frames, and other by-products from filleting and value adding processes. Currently, viscera are collected daily for transportation to Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd, in Triabunna on the east coast of Tasmania, for fish meal and oil production. The heads, frames, and other offcuts are frozen and stored in preparation for pet food production channels on mainland Australia. The proposed plant will handle existing site by-product and waste streams for the production of more stable derivatives including salmon oil, salmon protein concentrates, and salmon fishmeal.

3.1.2 Production rates

The proposed plant will generally only handle fresh raw salmon waste streams generated on the site. The processing facility has an EPA mandated permit limit of 14,000 tonnes of fish products per year (EPA permit 7894, 9 December 2009) and is currently approaching that limit. HUON is planning to apply for an increase of the limit, nominally up to approximately 30,000 tpa, to reflect increases in farm production but that application will be a separate proposal and will be the subject of a separate DPEMP. Fish processing generates approximately 10-15% by weight of waste in the form of guts. For fish that are subsequently filleted, approximately 30% of each fish is additional waste in the form of heads and frames. At the full production limit of 14,000 tpa of fish product, approximately 2,500 tpa of guts/heads/frames would be produced, an average of 6.8 tonnes per day over 365 days. The processing plant operates primarily during the day but at times may need to operate 24 hours a day to meet peak demands.


With the current permit production limit of 14,000 tpa, up to 2,500 tpa of processing waste will therefore go to the proposed plant. If the increase in production to approximately 30,000 tpa is approved, this would generate about 5,400 tpa of waste, and the plant is capable of processing this amount. However, for this EER, a waste production rate of 2,500 tpa is assumed.

3.1.3 Operation and equipment

The complete processing plant will sit in a purpose built food grade building with negative air pressure. The production environment air flow will be directed through a bio-filtration system to remove odours and volatiles. The fresh salmon by-product and waste input streams would generate minimal odours which will be readily mitigated by appropriately designed odour abatement and waste management measures (see section 4.4 for more details). The plant will utilize modern biotechnology and separation techniques, with all of the processing equipment being made of stainless steel, aluminium, or high density plastics, which meet all federal and state food grade safety standards. The plant will be fully enclosed in a specifically designed building to showcase a sustainable solution for converting salmon by-products and waste streams into high quality salmon oil, proteins, and minerals. Features will include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Modern equipment and techniques for effective and efficient production.

2. Sanitary clean-room and food grade manufacturing environment to ensure effective management of raw material streams.

3. Negative pressure air handling and bio-filtration systems to ensure effective odour abatement.

4. Streamlined handling of raw material streams from the processing facility in enclosed piping and storage to maintain product freshness and quality.

5. Independent processing and manufacturing protocols.

6. Safe handling and storage facilities for stabilised finished products.

7. An effluent management program to ensure safe, effective, and beneficial outcomes for environmental, public health, and agricultural resources.

The plant will use gentle low temperatures very similar to that used for extraction of extra virgin ‘cold pressed’ olive oil. The process does not thermally or mechanically degrade many oil soluble nutrients found in salmon. The oil is separated by centrifugation immediately after grinding and an enzymatic treatment of the salmon by-products and waste streams. The separation of the liquid phase from the solid phase takes place in a food grade decanter (GEA Westfalia Separator ASD 50-03-077, see Appendix A). The liquid, which contains water, water soluble proteins, micronutrients, and the salmon oil, is passed through a food grade high speed centrifuge which separates the oil from the salmon protein liquor. The stable salmon oil will be immediately packed into sterile 1,000 litre IBC bins, and can be stored, shipped, or repacked according to market requirements. The stable extracted solids may be collected for further drying and grinding into a fishmeal product and/or sold as a low moisture stock feed ingredient. The stable salmon protein liquor will be sold as a nutrient rich stock feed or fertilizer ingredient.


The plant will consist of the following key stages and components (see also Figure 1):

1. Collection and feed of raw materials into the plant:

a. Raw material storage hopper fed directly via an enclosed piping system from the salmon processing environment.

b. Raw material mincer to macerate all components into a homogenous format.

c. Intermediate storage tank.

d. Feed pump for the thermal heat exchanger.

e. Low temperature ‘pipe in pipe’ thermal heat exchanger for the gentle heating of high viscose products utilising hot water as the indirect heating medium to 55 degrees Celsius.

2. Initial separation phase removing solid matter for collection as a fish meal:

a. Intermediate storage tank with agitator.

b. Feed pump for the decanter.

c. 2-phase decanter centrifuge designed for fish processing industries and particularly suitable for the cold separation of the released oil.

d. Eccentric screw pump to distribute solid outputs from the decanter stage.

e. Liquid/oil discharge tank/feed tank for separator.

3. Secondary separation phase polishing salmon oil

a. Centrifugal pump to feed the separator.

b. Low temperature plate heat exchanger for maintaining heat to liquid.

c. Oil polishing centrifuge separator.

d. Eccentric screw pump for discharge of protein liquor from the separator.

e. Buffer tank for clean oil.

f. Centrifugal pump to discharge clean oil.

g. Optec system for the detection of turbidity and oil quality.

h. Low temperature plate heat exchanger for cooling the oil.

The whole process is supported with a set of control valves, field instruments and PLC electrical components. Additional infrastructure elements include storage tanks and handling systems for derivative products of salmon oil, salmon protein concentrate, and salmon fishmeal. Refer to Appendix B for technical drawings of the Biomega salmon oil processing plant.


Figure 1: Schematic of base components of the salmon oil processing plant

3.1.4 Commissioning and timeframes

The plant will be constructed using components from a decommissioned plant supplied from Biomega AS, the Norwegian leading producer of salmon oil and salmon meal. Biomega will supply ongoing operational and technical support (see letter from Biomega in Appendix C). In addition Rossyew Limited, a Scottish salmon waste processing company, has entered a management agreement with Huon to provide assistance with the installation, commissioning and operation of the plant (Appendix C). It is expected that the construction period will be approximately 2-3 months.

3.1.5 Ongoing maintenance and contingency measures

In case of unanticipated plant shut down or during maintenance, the feed product will be frozen and stored on-site until the oil plant becomes operational again, or would be sent to composting as is currently conducted. No product will be stored within the plant if it is not operational. In case of any malfunction or incident that could detrimentally affect wastewater quality, the effluent will be diverted to the storage tanks attached to the oil plant. The effluent would remain diverted from the wastewater treatment plant until it returns to a quality suitable for treatment. The oil plant will include a spill collection bund that will feed into the storage tanks. Suitable spill kits will also be stored within the oil plant for smaller spills.


Wastewater in the storage tanks will periodically be tested, and if found unsuitable to be treated at the Parramatta Creek wastewater treatment plant, will be collected by Veolia or Toxfree for composting. The storage tanks will include a breather but will otherwise be sealed to avoid any odour nuisance.

3.2 Project area

General description of the project site, including topography, vegetation, wetlands, watercourses, buildings.

Current and historical (where known) use of the site.

Land tenure of the site (is the proponent the owner?).

Description of surrounding land use, including location of nearest residences and other sensitive uses (such as schools, hospitals, etc).

Description of soils and underlying rock types.

The proposed location is on the existing HUON Parramatta Creek processing facility site, and is approximately 25 km southwest of Devonport at Lot 1, 7218 Bass Highway, Sassafras, Tasmania, 7307 (Figure 2). The land is owned by HUON.

Figure 2: Location map of HUON Parramatta Creek existing site and of proposed oil extraction facility.

There are no residents located adjacent to the site and the site is surrounded to the north, east and south by State Forest and the west by orchards. The closest residences are located on Byrons Road and on Conservatory Road off the Bass Highway, well over 1 km away (labelled R1 and R2 respectively on the general location map in Appendix D).


The site is located between Felmingham and Parramatta Creeks. Parramatta Creek crosses the north east corner of the site. These creeks join to the north west of the site. The broader HUON site consists of 56 hectares and the majority of the land is grassland and ryegrass pasture. Approximately 28 ha of ryegrass pasture are available for irrigation of wastewater. The average annual rainfall is approximately 900 mm per annum, with average annual evaporation of 1100 mm per annum. Prevailing wind speed and direction is from the north to northwest at 20 km/h. The geology of the area is covered by the 1:50 000 sheet for Frankford. The whole site is composed of Permian mudstone, sandstone and siltstone beds except for the very north east corner of the property situated near the Parramatta Creek, where Quaternary alluvium is found. There are no adverse geological features for the plant. The geomorphology of the plant site is generally flat and gently undulating. There are no significant features that will impact on the factory process or potential expansion. There is very little erosion potential because of the gentle slopes characterising the area.

3.3 Map and site plan

General location map (e.g. 1:25,000 scale).

Provide a map of the area showing the existing and proposed facilities and any sensitive receptors that could be affected by emissions from the proposed facility.

Site plan(s) showing boundary of project site, position of existing and proposed buildings/structures, native vegetation, watercourses (rivers, creeks, lakes).The location of significant earthworks and/or vegetation to be cleared should be shown on a map.

All possible sources of emissions to air (i.e. materials, equipment and activities including cleaning and maintenance as well as waste management) from the proposal, should be identified, described and marked on a site plan.

The land on which the activity will take place must be defined.

The proposed location for the plant is on the existing HUON Parramatta Creek processing facility site (Figure 3). Sensitive receptors are shown on the general location map in Appendix D. It is proposed to establish an independent outbuilding to contain the plant, with connecting services to the existing wet processing facility. The location has been determined by the proximity to existing services, integration with the production facility and consideration for environmental synergies within the overall site. Access to the site will be via the Bass Highway and onto the facility access road.


Figure 3: Aerial view of existing processing facility and proposed outbuilding.

3.4 Rationale and Alternatives

Describe the rationale for the project. Explain the benefits and disadvantages of alternative options that have been considered.

HUON’s proposal to install an oil and protein extraction plant will ensure self-sufficiency and eliminate the need for third party processing of its by-product and waste streams. This aligns with the company’s ongoing sustainability program and objective of utilising every component of its salmon in a commercial manner. The plant will reduce traffic in and out of the Parramatta Creek wet processing site by requiring less freight movements of volatile and logistically challenging outputs from the existing process. There will be a removal of the current freight volumes being transported across the State for secondary processing at Seafish, Triabunna. The by-products and waste streams will be concentrated and stabilised for ease of logistical handling and freight.

Existing fish processing plant

Proposed salmon oil extraction plant


4. Part C - Potential environmental effects

4.1 Flora and fauna

Will native vegetation or potential habitat for native fauna be cleared or disturbed as part of the proposal? If yes, complete this section, if no, go to the next section.

Provide details of the nature of vegetation or habitat to be cleared and the area of vegetation to be cleared (in hectares).

Include details of any flora or fauna surveys undertaken on the site. Surveys should comply with the requirements of the document Guidelines for Natural Values Assessments.

Are there any known occurrences of species of conservation significance, threatened fauna species or flora species or threatened vegetation communities on or near the site? If yes, or if the site has potential habitat for any such species, a detailed survey is likely to be required and the results should be presented in the report. Information about observations of significant and threatened species can be obtained on the internet by registering to use the natural values atlas (www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au).

Are weeds and diseases that may affect native flora and fauna known to be present on or near the site or are there reasons to expect their presence? If yes, a survey and recommended control measures are likely to be required.

Does the proposal have the potential to spread weeds or diseases that may affect native flora and fauna? If so, recommendations for ongoing weed and pathogen management should be presented in the report.

The proposed plant will be a small and discrete addition to the existing fish processing facility at Parramatta Creek (the footprint of the enclosing shed is expected to be approximately 12 m x 10 m) and it is anticipated that there will be no environmental disturbance to the local terrestrial flora and fauna. The vegetation at the Parramatta Creek site largely comprises grasslands. Flora and fauna assessments were conducted as part of the 2009 DPEMP1 for approval of the Parramatta Creek fish processing facility. No species of conservation significance, no threatened flora or fauna species and no threatened vegetation communities were found within 500 m of the site. There are no known weeds and diseases that might affect native fauna present on the site or near the site.

1 Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan, Parramatta Creek Fish Processing Facility, pitt&sherry, October 2009

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/SSKA-7UM4AN?open

http://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au/


4.2 Rivers, creeks, wetlands and estuaries

Will stormwater from the site drain to a river, creek, wetland or estuary? If yes, provide details about potential impacts and how they will be managed, such as sediment settling ponds.

Will the proposal result in the filling or excavating of a river, creek, wetland or estuary. If yes, provide details.

Will the proposal result in the impoundment of a river, creek, wetland or estuary? If yes, provide details.

Will the proposal occur within 200 metres of a river, creek, wetland or estuary? If yes, provide details.

Will the proposal result in the clearing of vegetation within 200 metres of a river, creek, wetland or estuary? If yes, provide details.

Consideration should be given to management of stormwater using water sensitive design principles, further information can be found on the web pages of the Derwent Estuary Program.

There are two main watercourses in proximity of the property: Felmingham Creek and Parramatta Creek. The Felmingham Creek is sourced in forestry and forest plantation land less than two kilometres south of the property and runs northward to its junction with Parramatta Creek. Parramatta Creek is sourced in forestry land less than one kilometre south-east of the property and skirts the north-eastern boundary of the property until it turns westward at its junction with Felmingham Creek (see Appendix D). Both creeks are located over 200 m away from the proposed oil plant. The proposal will not result in the filling, excavating or impoundment of any waterway. During the construction stage of the plant, the Construction Phase Management principles of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Procedures for Stormwater Management2 will be adhered to. If and as required by site conditions, temporary sediment traps will be installed to prevent silt run-off from the construction areas. During operation, stormwater will not come in contact with processing works and therefore will not require treatment at the WWTP. Stormwater is currently collected in drains and then directed to interceptor traps to remove sediment and hydrocarbons before discharge into Felmingham and Parramatta Creeks.

4.3 Significant areas

Is the proposal located within or adjacent to an existing reserved area (eg National Park, State Reserve, Regional Reserve, Nature Reserve, Forest Reserve or Conservation Area)? If yes, provide details.

The adjacent land to the north and east of the site is Private Timber Reserve. The location of the proposed development is to the south of the site and is therefore expected to have no significant impact on the reserve.

2 Derwent Estuary Program

http://www.derwentestuary.org.au/index.php?id=31


4.4 Air emissions

Provide an assessment of the potential for emissions to air from the different stages of the production process at the proposed facility with respect to the likelihood of causing environmental nuisance or environmental harm. The assessment should cover a variety of conditions including worst case scenario and upset conditions, and it should contain information about time (of the day), duration, frequency and potential impact of the atmospheric emissions from the facility in order to establish suitable parameters for air dispersion modelling. (NB any atmospheric data provided should be relevant to the site or otherwise appropriately qualified).

Provide detailed description of measures to be implemented to manage and control odour emission from the site. This should include details pertaining to the operation of the plant as well as details of the design and operation of associated odour control systems. With regard to odour control, details should include sizing calculations and design operating rate, type and characteristics of filtration media and operation and maintenance procedures.

Identify and discuss measures to be implemented to mitigate any impacts that may cause environmental nuisance or environmental harm. This should include management of potential impacts associated with handling of odorous material as well as potential impacts associated with malfunction of equipment used on the site. Measures should be proposed for both routine and unforseen medium and long term plant stoppages.

Provide detailed information about the management of wastewater generated by the proposed facility in the context of a potential to create odour issues which could cause environmental nuisance or environmental harm in the area.

Provide information about odour complaints related to the existing site.

Details of any proposed monitoring, auditing and review program should be provided.

Notes

A site specific odour model will be required as part of the EER in the event it is proposed to process anything other than viscera, heads and frames and offcuts produced on site within 48 hours or production (unless frozen or acid stabilised).

It is expected that following installation and commissioning of the facility an odour survey of all sources on the land and the conduct of atmospheric dispersion modelling will be required. This is considered necessary to assess the impacts of air emissions from the proposed rendering facility relative to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004.

Any process that could generate significant and uncontrolled odours could potentially cause a nuisance to the processing facility’s staff and visitors and, in principle, to neighbours (although the nearest residence is over 1 km away). Odours could also contaminate HUON’s fish products, so there is a very strong imperative to keep odour generation to an absolute minimum. The solid waste management practices to date have prevented significant odour generation from fish wastes, which are always removed from site quickly. Significant odour generation from the proposed oil plant is similarly unlikely because it will process fresh product. However, the plant will nevertheless have best practice odour control and management. The process equipment and the plant building will be maintained under negative pressure, in order to prevent leakage of odour to the atmosphere. The exhaust air handling equipment was not part of the equipment supplied from Norway and the final equipment selection has not yet been finalised. However, the air handling system is likely to comprise an exhaust fan drawing from the three process exhaust ports on the plant and a small packaged biofilter unit with a vertical discharge vent extending to approximately 9 m above ground level (2 m above roof height). Odour control equipment within the plant is described in sections 4.4.1 to 4.4.3 below. Mitigation measures in case of plant malfunction or maintenance have been addressed in section 3.1.5.


4.4.1 Biofilter design

The extraction plant will produce an odorous condensate. This vapour will be directed through a biofilter. Biofilters comprise an air distribution system and a moist organic medium (such as bark) sitting on a slatted base with a void below it. The medium supports micro-organisms that feed on the odorous substances in the vapour, therefore removing odour. Humidity, pH, oxygen supply and nutrients in the medium must be managed to ensure optimum performance. Daily inspections will also be undertaken to detect and rectify compaction and/or preferential channelling, and the medium will be refurbished as necessary but at least annually. Exhaust vapours will be directed into a void below the biofilter. The vapours will then pass up through the biofilter allowing the microorganisms to remove odours. Best practice guidelines (BREF3) advise that pass through times of approximately 30 seconds will be sufficient to remove weak odours and 60 seconds to remove strong odours and that an odour reduction efficiency of approximately 98% can be expected for fish processing. The BREF provides reference values for the sizing and rating of biofilters, showing that as a guide 1 m3 of biofilter can treat 120 m3/hr of air flow. The plant has three 100 mm diameter outlets, from which odorous vapour will be captured by maintaining negative pressure. If the capture velocity is assumed to be a conservatively high 1 m/sec (see section 4.4.2), then 0.0236 m3/sec or 84 m3/hr of odorous vapour will go to the biofilter. The biofilter volume should therefore be approximately 0.7 m3. For such a small biofilter an alternative such as an activated carbon filter may be more practicable, and this will be considered as part of detailed design.

4.4.2 Odour modelling assessment

Odour is measured in odour units (OU). One OU is the threshold of odour detection and is measured by dilution trials using a reference panel. This is done by dilution trials. For example, a 1 m3 sample of odorous air with an odour concentration of 100,000 OU, would require 99,999 m3 of odour free air (increasing the total volume of the sample to 100,000 m3) to dilute the odour concentration to the 1 OU odour threshold. Odour production by oil and protein extraction plants is a combination of technology, processing material, processing rates and management, and cannot be precisely predicted in advance of installation and operation. However, worst case odour predictions can be made by assuming conservative upper limits of likely odour generation. An odour modelling assessment has been undertaken by pitt&sherry to evaluate compliance of the proposed plant with the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 (‘EPP’). Table 1 of Schedule 3 of the EPP specifies a ground level concentration (GLC) limit of 2 OU measured at or beyond the boundary of a facility for a 99.5%ile 1 hour averaging period. The assessment report is provided in Appendix E. Modelling of the dispersion of odorous air discharged from the plant was undertaken using AUSPLUME. This is a gaussian plume dispersion model widely used in Australia for the prediction of ground level concentration (GLC) of air pollutants emitted from industrial sources. The modelling predicts GLCs taking into account the odour emissions rate from the biofilter discharge vent, its diameter and height, site specific meteorology, terrain across the modelling domain and building wake effects near the source.

3 BREF: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (May 2005) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouse and Animal By-Products Industries. European Commission.


As an indication of potential odour generation from the oil extraction plant, a test report provided by the previous owners was used, documenting measurements of odour intensity in the process exhaust air stream (refer to Appendix E). These varied between 11,000 OU and 150,000 OU, a range that reflects operational and feed stock variations. The flow rate required to achieve the negative pressure of the process equipment is low: 0.02 m3/s to generate a capture velocity of 1 m/s at the connection ports. At this capture velocity, 0.0235 m3/sec of vapour would be captured. Based on the worst reference measurement above, the odour concentration of the vapour exiting the extraction plant would be 100,000 OU. If a conservatively low 90% reduction in the biofilter is assumed, the concentration would be reduced to 10,000 OU and the emission rate would be 10,000 x 0.0235 = 235 OU.m3/sec (while at the lower end of the above odour generation range, the emission rate would be 1,100 x 0.0235 = 26 OU.m3/sec). At the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, the emission rate would be 353 OU. m3/sec. The oil extraction plant and its biofilter are proposed to be housed within a shed. The biofiltered air will be vented through a stack located in the shed roof. The shed will be maintained at a negative pressure relative to the outside and vented through the stack also so as to increase the exit velocity from the stack and hence the dispersion of the residual odour in the biofiltered air. To assess the dispersion of pollutants, AUSPLUME needs a site specific, data set including measurements of air temperature, wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability and mixing height at hourly intervals for a representative 12 month period. As the Parramatta Creek site is a significant distance from the nearest Bureau of Meteorology weather station (at Devonport) an AUSPLUME meteorological data file was generated using TAPM. TAPM is a meteorological and air pollution model developed by the CSIRO. It is able to predict wind, temperature and other conditions, in three dimensions across extended land areas and over extended periods of time. It makes use of databases of terrain, vegetation, soil type, leaf area index, sea surface temperature and regional synoptic scale meteorology to make predictions about local meteorology. Refer to Appendix E for the full TAPM and AUSPLUME configuration parameters and meteorological data. The predicted odour dispersion results are plotted in Figure 4 and 5. The contour interval is 0.25 OU from 0 to 0.5 OU and 0.5 OU thereafter. The property boundary for the parcel of land containing the plant is shown. Note that in Figure 4 the 2OU isopleth is coloured red. It contains a very small area but it can be seen as a "dot", just north of the southern property boundary. The maximum concentration in Figure 5 did not reach 2 OU. The highest isopleth on the plot is the orange 1.5 OU isopleth. The modelled odour emissions rate was initially set at a nominal value of 235 OU.m3/s and was then iteratively adjusted upwards and the AUSPLUME model re-run until a ground level concentration near to (but less than) 2 OU was reached on the property boundary. This target level was reached at 550 OU.m3/s for the 100 percentile and 900 OU.m3/s for the 99.5 percentile result. These levels are significantly higher than the reference range of emissions rates of 26 to 235 OU.m3/s (or 353 OU.m3/s if the upper, 95% confidence interval reference results is used). This provides a high level of confidence that the proposed plant will not breach the EPP criteria for odour. Background Odour Level The existing HUON waste water treatment lagoons and smoke house are the nearest sources of odour that are known to be currently contributing to the existing background odour level in the area on a continuous basis. No measured background odour intensity data was available. However, even if it was


available, the combined odour intensity for odour emissions from a number of different types of sources cannot be added, because unknown mixtures of different gasses behave in unpredictable ways. Odour emissions from these other sources are outside the scope of this EER. HUON is currently reviewing its overall wastewater treatment and reuse systems and any upgrades and odour management measures would be the subject of a separate approval process.

4.4.3 Conclusions of the odour modelling assessment

The proposed plant is very unlikely to breach the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 limits for odour emissions or cause an odour nuisance on site. Even if the plant continuously produced odour at its highest reference intensity, which itself is highly unlikely, this would still be significantly below the rate that would need to occur before the policy’s criterion of 2 OU at the site boundary is compromised. Although the odour reference values used in the assessment are expected to cover the extremes of odour generation, odour varies with processing rates and with the material being processed. A stack test will therefore be carried out following commissioning of the plant to confirm the actual odour generation rate from the installed plant. If the measured rates are confirmed to be lower than the conservatively high values assumed for this modelling study, no further investigation or action would be warranted. The biofilter discharge vent will be equipped with the required fittings and access arrangements to allow this testing to be carried out in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standards.


Figure 4: Modelled Odour Concentration Results (100 percentile)


Figure 5: Modelled Odour Concentration Results (99.5 percentile)


4.5 Liquid effluent

Detail the volume of wastewater production, rate of discharge, relevant wastewater characteristics and any variations in rate or characteristics.

Detail measures to control the potential for shock contaminants loads (including acidity or alkalinity) on the wastewater treatment system, where necessary.

Assess the impact of additional wastewater discharges to the existing on-site wastewater treatment system, including the associated reuse scheme (particularly the impact of electrical conductivity).

Discuss any additional management measures necessary to mitigate any potential impacts including additional monitoring and review, if necessary.

All the fish processing waste streams will be directed to the extraction plant and converted into oil, protein concentrate and fishmeal. The majority of fish waste solids, liquids, and nutrients will be retained in the stable derivatives produced by the plant. The processing facility uses an existing waste water treatment plant (WWTP) to handle blood water, factory process water, equipment clean down water, truck and bin washing, and stormwater. The site currently produces a maximum of 180 kilolitres per day of wastewater. The WWTP consists of initial screening in a rotary sieve, fat separation, and clarifying tanks, followed by a four (4) stage lagoon treatment for aerobic treatment. The storage capacity of the lagoons is approximately 10 megalitres, and treated wastewater has a residence time of approximately 40 days. The treated water is dispersed within an effluent irrigation system across a zone of approximately 12 ha for ryegrass cropping. The approximate daily volumes of wastewater generated by the oil extraction plant will comprise:

Initial flush of the system (water): 5,000 litres

CIP (caustic wash): recirculating 2,000 litres

Intermittent acid wash (when needed): recirculating 2,000 litres

Final rinse (water): 2,000 litres. The total wastewater volumes from the salmon oil processing plant will therefore be in the order of 10 kilolitres per day. An indicative analysis of wastewater produced by the Biomega oil plant during its previous operation in Norway is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Indicative analysis of wastewater from the proposed salmon oil processing plant

Parameter Indicative value

pH 7.5

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 4.0 mg/L

Total suspended solids 5.2 mg/L

Oil & Grease < 30 mg/L


For comparison purposes, the influent wastewater quality from current operating conditions is shown in Table 2. Wastewater volume and characteristics from the oil plant will not be a significant impact on the existing wastewater stream. The oil plant is not expected to have a noticeable effect on pH, BOD or salinity. Table 2: Influent wastewater characteristics at Parramatta Creek (March 2014 – March 2015)

Parameter Range (average)

Flow – Average

– Max

– Min

106 kL/d

180 kL/d

50-60 kL/d

pH 6.2 – 7 (6.6)

BOD5 (mg/L) 294 - 1387 (706)

Electroconductivity (S/cm) 2100 – 4190 (3137)

Salinity as total dissolved solids (mg/L) 1296 - 2481 (1915)

Ammonia – N (mg/L) 4.5 – 26 (13)

Total nitrogen (mg/L) 52 – 125 (85)

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 4 – 18 (9)

Oil & grease (mg/L) 11 – 84 (34)

Thermotolerant coliforms (cfu per 100 mls) 2500 – 660,000 (220,600)

The additional salmon oil processing plant clean down and sanitation liquid volumes, in the order of 10,000 litres per day at current production rates, can be accommodated by the existing WWTP. However, as an initial step toward an upgrade of the WWTP for a processing plant production increase (which will be the subject of a separate approval process), it is anticipated that a dissolved air flotation (DAF) plant will be added after the oil plant is brought on line, and this will further negate the already small impact of the oil plant on the overall wastewater treatment system. In case of plant malfunction, the effluent from the oil plant will be temporarily diverted to storage tanks to avoid any shock load to the wastewater treatment plant. Management and contingency measures have been described in section 3.1.5. The performance of the wastewater treatment plant will continue to be monitored and reviewed annually in accordance with the current or future permit conditions.


4.6 Solid wastes

Will the activity produce or result in solid wastes? If yes, provide details of the nature of the waste types and proposed methods for reuse/recycling/disposal of such wastes. Can generation of the wastes be avoided in the first place?

Management of fish process waste which cannot be rendered due to retention times should be described in detail, including proposed onsite storage capacity.

The most environmentally significant solid wastes currently produced on site are fish processing wastes:

Fish viscera (guts) generated through primary processing

Head, frames and trimmings generated through secondary processing. Fish processing generates approximately 10-15% by weight of waste in the form of guts. For fish that are subsequently filleted, approximately 30% of each fish is additional waste in the form of heads, frames and trimmings. At the current full production limit of 14,000 tpa of fish product, approximately 2,500 tpa of guts/heads/frames would be produced. If the planned increase in production to approximately 30,000 tpa is approved, this would generate about 5,400 tpa of waste, and the plant is capable of processing this amount. To date, viscera have been taken away daily by Veolia Environmental Services by tanker to Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd at Triabunna for fish meal/oil production. Heads and frames and other off cuts have been frozen and stored before being transported away on a generally weekly basis to pet food production. The establishment of the proposed protein and oil extraction plant will handle all existing site by-product and waste streams for the production of more stable derivatives including salmon oil, salmon protein concentrates, and salmon fishmeal. There will be a reduction in storage and logistical handling of the processing derivatives, and a greater utilisation of the whole salmon product.

Contingencies:

In the event that the plant has a non-scheduled stoppage or extended scheduled period of maintenance, actions include ceasing wet processing operation, short term freezing and storage of waste streams as per existing waste stream management protocols. During extended periods of non-operation the waste streams will be removed from the processing site to appropriate and accredited external service providers.


4.7 Noise emissions

Will the activity include fixed or mobile equipment that emits noise? If yes, provide details of the noise sources including size, power ratings, noise attenuation and hours of operation. Show the expected locations of the noise sources on the site plan and the location of nearby residences and other noise sensitive premises on the area map (see Part B of these Guidelines). Potential impacts from noise generated by the activity must be described, and the need or otherwise for detailed technical review and additional mitigation measures are to be considered and discussed in the EER.

The main noise sources associated with the Parramatta Creek processing facility include truck movements, refrigeration units, condenser systems, and other process equipment items such as centrifuge, pumps, blowers etc. Continuous noise is generated by such machinery as:

Blowers

Pumps

Refrigerant units and

Other processing equipment. Intermittent noise is generated at the site through such events as:

Truck movements and

Machinery that might cycle with rapid increases and decreases in noise levels. Distinctive tones are generated on site through such activities as:

Trucks backing with backing alarms and

Refrigeration unit hums. Virtually all processing equipment is installed inside buildings and there are no significant noise nuisance risks. The nearest neighbour is located over 1 km away and is located to the north west of the development on the western side of the Bass Highway (see Appendix D). To the north, south and east of the proposed development is state forest and to the west is an orchard. There is no evidence of neighbours being disturbed by noise to date and no expectation of disturbances in the future. Existing noise minimisation measures will be continued and the proposed oil and protein extraction plant is not expected to noticeably affect the noise level at the site.

4.8 Transport impacts

Will the activity result in or require substantial transport of goods or materials to or from the site, which may affect the amenity of the surrounding area? If yes, provide details such as vehicle types, no. of vehicle movements and route(s).

The proposed plant will reduce traffic in and out of the Parramatta Creek wet processing site by requiring less freight movements of volatile and logistically challenging outputs from the existing process. The by-products and waste streams will be concentrated and stabilised for ease of logistical handling and freight. Additionally, there will be a removal of the current freight volumes being transported across the State of Tasmania for secondary processing at Seafish, Triabunna, and to mainland Australia.


4.9 Other off-site impacts

Does the activity have the potential to generate any other off-site impacts that may affect the amenity of residences or other sensitive uses (such as schools and hospitals)? If yes, provide details. The location of all nearby residences or other sensitive uses should be clearly shown on a map.

The proposed oil processing plant will not have any other off-site impacts that may affect the amenity of residences or other sensitive uses.

4.10 Hazardous substances and chemicals

Details of raw material storage facilities (viscera, and other fish processing by-product) should be provided including quantity of the materials, their storage location/methods and measures to prevent their release. Response measures in the event of accidental spillage should also be described.

Similar details to those above should be provided for any other environmentally hazardous substance to be stored on site.

As the Parramatta Creek fish processing facility currently receives fish from other regions, biosecurity measurements are in place to minimise the risk of inadvertently transferring potential pathogens between regions. These measures are described in a Biosecurity Plan that has been approved by the Tasmanian Government’s Chief Veterinary Office. The plan ensures that risks are known and managed in accordance with best practice and current legislation. There is no intention at this stage for the oil plant to receive waste other than that generated on-site. If any off-site waste was to be sent to the facility, HUON’s existing procedures with respect to maintenance of biosecurity standards would be implemented. The volumes of dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous chemicals stored on site are well below the levels for the site to be classified as a major facility under the Dangerous Substances (Safe Handling) Act 2005. The environmental and safety requirements for storage and handling for minor quantities are described in NOHSC:2017(2001) Appendix E and HUON manages its substances in accordance with this Code. A dangerous goods register, hazard analysis and risk assessment report including specified bunding, isolation and action plans, is maintained as part of HUON’s Operational Procedures.

4.11 Site Contamination

Has the site on which the activity is to be located been used in the past for activities which may have caused soil or groundwater contamination? If yes, provide details. Include details of any assessments of soil or groundwater contamination on the site.

The HUON site has been used for industrial food processing for about 10 years. No other potentially contaminating activity is known to have been carried out at the site. No spill incident is known to have taken place at the site. Routine soil and groundwater monitoring is conducted at the site in order to assess the impact from wastewater irrigation. The results of soil and groundwater monitoring are reported to the EPA as part of HUON’s annual returns. An analysis of the impact of wastewater irrigation on soil and groundwater at the site will be included in the separate DPEMP for the production increase. The monitoring bore the closest to the proposed oil plant is G1, located approximately 50 metres to the north-east (see Appendix F for locations of groundwater monitoring bores). The results of the latest groundwater monitoring carried out in bore G1 are provided in Table 3.


Table 3: Results of groundwater monitoring in bore G1 located about 50 m to the north-east of the proposed oil plant

Parameters Units Values

Temperature oC 13.2

pH 4.79

ORP mV 216.3

EC (S/cm) 159

SAR 2.93

TDS mg/L 220

Hydroxide alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L <1

Carbonate alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L <1

Bicarbonate alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 21

Total alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 21

Sulfate mg/L 24

Chloride mg/L 31

Calcium mg/L 4

Magnesium mg/L 2

Sodium mg/L 28

Potassium mg/L 5

Aluminium mg/L 0.04

Iron mg/L 0.54

Fluoride mg/L 0.2

Ammonia mg/L 0.11

Nitrite mg/L <0.01

Nitrate mg/L 0.08

Nitrite + Nitrate mg/L 4.2

Total Kjeldhal nitrogen mg/L 4.3

Total phosphorus mg/L 0.49

Reactive phosphorus mg/L 0.28

Total anions meq/L 1.79

Total cations meq/L 1.71

Ionic balance % 2.4

Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100 mL 0

E. coli cfu/100 mL 0

No soil assessment has been carried out at the specific location of the proposed plant but none is considered warranted. The proposed plant will be fully enclosed and is not expected to have any impact on soil or groundwater contamination.


4.12 Sustainability and climate change

A sustainable approach seeks to minimise energy and water consumption while also minimising the generation of wastes.

Will the proposal cause or increase emissions of greenhouse gases? Describe how the proposal will implement best practice environmental management in energy consumption and in transport of materials to and from the proposal to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

This section should consider the evolving national response to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions , the Tasmanian Framework for Action on Climate Change 2008 (available at www.climatechange.tas.gov.au) and Tasmania’s Action Plan to Reduce Emissions 2011.

Describe the potential impacts of climate change upon the proposal. For example it may be appropriate to plan in advance for more intense storm events, more severe fire weather, long term sea level rise, etc.

The proposed plant aligns with the company’s ongoing sustainability program and objective of utilising every component of its salmon in a commercial manner. The plant will use the latest technology and will adopt waste minimisation strategies for all process systems consistent with sustainable development principles to minimise energy and water consumption. The plant will be powered by hydroelectricity from the TasNetworks grid, which is free of greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction in road transport by processing on site rather than trucking material to Triabunna for processing will reduce vehicular greenhouse gas emissions. The net carbon footprint attributable to processing activities at Parramatta Creek will therefore be reduced.

4.13 Cultural heritage

Is the proposal on or near a place listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register or Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory (maintained by Heritage Tasmania)? If yes, provide details. 4

Please note, Aboriginal heritage sites, regardless of site type, condition, size or land tenure are protected in Tasmania under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. 5

Please note that precise locations of Aboriginal sites may be confidential and should not be included in the report.

The methodology for identifying potential effects on historic heritage which is not already identified on heritage lists or schedules is outlined in Heritage Tasmania’s “Pre-Development Assessment Guidelines”, which are available from www.heritage.tas.gov.au/guidelines.html on the internet.

A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Register was conducted by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) in April 2015 for the site. AHT advised that there was no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to the works area. Due to the area being highly disturbed it is believed that the area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present. Accordingly, there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and AHT have no objection to the project proceeding. However, as all Aboriginal heritage is protected under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, if at any time during works suspected Aboriginal heritage was discovered, works will cease immediately and AHT will be contacted for advice. An Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided by AHT (Appendix G) will be on hand during construction works, to provide guidance to construction personnel.

4 An assessment of Aboriginal heritage by an appropriately qualified person is commonly required prior to approval. Different types of Aboriginal heritage assessment may be required depending on the nature of the site. Before engaging a consultant, contact Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. 5 The standards and guidelines packages that apply to Aboriginal Heritage Officers and Consulting Archaeologists are available at http://www.aboriginal heritage.tas.gov.au on the internet.

http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au/guidelines.html


4.14 Sites of high public interest

Is the activity located within or adjacent to a site of high public interest (such as a recreation area or natural scenic feature)? If yes, provide details.

The proposed plant is not located within or adjacent to a site of high public interest.

4.15 Rehabilitation

Where the activity involves disturbance of native vegetation or has a finite life (particularly mining and quarrying activities), future rehabilitation measures should be described in detail.

As the proposed activity will not involve any disturbance of native vegetation and does not have a finite life, no rehabilitation plan is warranted at this stage. Any future rehabilitation of the plant’s footprint would form part of an overall rehabilitation of the HUON site.


5. Part D – Management commitments Specific, unambiguous written commitments for avoiding, minimising and managing the potential environmental impacts of

the proposal (as identified in Part C) should be documented in Part D.

The preceding description of environmental management issues and approaches leads to the following commitments, which will be implemented by HUON under this EER (Table 4). Table 4: Commitments

No. Commitment Timeframe By Whom

Construction phase

1 A Construction Safety and Environmental Management Plan will be prepared or adopted, appropriate to the construction complexity and risks

Prior to construction

Construction Contractors

2 Best practice principles for stormwater management will be implemented. If and as required by site conditions, temporary sediment traps will be installed to prevent silt run-off from the construction areas.

During construction


3 If any suspected Aboriginal heritage is found during ground disturbance, works will cease immediately and the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided by AHT will be followed.

During construction


4 All vehicles and machinery used for construction works will have exhaust controls that comply with relevant standards

During construction


5 Dust emissions will be minimised where possible by: minimising the duration of exposure by clearing land immediately prior to work and revegetating bare soil once work has been completed; stockpile topsoil for use in landscaping and/or revegetation; and covering or dampening stockpiles and disturbance areas as necessary to minimise soil loss.

During construction


6 Any hazardous substances, including fuels, will be stored on site within a suitable bunded area.

During construction


7 Sufficient and appropriate contaminant spill cleanup equipment will be available to respond to spills of hydrocarbons and other contaminating substances.

During construction


8 Any spills of potentially contaminating liquids will be reported to the construction manager immediately and cleaned up as soon as practicable.

During construction


9 The use of construction machinery at the site will comply with Schedule 7 of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations 2004.

During construction


10 All vehicles and machinery will have noise controls that comply with relevant standards.

During construction


11 All waste material generated will be removed from site for disposal at an appropriately authorised facility.

During construction



No. Commitment Timeframe By Whom

12 Any construction wastes amenable to recycling will be taken to the recycling section of a municipal transfer station or taken directly to an authorised recycler.

During construction


Operations

13 A suitable biofilter (or equivalent alternative, such as an activated carbon filter) will be installed and maintained

Before and during operation

HUON

14 The biofilter discharge vent will be equipped with the required fittings and access arrangements to allow stack testing to be carried out in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standards

Before and during operation

HUON

15 A stack test will be carried out following commissioning of the plant to confirm the actual odour generation rate and validate the odour modelling assessment.

After commissioning

HUON

16 The plant will initially produce a maximum of 10 kL per day, which can be accommodated within the site existing WWTP; increases beyond this rate will be subject to a production increase approval under a separate DPEMP process

During operation

HUON

17 In the event that the plant has a non-scheduled stoppage or extended scheduled period of maintenance, actions include ceasing wet processing operation, short term freezing and storage of waste streams as per existing waste stream management protocols. During extended periods of non-operation the waste streams will be removed from the processing site to appropriate and accredited external service providers.

During operation

HUON

18 Activities at the site will not cause a noise nuisance and will incorporate best practice environmental management to reduce noise emissions to the greatest extent that is reasonable practical

During operation

HUON

19 The plant will be operated in accordance with HUON’s approved Biosecurity Plan

During operation

HUON

20 Hazardous chemicals will be stored in dry, bunded areas that comply with AS3780-1994 Storage and Handling of Corrosive Substances

During operation

HUON

21 The management of hazardous substances will be in accordance with the National Standard and National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods.

During operation

HUON

22 A dangerous goods register, hazard analysis and risk assessment report including specified bunding, isolation and action plans, is maintained as part of HUON’s Operational Procedures

During operation

HUON


6. Part E – Public consultation Has public consultation taken place (such as with other government agencies, community groups or neighbours)? Is it

intended that consultation will take place? If yes, provide details.

The proposed development has been presented and discussed with the Latrobe Council who has indicated full support. The proposal will go through a development application (DA) process, which will have opportunities for community input. The small size of the plant, its location close to the existing processing facility, the environmental controls that will be implemented, and the more than 1 km distance to nearest neighbours mean that no specific community consultation outside the DA process is warranted.


Appendix A

GEA Separator Technical Specifications

This separator has been designed for

processing fish and animal by-products.

The product is fed into the bowl through a

closed-line system. The heavy liquid phase

is discharged foam-free under pressure by

a centripetal pump. The light liquid phase

is discharged into the hood. The separated

solids are collected in the solids holding

space and are ejected through ports. Due

to the Westfalia Separator® hydrostop sys-

tem for bowl ejections the solids discharge

volume can be pre-selected precisely.

The bowl is ejected by opening the

solenoid valve in the operating water line

and closed automatically. The self-clean-

ing bowl makes the machine suitable for

fully automatic cleaning-in-place (CIP).

Design features Sanitary design: hood, solids catcher

and bowl parts made of stainless

steel

Patented Westfalia Separator®

hydrostop system for controlled

ejections

Self cleaning disc type bowl

Opening and closing hydraulically

by a sliding piston to discharge

the collected solids

Frame made of cast iron

Machine driven by a 3-phase AC

motor with power transmitted to the

bowl spindle by means of a frequency

converter or centrifugal clutch and a

flat belt

Short spindle drive for quiet

vibration free operation

All bearings are splash lubricated

from a central oil bath

Liquids to Value

GEA Mechanical Equipment / GEA Westfalia Separator

Separator ASD 50-03-077 Technical Data | Processing of fish and meat by-products

6 Separating disc

7 Disc stack

8 Solids holding space

9 Solids discharge

10 Sliding piston

General operating principles and constructional features

Technical Data ASD 50-03-077

Standard scope of supply Rubber cushions with welding plates

Foundation frame

Pressure gauge

Set of tools

Set of standard spare parts

Set of regulating rings to adjust the separating zone

Options Set of special spare parts

Westfalia Separator® wewatch® condition

monitoring for preventive maintenance

Package for increased wear protection

Technical data ASD 50-03-077

Bowl

Speed 6800 min-1

Volume 21 l

Volume of solids holding space 11 l

Maximum discharge pressure 2 bar

3-phase AC motor

Motor rating (at FC) 22 kW

Weights

Centrifuge, complete approx. 1600 kg net

Bowl approx. 360 kg net

*400 kgDimensions

*Minimum lifting capacity for removing the bowl

A B C D

1904 mm 946 mm 1710 mm 2500 mm

1 Feed

2 Discharge,

heavy liquid phase

3 Outlet, light liquid phase

4 Discharge, light liquid phase

5 Centripetal pump,

heavy liquid phase

1

2

5 3 6

8

4

97 10

Werner-Habig-Straße 1 · 59302 Oelde (Germany) Phone +49 2522 77-0 · Fax +49 2522 77-1794 www.westfalia-separator.com

GEA Mechanical Equipment

GEA Westfalia Separator

The

info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d in

thi

s br

ochu

re m

erel

y se

rves

as

a no

n-bi

ndin

g de

scrip

tion

of o

ur p

rodu

cts

and

is w

ithou

t gu

aran

tee.

Bin

ding

info

rmat

ion,

in p

artic

ular

rel

atin

g to

cap

acity

dat

a an

d su

itabi

lity

for

spec

ific

appl

icat

ions

, can

onl

y be

pro

vide

d w

ithin

the

fra

mew

ork

of c

oncr

ete

in

quiri

es. W

estf

alia

®, W

estf

alia

Sep

arat

or® a

nd w

ewat

ch® a

re r

egis

tere

d tr

adem

arks

of

GEA

Wes

tfal

ia S

epar

ator

Gm

bH. P

rinte

d on

chl

orin

e-fr

ee b

leac

hed

pape

r · P

rinte

d in

Ger

man

y · S

ubje

ct t

o m

odifi

catio

n · w

ww

.kab

utz.

de

9997

-188

9-00

0/09

10 E

N


Appendix B

Biomega Salmon Oil Extraction Plant Technical Drawings


Appendix C

Letters of Agreement for Technical Support

ROSSYEST/ LTI)sl7/t4

Mr Adam FriendSenior Environmental Off icerEPA DivisionDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and EnvironmentGPO Box 1550,HobartTASMANIA 7OO1

RE: HUON SALMON OIL PROCESSING PLANT

Dear Adam,

We are pleased to inform that Rossyew Limited has agreed to a managementcontract to HUON Aquaculture Pty Ltd providing assistance with the developmentof a salmon oi l processing plant at their site in Tasmania.

Rossyew are ful ly support ive of HUON, and our business is open to furthernegotiat ion for technical and operational support that may include:

1. Technical support and advice for the instal lat ion and commission ofequipment .

2. Salmon oi l processing plant operation and management strategies.3. Assistance with commercial ization and market development of plant

derivatives.

We look forward to developing a mutually beneficial relationship with HUON, andparticipating in the successful implementation of a salmon processing showcasefaci l i ty in Tasmania.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further information orcla r i f ication.

Regards,

W E I G H B R I D G E H O U S E .

P H O N E : + + 4 4 ( 0 )

A N A .

D R U M F R O C H A R R O A D . G R E E N O C K . P A 1 5 5 T S

1 4 7 5 7 8 4 2 2 0 . F A X : + + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 4 7 5 7 4 3 1 6 6

P . J E S S A S S O C I A T E C O V p A n ?


Appendix D

General Location Map

PARRAMATTA CREEK - GENERAL LOCATION

HB14614R13Amwalsh20/05/2015

#*#*R2

R1

Parramatta Creek

Felminghams Creek

Greens Creek

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55When Printed at A41:20,000

0 250 500Metres± Map ref

RevisionAuthor

Date

Data sources:Site layout from Huon AquacultureReceptor locations from Pae Holmes Base image from www.theLIST.tas.gov.au (C) State of Tasmania Base data from www.theLIST.tas.gov.au (C) State of Tasmania

File: H

B146

14R13

12P Re

vA

Legend#* Sensitive receptor

WatercourseCadastre (CT 158261/1)

Site LayoutFactory siteIrrigation areaPrimary lagoon systemProposed Salmon Oil PlantSecondary lagoon system

BASS HIGHWAY

BASS

HIGH

WAY

1750 m

1400 m


Appendix E

Odour Modelling Report


Huon Aquaculture Paramatta Creek

Fish Oil and Protein Extraction Plant

Odour Assessment

Prepared for: Huon Aquaculture Client representative: Scott Nolan Date: 28 October 2015 Rev 02

pitt&sherry ref: HB14614H002 Oil Plant Odour Assessment 31P Rev 02/DF/bc

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Description of Project ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Area .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Plant Description ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Plant Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 4

3. Characterisation of Odour Emissions ................................................................................................ 4 4. Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5

4.1 Assessment Criteria and Approach ........................................................................................ 5 4.2 Approach .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.3 Meteorology ......................................................................................................................... 6 4.4 AUSPLUME Configuration.....................................................................................................10 4.5 Odour Dispersion Results .....................................................................................................11

5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................11

Appendix A Appendix B

Norwegian Installation Odour Test Report AUSPLUME Configuration File

Prepared by: …………………………………………………. Date: 28 October 2015 Douglas Ford Reviewed by: …………………………………………………. Date: 28 October 2015 Ian Woodward Authorised by: …………………………………………………. Date: 28 October 2015 Ian Woodward

Report Revision History

Rev No.

Description Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by Date

00 Final Report D. Ford I. Woodward D. Lester 7/07/2015

01 Revision for production rates

D. Ford I. Woodward I. Woodward 22/07/2015

02 Revised to address EPA Comments

D. Ford I. Woodward I. Woodward 28/10/2015

© 2015 pitt&sherry This document is and shall remain the property of pitt&sherry. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form is prohibited.

pitt&sherry ref: HB14614H002 Oil Plant Odour Assessment 31P Rev 02/DF/bc i

Executive Summary

Huon Aquaculture (HUON) operates a fish processing facility at Parramatta Creek, near Sassafras in northern Tasmania. In doing so it generates fish waste. Currently the waste is directed to a range of off-site uses undertaken by others. HUON proposes to replace those off-site uses with an on-site oil and protein extraction plant. The oil extraction plant is capable of emitting objectionable odours if not managed correctly. To ensure that this does not occur, the process equipment and the new shed housing the plant will be fitted with a negative pressure exhaust system and the air discharged through a small biofilter. The odour emissions from the plant have been assessed by comparing the likely discharge odour intensity with the maximum intensity that would need to occur to reach the ground level concentration limits allowed under the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004. This has been done by modelling the dispersion of the odour emitted from the plant using AUSPLUME and TAPM software to generate the required meteorological data. The results indicate that the plant is highly unlikely to generate sufficient odour to cause a nuisance on or around HUON's site or to neighbouring residents. The odour emissions rate used for the assessment is based on test results for this equipment, carried out when it was previously installed at a fish meal plant in Norway. Odour emissions vary substantially due to operational and feed stock variation, so it is recommended that a stack test is carried out following commissioning of the plant to confirm the actual odour generation rate.

pitt&sherry ref: HB14614H002 Oil Plant Odour Assessment 31P Rev 02/DF/bc 1

1. Introduction

Huon Aquaculture Group (HUON) operates a fish processing facility at Parramatta Creek, near Sassafras in northern Tasmania. In doing so it generates fish waste. Currently the waste is directed to a range of off-site uses undertaken by others. HUON proposes to replace those off-site uses with an on-site oil and protein extraction plant. The plant will utilize the existing byproduct and waste streams to produce quality fish oils and proteins for supply to the stock feed ingredient market. The proposed plant is likely to generate odours, which if not properly managed could cause nuisance and offence to workers and site visitors and in extreme cases to surrounding residents, although the nearest residence is more than 1 km away. The process equipment and the oil plant building will therefore be connected to an exhaust air suction which will put them under negative atmospheric pressure, in order to prevent leakage of odour to the atmosphere. The air collected will pass through a small biofilter, prior to being discharged vertically through a vent above the plant roof. Odours could in principle also contaminate Huon’s fish products, so there is a very strong imperative to keep odour generation to an absolute minimum. This assessment has been prepared to support an EER for the proposed development.

2. Description of Project

2.1 Project Area

The proposed location of the plant is on the existing Huon, Parramatta Creek processing facility site, approximately 25 km southwest of Devonport at Lot 1, 7218 Bass Highway, Sassafras, Tasmania, 7307. The land is owned by Huon Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd.

Figure 1: Locality Map


There are no residents located adjacent to the site which is surrounded to the north, east and south by State Forest and to the west by orchards. The closest residence is on Conservatory Road off the Bass Highway, which is well over 1 km away. The proposed plant is to be housed in a small new shed to be located just to the east of the existing plant buildings.

Figure 2: Parramatta Creek Site

2.2 Plant Description

The proposed plant is a small, second hand oil and protein extraction plant, made by GEA Westfalia, previously installed and operated at a fish meal plant in Norway. It consists of a GEA CD 305-08-32, two phase decanter which separates out fish oil and water/sludge followed by a GEA ASD 50-03-077, centrifugal polishing separator. All the equipment is installed in a 12 m shipping container (except for some ancillary pumping equipment). The container and the other equipment, including the odour control biofilter, will be installed in a new shed (nominally 12 m long x 10 m wide x 7 m high). The process operates at moderate temperatures. A number of plate heat exchangers and a shell and tube heat exchanger are used to provide temperature control. These will be supplied with hot water from the existing HUON plant.


Figure 3: Isometric View of the Extraction Plant

The process is fully contained within pipe work and enclosed process equipment. The odour intensity inside the process equipment is quite high, so the process will be kept put under negative atmospheric pressure to prevent leakage of odorous air. This will be achieved by extracting air from three points, each located on a small surge tank (two points on the decanter discharges and one on the polishing separator discharge). These tanks are small (200 L or less). The connection ports are nominally 100 mm in diameter. The extraction points are the same points used at the plant's original installation. The exhaust air handling equipment was not part of the equipment supplied from Norway and the final equipment selection has not yet been finalised. The proposed air handling system consists of an exhaust fan drawing from the three process exhaust ports and from the oil plant shed, and a small packaged humidifier/biofilter unit with a vertical discharge vent extending above the roof. The extracted oil will be immediately packed into sterile 1,000 litre IBC bins which can be stored, shipped, or repacked according to market requirements. The stable extracted solids may be collected for further drying and grinding into a fishmeal product and/or sold as a low moisture stock feed ingredient. The stable protein liquor will be sold as a nutrient rich stock feed or fertilizer ingredient.


2.3 Plant Capacity

The plant will generally only handle fresh raw salmon waste streams generated on the site. The main fish processing facility has an EPA mandated permit limit of 14,000 tonnes of fish products per year (EPA permit 7894, 9 December 2009) and is currently approaching that limit. HUON is planning to apply for an increase of the limit, nominally up to approximately 30,000 tpa, to reflect increases in farm production but that application will be a separate proposal and will be the subject of a separate DPEMP. Fish processing generates approximately 10-15% by weight of waste in the form of guts. For fish that are subsequently filleted, approximately 30% of each fish is additional waste in the form of heads and frames. At the full production limit of 14,000 tpa of fish product, approximately 2,500 tpa of guts/heads/frames would be produced. If the increase in production to approximately 30,000 tpa is approved, this would generate about 5,400 tpa of waste, and the plant is capable of processing this amount. However, for this odour assessment, a waste production rate of 2,500 tpa is assumed.

3. Characterisation of Odour Emissions

A test report for the extraction plant has been provided by the previous owners, documenting measurements of odour intensity in the process exhaust air stream. These vary between 11,000 OU (odour units1) and 100,000 OU, a range that reflects operational and feed stock variations. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the result of 100,000 OU is stated to be 150,000 OU. The flow rate to achieve the negative pressure of the process equipment is low (0.02 m3/s to generate a capture velocity of 1 m/s at the connection ports). This flow would be treated by the biofilter then combined with the exhaust air drawn from the shed (about 0.17 m3/h) and discharged through the roof vent. A biofilter for this flowrate would be nominally 1m in diameter with a 1m deep bed, in order to achieve a residence time of 30 seconds. Because of this small size, an alternative to a biofilter, such as an activated carbon filter, may be used instead. The air from the shed is expected to contain negligible odour (except under unusual breakdown or spill conditions) so it would not contribute any additional odour to the exhaust air discharged. The system could be configured to pass the air from the shed and the air from the process ports through the biofilter so that odour removal could be carried out in breakdown conditions, but this would require installation and maintenance of a significantly larger biofilter (nominally 2.5m diameter) to achieve the same retention time. Both configurations deliver the same odour emissions rates, under normal operating conditions. The odour emissions rate2 (based on the worst reference odour concentration measurement above, the flow rate from the process ports and allowing for a 90% reduction in the biofilter3) would be 235 OU.m3/s (or 352.5 OU.m3/s at the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval). It would be 26 OU.m3/s at the

1 One OU is the threshold of odour detection. OUs are used to measure the concentration of odour. This is done by dilution

trials. For example, a 1 m3 sample of odorous air with an odour concentration of 100,000 OU would require 99,999 m3 of odour free air (increasing the total volume of the sample to 100,000 m3) to dilute the odour concentration to the 1 OU odour threshold. Odour concentration is measured in accordance with AS/NZS 4323.3. 2 The odour emissions rate or "odorant flow rate" is the quantity of odorous substance emitted into the atmosphere per unit of time. It is the product of the odour concentration and the volume flow rate. 3 In fact, a biofilter odour reduction efficiency of up to 98% can be expected for fish processing (BREF: Integrated Pollution

Prevention and Control (May 2005) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Slaughterhouse and Animal By-Products Industries. European Commission).


lowest reference concentration. The vertical discharge velocity of the exhaust air would be 5.4 m/s through a 200 mm diameter vent.

4. Assessment Methodology

4.1 Assessment Criteria and Approach

The criteria for the assessment of odour emissions is specified under Schedule 3 of the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004. Table 1 of Schedule 3 specifies a ground level concentration (GLC) limit of 2 OU measured at or beyond the boundary of a facility. The odour concentration is to be calculated using a 1 hour averaging period and the 100 percentile concentration results in cases where local high quality meteorological and emissions data sets are not available. If local high quality meteorological data is available along with reliable, specific, emissions data, the 99.5 percentile concentration results may be used. The approach used in this study to evaluate compliance with the criteria was to model the odour emissions from the plant using AUSPLUME to predict the odour concentration at the boundary of the HUON property and at the nearest residences. The model was run a number of times while adjusting the odour intensity of the air flow discharged until a maximum of 2 OU was reached at the boundary or a residence, using the 100 percentile results. Comparing this emission odour intensity with the reference values above provides a measure of the confidence that the plant will not exceed the EPP criteria. Following commissioning, it is recommended that HUON commission a stack test to provide confirmation of the actual discharge odour intensity. To assist this, a plot of 99.5 percentile results is included here, as use of the 99.5 percentile levels to evaluate the EPP criteria would be appropriate once the measured emission rate is available.

4.2 Approach

Modelling of the dispersion of odorous air discharged from the plant has been undertaken by using AUSPLUME, a gaussian plume dispersion model, which is widely used in Australia for the prediction of ground level concentration of air pollutants emitted from industrial sources. The modelling takes into account the odour emissions rate from the biofilter discharge vent, its diameter and height, site specific meteorology, terrain across the modelling domain and building wake effects near the source. The modelling predicts ground level concentrations in odour units (OU). AUSPLUME has some limitations in the range of conditions that it is able to accurately model. It cannot model line sources such as highways, or very tall stacks, coastlines, complex terrain such as coastlines, mountainous areas and confined valleys or complex meteorology. None of these restrictions apply to this application. The odour emission is discharged 9 m above ground level from the biofilter vent. The terrain surrounding the plant is rolling, open, rural and forestry land. It is sufficiently far from the coast and the nearest mountainous terrain for the assumptions and simplifications used by AUSPLUME to account for terrain and meteorology to be valid. To assess the dispersion of pollutants for compliance with Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality), AUSPLUME needs a site specific data set including measurements of air temperature, wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability and mixing height at hourly intervals for a representative 12 month period. As the Parramatta Creek site is a significant distance from the nearest Bureau of


Meteorology weather station (at Devonport) an AUSPLUME meteorological data file was generated using TAPM. TAPM is a meteorological and air pollution model developed by the CSIRO. It is able to predict wind, temperature and other conditions in three dimensions across extended land areas and over extended periods of time. It makes use of databases of terrain, vegetation, soil type, leaf area index, sea surface temperature and regional synoptic scale meteorology to make predictions about local meteorology.

4.3 Meteorology

4.3.1 TAPM Configuration

TAPM was used to create an AUSPLUME meteorology file using data for the year 2012. The analysis was centred on latitude -41°20.5', longitude 146°33.0', which is the location of the Huon Aquaculture processing plan. Five nested grids were used (with 25 positions east/west x 25 north/south x 30 levels high), with the default grid resolutions (i.e. 30,000 m, then 10,000 m, 3,000 m, 1,000 and 300 m). The default databases were used for all inputs except that a more detailed (250 m resolution) vegetation database was used instead of the default.

4.3.2 Meteorology of the Site

Wind Speed and Direction

The distribution of wind speeds and directions experienced at the site greatly affects how emissions to air are diluted and distributed across the surrounding area. The TAPM predicted wind distribution for 2012 at Parramatta Creek is shown in the wind roses in Figure 4 and the wind speed distribution is shown in Figure 5. The percentage of the year that winds blow from each of the 8 sectors (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, NW and W) is shown by the length of the radial arms. The colours indicate the breakdown within different wind speed ranges. For comparison, the wind rose for the Parramatta Creek site predicted by TAPM is shown alongside a wind rose showing the 2012 data for the Bureau of Meteorology weather station at Devonport Airport.

Figure 4: 2012 Wind Roses for Parramatta Creek and Devonport

Parramatta Creek is about 21 km inland from the Devonport Airport which is on the Bass Strait coast. It can be seen that wind speeds at Parramatta Creek are generally lower, with fewer south and south


easterly winds and more north and north westerly winds. This reflects the inland location and sheltering hills to the east of the site.

Figure 5: Wind Speed Distribution

Atmospheric Stability

The dispersion of an air emission plume is affected by the turbulence of the atmosphere. Increased atmospheric turbulence causes the plume to expand faster and dilute the concentration of a pollutant more quickly. In a more stable atmosphere with less turbulence, the plume does not disperse as rapidly. To account for these effects AUSPLUME makes use of stability data measured according to the "Pasquill-Gifford" stability class which has five levels, labelled "A" to "E". Class A is "highly unstable". It is associated with strong surface heating, light winds and intense convective turbulence. Class B is "moderately unstable", Class D is "neutral" and Class E is "slightly stable". Class F is "very stable", associated with strong temperature inversions and clear night time/early morning skies. Generally, unstable conditions are most common during the day and stable conditions are most common at night. This can be seen in Figure 6 below which shows the percentage occurrence of the different stability classes in the 2012 data set, for each hour of the day.


Figure 6: Atmospheric Stability Distribution by Time of Day

As expected, stable conditions (E and F) only occur during the night and unstable conditions (A, B and C) only occur during the day, with neutral conditions (D) possible at any time. This is reflected in the overall percentage breakdown of stability classes across the year, shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Atmospheric Stability Distribution


Mixing Height

The mixing layer is the region of the atmosphere between the surface and an elevated temperature inversion. The height of the inversion is important, because low inversions limit the region in which mixing can occur and thereby extend the horizontal distance of higher pollutant concentrations. Mixing heights are generally lower at night and higher during the day time. The daily cycle is shown in Figure 8 and the annual distribution in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Mixing Height Distribution by Time of Day

Figure 9: Mixing Height Distribution


4.4 AUSPLUME Configuration

General Configuration

A modelling domain of 4 km x 4 km has been used with a 50 m spaced receptor grid. Terrain elevation data for this grid was interpolated from TASMAP 10 m contours. The Egan half height method of terrain adjustment was set in the AUSPLUME model and the surface roughness set to 0.4 m, reflecting the rolling rural surrounding land.

Odour Source Configuration

Odour emissions were assumed to be constant, 24 hours per day. The biofilter will discharge through a vertical vent 9 m above the ground and 200 mm in diameter. It is quite close to the existing plant buildings. AUSPLUME is able to include wake effects, which are likely to be significant for a discharge point, close to a large building. The stack source data used is as follows: Easting: 461824 m Northing: 5423065 m Elevation: 150 m Height: 9 m Diameter: 200 mm Temperature: 15°C Exit Velocity: 5.4 m/s Emissions Rate: 550 OU.m3/s (after iterative adjustment until 2 OU GLC at boundary was

reached). The geometry of the proposed plant building and the existing Huon processing plant buildings was entered into the AUSPLUME model using its "BPIP" utility to allow wake effects of the buildings to be taken into account by the model. The building footprint from the model is shown diagrammatically in Figure 10. The design of the oil plant shed has not yet been finalised. It has been assumed to be 12 m long x 12 m wide x 7 m high, with the discharge vent extending 2 m above the roof.

Figure 10: BPIP Building Footprints

Oil Plant

Potato Shed

Main Plant

c. 70 m


4.5 Odour Dispersion Results

The predicted odour dispersion results are plotted in Figure 11 and 12. The contour interval is 0.25 OU from 0 to 0.5 OU and 0.5 OU thereafter. The property boundary for the parcel of land containing the plant is shown. Note that in Figure 11 the 2OU isopleth is coloured red. It contains a very small area but it can be seen as a "dot", just north of the southern property boundary. The maximum concentration in Figure 12 did not reach 2 OU. The highest isopleth on the plot is the orange 1.5 OU isopleth. The modelled odour emissions rate was initially set at a nominal value of 235 OU.m3/s and was then iteratively adjusted upwards and the AUSPLUME model re-run until a ground level concentration near to (but just less than) 2 OU was reached on the property boundary. This target level was reached at 550 OU.m3/s for the 100 percentile result and 900 OU.m3/s for the 99.5 percentile result. These levels are significantly higher than the maximum of the plant’s reference range of emissions rates, which is 235 OU.m3/s (or 352.5 OU.m3/s if the upper, 95% confidence interval reference results is used). This provides a high level of confidence that the proposed plant will not breach the EPP criteria for odour.

Background Odour Level

The existing HUON waste water treatment lagoons and smoke house are the nearest sources of odour that are known to be currently contributing to the existing background odour level in the area on a continuous basis. No measured background odour intensity data was available. However, even if it was available, the combined odour intensity for odour emissions from a number of different types of sources cannot be added, because unknown mixtures of different gasses behave in unpredictable ways. Odour emissions from these other sources are outside the scope of this assessment report and the plant EER. HUON is currently reviewing its overall wastewater treatment and reuse systems and any upgrades and odour management measures would be the subject of a separate approval process.

5. Conclusion

The proposed plant is very unlikely to breach the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 limits for odour emissions or cause an odour nuisance on site. Even if the plant continuously produced odour at its highest reference intensity, which itself is highly unlikely, this would still be significantly below the rate that would need to occur before the policy’s criterion of 2 OU at the site boundary is compromised. Although the odour reference values used in this study are expected to cover the extremes of odour generation, odour varies with processing rates and with the material being processed. It is therefore recommended that a stack test be carried out following commissioning of the plant to confirm the actual odour generation rate from the installed plant. If the measured rates are confirmed to be lower than the conservatively high values assumed for this modelling study, no further investigation or action would be warranted. The biofilter discharge vent should be equipped with the required fittings and access arrangements to allow this testing to be carried out in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standards.


Figure 11: Modelled Odour Concentration Results (100 percentile)


Figure 12: Modelled Odour Concentration Results (99.5 percentile)


Appendix A

Norwegian Installation Odour Test Report


Appendix B

AUSPLUME Configuration File


6.0 version ************************************************************* * WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING * * * * This is a generated file. Please do not edit it manually. * * If editing is required, under any circumstances do not * * edit information enclosed in curly braces. Corruption of * * this information or changed order of data blocks enclosed * * in curly braces may render the file unusable. * * * ************************************************************* Simulation Title {HUON OIL PLANT} Concentration(1)/Deposition(0), Emission rate units, Concentration/Deposition units,Background Concentration, Variable Background flag,Variable Emission Flag {True OUV/second Odour_Units 0 False False } Terrain influence tag, 0-ignore, 1 - include {2} Egan coefficients {0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 } Number of source groups {0} Total number of sources (Stack + Area + Volume sources) {1} Source Group information BPIP Run (1-True, 0-False) {-1 } Total number of buildings {5 } Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers {Office 150 1 } Height, Number of sides {6.4 4 } X coordinates {461660 461663 461705 461703 } Y coordinates {5423068 5423083 5423076 5423061 } Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers {Potato 149 1 } Height, Number of sides {4 6 } X coordinates {461651 461654 461649 461650 461722 461720 } Y coordinates {5423145 5423158 5423159 5423164 5423157 5423137 } Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers {New 150 1 } Height, Number of sides {7.5 8 } X coordinates {461651 461655 461753 461752 461747 461746 461751 461751 } Y coordinates {5423108 5423131 5423118 5423112 5423112 5423099 5423099 5423095 }

Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers {Main 150 4 } Height, Number of sides {8.25 4 } X coordinates {461635 461641 461666 461661 } Y coordinates {5423076 5423110 5423106 5423072 } Height, Number of sides {7.5 4 } X coordinates {461666 461746 461744 461663 } Y coordinates {5423106 5423095 5423071 5423084 } Height, Number of sides {9.8 4 } X coordinates {461746 461761 461759 461744 } Y coordinates {5423095 5423093 5423068 5423071 } Height, Number of sides {4 4 } X coordinates {461755 461754 461709 461710 } Y coordinates {5423069 5423059 5423066 5423076 } Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers {Oil 150 1 } Height, Number of sides {7 4 } X coordinates {461824 461836 461833 461822 } Y coordinates {5423065 5423062 5423052 5423054 } Source Information Source ID, Source Type (1 - stack, 2 - area, 3- volume) and X, Y, Z coordinates {STACK 1 461825 5423062 150 } Stack height and diameter {9 0.2 } Stack temperature, Velocity, Cross, Height {288 5.4 -1 -1 } Emission type (1-constant, 2-monthly, 3-hours of the day, 4-wind and stability, 5-hour and season, 6-temperarture), Number of particle fractions {1 0 } Constant emission rate {900} Building width {12.40625 12.875 14.25 15.25 15.75 15.5 15.5 14.5 13 11.5 12.5 14 15 15.75 16 15.75 15.25 14 12.375 13 14.25 15.25 15.75 16 15.5 14.5 13 11 12.5 14 15.5 16 16 16 15.125 14 } Building height {7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 } Building BPIP parameter1 {-8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8 -7.5 -6.5 -5.75 -4.375 -3 -1.5625 -2 -2.5 -2.75 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2.5 -3.5 -5.5 -7 -8.5 -9.5 -10.25 -10.875 -11 -10.84375 -11 -12 -12.75 -13 -13 -12 -11.5 -10 } Building BPIP parameter2 {-4.640625 -4.4375 -4.875 -4.875 -4.875 -4.75 -4.25 -3.75 -3.5 -2.75 -2.25 -1.5 -0.5 0.375 1.5 2.375 3.25 4 4.625 4.5 4.625 4.875 4.875 5 4.25 3.75 3.5 3 2.25 1.5 0.75 -0.5 -1.5 -2.25 -3.1875 -4 } Building BPIP parameter3 {11.5 12.5 14 15 16 16 16 15.25 14 12.40625 12.875 14.5 15.25 15.75 15.5


15.5 14.5 13 11 12 14 15 15.75 16 15.75 15.125 14 12.40625 13 14.25 15.25 15.75 16 15 14.5 13 } Receptor information Discrete receptors Receptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian,0-Polar),Number of Receptors {1 0 } Gridded receptors Receptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian, 0-Polar), Number of X and Y coordinates, Receptor height {1 81 81 0 } X grid coordinates {460029 460079 460129 460179 460229 460279 460329 460379 460429 460479 460529 460579 460629 460679 460729 460779 460829 460879 460929 460979 461029 461079 461129 461179 461229 461279 461329 461379 461429 461479 461529 461579 461629 461679 461729 461779 461829 461879 461929 461979 462029 462079 462129 462179 462229 462279 462329 462379 462429 462479 462529 462579 462629 462679 462729 462779 462829 462879 462929 462979 463029 463079 463129 463179 463229 463279 463329 463379 463429 463479 463529 463579 463629 463679 463729 463779 463829 463879 463929 463979 464029 } Y grid coordinates {5421038 5421088 5421138 5421188 5421238 5421288 5421338 5421388 5421438 5421488 5421538 5421588 5421638 5421688 5421738 5421788 5421838 5421888 5421938 5421988 5422038 5422088 5422138 5422188 5422238 5422288 5422338 5422388 5422438 5422488 5422538 5422588 5422638 5422688 5422738 5422788 5422838 5422888 5422938 5422988 5423038 5423088 5423138 5423188 5423238 5423288 5423338 5423388 5423438 5423488 5423538 5423588 5423638 5423688 5423738 5423788 5423838 5423888 5423938 5423988 5424038 5424088 5424138 5424188 5424238 5424288 5424338 5424388 5424438 5424488 5424538 5424588 5424638 5424688 5424738 5424788 5424838 5424888 5424938 5424988 5425038 } Model settings and parameters Emission conversion factor, Averaging Time {1 0 } Land use (surface roughness) {0.4} Averaging time flags (1,2,3,4,6,8,12,24 hrs, 7, 90 days, 3 month, All hrs {1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 } Statistical output options {0 0 } Output options (All meteodata, Every concentration/deposition, Highest/2nd highest, 100 worst case table, Save all calculations {0 0 0 1 1 1 } Write concentration (1-yes, 0-no), Concentration rank, Write frequency, Frequency Level {1 1 0 -1 }

Disregard exponents (1-yes, 0-no), Exponent Scheme (1-Irvin urban, 2-Irvin rural, 3-ISCST, 4-User Defined {0 1 } Dispersion exponents {0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 } Building wake effects (1-include,0-not) , Default decay coefficient, Anemometr height, Sigma-theta averaging period, Roughness at vane site, Smooth stability changes, ConvectivePDF) {1 0 10 60 0.3 0 0 } Deposition options, Depletion options {False False False False False False } Stability class adjustments (0-None, 1-Urban1, 2-Urban2) {0} Building wake algorithms (1-Huber-Sneider, 2-Hybrid, 3-Schulman-Scire) {4} Gradual plume rise (1-yes,0-no), Stack tip downwash (1-yes,0-no), Disregard Temperature Gradient (1-yes,0-no), Partial Penetration, Temp Gradient, Adiabatic Entrainment, Stable Entrainment {1 1 0 0 0.004 0.6 0.6 } Temperature Gradients for Wind and Stability categories {0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 } Dispersion curves (1-Pasquill Gifford, 2- Briggs rural, 3-Sigma theta) horizontal < 100 m, ditto vertical < 100 m, ditto horizontal > 100 m, ditto vertical > 100 m {3 1 2 2 } Adjust PG curves for roughness - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no) {1 1 } Enhance plume for buyoancy - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no) {1 1 } Adjust for wind direction shear {0} Shear rates {0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.035 } Wind Speed categories {1.54 3.09 5.14 8.23 10.8 } Output file {'C:\Program Files (x86)\Ausplume\AUSPLUME.TXT'} Meteorological file {'C:\Ausplume Data\Huon\Para Creek TAPM 2012.met'} Receptor file {'C:\Ausplume Data\Huon\Paramatta_Creek.ter'} Concentration file {'C:\Ausplume Data\Huon\Plot.dat'} SaveAll file {'C:\Ausplume Data\Huon\Calcs.cal'} Statistics output file {'C:\Ausplume Data\Huon\stats.sta'}

E: [email protected] W: www.pittsh.com.au

incorporated as Pitt & Sherry (Operations) Pty Ltd ABN 67 140 184 309

Brisbane Level 2 276 Edward Street

Brisbane QLD 4000 T: (07) 3221 0080 F: (07) 3221 0083

Canberra LGF, Ethos House 28-36 Ainslie Place Canberra City ACT 2601

PO Box 122 Civic Square Canberra ACT 2608 T: (02) 6295 2100

Devonport Level 1

35 Oldaker Street PO Box 836 Devonport TAS 7310 T: (03) 6424 1641 F: (03) 6424 9215

Melbourne Level 1, HWT Tower

40 City Road Southbank VIC 3006 PO Box 259 South Melbourne VIC 3205

T: (03) 9682 5290 F: (03) 9682 5292 Sydney

Level 1 56 Clarence Street Sydney NSW 2000 T: (02) 8216 4700

F: (02) 8216 4747

Hobart 199 Macquarie Street GPO Box 94

Hobart TAS 7001 T: (03) 6210 1400 F: (03) 6223 1299

Launceston Level 4 113 Cimitiere Street PO Box 1409

Launceston TAS 7250 T: (03) 6323 1900 F: (03) 6334 4651


Contact Douglas Ford 03 6323 1930 [email protected]


Appendix F

Location of groundwater monitoring bores

PARRAMATTA CREEK - GROUNDWATER MONITORING

HB14614R5Bmwalsh15/04/2015

G1

BH1

BH3

BH4

BH6 BH5

BH2

G2/BH7

Parramatta Creek

Felming

hams C

reek

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55When Printed at A41:10,000

0 100 200 300Metres± Map ref

RevisionAuthor

Date

Data sources:Base image by TASMAP (C) State of TasmaniaBase data from The LIST (C) State of TasmaniaZoning from TPC (C) State of TasmaniaProject data from Huon Aquaculture

File: H

B146

14R5 1

2P Rev

B

LegendGroundwater boreholeWatercourseCadastre (CT 158261/1)

BASS

HIGH

WAY

BASS

HIGH

WAY


Appendix G

Aboriginal Heritage Unanticipated Discovery Plan

Unanticipated Discovery Plan For proponents and consultants dealing with Aboriginal Heritage in Tasmania

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Natural and Cultural Heritage Division Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

This paper provides a Plan that should be followed when dealing with unanticipated discoveries of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage such as sites and objects. The plan provides guidance to project personnel so that they may meet their obligations with respect to Aboriginal heritage in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 and the Coroners Act 1995. The Unanticipated Discovery Plan is in two sections. The first section primarily explains mitigation strategies that should be employed when any Aboriginal Cultural Heritage sites or items are discovered excluding skeletal remains (burials), while the second process deals specifically with skeletal remains (burials).

Discovery of Cultural Heritage Items

Step 1: Any person who believes they have uncovered Aboriginal Cultural Heritage material should notify all employees or contractors that are working in the immediate area that all earth disturbance works must cease immediately.

Step 2: A temporary ‘no-go’ or buffer zone of at least 10m x 10m should be implemented to

protect the suspected Aboriginal Cultural Heritage site or relics. No unauthorised entry or works will be allowed within this ‘no-go’ zone until the suspected Aboriginal Cultural Heritage relics have been assessed by a recognised Aboriginal Heritage Practitioner.

Step 3: Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) in Hobart (ph 6165 3152) needs to be notified and

consulted as soon as possible and informed of the discovery. AHT will then provide further advice in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.

Discovery of Skeletal Material

Step 1: Call the Police immediately. Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. The area must now be considered a crime scene. It is a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene.

Step 2: Any person who believes they have uncovered skeletal material should notify all employees

or contractors that are working in the immediate area that all earth disturbance works must cease immediately.

Step 3: A temporary ‘no-go’ or buffer zone of at least 50m x 50m should be implemented to

protect the suspected skeletal remains. No unauthorised entry or works will be allowed within this no-go’ zone until the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed by the Police and or Coroner.

Step 4: Should the skeletal remains be determined to be of Aboriginal origin, the Coroner will

contact an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney-General, as per the Coroners Act 1995.

Unanticipated Discovery Plan

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Natural and Cultural Heritage Division Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

Guide to the most common sites types in Tasmania. Stone Artefact Scatters A stone artefact is any stone or rock which has been modified by Aboriginal people. Often this is the result of fracturing or ‘flaking’ fine grained rocks to produce sharp cutting or scrapping implements. The most common stone types utilised by Tasmanian Aboriginal people are silcrete and chert, on account of their availability and excellent tool making properties. However we also find hornfels, chalcedony, spongelite, quartzite and other stone types where locally available.

In Tasmania, stone artefacts are typically recorded as being ‘isolated’ (i.e. only one) or in a ‘scatter’ (i.e. two or more within a 50m radius). Stone artefacts are found all over Tasmania, in all landscapes and situations, and are the most basic indicator of Aboriginal occupation.

Shell Middens Middens are occupational deposits created through an accumulation of debris from human activity. Midden sites can range in size from large mounds to small scatters of shell. The most common shellfish species found in middens in Tasmania are abalone, oyster, mussel, warrener and limpet, however they can also contain other debris such as animal bone, charcoal from campfires and discarded tools made from stone, shell or bone These sites are usually found near waterways and coastal areas. Rockshelters Caves and rock overhangs which bear signs of human activity are, for the purpose of the Aboriginal Heritage Register (AHR), collectively called occupied rock shelters. Aboriginal people utilised these places for shelter, ceremony and other cultural practices, leaving behind occupational deposits such as middens and hearths, tools, or in some cases, rock markings. Rock shelters are usually found where the geology is conducive to the formation of caves and rock overhangs. Quarries or Stone Procurement Sites A quarry is a place where material has been extracted from a natural outcrop by Aboriginal people. The two types of quarry recorded on the AHR are stone and ochre; each typically being located wherever suitable ochre for painting and decoration, or stone for tool-making appear. Quarries can be recognised by evidence of human manipulation, and by the debris left behind from processing the material. Quarries can be extensive or discrete, depending on the size and quality of the outcrop, and how often it was utilised and visited. Rock Marking Rock marking is the term used in Tasmania to define markings on rocks, which are the result of Aboriginal practices. Rock markings come in two forms; engraving and painting. Engravings are made by removing the surface of a rock through pecking, abrading or grinding, whilst paintings are made by adding pigment or ochre to the surface of a rock.

Burials Burial sites are highly sensitive places. They can occur anywhere, and have previously been recorded in sand dunes, shell middens and rock shelters.


E: [email protected] W: www.pittsh.com.au

incorporated as Pitt & Sherry (Operations) Pty Ltd ABN 67 140 184 309

Brisbane Level 2 276 Edward Street

Brisbane QLD 4000 T: (07) 3221 0080 F: (07) 3221 0083

Canberra LGF, Ethos House 28-36 Ainslie Place Canberra City ACT 2601

PO Box 122 Civic Square ACT 2608 T: (02) 6274 0100

Launceston Level 4 113 Cimitiere Street

PO Box 1409 Launceston TAS 7250 T: (03) 6323 1900 F: (03) 6334 4651

Melbourne Level 1, HWT Tower 40 City Road

Southbank VIC 3006 PO Box 259 South Melbourne VIC 3205 T: (03) 9682 5290

F: (03) 9682 5292

Devonport Level 1 35 Oldaker Street

PO Box 836 Devonport TAS 7310 T: (03) 6424 1641 F: (03) 6424 9215

Hobart 199 Macquarie Street GPO Box 94

Hobart TAS 7001 T: (03) 6210 1400 F: (03) 6223 1299

Best Consulting Engineering Firm (revenue under $50 million) Best Professional Service Firm (revenue under $50 million)

Contact Dr Sophie Le Roux 0419 323 931 [email protected]

huon aquaculture paramatta creek fish oil & protein …epa.tas.gov.au/documents/huon aquaculture...

Documents