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
Introduction
1.1
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 Opinions
2.1
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 sitespecific 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 Assumptions
3.1
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 Report
Overview
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 TAPMpredicted 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, 99.9th 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 99.9th
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 99.9th 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 analysis
5.1
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
Page 8 of 23
14 April 2014
expect 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 northnortheast (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
distance
6.1
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.
Page 9 of 23
14 April 2014
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
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 99.5th
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.
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
6.8
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.
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
Conclusion
7.1
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
References
EPA 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 Freeman
Principal 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 Freeman
1/34 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
Employment
Background
Membership
Special
competence

B.E (Chem & Proc) 1st Class Hons; University of Canterbury 1991

M.Eng (Chem); National University of Singapore 1995
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.

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

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 – present
Appointed to IPART Panel as area specialist (wastewater odour) for Technical Services and Water Licensing Audit Panel (commencing
October 2013).
Alano Water, 2013
Odour 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, 2013
Preparation 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, 2011
Advice 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, 2011
Preparation 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, 2011
Preparation of odour impact assessment reports for Works Approval applications for two proposed WWTPs in country town areas of
northeast Victoria.
Fonterra Tirau, Waikato, 2010 – 2011
Preparation 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 2010
Preparation 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 – 2010
Assessment of discharges to air for Stage 2 dairy plant expansion.
Various Private Plan Changes, Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils, 2004 - 2011
Assessment, 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 - 2009
Expert 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 2008
Air 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 - 2009
AEE 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, 2007-08
Research 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, 2007
Advice to Environment Waikato on documented procedures for investigating odour complaints and proactive odour monitoring.
Ballarat City Council, Victoria, 2006
Tracy 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, 2003-04
Preparation 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, 2003-04
Recommendations 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, 2000-03
Preparation 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
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
D
E
E
200
200
500
200
200
200
100
200
100
100
500
50
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