evandale wastewater treatment plant upgrade assessment report – evandale wwtp upgrade iii table of...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Evandale Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade

Evandale

Northern Midlands Council

Report and recommendations of the Environment Division Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority May 2009

Environmental Assessment Report – Evandale WWTP Upgrade

I

Environmental Assessment Report Proponent Northern Midlands Council

Proposal WWTP upgrade

Location Evandale

NELMS no. 7656

DA number P08-161

File 031066

Document G:\EEO_Enviro_Ops\EAS_Assessments\ Projects\Evandale\ Assessment\EAR Evandale WWTP

Class of Assessment

2A

Assessment process milestones

10 June 2008 Notice of Intent submitted

26 June 2008 EER Guidelines issued

24 February 2009 Permit application submitted to Council

24 February 2009 Application received by Board

28 February 2009 Start of public consultation period

16 March 2009 End of public consultation period

N/A Supplementary information submitted to Board

Acronyms

Board Board of the Environment Protection Authority

EER Environmental Effects Report

DEPHA Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts

DPIW Department of Primary Industries and Water

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMPC Act Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

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

LUPA Act Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

SD Sustainable development


III

Table of Contents

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

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

3 The proposal ............................................................................................. 3 4 Need for proposal and alternatives ........................................................... 5

5 Public and agency consultation ................................................................. 5 6 Evaluation of environmental issues ........................................................... 6

7 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 12 8 References .............................................................................................. 12 9 Summary of appendices .......................................................................... 12


1

1 Approvals process An application for a permit under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPA Act) in relation to the proposal was submitted to Northern Midlands Council on 24 February 2009.

The proposal is defined as a ‘level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection (3)(a) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPC Act), being a Wastewater Treatment Works. Section 25(1) of the EMPC Act required Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act. The application was received by the Board on 24 February 2009.

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

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

One draft of the EER was submitted to the Department for comment prior to its formal submission. A final EER was submitted to Council with the permit application. The EER was released for public inspection for a 14-day period commencing on 28 February 2009. Advertisements were placed in the Examiner newspaper and on the EPA web site. The EER was also referred at this time to relevant government agencies for comment. No public submissions were received.


2

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

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


3

3 The proposal The proposal consists of the construction of:

a) two additional lagoons at the Evandale wastewater treatment plant; b) splitting of the current primary/secondary lagoon by replacement of the current degraded

wooden baffle with an earthen wall; c) modification of the plant inlet to ease blockages; and d) outlet pits and pipework between all lagoons to enable maximum flexibility in lagoon use.

The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Part B and Appendix A of the EER.

Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics

Characteristic Description/quantities Activity description Construction and operation of an upgraded wastewater treatment plant as

described above. The proposed upgrades will result in a complete change to the treatment process at the plant.

Location off Nile Road Evandale Grid Ref 521325E 5397312N (GDA94) Land zoning Utility Services Land tenure Owned by Northern Midlands Council. Title Reference is 39223/1.

Site overview The current site consists of 2 lagoons these being a primary/secondary lagoon with a baffle wall separating the two cells and a tertiary lagoon. The baffle separating the primary/secondary lagoon is in very poor condition and has effectively failed. The lagoons are surrounded by pasture.

Surrounding area overview

The site is surrounded by farmland and the nearest residences to the site are 350-400m away. Access is gained through a small laneway off Logan Road Evandale.

Major equipment Existing: Two lagoons, sewerage infrastructure from the township including pump stations

Other infrastructure Inputs Water Minor amounts for dust suppression during construction Energy Electricity for pumps etc Other raw materials Clay etc for the liners will be sourced from on-site. Wastes Liquid Effluent discharge to reuse scheme. Emergency release to Boyes Creek Atmospheric Odour possible from the sludge dewatering area. Solid Minimal general solid waste.

Biosolids/lagoon sludge to be managed under a Biosolids Management Plan. Noise Noise emissions from construction and during operation from mechanical

equipment and aerators. Operating hours 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year. Project timetable It is proposed that construction would be undertaken after July 2009.


4

Figure 1: Site Overview


5

4 Need for proposal and alternatives The EER contained an engineering report from GHD outlining the need for the upgrade to improve performance and provide for more capacity to cope with projected growth within Evandale.

5 Public and agency consultation There were no public representations. The government agency/body submissions are contained in Appendix 1 of this report.

The EER was referred to a number of government agencies/bodies with an interest in the proposal. Responses were received from the following:

• Development and Conservation Assessment Branch (DCAB, DPIW)

• Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (draft EER)

The following Divisions/Areas of the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts also provided submissions on the EER:

• (Noise Specialist) Environment Division;

The EER stated that the proponent would advise neighbours prior to construction beginning.


6

6 Evaluation of environmental issues The environmental issues considered relevant to the proposal have been evaluated by the Environment Division. These were:

• Aboriginal Heritage;

• Atmospheric (dust and odour);

• Flora and fauna habitat;

• Effluent disposal; • Groundwater;

• Noise; and

• Solid waste

Details of this evaluation, along with recommended permit conditions, are shown in the table below.

Table 2 Assessment of environmental issues

Issue Aboriginal Heritage Description of potential impacts Disturbance of Aboriginal artefacts Management measures proposed in EER An Aboriginal Heritage Officer conducted a survey of the site and supplied the report to Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. Public and agency comment Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania stated that the report suggested that due to the nature of the land it is not likely that any aboriginal sites would be present. Evaluation The expansion is unlikely to impact on Aboriginal heritage. Any Aboriginal relics discovered should be managed in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. Recommendation It is recommended that Standard information on provisions of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 regarding material encountered during construction or operation to be included in the permit as L03 (Schedule 3).


7

Issue Atmospheric (dust and odour) Description of potential impacts Dust from the construction activities, odour from WWTP Management measures proposed in EER No specific measures were proposed for dust control. The EER stated that plant performance in relation to odours will be improved through the upgrade. Public and agency comment No comments were received concerning dust or odour Evaluation The Construction Environmental Management Plan will contain management measures to control dust. There has only been one odour complaint for this activity (more than five years ago). Considering that the upgrade should improve performance, and that the proposed lagoons are no closer to residences than the existing ones it is considered unlikely that odour would be a nuisance at neighbouring properties. Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit condition CN1 (Construction Environmental Management Plan).


8

Issue Effluent disposal Description of potential impacts Contamination of off-site land and surface waters, especially Boyes Creek, by pollutants in effluent or stormwater contaminated with hazardous materials and sediment,. Management measures proposed in EER Boyes Creek is approximately 30 metres from the lagoons. According to the EER, this creek is a small water course that that flows into the South Esk River approximately 1.4km from the WWTP. Construction impact mitigation No works are proposed to be carried out in or near Boyes Creek (Construction Commitmento1). Sediment and oil traps shall be installed in the construction site stormwater disposal drainage system (Construction Commitment 5). Fuel shall not be stored on site and refuelling of machines shall be undertaken within a bunded area capable of storing the entire volume of the contents of the refuelling tanker (Construction Commitment 6). Other than fuel used in construction there will be no other dangerous chemicals associated with the project (Construction Commitment 7). Operations impact mitigation All treated effluent from the site is currently pumped to a re-use dam on a neighbouring farm for use in irrigation (and managed under a Reuse EMP previously approved by this office). According to the EER; the proponent has not needed to discharge to Boyes Creek since the reuse scheme started, and the future effluent will be of a higher quality if discharge to the creek was ever required. Erosion is to be controlled through planting pasture grasses after construction, and erosion and sediment control will be required as part of CN1. All hazardous materials are to be bunded (Construction Commitment 6). Public and agency comment No public or agency comments were received. Evaluation The reuse scheme has capacity to receive more effluent than is currently produced. In addition, the effluent quality is expected to improve in the unlikely case that discharge to Boyes Creek was required. Construction impacts can be managed through CN1 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) and storage of hazardous materials through H1 (Storage and handling of hazardous materials) and H2 (Spill kits). Recommended reuse conditions include EF2 (Full Effluent Reuse) which would require the proponent to notify the Director immediately after becoming aware that an alternate discharge is required. EF1 stipulates the two discharge locations and EF4 (Water quality at discharge to receiving waters) and EF5 (Effluent quality limits for discharge to water) stipulate the water quality of any discharge to Boyes Creek. EF7 (Stormwater) stipulates the quality of stormwater leaving the Land Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions CN1, H1, H2, EF4, EF7 and non standard permit conditions G9 (Commitments), EF1, EF2, and EF5.


9

Issue Flora and fauna habitat Description of potential impacts The site is predominantly pasture (introduced grasses). Potential for weeds to be introduced with machinery. Management measures proposed in EER A flora and fauna survey was conducted No threatened species were identified. The EER stated that based on the results of this survey no native vegetation would be affected and no significant habitat for native flora and fauna will be disturbed. All machinery shall be effectively cleaned prior to coming on site. Machinery shall be free of soil and vegetable matter prior to entering the work site (Construction Commitment 2) Public and agency comment Development and Conservation Assessment Branch (DCAB) supported the commitment to incorporate weed management measures. Evaluation Proposed condition CN1 (Construction Environmental Management Plan) requires a plan to manage weeds and flora and fauna. The proponent has also committed to manage weeds on an ongoing basis. The management measures are therefore considered satisfactory. Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions CN1, and non standard permit condition G9 (Commitments).

Issue Groundwater Description of potential impacts Contamination of groundwater through liner failure or discharge over lagoon wall. Management measures proposed in EER No specific measures were proposed in the EER. Public and agency comment No comments were received concerning groundwater Evaluation Condition CN2 (Lagoon liner) details the minimum standards for the construction of the new liners for the lagoons. Groundwater monitoring has not been conducted on this site to date. It is recommended that the proponent should be required to establish groundwater bores. Recommended condition M6 (Groundwater management plan) would require a monitoring plan, and establishment of bores. This monitoring would provide an assessment of the efficiency of the liners. Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with non-standard permit


10

condition M6 and CN2.

Issue Noise Description of potential impacts Noise from construction and operational activities. Management measures proposed in EER The EER stated that there will be some noise created during the construction phase of this work but with a buffer of 350m, it is not expected that this noise will have an impact on neighbouring properties. Operational noise is expected to be the same as present. Public and agency comment The Division noise specialist advised that the proponent should be able to meet the proposed noise limits on construction and operation activities. Evaluation It is proposed that the daytime (0700-1800) noise limit should be 55dB(A) during for the construction period, and 45 dB(A) post construction (N1 Noise emission limits). Proposed evening (1800-2200) and night-time (2200-0700) limits are 40 dB(A) and 35 dB(A) respectively. These are limits typically set for activities of this nature. Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with non standard permit conditions N1. Issue Rehabilitation Description of potential impacts Erosion and weeds Management measures proposed in EER The site will be sown to grass following construction to minimise soil erosion on the site. Public and agency comment No public or agency comments were received. Evaluation It would be expected that the plant will remain operational for at least several decades and a detailed rehabilitation plan would not be required in the near future. It is recommended that the proponent be required to notify the Director in relation to cessation of the activity (R1) and submit a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan (R2) and rehabilitate the site in accordance with the approved decommissioning and rehabilitation plan (R3). Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions R1, R2, and R3.


11

Issue Solid waste Description of potential impacts Contamination of soil and water from biosolids Management measures proposed in EER Biosolid waste from the plant shall be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Tasmanian Biosolids Reuse Guidelines 1999 and the Approved Management Method for Biosolids Reuse, 2006 (Plant Management Commitment 1). Solid waste produced by floatation shall be removed to land fill by private contractor (Plant Management Commitment 2). Public and agency comment No public or agency comments were received. Evaluation and The proposed management measures are considered adequate. In addition, it is recommended that the proponent be required to submit a Sewage Sludge Management Plan (WM2) and comply with condition WM1 (Sewage Sludge Management). Condition WT1 (Controlled waste transport) manages the transport of biosolids and other controlled wastes. Condition M2 would require that biosolids be monitored for a range of contaminants prior to removal from the Land. Recommendation It is recommended that the applicant be required to comply with standard permit conditions WM1 and WM2 and non standard permit conditions G9 (Commitments) and M2.


12

7 Conclusions The Environment Division is of the view that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 References NMC, 2008. Evandale Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2008 Proposed Plant Upgrade Works, prepared by Northern Midlands Council 13 March 2008. NMC, 2009: Northern Midlands Council, January 2009, Environmental Effects Report-Proposed Upgrade of Evandale Wastewater Treatment Plant.

9 Summary of appendices Appendix 1 Summary of issues raised by public and agency submissions

Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions, includes Attachment 2 EER commitments


Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Summary of agency submissions There were no public submissions Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) responded that an Aboriginal survey undertaken by Mr Leigh Maynard identified no Aboriginal sites within the area of the proposed upgrade. Given the disturbed nature of the land, AHT considered it is highly unlikely that any Aboriginal sites will be present. AHT therefore had no Aboriginal heritage management issues regarding the above proposal Development and Conservation Assessment Branch (DCAB) Department of Primary Industries and Water responded to a review of a draft that:

• DCAB supported the recommendation by Bushways (proponent’s consultant) to incorporate weed management measures including sound Washdown procedures of machinery, and recommended that the adherence to the Washdown Guidelines for Weeds and Disease Control Ed 1 be included in the EER.


Appendix 2

Appendix 2 Proposed permit conditions

evandale wastewater treatment plant upgrade assessment report – evandale wwtp upgrade iii table of...

Documents