Perth Airport Brickworks Environmental Impact …environment.gov.au/system/.../36899a2e.../perth-airport-brickworks.pdf · Once the bricks are dry they are automatically stacked onto

Environmental Assessment Report

Perth Airport Clay Manufacturing Plant

The proposed action by Westralia Airports Corporation to build a clay brick manufacturing plant

on the Perth Airport (EPBC 2005/2214)

Environment Assessment BranchDepartment of the Environment and Heritage

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Alternative sites ....................................................................................................................................................... 42.2 Perth Airport Master Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................................................. 5

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL............................................................. 6

4.1 TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................................................................................... 64.2 SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74.3 LAND USE..................................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.31 Aboriginal Heritage ............................................................................................................................................. 104.32 Dust..................................................................................................................................................................... 104.33 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................................................................. 114.41 Site Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................... 114.42 Wetlands.............................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.5 FLORA AND FAUNA..................................................................................................................................................... 124.51 Flora ................................................................................................................................................................... 124.52 Fauna.................................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.6 AIR EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 134.61 Source of Clay ..................................................................................................................................................... 134.62 Stack Height ........................................................................................................................................................ 134.63 Scrubbers............................................................................................................................................................. 144.64 Modelling ............................................................................................................................................................ 144.65 Emissions............................................................................................................................................................. 164.66 Health impacts..................................................................................................................................................... 174.67 Odour.................................................................................................................................................................. 18

5 MANAGEMENT, MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................... 19

6 SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENTAL VIEWS .......................................................................................................... 20

7 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 21

3

ASSESSMENT REPORTPerth International Airport WA – Clay Brick Manufacturing Plant

(EPBC 2005/2214)

1. Introduction

This environmental assessment report assesses the environmental impacts of the proposal by Westralia Airports Corporation (WAC), as outlined in the Airports Act 1996, to prepare a draft Major Development Plan (dMPD) to construct and operate a clay brick manufacturing plant on Perth Airport land.

On 14 July 2005, the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) submitted a referral under s160 of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). In accordance with the provisions of the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage must provide advice to the action Minister (in this case the Commonwealth Minister for Transport and Regional Services) on the likely impacts of the proposal on the environment.

Based on the referral and preliminary information, it was determined on 17 August 2005 that the proposal be assessed by preliminary documentation. The proponent published preliminary documentation on29 August 2005 and invited public comment until 30 November 2005. The proponent made documentation available in hard copy, on CD and on the Perth Airport website. The public consultation process included invitations to a briefing session to local residents, local councils, state government agencies and various environmental groups. WAC conducted 17 briefing sessions as a result of those invitations.

The proponent notified the Minister on 9 February 2006 that 269 public submissions were received by WAC, including a petition containing 4114 signatures. An extra 20 submissions were received by the City of Swan which were forwarded to WAC.

Final preliminary documentation was accepted on 16 March 2006.

2 Description of the proposal

The proposed action is for BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (BGC) to construct and operate a clay brick manufacturing plant on Perth Airport land. The proposal includes a clay storage building, a production building, a hardstand or paved area for product storage, and an administration and sales building. The hardstand and building areas will occupy approximately 20 hectares of a 31.9 hectares site. The rest of the land will be set aside for surface water management, landscaping, and the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline.

BGC has proposed to build a state of the art brick making facility, capable of producing 110 million standard brick equivalents. The plant will be able to produce standard size face bricks, pavers and clay bricks.

The proposed plant will consist of two purpose-built buildings; a clay house containing a crushing plant, and a second building containing a manufacturing plant, dryer and two kilns. A third smaller building will house the sales and administration area (this building is currently on site). All outside work areas will be sealed, and a detention basin will be built to collect and store run-off water. The run-off water is proposed to be used as a dust suppressant and to water the vegetation along the site perimeter.

Raw materials will be brought to the site by truck. The raw material will go through a primary crusher, and water will be added. It will then go through three crushers (the pug mill), which will grind it up

4

further. Water is also added during this process to assist with the shaping of the product, and as a dust suppressant. When the raw material is the right consistency, air is removed in a vacuum chamber. The clay is then compacted and shaped using the extrusion auger and shaping die. Sugar or molasses may be added at this point in the process. A clay column will then be produced, which will be cut to the desired brick width, and transferred to drying trays (BGC plans to recycle waste produced during this process, by putting it back into the pug mill). Moisture will then be removed from the clay in enclosed dryers.

Once the bricks are dry they are automatically stacked onto kiln cars to be taken to the kilns. Kiln tunnels will be sealed with air locks at the kiln car entry and exit points. This will ensure that any emissions will be released through the scrubber. The process takes less then 24 hours. The kilns will be run on natural gas. Hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl), oxides of sulphur (SOX), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) will be emitted from the kiln stack. Once the bricks have been fired, they will be packed and transported for sale.

Figure 1 – The brick making process (BGC Draft Major Development Plan, 2006)

2.1 Alternative sitesAlternative locations for the proposal have been identified and assessed by BGC and the Government

of Western Australia. The State Government suggested sites at Forrestdale and Neerabup, and BGC investigated sites at Wangara, Bayswater, Muchea North, Muchea South, and two sites in Hazelmere. BGC rejected the Forrestdale site on the basis of transport costs. BGC also rejected the Neerabup site, as Landcorp would not sell the required land. All other sites have been rejected on the basis of high transport costs, zoning and insufficient land.

2.2 Perth Airport Master PlanThe Perth Airport Master Plan has identified the brickworks site for industry and warehouse/showroom

uses. See map below.

5

Figure 2 – Map of proposed BGC brickworks proposal (Source: www.whereis.com)

3 Description of the Environment

The site of the proposal is 2.8km south of the Perth Airport Terminals, and is bounded by Kalamunda Road, the Great Eastern Highway Bypass and Kewdale Freight Line. It has some native vegetation, described as Eucalyptus calophylla woodland, but is predominantly cleared. The site was previously occupied by the Westaviat Golf Club, however the turf used on the fairways and greens has been removed. No listed threatened ecological communities or threatened plant species were identified on the site by BGC. However a conservation precinct, called Precinct 7, which predominantly contains remnant Banksia woodland, is located across Kalamunda Road. Precinct 7 was identified by WAC as environmentally significant in the Environment Strategy 2004 and is described in the dMPD as: “vegetation in ‘Slightly Disturbed’ condition and wetlands with high conservation attributes.” Munday Swamp, which is in Precinct 7, has an unusually high invertebrate species richness and diversity, and is an important breeding area for a number of waterbird species. Both Munday Swamp and the surrounding bushland are on the Register of the National Estate.

The site of the proposal includes possible habitat for Baudin’s Black-Cockatoo (vulnerable), Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo (endangered) and the Western Quoll (vulnerable). No information was provided on whether those fauna occurs on the proposed site. The dMPD states that an investigation will be undertaken before extensive clearing begins to determine what fauna occurs on the site, and the appropriate management measures to be undertaken.

6

Figure 3 – Proposal site with areas significant close by outlined (BGC Draft Major Development Plan 2006, 27)

4 Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposal

4.1 TrafficThe site of the proposal is bounded by Kalamunda Road, Abernethy Road and the Great Eastern Bypass. The entrance will be on Kalamunda Road, and a variety of vehicles, including light vehicles, semi-trailers, and flat top trucks will bring in clay and take out the finished products. BGC cannot use B-Double trucks (semi-trailer with another trailer attached) on Kalamunda Road at present, due to restrictions on the use of Kalamunda Road Bridge.

At present approximately 12,000 vehicles travel along Kalamunda Road per day. A WA Main Roads report (Average weekday traffic flow 1998/1999) found the average amount of traffic during the AM peak time (around 7:15 – 8:15am) was approximately 1,000 vehicles westbound, and 250 vehicles eastbound. The average traffic flow for the PM peak time (around 5:00 – 6:00pm) consists of approximately 490 vehicles westbound, and 770 vehicles eastbound. BGC has determined that the brickworks will increase traffic by about 1.2% (140 vehicles) of current daily traffic on any day. This results in an average of 280 trips in and out of the brickworks, of which 84 will be semi-trailers, 40 flat top trucks and the rest light vehicles.

Kalamunda Road is a two lane single carriageway. BGC has had discussions with the WA Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) on the likelihood of the road being upgraded to a four lane dual carriageway in the short to medium term.

Proposal location Precinct 7 Munday Swamp

7

Public concerns were raised about the increased traffic. In particular the threat to the safety of children and local residents, and the ability of Kalamunda Road to handle the extra trucks.

BGC has proposed to enter the brickworks site from Kalamunda Road. Both Kalamunda Road and Abernethy Road can only support semi-trailers, and permits will be required from the State Government to allow B-Double trucks on those roads. Kalamunda Road also has a bridge (Kalamunda Road Bridge) over a gas easement which will need upgrading if B-Double trucks are to travel over it. BGC has committed to cover the cost of the bridge upgrade if required. BGC has proposed three different traffic scenarios in the dMPD. Scenario 1 is to undertake no improvements on the roads, and use semi-trailers for brick and clay transport. Scenario 2 is to acquire the required permits, and upgrade the bridge on Kalamunda Road, to enable B-Double trucks to use it. Scenario 3 requires permits for B-Double trucks to use Kalamunda Road, but takes a route that avoids the bridge. BGC prefers Scenario 1 at this stage.

BGC has addressed the public concerns in the dMPD as follows:• The main concern for children is the eastern section of Kalamunda Road. BGC intends to instruct

truck drivers not to use that section of road;• All road works will be subject to approval with the relevant authority, and the number of access

points, relocation of services and any other issues will be incorporated; and• Raw materials and finished products will only be transported between 6:00am and 6:00pm.

Around 8 truck (semi-trailers) movements are expected during peak times bringing clay to the site and 4 trucks (flat top truck) will take away finished products. Approximately 2 car trailers/light vehicles, 30 light vehicles (day staff) and 4 light vehicles are also expected during the peak periods. During the pm peak times there will also be approximately 8 light vehicles from night shift staff entering the site.

Departmental ViewBGC proposes to implement Scenario 1, and BGC would require permits from the relevant state authorities if other scenarios were considered. Scenario 1 will result in a limited average increase in daily traffic volume. There should be limited impact on residential areas provided trucks do not use the eastern section of Kalamunda Road.

4.2 ServicesThe proposed brickworks will require upgrades to existing services, and the supply of new services. The site is adjacent to an existing gas easement, and has access to electricity. BGC proposes to upgrade the power supply, and get access to the gas easement to meet the requirements of a brick making plant. The site is not serviced by sewers, so an on-site nutrient treatment unit is proposed.

Sewage treatmentThe proposal site is not serviced by sewer mains, and BGC has proposed to install a nutrient removing on-site treatment unit. Aquaterra, a consultant for BGC, has noted that:

• The system must be able to handle the amount of waste generated, and may require local council and Health Department approval;

• An effluent disposal area would need to be identified and would need to be at least 30m from the nearest creek or bore users;

• Effluent disposal by irrigation would not be suitable for areas where the water table is close to the ground surface;

• Blended soils may be required beneath the irrigated areas in environmentally sensitive areas to prevent nutrient leaching to the groundwater.

Excessive release of nutrients on the site could result in contamination of waterways. BGC has not addressed that issue in the dMPD.

8

WaterThe site requires a ring main to deliver town water to the site for fire-fighting. BGC states that most of the water used in production will be sourced from run-off and bore water, depending on the quality of the bore water. Storm water drainage will be modified to collect run-off from paved and roof areas, and it will then be directed to a series of drainage ponds. BGC proposes to re-use most of this water for brick making, reticulation and dust suppression. Some of that water may be contaminated with silt and clay, so BGC proposes to line the first settling pond to prevent seepage. BGC also proposes to build an interceptor pit to handle removal of any oil residues, in the event of accidental spillage. Impacts of hydrological changes and impacts on Munday Swamp are addressed in section 4.4 – Hydrology.

LightingPublic concern was raised about the lighting on the site impacting on flora and fauna, and residential areas. BGC proposes to focus lights on the traffic areas of the yard. BGC also proposes to position the outside lighting to ensure that it does not interfere with the amenity of neighbours. All external lighting will be installed in accordance with the Australian Standard 4282 (1997).

Departmental ViewThe nutrient treatment plant must be large enough to manage the expected sewerage load. It must be monitored to ensure no discharge occurs, and odour is managed. Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts of upgrading and installing services such as sewage, power, water and lighting.

4.3 Land useThe Perth Airport Master Plan has identified the proposal site for industry and warehouse/showroom uses. It was occupied by a golf course which was recently closed.

BufferPublic concerns have been raised about the distance of the proposed brickworks from sensitive areas. Buffer areas are often required between industrial facilities and sensitive environments to reduce impacts on the receiving environments.

The Government of Western Australia requires buffers to provide “a consistent Statewide approach for the protection and long-term security of industrial zones, transport terminals, other utilities and special uses.” (Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) No. 4.1 State Industrial Buffer Policy (1997)). Buffers should be implemented in conjunction with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) No. 4.1 State Industrial Buffer Policy (1997), and the draft revision of that policy (2004). The WA Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has also published guidelines for buffer distances, which should be used to compliment the State policy.

A buffer is defined by the EPA as “all the land between the boundary of the area that may potentially be used by an industrial land use, and the boundary of the area within which unacceptable adverse impacts due to industrial emissions on the amenity of sensitive land use are possible” (Guidance Statement for Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses, EPA, 2005). Sensitive land uses include residential areas, schools, hospitals, motels etc. The EPA defines separation distance as “the shortest distance between the boundary of the area that may potentially be used by an industrial land use, and the boundary of the area that may be used by a sensitive land use.” Note, the EPA guidelines on buffers address industrial emissions that may impact on human health and the environment, such as gaseous emissions, dust, noise and odour. They do not address other losses of amenity, such as land values.

The EPA has stated that a buffer zone of 300m to 1000m – depending on size of project – should be implemented for clay brick manufacturing (Guidance Statement for Separation Distances between

9

Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses, EPA, 2005). Nearby residents have commented on the fact that the proposal would be within 1000m distance from the sensitive areas.

The Government of Western Australia was concerned with buffer distances in its submission stating the “proposal is inconsistent” with the SPP. The submission states that due to the proximity of the brickworks to sensitive areas “the impacts on land use and development in the off site buffer areas will be unacceptable”. BGC has stated that the State Industrial Buffer Policy is not a Scheme in force under law.

The EPA guidelines state “where the separation distance is less then the generic distance, a scientific study based on site- and industry-specific information must be presented to demonstrate that a lesser distance will not result in unacceptable impacts.” … “If the distance from the industrial land use to the sensitive land use is less than the recommended separation distance, and it cannot be demonstrated that unacceptable environmental impacts are likely to be avoided, then other options should generally be pursued.”

BGC commissioned a study on distances of the proposed brickworks and other brickworks in the region to the closest residential zoned areas and other sensitive areas. The study was undertaken by Greg Rowe and Associates and states that a number of considerations are required in determining the applicability of a buffer: “therefore not possible to conclude that the proposed brick manufacturing plant will be detrimental to the amenity and enjoyment of a sensitive use simply because that use is within 1,000 metres of the proposal. The EPA Guidelines acknowledges this.” Furthermore, it states “Instead it is necessary to consider the separation distance in the context of other factors, including the technology being used at the plant, the size and layout of the facility, the prevailing winds in the locality, the development separating the proposal from sensitive land uses (in this instance the Great Eastern Highway Bypass and the Kewdale Freight line border the site), the proximity and effect of other land uses (i.e. Perth Airport) and the amenity expectations of residents (i.e. different expectations for Residential and Rural Residential areas). All of these and other relevant factors need to be considered through detailed environmental investigations to determine if the amenity of residential dwellings is detrimentally impacted upon by way of gas, noise, odour or dust.” (BGC Environmental Review Clay Brick Manufacturing Plant – Volume 2, Appendix 13a)

The study, conducted by Greg Rowe and Associates, states that the proposed BGC brickwork stack is 450m from the closest house, while the clay storage shed is 155m away from houses. However the EPA definition for buffers refers to “all the land between the boundary of the area that may potentially be used by an industrial land use”, rather than sites of elements of the facility inside the boundary. The study does not identify the closest sensitive area boundary from the proposal site boundary; however it would be less then 155m, which was identified as the distance from the closest brickwork’s building to the boundary of the closest sensitive area.

The Government of Western Australia has expressed concern about the inconsistent implementation of the buffer policy if BGC is allowed to develop a brickworks in close proximity to sensitive areas. However the study commissioned by BGC states that other brickworks are also close to sensitive areas. It notes that Austral Armadale’s stack is 170m away from houses, the closest of all the brickworks in the region, and Midland Brick’s clay shed is 60m from the closest house. BGC claims that it is complying with the SPP, as the stack is 450m away from sensitive areas and that this is consistent with existing brickworks.

Amenity and land valueWhilst the WA buffer policy and the EPA Guidelines do not take into consideration amenity and land value, public submissions expressed concern on those issues. Concerns include loss of value for land and houses, and the impact on amenity of another brickworks in the area. Another concern raised by the public is that a brickworks on airport land could encourage other airports to develop similar industries, and public submissions refer to an overload of brickworks in the area.

10

Departmental ViewThe proposal to build a brickworks within 155m of the ‘boundaries’ of the proposed brickworks site and the residential areas is inconsistent with the EPA Guidance Statement for Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses without further justification from site specific technical studies. Whether the 300m or the 1,000m buffer should apply is a matter of judgement. BGC’s consultant refers to the consideration of relevant matters through detailed environmental investigations. It then justifies adequacy in terms of past planning decisions. The Department notes that past planning decisions appear to have been inconsistent with the stated policy. Nevertheless adjacent residents should not suffer loss of amenity because of poor planning decisions in the past. The Department also notes that the Western Australian Department of the Environment developed the Brickworks Licensing Policy 2003 to address the adverse environmental impacts of existing and future brickworks, and the Western Australian Government claims that the proposal is inconsistent with its planning policies. Given those factors and the public concern about the proposal, the technical studies provided to date are not considered adequate to address potential impacts. This is discussed in more detail in the conclusions under section 4.6 Air Emissions. The issue of other losses of amenity, such as house values is a matter of judgement for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, as the WA EPA buffer policy was not formulated to address those particular public concerns.

4.31 Aboriginal HeritageThe proposed site of the brickworks is 1.5km from Munday Swamp which is listed on the Register of

the National Estate, and is separated by Kalamunda Road. Public submissions claim Munday Swamp has Aboriginal Heritage values. The South Guildford Cemetery is also in the vicinity of the proposed site, and was also reported to be an important sacred burial site in the public submissions.

BGC has stated that it has considered Aboriginal Heritage values at Perth Airport. WAC undertook an airport site survey as part of the Master Plan 2004, and BGC states that WAC has advised it that there are no heritage sites of significance on the proposed site of the brickworks. BGC also states that there is a buffer between the cemetery and the brickworks site, and the dMPD proposes boundary plantings to have a visual screen.

Departmental ViewStandard management measures can address the environmental impacts on sites with Aboriginal Heritage values

4.32 DustConstruction activities may generate dust during ground disturbance. This is not expected to be a

concern during the operational phase, as outside areas will be impervious, and limited dust is expected to be generated.

Public concerns raised the issue of dust from the site. BGC has committed to minimising dust by implementing standard dust suppression measures such as wind fencing, spraying water and hydro-mulching or planing rye grass.

Departmental ViewStandard management measures can address the environmental impacts from dust.

4.33 NoiseNoise levels will increases as a result of construction and operation of the proposed brickworks. Heavy

earthmoving equipment, dewatering and trucking of spoil, have the potential to generate significant levels of noise during construction. Increased noise will also occur from trucks and other equipment such as fork lifts during operation.

11

Public concerns have been raised about the increased noise levels from machinery and trucks. BGC states that all machinery will maintained in good working order, and with standard noise mufflers to ensure excessive noise is not generated. Construction activities will only occur during the day, and trucks will only enter and leave the area between 6am and 6pm during operations. BGC has also committed to conduct ambient noise monitoring every 3 months during commissioning phase, and annually after normal operations commence.

Departmental ViewStandard management measures can address the environmental impacts from noise.

4.4 Hydrology

4.41 Site HydrologyThe site of the proposal has sandy clays of the Guildford Formation with an overlying cover of

Bassendean dune sand. There is no natural, permanent water on site; however there is a tendency for water logging to occur after heavy rainfall due to the low lying land. Surface water from the proposed site generally drains via natural and artificial open channels in a north-westerly direction towards the Helena and Swan Rivers. The water table can be two metres below the surface in some areas, and regional groundwater also flows in a north-westerly direction towards the Helena and Swan Rivers. BGC states that water from the site will not impact on Munday Swamp as the water does not flow into it.

Surface waterBGC states in the Major Development Plan that it will comply with the “WA Environmental Protection Authority 1999 – Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors – Management of Surface runoff from Industrial and Commercial Sites, draft guidance 26” and “Water and Rivers Commission, November 2002: Stormwater Management at Industrial Sites – Water Quality Protection Note”.

BGC proposes to create a detention basin capable of storing a 1 in 5 year rain event. There will also be provision to separate “clean flow” from “first flush” runoff (the portion of runoff likely to contain most contaminants), when a greater than 1 in 5 year rain event occurs. The detention basin will have a series of interconnected basins designed to slow runoff flow, and allow the settlement of particle matter and separation of oils. Overflow will occur through a specially designed spill way, which will drain into the existing drain network from the site. BGC states that surface flows will increase due to the sealed areas on site. BGC also proposes to catch surface water in a detention basin to use in dust suppression and the brick making process.

GroundwaterBGC states in the Environmental Review Clay Brick Manufacturing Plant – Volume 1 that “the proposed development, due to the increase in on-site impervious areas, will increase surface runoff volumes to the downstream environment and decrease groundwater recharge.” The golf course that was previously located on the site used bore water for irrigation. BGC has estimated the golf courses’ bore water use at 168,000 KL/year (based on licensed bore data on another metropolitan golf course). BGC proposes to use 17,500 KL/year sourced from stormwater, bore water and scheme water. This is less than the previous use so no localised reduction in groundwater level is expected to occur.

Public concerns have been raised about contaminated water entering the groundwater. However the “first flush” runoff will be separated from “clean flow” as mentioned above.

Acid Sulphate SoilsAcid Sulphate Soils (ASS) may occur on the site, and if so, must be appropriately managed. At this stage no on the ground investigations have been undertaken by BGC to determine the presence of potential of ASS on the site. BGC proposes to undertake an assessment of this prior to the commencement of development.

12

Departmental ViewThe proposal is expected to result in an increase in surface runoff and a decrease in groundwater recharge. However BGC also proposes to extract less groundwater from the site than appears to have been extracted by the golf course. Therefore limited impact is expected to occur from changes in hydrology. The proposal to create a detention basin capable of storing a 1 in 5 year rain event, is considered adequate to address potential rain events, provided measures are put in place to contain “first flush” runoff. Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts that may arise from changes to hydrology.

4.42 WetlandsMunday Swamp and surrounding bushlands have a large number of regionally significant flora, and a

wide range of fauna with an unusually high species richness and diversity. Concerns have been raised about the potential for pollution in water from the site to enter the swamp. BGC states that there will be no groundwater or surface water flows from the proposed site into Munday Swamp, as it is not located in the Munday Swamp catchment area.

Departmental ViewNo impacts should occur to Munday Swamp if groundwater and surface water flows away from the site.

4.5 Flora and Fauna

4.51 FloraThe site is predominantly cleared of vegetation. BGC proposes to clear the remaining remnant

vegetation on the 20ha site, with remnant vegetation being preserved on the perimeter and non development areas. Parts of the site will be extensively revegetated with appropriate native species to provide a visual and sound barrier. BGC states that the proposal site has been identified by WAC as a “no priority” area and under the WAC Master Plan 2004 “Priority 3 and ‘No Priority’ areas are not subject to further assessment”. The proposal site, Munday Swamp and the surrounding vegetation has also been incorporated into a Bush Forever site due to the flora and fauna diversity. Bush Forever is a WA Government initiative and “identifies regionally significant bushland to be retained and protected forever” (Bush Forever Volume 1 Policies, Principles and Processes, 2000).

Public concerns have been raised about the impacts of fluoride emissions on the vegetation and the loss of the Bush Forever site. The impacts of fluoride emissions are considered in the section 4.6: Emissions. BGC has stated that Bush Forever is a State based planning tool that is not consistent with the Master Planning process, and it post dates the Perth Airport Master Plan which was approved by Federal Government.

4.52 FaunaA number of fauna surveys done by WAC on Perth Airport land. WAC has recorded 129 species of

vertebrates, with only a relatively small proportion occurring in the proposed site. A number of listed threatened species may occur on the site. It has potential feeding habitat for Baudin’s Black-Cockatoo (vulnerable), Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo (endangered), and possible habitat for the Western Quoll (vulnerable) and Southern Brown Bandicoot.

BGC states that before any clearing is undertaken, BGC will conduct a survey to locate any Western Quoll and Southern Brown Bandicoot, and remove them from the site in conjunction with CALMS. Under the EPBC Act 1999 BGC would also need to obtain a part 13 permit to move listed species on Commonwealth land.

Departmental ViewWhilst the State Government designation of the site in the Bush Forever category does not impose obligations on WAC, the Department notes that the Master Planning process for airports does not remove

13

proponent’s obligations to consider significant impacts on flora and fauna. BGC has not conducted any surveys on the site to evaluate the value of the remnant vegetation, or its use by listed threatened species. The documentation does not say whether the listed threatened species actually occur on the site. Therefore whilst the site is degraded, the Department cannot evaluate the importance of the site for listed threatened species, or other species. BGC has not proposed any mitigation measures other then translocation.

4.6 Air EmissionsBrick kilns emit various gaseous pollutants into the atmosphere. Those pollutants include Hydrochloric Acid (HCl), Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), oxides of Sulphur (SOx), oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), oxides of Carbon (COx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Emissions are created primarily by the “cooking” phase of brick making.

4.61 Source of ClayBGC has stated that clay for brick making in WA includes five main mineralogical types:

• Colluvian kaolin;• Weathered mafic material;• Muscovite schist;• Transported kaolin; and• Illitic alluvial clay.

BGC proposes to have several pits operating at once, however no detail is provided on location and operating life of each pit.

BGC states that small quantities of fluoride, chloride and sulphur compounds are liberated from the clay during the heating process, meaning that “the actual mass emission rate is, therefore, directly proportional to the concentration in the clay”. BGC proposes to use clays low in fluoride, chloride and sulphur as “part of its overall emission control strategy and it will monitor the concentration of fluoride, chloride and sulphur compounds in the clays extracted”. BGC has provided expected concentrations of fluoride, chloride and sulphates in each clay type.

BGC does not have approvals to extract clay yet, and it will need to obtain them from local government authorities and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Departmental ViewThe Department notes that BGC does not have approvals to extract clay, and has not provided mass balances of how contaminants will be managed in the brick making process, and the required concentration limits in clays, to demonstrate the achievability of the proposed emission concentrations. Whilst a conclusion can be drawn that it is possible to limit ‘acid gas’ emissions by choosing particular types of clay, BGC has not demonstrated that it will be able to access that clay, or provided detail on the necessary requirements of the chemical composition of the clay to meet that objective.

4.62 Stack HeightThe stack is connected to the kilns to vent emissions to the atmosphere. The proposed stack height will

be 37m above local ground level, and will be located near Kalamunda Road. The height of the stack will influence the dispersion of pollutants, and the concentrations of pollutants that reach the ground.

Public concerns were raised about the following matters:• Stack height should be 40m to ensure best practice to reduce ground emissions;• The discharge of pollutants through the stack could create turbulence for aircraft;• The implications of stack height and location with respect to aircraft safety; and• The stack hight has not been designed to best practice standards.

14

BGC has revised the design of buildings on site, and further modelling indicates that the modifications will reduce ground level concentrations of pollutants. Airport guidelines have been applied with respect to building design and height restrictions, to ensure the proposal doesn’t impact on safety requirements for projected flight paths and the obstacle limitations surface. Airservices Australia has reviewed the characteristics of the discharges from the stack, and stack height and location, and has decided that the proposal will not affect normal flights of aircraft, so it does not require approval.

BGC states that the US EPA guidelines for stack heights advises that the stack should be 2.5 times the height of the building to which it is attached, or which influences dispersion. The proposed stack is 37m and the adjacent buildings are 13.5m, so the proposal meets those guidelines.

Departmental ViewBGC states that the proposal meets the safety requirements of Air Services Australia, and the stack height meets the guidelines of the US EPA. Expert advice should be sought from Airservices Australia about the potential for the proposal to facilitate cloud formation, that could impact on air safety. Emission levels of the proposal are further discussed in section 4.65.

4.63 ScrubbersBGC proposes to fit scrubbers to the kilns to reduce the concentration of acid gases emitted from the

stack. A portion of the pollutants will then be removed through a chemical reaction with hydrated lime. BGC proposes to use a dry alkali scrubber that has primarily been used in waste incineration and coal power generation industries, but has not been used in WA to date. Appendix 2 to the Draft Major Development Plan describes how the scrubbing system works. It also states that an environmental management plan will be required to detail the safeguards and procedures of the system to ensure it operates effectively.

Public concerns have been expressed about the operation of the proposed scrubbing system. WA DoE has suggested in the Brickworks Policy Guideline (2003), that the brickworks shift from a stack monitoring to a mass balance approach. This will require monitoring of inputs into the kilns (impurities in clay), and the effective maintenance of the proposed scrubbing system.

Departmental ViewThe Department notes the BGC proposal to scrub pollutants from the stack will reduce potential emissions. The proposed scrubber technology has not been used in WA, and the details of how the system will be managed have not been provided. The Department also notes that while the WA DoE supports the introduction of a mass balance system, it has not been demonstrated to be effective at this stage. The technical information provided to date indicates that it is possible to achieve the proposed emission limits, however BGC has not provided sufficient detail on whether the proposal is likely to meet the proposed stack emission limits. This uncertainty should be resolved before approving the BGC proposal.

4.64 ModellingModelling was undertaken to estimate various emissions from the brickworks in the dMPD. BGC

initially engaged Environ Pty Ltd to undertake modelling and then engaged Holmes Air Services to conduct further modelling.

Environ Pty Ltd used the ISC Prime Model, which is recommended by the WA DoE. This model is a non-steady state model which allows the plume to be stimulated as a series of overlapping puffs. This means that when viewed over time or in plain view, the plume is able to grow and bend in a way that reflects changing meteorological conditions.

The modelling undertaken used meteorological data collected from the Caversham meteorological station, which is approximately 5km for the proposed brickworks site. Data for the 1994 calendar year was used by Environ Pty Ltd. Environ Pty Ltd also states that “ideally, background monitoring data should be

15

taken into account when assessing impacts from stack emissions. However, in this instance suitable ambient monitoring data was not found”. Environ Pty Ltd further states that BGC supplied the stack parameters and emission data for other brickworks sites, and when no data was available it was estimated by BGC.

Public concerns were raised about the applicability of meteorological data from the Caversham site for a facility at the Perth Airport. Holmes Air Services used data for 2003 and 2004 collected from Perth Airport and undertook further modelling using the CALPUFF model, which is also non-steady state.

Further public concerns raised on modelling of the emission rates were:• Modelling does not address seasonal variations;• Background data not available, current air shed can not be determined;• The Darling Scarp can have a large impact on weather conditions in the area, was this modelled?• Modelling can only show what may happen, this is no guarantee BGC will be able to uphold

values.

BGC has responded to the concern about seasonal variation by explaining that the data used for modelling covered all hours throughout the year, therefore any seasonal influences will be incorporated. It has had the results obtained using Caversham data verified against data from Perth Airport. The studies found that the results using the Caversham data were comparable to the results using Perth Airport data.

BGC states that predictive modelling does not require ambient monitoring data therefore the lack of background data is not important. BGC states that the modelling undertaken has incorporated topography. The Darling Scarp is approximately 7km from the emission source, and any variations in weather patterns caused by the Darling Scarp would have been incorporated into the data from Caversham and therefore be incorporated into the early modelling.

The Western Australian Department of the Environment (DoE) conducted a desktop study on the emissions of existing brickworks in the Swan Valley (DoE Brickworks Licensing Policy 2003). DoE states that topography in the Swan Valley could play a big role in emission dispersion and “may contribute to higher then expected ground-level concentrations of brickwork emissions”. DoE further states “on the basis of the available data from Swan Valley brickworks, it appears that the use of default emission factors for hydrogen chloride and possibly for hydrogen fluoride may result in substantial underestimation of the quantity of acid gases being released to the air environment” It also states “that at least part of the discrepancy between observed and measured ground level fluoride concentrations may be the result of differences between emission rates that were predicted at the time of project approval and the emission rates that actually occurred when the project became operational.”

DoE concludes that “more accurate assessment of model predictions would require improvements in model parameters such as topography, and better validation with actual data” and “because of the many factors that can affect air emissions, it is necessary to exercise caution when predicting emissions for a given operation, based upon published results”.

Departmental ViewThe Department notes that BGC has undertaken modelling on air emissions using the best available information. However the Department also notes that no ambient air quality data on the respective pollutants was available for the proposed brickworks site. DoE has raised concerns about emission levels for existing brickworks in the Swan Valley, and the lack of validation of previous modelling of emissions. Further investigations on those matters, including long-term pollutant monitoring, would have enabled the Department to reach a definitive appreciation of the validity of public concerns. Past experience in the DoE Review of Existing Swan Valley Brickworks demonstrates that modelling must be interpreted with caution. Given the deficiencies noted, the Department is not satisfied that the information provided to date is sufficiently rigorous to conclude that the modelling addresses air quality concerns.

16

4.65 EmissionsBGC proposes to implement the following stack emission levels from the brick works (BGC

Environmental Review Clay Brick Manufacturing Plant – Volume 1, 87):

Emission Unit of measure BGC (Proposed) WA DoE BLP (2003)1 A(EP)R (1997)2

Tonnes/day (t/d) 0.038 0.086 -HFmg/m3 20 20-30 50

t/d 0.192 0.33 -HClmg/m3 100 100 400

t/d 0.246 No limit set -NOxmg/m3 128 No limit set 500

t/d 0.384 - -SOxmg/m3 <200 200 200

t/d 0.83 No limit set -COmg/m3 432 No limit set 1000

t/d 0.030 No limit set No limit setVOCmg/m3 15.6 No limit set No limit set

t/d ~30,000 No limit set -CO2mg/m3 - No limit set 1000

Dust 20 No limit set 250Dark smoke mg/m3 Less then 1

RingelmanNo limit set 1 Ringelman

1. Western Australian Department of Environment Brickworks Licensing Policy (2003)2. Airport (Environmental Protection) Regulations 1997

BGC states that emissions have been modelled to show worst case scenarios, and that emissions should not be higher then those modelled, however if that did occur, it will only be for a short period and the kiln will be shut down for investigation. BGC further states that all predicted emission rates and related ambient concentrations are based on conservative operating efficiencies of the scrubber.

BGC has stated it will meet State standards and adopt any future State standards, providing they do not breach Federal standards, for emissions. BGC has also stated that it will monitor emissions during the operational phase and start up phase of the brickworks, to ensure the plant complies with conditions on operations.

Public concerns have been raised about the fluoride emissions impact on vegetation and Precinct 7, which contains Munday Swamp and surrounding bushland. Hydrogen Fluoride guidelines for WA have been adopted from ANZECC guidelines, which BGC states are only guidelines for the protection of vegetation. BGC has commissioned a study into the effects the fluoride emissions on surrounding vegetation, and it was concluded that no impacts were expected. It has also committed to engage a qualified botanist to undertake a study of Precinct 7 annually.

The DoE Review of Existing Swan Valley Brickworks has noted that previous licence conditions on brickworks in the Swan Valley are “ineffective in that they do not indicate quarterly stack testing results are to be used to demonstrate that the kiln emissions do not exceed maximum specified emission rates or contaminant concentrations at times between the tests that are carried out each three month.” It also states that “The monitoring regimes currently in use by the fired clay product manufacturers (and required in DEP licences) cannot characterise the variability of contaminant concentrations in stack emissions, so it is not possible to assess whether the companies comply with their licence emission limits or not.” In order to address the above issue DoE recommends “the use of mass balance information for emissions prediction and the development and use of continuous performance indicators for pollution control plant.”

17

BGC has provided information on whether continuous monitoring is feasible. It stated two instruments will be required to do that; one to measure the emissions and a second to measure the airflow. This is because DoE has noted in its review that “an operator can reduce the measured contaminant concentration in stack exit gases simply by increasing air flow through the stack.” BGC states that the accuracy of the method of measuring concentrations “will depend on the accuracy of each component.” It further states that “as this proposal is a relatively new application for this technology the supplier has not been able to quantify the accuracy relative to conventional stack measurement techniques.” BGC notes that it appears to be adequate for the purpose, however “compliance testing, as set out in the dMPD, will be required to verify the accuracy of the results.”

The mass balance approach is favoured by BGC and DoE as a regulatory tool to verify emissions. This would require information on clay chemistry, the technical capacity of the scrubbing system, and a sound understanding of the brick making process to audit compliance. The DoE has stated that it will be monitoring the effectiveness of scrubbers that are currently being commissioned for existing brickworks over the next year or so.

Departmental viewThe Department notes that DoE has reviewed the performance of existing brickworks. As a result of that, DoE has required those brickworks to reduce emission levels, and is implementing new systems to regulate compliance. The proposed mass balance system essentially relies on an adaptive management approach of working through issues over a period of time to reach the required objective. The Department notes that it might take a several years to implement and analyse whether the mass balance approach is successful. Given the iterative nature of the adaptive management approach, the Department is unable to conclude whether the proposed approach to monitoring emission limits is likely to be successful until the DoE has fully implemented the mass balance approach for other brickworks. Therefore, the Department recommends that this uncertainty be resolved before approving the proposed brickworks.

4.66 Health impacts‘Acid gases’ from brickworks have been associated with a number of health impacts. The health

impacts include itchy eyes and respiratory sensitivity, particularly affecting asthmatics. Gaseous emissions could be particularly harmful to people with existing respiratory problems.

Health concerns about the existing brickworks in the Swan Valley have also been raised in the past. The Middle Swan Primary School closed in 1989, after staff and students complained of nose, eye, throat and skin irritations, nose bleeds and burnt lips. Investigations were undertaken to look at the emissions from the nearby Midland Brickworks and the Swan District Hospital incinerator. High levels of certain toxic emissions, such as hydrogen fluoride, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were found in the air, however no conclusion was drawn on the source of the contaminants. Nevertheless, the Hospital incinerator was shut down and the school was later moved.

BGC states that all emissions will be within guidelines as shown by the modelling. BGC also states that there was no proven direct evidence to link brickwork emissions to the health complaints at Middle Swan Primary School. However, there have been numerous reports of adverse health problems around existing brickworks in the Swan Valley. Reported health problems could be caused by short term one off events when emissions have exceeded guideline levels.

BGC has provided a health risk assessment from BenchMark Toxicological Services. That assessment is based on the background levels of ambient air at Caversham, which is 5-6km from the Perth Airport. A Hazard Index (HI) was calculated based on the sum of Health Quotient (HQ) for each pollutant. The HI is used to determine the risk of cumulative effects of different pollutants.

The submission of the Government of Western Australia provided comments on the health impacts from the Department of Health (DoH). The WA DoH states that HCl, PM10 (particulate matter) and NO2

18

estimates of ground level concentrations (GLC) may add to the current GLC and increase concentrations above guidelines resulting in adverse impacts. The WA DoH states that “these substances can all have a respiratory system impact and the effects may be cumulative”.

The WA DoH also states that the estimated HI of 0.4 for the proposed plant, 1.09 for the cumulative impact of BGC’s proposal, and the current back ground estimate would not be unimportant, as the pollutants in question are respiratory irritants. The WA DoH states “Increases in respiratory morbidity, including hospital admissions, particularly in asthmatics, are likely at guideline values of these substances and are a possible impact of the plant as proposed”. DoH states it cannot conclude on the health impacts without more information.

In response to the WA DoH comments, BGC contracted Golder Associates Pty Ltd to report on additional information and clarification regarding health risk assessment. The report states that using HI and HQ is common practice, and is a conservative approach that tends to overestimate the risk, and if HQ is greater then 1 it should be reviewed further. BGC also questions some of the figures used by DoH to come to its conclusions, and states that figures used in the BenchMark Toxicology Services study are derived from the highest background concentrations which occurred on different days. However, as noted above, this analysis is primarily derived from information from Caversham, rather than the airport site.

The WA DoE Brickworks Licensing Policy (2003) was undertaken to address public concerns about health impacts of emissions from the existing brickworks. It states: “It is clear from the weight of evidence over many years that exposure to acid gas emissions (mostly HCl, with some contributions from HF and SO2) have caused demonstrable adverse health effects, primarily itchy eyes and respiratory sensitivity” (Page 1). The policy paper discusses the various factors considered in determining ambient air quality standards for ‘acid gases, and formulated guidelines for stack emissions to address them (listed under section 4.65 Emissions).

Public concerns have been raised that there are currently health problems due to emissions from existing brickworks, and that construction of a new brickworks will add to the pollutant load. The existing pollutant load will be expected to fall when the DoE Brickworks policy on reducing stack emissions is fully implemented.

Departmental ViewThe Department notes the work undertaken in the Brickworks Licensing Policy (2003) to address the health impacts of the existing brickworks, and the development of new guidelines for stack emissions to mitigate those impacts. BGC has committed to abide by the DoE guidelines. However stack emissions levels will only be effective in mitigating adverse health impacts if they are directly related to ambient air requirements (see section 4.64 Modelling). Although BGC claims to have addressed the risks of the cumulative impacts from pollutants, uncertainties with respect to local pollutant loads and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures mentioned earlier, raises doubts about whether the BGC assessment accurately addresses the risks to public health. Therefore the Department cannot be confident that the proposal will not result in adverse health impacts, if only because of the uncertainty about the existing pollutant load and the speed with which existing brickworks will reduce their emissions.

4.67 OdourSugar or molasses is added to clay to suppress salt migration to the surface of the bricks during drying

and firing. Without these additives, blemishes may occur on the face of the product.

Public concerns have been raised about the potential of the brickworks to emit offensive odours. Molasses is known to produce a caramel smell when heated in the kiln.

BGC plans to reduce odour by changing some of the conventional brick making methods, including using sugar instead of molasses. BGC claims that sugar will give off less odour then molasses. It also proposes

19

to incorporate a steel membrane into the kiln to prevent the escape of fugitive emissions, and use soft extrusion and indirect setting of the brick in the dryer to enable lower temperatures to be used. BGC proposes those measures to ensure organic matter won’t be broken down. BGC has also made a commitment to undertake a monitoring program to assess odour from the brickworks, however no further details have been given.

Departmental ViewStandard management measures can address the environmental impacts from odour.

5 Management, Monitoring and Compliance

An important element in determining the acceptability of a proposal is the ability to predict and manage impacts with confidence. Management of the proposal needs to occur in both the construction and operational phase. During the construction phase of this proposal, standard construction management measures are expected to be able to adequately address any environmental impacts, as those impacts can be predicted with confidence. However, the operational phase is much more problematic as evidenced by the DoE Brickworks Licensing Policy (2003) which found various deficiencies in the monitoring and regulation of the operations of other Perth brickworks. There are uncertainties on the operational side of this proposal particularly with regard to the new mass balance approach to ensuring acceptable levels of emissions. These uncertainties are exacerbated by the fact that the source and characteristics of inputs to the process have not yet been finalised.

A number of public submissions have raised concerns about whether the proposed facility can be managed with the required degree of rigour. The DoE Brickworks Licensing Policy (2003) highlights the fact that a sound compliance regime can be difficult to administer even for a government department with expertise and resources to manage industrial facilities.

The DoE Brickworks Licensing Policy (2003) has proposed new methods of regulating and monitoring compliance. This raises regulatory challenges for DoE, and it may take some time before it acquires the expertise and understanding of the industrial processes to be confident that it will achieve ongoing compliance. An adaptive management approach will almost certainly be essential in achieving ongoing compliance given the uncertainties involved.

BGC states that there are adequate regulatory systems in place to manage the brickworks facility. It states that this can be done through the requirements of the Airports Act 1996, and through leasing arrangements with WAC.

Regulation through Government legislation is generally required for industrial facilities such as the brickworks. Appropriate expertise and requirements to regulate industrial facilities generally include stop work provisions, the ability to conduct random auditing and testing of emissions, and an understanding of chemical and engineering processes when developing procedures to evaluate a mass balance approach. The proposal to regulate the brickworks on Perth Airport is somewhat different from current commercial airport developments, and presents new regulatory challenges for the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

WAC has also stated that it can regulate the proposal through leasing arrangements. However the regulation of such activities through leases with private companies presents new challenges. WAC has flagged the possibility of contracting DoE to address the lack of regulatory experience in dealing with industrial facilities. However WAC itself is not subject to the same legislative requirements as government, with respect to public transparency and accountability.

Departmental View

20

The Department notes the challenges faced in regulating brickworks in Perth using the mass balance approach. Those challenges are exacerbated by the uncertainties associated with this proposal. The Department also notes that questions have been raised on the adequacy of the regulatory power of the Airports Act 1996 to manage industrial facilities, as the proposal will require greater regulatory involvement than normal airport developments. Regulatory staff with appropriate expertise related to brickworks operations and with the capacity to intervene in those operations, if necessary, will be essential in providing confidence that an adaptive management approach can result in a sound compliance regime. The adequacy of the existing regulatory powers under the Airports Act 1996, and the expertise of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to regulate such activities, is a matter for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to consider when he decides on the acceptability of the proposal.

6 Summary of Departmental Views

The following is a summary of the Departmental views noted above:

• The traffic option scenario 1’ will result in a limited impact on residential areas provided trucks do not use the eastern section of Kalamunda Road.

• Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts of upgrading and installing services such as sewage, power, water and lighting.

• The Western Australian Department of the Environment developed the Brickworks Licensing Policy 2003 to address the adverse environmental impacts of existing and future brickworks, and the Western Australian Government claims that the proposal is inconsistent with its planning policies. Given those factors and the public concern about the proposal, the technical studies provided to date are not considered adequate to address potential impacts. The issue of other losses of amenity, such as house values is a matter of judgement for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, as the WA EPA buffer policy was not formulated to address those particular public concerns.

• Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts on sites with Aboriginal Heritage values

• Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts from dust.

• Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts from noise.

• Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts that may arise from changes to hydrology.

• No impacts should occur to Munday Swamp if groundwater and surface water flows away from the site.

• No surveys were conducted on the site recently to evaluate the value of the remnant vegetation, or its use by listed threatened species. Therefore whilst the site is degraded, no conclusion can be drawn by the Department on the importance of the site for listed threatened species, or other species. BGC has not proposed any mitigation measures other then translocation.

• Whilst a conclusion can be drawn that it is possible to limit ‘acid gas’ emissions by choosing particular types of clay, BGC has not demonstrated that it will be able to access that clay, or provided detail on the necessary requirements of the chemical composition of the clay to meet that objective.

21

• BGC states that the proposal meets the safety requirements of Air Services, and the stack height meets the guidelines of the US EPA. Emission levels of the proposal are further discussed in section 4.65.

• The proposed scrubber technology has not been used in WA, and the details of how the system will be managed have not been provided. The technical information provided to date indicates that it is possible to achieve the proposed emission limits, however BGC has not provided sufficient detail on whether the proposal is likely to meet the proposed stack emission limits.

• BGC has undertaken modelling on air emissions using the best available information. However no ambient air quality data on the respective pollutants was available for the proposed brickworks site. Past experience in the DoE Review of Existing Swan Valley Brickworks demonstrates that modelling must be interpreted with caution. Given the deficiencies noted, the Department is not satisfied that the information provided to date is sufficiently rigorous to conclude that the modelling addresses air quality concerns.

• The proposed mass balance system to regulate compliance essentially relies on an adaptive management approach of working through issues over a period of time to reach the required objective. It might take a several years to implement and analyse whether the mass balance approach is successful. Given the iterative nature of the adaptive management approach, the Department is unable to conclude whether the proposed approach to monitoring emission limits is likely to be successful, until the DoE has fully implemented the mass balance approach for other brickworks. Therefore, the Department recommends that this uncertainty be resolved before approving the proposed brickworks.

• The construction of the BGC brickworks will add to the existing pollutant load, until the existing brickworks reduce their emissions. Although BGC claims to have addressed the risks of the cumulative impacts from pollutants, uncertainties with respect to local pollutant loads and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures mentioned earlier, raises doubts about whether the BGC assessment accurately addresses the risks to public health. There is also uncertainty about the rate at which existing brickworks will be able to reduce emissions. Therefore the Department cannot be confident that the proposal will not result in adverse health impacts, if only because of the uncertainty about the existing pollutant load and the speed with which existing brickworks will reduce their emissions.

• Standard management measures can address the environmental impacts from odour.

• The proposal will require a greater regulatory involvement than normal airport developments. Regulatory staff with appropriate expertise related to brickworks operations and with the capacity to intervene in those operations, if necessary, will be essential in providing confidence that an adaptive management approach can result in a sound compliance regime. The adequacy of the existing regulatory powers under the Airports Act 1996, and the expertise of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to regulate such activities, is a matter for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to consider when he decides on the acceptability of the proposal.

7 Conclusion

This proposal has raised significant public concerns during the public review period. The Department notes that the technologies proposed for the facility have not been previously used in WA; that key elements of the proposal such as the source and characteristics of clay to be used in the process are yet to be determined; and the proposed measures to establish and monitor compliance have not been fully

22

fleshed out or tested in WA. Therefore, this proposal presents a range of challenges and uncertainties that have not been resolved.

This situation could potentially be settled through an adaptive management approach to regulation, whereby clear outcomes and objectives can be set and management approaches adjusted over time on the basis of experience. This approach requires a close working relationship between regulator and proponent with the capacity for the regulator to intervene, quickly if necessary, if the desired outcomes are not being achieved. An adequate audit or monitoring role is essential for successful adaptive management.

Whilst WAC and BGC are confident that the proposed facility should not adversely impact on the environment and that an adequate regulatory regime is in place through the requirements of the Airports Act, it is unclear to the Department, whether regulation through leasing arrangements, would be sufficiently pro-active to address potential failures to achieve desired outcomes and objectives. Given the public concerns about the proposal, such concern is unlikely to give comfort to local residents.

The Department supports the proposal by WAC to contract DoE to address their lack of regulatory experience in dealing with industrial facilities such as brickworks. However, any such contracting would need to include a clear and legally enforceable mechanism for DoE to take appropriate regulatory action should it be required.

The Department considers that the proposal should only proceed if a number of uncertainties are clarified to the satisfaction of the Australian Government, namely;

i. a rigorous regulatory regime is in place to ensure that the proposal meets the standards set out in the assessment documentation prepared by the proponent and that quick and effective remedial action will be taken should that prove not to be the case;

ii. the proponent should demonstrate that it will have access to clay, the chemical composition of which will enable it to meet the desired emission targets;

iii. the proponent should provide technical details of how the proposed scrubber system can achieve the desired emissions limits;

iv. the proponent should undertake further investigations, including obtaining ambient air quality data, to improve its emissions modelling sufficiently to satisfactorily address air quality concerns; and

v. the proponent should undertake to carry out other activities recommended by the Department suchas monitoring of its nutrient treatment plant and surveys prior to any vegetation clearance.