Original source · versioned page text
Pacific Environment Peer Review R1-1
Report PEER REVIEW OF AIR QUALITY REPORT FOR 124 TOP FORESTRY ROAD, RIDGEWOOD DATED 31 JULY 2014 NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Job ID. 9230 22 AUGUST 2014
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 10 pages
Page 2
PROJECT NAME: Peer Review of Air Quality Report for 124 Top Forestry
Road, Ridgewood dated 31 July 2014
JOB ID: 9230
DOCUMENT CONTROL NUMBER AQU-QD-001-9230
PREPARED FOR: Noosa Shire Council
APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY: R. Ormerod
DISCLAIMER & COPYRIGHT: This report is subject to the copyright statement
located at www.pacific-environment.com © Pacific
Environment Operations Pty Ltd ABN 86 127 101 642
DOCUMENT CONTROL
VERSION DATE PREPARED BY REVIEWED BY
1 22.08.2014 G. Galvin R. Ormerod
Pacific Environment Operations Pty Ltd: ABN 86 127 101 642
BRISBANE SYDNEY
Level 1, 59 Melbourne Street, South Brisbane Qld 4101 Suite 1, Level 1, 146 Arthur Street
PO Box 3306, South Brisbane Qld 4101 North Sydney, NSW 2060
Ph: +61 7 3004 6400 Ph: +61 2 9870 0900
Fax: +61 7 3844 5858 Fax: +61 2 9870 0999
Unit 1, 22 Varley Street MELBOURNE
Yeerongpilly, Qld 4105 Level 10, 224 Queen Street
Ph: +61 7 3004 6460 Melbourne Vic 3000
Ph: +61 3 9036 2637
ADELAIDE Fax: +61 2 9870 0999
35 Edward Street, Norwood SA 5067
PO Box 3187, Norwood SA 5067 PERTH
Ph: +61 8 8332 0960 Level 1, Suite 3
Fax: +61 7 3844 5858 34 Queen Street, Perth WA 6000
Ph: +61 8 9481 4961
Fax: +61 2 9870 0999
9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx ii
Job ID 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 3
DISCLAIMER Pacific Environment acts in all professional matters as a faithful advisor to the Client and exercises all reasonable skill and care in the provision of its professional services. Reports are commissioned by and prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. They are subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between the Client and Pacific Environment. Pacific Environment is not responsible for any liability and accepts no responsibility whatsoever arising from the misapplication or misinterpretation by third parties of the contents of its reports. Except where expressly stated, Pacific Environment does not attempt to verify the accuracy, validity or comprehensiveness of any information supplied to Pacific Environment for its reports. Reports cannot be copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose without the prior written agreement of Pacific Environment. Where site inspections, testing or fieldwork have taken place, the report is based on the information made available by the client or their nominees during the visit, visual observations and any subsequent discussions with regulatory authorities. The validity and comprehensiveness of supplied information has not been independently verified and, for the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the information provided to Pacific Environment is both complete and accurate. It is further assumed that normal activities were being undertaken at the site on the day of the site visit(s), unless explicitly stated otherwise. 9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx iii Job ID 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 4
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Scope of work 1
1.3 Limitation 1
2 REVIEW 2
2.1 Farm Information 2
2.2 Receptor Selection 2
2.3 Emissions Estimation 3
2.4 Model selection and Setup 3
2.5 Odour Criteria Adopted 4
2.6 Model results 4
2.7 Dust from Roads 4
3 CONCLUSION 5
4 RECOMMENDATIONS 6
5 REFERENCES 7
9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx iv
Job ID 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 5
1 INTRODUCTION Pacific Environment (PEL) was engaged by Noosa Shire Council to perform a further peer review of a report associated with a proposed meat chicken farm located at 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood. The farm is proposed on land described as Lot 21 on SP226606. We understand that no other lots are associated with the development. 1.1 Background An assessment to support the poultry farm application by MWA Environmental (MWA) was previously reviewed and summarised in a report by Pacific Environment (PE) titled “Peer Review – Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood”, 25 September 2013. In addition to the previous information held by PE, we have been provided with a new report prepared by MWA titled “Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds 124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood”, dated 31 July 2014 (version 2). A major difference between the original modelling and the more recent work, is that the holding and spreading of litter on the site is no longer proposed. 1.2 Scope of work The scope of work for this project was to peer review the report “Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds 124 Top Forestry Road Ridgewood”, dated 31 July 2014 (version 2). 1.3 Limitation A limitation with regard to the review is that we have not been able to check the model input files for TAPM, CALMET and CALPUFF. Our review therefore has relied on the assumption that MWA has used updated modelling inputs as recommended in our 2013 review. 9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 1 Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 6
2 REVIEW
2.1 Farm Information
Based on the information in the report, it is understood that the original farm (eight sheds) holding
approximately 230,000 birds is still proposed. However, the number listed in the report is “in the order of
230,000 birds”.
The number previously proposed was 253,358 birds. This represents a decrease of 23,358 birds. This
decrease is consistent with the change from 18 birds per square metre to 16.75 birds per square metre
as detailed in the report. A summary of the bird numbers as calculated based on information provided
is shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Summary of Bird Numbers
Density Original Bird Numbers at 18 Original Bird Numbers Proposed in MWA 2014
birds/m2 converted to 16.75 Report
birds/m2
Total Birds 253,358 235,763 ~230,000
Although there are subtle differences in the bird numbers (original vs proposed), it is likely that this would
not significantly alter the outcome.
2.2 Receptor Selection
A suitable definition of sensitive receptors is contained in the Guideline: Odour Impact Assessment from
Developments. (DEHP, 2013). For the purposes of the assessment for proposed farm, the relevant
receptor type would be “a dwelling, mobile home or caravan park, residential marina or other
residential premises”. In other words, the dwellings around the subject site should be classified as
sensitive locations.
In Figure A1 in Attachment 8 of the report, 18 receptors were marked. Of relevance to this review is the
following:
1. One receptor between Receptor 10 and Receptor 11 appears to have been missed.
2. Receptors on land not associated with the development have not been included in the
assessment.
The points above are discussed further below.
First, with regard to point 1, it would appear that a receptor is located on land described as Lot 5 on
RP810738. We note that the inclusion of this receptor may not see an exceedance at this location
based on the model results shown in Figure A1 in Attachment 8 of the report.
With regard to point 2, it would appear that there are a number of lots not associated with the
development that are either fully or partially enclosed by the C99.5 1hr = 2.5 ou contour. We have seen
lots used as a buffer for a development be sold off if they are not controlled by the owner of the
development.
Based on experience elsewhere, we are of the opinion that to minimise the risk of a buffer being
eroded by the sale of adjacent properties, lots that are impacted by the chicken farm and owned by
the applicant should form part of the application. We understand that these include Lot 22 on
SP226606 and Lot 204 on RP892484.
9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 2
Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 7
In other area such as the Scenic Rim, Scenic Rim Regional Council requires a “Phantom House Assessment”. Such an assessment examines whether the proposed development would limit a third party’s ability to build on a nearby lot that is not included in the application or owned by the applicant. The test applied is whether there is a reasonable house site not impacted by odour that can be identified on each lot. Lots that may fall into this category for the subject site include Lot 20 on SP226606 and Lot 1 on SP100785. However, defining the suitability of these lots with regard to house sites is beyond the scope of this work. We note that this issue could easily be resolved by including the lots in the application. Finally, we note that the odour contour extends into the front of Lot 1 on RP170382. However, as there is already a house on the southern end of the lot (accessed off Jorgensen Road) this does not need to be considered further. 2.3 Emissions Estimation The odour emissions estimation methodology is summarised in Section 3.3.3 of the report. The methodology appears to follow the methodology summarised in the Queensland Guidelines Meat Chicken Farms (DAFF, 2012). The batch length and thinning regime does not appear to have been included in the report. The emission profile shown in Attachment 7 (Standard Stocking, 16.75 birds/m2 initial stocking density) appears to show a standard thinning regime. The use of a K factor of 2.2 is appropriate, and the emission profile shown in Attachment 7 (Standard Stocking, 16.75 birds/m2 initial stocking density) appears consistent with that seen elsewhere. However, we note that if the farm cannot be operated at a K factor of 2.2, the emissions from the farm (and thus impacts) could be higher than predicted. The reduction in stocking density as discussed is consistent with the industry moving toward RSPCA requirements. The 16.75 birds/m2 is closer to free range densities than the RSPCA densities, but we understand that the industry as a whole is moving to lower densities over time. The use of a single point source with ‘rain hat’ option that conserves plume momentum and incorporates thermal buoyancy is also considered to be appropriate. Dust emissions estimation was detailed in Section 4.3.3. As the emissions estimation method is different from the methodology we normally use, we cannot comment specifically on the method without further analysis. However, the predicted dust impact shown in the report (i.e. Figure A2) is consistent with that seen elsewhere, i.e., the predicted dust levels require a smaller buffer than that required for odour. 2.4 Model selection and Setup As with previous work, MWA has used the TAPM/CALMET/CALPUFF suite of models. This is consistent with good practice. The selection of modelling year (2008) was supported by the information provided in Attachment 5. This consisted of wind roses and graphs. Although no statistical analysis was provided, a visual inspection of the data confirms that the year 2008 appears to be consistent with long term trends. That year has been determined as representative of long term weather patterns for a number of other areas of Queensland. We have not been able to review the model input files. However, the model setup as described in Section 3.1 appears to be consistent with good practice. With regard to the use of TAPM, the process involved the “nudging” of TAPM with observed data from the Bureau of Meteorology’s Tewantin and Nambour weather stations. MWA used a radius of influence 9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 3 Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 8
of 15 km and 5 km respectively. We have examined the terrain around these sites and conclude that the radius of influence used at each site is appropriate. The nesting arrangement used in TAPM, as described in Section 3.3.1, is appropriate and the model was centred on the subject site. The TAPM data was used to drive CALMET, the meteorological module of the CALPUFF model. CALMET used a horizontal grid resolution of 100 m. The land use resolution was also 100 m. Both of these settings are appropriate. 2.5 Odour Criteria Adopted The odour criterion of C99.5 1hr = 2.5 ou adopted by MWA is consistent with the requirements detailed in DAFF (2012) and DEHP (2013). 2.6 Model results The model results were summarised in Section 3.4. The results showed that all receptors were predicted to be within the C99.5 1hr = 2.5 ou criterion as shown in Figure A1 in Attachment 8. There are some subtle differences between Figure A1 in Attachment 8 and Figure A in the November 2013 report. However, they are likely to be a function of the decrease in stocking density (from 18 to16.75 birds/m2), and the increase in K factor (from 2 to 2.2), which effectively cancelled each other out. An examination of the contour plot shown as Figure A1 in Attachment 8 indicates that the additional receptor noted in Section 2.2 of this report is probably not impacted by the farm. However, this could easily be checked by re-running the model for that receptor. 2.7 Dust from Roads Dust from the farm was detailed in Section 4 of the most recent report. Dust from roads was not included in the modelling. Instead it was covered in in Section 5 of the report as a specific topic. Although dust from the road was not specifically assessed using emission factors and was not modelled, we agree that dust emissions associated with the farm operation could be minimised through maintenance of the road, minimising vehicle speeds and watering of the road (if required). 9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 4 Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 9
3 CONCLUSION We have reviewed the report “Noise and Air Quality Impact Assessment Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds, 124 Top Forestry Road, Ridgewood”, dated 31 July 2014 (version 2). Based on our review of the report (subject to the limitation identified in Section 1.3), we conclude that the report appears to have been performed in line with good practice and therefore should be indicative of potential odour impacts associated with the proposed meat chicken farm. 9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 5 Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 10
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
If the farm is approved we recommend (based on the odour assessment by MWA) that:
the farm be designed and operated in line with Queensland guidelines for meat chicken farms
(DAFF, 2012) or other more recent best practice standards
the maximum number of birds on site be limited to 230,000 birds in 8 sheds
the maximum stocking density on site be limited to 16.75 birds/m2
the K factor (emissions rating) be maintained at or below K = 2.2.
9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 6
Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230
Page 11
5 REFERENCES
DAFF. (2012). Queensland Guidelines Meat Chicken Farms. Brisbane: Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, State of Queensland.
DEHP. (2013). Guideline: Odour Impact Assessment from Developments. Brisbane: Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection.
PAEHolmes. (2011). Best Practice Guidance for the Queensland Poultry Industry - Plume Dispersion
Modelling and Meteorological Processing. Brisbane: PAEHolmes.
9230 Peer Review R1-1.docx 7
Job Number 9230 | AQU-QD-001-9230