ABN 92 160 694 011 PO Box 297, Hawthorn, VIC 3122

Warrnambool Planning Scheme Amendment C90

Expert Witness Report of Tracy Joanne Freeman

14 April 2014

1 Introduction1.1 My full name is Tracy Joanne Freeman. I am the Director and Principal Air Quality Consultant of Air

Quality Professionals Pty Ltd. Appendix A contains a statement setting out my qualifications and experience, and the other matters raised by Planning Panels Victoria’s 'Guide to Expert Evidence'. Appendix B contains my curriculum vitae.

1.2 My Expert Witness Report contains at Section 4 a peer review of the Golder Associates report “Separation Distance Assessment – Fonterra Dennington WWTP” dated 25 March 2014. Herein I will refer to this report as the “Golder Report”. Following the peer review section I have provided my own assessment of meteorology and an appropriate separation distance.

2 Summary of Opinions2.1 In my opinion, neither of the methods used in the Golder Report to propose a separation distance are

appropriate.

2.1.1 The Golder Report concludes that because the modelling results indicate a risk of odour annoyance under normal operation out to about 500m from the Fonterra site, a separation distance to sensitive receptors of 500m is recommended. However, this recommendation is not consistent with the EPA buffer distance policy which provides for separation distances for avoidance of odour nuisance during upset conditions. I consider that it is incorrect to model normal odour emissions from the Fonterra WWTP and recommend a separation distance based on those results. This approach is clearly contrary to the EPA separation distance policy.

2.1.2 The Golder Report presents a calculation of a theoretical separation distance for the Fonterra WWTP using the formula in Publication 1518 for sewage treatment plants. This was also

14 April 2014

recommended by the EPA in their submission on the C90 Amendment. However I do not agree with the use of this formula, because the Fonterra WWTP is not a sewage treatment plant and the risk profiles for abnormal emissions are different for different activity types.

2.2 Notwithstanding my opinion about the application of the Golder modelling in this case, I note the following conclusions from my review of the modelling itself:

2.2.1 In the modelling carried out by Golder, the approach of using the rank 1 (100 percentile) model results is unnecessary and conservative, and is inconsistent with current practice used by the EPA.

2.2.2 I interpret the Golder modelling as implying that under normal operations, there is a risk of odour annoyance at up to 500m from the Fonterra site. This seems to be contrary to the site’s environmental licence requirement for no offensive odours beyond the property boundary. The 500m radius includes houses in the existing residential area to the south and southeast of the factory. Therefore I consider that there is an inconsistency either in the risk assessment criteria used by Golder, or in the site’s ability to comply with their environmental licence.

2.3 EPA Publication 1518 allows for consideration of exceptional meteorological characteristics in site-specific variation of the recommended separation distances. Even if the formula for sewage treatment plants was relevant to the Fonterra WWTP, I consider that such exceptional meteorological characteristics exist that would justify a reduction in the recommended separation distance.

2.4 I have found both from my experience with dispersion modelling and in dealing with complaints from neighbours of other odour-producing facilities with area sources, that typically by the time odour emitted from an area source has travelled about 200 m, the odour is substantially dispersed with only small gains to be made by increased distance from the source. I do not envisage a likely scenario in reality where under abnormal emission conditions there would be no offensive odour at a separation distance of 300m, yet occurrence of offensive odour at a separation distance of 220m – particularly in this instance due to the meteorological features.

2.5 In practical terms and when coupled with the very low frequency of adverse wind conditions blowing odour from the WWTP towards the properties on Station Street to the north and north-northeast, I do not consider that a reduction in separation distance from 300 m to 220 m represents a significant increase in potential for neighbours to experience offensive odours under abnormal odour emission conditions.

2.6 I recommend that a separation distance of no more than 220m from the Fonterra WWTP to the nearest residential-zoned land be included in Warrnambool Planning Scheme Amendment C90.

2.7 I have only considered whether a separation distance of 220m could be appropriate. I have not considered any smaller separation distances, but my conclusions should not be construed as implying that any separation distance of less than 220m is inadequate.

Page 2 of 23

14 April 2014

3 Summary of Facts, Matters and Assumptions3.1 I understand that the matter I am providing an opinion on is the appropriate separation distance

between the perimeter of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at the Fonterra Dennington Dairy Factory, and the nearest land to be included in a residential living zone within the Warrnambool Planning Scheme Amendment C90. EPA Victoria has recommended a separation distance of 300m in a submission on the scheme, and Fonterra has requested a separation distance of 500m.

3.2 My client owns land at 69 Station Street, Dennington. The boundary of the site is 220m from the perimeter of the Fonterra WWTP at its closest point. There is currently one house on the property at 69 Station Street, however my client wishes to retain the flexibility for future subdivision of the site for residential development.

3.3 The planning permit issued by the Warrnambool City Council in 1995 for the construction of the WWTP (permit number 2686-95) contains the condition “The general amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development and use of this site by means of emissions, odour or dust”.

3.4 Fonterra holds an Amalgamated Licence issued by the Victoria Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in 2008 (licence number 74313) for various premises throughout Victoria. This Licence includes the Dennington site. The Licence contains a condition specifically for the Dennington premises which requires that “Offensive odours must not be discharged beyond the boundaries of the premises”.

3.5 In forming my opinion I have relied on wind speed and direction data which I purchased from the Bureau of Meteorology for monitoring stations at Port Fairy and Warrnambool Airport. I have assumed that this data was collected by the Bureau of Meteorology in a manner consistent with relevant standard methodologies and can be relied upon as representative of wind patterns at those two sites.

3.6 Whilst I have carried out a peer review of the Golder Report, I have not independently reviewed the methodologies and input data used by Golder to carry out the modelling. I have assumed that the following aspects of the modelling carried out by Golder are correct: the methodology used to prepare the input modelling files, the topographical (elevation and land use) data, the conversion of actual site source dimensions into modelling sources, and the extraction of model results which are presented as concentration contour plots in the Golder Report.

4 Peer Review of Golder ReportOverview

4.1 A large portion of the Golder Report covers an assessment of the extent of odour impacts associated with normal operations using a plume dispersion modelling approach. The dispersion model used was AERMOD, which is approved for regulatory use by EPA. I consider the approach and methodology applied in the following sections of the Golder Report to be appropriate (bracketed references relate to sections in Golder Report):

Page 3 of 23

14 April 2014

discussion of odour criterion (section 1.2), methodology for measurement of odour emissions (section 2.1 and Appendix B), model selection and configuration (section 3.0), method of characterisation of odour sources (section 3.2), definition of modelling domain and handling of topography (section 3.3)

4.2 Comments on the application of meteorology (section 3.1 and Appendix C) and model output data (section 3.4) are provided in the following paragraphs.

4.3 I have not carried out an independent check of the dimensions, elevations and location co-ordinates of the sources.

Meteorology

4.4 Plume dispersion modelling requires site-representative meteorological data as an input. Golder prepared the required meteorological files for Fonterra Dennington using a model called “The Air Pollution Model” or “TAPM”. The 2008 year was selected for the meteorological modelling. I understand from Frank Fleer that EPA had advised Golder that this year was preferred. However the EPA draft guidance for AERMOD (EPA 2013(a)) requires a full 5-year consecutive data period for regulatory modelling. Notwithstanding, I consider that the use of only one year of data is unlikely to substantially impact on the conclusions from the modelling for the purposes of separation distance discussions.

4.5 I consider that the methodology used to generate the inputs for TAPM, and run the model, is appropriate. I have not carried out an independent check of the method of processing the TAPM outputs to create the surface and profile meteorology data sets used by AERMOD.

4.6 Golder extracted synthetic meteorological datasets from the TAPM output and compared these to Port Fairy measured data obtained from Bureau of Meteorology. Golder did not compare the TAPM-predicted data with Warrnambool Airport measured data; I understand that that this was because measured data from that site had been used as an input to the TAPM model.

Assessment of synthetic dataset from TAPM predicted for Fonterra site

4.7 In Section 2.0 of Appendix C, Golder comments on wind direction trends observed from the TAPM output for the Fonterra Dennington location. Figure 2 in that Appendix shows windroses for the full 2008 year, as well as breakdowns for Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Spring. I agree with the interpreted trends for wind directions for each season as noted by Golder in this section, however Golder does not comment on wind speed trends. For example, even though I agree with the Golder statement that “southerly winds are predominant during summer months” (ie Fonterra site is upwind of the properties to the north of the Fonterra WWTP), in my opinion wind speeds are quite high (relative to my experience in many different locations) with a very low percentage of winds less than 2.0 m/s (1 knot).

Page 4 of 23

14 April 2014

4.8 I also note that each of the windroses shown in Figure 2 of Appendix C of the Golder Report uses a different magnitude scale. Readers should be aware of this when examining the windroses for their own interpretation.

Synthetic dataset from TAPM predicted for Port Fairy, compared with measured data

4.9 In Section 3.0 of Appendix C, Golder comments on the comparison of wind direction trends observed from the TAPM output for Port Fairy compared with the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) site at Port Fairy.

4.10 Figures 3 and 4 in that Appendix show windroses for the full 2008 year, for the BoM measured data and for the TAPM simulated data at that location; again with breakdowns by season.

4.11 The windroses in each figure have different magnitude scales, which makes it difficult to use the windroses to visually compare the differences between seasons and between the measured and predicted data.

4.12 It is very apparent from the comparison between Figures 3 and 4, that TAPM predicts a greater frequency of low wind speeds than in the measured data (ie even though the frequency of winds less than 2 m/s in the TAPM data is low, that same frequency is negligible in the measured data).

4.13 Some BoM stations do not perform well when monitoring low wind speeds, as traditionally they were set up to monitor high wind speeds for aviation purposes. However even when I take this into account, such as by looking at total wind percentages below say 3.6 m/s including calms (the frequency of which are stated in the legend on each windrose), it is clear that the TAPM dataset contains more low speed wind records than the BoM data.

4.14 I agree with the interpreted trends for wind directions for each season as noted by Golder in this section, however again Golder does not comment on low wind speed trends.

4.15 The implication of overestimating the proportion of low wind speeds is that the dispersion model may overestimate the frequency of occurrence of near-maximum odour impacts in the receiving environment. This is particularly important when considering the risk of odour nuisance when elevated odour emissions coincide with worst case meteorological conditions.

Model output data

4.16 I agree with the proposed odour criterion in the Golder Report of 5 OU, 99.9 th percentile. I also agree with Section 3.4 of the Golder Report in that the strict interpretation of the State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP (AQM)) (EPA, 2001) would be to treat the 99.9 th percentile as the 9th highest prediction across all receptors in the model. However the selection of the 9th highest prediction across all receptors depends entirely on the number and spacing of receptors in the model, and all dispersion models that I am familiar with treat the 99.9 th percentile as the 99.9th highest result at each receptor. I am advised by EPA (by email from Wal Delaney, 4/4/14) that they also treat the 99.9th percentile as the 99.9th highest at each receptor. This is consistent with the approach recommended in EPA (2013a). I do not therefore agree that the rank 1 isopleth is the most representative isopleth for comparison with the required 99.9th percentile output.

Page 5 of 23

14 April 2014

4.17 The approach by Golder of using the rank 1 (100 percentile) model results is unnecessary and conservative, and inconsistent with current EPA practice.

Modelling Assessment Results

4.18 The Golder assessment, using the rank 1 model results, concludes that a 500m separation distance for normal operations is required. This 500m separation distance includes the existing residential development to the south of the Fonterra site. I interpret from the discussion in Section 1.2 of the Golder Report, that Golder is therefore suggesting that under normal operations, there is a risk of odour annoyance at up to 500m from the Fonterra site. This seems to be contrary to the site’s environmental licence requirement for no offensive odours beyond the property boundary.

4.19 Looking at the rank 9 model results (Figure 7), the 5 OU contour extends about 300m-350m from the WWTP to the north-northeast. It is difficult to tell exactly where the contour overlaps neighbouring properties due to the scale and quality of the image.

4.20 The shape and extent of the contour depends on the frequency and direction distribution of very low wind speeds and stable atmospheric conditions in the model. With the differences highlighted above between the TAPM model and measured meteorological data at nearby monitoring stations, I consider that it is likely that the rank 9 model results overestimate the extent of the 5 OU contour. Normally one would assume that the rank 9 model results are fairly insensitive to the meteorology, however in this case the percentage of low wind speeds is so small that I don’t consider that this assumption can be made without verification.

4.21 I also note that if this modelling was presented in an application for an Environmental Licence, I would expect that EPA would be looking closely at the degree of odour emissions, risk of odour annoyance, and alternative odour control options due to the extent of non-compliance with the SEPP (AQM).

Application of model results to separation distance criteria

4.22 The Golder Report concludes that because the modelling results indicate a risk of odour annoyance under normal operation out to about 500m from the Fonterra site, a separation distance to sensitive receptors of 500m is recommended.

4.23 However, this recommendation is not consistent with the EPA buffer distance policy described in publication 1518, “Recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions” (March 2013) (EPA, 2013(c)).

4.24 Publication 1518 describes the policy of defining buffer distances around WWTPs, industries, and waste treatment facilities for avoidance of odour nuisance during upset conditions. Publication 1518 stems from the premise that even with good pollution control technology and practice in place designed to meet the SEPP (AQM) requirements, there may still be unintended or accidental emissions which must be anticipated, allowed for, and managed. Publication 1518 states that while it is an objective of SEPP (AQM) that such emissions should be eliminated, it is recognised that even “state of the art” technology are not always guaranteed to achieve this goal for 100 percent of the time. Equipment failure, accidents and abnormal weather conditions are among the causes which can lead to emissions affecting sensitive land uses beyond the boundaries of the source premises. Unlike

Page 6 of 23

14 April 2014

controlled, routine emissions, these “industrial residual air emissions” are often intermittent or episodic in occurrence. Provision of an adequate buffer distance allows the emissions to dissipate without adverse impacts on sensitive land uses.

4.25 Publication 1518 states that the recommended separation distances are not an alternative to source control. It is emphasised that EPA does not condone uncontrolled off-site air emissions in contravention of SEPP (AQM) requirements. Rather, the document acknowledges that under abnormal conditions, SEPP objectives might not always be met.

4.26 In this context, I consider that it is incorrect to model normal odour emissions from the Fonterra WWTP and recommend a separation distance based on those results. This approach is clearly contrary to the EPA separation distance policy.

Relevant separation distances recommended in EPA Publication 1518

4.27 Publication 1518 recommends a separation distance of 100m for industries involved in the production of milk or milk products. No additional separation distance is provided specifically for onsite trade waste treatment at dairy factories.

4.28 Publication 1518 also recommends separation distances for sewage treatment plants. The trade waste treatment plant at the Fonterra Dennington factory is not a sewage treatment plant.

4.29 The Golder Report presents a calculation of a theoretical separation distance for the Fonterra WWTP using the formula in Publication 1518 for sewage treatment plants. The Golder Report does note that this is “not directly applicable to the Fonterra Dennington WWTP”. I concur, and would emphasize that this formula is not applicable at all (directly or indirectly) to the Fonterra Dennington WWTP because the WWTP is not a sewage treatment plant.

4.30 There is no provision within Publication 1518 to transfer recommended separation distances to different activity types. This is appropriate, because the risk profiles for abnormal emissions are different for different activity types.

4.31 The separation distance calculated by Golder using the sewage treatment plant formula is 420m based on the 95th percentile of trade waste loads – in other words this is the recommended separation distance to avoid annoyance under abnormal emissions. Strangely, this distance of 420m is less than the separation distance recommended by Golder for odour emissions under normal operations. Even using the 99th percentile of trade waste loads the separation distance calculated using the sewage treatment plant formula is the same as the recommended separation distance for normal emissions. However I would expect the radius of potential impact under normal conditions to be substantially less than that under abnormal conditions.

Page 7 of 23

14 April 2014

Golder Report Conclusions

4.32 The Golder Report conclusions in Section 5 include the following:

4.33 Aside from my earlier comments about the applicability of the rank 1 isopleth, my concerns with these conclusions are:

The Fonterra Dennington site already has a “no offensive odour beyond the boundary” condition in their environmental licence.

The 500m radius includes houses in the existing residential area to the south and southeast of the factory.

Therefore there is an inconsistency here either in the risk assessment criteria used by Golder, or in the site’s ability to comply with their environmental licence.

The two types of separation distances determined by Golder should not be “in agreement”, as one is for normal emissions and one is for abnormal emissions (and is calculated using a formula that is not applicable to the WWTP anyway).

5 Independent meteorological data analysis5.1 I have independently obtained Port Fairy and Warrnambool Airport meteorological data from Bureau

of Meteorology (BoM). I nominally requested a three-year data period (being the calendar years 2011 to 2013) from BoM. Data from both sites was provided with records at 30-minute intervals.

5.2 The location of both of these monitoring sites relative to the Dennington area is shown in my attached Appendix 3 (Figure A1). The Warrnambool Airport site is 6.5 km inland from Dennington, and may exhibit slightly lower wind speed tendencies compared to the coastline. Conversely, the Port Fairy site is closer to the coast than the Dennington site, and therefore may be slightly more exposed to coastal winds. All three sites should experience similar wind direction trends, particularly for winds blowing inland from the coast.

5.3 Figures A2 and A3 in Appendix 3 show windroses for the full 2011-2013 years for the Port Fairy and Warrnambool Airport BoM sites. Both windroses are plotted on the same scale. Both windroses show a similar dominant characteristic of very low frequency of low wind speeds, although there are some variations in wind direction frequencies. Figures A4 and A5 in Appendix 3 show the distribution of wind speeds irrespective of wind direction. The distributions are very similar, and therefore I expect

Page 8 of 23

14 April 2014

that the wind speed distribution at Dennington would also be similar. This is not however reflected in the windroses produced by Golder in Figure 2 of Appendix C of the Golder Report.

5.4 Figures A6 and A7 show a greatly magnified version of the windroses in Figures A2 and A3. Even at this scale, winds occurring in the 0.2-1.0 m/s range are barely visible. Assuming that the wind patterns at Dennington will be similar to that at Port Fairy and/or Warrnambool Airport, the windroses that I have prepared do show that low wind speeds blowing to the north or north-northeast (blowing towards 69 Station Street) are expected to occur at Dennington with extremely low frequency.

Why does meteorology matter?

5.5 Odour impacts from near-ground level area-type sources such as those at the Fonterra site are usually the most noticeable during very light wind conditions because of the slower rate of odour dilution and dispersion in fresh air during such conditions. The lower the wind speed, the slower the rate of dispersion (and the greater the odour concentration at any given location downwind). In my experience, key wind speeds are those less than about 2 m/s (1 knot), and particularly those under about 1 m/s. The rate of dispersion is even lower if these low wind speeds coincide with stable atmospheric conditions which can occur at night from sunset through to sunrise. Stable atmospheric conditions would normally be associated with a flow of air moving offshore (ie blowing away from the Station Street properties).

5.6 The direction of wind flows during very light wind conditions, and particularly during stable atmospheric conditions, is very important as this determines whether individuals living or working near an odour source will be exposed to the odour. It is just as important in considering the risk of odour nuisance occurring during abnormal odours.

5.7 For an odour nuisance to occur at a neighbouring residence during abnormal conditions, two things need to happen at the same time: (1) an abnormal condition occurs with increased odour emissions, and (2) the wind conditions are favourable to carry odour towards the residence with insufficient dilution. Clearly the risk of (2) occurring is lowered at Dennington for the properties on Station Street to the north or north-northeast of the WWTP because of the very low frequency of low wind speeds.

5.8 EPA Publication 1518, Table 4, allows for consideration of exceptional meteorological characteristics in site-specific variation of the recommended separation distances. I consider that in the case of the Fonterra Dennington WWTP, such exceptional meteorological characteristics exist that would justify a reduction in the recommended separation distance.

6 Alternative consideration of separation distance6.1 My evidence has explained my opinion that neither of the methods used in the Golder Report to

propose a separation distance are appropriate. I have also explained that I consider the 300m separation distance originally submitted by the EPA to be inapplicable.

6.2 My preferred method would have been to determine an appropriate level of odour control for the WWTP that would allow normal emissions to disperse to an extent consistent with a “no offensive or

Page 9 of 23

14 April 2014

objectionable odour beyond the boundary” condition, then identify genuine upset conditions that could create elevated odour emissions from remaining uncontrolled sources and run the dispersion model with those emission rates.

6.3 I would also have looked at other frequency percentiles from the model results, such as the 99.5 th percentile and the 98th percentile. Although these percentiles are not specifically recognised in the SEPP (AQM), in my opinion they provide valuable information about the risk of odour nuisance occurring when two low probability events are combined together (ie abnormal emissions, and unfavourable meteorology).

6.4 Definition of genuine upset conditions would need to consider what exactly constitutes an abnormal/upset condition, as I would expect predictable stresses on the WWTP such as seasonal peak loads, maintenance outages, and short term power failures would be anticipated as part of best practice within the site’s management and contingency plan for the WWTP. In my opinion these should not be considered as abnormal conditions under the definition provided in EPA publication 1518.

6.5 I have not carried out the detailed analysis necessary to recommend a site-specific separation distance that is based on dispersion modelling under abnormal conditions. Instead, I have considered whether the separation distance preferred by my client, of no more than 220m, is reasonable in the circumstances. I have done this by considering the typical decline of odour concentration with distance from a source.

6.6 Figure A8 (Appendix 3) shows the typical rate of dispersion from an area source (such as the WWTP tanks) for a range of meteorological conditions1. The hypothetical area source and my simplistic model are slightly different to the model prepared by Golder, but useful in that individual meteorological conditions can be isolated. The table below the graph gives the meteorological conditions tested for each of the “scenarios” A to M in the figure. The meteorological conditions represent different combinations of wind speed and atmospheric stability. The absolute numbers on the upright axis of the figure are dimensionless, and proportional to the assumed odour emission rate, and should not be taken as an indication of potential actual downwind odour concentrations.

6.7 What is significant from Figure A8 is the rate of decline of odour concentration with increasing distance from the source. The figure shows that over a wide range of meteorological conditions, the odour is rapidly dispersed over the first 50-100 m downwind of the source. By the time the odour has travelled 200 m (say), the odour is substantially dispersed with only small gains to be made by increased distance from the source. This concurs with my experience and field observations at various odour-producing facilities comprising area sources that have been the subject of neighbour complaints.

6.8 I do not envisage a likely scenario in reality where there would be no offensive odour at a separation distance of 300m, yet occurrence of offensive odour at a separation distance of 220m – particularly in this instance due to the meteorological features.

1 Dispersion modeled using AUSPLUME v5.4, individual wind speed/stability class combinations, an area source of dimensions 24m wide (in line with wind) x 30m (cross-wind) at ground level with initial vertical spread of 2m, and a uniform, default odour emission rate of 1 OU.m3/m2/s.

Page 10 of 23

14 April 2014

6.9 In practical terms and when coupled with the very low frequency of adverse wind conditions blowing odour from the WWTP towards the properties on Station Street to the north and north-northeast, I do not consider that a reduction in separation distance from 300 m to 220 m represents a significant increase in potential for neighbours to experience offensive odours under abnormal odour emission conditions.

6.10 I have only considered whether a separation distance of 220m could be appropriate. I have not considered any smaller separation distances, but my conclusions should not be construed as implying that any separation distance of less than 220m is inadequate.

7 Conclusion7.1 I recommend that a separation distance of no more than 220m from the Fonterra WWTP to the

nearest residential-zoned land be included in Warrnambool Planning Scheme Amendment C90. In coming to this conclusion I reiterate the following matters:

The properties to the north and north-northeast of the Fonterra WWTP are rarely downwind of the WWTP under low wind speed conditions that are unfavourable for dispersion of odour.

The EPA separation distance policy outlined in Publication 1518 is designed only to protect neighbours from unintended or accidental emissions. Publication 1518 states that the recommended separation distances are not an alternative to source control and the EPA does not condone uncontrolled off-site air emissions in contravention of SEPP (AQM) requirements.

The Fonterra factory is already flanked to the south and southeast by houses which have a separation distance of 290m from the Fonterra WWTP and 150m from the condensate and effluent tanks which are located at the southwest end of the Fonterra site.

The separation distance formula for sewage treatment plants included in EPA Publication 1518 is not applicable to the Fonterra WWTP as the latter site is not a sewage treatment plant.

The gains in protection of neighbours from offensive odours at 300m versus 220m are small.

Page 11 of 23

14 April 2014

8 ReferencesEPA Victoria (2001). State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management). Published in Victoria Government Gazette, 21 December 2001.

EPA Victoria (2013a). Guidance notes for using the regulatory air pollution model AERMOD in Victoria. Draft Guideline. Publication number 1551, October 2013.

EPA Victoria (2013b). Construction of input meteorological data files for EPA Victoria’s regulatory air pollution model (AERMOD). Publication number 1550, October 2013.

EPA Victoria (2013c). “Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions”. Publication number 1518, March 2013.

9 Declaration

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Tracy FreemanPrincipal Air Quality Consultant, Air Quality Professionals Pty Ltd

Page 12 of 23

14 April 2014

Appendix A Matters Raised by PPV Guide to Expert Evidence

(a) the name and address of the expert;

Tracy Joanne Freeman1/34 Cornell Street, Camberwell Victoria 3124.

(b) the expert's qualifications and experience;

I am the Director and Principal Air Quality Consultant of Air Quality Professionals Pty Ltd. I am the sole employee of this company which was founded in October 2012. I have a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering from the National University of Singapore, and a First Class Honours Degree in Chemical and Process Engineering from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

I have 21 years’ experience in air quality consulting. The first 18 years of my experience were based in New Zealand, and I moved to Australia in March 2011.

I have assessed environmental effects from the discharge of contaminants to air on many occasions throughout my years of experience, including emissions from a wide range of industries.

I am a financial member of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand (CASANZ). Since 2010 I have also been the Chair of the Odour Special Interest Group of CASANZ, a group comprised of many of the foremost consultants and regulators in odour assessment in Australia and New Zealand.

I have provided expert evidence on odour issues for the Environment Court of New Zealand on a number of occasions.

My curriculum vitae attached in Appendix B summarises my experience relevant to this hearing.

(c) a statement identifying the expert's area of expertise to make the report;

I have investigated and assessed odour issues for a wide range of activities including industrial waste treatment facilities (including those from dairy processing), intensive farming operations for pigs, chickens, and ducks; landfills; refuse transfer stations; recycling parks; composting plants; wastewater treatment plants; rendering plants; abattoirs and fellmongeries. My CV in Appendix B shows a number of projects involving dairy processing wastes that I have been involved with.

In these matters I have represented a range of stakeholders at various times, including applicants, regulators, district or city councils, government health agencies, and affected neighbours. I have reviewed air discharge consent applications to provide expert assistance in the assessment of odours for a number of regional councils in New Zealand, including those of Auckland, Canterbury, Waikato, Wellington, Taranaki, Manawatu-Wanganui and Otago.

Over the last three years since moving to Australia, and also before that time, I have been involved in several projects in Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales involving odour investigations.

Page 13 of 23

14 April 2014

I have been involved in many planning applications and Environment Court cases involving amenity conflicts between neighbouring incompatible land uses in rural zones due to odour emissions from an activity causing, or having the potential to cause, nuisance for dwellings on neighbouring rural properties. Whilst many, but not all, of these cases have been in New Zealand, the technical issues that I have dealt with in those cases in New Zealand are, in my opinion, similar to those issues faced by the air quality expert witnesses in this Planning Amendment C90 case.

I have been carrying out atmospheric dispersion modelling since 1993, and am proficient in the use of various models including AUSPLUME, CALMET, CALPUFF, AERMOD, and TAPM. I have recently completed a formal 3-day training course run by Lakes Environmental in the use of the AERMOD model and its counterpart, AERMET. I have conducted 3 training courses in the use of dispersion models in New Zealand.

(d) a statement identifying all other significant contributors to the report and where necessary outlining their expertise;

No other persons have contributed to the preparation of this report.

(e) all instructions that define the scope of the report (original and supplementary and whether in writing or oral);

I was originally contacted by Mr Doug Gow of Select Group on 3 March 2014 with a request to provide advice on the appropriate application of buffer zones around the Fonterra WWTP. I was verbally asked to provide an opinion as to whether I agreed that the buffer zone could be reduced to a distance of no more than 220m, which would exclude the land owned by Select Group’s client from the buffer zone. I provided Mr Gow with a proposal and original scope of work, but did not receive instructions to proceed until 14 March when I was asked to attend a workshop between the submitters, Fonterra, and Warrnambool City Council was set down for 21 March. I was not provided with any specific methodology instructions; instead, I recommended a methodology based on my experience and preliminary review of the locality and background information that had been provided by Mr Gow. That background information included:

Two site plans prepared by Select Surveyors Planning Report dated December 2013 prepared by Select Planners on 69 Station Street,

Dennington. I understand that this Planning Report was prepared by Select Planners on behalf of Mrs Anne M Serra of 69 Station Street, Dennington as part of an overall submission to Planning Scheme Amendment C90. This Planning Report did not address odour or odour-related buffer distances.

A plan entitled “Revised Buffer to Fonterra Waste Water Treatment Plant” which included buffer distance markings for 220m, 250m and 300m from the WWTP. I understand that this plan was produced by Warrnambool City Council.

EPA Victoria environmental licence no. 74313 issued to Fonterra. Submission by Fonterra dated 20 December 2013 on C90 Warrnambool Planning Scheme

Amendment C90 (2 pages). Submission by EPA Victoria dated 14 January 2014 on Amendment C90 (2 pages). Response to submissions by Warrnambool City Council – pages 55 and 67 of Warrnambool City

Council Agenda for Ordinary Meeting dated 3 February 2014.

Page 14 of 23

14 April 2014

EPA Victoria publication 1518 – “Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions”, dated 13 March 2013.

Planning Permit no. 2686-95 issued by Council of the City of Warrnambool on 16 August 1995, for construction and use of a wash water treatment plant at Station Street, Dennington site.

Planning Permit Application for a Wash Water Treatment Plant by Nestle Australia Ltd (Dennington) dated May 1995 (20 pages)

Town Planner’s report on planning application 2686-95, dated 17 July 1995 (3 pages).

Following my reading of this background information, and analysis of wind speed and direction data from Port Fairy and Warrnambool Airport wind monitoring stations which I obtained from Bureau of Meteorology, I formed an opinion that I agreed that a separation distance of no more 220m (but possibly less than this) would be appropriate for the Fonterra Dennington WWTP. I verbally advised Select Group of this opinion, and was then verbally instructed to attend the workshop in Warrnambool on 21 March.

Subsequent to that workshop and the advice received by Select Group from PPV on the provision of expert evidence at the reconvened hearing on 23/24 April, I was also verbally instructed to carry out a peer review of the Golder Report dated 25 March 2014, attend the meeting of experts on 9 April 2014, prepare an Expert Witness Report for circulation no later than 14 April, and be available to attend the hearing. Once again, I was given no instruction on the methodology to be used in preparing the Expert Witness Report; I was instructed only to use my own judgement and expertise as I considered appropriate.

(f) the identity of the person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert relied in making this report and the qualifications of that person;

Not applicable – no tests or experiments have been carried out nor relied on in this report.

(h) a statement setting out any questions falling outside the expert's expertise and also a statement indicating whether the report is incomplete or inaccurate in any respect.

The issue of whether a privately-owned industry can hold a separation distance over land that is not owned by the industry but that limits the development of that land by the legal owners is beyond the expertise of the air quality specialist.

The question of whether a separation distance recommended in EPA publication 1518 for a specific type of activity can be applied to another activity when setting separation distances within a Planning Scheme is beyond the expertise of the air quality specialist.

The use of separation distances in a local government context is for qualified town planners and apart from guidance on appropriate size of such separation distances, is beyond the expertise of the air quality specialist.

In my opinion, this Expert Witness Report is neither incomplete nor inaccurate in any respect.

Page 15 of 23

14 April 2014

Appendix B Curriculum Vitae - Tracy Freeman

Education B.E (Chem & Proc) 1st Class Hons; University of Canterbury 1991 M.Eng (Chem); National University of Singapore 1995

Employment Background

2012 – present: Air Quality Professionals P/L, Principal Air Quality Consultant

2005 – 2012: Beca Group, Australia and New Zealand. Most senior position: Technical Director, Environmental Engineering (2009 to 2012). Moved to Australian business in March 2011.

2004 – 2005: Senior Air Quality Consultant, Kingett Mitchell Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand

2002 – 2004: Director, Aurora Pacific Ltd, Christchurch (in partnership with one other Director)

2000 – 2002: Director, Freeman Environmental Solutions Ltd, Christchurch (own company)

1995 – 2000: Beca Group, Auckland and Christchurch.

Membership Clean Air Society of Australia & New Zealand (CASANZ) Current Chair, Odour Special Interest Group of CASANZ

Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA)

Australian Water Association (AWA)

Water Industry Operators Association (WIOA)

International Water Association (IWA)

NSW Environment and Planning Law Association (EPLA)

Victoria Environment and Planning Law Association (VEPLA)

National Environmental Law Associate (NELA)

Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA)

Planning Institute of Australia – Associate: Affiliate (PIA)

Institute of Public Works Engineers Australia (IPWEA)

Consult Australia

Special competence

Assessment of actual and potential effects of air discharges, odour and dust, combustion source discharges, and industrial air contaminants.

Evaluation of potential mitigation options for air discharges. Gaussian and complex atmospheric dispersion modelling, including the dispersion models AUSPLUME,

AERMOD, TAPM, CALMET, CALPUFF. Interpretation of dispersion modelling outcomes and risk assessment. Understanding of how odour and dust cause nuisance impacts. Policy initiatives for reverse sensitivity, ambient air quality and compliance with environmental standards. Assessment of actual and potential amenity conflicts due to incompatible neighbouring land uses, and buffer

zone analysis Techniques for assessment of odour effects in communities, including design of diary programmes and

community odour annoyance surveys. Design, management and analysis of air quality emission sampling programmes. Preparation of impact assessments for air discharges, and evidence for hearings associated with discharge

permit applications. Client-side support for prosecutions or infringements (either in support of prosecution, or in client’s defence). Expert witness testimony (18 years’ experience).

Page 16 of 23

14 April 2014

Relevant Experience

South Taranaki District Council (NZ), 2014 (ongoing)February 2014: Odour assessment and preparation of odour management plan for short term odour control from Eltham WWTP – a small town WWTP with significant recent odour problems due to 3M litres of buttermilk liquid waste from nearby dairy factory being stored on the WWTP site in a covered but not airtight anaerobic basin awaiting treatment. Other issues with trade waste discharges have complicated the odour problems. Project also involves consultation with community, Department of Health, and regulator. April 2014: project management and data analysis of continuous instrumental monitoring programme for hydrogen sulfide, and design and implementation of grab sampling for ambient and under-cover concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans.

Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal (IPART) NSW, 2013 – presentAppointed to IPART Panel as area specialist (wastewater odour) for Technical Services and Water Licensing Audit Panel (commencing October 2013).

Alano Water, 2013Odour assessment for proposed wastewater treatment plant for population of 35,000 people in Callington, South Australia. Preparation of evidence statement for appeal.

King Island Dairy WWTP, Beca, Jan 2014. Peer review of odour assessment prepared by Beca for dairy plant WWTP upgrade on King Island (Tasmania).

Ridley Land Development, Adelaide, 2013 (ongoing)Technical advisor to Ridley and WSP Environmental for potential odour and dust issues associated with closure of large salt fields and evaporation ponds in Adelaide. 2013: preparation of report on odour and dust potential issues. 2014: preparation of odour and dust monitoring programme for field trial.

Fonterra Pinedale, Waikato, 2013Preparation of odour assessment for storage of dairy byproducts in ponds and irrigation to land. Included CALMET and CALPUFF modelling.

Tasco, Bombala NSW, Dec 2011 – February 2012.Preparation of Air Emissions Management Plan for new sawmill development.

Federal Court Litigation, Victoria, 2011Advice to legal counsel regarding odour assessment methodology used by a confidential client, who was a defendant in a Federal Court prosecution (Victoria).

Wingecarribee Shire Council, and AJ Lucas, New South Wales, 2011Preparation of odour impact assessment report for Environment Protection Licence for proposed WWTP in Robertson, New South Wales. Involved CALPUFF dispersion modelling with meteorology processed using TAPM.

North East Water, Victoria, 2011Preparation of odour impact assessment reports for Works Approval applications for two proposed WWTPs in country town areas of northeast Victoria.

Fonterra Tirau, Waikato, 2010 – 2011Preparation of air discharge resource consent application for replacement of discharge permit for Fonterra Tirau Dairy Manufacturing Site.

Private Plan Change 43 Appeals Christchurch, Belfast Park Ltd, May 2010 - November 2011.

2010 – Assessment of reverse sensitivity effects due to proposed residential and commercial development in Belfast – concern was for effects on an existing tannery in the area. Preparation and delivery of evidence at Council hearing. Decision granted in favour of client.

2011 - Environment Court evidence for appeals of Plan Change decision. Set up and analysis of specialised meteorological monitoring, plus meteorological modelling with CALMET. Involved multiple opposing parties and experts, caucusing and hot-tubbing.

Dairy Farm Intensive Developments, Ryder Consulting, November 2009- March 2010Preparation of AEE for odour discharges from a number of proposed dairy farming units in the Mackenzie Basin where cows are housed in sheds.

Page 17 of 23

14 April 2014

Westland Milk Products, July 2009 – 2010Assessment of discharges to air for Stage 2 dairy plant expansion.

Various Private Plan Changes, Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils, 2004 - 2011Assessment, advice and expert evidence on potential for reverse sensitivity effects from various proposed rezoning of land from rural to rural-residential. Clients variously included the developer, concerned neighbours, or the council. Rural activities involved included normal dairy farming, poultry farming, piggeries, effluent spreading.

Various clients – appeals of Canterbury Regional Air Plan (NRRP) rules, 2008 - 2009Expert advice on appeals and attendance at mediation for activity classification for various clients – Christchurch City Council, Fulton Hogan, Canterbury Meat Packers, Orion, Meridian, Christchurch International Airport, Lyttelton Port Company.

Hautapu Dairy Factory Waste to Energy Project, Fonterra, October - December 2008Air discharge consent application for a large dairy waste processing plant entailing anaerobic digestion and SBRs, and biogas combustion.

Greenlea Plan Change, Matamata-Piako District Council, 2007 – April 2010.Preparation of report on potential for odour emissions from typical rendering and hide processing facilities, to support decisions on rules in proposed plan change for classification of these activities. Preparation of evidence for hearing on proposed plan change, rebuttal evidence, and assistance with mediation between parties. Settled prior to Environment Court hearing, April 2010.

Stage 2 Dairy Factory Expansion, Synlait Ltd, 2007 - 2009AEE and dispersion modelling (Calmet/Calpuff) for Stage 2 expansion to new dairy factory near Dunsandel including odour emissions from waste treatment and land irrigation.

Project Field Odour Annoyance Survey Method Assessment, 2007-08Research project to compare two different survey methods by parallel testing in 3 affected communities and 3 control communities (12 surveys all together). Preparation of report (completed September 2008). Funded by Auckland Regional Council.

Odour Investigation Procedures, Environment Waikato, 2007Advice to Environment Waikato on documented procedures for investigating odour complaints and proactive odour monitoring.

Ballarat City Council, Victoria, 2006Tracy carried out a project for Ballarat City Council to define odour buffer zones around three Ballarat WWTPs by dispersion modelling. The project involved consultation with EPA Victoria and Department of Sustainability and Environment, and included a review of EPA Victoria policies for air quality management (SEPP AQM 2001) and buffer zones (AQ2/86). Dispersion modelling was carried out using AUSPLUME after consultation with EPA Victoria and the Bureau of Meteorology.

Selwyn District Council Proposed District Plan Appeals, Selwyn District Council, 2005 - 2006.Expert evidence on reverse sensitivity issues for appeals on rules regarding subdivision of rural land close to existing townships. Expert evidence on appeals by Tegel on rules for activity status of expanding chicken farms. Expert evidence on appeals by NZ Pork Industry Board on rules for activity status of expanding piggeries.

Sugrue vs. Sadler Environment Court Hearing, 2003-04Preparation and delivery of evidence for Selwyn District Council to Environment Court (Christchurch) for reverse sensitivity effects on a piggery caused by proposal to establish a nearby restaurant.

Selwyn Proposed District Plan, 2003-04Recommendations to Selwyn District Council for separation distances between existing odour-producing activities in rural zones and proposed sensitive activities (such as rural dwellings).

Ministry for the Environment Revision to Odour Guide, 2000-03Preparation of “Background and Technical Issues” report for revision of national odour guide, and assistance with preparation of Summary Report for Good Practice Guide.

Page 18 of 23

14 April 2014

Appendix C

Figure A1 – Location of Fonterra Dennington and the two Bureau of Meteorology monitoring stations

Page 19 of 23

14 April 2014

Figure A2 – Port Fairy windrose 2011-2013 (half-hourly records) – Bureau of Meteorology data

Figure A3 – Warrnambool Airport windrose 2011-2013 (half-hourly records) – Bureau of Meteorology data

Page 20 of 23

14 April 2014

Figure A4 –Port Fairy wind speed frequencies 2011-2013 (half-hourly records) – Bureau of Meteorology data

Figure A5 – Warrnambool Airport wind speed frequencies 2011-2013 (half-hourly records) – Bureau of Meteorology data

Page 21 of 23

14 April 2014

Figure A6 – Port Fairy windrose 2011-2013 (half-hourly records) – Bureau of Meteorology data; expanded view

Figure A7 – Warrnambool Airport windrose 2011-2013 (half-hourly records) – Bureau of Meteorology data; expanded view

Page 22 of 23

14 April 2014

Scenario in Figure A8 Wind speed (m/s) Atmospheric stability class Mixing height (m)

A 1.0 A 200B 2.0 A 200C 3.0 A 500D 1.0 B 200E 2.0 B 200F 5.0 B 200G 2.0 C 100H 5.0 C 200I 1.0 D 100J 3.0 D 100K 5.0 D 500L 1.0 E 50M 2.5 E 50

Figure A8 – Dispersion of odour from an area source, for a range of meteorological ‘scenarios’. Description of meteorological conditions for each scenario is given in the table.

Page 23 of 23