shaw river power station ees panel report - … · shaw river power station project ees & moyne...

SHAW RIVER POWER STATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT & AMENDMENT C36 TO THE MOYNE PLANNING SCHEME

INQUIRY PANEL REPORT

JULY 2010

SHAW RIVER POWER STATION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT & AMENDMENT C36 TO THE MOYNE PLANNING SCHEME

INQUIRY PANEL REPORT

Cathie McRobert, Chair

Ian Coles

Jacqui McLeod

Greg Sharpley

JULY 2010

SHAW RIVER POWER STATION PROJECT EES & MOYNE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C36 INQUIRY PANEL REPORT: JULY 2010

Contents

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS & CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 4 Overall Conclusions........................................................................................................... 4 Consolidated Recommendations ................................................................................... 10 Amendment C36 .............................................................................................................. 14

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 18 1.1 The Project ................................................................................................................ 18 1.2 Overarching Policy Context................................................................................... 21 1.3 Overview of Statutory Approvals Required ....................................................... 22 1.4 EES Evaluation Objectives ..................................................................................... 24 1.5 Identification of Issues............................................................................................ 24

2. POWER GENERATION: EFFICIENCY, AFFORDABILITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................... 25

2.1 Rationale for Additional Gas-fired Power Generation ...................................... 25 2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................... 26

2.2.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context .................................................. 26 2.2.2 EES Assessment - Greenhouse Emission Estimates ..................................... 27 2.2.3 Submissions and Proponent Response .......................................................... 30 2.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 32

2.3 The Power Station Site Selection and Design Efficiency.................................... 32 2.3.1 EES Assessment - Power Station Site Selection and Design Efficiency ...... 32 2.3.2 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 34

2.4 The Gas Pipeline Design and Route Options ...................................................... 34 2.4.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context .................................................. 34 2.4.2 The EES Assessment - Gas Pipeline ............................................................. 35 2.4.3 Submissions and Proponent Response .......................................................... 35 2.4.4 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 37

2.5 Compressor Station Design and Site Selection ................................................... 38 2.5.1 EES Assessment - Compressor Station Site Selection and Design............... 38 2.5.2 Submissions and Proponent Response .......................................................... 38 2.5.3 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 38

2.6 Water Supply Infrastructure.................................................................................. 39 2.6.1 EES Assessment and Evidence– Water Supply Infrastructure Design ......... 39 2.6.2 Submissions................................................................................................... 40 2.6.3 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 40

3. PROTECTION OF CATCHMENT VALUES.................................................... 41 3.1 Surface Water, Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................... 41

3.1.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context .................................................. 41 3.1.2 EES Assessment and Evidence - Potential Impacts on Surface Waters........ 42 3.1.3 Submissions and Proponent Responses......................................................... 45 3.1.4 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 48

3.2 Groundwater............................................................................................................ 49 3.2.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context .................................................. 49 3.2.2 EES Assessment and Evidence – Groundwater ............................................ 49 3.2.3 Submissions................................................................................................... 50 3.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 50


4. BIODIVERSITY...................................................................................................... 52 4.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context ........................................................ 52

4.1.1 Commonwealth Legislation - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999................................................................................. 52

4.1.2 State Legislation and Policy.......................................................................... 53 4.2 Terrestrial Ecology .................................................................................................. 55

4.2.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Terrestrial Ecology ................................... 55 4.2.2 Submissions and Proponent Response .......................................................... 58 4.2.3 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 62

4.3 Aquatic Ecology....................................................................................................... 65 4.3.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Aquatic Ecology ....................................... 65 4.3.2 Submissions and Proponent Response .......................................................... 67 4.3.3 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 67

5. PROTECTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE ................................................... 69 5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ................................................................................ 69

5.1.1 Regulatory Framework.................................................................................. 69 5.1.2 EES Assessment - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage .......................................... 69 5.1.3 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 70

5.2 Non-Aboriginal Cultural Heritage ....................................................................... 71 5.2.1 Regulatory Framework.................................................................................. 71 5.2.2 EES Assessment - Non-Aboriginal Cultural Heritage .................................. 71 5.2.3 Submissions and Response............................................................................ 72 5.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions.......................................................................... 72

6. HEALTH, SAFETY AND AMENITY IMPACTS ............................................. 73 6.1 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 73

6.1.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context .................................................. 73 6.1.2 EES Assessment and Evidence – Noise Criteria........................................... 74 6.1.3 Submissions and Proponent Response - Noise Criteria ................................ 76 6.1.4 Discussion and Conclusions – Noise Criteria ............................................... 78 6.1.5 EES Assessment and Evidence - Power Station, Compressor Station

and Recycled Water Treatment Plant Operation Noise................................ 79 6.1.6 Submissions and Proponent’s Response – Power and Compressor

Station Operation Noise ............................................................................... 81 6.1.7 Discussion and Conclusions - Power and Compressor Station

Operation Noise ........................................................................................... 81 6.1.8 EES Assessment and Evidence – Noise from Construction Activities ......... 82 6.1.9 Discussion and Conclusions – Noise from Construction Activities.............. 83 6.1.10 Noise Monitoring And Complaints Procedures ............................................ 83

6.2 Air Quality................................................................................................................ 86 6.2.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context .................................................. 86 6.2.2 EES Assessment and Evidence - Air Emissions ........................................... 87 6.2.3 Submissions - Air Emissions......................................................................... 90 6.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions - Air Emissions................................................ 91

6.3 Safety......................................................................................................................... 92 6.3.1 Regulatory and Policy Framework................................................................ 92 6.3.2 EES Assessment - Safety .............................................................................. 93 6.3.3 Submissions and Proponent Response .......................................................... 94 6.3.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 95

6.4 Landscape and Visual Amenity ............................................................................ 97 6.4.1 EES Assessment and Evidence – Visual Impacts ......................................... 97 6.4.2 Submissions................................................................................................. 100 6.4.3 Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................ 101


6.5 Lighting................................................................................................................... 105 6.5.1 EES Assessment - Lighting......................................................................... 105 6.5.2 Submissions................................................................................................. 105 6.5.3 Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................ 105

7. DISRUPTION OF EXISTING LAND USES, INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES ...................................................... 107

7.1 Land Use Disruption............................................................................................. 107 7.1.1 EES Assessment- Land Use Disruption ...................................................... 107 7.1.2 Discussion and Conclusions – Land Use Disruption .................................. 108

7.2 Traffic Management.............................................................................................. 108 7.2.1 EES Assessment and Evidence – Traffic Management .............................. 108 7.2.2 Submissions and Proponent Response ........................................................ 110 7.2.3 Discussion and Conclusions – Traffic Management ................................... 111

7.3 Disruption of Infrastructure ................................................................................ 113 7.3.1 EES Assessment - Disruption of Infrastructure .......................................... 113 7.3.2 Submissions and Proponent Response ........................................................ 114 7.3.3 Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................ 114

8. SOCIO- ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS .......................................................... 115 8.1 Economic and Employment Impacts.................................................................. 115

8.1.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Economic and Employment Impacts...... 115 8.1.2 Submissions................................................................................................. 116 8.1.3 Discussion ................................................................................................... 117

8.2 Community Services, Housing and Construction Camp(s)............................ 118 8.2.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Community Services and Housing ......... 118 8.2.2 Submissions................................................................................................. 120 8.2.3 Discussion ................................................................................................... 121

9. OTHER MATTERS.............................................................................................. 125 9.1 Decommissioning.................................................................................................. 125

9.1.1 EES Assessment - Decommissioning ......................................................... 125 9.1.2 Submissions................................................................................................. 125 9.1.3 Discussion ................................................................................................... 125

9.2 Batching Plant ........................................................................................................ 126

10. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................. 127 10.1.1 EES Assessment and Evidence ................................................................... 127 10.1.2 Submissions................................................................................................. 129 10.1.3 Discussion and Conclusions........................................................................ 130

11. FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND RISKS........................................................................................................... 134

11.1 Certainty, Community Consultation and Accountability ............................... 134 11.1.1 Certainty...................................................................................................... 134 11.1.2 Co-ordination Between Regulatory Agencies............................................. 137 11.1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................ 138 11.1.4 Compliance Testing .................................................................................... 140 11.1.5 Access to Appropriate Expertise ................................................................. 140

11.2 Environmental Management Plans .................................................................... 141 11.2.1 The Power Station Site................................................................................ 142 11.2.2 Gas Pipeline and Compressor Station ......................................................... 143 11.2.3 Water Pipelines ........................................................................................... 144 11.2.4 Complaints Management............................................................................. 145


11.3 Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C36....................................................... 146 11.3.1 Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone (SUZ2)............................................... 146 11.3.2 Schedule to Clause 52.03 ............................................................................ 149 11.3.3 Clause 52.17................................................................................................ 151 11.3.4 Environmental Significance Overlay 4 ....................................................... 151

Appendices

APPENDIX A: EES INQUIRY PANEL TERMS OF REFERENCE..................... 155

APPENDIX B: LIST OF SUBMITTERS.................................................................. 158

APPENDIX C: EES TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF KEY APPROVALS AND ASSESSMENTS REQUIRED ........................................................ 159

APPENDIX D: POTENTIAL BENT-WING BAT AND WATER MONITORING PRINCIPLES....................................................... 163

APPENDIX E: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED ............................................. 170

List of Figures

Figure 1 Locality Map (Source: EES Summary Report).......................................... 18 Figure 2 The Power Station Site

(Source: EES Summary Report Figure 4)................................................... 19 Figure 3 Compressor Station Layout (Source: EES Figure 8.2).............................. 20 Figure 4 Power Station Noise Contours (weather category 6) .............................. 80 Figure 5 Compressor Station Noise Contours (weather category 6) .................... 80 Figure 6 Power Station, Switchyard and Pylon Visualisation

(Source: EES Appendix 15 Figure 1.6) ....................................................... 97


SHAW RIVER POWER STATION PROJECT EES &

MOYNE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C36

The Project The project comprises:

a gas‐fired power station near the town of Orford;

a gas compressor station north‐west of Port Campbell;

a gas pipeline from Iona to Orford; and

water supply infrastructure at Port Fairy and two water pipelines

from Port Fairy to Orford.

Amendment

C36

Amendment C36 is proposed to facilitate the development of the

Power Station and water pipelines by:

rezoning the Power Station site from Farming Zone (FZ) to a

Special Use Zone 2 (SUZ2);

introducing an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO4) to

manage the introduction of noise sensitive uses around the Power

Station site;

using Clause 52.03 to exempt the following elements of the

proposal from planning scheme requirements if the associated

incorporated document requirements are met:

native vegetation removal associated with altered access at the

intersection of Riordans Road and Hamilton – Port Fairy Road,

and new water pipelines from Port Fairy to the power station

site; and

a workers construction camp near the Power Station site.

exempting the Power Station site from Clause 52.17 permit

requirements relating to the removal, destruction or lopping of

native vegetation.

The

Proponents

Power Station and Gas Pipeline: Shaw River Power Station Pty Ltd (a

subsidiary of Santos Ltd).

Water supply infrastructure: Wannon Water.

EES Scoping On 7 November 2008, the Minister for Planning advised Shaw River

Power that an EES was required for the project under the Environment

Effects Act 1978. A technical reference technical reference group of

relevant agency and authority representatives was convened to guide

the scoping and development of the EES. The draft scoping

requirements for the EES were finalised in July 2009 after public

exhibition.

Exhibition The EES, Amendment C36 to the Moyne Planning Scheme and Works

Approval Applications WA67398, WA67399 and WA67400 were placed

on concurrent public exhibition from 12 March to 27 April 2010.

Pipeline Licence Applications PL271 and PL272 were advertised

concurrently under the Pipelines Act 2005.


Submissions 12 written submissions were received, 8 of which were from local

government and government agencies, three were from residents

living in the vicinity of the project and one was from a Proponent for a

proposed Wind Energy Facility.

The EES

Inquiry

Panel

On 25 March 2010 the Minister for Planning appointed an Inquiry

Panel under Section 9 of the Environment Effects Act 1978 comprising:

Cathie McRobert (Chair);

Ian Coles;

Jacqui McLeod; and

Greg Sharpley.

A Panel with the same composition was appointed under Sections 151

and 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider

submissions relating to Amendment C36 to the Moyne Planning

Scheme.

Terms of

Reference

The Inquiry Terms of Reference (See Appendix D) require the Inquiry

Panel:

i. To inquire into and make findings regarding the potential

environmental effects of the Shaw River Power Station Project,

including the construction and operation of the Power Station, the

high‐pressure gas pipeline and water pipeline and associated

infrastructure requirements.

ii. To consider the exhibited EES, all submissions received in response

to the exhibited EES as well as other relevant matters.

iii To recommend any modifications to the Shaw River Power Station

Project as well as environmental mitigation and management

measures that may be needed to achieve acceptable environmental

outcomes, within the context of applicable legislation and policy.

Hearings Directions hearing: 17 May 2010 at Port Fairy.

Hearings: 9‐11 June 2010 at Port Fairy;

15 June 2010 at Melbourne; and

17‐ 18 June 2010 at Warrnambool.

Inspections Accompanied inspections: 7 and 8 June 2010. These full day

inspections visited submitter properties and sensitive environmental

locations such as pipeline river and road crossings. The Panel also

made unaccompanied inspections of various parts of the project areas

and the Mortlake Power Station (under construction) during the course

of the hearing.


Hearing

Appearances

Department of Planning and Community Development represented

by Margo Kozicki, Ashley Stephens and Bart Gane.

Shaw River Power Station Pty Ltd and Wannon Water represented by

Tim Power and Anna Williams of Freehills who called evidence from:

Barton Napier of Coffey Environments – Environment,

infrastructure site and route selection.

Andrew Clark of Matrix – Planning scheme amendment, land use

and planning assessment.

Paul Carter of Arup – Traffic.

Nicole Sommerville of Sinclair Knight Mertz – Socio‐economic

Aaron Organ of Ecology Partners – Terrestrial and Aquatic

Ecology, Net Gain Offsets.

Robin Ormerod of PAEHolmes – Greenhouse gas, air quality, air

emissions and drinking water.

Chris Turnbull of Sonus – Noise.

John Shinkfield of AECOM – Visual.

Peter Wilson of Wannon Water – water allocation issues.

Mark Trickey of GHD – water technology / processes regarding

water infrastructure.

The following expert witnesses prepared and circulated statements

relating to water infrastructure but the Panel did not require them to be

called:

Barry Cook of GHD – air issues

V Pavasovic of GHD – noise issues.

Department of Primary Industries represented by Michelle Hendricks

and Terry McInley.

Morgan‐Payler Family represented by Barnaby Chessell, Barrister. Mr

Morgan‐Payler also addressed the Panel on the final day of hearing.

Environment Protection Authority represented by John Frame and Mr

Nancarrow.

Department of Sustainability and Environment represented by

Andrew Pritchard and Claire Tesselaar.

Moyne Shire represented by Russell Guest.

Corangamite Shire represented by Sophie Segafredo and Jileena

Baensch.


OVERALL CONCLUSIONS & CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall Conclusions

The Panel’s overall findings based on the analysis in the EES, submissions

and expert evidence are set out below in terms of the EES assessment

objectives.

EES Assessment Objective: To provide for the development of base load and

intermediate load power generation capacities in the context of government

policy objectives to maintain a secure, efficient and affordable supply of

energy while reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions from the

energy sector.

The Panel accepts the information and analysis provided that the project can

be regarded as best practice in terms of efficiency and minimising

environmental emissions. Firstly, the project represents an efficient siting

option, being west of Melbourne, on the 500kV grid, and comparatively close

to the Iona gas fields. Secondly, although greenhouse gas emissions will be

significant, the combination of the natural gas fuel and the technology

employed will result in substantially less greenhouse gas emissions per unit

of electricity produced than the current Victorian average and the alternative

of power generation from coal. This is consistent with State government

objectives and represents a major environmental benefit.

EES Assessment Objective: To avoid or minimise effects on species and

communities listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 to the

extent practicable, to avoid or minimise effects on other native species and

communities, and to comply with net gain requirements for biodiversity

outcomes.

The Panel accepts the EES assessment, evidence and submissions, including

from DSE, demonstrating that there has been a consistent objective to avoid

and minimise adverse impacts on native flora and fauna in site and route

selection, preferred pipeline construction techniques, the proposed design

and management plans. The need to comply with conditions of the Referral

under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC

Act) relating to pipeline construction has been acknowledged and there is a

commitment to offset losses that cannot be avoided.


Preliminary net gain assessments have been prepared but the difficulty in

meeting the Framework’s ‘like for like’ criterion for offsets of losses of native

vegetation of very high conservation significance has been identified. In the

absence of any specific information on the types of offsets being pursued by

the Proponent and therefore the relative conservation benefits associated

with different offset options, the Panel cannot give any guidance about

whether departures from ‘like for like’ requirements for very high

conservation value vegetation should be supported. This is a matter that

remains for determination by the Minister for Energy and Resources, under

the Pipelines Act 2005, but should be on the advice of the Minister for

Environment and Climate Change.

Although the native vegetation losses due to this project are relatively

limited, incremental losses contribute to more significant cumulative effects

and the Panel encourages DSE to work towards identifying strategic

opportunities for the provision of consolidated offsets.

Surveys of aquatic native vegetation at the proposed stream crossing sites

have not been undertaken and the Panel has recommended further targeted

surveys and offsetting of any losses in accordance with the Framework.

The EPBC Act Referral did not identify potential impacts from the project on

the Southern Bent‐wing Bat and evidence indicated that the bat is unlikely to

be adversely affected by the Power Station operation. However, given the

uncertainties about bat usage of the site and possible impacts, DSE sought a

monitoring regime. The Panel accepts that the principles of the monitoring

program put forward after the hearing should be implemented but notes that

responses if bat mortality is identified may well be in the form of

adjustments to lighting, or offsets in the form of improvements to bat habitat

elsewhere.

EES Assessment Objective: To protect catchment values, including surface

water quality, stream flow, aquatic health and groundwater values, to the

extent practicable.

Water quality in waterways may be impacted during construction of the gas

and water pipelines, the Power Station, the proposed upgrading of Riordans

Road, and during the operation of the Power Station. However, the Panel is

satisfied that risks to water quality can be mitigated through the design of

the stormwater management system for the Power Station site to maintain

the current discharge hydrology by maximising on‐site use and minimising

the volume of water discharged to Shaw River, together with the

implementation of best practice sedimentation and pollution control

measures during project construction and power station operation.


The Panel endorses the consensus view at the hearing that:

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is the preferred pipeline

construction method to avoid environmental impacts at sensitive

locations such as river crossings, subject to further geotechnical

investigation to determine the feasibility of this method;

Contingency plans should be in place prior to the commencement of

construction in the event that HDD proves unsuccessful; and

Specific measures for each watercourse crossing should be incorporated

in Construction EMPs.

EES Assessment Objective: To protect Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal

cultural heritage to the extent practicable.

The EES has not identified any Aboriginal cultural heritage places.

However, there are unsurveyed areas affected by the project works that have

been identified as having high sensitivity and potential to contain Aboriginal

heritage places or artefacts. Other approvals must be consistent with an

approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the project under the

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and this establishes an appropriate

framework to manage any issues that may arise.

There are no non‐aboriginal heritage places on the Heritage Register or

protected by heritage overlays but the Construction EMP should ensure

impacts on dry‐stone walls along the pipeline route, a bluestone drinking

trough and bluestone bridge and culvert are minimised. The Panel is of the

view that, like exemptions for removal of native vegetation along the water

pipelines, works affecting dry‐stone walls should also be exempt under

clause 52.03, subject to a requirement for the protection and re‐instatement

being included in the Construction EMP.

EES Assessment Objective: To avoid or minimise noise, visual and other

adverse amenity effects, as well as health and safety implications, on local

residents during the development and operation of the power station,

compressor station and gas and water pipelines.

There will be some impact on the amenity of properties in the vicinity of the

various elements of the project. Some transitory disruption and amenity

impacts during the construction phase are inevitable but can be minimised

through management plans and/or PEA works approvals, which address

matters such as compliance with specified noise limits, rehabilitation plans

and dust suppression.


During operations, the Panel concludes that:

noise from power station and compressor station operations will be

audible at the nearest houses but compliance with the recommended

limits can be achieved and this would mean normal residential activities

should not be disrupted, including during the night time period;

the Power Station will be a large structure that will be visually prominent

in the immediate area, particularly after the harvesting of adjoining

timber plantations. However, these visual impacts do not affect

landscapes of recognised significance and the outlook from the relatively

few residential properties affected is currently quite visually contained

due to the interception of views by either timber plantations or other

plantings around homesteads;

with regard to air emissions from the Power Station and compressor

station, ground level concentrations for all cases considered will be much

lower than the relevant health‐based ambient air design criteria in SEPP‐

AQM; rainwater would not be contaminated at any nearby residences;

and sealing of the main vehicle routes plus management to suppress dust

in other trafficked areas is recommended; and

there will be a minimal increase in odour from the Recycled Water

Treatment Plant.

The Panel considers that the impacts on amenity in the locality are acceptable

given the benefits to the wider community but, like wind energy facilities,

compliance with specified noise limits should be verified and properties

within three kilometres of the Power Station and compressor station should

be offered landscaping to screen views to the infrastructure. The Panel

considers, although a long term consideration, the community should be

assured that rehabilitation of the Power Station will occur after

decommissioning, preferably through a bond if the necessary administrative

framework can be established.

Preliminary HAZID analysis in the EES indicate that that safety impacts can

be appropriately managed through EMPs. It is understood that the design of

the project considers the risk of explosion to existing uses such as dwellings

but the Panel has questioned whether the risk to future dwellings, which in

some circumstances are as of right, has been addressed. The Panel

recommends further consideration of design specifications and/or the need

for an overlay to ensure safety risk is considered and addressed before

dwellings (or other sensitive uses) are built in the vicinity of the project. The

extent of such an overlay would be determined on the basis of risk and a

consultative process would be necessary to allow those who may be affected

to present their views. As the Power Station will be a Major Hazard Facility


ongoing training should be provided by the Proponent to ensure adequately

trained CFA and SES personnel are available locally to assist in emergency

situations.

EES Assessment Objective: To minimise the disruption of existing land uses,

infrastructure, traffic and local communities, including in relation to the

availability of housing and the potential need to upgrade infrastructure.

Project traffic will be directed to main roads with minimal use and impact on

the local road network. Riordans Road is proposed to be upgraded,

VicRoads approval will be required for over‐dimensional vehicle routes and

the Traffic Management Plan provides an appropriate mechanism to

minimise disruption, particularly during construction.

The project will provide a substantial stimulus to the local economy,

particularly during the construction and future maintenance phases, but will

also place substantial demands on the local labour market, community

services and housing. The strain on accommodation and services will be

compounded if construction of a number of the major infrastructure projects

proposed in the region occurs at once.

The Panel recognises there will be substantial challenges in meeting the

additional demand for housing while minimising adverse impacts on

affordable housing options for existing residents and accommodation

associated with tourism. A range of housing options are likely to be

required. The Panel does not think the strategic justification for as of right

development of construction camps (as proposed under Amendment C36)

has been established but it supports providing discretion for Council to

consider the merits of a construction camp on the Power Station site and

Santos land to the east of Old Dunmore Road if other options prove to be

insufficient.

The Panel endorses the EES view that early and ongoing consultation is

required with various stakeholders and service providers but emphasises

that there is an immediate need to advance strategic planning work beyond

the broad overview analysis in the EES Socio‐economic Impact Assessment

to identifying practical options that are capable of implementation within the

required timeframes. The sooner this work commences the better as delay

leads to more and more constraints on realisable responses. Therefore a

formal commitment to undertake or contribute to this work linked to

approval of Amendment C36 is preferable to the proposed SUZ2

requirements for the issue to be addressed at a later stage within the

Construction EMP. The socio‐economic impact assessment of the Mortlake

power station project, being undertaken by Moyne Shire Council should

provide useful insights for further project planning processes.


EES Assessment Objective: To provide a transparent framework with clear

accountability for managing environmental effects and risks associated with

the project to achieve acceptable outcomes.

Exhibition of the EES resulted in surprisingly few submissions for a project

of this scale – three submissions from property owners in the vicinity of the

project, one submission from a wind energy facility proponent in the region

and submissions from the proponents, and seven agencies that were

members of the technical reference group who responded to the Panel

invitation to submit. None of the submissions or material presented to the

Panel has suggested that the project should not proceed.

It was apparent from the presentations to the Panel that the EES Technical

Reference Group (TRG) has worked constructively to resolve most issues.

This is a credit to both the Proponent (and those working on its behalf) and

the regulatory agencies. This positive relationship provided a level of

confidence from those presenting at the hearing that outstanding matters or

issues that may yet arise should be capable of acceptable resolution. It will

continue to be important that those with responsibility for future approvals

have access to relevant expertise on technical matters such as noise, air

quality and protection of biodiversity values. The TRG and the Shire of

Moyne’s community liaison processes appear to have opened channels of

communication and these co‐operative working arrangements should be

maintained to facilitate project specific co‐ordination of approval processes

and monitoring of implementation.

Management plans provide the primary mechanism for managing safety and

environmental impacts from the project under the key pieces of legislation.

The Panel finds that the Strategic EMP in the EES establishes a sound

framework and basis for the development of more detailed Construction

EMPs, Operations EMPs and Safety Management Plans (SMPs). Compliance

testing by suitably qualified people at key stages is also recommended to

provide a level of certainty that commitments are met and to minimise the

need for future reactive enforcement actions.

The Panel has endorsed the purpose of Amendment C36 to facilitate the

implementation of the project (except for a possible construction camp) by

providing for as of right development of the Power Station with secondary

approval processes for more detailed plans. However, the Panel considers

SUZ2 should specify some key performance expectations, rather than just

indicating the scope of plans to be submitted. To provide greater certainty

about the basis for assessment of the subsequent Development Plan and

EMPs, SUZ2 should explicitly state that the EES and Ministers Assessment

establish the basis for subsequent approvals. Key parameters, such as


maximum noise levels, establishing the need for DSE approval of offsets for

any losses of native vegetation and provision for off‐site landscaping to

mitigate visual impacts, should be specified in the schedule. This provides

affected third parties with an avenue to pursue enforcement of compliance

with requirements that would not be available under other approvals.

The Panel considers that the SUZ2 should indicate that the Planning

Authority should have regard to the views of nominated agencies when the

Development Plan and EMP are assessed. This will recognise that review is

required by those with more specific expertise than is available to Council.

EES Assessment Objective: To enable outcomes consistent with ecologically

sustainable development over the short and long term, having regard to the

likely overall economic, social and environmental effects.

On the basis of the information presented, the Panel finds that the project

will result in a net benefit to the community. The EES has established that

there is a sound planning rationale for the project to generate power with

lower intensity of greenhouse gas emissions and provides a solid framework

for further development of the project plans to mitigate potential

environmental impacts.

The Panel sees strategic planning and co‐ordination of regulatory processes

on a sub‐regional level as important to achieve optimum outcomes from the

very substantial investment in the energy sector anticipated for the region.

DPCD would appear to be the appropriate agency to lead such a process

which should involve the range of stakeholders including local government,

public and private service/infrastructure providers, project proponents,

representatives of business organisations, and members of the community

affected by infrastructure projects. The Panel emphasises, however, that a

pragmatic approach with a strong focus on specific outcomes that can be

realised within the lead time of the projects will be vital.

Consolidated Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Inquiry Panel recommends

that:

1. Ensure that construction of the gas and water pipelines is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Referral Decisions under

the EPBC Act.

2. Ensure the EMPs under the various approvals are consistent and are generally in accordance with the Strategic EMP and Environmental

Commitments exhibited with the EES, as varied by recommendations


of this Panel and the Minister’s Assessment under the Environment

Effects Act.

3. The Proponent actively pursue the option of providing accommodation for power station and gas pipeline construction workers in towns or

other existing facilities.

4. DPI consult with the relevant Shire about the location and conditions that should apply if, despite this Panel’s recommendations, a

construction camp is proposed along the gas pipeline route for

construction workers.

5. Implement the following noise limits at the nearest residence in the EPA Works Approval and the EMPs for the Power Station and

compressor station:

operational noise:

34 dB(A) under worst case weather, (CONCAWE Category 6)

32 dB(A) under neutral weather (CONCAWE Category 4); and

construction noise:

55 dB(A) during the daytime (7am to 6pm);

37 dB(A) during the evening (6pm to 10pm); and

32 dB(A) at night (10pm to 7am).

6. Incorporate specific control measures for each watercourse crossing in Construction EMPs.

7. Manage acid sulphate soils found at the Curdies River in accordance with the requirements of the EPA and DSE policies and guidelines.

8. Design the stormwater management system for the Power Station site to implement best practice sedimentation and pollution control

measures to the satisfaction of EPA, and limit impacts to maintain the

current discharge volume hydrology to Shaw River.

9. Undertake targeted aquatic flora surveys once stream crossing points and techniques are confirmed, in order to identify the relevant EVCs

and prepare net gain assessments where required.

10. Ensure that site specific requirements are included in construction EMPs, including appropriate rehabilitation techniques and monitoring

measures for rehabilitation success, specific to terrestrial flora and

fauna identified through targeted surveys.

11. Manage the noise impacts of the construction of the gas and water pipelines under the EPA Noise Control Guidelines (Publication 1254:

October 2008, and in particular:


Other than in unusual circumstances, the gas pipeline

construction activities should be restricted to 6am to 6pm, seven

days per week (noting lower noise threshold requirements for

activities conducted on Saturdays and Sundays). Early‐morning

activities from before 7am should be restricted to low‐noise

work, such as vehicle arrivals and toolbox meetings.

Water pipelines construction activities should be restricted to

7am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and 7pm to 1pm on Saturdays.

12. Inform residents of the nature of the works, expected noise levels, duration of works and a method of contact.

13. Monitor noise at the sensitive receptors nearest to the Power Station and compressor station under representative conditions during the

commissioning of each stage of the project to confirm compliance with

the criteria.

14. Make the results of any noise monitoring of the project and responses to noise complaints available to the community liaison forum. Ensure

Construction EMPs for the gas and water pipelines require:

Appropriate works to ensure rehabilitation to former condition;

Immediate post construction audits to confirm native vegetation

losses and offsets; and

Follow‐up audits at two years post construction, to confirm

actual native vegetation losses and revise offsets, if required.

15. Require a monitoring program broadly in line with that outlined in Appendix D to:

Assess the impact of water discharged from the Power Station.

Establish the occurrence of the Southern Bent‐wing Bat on the

Power Station site and the need for management or ‘offsetting’

measures if impacts from the Power Station are identified.

16. Ensure that, in addition to commitments in the EES, lighting:

Is the minimum required for access and safe operation of parts of

the facility that are actually in use;

Incorporates sensor activation; and

Is baffled to avoid light spill above the horizontal.

17. Review the design of the intersection of Riordans and Hamilton–Port Fairy Roads in consultation with VicRoads with a view to providing an

acceleration lane for fully laden B Double trucks turning left from

Riordans Road onto the Hamilton – Port Fairy Road.

18. Provide a sealed upgrade of Riordans Road from the Hamilton–Port Fairy Road intersection to:


The entrance of the Power Station before development starts,

and internally for all roads regularly used by B double vehicles;

and

The entrance of the camp before development starts, if a

construction camp is proposed in the vicinity of the Power

Station.

19. Provide a free bus service, at the cost of the Proponent, for construction workers from locations identified in the accommodation strategy (eg

Warrnambool, Port Fairy and Mortlake) to the Power Station for the

duration of construction.

20. Review and address potential impacts of the concrete batching plant in the Traffic Management Plan.

21. Include requirements relating to decommissioning of the project in relevant project approvals.

22. Ensure Construction EMPs for the gas and water pipelines include measures to protect and re‐instate dry‐stone walls that may be impacted

by construction.

23. Ensure appropriate management of safety risks to future development associated with the project (Options to consider include both pipe

thickness specification in areas with potential for future development

and an overlay for land where risks associated with the proximity to the

project either preclude development or require specific design

measures).

24. Ensure the Proponent provides ongoing training to both the CFA and SES to enable effective responses to potential emergency situations.

25. Require independent compliance auditing and testing by suitably qualified people at relevant stages of the development process with

performance requirements of the following matters:

Air emissions.

Noise emissions.

Surface water management systems and the quality of water

discharged from project sites.

Impacts on native vegetation.

Post construction rehabilitation of pipeline easements.


26. Maintain a Project Liaison and Monitoring Committee which:

Is led by the Shire of Moyne with active participation by the

Proponent and relevant agencies (including EPA, DPI, DSE);

Includes representation of nearby residents; and

Is resourced by the Proponent.

27. Establish a similar community liaison forum led by the Shire of Corangamite to operate during the construction and rehabilitation

phases of the gas pipeline and Compressor Station.

28. Include complaints handling processes in EMPs that adopt the principles outlined in Australian Standard Customer Satisfaction –

Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations (AS10002:2006).

29. Evaluate the merits of:

Requiring a bond to guarantee site rehabilitation after

decommissioning of project infrastructure.

Upgrading roads to provide better connections between the

Shaw River and Tarrone power station sites with the quarry to

the south east, and, if substantial benefits are identified, the

appropriate basis for contributions to such works.

The potential to upgrade the capacity of the water supply mains

to the Power station to meet the needs of the proposed Tarrone

Power Station and other users along the pipeline route.

Amendment C36

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that

Amendment C36 be adopted with the changes listed below:

30. Require the Proponent to enter into a Section 173 agreement before Amendment C36 is approved to the satisfaction of the DPCD and the

planning authorities to ensure early conduct of an accommodation and

community services strategy for the project.

SUZ2

31. Revise the table of the uses in the Schedule 2 to the SUZ to apply the existing Farming Zone table with the additional as of right uses in the

exhibited SUZ2 (except that construction camp would be a section 2

use).


32. Revise the Schedule 2 to the SUZ and the Clause 52.03 incorporated document to require a permit for a temporary construction camp.

33. Revise the exemptions from permit requirements in Clause 3 of Schedule 2 to the SUZ for buildings and works as follows:

‘Rearrange, alter or renew existing plant if the location, area or

height of the plant is not increased.’

Delete the exemption ‘‘result in a minor rearrangement of on‐site

roads and access ways, car parking areas and landscaping

provided that their areas and effectiveness are not diminished.’

Are accommodation and temporary amenities provided for

persons constructing and commissioning any plant on the land.

34. Specify that the Development Plan and EMPs must address the principles, actions and commitments contained in the exhibited

Environment Effects Statement, including the Strategic EMP and

Environmental Commitments, except where they are specifically varied

in the Minister’s assessment of Environmental Effects and Panel Report

or by the conditions of other statutory approvals.

35. Specify that the Responsible Authority will have regard, as appropriate, to the views of relevant agencies (including DPI, EPA,

DSE, VicRoads, ESV, WorkSafe Victoria) when the Development Plan

and EMPs are considered.

36. Specify in the schedule the particular requirements recommended by this Panel, including:

Compliance with recommended noise limits.

Compliance with SEPP (Air Quality Management) and SEPP

(Waters of Victoria) design criteria and standards.

Matters identified in Chapter 6.2 recommendations relating to

Safety Management Plans.

A sealed upgrade of Riordans Road from the Hamilton – Port

Fairy Road intersection to the entrance of the Power Station

(before development starts) and internally for all roads regularly

used by B double vehicles.

Provision of sufficient parking at the Power Station to meet

requirements during construction phase and maintenance

periods.

Incorporation of management measures from the approved

Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

An ‘Off‐site Landscaping Plan’ to mitigate the visual impact.


Site specific requirements in construction EMPs which include

appropriate rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures

for both aquatic and terrestrial flora.

Southern Bent‐wing Bat monitoring on the Power Station site.

37. Require the Construction EMP and Operations EMP for the Power Station to include a Safety Management Plan prepared by a suitably

qualified person.

38. Provide for the responsible authority to have regard to the views of ESV in the Operations EMP.

39. Include a Development Plan requirement for an ‘Off‐site Landscaping Plan’ to mitigate the visual impact of the Power Station from dwellings

within 3km of the Power Station site. Where an offer is accepted, the

plan should:

Be prepared by the relevant landowner or the Proponent;

Incorporate the species to be used, timetable, and maintenance

arrangements;

Be implemented within 12 months of the endorsement (unless

otherwise agreed between the landowner and the Proponent);

and

Specify that all costs for design, implementation and

maintenance are to be the responsibility of the Proponent or

operator.

40. Apply a sunset provision to the SUZ2 to revive the previous Farming Zone if the Power Station use does not operate for a nominated time

(say five years).

41. In Clause 3 ‘Rearrange, alter or renew existing plant if the location, area or height of the plant is not increased.

Clause 52.03

42. Include the address of the land to the east of Old Dunmore Road in the table in the schedule to Clause 52.03 and attach the relevant maps to the

schedule to that Clause.

43. Revise the Clause 52.03 incorporated document to extend exemptions from permit requirements to alterations and removal of dry stone walls

along the water pipeline alignment.

44. Require a Construction EMP where exemptions from permit requirements are provided under Clause 52.03.


OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

45. Develop a strategy for and implement specific measures to ensure effective responses to the cumulative impacts of major energy projects

in the regions (Note: DPCD is suggested as the appropriate agency to

lead such a process).

46. Include cumulative impacts in the scoping requirements for future EES assessments or matters to be addressed in application documentation

for future major infrastructure projects.

47. Require the Proponent (and proponents for future infrastructure projects) to enter into a Section 173 agreement to the satisfaction of the

DPCD and the relevant planning authorities to contribute to the cost of

planning for and developing co‐ordinated responses to the various

major infrastructure projects in the region.


1. Introduction

1.1 The Project

The project comprises:

A gas‐fired power station near the town of Orford;

A gas compressor station north‐west of Port Campbell;

A gas pipeline from Iona to Orford; and

Water supply infrastructure, including new recycled water treatment

plant (RWTP), and two water pipelines from Port Fairy to Orford (Figure

1).

The project responds to the forecast shortfall in generating capacity in the

National Electricity Market from 2012/13 by using eastern Australia gas

reserves to generate electricity at a lower intensity of greenhouse gas

emissions than coal fired power.

Figure 1 Locality Map (Source: EES Summary Report)

The gas fired power station is proposed on a 110 ha site approximately 27

km north of Port Fairy at the corner of Riordans and Old Dunmore Roads,

Orford. It will connect to the Victorian and national electricity grid via a

switchyard adjacent to the Moorabool–Portland 500‐kV overhead

transmission line which passes through the site. Surrounding land uses

include timber production and broad scale dryland farming. The site is well

removed from urban areas and the nearest houses are 1.6 km away.


The Power Station development would occur in three stages as a baseload,

intermediate or peaking generator to ultimately provide a peak capacity of

1,500MW. The EES assessed the following options to provide flexibility to

develop the project in response to electricity market conditions:

1. Option 1 is to develop three combined‐cycle gas turbine stages (500MW

capacity each) resulting in a total capacity of 1,500MW. This Stage 1

option would principally be used for baseload generation but can be

deployed for intermediate generation; and

2. Option 2 is for Stage 1 to be developed as an open‐cycle gas turbine (255

to 312MW capacity) which may be converted to a 500MW combined‐cycle

gas turbine after either Stage 2 or Stage 3 is constructed. This Stage 1

option has the capacity to generate peak, intermediate or baseload

electricity from ‘cold starts’, and has the flexibility to be deployed in any

of these formats to respond to market conditions.

The EES assumes that each stage will be developed and brought into

operation before the next stage is commenced. However, witness statements

assessed an ‘alternative development scenario’ with a staggered construction

of Stages 1 and 2.

Figure 2 The Power Station Site (Source: EES Summary Report Figure 4)

The 2.4 ha Compressor Station site is approximately 5 km north of Port

Campbell and approximately 500m north of the intersection of Smokey Point

and Pascoes Roads. Infrastructure to be installed at the compressor station

comprises six 4.6MW gas‐fired turbines (compressor units) necessary for

operation of the Power Station at full capacity, inlet gas filtering equipment,

meters for pressure and flow control, gas quality monitoring equipment, a


scraper launcher and receiver station, a control building, amenities,

workshop and storage area. The compressor station site will be sealed or

covered with gravel.

Figure 3 Compressor Station Layout (Source: EES Figure 8.2)

A high‐pressure, underground Gas Pipeline of approximately 94 km is

proposed between the Iona and Otway gas plants near Port Campbell and

the proposed Power Station at Orford (see Figure 1). This new pipe would

connect to the South West Pipeline (east of Otway Gas Plant). The pipeline

alignment within the nominally 500m wide pipeline corridor1 has been

progressively refined. A 100 to 200 m wide strip centred on the conceptual

gas pipeline alignment was nominated for detailed investigations required to

inform the EES. Except for road and waterway crossings, the gas pipeline

alignment will generally be through private land which is predominantly flat

to gently undulating, cleared dryland pasture.

Wannon Water proposes to build, own and operate upgraded Water Supply

Infrastructure with the following components to supply water to the

proposed power station:

Use of recycled water for processing, to avoid reducing local drinking

water supplies. The process water supply will be either used directly in

the Power Station, or further treated for use in the steam cycle.

1 The corridor is wider at sites where there is potential need for realignment has been identified.


New infrastructure at existing Wannon Water facilities in Port Fairy to

supply amenity (potable) water and up to 450 ML per annum of process

(recycled) water to the Power Station.

Two approximately 28‐km long pipelines in a shared trench to carry the

process and amenity water from Port Fairy to the Power Station.

At Port Fairy, the amenity water pipeline runs from the Port Fairy water

treatment plant to a proposed recycled water treatment plant(RWTP). The

proposed RWTP occupies less than 1 hectare of disused land in the northern

portion of the larger 35 ha Wannon Water site which is approximately two

kilometres northeast of the Port Fairy town centre. From the new RWTP, the

amenity and process water pipelines follow the water reclamation plant

access road to Hamilton–Port Fairy Road. The pipeline is then generally

aligned along Hamilton–Port Fairy and Old Dunmore Roads.

The Wannon Water site, including the RWTP and land directly surrounding

it, is zoned Public Use – Service and Utility. Land surrounding the site is

primarily used for agriculture, with low density housing further to the east.

Construction Camps

The EES indicates that the construction workforce may live in existing

accommodation in nearby towns and commute to the site in light vehicles

and buses or potentially could live within a temporary construction camp

established for the project near the power station site, along the pipeline

routes or in towns nearby. Amendment C36 provides for as of right

development of construction camps on the Power Station site, on land

immediately to the east of the Power Station or along the pipeline route.

1.2 Overarching Policy Context

Planning policy encourages development that makes efficient use of energy

and minimises greenhouse gas emissions (SPPF Clause 15.12‐1). It also

provides for delivery of high pressure pipeline infrastructure at minimal risk

to people and the environment (the Pipelines Act 1995, SPPF Clause 18.11).

While there is a predisposition in favour of projects that advance these broad

‘sector specific’ policies, the assessment of process must encompass and

integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors. It is the

government expectation that planning decisions making will ‘balance

conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable

development.’ (SPPF Clause 11).

Specific policy guidance is referred to in subsequent chapters but it is not

proposed to restate in this report all of the relevant local and state planning

policies which are set out in the EES.


1.3 Overview of Statutory Approvals Required

The complex regulatory framework for the project was the subject of some

discussion at the Hearing and the Panel returns to the regulatory

implications, where relevant, in our discussion of issues in subsequent

chapters of this report. Chapter 2 of the EES summarises the approvals,

licences, consents and permits required for the three main components of the

project. A copy of EES Table 2.1 which summarises key approvals and

assessments required is included in Appendix C of this report. The main

statutory approvals required for the project were summarised as:

The Power Station

Generation Licence and Connection Agreement under the Electricity

Industry Act 2000. These approvals take the EES stakeholder consultation

into consideration but do not rely upon the EES to inform the process.

Registration and Licence to Operate a Major Hazard Facility under the

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. A Safety Case must be prepared

and will be informed through the preparation of the EES.

Amendment C36 proposes to change approval requirements under the

Moyne Planning scheme (see discussion in Chapter 11.3).

Works Approval and licence to discharge under the Environment

Protection Act 1970 are triggered by the Power Station classification as a

Scheduled Premises under the Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises

and Exemptions) Regulations, the potential air emissions from the Power

Station, sewage treatment and the on‐site water treatment to upgrade the

process water.

The Gas Pipeline (including compressor station and a possible associated

construction camp)

Licence to Construct and Operate a Pipeline under the Pipelines Act 2005

(which sets aside planning scheme provisions that would otherwise

apply)2 which is administered by DPI and involves:

Permission to access private and public land.

Approval of a consultation plan by the Minister for Energy and

Resources (DPI) before giving notice of the intention to enter land

or notice of a pipeline corridor to landholders (approved for the

project in October 2008).

2 The consensus view at the hearing was that exemption from planning scheme provisions under the

Pipelines Act (s85) extends to the inlet metering station, compressor station and the midline valve as they form part of the pipeline system apparatus to convey the gas. It was suggested that this exemption would apply to a temporary camp for pipeline construction workers.


Approved safety management plans for construction and for

operation which must be accepted by Energy Safe Victoria before

construction or operation of the gas pipeline commence.

Approved EMPs for construction and operations.

Written consent to operate a pipeline from the Minister for Energy

and Resources.

Works approval and licence to discharge under the Environment Protection

Act 1970 triggered by emissions of nitrogen oxides from the compressor

station.

A Connection Agreement under the Gas Industry Act 1997 from the

Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO).

The Water Supply Infrastructure and Pipelines

A licence under the Water Act 1989 to construct, alter, remove or abandon

works on a waterway through several waterways, including Ware Creek,

to meet the requirements of the local water authorities and DSE.

Works approval and licence to discharge under the Environment Protection

Act 1970 for the upgrade to the Port Fairy water reclamation plant.

Amendment C36 proposes to change approval requirements under the

Moyne Planning scheme (see discussion in Chapter 11.3).

Environmental Management Plans (EMPs)

Management plans provide the primary mechanism for managing safety and

environmental impacts from the project under the key pieces of legislation.

A detailed Strategic EMP was publicly exhibited with the EES (EES

Attachment 5) and its content will not be repeated in this report. Much of the

Strategic EMP content was also incorporated in the Environmental

Commitments in EES Attachment 4. The Strategic EMP addresses:

The legislative context and standards;

Environment, health and safety management systems which encompass

policy, planning, implementation, checking, corrective action and

management review;

Integrated risk assessment, including residual risks; and

Management guidelines relating to geology, soils and landforms;

hydrology, surface water and groundwater; ecology; air quality; noise;

visual impacts; traffic management; cultural heritage; land access; and the

management of waste and hazardous materials.

These plans will also draw on and form part of established systems for

matters such as environmental management and occupational health and

safety that already guide the actions of the Proponents.


The Panel finds that the Strategic EMP establishes a sound framework and

basis for the development of more detailed Construction EMPs, Operations

EMPs and Safety Management Plans (SMPs).

1.4 EES Evaluation Objectives

The scoping requirements issued by DPCD specified the following

evaluation objectives to guide the evaluation of the project and the EES.

These objectives establish the basis for the Panel assessment. In summary,

the EES objectives relate to the efficient supply of energy and the intensity of

greenhouse gas emissions; impacts on biodiversity values; impacts on water

catchment values; Aboriginal and Non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage; health,

safety and amenity impacts; disruption to landuse and infrastructure; the

framework for managing environmental impacts; and the overall economic,

social and environmental effects.

These objectives are clearly relevant to the Panel’s evaluation of the project

and have determined the structure of this report.

1.5 Identification of Issues

For a project of the scale proposed there were few issues raised in

submissions to the Panel which provided a high degree of confidence that

outstanding matters were capable of resolution.

The remainder of this report is structured on the basis of the EES evaluation

Objectives. Some of the key issues addressed relate to:

the noise criteria to be adopted for the project and the assurances in the

regulatory framework proposed of compliance with the criteria;

the management of pipeline crossings of sensitive waterways, the efficacy

of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) in these circumstances and the

need for contingency plans;

the nature of offsets for unavoidable losses of native vegetation;

the need for further assessment of aquatic ecological values;

the need to ensure the planning framework requires consideration of

safety along the gas pipeline when new development is proposed;

housing for workers, including whether construction camps should be

facilitated;

the cumulative impacts of multiple infrastructure projects in the region;

and

ensuring subsequent approval processes can draw on appropriate levels

of technical expertise.


2. Power Generation: Efficiency, Affordability and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

EES Evaluation Objective: To provide for the development of base load and

intermediate load power generation capacities in the context of government policy

objectives to maintain a secure, efficient and affordable supply of energy while

reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector.

2.1 Rationale for Additional Gas-fired Power Generation

The EES notes that reliance on gas‐fired generation to facilitate the transition

to low‐emissions technologies is emphasised in the Victorian Minister for

Energy and Resources’ statement, Energy for Victoria (NRE, 2002a):

Natural gas is widely seen as playing a significant role in providing a

secure energy supply source.

This is because natural gas: produces substantially lower greenhouse

emissions than brown coal technologies; is more competitive than current

renewable sources; and has sufficient flexibility to fuel large base load

and peaking plants as well as small‐scale distributed and high‐efficiency

generation.

The EES (Chapter 3) describes the rationale for the project, based on

opportunities in the gas and electricity markets, the forecast conditions that

create the need for additional electricity generation capacity, and specifically

in the case of Shaw River Power Station, the following:

Victorian electricity baseload generation is nearing peak capacity. The

EES notes that maximum demand under a medium‐growth scenario is

forecast to increase by an annual average rate of 2% for the winter period

and 2.4% for the summer period, over the 10 years to the end of 2018/19.

Forecast summer electricity supply‐demand shows that additional

generating capacity will be required in Victoria and South Australia from

start 2012/13, with the additional capacity initially required in South

Australia. The proposed Power Station, which is planned to commence

operation in late 2012 or early 2013, would contribute to meeting the

predicted shortfall in electricity supply;

while the proposed Power Station will contribute to greenhouse gas

emissions, the lower emissions intensity of natural gas and the proven

efficiency of combined‐cycle, gas‐turbine technology will reduce the

average greenhouse gas intensity of the Victorian electricity supply (See

EES Chapter 3.4);


the proposed emissions trading scheme is evolving towards facilitation of

less carbon intensive power generation using gas as a transitional fuel;

reliable baseload capacity is needed in addition to more intermittent

supply from renewable energy technologies. Even with substantial

advances in renewable energy, investment in gas‐fired generation will be

required to compensate for reduced coal‐fired generation and to ensure a

secure and reliable baseload electricity supply. It is expected that carbon

prices under a functional Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (yet to be

proposed) will make it unlikely that new brown coal‐fired generating

plants will be built in the future without carbon capture and storage

capability;

responsible use of water resources through the use of recycled water and

low consumption technologies is now a state government priority; and

high efficiency equipment for the generation of electricity will be used.

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.2.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context

The Kyoto Protocol legally requires developed countries to reduce domestic

greenhouse gas emissions to the country’s internationally agreed target.

Australia’s national annual target is 108% of our 1990 emissions. Preliminary

estimates of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2007 over 2006 data

show an overall increase of 1.6% and greenhouse gas emissions from the

energy sector increased by 3%. This is within the Kyoto target of 108%, being

106% over 1990 levels (DCC 2008a). On a sectoral basis, greenhouse gas

emissions from the stationary power sector have increased by over 47% from

1990 to 2006.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 establishes a

mandatory corporate reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions, energy

consumption and production.

SEPP (AQM) provides the framework for assessment of greenhouse gas

emissions and the Victorian Protocol for Environmental Management

Greenhouse Gas and Energy Efficiency in Industry (PEM) requires

implementation of best practice in greenhouse gas emissions and energy

consumption. Compliance with the SEPP (AQM) greenhouse gas emission

and energy efficiency reporting requirements is also required. Once in

operation, the Shaw River Power Station facility will be required to:

manage greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption as part of

their integrated environmental management practices;


report to the Victorian EPA through its annual license holders report:

annual energy consumption; greenhouse gas emissions; and actions

implemented and to be implemented the following year; and

regularly review operations to identify opportunities to further reduce

energy use.

Environment and Resource Efficiency Plan (EREP) program requires large

users of energy and water, such as Shaw River Power Station3, to:

assess energy and water use, and waste generation;

develop an EREP that includes actions with a three year or better payback

to reduce energy, water and waste production; and

implement the actions in the approved EREP and report on progress.

The Proponent indicates it will employ commercially proven power

generation technology which will operate at efficiency beyond applicable

benchmarks in Australia (see EES Figure 4.1). The Proponent will be subject

to ongoing emissions and energy reporting commitments under NGER. In

this context it is the intention to apply for a five‐year exemption to the EREP

requirements, subject to approval of the Victorian EPA.

State Planning Policy (Clause 15.12 Energy Efficiency) seeks to encourage

land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy

and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions.

2.2.2 EES Assessment - Greenhouse Emission Estimates

The EES greenhouse gas emission forecasts accounted for:

direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the

reporting entity (Scope 1);

indirect emissions from the generation of energy products (eg. electricity,

steam/heat and reduction materials used for smelting) purchased by the

entity (Scope 2); and

other indirect emissions that are a consequence of entity activities but are

from sources not owned or controlled by that entity (Scope 3).

For the Power Station development the bulk of the annual operational Scope

1 emissions, 98.2%, is associated with combustion of natural gas in the Power

Station; the remainder is predominately associated with gas compressor

operation. It was considered Scope 3 emissions contribute approximately

3 Shaw River Power Station will be required to participate in the EREP program as it will use more

than 100TJ of energy per year.


10.2% to annual operational greenhouse gas estimates; Scope 3 emissions

being predominately associated with the supply of natural gas.

The EES indicated construction greenhouse gas emissions contributes a very

small fraction of the entire project emissions over a forecast 25‐year lifespan.

Greenhouse Intensity of Electricity Generation

The EES indicates that each unit of energy provided by the combustion of

natural gas results in less greenhouse gas emissions in comparison with

other fossil fuels, particularly coal. In Victoria most electricity is supplied at

present by brown coal fuelled generation which, due to high moisture

content, has particularly high greenhouse gas emissions per unit of usable

energy released.

Combined cycle gas turbines have significantly higher thermal efficiencies

than the current fleet of power generators in Australia. The electricity

generated by Shaw River Power Station will produce significantly less

greenhouse gas emissions per unit of generation than current Australian and

Victorian averages.

The emissions intensity of electricity generated by the proposed Power

Station will increase if Option 2 is selected, as the open cycle gas turbine does

not employ cogeneration. The emissions intensity of the open cycle gas

turbine and combined cycle gas turbines are both lower than those detailed

for relevant Australian Best Available Technology benchmarks. The overall

emissions intensity of the Power Station can be decreased by converting the

open cycle gas turbine to combined cycle as soon as possible.

Comparisons with Best Available Technology standards sourced from the

Australian Greenhouse Office (now Department of Climate Change DCC),

provides a useful Australian benchmark for greenhouse intensity (i.e., kg

CO2‐e/MWh sent out) in electricity generation, based on the most efficient

currently available equipment for each fuel and generation type. This

comparison indicates that Shaw River Power Station is approximately:

57% less greenhouse intensive than wet cooled black coal fuelled ultra

supercritical boiler;

68% less greenhouse intensive than wet cooled brown coal fuelled ultra

supercritical boiler;

40% less greenhouse intensive than a natural gas fired open cycle gas

turbine; and

6% less greenhouse intensive than benchmark natural gas fuelled

combined cycle gas turbine with wet cooling.


The Figure below shows the Australian benchmarks for various fuels and

technologies compared with the forecast performance of the project and the

current Victorian average. The EES Greenhouse Gas Assessment (Appendix

7) concluded that the proposed Power Station will be up to 70% less

greenhouse intensive (kg CO2‐e per megawatt‐hour sent out) than the current

Victorian power production average. This fits with Victorian Government

policy that seeks an orderly transition to low‐emissions technologies to assist

Victoria to reduce emissions from the stationary energy sector.

The thermal efficiency of a power station describes the quantity of electricity

generated per unit of energy input in the form of fuel. There is a direct link

between efficiency and greenhouse intensity. Figure 4.2 shows the thermal

efficiency of the proposed Power Station, in comparisons against Best

Available Technology standards for power generators4.

4 Sourced from Technical Guidelines: Generator Efficiency Standards published by the Australian

Greenhouse Office (AGO 2006).


Impact of Shaw River Power Station

Currently the carbon intensity of electricity generation in Victoria is 1220 kg

CO2‐e/MWhr (carbon dioxide equivalents per Megawatt hour)(DCC 2008c).

Victoria’s carbon intensity is the highest of all the states, and can be

attributed to the extensive use of brown coal.

Despite being a significant direct emitter of greenhouse emissions, operation

of the proposed Power Station will cause an overall reduction in greenhouse

emissions intensity associated with electricity supply in Victoria. Every

Megawatt hour (MWhr) of electricity generated by the proposed Power

Station at 342 kg CO2‐e/MWhr will reduce the average intensity of the

current Victorian generation supply.

2.2.3 Submissions and Proponent Response

The Corangamite Shire submission noted that the project would lead to

increased greenhouse gas emissions estimated between 3‐4 million t CO2‐e

annually.

In response Mr Ormerod noted that:

The development is part of a long‐term and state‐wide process of

progressively meeting new electrical demand by installing lower


carbon intensity generation capacity, and building the basis for

the replacement of aged and inefficient power stations that have

very high carbon intensity.

The EPA submission noted that further technical details will need to be

provided to adequately assess whether or not the requirements of the PEM

are met. The EPA’s written submission identified requirements in relation to

efficiency and green house gas emissions as follows:

The Greenhouse PEM requires identification and implementation of best

practice with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and energy

consumption for Victorian businesses subject to EPA works approvals

and licensing. Exactly what constitutes best practice will depend on

technical, logistical and financial considerations that need to be

demonstrated by the Proponent. Under the PEM, Works Approval

applicants need to demonstrate that they have identified and will be

implementing best practice in relation to energy use and greenhouse gas

emissions associated with works/activities/processes that are the subject

of the application.

Further technical and logistical consideration of measures to

minimize, sequester and/or offset greenhouse gas (‘GHG’)

emissions will be needed to assess the practicability of different

technologies and practices.

The Proponent has indicated that the proposal will have greenhouse

benefits, as the use of gas to fuel electricity generation is less greenhouse

intensive than energy from coal fired sources.

In relation to energy use related greenhouse gas emissions, Shaw River

will be required to comply with the requirements of the PEM and

demonstrate that its equipment choice meets the best practice

requirements of the PEM. Information confirming that the specific

process and options proposed are best practice in terms of energy

efficiency and GHG emissions will be required. It is noted in

particular that the proposal to construct the open cycle plant will not

constitute best practice for energy efficiency or GHG emissions, though

there may be mitigating factors such as required response times that can

be taken into account.

Ancillary plant items such as motors and drives, lighting, compressed air

systems, etc will also need to be addressed in terms of best practice

energy efficiency. The intention that energy efficiency be included as a

design criterion for equipment selection is noted.

At the hearing it was noted that the above EPA view about the project

included significant qualifications (as indicated by the added emphasis) but


Mr Frame confirmed that, based on the information provided to the EPA, the

Power Station as proposed is best practice. He further confirmed that as a

part of the detailed review of the Licence application the EPA would be

carefully reviewing the information provided to ensure that the power plant

when constructed would be best practice in terms of efficiency and

environmental impacts.

2.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions

EPA’s comments regarding open cycle plants not necessarily meeting best

practice are noted by the Panel, but it is also noted that the project proposes

staged implementation to meet market demand and the conversion from

open cycle plant to closed cycle over time.

The Panel accepts the information and analysis provided in the EES, the

expert evidence of Mr Ormerod and the submission from EPA that the

project can be regarded as best practice and therefore satisfies the

requirements of the PEM.

The proposed power station will be a significant emitter of greenhouse gases

when operational. However, the combination of the natural gas fuel and the

technology employed will result in the generation of electricity with

substantially less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity produced

than the current Victorian average. This is consistent with state government

objectives and represents a major environmental benefit.

2.3 The Power Station Site Selection and Design Efficiency

2.3.1 EES Assessment - Power Station Site Selection5 and Design Efficiency

The majority of baseload electricity is generated in the Latrobe Valley’s

brown coal‐fired power stations in eastern Victoria. The EES notes that

considerable line losses are incurred in transmitting electricity to the west of

Melbourne and a baseload power station in western Victoria would reduce

line losses and improve electricity grid integrity.

The location of the proposed power station was governed by two key factors

– access to a natural gas supply and proximity to the Victorian electricity

grid. These factors are important from a project‐cost perspective to reduce

the cost of gas and electricity transmission infrastructure required to connect

the Power Station to its fuel supply and to the National Electricity Market.

5 EES Chapter 6


Lower fuel supply costs and reduced transmission losses increase the cost‐

effective electricity generation and the competitiveness of the Power Station

in the National Electricity Market.

Western Victoria was found to be the most desirable location for the

proposed power station due to its proximity to the Otway Basin natural gas

reserves and the Victorian Principal Transmission System at Iona Gas Plant

and its strategic position with respect to electricity grid performance.

The Power Station site selection process identified an area of interest

extending from Derrinallum to Heywood and 5 km either side of the

Moorabool–Portland 500‐kV overhead transmission line. Developing the

Power Station near the existing electricity transmission line would reduce or

negate the need to construct overhead transmission lines, thereby reducing

land use and amenity impacts. Proximity to the Iona Gas Plant and existing

gas pipelines would reduce gas pipeline length and provide opportunities to

utilise existing infrastructure or existing infrastructure corridors.

A constraints analysis using a geographic information system was

undertaken to identify areas of least constraint for the proposed power

station site, compressor station site and gas pipeline route. Each site was

evaluated and rated against potential constraints to development as set out

below to identify most suitable sites for the proposed development. Eleven

sites were initially identified for consideration of which five sites were

further evaluated in more detail in relation to the following criteria:

site altitude;

site electricity supply;

site topography and inferred geotechnical conditions;

electricity grid connection; and

access to a reliable water supply to meet the requirements.

Based on a review of site constraints of the final two sites, the Shaw River site

was chosen.

Mr Power advised that the development of the Power Station is proposed to

be undertaken in three stages of nominal 500MW to a peak capacity of

1,500MW, with timing and output determined by electricity and gas market

prices. Mr Napier advised that combined‐cycle technology, involving a gas

turbine and a separate steam turbine in series on a single shaft driving a

single electricity generator is the most efficient method of generating

electricity from gas. However, depending on the conditions of the National

Electricity Market when the plant is constructed, the Proponent may

construct two stages at once with one stage being an open cycle F‐class gas

turbine unit. While the open cycle is slightly less efficient than a combined


cycle it is more readily able to be used for peak power generation. Gas

consumption differences between combined and open cycle were estimated

by PAEHolmes for the Proponent at less than 2%6. Mr Napier advised that

as the market matures it is anticipated that the open cycle turbine would be

converted to a combined cycle unit and the Shaw River Power Station would

be operated as a base load power station.


The Panel acknowledges that the proposed power station location is an

efficient siting option, being west of Melbourne, on the 500kV grid, and

comparatively close to the Iona gas fields. It also notes that the proposed

power station location, in an area with limited environmental constraints and

low population densities has resulted in few critical objections from either

local residents or agencies responsible for regulating the development. The

Panel notes in Chapter 10 however, that these same characteristics have

attracted a number of energy generation projects along the transmission line

corridor and it is suggested that strategic planning for the region should

address access to this important infrastructure.

Based on the information presented to the Panel, in particular the submission

by the EPA in terms of further requirements in terms of efficiency and green

house gas design requirements (see Chapter 2.2) the Panel accepts that the

Power Station will be designed to a high level of efficiency and to minimise

environmental emissions.

2.4 The Gas Pipeline Design and Route Options


The Pipelines Act 2005 provides a specific regulatory regime for the gas

pipeline which accords substantial authority to the Minster for Energy and

Resources in determining pipeline routes and sets aside planning scheme

provisions that would otherwise apply to the pipeline development and

operation. State planning policy (Clause 18.11) identifies strategies for the

delivery of high pressure pipeline infrastructure at minimal risk to people

and the environment which include:

Existing transmission‐pressure gas pipelines should be recognised in

planning schemes and protected from further encroachment by residential

development or other sensitive land uses, unless suitable additional

protection of pipelines is provided.

6 Appendix 8.


The siting of new pipelines should be planned along routes with adequate

buffers to residences, zoned residential land and other sensitive land uses

and with minimal impacts on waterways, wetlands, flora and fauna,

erosion prone areas and other environmentally sensitive sites.

2.4.2 The EES Assessment - Gas Pipeline

The EES identified three gas pipeline routes for further investigation: a route

to the north of the SEA Gas and Western pipelines, a route to the south of

those pipelines and a route along those pipelines. A drive‐by inspection and

an aerial reconnaissance by helicopter were carried out to verify the mapping

information used to identify the gas pipeline route options, to determine the

feasibility of the routes and to refine the proposed gas pipeline route.

The EES stated that community concerns about the proliferation of gas

pipelines in western Victoria were a major consideration in the evaluation of

gas supply options. Options using existing gas pipeline easements were

explored but rejected due to legal and commercial issues, and the

arrangement of the gas pipelines in the easements. The northern gas pipeline

route was found to be the most favourable route as it minimised pinch points

and engineering constraints and reduced the potential for impacts on land

use and ecology.

Geographic information system data, high‐resolution satellite imagery and

site inspections were used to design the conceptual gas pipeline alignment.

A 100‐200 m wide corridor centred on the conceptual gas pipeline alignment

was nominated for detailed geotechnical, ecological, and cultural heritage

investigations required to inform the EES. The conceptual alignment was

progressively refined to address landowner concerns and issues identified in

the detailed investigations. Additional studies have been undertaken to

assess the potential environmental impacts of the realignments incorporated

in the latest version of the proposed gas pipeline alignment.


Geoff Saffin, who is a landholder along the proposed gas pipeline route,

raised concerns about the route of the pipeline and in particular why the

pipeline is not proposed to be constructed in easements for other existing gas

pipelines. He noted that previous pipeline easements were of a similar

width to enable the installation of a second pipe if required and requested

that the Proponent be required to construct the gas pipeline in the existing

easement across his property.


Mr Napier responded that a separate easement was sought because the

existing easements could not be used for commercial and technical reasons.

He advised that the width of easements was in part provided to allow

duplication of an existing main, in the event that it was required to be

decommissioned due to technical issues. He further advised that the route

chosen had been kept as straight as possible and where feasible was parallel

and immediately adjacent to other pipeline easements. Mr Napier spent

some time explaining the rationale for various deviations from existing

easements both at the hearing and during the site inspection. In general

these were related to avoiding significant flora and fauna and to avoid pinch

points where the construction of the pipeline would be constrained due to

other infrastructure. Ms Hendricks for the DPI confirmed that in Victoria

most pipelines are in separate easements, apart from adjacent to major gas

plants.

Mr Saffin also raised a concern that the gas pipeline alignment can deviate

within the 500 m wide pipeline corridor. Mr Napier responded that the

Proponent has spent considerable time working with landowners and

specialists to ensure that the current pipe centreline is acceptable, the most

appropriate and achievable. He advised that only unforseen circumstances

would cause it to make minor adjustments to the alignment currently

proposed. Further Mr Power highlighted that any modification made to the

Gas Pipeline alignment between preparation of the EES and when the

pipeline licence is issued, is at the discretion of the Minister for Energy &

Resources. He submitted that:

‘… the same principles underpinning the assessment of the Gas Pipeline

in the EES will continue to be applied to any modifications that are made

to the alignment between now and when the licence is issued.

The second reason we say there is no concern about such matters is that

the Pipelines Act 2005 contains a number of environmental ‘checks and

balances’ to address the environmental impacts of gas pipelines in

Victoria. These checks and balances are much more sophisticated than

what one typically encounters in the planning system.’

Ms Hendricks confirmed that the DPI is currently considering Mr Saffin’s

submission in relation to the pipeline route across his property.

The Panel noted that a number of submitters discussed the use of HDD for

constructing the pipeline under sensitive areas, particularly in the case of

river crossings. The Panel heard from Ms Hendricks of the DPI that while

the use of HDD appears an ideal solution in relation to passing under

sensitive areas it can result in increased environmental issues if the drilling

results in leakage from the drill hole ‘Frac‐out’. Ms Hendricks advised that


HDD should not be mandated for any site. It was Ms Hendricks’ submission

that where technically feasible HDD should be considered, however this

should only be undertaken following detailed site geotechnical

investigations. She further opined that for all sites the Proponent should be

required to develop an alternative pipe crossing method which could be

used if frac‐out occurred. Mr Napier for the Proponent confirmed that for all

proposed HDD sites an alternative crossing method would be developed

prior to the commencement of construction. He further confirmed that HDD

would only be used where a detailed site investigation indicated its

feasibility and that any alternative crossing method would be approved by

the relevant authorities prior to commencing construction.


As described by Mr Napier, the gas pipeline route is, subject to various

constraints, generally straight in order to provide for the most cost‐efficient

construction and the final diameter and operating pressure are to be

optimised by modelling during the detailed design phase.

The Panel notes that there was only one private submission in relation to the

approximately 100 km gas pipeline route and that the Proponent referred to

various negotiated amendments to the proposed route to meet landholder

requirements. Apart from the issue of route selection, there were no issues

raised in relation to the efficiency or affordability of the gas pipeline.

The Panel noted the concern raised by Mr Saffin about the location of the

pipeline route through his property and the potential for deviations from the

current proposed alignment within a broad corridor. The Panel accepts

advice from the Proponent and DPI that the alignment adopted through Mr

Saffin’s property was adjusted to move the pipeline route to the north of his

property in order to minimise impacts but further changes would have

consequences for the acceptability of other parts of the route, such as the

horse property to the west. It is noted that the route proposed in the EES is

considered to be close to the final alignment and Ms Hendricks of the DPI

advised that any deviations from the pipeline alignment presented in the EES

would require review and approval by the DPI. The Panel is satisfied that

any changes to the alignment which arise at the detailed design stage will be

reviewed by the DPI to ensure that environmental and landholders concerns

are addressed.

The Panel is of the opinion that at this stage of the design, the Proponent has

balanced land owner preferences and the various environmental and

infrastructure constraints to optimise the route of the pipeline.


The Panel is satisfied that the Proponent has identified the most appropriate

method of crossing each river, etc in the EES and accepts that the use of HDD

at the sites nominated should only be undertaken following detailed site

geotechnical investigations. It is noted that the Proponent has committed to

preparing alternative crossing method designs to the approval of the relevant

authorities for all HDD sites and that the alternative crossing method will not

be undertaken without the approval of the relevant authorities.

2.5 Compressor Station Design and Site Selection

2.5.1 EES Assessment - Compressor Station Site Selection and Design

Compressor station site selection was informed by the relevant site

constraints criteria and gas pipeline design requirements. Hydraulic

modelling of the proposed gas pipeline nominated 7 km as the maximum

distance the compressor station should be located from the start of the

pipeline. The Port Campbell Creek valley, with its steep side slopes, limited

potential sites to either:

adjacent to the Iona and Otway gas plants, which was rejected due to

landuse constraints; or

several sites in the vicinity of Smokey Point Road with access being a key

factor in the selection of the proposed compressor station site.


The EPA noted the installation of equipment that operates to ‘best practice’

standards is required for both greenhouse gas and air emissions i.e. Low NOx

burners and high efficiency motors. Mr Napier confirmed that low NOx

burners and high efficiency motors are to be used at the compressor station.

Mr Power also noted the EMP requirements under the Pipeline Regulations

2007 to include systems, practices and procedures to ensure that adverse

environmental impacts and risks are eliminated or minimised so far as is

reasonably practicable.


The Panel is satisfied that the Compressor Station site selection process was

sound. The site’s location relative to other infrastructure meets a

fundamental functional requirement and in a sparsely settled rural area,

reduces the potential for adverse impacts on sensitive residential uses.

The Panel accepts that the Proponent’s commitments, together with the

review of the more detailed designs by the EPA as part of the Works

Approval and Licence to Discharge processes and the DPI, under the


Pipelines Act application will ensure that the compressor station will be

constructed to minimise emissions and to achieve a high level of efficiency.

2.6 Water Supply Infrastructure

2.6.1 EES Assessment and Evidence– Water Supply Infrastructure Design

Prior to evaluating the potential power station sites in detail, the power

station Proponent discussed water supply and wastewater disposal options

with Wannon Water, who advised that:

the region was supplied with water from the Gellibrand River and the

Dilwyn Aquifer. The Gellibrand River supplies the Warrnambool,

Mortlake, Terang, Camperdown and Derrinallum areas. The Dilwyn

Aquifer supplies Port Fairy and Heywood;

there is capacity to supply potable water to the proposed power station

from the Camperdown, Warrnambool and Port Fairy water treatment

plants;

groundwater resources in the Mortlake area were already allocated;

an alternative supply using treated wastewater was identified which

involved the supply of recycled water from the Warrnambool or Port

Fairy water reclamation plants7 which currently discharges to the ocean;

and

wastewater, principally brine concentrate, from the proposed power

station could be accepted at the Warrnambool water reclamation plant.

Investigations indicated a pipeline was more efficient than transporting

water by road to the Power Station, whereas road transport of brine

concentrate was found to be the more economic option.

The water pipeline route is relatively straight and is generally constructed in

easements on private farm land abutting the Hamilton – Port Fairy Road

reserve to minimise the impact on native vegetation.

7 The Camperdown water reclamation plant had the capacity to supply the required volume and

quality of water but recycled water was currently allocated for irrigation purposes.


2.6.2 Submissions

Mr Wilson of Wannon Water advised the Panel that:

the use of treated waste water from the Port Fairy WWTP would reduce

the volume of class B treated water discharged to ocean by approximately

half. No other potential use was identified due to the salt content;

the existing ground water supply for Port Fairy has more than adequate

capacity to supply the utility water required at the Power Station as it was

equivalent to only 5 houses; and

should supply from the WWTP be temporarily interrupted, the existing

water supply bores have adequate capacity to meet both the urban and

power station requirements for a number of days.

There were no other submissions in relation to the efficiency of the proposed

water supply to the Power Station nor the disposal of brine to the

Warrnambool Water Reclamation Plant.


The Panel is satisfied that the water supply to the Power Station is an

efficient and environmentally appropriate solution and that the proposed

route both minimises the distance and potential impacts on valuable flora

and fauna. The Panel notes that the volume of brine proposed to be tankered

to the Warrnambool WRP is less than 0.5% of the volume of waste water

received and would therefore have negligible impact on the operation of the

plant.


3. Protection of Catchment Values

EES Evaluation Objective: To protect catchment values, including surface water

quality, stream flow, aquatic health and groundwater values, to the extent

practicable.

3.1 Surface Water, Hydrology and Water Quality


The following legislation, policy and guidelines are relevant to the protection

of surface water environmental values during the construction and operation

of the project:

The Water Act 1989 has purposes to allocate, conserve and manage

surface water and groundwater throughout Victoria. In the project area,

Southern Rural Water manages licences for surface water extraction and

implements regulations and policies under this Act.

Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 199 catchment

management authorities are responsible for the licensing and regulation

of works on designated waterways and for floodplain and drainage

management.

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality 2000 (ANZECC guidelines) (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000).

Under SPPF Clause 15.01-2, Planning and responsible authorities should ensure proposals minimise nutrient contributions to waterways and

water bodies consistent with the SEPP (Waters of Victoria), the Victorian

Nutrient Management Strategy (Government of Victoria 1995) and the

Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines

(CSIRO 1999). Responsible authorities should use appropriate measures

to restrict sediment discharges from construction sites in accordance with

EPA Guidelines8.

Under the Environment Protection Act 1970, the SEPP (Waters of

Victoria)9 sets a statutory framework for the protection of uses and values

of Victoria’s fresh and marine water environments. The policy identifies

8 Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991), Environmental Guidelines for

Major Construction Sites (EPA 1996 - Publication 480) and Doing it Right on Subdivisions: Temporary Environment Protection Measures for Subdivision Construction Sites (EPA 2004 - Publication 960)

9 State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) No S107 (SEPP (Waters of Victoria)) (Victorian Government, 2003.)


beneficial uses of watercourses and establishes environmental quality

objectives to ensure the protection of these uses. The policy objectives are

regionally specific and specify levels of nutrients, water quality

parameters and biological parameters for particular beneficial uses.

A range of generic policies and guidelines10 relevant to the protection of

surface water in the project area will apply, in particular during the

construction phase.

The beneficial uses listed in the SEPP for the two segments in which Shaw

River Power Station Project is located are:

aquatic ecosystems that are slightly to moderately modify; and

water suitable for: primary and secondary contact recreation, aesthetic

enjoyment, indigenous and non‐indigenous cultural and spiritual values,

agriculture (stock watering), irrigation and aquaculture industrial and

commercial use.

Human consumption of surface waters (potable water) is not a beneficial use

for this area unless suitably treated.

3.1.2 EES Assessment and Evidence - Potential Impacts on Surface Waters

Potential Impacts of Pipeline Construction on Surface Waters

The EES includes three separate assessments relating to surface water,

hydrology and water quality undertaken for the project (see Appendices 2, 6

and 27) which are summarized in EES Chapter 10.

Project activities, particularly the construction of the pipelines through

watercourses, have the potential to impact adversely on surface water

environments due to disruption of stream flow or reduction in water quality.

The proposed gas pipeline alignment crosses four rivers and many smaller

streams and channels. Minor creeks and streams east of the Hopkins River

tend to be typified by well‐defined, V‐shaped valleys, due to the undulating

nature of the landscape whereas to the west of the Hopkins River they are

typically shallow depressions with no distinct channels that collect surface

runoff from the plains.

10 For example: Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines (APIA, 2009), Draft Strategy

for Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils in Victoria June, 2008 (DSE), Acid Sulphate Soil and Rock Publication Number 655. August, 1999 (EPA Victoria), Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils) No S-125 August 1999 (EPA Victoria), Bunding Guidelines (EPA Publication No. 347) (EPA, 1992), Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways – Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments (Working Group on Waterway Management, 1991), Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management (DSE 2007c).


The largest watercourse crossed by the proposed water pipeline alignment is

Ware Creek, which is a minor creek and intermittent in nature. The water

pipelines alignment intersects 16 other smaller ephemeral watercourses and

one small dam. Frequent localised flooding occurs during winter,

particularly in lower areas in the southern portion of the water pipelines

alignment.

The EES notes that there is the possibility of acid sulphate soils in the Curdies

River area, and indicates that if found, these will be managed in accordance

with EPA and DSE requirements.

The EES outlines two methods proposed for crossing watercourses during

pipeline construction:

Open cut methods which involve excavating a trench through the

watercourse, laying the pipeline and then backfilling the trench. If the

watercourse is flowing at the time of construction, partial or complete

diversion is required. Open cut methods typically result in hydrological

and water quality impacts, as well as in‐stream habitat and bank stability

impacts, when it is undertaken in flowing water. It is the preferred

technique for crossing ephemeral watercourses, where construction can

occur during low or no‐flow periods.; and

Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) which involves drilling a hole at a

shallow angle under the watercourse with a specialised drilling rig. The

pipeline is then pulled through the hole. HDD avoids disruption of

surface water flow but presents other risks, including HDD failure (e.g.,

collapse of the borehole due to geological conditions), with subsequent

water quality impacts, such as streambed collapse. HDD also requires a

large area for the drill entry and exit pads and is a moderately water‐

intensive activity. HDD is generally the preferred crossing technique for

perennial watercourses and watercourses with sensitive environments.

The Proponent indicated that the final crossing technique will be determined

during the detailed design phase, following consideration of a number of

site‐specific factors, including safety, risk, hydrology, stream substrate and

geology, environmental sensitivities and engineering feasibility, as well as

consultation with the catchment management authorities.

Without appropriate controls, hydrological impacts and increased

sedimentation or water quality impacts could occur during construction of

the Power Station and pipelines watercourse crossings. A Strategic EMP,

together with generic mitigation and management measures have been

proposed. These will form the basis of more specific measures for each

watercourse crossing to be incorporated in Construction EMPs. It is also

proposed that the Construction EMPs will include contingency measures to


enhance erosion and sediment controls, or halt works in sensitive

environments, when heavy rainfall or natural flood events are forecast.

Potential Impacts on Surface Waters – Power Station and Environs

The proposed power station site is within the Shaw River catchment, a

relatively small catchment with an area of 117 km2. The Shaw River is a

narrow, ephemeral waterway that has a mixture of substrate types and a

diversity of isolated pools along its length during summer. Threatened

aquatic species historically found in the Shaw River include the nationally

listed Yarra Pygmy Perch and Dwarf Galaxias (see Chapter 4.3).

Drainage at the Power Station site does not follow defined drainage lines;

rather, the gently sloping land drains south and southwest towards an

ephemeral tributary of the Shaw River. Wetlands are present in low‐lying

areas on the site.

Flood modelling showed that the Power Station site will not experience any

inundation in the 100‐year flood event, the 500‐year flood event, or the

probable maximum flood event.

According to the EES there will be no discharge of process waters to the

environment. The power plant wastewater system will treat wastewater

from the power plant water system so that it can be reused in the power

plant. This system will include a water neutralisation plant and two

independent reverse osmosis plants (desalination plants).

Stormwater management will direct all potentially contaminated water to

storage tanks via triple interceptor traps to remove oily substances. Triple

interceptor traps will be located adjacent to the power block and at the

switchyard. After passing through the triple interceptor traps, stormwater

will be directed to a sedimentation pond where suspended sediment will be

allowed to settle out before the water overflows to the ephemeral wetlands

located on the site. Several design options, capable of managing runoff

under a range of storm events are being considered for the sedimentation

ponds. The final design specification will be determined in consultation with

the relevant authorities. The stormwater management system will be

constructed early in the construction program to provide management of

stormwater runoff from the site as soon as practicable.

Rain falling on building roofs will be collected and stored in tanks for use in

dust suppression, landscaping, toilet flushing and potentially, as part of the

power plant water system.


Cut‐off drains will divert stormwater runoff from land uphill of the Power

Station and switchyard away from the benches to the existing watercourses

and drainage lines that discharge to the ephemeral wetlands. Landscaping

will be undertaken to enhance the wetlands’ ecosystem function and their

capacity to filter stormwater before discharge to a tributary of the Shaw

River.

The EES indicates that any discharge of stormwater will not cause a

reduction in the water quality of Shaw River, and will be of a quality that

will meet the SEPP (Waters of Victoria) objectives. Stormwater discharge

from the sedimentation ponds will be sampled and tested at regular intervals

to ensure compliance with the SEPP.

The EES (Appendix 6) indicates that the impact of the discharge from Shaw

River depends on the volume, quality and the timing of the discharge. It

outlines a number of measures that are recommended for the protection of

the aquatic values that are present at Shaw River. It also identifies the need

to develop a detailed EMP to outline measures to ensure ecological values of

Shaw River are protected during construction activities; and best practice

sedimentation and pollution control measures to the satisfaction of EPA are

undertaken at all times.

3.1.3 Submissions and Proponent Responses

The Corangamite Shire submission sought the following measures to address

the impacts on surface waters and aquatic vegetation of the gas pipeline

construction activities:

a wet weather ‘stop work’ rule for watercourse crossings and work

adjacent to watercourse crossings;

under boring all watercourses with HDD (and specifically for the Curdies

River, Spring Creek and Whiskey Creek, Port Campbell Creek and

Wallaby Creek crossings). The crossing location should be chosen to

ensure this is possible;

spill and hazardous materials management procedures for the gas

pipeline, not just the Power Station; and

proper management of acid sulphate soils at the Curdies River.

The DPI and DSE both raised concerns over the potential use of HDD. While

they acknowledged the environmental benefits of successful HDD, they

pointed out that HDD can be quite risky and the failure rate is around 50%.

The environmental consequences of failure – or frac out – can be significant,

including smothering of riparian and or/roadside native vegetation and

stream turbidity and sedimentation from spilled drill fluids. They stressed

that HDD should not be relied upon and contingency plans should be in


place in the event that HDD proves unsuccessful at locations where it is

used.

In response, the Proponent and Mr Napier’s evidence indicated that:

a ‘stop work’ rule for watercourse crossing construction activities or

construction activities adjacent to watercourses is not practical and could

leave partially completed works exposed to rising water levels which

may increase the risk of sedimentation, rather than avoiding or reducing

such impacts;

it agrees with DPI and DSE on the use of HDD to cross environmentally

sensitive areas. The criteria to be used in assessing the most appropriate

crossing method are detailed in Table 8.1 of the EES which reflect the

considerations nominated by DPI. Several factors determine the choice of

watercourse crossing method. In some circumstances, under boring or

HDD may pose a greater risk to the environmental values of the

watercourse, particularly in the situation where a ‘frac out’ occurs (or has

the potential to occur) as a consequence of unsuitable geotechnical

conditions;

in most instances it is not possible to move watercourse crossings to

locations favourable for under boring or HDD, as the key considerations

of geological formations and geotechnical conditions are often expansive;

HDD of the Curdies River, Spring Creek and Whiskey Creek crossings

has been nominated as the preferred crossing method but the ultimate

crossing method will be determined following the pipeline design and

construction risk assessment (in accordance with AS 2885.1‐2007 Pipelines

– Gas And Liquid Petroleum – Design And Construction) and detailed

design, having regard to the criteria set out in EES Table 8.1;

the EES did not identify any environmentally sensitive issues that would

support HDD of Port Campbell and Wallaby Creeks. Open‐cut trenching

has been successfully used for previous pipeline crossings of Port

Campbell Creek and those crossings have been successfully reinstated

and rehabilitated;

the Proponent has committed to the preparation of site specific

management plans for significant watercourse crossings which could be

expanded to include contingency plans. The EES impact assessment of all

watercourse crossings considered a worst‐case scenario, including the

potential extent of native vegetation removal;

the Strategic EMP prepared for all construction and operation activities

(EES Attachment 5) for the Power Station, gas pipeline and water

pipelines includes controls for the management of spills and hazardous

materials. Detailed Construction EMPs will need to be developed and


implemented in line with the requirements and objectives of the Strategic

EMP; and

acid sulphate soils found at the Curdies River will be managed in

accordance with the requirements of the following policies and guidelines

included as Attachment 5 to the EES:

- Draft strategy for coastal acid sulphate soils in Victoria, June

2008 (DSE) (This incorporates the Draft Best Practice Guidelines

for Assessment and Management of Acid Sulfate Soils in

Victoria).

- Acid Sulphate Soil and Rock Publication Number 655 (EPA

1999).

- Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils)

No S‐125 August, 1999 (EPA Victoria).

DSE commented on the uncertainty about changes to the hydrology of Shaw

River and consequential impacts to aquatic ecosystems. Species of particular

concern are the Dwarf Galaxis and the Yarra Pigmy Perch. In general DSE is

satisfied that the majority of impacts should be able to be confined to the

construction phase, however monitoring and adaptive management is

required for the operational phase.

Following discussions between the Proponent and DSE it has been agreed

(see Appendix D) that the Proponent will consider design responses to limit

potential impacts including:

zero discharges, with stormwater either stored or being directed to other

parts of the property for irrigating pasture, crops, screening plantations

and maintenance and enhancement of the Power Station site ephemeral

wetlands;

designing a discharge regime and regulating discharges to ensure there is

no significant adverse impact; and

installation of water saving devices and implementation of processes to

enhance recycling to reduce discharge volumes.

Further, DSE and the Proponent agree that residual risk will be assessed at

the final design and approvals stage and this will inform the detailed scope

of a monitoring program generally along the lines below:

a pre‐ and post‐construction monitoring program should detect any

significant effects on aquatic ecology, particularly the Yarra Pygmy Perch

and Dwarf Galaxias resulting from changed hydrology in the Shaw River;

monitoring will be undertaken at two sites: one just upstream and the

other downstream from the point of discharge into Shaw River; and


monitoring will commence pre‐construction and continue for a minimum

period of two years post‐construction, at which time it will be reviewed to

determine whether further monitoring is warranted. If construction is

undertaken in stages, the two years post‐construction monitoring may be

required at completion of each stage, and will be informed by the results

of the preceding monitoring program.


Without appropriate controls, hydrological impacts and increased

sedimentation or water quality impacts could occur during construction of

the Power Station and pipelines watercourse crossings.

While successfully implemented HDD can significantly reduce

environmental impacts, it can be risky and the environmental consequences

of failure – or frac out – can be significant. The Panel endorses the consensus

view at the hearing that HDD may not be feasible in all the locations and,

where it is identified as the preferred method, contingency plans should be

in place in the event HDD proves unsuccessful.

Specific measures for each watercourse crossing should be incorporated in

Construction EMPs.

The Panel notes that acid sulphate soils are likely to be found at the Curdies

River. They should be managed in accordance with the requirements of the

EPA and DSE policies and guidelines.

Water quality in Shaw River may be impacted during construction of the

Power Station and the proposed upgrading of Riordans Road, and during

the operation of the Power Station. However, the design of the stormwater

management system for the Power Station site should implement best

practice sedimentation and pollution control measures to the satisfaction of

EPA. The Panel is satisfied that impacts can be limited through careful

design to maintain the current to volume of water discharged to Shaw River.

Recommendations

Incorporate specific control measures for each watercourse crossing in

Construction EMPs.

Manage acid sulphate soils found at the Curdies River in accordance with

the requirements of the EPA and DSE policies and guidelines.

Design the stormwater management system for the Power Station site to

implement best practice sedimentation and pollution control measures to


the satisfaction of EPA, and limit impacts to maintain the current discharge

volume hydrology to Shaw River.

Require a monitoring program to assess the impact of water discharged

from the Power Station site to be undertaken broadly in line with that

outlined in Appendix D.

3.2 Groundwater


DSE manages Victorian groundwater resources in accordance with the Water

Act 1989. The DSE delegates responsibility for groundwater licensing and

administration in south western Victoria to the Southern Rural Water

Authority.

The EPA manages groundwater quality in accordance with the Environment

Protection Act 1970 and the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria)11 which aims to

maintain and, where necessary, improve groundwater quality to protect

existing and potential future uses of groundwaters. The policy classifies

groundwater into five ‘segments’ based on the background concentration of

total dissolved solids (TDS) – which are predominantly salts – and defines

the beneficial uses in each segment that require protection.

In addition to the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria), EPA guidelines for

sediment pollution control and management of construction sites referred to

in 3.1.1 are also relevant to the protection of groundwater during

construction activities.

3.2.2 EES Assessment and Evidence – Groundwater

The EES (Chapter 10 and Appendix 3) provides information on the

characteristics of the groundwater environment in the project area.

There are 325 DSE‐registered groundwater bores within 1 km of the

proposed gas pipeline alignment and power station site, including 17 state

observation bores and 14 registered irrigation bores. Most of the bores are

private bores used for stock and domestic purposes and are installed in the

Newer Volcanic basalts. The deeper bores (for irrigation purposes) generally

source groundwater from the Port Campbell Limestone.

11 State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Groundwaters of Victoria) No S95 (Victorian

Government, 1997a).


There are 27 private bores within 500 m of the water pipelines alignment.

Bores range in depth from 6 to 55 m, with most bores greater than 30 m

depth.

Groundwater in deeper formations is used extensively for municipal supply

throughout the Otway Basin. For example, supplies for Koroit and

Warrnambool are sourced from the Port Campbell Limestone, and supply for

Port Fairy is sourced from the Dilwyn Aquifer.

The EES noted the following aspects of the project that could reduce the

levels, supply or quality of groundwater:

the depth to groundwater along the gas pipeline alignment is expected to

typically exceed the maximum depth of excavation but short‐term and

local disturbance of groundwater is likely to occur during construction,

particularly toward the western end of the alignment in the Stony Rises

where shallow groundwater may be encountered;

since widespread and long‐term dewatering will not be required, the

potential for groundwater impacts during the construction phase is

minimised. The implementation of monitoring and management

techniques should ameliorate impacts associated with any shallow

dewatering that may be necessary;

groundwater impacts during the operational phase are also reduced as no

groundwater extraction for water supply purposes is proposed;

the implementation of management measures will reduce the likelihood

that springs, wetlands and other groundwater‐discharge related features

near the Power Station or gas pipeline will be affected. In addition, any

potential impacts are likely to be of small scale and short duration; and

overall, the project is considered to pose a low risk to groundwater levels,

quality or existing/future users.

3.2.3 Submissions

There were no submissions received related to groundwater issues.


The absence of submissions on this issue is taken to represent acceptance

from relevant agencies of the rigour of the analysis and support for the

management regimes proposed.

The Panel notes that the Strategic EMP outlines comprehensive avoidance,

mitigation and management measure to be implemented during construction

works to protect groundwater resources.


The Panel accepts the information and analysis provided in the EES and

considers that:

the project will not pose any significant long‐term risk to groundwater

supply or quality; and

while it is likely that there may be local and short‐term disturbance

during construction activities, the implementation of monitoring and

management techniques specified in respective Construction EMPs can

ameliorate such impacts.


4. Biodiversity

EES Evaluation Objective: To avoid or minimise effects on species and

communities listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 to the extent

practicable, to avoid or minimise effects on other native species and communities,

and to comply with net gain requirements for biodiversity outcomes.

4.1 Regulatory Framework and Policy Context

4.1.1 Commonwealth Legislation - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth EPBC Act provides for the protection of listed

threatened species and communities and migratory species of national and

international environmental significance. Three referrals under the EPBC

Act were submitted to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage

and the Arts (DEWHA) relating to Shaw River Power station, the gas

pipeline and the water pipelines. The Power Station has been assessed as

‘not a controlled action’ and will not require any further assessment.

The gas pipeline and water pipelines have both been assessed as ‘not a

controlled action if undertaken in a particular manner’. The Referral Decisions

specify measures to be undertaken to avoid significant impacts on listed

threatened terrestrial species, including Southern Brown Bandicoot (known

to occur in the project area) and Long‐nosed Potoroo and communities along

the gas pipeline route. Measures include controls for erosion, pollutant spill

and chemical storage and specific controls in identified key habitat areas,

including restrictions to construction corridor width, salvage and relocation

of species and restoration of disturbed habitat.

The Referral Decisions specify measures to be undertaken to avoid

significant impacts on listed aquatic species and communities. They include:

specific controls for sedimentation, erosion, pollutant spill and chemical

storage; and specific controls in identified key habitat areas where open cut

trench works are proposed, including restrictions to construction corridor

width, salvage and relocation of species, avoidance of breeding seasons and

restoration of disturbed habitat.

Measures along the water pipeline routes include specific controls such as

thrust boring or HDD to be used to lay the pipeline underneath the two

patches of Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain that


are intersected by the pipeline alignment. Contingency measures are also

specified where there is a failure of boring techniques.

For the water pipelines, the Referral Decision further notes that in the event

of trenching being used for the Ware Creek crossing, additional targeted

surveys of listed aquatic species will be required and if found, construction

activities must not be undertaken during the breeding seasons for these

species.

Construction of the gas and water pipelines must be undertaken in

accordance with the requirements specified in the decision notices.

4.1.2 State Legislation and Policy

Relevant State legislation and planning policy applying to the protection of

biodiversity is as follows:

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) establishes

procedures for the conservation, management or control of flora and

fauna and the management of potentially threatening processes. DSE

administers the FFG Act, including ‘Permits to take protected flora’ and

‘Permit to conduct activities relating to protected fish’.

Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy (1997) complements the National

Strategy and the FFG Act. It provides the overarching direction for

biodiversity conservation and management in Victoria.

Planning schemes require:

Planning decisions to have regard to The Victorian Government

Native Vegetation Management Framework: A Framework for

Action 2002 (the Framework) (SPPF Clause 15.09). The Framework

aims to achieve a reversal of the long‐term decline in the extent and

quality of native vegetation ‐ this reversal is commonly referred to

as ‘net gain’. It adopts the principles of firstly avoiding the removal

of native vegetation, if removal cannot be avoided then planning

and design should minimise the loss of native vegetation and, where

native vegetation must be removed, offsets should be provided to

ensure a net gain outcome (as defined in the Framework). Other

regulatory agencies often draw on DSE expertise in relation to

biodiversity issues and the implementation of the Framework. In

some cases the arrangement is formalised, such as approval of

extractive industry proposals where a memorandum of

understanding between DPI and DSE has been established relating

to decisions affecting native vegetation losses.

A permit under Clause 52.17 to remove, destroy or lop native

vegetation, unless specified exemptions apply. DSE is designated as


a referral authority for specified types of applications involving the

loss of native vegetation and is often consulted on other

applications. However, a planning permit to remove native

vegetation is not required for a pipeline developed under the

Pipelines Act 2005. Amendment C36 proposes to exempt other

elements of the project from requirements to obtain a permit to

remove native vegetation, although DPI advise they will require a

native vegetation removal and offset plan to be prepared to the

satisfaction of DSE.

The Wildlife Act 1975 requires permits for the collection and

translocation of protected fauna. DSE administers this Act, in particular

granting ‘Wildlife Management Authorisations’.

The Pipelines Act 2005 regulates all works associated with the gas

pipeline and substitutes for processes in planning schemes. This Act is

administered by DPI, which adopts the practice of obtaining advice from

DSE regarding biodiversity‐related components during the development

of the Construction EMP under the Act and during auditing of plan

implementation.

The Water Act 1989 requires permits for works on designated waterways

and such works may impact on biodiversity. Catchment Management

Authorities are responsible for issuing permits and DSE regularly

provides advice on biodiversity issues.

The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 controls noxious weeds

and pest animals. DPI is responsible for these biosecurity matters under

the Act which will be addressed through EMPs for the project.

Although without legislated protection, species listed under Advisory Lists

of Rare and Threatened Plants, DSE 2005 and Vertebrate Fauna, DSE 2007

and species listed in A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria, Walsh & Stajsic

2007 have also been considered in the assessments.


4.2 Terrestrial Ecology

4.2.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Terrestrial Ecology

Methodology for Terrestrial Ecology Assessments

Ecology Partners undertook Flora and Fauna Surveys and Preliminary Net

Gain Assessments for the power station and gas and water pipelines (EES

Appendices 4, 5, 29, 30). Study methods for the terrestrial flora and fauna

assessment included desk top analysis and field surveys. Surveys of the gas

pipeline and immediate surrounds were conducted over 27 days between

November 2008 and September 2009. Surveys were carried out for the water

pipelines over six days during December 2008 and January 2009.

Surveys were undertaken at a time when the detection of most flora and

fauna species is relatively high, and combined with the highly modified

environment the majority of the study area is located in, the methodology is

considered sound.

Survey Results

The project area crosses two bioregions. The Victorian Volcanic Plain (VVP)

Bioregion lies inland from the coast and is characterised by open areas of

grassland, small patches of open woodland, stony rises (old lava flows),

extinct volcanoes and numerous small lakes. The Warrnambool Plain (WP)

Bioregion is located along the coast and is characterised by more patches of

remnant vegetation, an undulating landscape and incised river valleys and

coastal cliffs.

The Power Station site and much of the surrounding landscape have been

cleared for agriculture. Native vegetation is mostly confined to road and rail

reserves, watercourses, isolated pockets and stands of scattered trees.

Native flora and fauna communities and species, listed under the EPBC Act

that were recorded in the project area include:

two ecological communities: Natural Temperate Grassland of the

Victorian Volcanic Plain and Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian

Volcanic Plain;

two plant species: Curly Sedge and Swamp Greenhood; and

two terrestrial animal species: Southern Bent‐wing Bat and Long‐nosed

Potoroo.

The surveys provided a detailed comparison of desk top and field survey

results. Flora and fauna were described across levels of national, regional


and local significance. Detailed results of flora and fauna surveys can be

found in EES Appendices, for the Power Station site and gas pipeline

(Appendix 4) and the water pipelines (Appendix 30).

No other sites or areas of wilderness, scientific or other special conservation

significance were identified.

EES Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation

Potential project impacts on terrestrial ecology (including communities and

species of conservation significance) are summarised in the EES Chapter 10.5.

The Strategic EMP (EES Attachment 5) provides an integrated risk

assessment of residual risks (Chapter 1) and a comprehensive set of

management guidelines (Chapter 4) that will assist with the management of

impacts and implementation of mitigation measures which will be included

in the Construction and Operations EMPs for the gas and water pipelines.

As already noted, the Referral Decisions under the EPBC Act oblige the

implementation of specified measures to avoid significant impacts on listed

threatened species.

Clearing of native vegetation is not proposed for any of the areas on the

Power Station site. The operation of the Power Station will increase noise

and light in the local landscape. These disturbances are at the immediate

local scale and may change how some species, such as the Southern Bent‐

wing Bat use the area, despite the absence of preferred habitat on the

proposed power station site.

Appropriate plans, such as salvage and/or management plans, are proposed

to be prepared for significant species (including the Curly Sedge, Large‐

flower Cranesbill, Basalt Leek‐orchid, Swamp Flax‐lily, Swamp Skink and

Long‐nosed Potoroo), in the detailed Construction EMPs.

The gas and water pipeline alignments were selected to avoid or minimise

impacts on significant areas of vegetation (including grasslands and remnant

mature trees) and associated fauna habitat. The alignments primarily

intersect cleared country (98%).Where significant areas could not be avoided,

construction methods have been varied to reduce impacts, including

reducing the width of the construction right of way and in special cases,

proposing the use of HDD or boring where road and/or river crossings are

proposed. The use of these techniques will be determined following detailed

geotechnical surveys for specific sites.


Preliminary Net Gain Assessments

Earlier flora and fauna surveys and mapping of the overall study area

indicate there are approximately 62.71 hectares (ha) of native vegetation in

the gas pipelines study area12. Clearing of native vegetation for the gas

pipeline and power station is predicted to total 3.43 ha. This includes

approximately 1.03 ‘habitat hectares’ which is a combined quality‐quantity

measuring system under the NVMF, consisting of 0.17 habitat hectares from

the WP Bioregion and 0.86 habitat hectares from the VVP Bioregion of

medium, high and very high conservation significance. The resulting net

gain target for this vegetation is 1.83 habitat hectares, comprising 0.27 habitat

hectares from the WP Bioregion and 1.56 habitat hectares from the VVP

Bioregion.

There are approximately 37.7 ha of native vegetation in the water pipelines

study area. Construction of the water pipelines will require clearing of 2.29

ha, comprising 0.55 habitat hectares of high conservation significance

vegetation from the VVP Bioregion. This equates to a net gain target for the

water pipeline of 0.84 habitat hectares.

There are also areas of less significant vegetation dominated by Austral

Bracken and classified as Degraded Treeless Vegetation along the gas and

water pipelines routes proposed to be cleared. Removal of this vegetation

will require an equivalent offset of this or any similar native vegetation, due

to their floristic and habitat values. Clearing is also proposed for a range of

scattered trees and shrubs. Net gain assessments have been calculated for

these losses.

Preliminary net gain assessments13 will be finalised once the final pipeline

routes are agreed and the road and river crossing methods determined. It is

also proposed to audit the final offset requirements post construction.

12 Comprising: 15.39 ha from the WP Bioregion and 47.32 ha from the VVP Bioregion,

approximately 20.09 ha of Austral Bracken (2.17 ha from the WP Bioregion and 17.92 ha from the VVP Bioregion) and 13.88 ha of ‘Degraded Treeless Vegetation’ (all from the VVP Bioregion).

13 Full details of net gain assessments, including conservation significance and impacts on individual Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) for each bioregion for the gas and water pipeline alignments are contained in the EES Appendices 5 and 30, respectively.



Pipeline Rehabilitation

Landowner Geoff Saffin’s submission indicated concerns over potential

problems with land restoration in the gas pipeline easement, given his

previous experience of installation of the SEA Gas pipeline on his property.

The Shire of Corangamite’s submission requested that a ‘Re‐instatement of

Land Inspection and Repair Service’ be carried out for 12 months from

completion of the pipeline.

The Shire of Corangamite also noted that rehabilitation to full recovery

would be highly important for the Curdies River, Spring Creek and Whiskey

Creek. The Shire requested that areas rehabilitated with native vegetation be

maintained for a minimum of 2 years.

Mr Napier responded to these issues, presenting details of the proposed

rehabilitation of the pipeline construction right of way at the Panel hearing,

including the respective processes for reinstatement, revegetation and re‐

establishment of previous land use. Mr Napier highlighted that:

The Strategic EMP (Attachment 5 to the EES) states that rehabilitation

will be monitored at three monthly intervals for the first year and

annually for up to two years, including following major storm events or

prolonged periods of heavy rainfall. The Strategic EMP requires Shaw

River Power to remediate any unsuccessful rehabilitation.

DPI advised at the hearing that requirements for rehabilitation are covered

under the Pipelines Act, including rehabilitation commitments, rehabilitation

plan, compliance with standards and rehabilitation bond. The Panel was

informed that there was not a statutory period for monitoring rehabilitation

but a rehabilitation period could be specified under the Construction EMP.

In addition, should there be complaints, the Proponent will be required to

undertake further rehabilitation works as required.

Native Vegetation Impacts and ‘Net Gain’

The Shire of Corangamite raised a general concern in relation to potential

impacts of large scale infrastructure projects on flora and fauna and the

importance of construction management. The Shire indicated a preference to

offset native vegetation within the municipality.

Mr Power responded that Mr Organ’s evidence had comprehensively

addressed the submissions made on flora and fauna and in particular that


construction management would be adequately addressed. He submitted

that:

The majority of the concerns raised in the submissions can and should be

addressed in the EMPs. Notably, EMPs for the Gas Pipeline must be

approved by the DPI and DSE under the Pipelines Act and we submit

that this is the most effective way of ensuring that the specific

environmental issues along the various areas of each pipeline route are

managed.

Shire of Corangamite requested that HDD be used at roadside crossings,

including Warre Road, Smoky Point Road, North‐South Road, Timboon‐

Peterborough Road, Boundary Road and Timboon‐Curdievale Road, in order

to avoid native vegetation removal. The use of HDD techniques, as

discussed previously, will require further geotechnical investigation in order

to determine feasibility.

DSE advised it is satisfied that the Framework’s three step approach has been

applied in the EES assessment and the preliminary net gain assessments.

However, DSE questioned the approach to determining tree clearance

distances from construction for old trees, suggesting that the methodology in

the ‘Australian Standard for the Protection of Trees on Development Sites 2009’

should apply. Mr Organ noted that this is a new standard and the distance is

greater than applied in the assessment to date. It was noted that this new

standard would result in assumptions that further trees would be lost and

the offset calculations would require updating. He advocated verifying

actual losses after construction.

DSE anticipated that the main outstanding challenge for the project with

regard to native vegetation would be locating offsets for very high

conservation significance vegetation that meet the like for like requirements

of the Framework. The Proponent confirmed that the task of identifying

appropriate offsets is proving difficult but indicated that the process is being

undertaken in close consultation with DSE, with regard to determining the

nature, location and extent of offsets prior to seeking formal approval. Mr

Organ informed the Panel that a range of offsets may be available through

the Trust for Nature and Bush Broker programs and that these were being

actively investigated, as well as other potential options for the purchase of

private land with appropriate native vegetation.

The ecological benefits of finding like for like offsets in small fragmented

areas across a range of EVCs were questioned. DSE and Mr Organ concurred

that it may be more ecologically beneficial to find one and/or a small number

of larger consolidated offset areas across a smaller range of EVCs. However,


DSE emphasised the scarcity of very high conservation significance native

vegetation and highlighted the importance of achieving offsets that satisfy

the like for like requirements for this native vegetation. DSE indicated that

Ministerial approval will be necessary for the losses of very high

conservation significance vegetation and the Proponent will be required to

demonstrate that appropriate offsets can be provided.

The Panel queried which mitigation measures recommended by Ecology

Partners were not fully or only partially adopted by the Proponent. Mr

Napier presented a detailed written response, outlining the reasons against

each of the recommended mitigation measures. In summary, the range of

mitigation measures not adopted related to certain monitoring requirements

no longer required because impacts were designed out or mitigated through

other means; specific boring techniques requiring geotechnical investigation;

pre‐clearance surveys for aquatic weed species not being required due to

proposed mitigations for the construction phase; and there being no need for

a management plan for the burrowing crayfish as it had not been detected (It

was noted that such a plan would be prepared if the species is identified in

pre‐construction clearance surveys for other threatened species).

Partially adopted recommendations included development of a generic

stormwater plan for gas and water pipelines construction rather than site

specific stormwater management plans; monitoring and mitigation measures

of discharges from the Power Station site to be determined in consultation

with authorities if impacts on threatened fish species are detected (it is noted

that a preliminary monitoring program has now been prepared (see

Appendix D)); and the appropriate route alignment at Gapes Road to be

determined as part of detailed design, in order to minimise native vegetation

impacts.

DPI and the Shire of Corangamite raised issues in relation to weed and

pathogen hygiene. Mr Napier noted that the Strategic EMP includes

objectives and high level procedures for the control of weeds and plant and

animal pathogens. The Construction and Operations EMPs will adopt the

Strategic EMP requirements and include more detailed procedures for the

management of weeds and pathogens.

Impacts on Fauna

DSE was satisfied that most impacts on fauna can be confined to short‐term

impacts during the construction phase through implementation of

appropriate mitigation measures. However, DSE raised a concern about the

potential impact of the Power Station on the Southern Bent‐wing Bat which is

listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act and listed as ‘threatened’


under the FFG Act. DSE advised that little is known about the flight paths

and migratory patterns for the species but noted in its submission that:

The proposal is at the outer limits of the nightly foraging areas, but lies

in between a number of known caves. The project is unlikely to have a

significant adverse effect on this species. However, it is important that

post construction monitoring and adaptive management processes are in

place to detect and manage any impacts that do occur.

DSE queried whether there would be hazards such as flares or heat from the

exhaust stacks that may pose a threat to the Southern Bent‐wing Bat. The

EES notes that the process of flaring is to be avoided (EES Ch. 10, p.127). Mr

Ormerod advised that the heat of the plumes from the open and closed cycle

gas turbines would be 90 and 500 degrees respectively at the exit points into

the atmosphere and this would be followed by a rapid process of

temperature reduction. Mr Organ considered that the operation of the

Power Station would pose minimal risks to bats and other avifauna. Mr

Organ also stated that the artificial lighting to be installed on the site would

not be unique to the area and would be unlikely to cause adverse impacts on

bats. Mr Organ further noted that harvesting of blue gum forests was likely

to result in loss of the bat’s foraging habitat. Mr Power highlighted that the

Power Station had been referred under the EPBC Act and that the

Commonwealth determined it was not a controlled action and did not

specify any management requirements relating to bats. He submitted that:

‘any conditions related to post‐construction monitoring on site

utilisation and mortality for key species of bats such as the Southern

Bent‐wing Bat (as suggested by DSE) is unnecessary and if imposed

would be a disproportionate and onerous condition on Shaw River

Power.’

The Panel sought further advice about the nature of bat monitoring and

adaptive management measures envisaged by DSE. DSE prepared a

preliminary monitoring program in consultation with the Proponent, a copy

of which is provided in Appendix D to this report.

Local resident, Ms Nicholls’ submitted that the EES does not adequately

address the effect of the project on Brolga nestling sites on properties along

Riordans Road.

The EES Flora and Fauna Survey report (EES Appendix 4) noted that

significant fauna species such as the Brolga are known to occur in the local

area of the Power Station site. The report also noted that although the

proposed power station and associated infrastructure are unlikely to directly

impact this species, there is the potential for indirect impacts such as

disturbance from lighting and noise. However, DSE’s assessment of


submissions and presentation of evidence did not identify any fauna, other

than the Southern Bent‐wing Bat that should be monitored on the Power

Station site. Further, DSE’s submission did not identify any outstanding

issues in relation to the local Brolga population.

Cumulative Impacts

The Shire of Corangamite identified the importance of protecting refuges and

habitats due to losses of original grassland ecosystems across the region

which is elevated due to cumulative impacts of development.

DSE asked the Panel to note the general growth of major infrastructure

projects in the south west of Victoria and to comment on how the issue of

cumulative impacts should be considered regionally. It was noted whilst

project specific impacts may be manageable, there is a cumulative habitat

loss from successive projects. DSE advised that a regional assessment of

cumulative effects on flora and fauna communities and the identification of

strategic provision of consolidated offsets has not been undertaken.


It is the Panel’s view that the EES has comprehensively addressed the EES

objectives in relation to terrestrial flora and fauna impacts and mitigation.

The Panel is satisfied with the Proponent’s overall approach to the

assessment of biodiversity impacts and the development of measures to

avoid, minimise and/or offset those effects. The outcome also supports the

view put to the Panel that the technical reference group has worked

constructively to resolve issues as they have arisen.

Further, the Panel notes that the Strategic EMP (EES Attachment 5) provides

an integrated risk assessment, identifying residual risks for terrestrial

ecology, as well as a comprehensive set of guidelines for managing impacts

on terrestrial ecology. These inclusions in the EES are a further

demonstration of the rigorous approach taken by the Proponent. As such,

the Strategic EMP will provide leading guidance for the development of the

Construction and Operations EMPs for the project.

The Panel is also satisfied that concerns over the potential impacts on flora

and fauna at specific sites can be minimised through the preparation of site

specific EMPs that would form part of the overall construction EMPs across

the various project components.

The Panel was also generally satisfied with the Proponent’s responses to the

range of issues raised in submissions.


The Panel agreed that concerns in relation to land rehabilitation along the

pipelines are capable of being adequately addressed through requirements of

the Construction EMPs which will specify a rehabilitation monitoring period

and require further rehabilitation works where warranted through

complaints.

The Proponent has commenced negotiations for appropriate offsets and these

will be determined in consultation with DSE and subject to final approval

from DSE. The Panel understands the difficulties in obtaining like for like

native vegetation offsets. However, in the absence of any specific

information on the types of native vegetation offsets being pursued by the

Proponent and therefore the relative conservation benefits associated with

different offset options, the Panel cannot give any guidance about whether

departures from like for like requirements for very high conservation value

vegetation are justified. This is a matter that remains for determination by

the Minister for Energy and Resources, under the Pipelines Act 2005,

presumably on the advice of the Minister for Environment and Climate

Change.

The Panel notes that the native vegetation losses associated with this project

are relatively small (offset targets of 1.83 habitat hectares and 0.84 habitat

hectares for the gas and water pipelines respectively) and that the offsets

provided should achieve net gain in terms of environmental outcomes.

However, continuing incremental losses of these proportions, coupled with

the overall long term decline in extent and quality of native vegetation can

result in considerable cumulative effects. This is evident in the

acknowledged difficulty of finding like for like offsets for very high

conservation significance vegetation. The Panel notes that the losses have

been minimised as far as possible and that the Proponent is working closely

with DSE, in order to find appropriate offsets. Nevertheless, the Panel

encourages DSE to work towards identifying strategic opportunities for the

provision of consolidated offsets, possibly through the Trust for Nature and

Bush Broker programs.

The Panel accepted DSE’s evidence and determined that the EMP should

adopt the standards and practices for clearance distances from trees during

construction, as provided for in the ‘Australian Standard for the Protection of

Trees on Development Sites 2009’. However, the Panel was of the view that this

should not compromise the pipeline route but noted it may result in

increased offsets, where trees may be vulnerable. Further, given the likely

uncertainties encountered in assessing tree survival, the Panel determined

that a post construction audit of net gain success should be conducted two

years after construction and reviewed with respect to actual losses.


The Panel accepts the evidence that impacts of the Power Station operation

on the Southern Bent‐wing Bat are unlikely. Even if bats are attracted to the

illuminated power station, there are no moving parts and the emissions from

the Power Station are not expected to impact on the bats. Nevertheless, the

further monitoring regime put forward after the hearing is supported due to

the uncertainties about bat usage of the site and possible impacts. The Panel

notes that responses if bat mortality is identified may well be in the form of

adjustments to lighting, or offsets in the form of improvements to bat habitat

elsewhere, rather than the imposition of significant new constraints on the

operation of the Power Station.

In relation to the potential impacts of the Power Station on local Brolga

populations, neither the evidence presented nor DSE’s submissions

identified any fauna other than the Southern Bent‐wing Bat that should be

monitored on the Power Station site. Further, DSE’s submission did not

identify any outstanding issues in relation to the local Brolga population.

The Panel concludes that the potential for indirect off‐site impacts of the

Power Station operation on the local Brolga population does not warrant

further specific investigation.

The effective management of the regulatory processes subsequent to the EES

will be crucial to ensuring that environmental effects are mitigated during

construction and operation of the Power Station and gas and water pipelines.

These processes are discussed in more detail in Chapter 11 in this report.

Recommendations

Ensure that construction of the gas and water pipelines is undertaken in

accordance with the requirements of the Referral Decisions under the

EPBC Act.

Ensure that site specific requirements are included in construction EMPs,

including appropriate rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures

for rehabilitation success, specific to terrestrial flora and fauna identified

through targeted surveys.

Ensure Construction EMPs for the gas and water pipelines require:

appropriate follow up works to ensure rehabilitation to former

condition;

immediate post construction audits to confirm native vegetation offsets;

and

follow‐up audits at two years post construction, to confirm actual native

vegetation losses and revise offsets, if required.


Adopt the standards and procedures in ‘Australian Standard for Protection

of Trees on Development Sites 2009’ in Construction EMPs and review net

gain assessments for any implied further losses of native trees.

Monitor the occurrence of the Southern Bent‐wing Bat on the Power

Station site and identify management or ‘offsetting’ measures if impacts

from the Power Station are identified. (Monitoring should be generally in

accordance with the program as set out in Appendix D of this report.)

4.3 Aquatic Ecology

4.3.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Aquatic Ecology

Methodology

The EES addresses aquatic ecology in Chapter 10.6 and sets out the Ecology

Partners aquatic ecology assessments for the Power Station and Gas Pipeline

(EES Appendix 6) and the Water Pipelines (EES Appendix 30). The aquatic

impact assessments for the proposed power station and gas pipeline

involved desk top and field survey approaches with surveys carried out

between November 2008 and June 2009. Several watercourses could not be

sampled or have a habitat assessment undertaken because they were dry, but

a desktop review of all watercourses in the local area was undertaken.

The EES noted that an aquatic flora investigation was outside the scope of

the current project.

Survey Results

The field surveys during 2008 and 2009 recorded two fish species listed

under the EPBC Act and the FFG Act: Dwarf Galaxias and Yarra Pygmy

Perch. The Australian grayling, the third species of national and state

significance identified during the desktop survey, was not recorded during

the field surveys but has previously been found in the Hopkins River.

Most watercourses have not been fenced to exclude livestock; therefore, bank

erosion, increases in water turbidity, pugging (the holes created when

livestock step into the muddy substrate), and increases in nutrient loads were

evident. This has implications for the consideration of existing impacts on

aquatic ecology. Riparian zone structure is poor in the majority of the

watercourses in the project area, the exceptions being Whiskey Creek, the

Hopkins River and the Shaw River. Most watercourses are also relatively

low in macro invertebrate and fish species diversity. However, Back Creek,

Murray Brook, the Shaw River (upstream of Riordans Road), Mosquito

Creek, Spring Creek and Wallaby Creek contained a high number of


macrophytes, including floating plants, submerged aquatic plants and

emergent aquatic plants.

EES Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation

Potential project impacts on aquatic ecology (including communities and

species of conservation significance) are summarised in the EES Chapter 10.6.

The Strategic EMP (EES Attachment 5) provides an integrated risk

assessment of residual risks and a comprehensive set of management

guidelines (Chapter 4) that will assist with the management of impacts and

implementation of mitigation measures which will be included in the

Construction and Operations EMPs for the gas and water pipelines.

The Proponent has committed to the preparation of site specific management

plans for significant watercourse crossings (EES Chapter 8.2.6), in order to

ensure appropriate mitigation measures.

As already noted, the Referral Decisions under the EPBC Act oblige the

implementation of specified measures to avoid significant impacts on listed

threatened species.

The EES noted that proposed avoidance, mitigation and management

measures will address the threatening processes identified in the national

recovery plans for threatened species and the FFG Act Action Statements.

Impacts on marine flora and fauna, as a result of increased waste discharges

from the Warrnambool Water Reclamation Plant have not been assessed.

However, analysis of the potential wastewater streams indicates that water

quality variables are well within the discharge limits specified in Wannon

Water’s Corporate Licence. It is reasonable to conclude there would be no

additional impacts on marine flora and fauna.

Preliminary ‘Net Gain’ Assessments

Aquatic habitat surveys have not been undertaken at the proposed stream

crossing sites for the pipelines in order to identify EVCs present. Therefore,

it has not been possible to carry out net gain assessments for aquatic

vegetation and further assessments will be required.



There were few issues raised in submissions in relation to potential impacts

on aquatic ecosystems.

The Shire of Corangamite indicated concern over the initial technical reports

prepared for the EES, leading to a lack of confidence in the research. In

particular, the Shire requested that the Proponent seek additional

information about the presence of the Yarra Pygmy Perch in the Curdies

River and investigate further impacts to significant orchids through the

removal of Swamp Scrub vegetation at Whiskey Creek.

Mr Power submitted that the measures required under the EPBC Act Referral

Decision, which are designed to ensure protection of the nationally

significant species and communities, have been incorporated in the

mitigation measures set out in the EES. At a number of points in the hearing,

it was noted that further investigations would be undertaken, particularly

through pre‐construction clearance surveys and that site specific construction

management plans would provide further information where lacking. The

EES (EES Chapter 10, p.10‐70) also noted that site specific management plans

for flora and fauna will be developed to detail requirements for management

and will be consistent with advice provided by DSE.

The Panel inspected a number of key sites where the proposed gas pipeline

road and stream crossings sought to avoid important remnant native

vegetation and where HDD was the preferred option. The Panel noted that

the need for open cut methods of stream crossings could be particularly

problematic for instream flora and fauna communities, where HDD

techniques are not feasible. This is not so critical in streams of low or

intermittent flows but for streams with regular flows, open cut methods will

require the construction of sheet pile coffer dams or use of water filled

bladders. These measures are designed to hold up stream flow over half the

stream bed during construction. Measures to maintain stream flow have

been included in the EES (EES Ch. 10, Section 10.3).


The Panel is of the view that the EES has reasonably addressed the EES

objectives in relation to aquatic impacts and mitigation. The surveys were

carried out at a time of year when the chance of detecting most species

would have been relatively high; and combined with database search results

and discussions with local experts, limitations were unlikely to significantly

affect the findings and recommendations.


However, given there were no surveys done of aquatic native vegetation at

the proposed stream crossing sites, the Panel determined that further

assessments will need to be undertaken during the pre‐construction phase.

Whilst the EES includes a commitment to re‐instatement of the stream bed

post construction, the assessment of the types of aquatic flora species and/or

communities that may be disturbed was not explicit. DSE confirmed in the

hearing that the NVMF applies equally to instream aquatic vegetation,

including the principle of net gain which should be assessed in terms of the

most appropriate wetland EVC benchmark. The Panel noted that the

targeted aquatic surveys to be undertaken once stream crossing points are

determined, would guide the mitigation measures to be included in site

specific EMPs and would also guide the net gain assessments.

The Panel considers that the site specific construction EMPs for the gas and

water pipelines should detail rehabilitation techniques specific to aquatic

flora, including measures to address the constraints on re‐establishment of

aquatic flora species, imposed by stream flow.

Recommendations

Ensure that construction of the gas and water pipelines is undertaken in

accordance with the requirements of the Referral Decisions under the

EPBC Act.

Undertake targeted aquatic flora surveys once stream crossing points and

techniques are confirmed, in order to identify the relevant EVCs and

undertake net gain assessments where required.

Ensure site specific requirements in Construction EMPs, include

appropriate rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures for

rehabilitation success, specific to aquatic flora identified through targeted

surveys.


5. Protection of Cultural Heritage

EES Evaluation Objective: To protect Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal cultural

heritage to the extent practicable.

5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

5.1.1 Regulatory Framework

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires that a Cultural Heritage

Management Plan (CHMP) be prepared in respect of any works for which an

EES is required. The CHMPs must recommend measures to manage

Aboriginal cultural heritage before, during and after an activity and must be

endorsed by either a registered Aboriginal party or approval can be gained

from the Secretary of DPCD.14

5.1.2 EES Assessment - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The EES addresses the potential environmental effects on Aboriginal cultural

heritage and measures to mitigate impacts15 are also identified in the

Strategic EMP (EES Attachment 5). The EES describes the Aboriginal

heritage context. It reports that neither a search of government and non‐

government registers nor preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Assessments (CHAs) revealed any Aboriginal cultural heritage places within

the Power Station site, gas pipeline or water pipelines alignments. However,

unsurveyed areas the Power Station have been identified as having potential

to contain Aboriginal heritage places. Areas of high potential sensitivity

include the Curdies, Merri, Hopkins and Moyne Rivers which are likely to

contain stone artefacts, hearths, charcoal and freshwater shellfish and may

possibly contain fish traps, mounds, burials and scarred trees.

CHMPs are currently being prepared by Andrew Long & Associates for the

Power Station site and gas pipeline and for the water pipelines and are due

to be completed, once the construction contractor is chosen. These CHMPs

will guide the protection and management of both known and unknown

14 Other legislation and regulations relevant to the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage values

in the Project area include: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Native Title Act 1993; Australian Heritage Council Act 2003; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984; Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007.

15 See Chapters 5 and 11.7, and the preliminary Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments for the Power Station and gas pipeline (EES Appendix 20 prepared by Andrew Long & Associates Pty Ltd); and for the water pipelines, (Appendix 36 prepared by Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd).


Aboriginal places. While there are no registered Aboriginal parties in the

study area, the following local Aboriginal groups have applied for registered

Aboriginal party status:

Framlingham Aboriginal Trust;

Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation; and

Kuuyang Maar Aboriginal Corporation.

Consultations with the applicant registered Aboriginal parties during the

CHAs revealed that the project area contains Aboriginal values in the form of

plants commonly used for food and fibre by traditional Aboriginal

communities. No information regarding oral tradition, specific cultural

places or places of significance in the area was provided during the

consultations. Of the three applicant registered Aboriginal parties invited to

comment on specialist reports, one response was received from Framlingham

Aboriginal Trust. The response stated that Framlingham Aboriginal Trust

does not endorse the results and recommendations provided in the specialist

study due to a conflict of belief in the definition of significance and potential

sensitivity (Refer to EES Appendix 20 for the full response). Shaw River

Power and Wannon Water are working with the applicant registered

Aboriginal parties and seeking to address the concerns raised by

Framlingham Aboriginal Trust, through the final CHMP.

No native title claims have been made on the project area.


The Panel invited AAV as a member of the Technical Reference Group, to

make a submission and present at the hearing. However, AAV did not make

any submission and there were no submissions raising any concerns relating

to Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The Panel notes that approval of the CHMPs underpins the approval of all

other regulatory processes associated with the project and this establishes an

appropriate framework to manage any issues that may arise.


5.2 Non-Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

5.2.1 Regulatory Framework

The project area is not affected by any Heritage Overlay under either the

Corangamite or Moyne Planning Schemes.

The Planning Scheme (Clause 52.37) requirement for a planning permit for

works affecting dry‐stone walls applies except along the gas pipeline which

is exempt from the provisions of planning schemes.

5.2.2 EES Assessment - Non-Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

The EES assessment of non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage16 involved desktop

studies, field surveys and significance assessments. The search of

government and non‐government registers did not reveal any non‐

Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the Power Station site, the gas

pipeline alignment or the water pipelines alignment. However, the field

surveys along the pipeline alignments identified:

seven dry‐stone wall complexes (one in the gas pipeline project area and

six in the water pipelines project area);

a bluestone drinking trough in the gas pipeline project area;

a bluestone bridge and culvert outside the water pipelines project area;

and

an area of domestic artefact scatters in the water pipelines project area.

The Strategic EMP and Environmental Management Commitments include

Management Guidelines for heritage places.

The Proponent has committed to minimising impacts on dry‐stone walls. In

some instances temporary removal of dry‐stone walls will be required but it

is proposed to minimise impacts by reducing the width of the construction

right of way in these locations and to re‐instate the walls to reflect former

condition. Temporary fencing to indicate no‐go zones will be erected around

the bluestone drinking trough and domestic artefact scatters to prevent

accidental damage from construction works. There is little potential for

disturbance to these places during operation of the pipelines.

16 See EES Chapter 11.8, the Strategic EMP (EES Attachment 5) and Environmental Management

Commitments (EES Attachment 4). Two non-Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments were undertaken: one for the Power Station site/ gas pipeline alignment (Appendix 20 prepared by Andrew Long & Associates Pty Ltd) and one for the water pipelines alignment (Appendix 36 prepared by Tardis Enterprises).


Additional non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage field surveys of the Power

Station site and the entire gas and water pipelines alignments, including

subsurface testing along Old Dunmore Road, are proposed prior to

commencement of any works. Impacts on any additional heritage places

found during construction will be reduced by ceasing all works within 5 m of

the affected area until appropriate management is formulated in consultation

with Heritage Victoria.

5.2.3 Submissions and Response

The only submission relating to non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage was the

Shire of Corangamite request that the Corangamite Shire Heritage Study

Volumes 1 and 2 be included as part of the desktop study for non‐Aboriginal

cultural heritage. The Panel notes that the EES has referred to this study

(EES Chapter 11.8.1).


The Panel is satisfied with the EES approach to the assessment of Non‐

Aboriginal cultural heritage and with the measures identified to minimise

impacts on heritage places.

As the gas pipeline is exempt from the planning scheme provisions, the

Panel is of the view that a requirement for the protection and re‐instatement

of dry‐stone walls should be included in the construction EMP associated

with the licence under the Pipelines Act 2005.

It is noted that a planning permit is required under Clause 52.37 to remove or

alter a dry‐stone wall for the water pipelines. As removal of native

vegetation from the water pipelines route is proposed to be exempt from the

planning scheme provisions, the Panel is of the view that works affecting

dry‐stone walls should also be exempt under that clause, subject to a

requirement for the protection and re‐instatement being included in the

construction EMPs.

Recommendations

Revise the Clause 52.03 incorporated document to extend exemptions from

permit requirements to alterations and removal of dry stone walls along

the water pipeline alignment.

Ensure Construction EMPs for the gas and water pipelines include

measures to protect and re‐instate dry‐stone walls that may be impacted by

construction.


6. Health, Safety and Amenity Impacts

6.1 Noise


The Environment Protection Act 1970 (Section 46) requires noise emissions

to comply with state environment protection policies that specify acceptable

conditions for emitting noise and it is an indictable offence to emit

‘objectionable noise’ within the meaning of the regulations (Section 48).

State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce,

Industry and Trade) No N‐1 (SEPP‐N1) was developed to protect noise‐

sensitive areas in the Melbourne metropolitan region and does not impose

noise limits on industry in regional Victoria. However SEPP N1 does:

provide useful definitions of ‘day’, ‘evening’ and ‘night’;

define the ‘background level’ for each of these periods as the arithmetic

average of LA9017 noise levels for each hour of the period; and

Sets out procedures for background noise monitoring.

Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria (EPA, 1989) (the Interim Guidelines) apply specifically to rural areas with

low background noise levels (i.e., less than 25 dB(A) at night or 30 dB(A)

during the day or evening period). For construction noise, the Interim

Guidelines state:

During construction of an industry the daytime limit shall be raised by

10 dB(A) except where this would result in a limit greater than

68 dB(A). In this case the daytime construction noise limit shall be

68 dB(A). Limits for other time periods shall be the same as those set for

the ongoing industrial operation.

SPPF Clause 15.05 states that decision‐making by planning and responsible

authorities must be consistent with any relevant aspects of the Interim

Guidelines.

The EPA Noise Control Guidelines (EPA, 2008b) also deal with construction

site noise (see Chapter 6.1.8).

17 LA90 represents the lowest 10% of the noise in the hour.


As outlined above there are a number of policies and guidelines that could

be applicable to or used for the determination of appropriate noise criteria

for the project.

For rural areas, background levels can be very low, even in areas zoned for

industrial and commercial activities. The Interim Guidelines apply

specifically to rural areas with low background noise levels (i.e., less than

25 dB(A) at night or 30 dB(A) during the day or evening period. The Interim

guidelines establish maximum noise levels of 45 dB(A) during the day,

37 dB(A) during the evening, and 32 dB(A) at night at residential premises.

The recent EPA Draft Guidelines ‘Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria’, like SEPP N1, propose a zoning based procedure to determine

recommended maximum levels in rural areas with low background noise

levels. Using these Draft Guidelines, and on the basis that the noise is

generated in a SUZ and sensitive receptors are in a Farming Zone, the

relevant limits would be: 50 dB(A) during the day, 45 dB(A) during the

evening, and 40 dB(A) at night.

6.1.2 EES Assessment and Evidence – Noise Criteria

The EES documents the methodology and findings of the noise assessments

for the Power Station, compressor station and gas pipeline18 and the water

supply infrastructure19. Mr Turnbull, who was the primary author of the

Power Station and pipeline assessments provided at the Hearing,

summarised the noise assessments and responded to submissions that raised

noise related issues. Mr Pavasovic, who prepared the noise assessment for

the water infrastructure, was available to attend the Hearing but the Panel

advised it would rely on the material in the EES.

Background (LA90) noise levels have been monitored on the basis of SEPP

N‐1, at selected sensitive receptor locations near to the Power Station,

compressor station, water pipelines, Port Fairy recycled water treatment

plant and Port Fairy water treatment plant sites.

These background levels were almost all below 25 dB(A) at night; hence the

Interim Guidelines classify the areas near the Power Station and compressor

site areas as generally having the potential for ‘very low’ background noise.

Because the Power Station, compressor station and recycled water treatment

plant and pump stations may operate at any time of the day or night, the

appropriate and critical criterion to be applied to these facilities under the

18 EES Appendices 13 and 14 19 EES Appendix 33


Interim Guidelines is the night‐time noise limit of 32 dB(A) measured at the

nearest sensitive receptor.

EPA generally supported this approach in its written submission.

The EPA publication - A guide to the measurement and analysis of noise

states:

‘Weather conditions can markedly affect the noise level received at a noise

sensitive area. This is particularly important when the level is low and

the distance between the noise sensitive area and the source exceeds 200

metres. When it is believed that the noise received at the noise sensitive

area is affected by weather conditions, then a derived point may be used.

It is advisable to use this point in all cases where the noise source is more

than 500 metres from the noise sensitive area because weather conditions

are likely to be the major source of variability in the noise level at this

distance.

Where a suitable derived point is not available, Policy N‐l requires three

measurements to be taken within a 30 day period at the noise sensitive

area; this is used as an alternative to the derived point method to account

for the variability in received noise caused by weather conditions.’

The EES and Mr Turnbull’s evidence acknowledged the requirements of the

Interim Guidelines and used the CONCAWE weather categories20 to predict

noise levels at the sensitive receptors under different meteorological

conditions and as a basis for monitoring. The EES proposed noise criteria for

the Power Station and the compressor station measured at the closest

sensitive receptor at night, being:

32 dB(A) measured under neutral meteorological conditions (CONCAWE

Category 4); and

34 dB(A) when measured under worst case meteorological conditions

(CONCAWE Category 6).

According to Mr Turnbull, the proposed monitoring methodology provides a

more robust and more readily verifiable method than the current SEPP N1

methodology. It is based on consideration of 12 months of weather data, the

percentage of time each weather category occurred for the sensitive receptor,

compared with the SEPP methodology of averaging 3 measurements taken

over a 30‐day period. In addition, these criteria have been used for similar

projects (eg Mortlake Power Station).

20 The weather categories are based on wind speed, wind direction, time of day, and level of cloud

cover.


6.1.3 Submissions and Proponent Response - Noise Criteria

The EPA’s written submission noted that, while there are no statutory noise

criteria that apply outside Metropolitan Melbourne, it has a general power

and duty to protect the environment through tools such as Works Approvals

for new works and Pollution Abatement Notices. EPA’s submission and

questioning of Mr Turnbull by Mr Nancarrow on behalf of EPA, made the

following key points:

the noise assessment notes that the background level is not below

25 dB(A) at receptor 107. Nevertheless, it adopts the very low assumption

that the background level goes below 25 dB(A) during the night period

(but not when averaged in accordance with the definition of ‘background

level’ under SEPP N‐1)to determine the design target relevant as the

modelling basis (discussed below). It was noted that this basis for

modelling may need review;

under SEPP N‐1 the noise indicator is a 30‐minute average, and where

propagation of noise is affected by atmospheric conditions then the noise

is measured as the average of three measurements in 30 days (clause 6 of

part A 2 of Schedule A of SEPP N‐1);

where atmospheric conditions provide a frequent enhancement of noise

at a receiving location then the representation of the average of the three

highest measurements attainable in a 30 day period is well represented by

the worst case CONCAWE Category 6 conditions. Where the degree of

atmospheric enhancement is not as clear, then EPA’s advice in other cases

has been that noise should be modelled under weather conditions that

favour propagation of noise no more than 20% of the time after

examining the distribution of weather conditions at a site;

there are a number of uncertainties with the Proponent’s assessment of

noise impact of the Power Station and EPA believes that the noise

modelling basis for the Power Station needs some review; and

although clarification on modelling is needed, other factors are equally

important to consider in regard to whether reasonable outcomes are

achieved:

no statutory noise criteria exist in regional Victoria;

N3/89 does not specify Location 109 as being in a ‘very low’

background environment and the limit of 32 dB(A) is not

automatically adopted under the interim guidelines;

as non‐statutory criteria, the reasonableness of the noise impact in

terms of the potential for alternative sites is important; and

the practicability of noise control options to further reduce noise

levels; the Proponent has stated that Option 1 will employ


‘commercially available’ noise control and Option 2 will require

additional noise control with its open cycle turbine.

The EPA noted:

setting numerical noise level targets at receptors in Works Approvals and

licences can be problematic and may lead to perverse outcomes.

Proponents may be required to spend money on additional attenuation

measures just to achieve a number, irrespective of whether non‐

compliance with the noise level is a perceptible problem or not; and

current EPA preference is not to set noise level to be achieved at sensitive

receptors in Works Approvals. The example of the Works approval

issued to Woodside Energy Ltd (WA66800) was given as the best

example of the current EPA Approach. In this Works Approval,

Woodside must undertake during commissioning noise monitoring of the

compressor and other equipment at source to assess compliance with the

noise emissions and specifications listed in the Works Approval

application. These noise emissions relate to the equipment and not noise

levels at sensitive receptors.

At the Hearing Mr Frame indicated that the EPA had agreed with the

Proponent on both the methodology used to develop the criteria and the

numerical criteria used in the EES.

The Corangamite Shire noted that compliance with the proposed noise

guidelines will potentially cause annoyance to some residents. As expected

for a rural community, the existing background level is low (less than

25 dB(A) and the proposed the operational noise level of 34 dB(A) is an

increase of 2 dB(A) above the current EPA acceptable level of 32 dBA. Thus a

nine decibel increase would be permitted, which is very significant. It is

council’s experience that 34 dB(A) is unacceptably high for the area of the

compressor station, and 32 dB(A) will still be significantly high for the

residents within the region. The Shire submitted that the compressor station

be insulated to a greater degree to reduce nuisance noise at nearby

residences.

The Morgan‐Paylers submitted that the Schedule to the SUZ should specify

an EMP requirement to comply with the noise limits specified in the EPA

Interim Guidelines.

In further evidence, Mr Turnbull made the following key points:

the operational criteria adopted for the project were developed and

adopted in consultation with the EPA through the Technical Reference

Group process;


the adopted criteria are 32 dB(A) in neutral weather conditions and

34 dB(A) in worst case weather conditions. The most stringent criterion

in the Interim Guidelines is a night time criterion of 32 dB(A). Although

meteorological conditions are not defined in the Interim Guidelines,

SEPP No N‐1 requires an average of noise levels to be measured. In these

circumstances, use of neutral weather conditions to achieve the non‐

mandatory criterion of 32 dB(A) is considered to be appropriate;

notwithstanding assessment against the Interim Guidelines, under the

recently released Draft Guidelines ‐ ‘Noise from Industry in Regional

Victoria’ would result in limits of 46 dB(A) during the day, 41 dB(A)

during the evening and 36 dB(A) at night. The most stringent of these is

less stringent than the 34 dB(A) criterion adopted;

for most people, a difference in noise level of 2 dB(A) would be barely

discernable, a difference of 3 dB(A) would be detectable, and a difference

of 10 dB(A) would be a doubling of the noise; and

the adopted criteria would be used to determine the design of the

facilities and the necessary acoustic treatments required to achieve those

levels. In his opinion, the proposed equipment and acoustic treatment

would meet the criteria, but more could and would be done ‐ at a cost – if

required.

Mr Power strongly opposed specifying noise performance standards in the

planning scheme (see discussion in Chapter 12).

6.1.4 Discussion and Conclusions – Noise Criteria

The Panel notes that wind energy facilities in the region (and potentially in

the immediate vicinity of the subject site) have night‐time noise limit set at

40 dB(A). This is substantially higher than the limit proposed for the Power

Station and compressor station. Further, the most recent EPA view

regarding noise in quiet rural areas, expressed in the Draft Guidelines, also

suggest a higher noise limit than either the Interim Guidelines or the limits

proposed for the project.

The Panel notes with some concern the range of guidelines that can be used

to establish noise criteria in rural areas with very low night‐time background

noise levels. The Panel is also concerned that the EPA provided differing

views in its written submission to those previously agreed with the

Proponent through the TRG process, and provided verbally to the Panel. In

this context it is difficult to establish a clear and acceptable methodology to

determine appropriate noise criteria.

Notwithstanding the above, the Panel has considered the material and expert

opinion provided and believes that there is an adequate and appropriate


basis for the noise criteria that have been adopted in the EES. Further, the

Panel does not believe that there is any significant basis for further review of

the modelling methodology as suggested in the EPA written submission.

The use of the CONCAWE weather categories provides a more robust and

more readily verifiable method than the current EPA methodology. It is

based on consideration of 12 months of weather data, the percentage of time

each weather category occurred for the sensitive receptor, compared with the

SEPP methodology of averaging 3 measurements taken over a 30‐day period.

While acknowledging that there will be some noise impacts in areas of very

low background noise, the criteria provide a conservative approach to the

setting of criteria for the project. The Panel accepts that the limits adopted

will mean noise from the power and compressor stations would be audible

but would not disrupt normal residential activities, including during the

night time period. The Panel considers the appropriate noise criteria for the

Power Station and compressor station operations to be achieved at the

nearest sensitive receptors should be:

32 dB(A) when measured under neutral meteorological conditions

(CONCAWE Category 4); and

34 dB(A) when measured under worst case meteorological conditions

(CONCAWE Category 6).

Regulatory mechanism to ensure compliance with the noise criteria is

discussed in Chapter 11.

6.1.5 EES Assessment and Evidence - Power Station, Compressor Station and Recycled Water Treatment Plant Operation Noise

According to the analysis provided in the EES, with appropriately designed

noise attenuation measures, compliance with noise criteria adopted will be

achieved for both options of power station operation (See Figure 4 below).

On the basis of the modelling there is no additional attenuation required for

the combined cycle turbines in order to meet the criteria. However the

combined noise from one open cycle and the two combined cycle gas

turbines would exceed the criteria with the above sound power levels

without additional noise attenuation beyond the typical low noise design

acoustic treatment provided for the modelled open cycle turbine. The

additional noise attenuation requirements are expected to be achievable by

applying commercially available noise attenuation techniques including the

use of inlet and exhaust silencers and equipment enclosures.

Modelling of the noise from the operation of the proposed compressor

station, with the option for acoustic treatment provided by the manufacturer,


also predicts compliance with the noise criteria adopted for the project (see

Figure 5 below).

For the RWTP, the noise emissions assessment indicates that modelled noise

emissions operations will meet the applicable operational noise criteria at the

identified nearest sensitive receivers and at the 300 m buffer. This is

provided that equipment noise emissions are considered in the design of the

proposed works and noise control measures such as buildings with concrete

walls as outlined in the EES are incorporated into design.

Figure 4 Power Station Noise Contours (weather category 6)

Figure 5 Compressor Station Noise Contours (weather category 6)


6.1.6 Submissions and Proponent’s Response – Power and Compressor Station Operation Noise

The Morgan‐Payler Family expressed concerns about increased noise from

the project (predicted to be up to 25 dB(A)). They sought noise attenuation

measures on their land and post construction noise measurements to confirm

the predicted noise levels.

Mr Turnbull responded that an outdoor noise level of less than 30 dB(A), as

expected at the Morgan‐Payler property, is well below the level suggested by

any authority for the consideration of impacts and does not warrant noise

control measures. He noted that the noise control measures proposed on the

Power Station site have effectiveness in maintaining indoor and outdoor

amenity for all sensitive receptors.

The Corangamite Shire acknowledged that noise modelling for the

compressor station suggests compliance with noise limits adopted for the

project but, as noted above, the guidelines were questioned and it was

submitted that the Limits in the Interim guidelines should be maintained.

Council noted that the EES states that for the compressor station area, at SR

58, the minimum background noise level for during the day was 40 dB(A),

which it considered surprising, as the site is located in open farmland, and

not near any major roads.

Shirley Nicholls and Moyne Shire submitted that the cumulative impacts of

noise from the adjacent uses needs to be assessed (see Chapter 10). Moyne

Shire also submitted that detailed enforceable protocols provided to enable

any such issues, if they arise, be satisfactorily resolved.

6.1.7 Discussion and Conclusions - Power and Compressor Station Operation Noise

The Panel is satisfied that with appropriate design and operation, the Power

Station under either configuration can meet the noise criteria adopted for the

project. The Panel also considers that with appropriate design and operation

the Compressor Station can meet these noise criteria.

As discussed in Chapter 6.1.10, noise should be measured during

commissioning at nearby residences to the Power Station (including the

Morgan‐Payler residence) and compressor station in order to confirm

compliance with noise limits. The results of this noise monitoring program

should be made available to the occupiers of the respective residences, the

Responsible Authority and the EPA.


6.1.8 EES Assessment and Evidence – Noise from Construction Activities

Evidence from Mr Turnbull indicated that as the construction of the power

and compressor stations is likely to occur over an extended period, it is

appropriate to ensure that noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors achieve

the noise criteria as set down by Interim Guidelines N3/89.

Based upon the existing background noise levels measured in the vicinity of

the site, the Interim Guidelines result in noise criteria for the construction of

the power plant of 55 dB(A) during the daytime (7am to 6pm), 37 dB(A)

during the evening (6pm to 10pm), and 32 dB(A) at night (10pm to 7am),

when measured at sensitive receptors in the vicinity.

The EPA Noise Control Guidelines which also deal with construction site

noise, with limits (are summarised in the Table below) that vary slightly

from the recommendations contained in the Interim Guidelines.

Table 1 EPA Noise Control Guidelines recommended Construction Noise Limits

(Source EES Table 11.1)

It was further noted that when considering noise levels associated with the

construction of the pipelines, construction activities would be expected to

occur in the vicinity of any one particular sensitive receptor for periods no

greater than one or two weeks, with sporadic vehicle movements along the

pipeline corridor at other times. It is noted that this level of acoustic impact

on a sensitive receptor would be similar to the level of impact from many

farming operations near sensitive receptors. In these circumstances, it is

considered more appropriate to ensure that work practices at sensitive

receptors in the vicinity of the pipelines are in general accordance with the

requirements of the Noise Control Guidelines.


6.1.9 Discussion and Conclusions – Noise from Construction Activities

The Panel accepts that noise sensitive receivers may potentially be impacted

by construction activities. The EES identified the restrictions on construction

activities and construction noise management measures which should be

included in the Construction EMPs for the project. These mitigation

measures should be implemented and all potentially impacted residents

should be informed of the nature of the works, expected noise levels,

duration of works and a method of contact.

The noise impacts of the construction of the gas and water pipelines should

be managed under the EPA Noise Control Guidelines (Publication 1254:


other than in unusual circumstances, the gas pipeline construction

activities should be restricted to 6am. to 6pm, seven days per week

(noting lower noise threshold requirements for activities conducted on

Saturdays and Sundays). Early‐morning activities from 6.00 to 7.00 a.m.

should be restricted to low‐noise work, such as vehicle arrivals and

toolbox meetings; and

water pipelines construction activities should be restricted to 7am to 6pm

Monday to Friday, and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays.

Due to the extended nature of the construction of the Power Station,

compressor station, recycled water treatment plant and pump stations, the

noise impacts should be managed under the Interim Guidelines n3/89 and

meet the criteria when measured at sensitive receptors in the vicinity:

- 55 dB(A) during the daytime (7am to 6pm);

- 37 dB(A) during the evening (6pm to 10pm); and

- 32 dB(A) at night (10pm to 7am).

These requirements should be incorporated into the respective Works

Approvals and Construction EMPs for the project.

6.1.10 Noise Monitoring And Complaints Procedures

The EES outlines noise monitoring procedures and proposes remedial action

in the event that noise levels exceed noise objectives for the project. It states

that Shaw River Power will investigate and act on noise complaints received

during project operations. Monitoring may be required at the sensitive

receptor concerned to determine whether noise limits are being breached.

Accidences of noise limits will trigger action to identify the cause and take

steps to remedy the impact.


Mr Chessell for the Morgan‐Payler family submitted that the Proponent

should be strongly held to account to meet the noise criteria. Specifically, he

proposed that:

Noise monitoring should be required as follows (as a minimum) at

various sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the site (including the

Morgan‐Payler premises):

- on a monthly basis during construction of each stage of the

facility;

- on a quarterly basis during the operation of the facility; and

Circulation of the results of those measurements to the relevant

landowners and to the Responsible Authority should occur within one

week of the measurements being taken.

In addressing this issue, Mr Frame from EPA submitted that it routinely

investigates complaints and reports back to complainant on the outcome of

its investigations. Where problems are identified, these can be addressed

through a Pollution Abatement Notice. The Environment Protection Act 1970

does not envisage third party enforcement. It provides for criminal not civil

proceedings.

Mr Guest from the Moyne Shire submitted:

the EES scoping requirements foreshadowed the need for a monitoring

and dispute resolution procedure. Exactly how this is envisaged to work

is yet to be resolved for this proposal, and will also need to have the

capacity to deal with interactions with other developments if and when

they are constructed; and

Section 13(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that

enforcement responsibilities rest with the local council, unless the

planning scheme specifies another person as the responsibility authority.

As such, a local council has primary responsibility for enforcement of the

planning scheme and permit conditions. In this case other agencies have

a role, eg the EPA.

The EPA noted that a community monitoring program can provide a

community forum in which to raise the broadest range of issues associated

with the Power Station.

The Panel agrees with submissions that compliance with noise limits should

be verified by a suitably qualified person as each stage of the project is

completed and commissioned. It is actual noise levels at key locations and

the consequential effect on amenity that is of concern, rather than the

accuracy of modelling inputs, which appeared to be the focus of the EPA

suggestions relating to verification of noise production from equipment used


in the project. The purpose of compliance monitoring and enforcement is to

control noise levels, not to review assessment methods.

The outcome of this monitoring should be provided to the relevant Council,

the EPA and the residents of the house where monitoring took place. It

should also be available on request to members of the public. The Panel

endorses the Shire of Moyne initiative in establishing a forum for liaison

between the local community and relevant agencies, including EPA. This

process should ensure noise complaints are responded to promptly and noise

monitoring results are publicly available (See Chapter 11.2.4 for discussion of

Complaint Management).

Recommendations

Include restrictions on construction activities and construction noise

management measures to the satisfaction of EPA and the Responsible

Authority in the Construction EMPs for the project.

Inform residents of the nature of the works, expected noise levels, duration

of works and a method of contact.

Manage the noise impacts of the construction of the gas and water

pipelines under the EPA Noise Control Guidelines (Publication 1254:


Other than in unusual circumstances, the gas pipeline construction

activities should be restricted to 6am to 6pm, seven days per week

(noting lower noise threshold requirements for activities conducted on

Saturdays and Sundays). Early‐morning activities from before 7am

should be restricted to low‐noise work, such as vehicle arrivals and

toolbox meetings.

Water pipelines construction activities should be restricted to 7am to

6pm Monday to Friday, and 7pm to 1pm on Saturdays.

Implement the following noise limits at the nearest residence in the EPA

Works Approval and the EMPs for the Power Station and compressor

station:

operational noise:

34 dB(A) under worst case weather, (CONCAWE Category 6);

32 dB(A) under neutral weather (CONCAWE Category 4); and

construction noise:

55 dB(A) during the daytime (7am to 6pm);

37 dB(A) during the evening (6pm to 10pm); and

32 dB(A) at night (10pm to 7am).


Monitor noise at the sensitive receptors nearest to the Power Station and

compressor station under representative conditions during the

commissioning of each stage of the project to confirm compliance with the

criteria.

Make the results of any noise monitoring of the project and responses to

noise complaints available to the community liaison forum.

6.2 Air Quality

The principal emissions to air of the project arise from:

the operation of the Power Station for the two options for the Power

Station configuration at Stage 3:

- Option 1: Three combined‐cycle gas turbines (CCGT); and

- Option 2: One open‐cycle gas turbine (OCGT) and two combined‐

cycle gas turbines.

the operation of the compressor station; and

fugitive dust during construction of the Power Station, compressor

station and recycled water plant and the gas and water pipelines.

Other issues addressed in the EES and submissions related to the potential

for impacts of combustion gases on drinking water supplies, and for odour

emissions.


The legislation and guidelines relevant to controlling air quality impacts

during construction and operation of the project are:

Works approvals and discharge licenses are required under the

Environment Protection Act 1970, which is administered by the EPA;

The State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP

AQM) (Victorian Government, 2001) protects air quality in Victoria

through a combination of quality objectives for specific indicators (such

as pollutants, dust and odour emissions) that can be applied to the

design, construction and operations phases of the project;

The State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) (Victorian

Government, 1999) (SEPP(Ambient Air Quality)) sets air quality

objectives and goals for Victoria;

Victoria’s Best Practice Environmental Management: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA, 1996) provides guidelines for dust

control during construction but do not specify air quality criteria;


The Australian Pipeline Industry Association Code of Environmental Practice

(APIA, 2009) provides generic guidelines for the control of emissions to

air, including dust, during the construction of the pipelines; and

The Australian Water Quality Guidelines (Australian Government, 2004)

provide a framework for good management of drinking water supplies

that will assure safety at point of use.

6.2.2 EES Assessment and Evidence - Air Emissions

Power Station

In the EES emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

have been assessed. Emissions of other pollutants were acknowledged, but

the quantities of emissions were considered to be insignificant, and their

impacts were not assessed. Mr Ormerod has assessed the potential impacts

of other pollutants and his findings were presented to the Hearing.

Ground‐level atmospheric concentrations of CO and NO2 were assessed

against the air quality ‘design criteria’, sourced from the SEPP(Air Quality

Management):

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)–190 μg/m3 (0.1 ppm), 1 hour average, 99.9th

percentile; and

Carbon monoxide (CO)–29,000 μg/m3 (25 ppm), 1 hour average, 99.9th

percentile.

The impact assessment modelling was conducted in accordance with the

requirements of Schedule C, Modelling Emissions to Air, SEPP‐AQM, and in

consultation with EPA.

Atmospheric dispersion modelling using the regulatory model Ausplume

was undertaken to predict the potential impact of emissions to air of oxides

of nitrogen and carbon monoxide for the following cases:

Shaw River Power Station – Option 1 (3 x CCGTs): Normal (100 & 60%

Load) & Start‐up Operations; and

Shaw River Power Station – Option 2 (1 x OCGT + 2 x CCGTs): Normal

(100% Load) & Start‐up Operations.

The results of the air impact assessment demonstrate that the ground level

concentrations for all cases considered will comply with the relevant health‐

based ambient air design criteria in SEPP‐AQM as indicated in Table 2

below.

In evidence provided by Mr Ormerod, the impacts of pollutants not

considered in the EES were evaluated, based on Victorian EPA air quality


guidelines and the estimated maximum concentration of each pollutant at

sensitive receptors. He concluded that the ground level concentrations of all

of the emissions substances are well below the SEPP AQM guideline levels.

Table 2: Predicted 1‐hour Average ‘Maximum’ Ground Level Concentration –

Power Station Option 1, Option 2 and Compressor Station

(Source” Derived from EES Tables)

(3 x CCGTs) ‐ Normal Operations, 100% Load Indicator Maximum (99.9

percentile) Predicted Ground Level Concentration (μg/m3)

Worst-affected Residential Property (99.9 percentile) Predicted Ground Level Concentration (μg/m3)

Design Criterion (μg/m3)

Compliance Status

Predicted 1‐hour Average ‘Maximum’ Ground Level Concentration – Power

Station Option 1 Nitrogen

Dioxide (NO2) 46.1 27.6 190 Yes Carbon

Monoxide (CO)

154.8 139.7 29,000 Yes

Predicted 1‐hour Average ‘Maximum’ Ground Level Concentration – Power

Station Option 2 Nitrogen


Monoxide (CO)

148.7 137.0 29,000 Yes

Predicted 1‐hour Average ‘Maximum’ Ground Level Concentration –

Compressor Station ‐ Normal Operations Nitrogen


Monoxide (CO)

224 145 29,000 Yes

Compressor Station

As for the Power Station, the EES assesses emissions of carbon monoxide

(CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Ground‐level atmospheric concentrations

of CO and NO2 were assessed against the air quality ‘design criteria’, sourced

from the SEPP Air Quality Management. The air impact assessment

demonstrated that the ground level concentrations for all cases considered

will comply with the relevant health‐based ambient air design criteria as

indicated in Table 2 above.


A cumulative assessment of all sources (ie existing Otway, Minerva and Iona

gas plants and the proposed compressor station) was also conducted for NO2

concentrations, with the results demonstrating compliance with the design

criteria (see below).

Construction of the Power Station, Compressor Station, Recycled Water

Treatment Plant the Gas and Water pipelines

The EES indicates that it is possible that construction of the Power Station,

compressor station, recycled water treatment plant and pipelines could result

in fugitive dust emissions that could affect sensitive receptors, if dust control

measures are not properly implemented.

According to the EES and Mr Napier’s evidence, the Proponent and its

contractors will base EMPs on the recommendations in EPA Victoria’s

Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites and the APIA

Code of Environmental Practice.

The Potential Impact of Air Emissions on Domestic Water Supplies

PAEHolmes analysed the potential impact of air emissions on domestic

water supplies. Contamination of rain employed for human consumption

with atmospheric pollutants can cause health problems – if the resultant

concentrations in the collected water exceed relevant drinking water

guidelines.

The pollutants emitted with potential to impact drinking water quality are

NOx which can react to form nitrite (NO2‐) and nitrate (NO3‐) in water. The

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG 2004) are set by the National

Health and Medical Research Council and are based on a maximum safe

level of intake through ingestion of drinking water over a lifetime. The

detailed analysis undertaken in the EES (Appendix 12) concluded:

that based on the conservative assumptions used in the assessment, the

dissolution of NO and NO2 into dissolved phase nitrite and nitrate would

result in levels that are orders (and in some cases many orders) of

magnitude less than the levels in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

(2004); and

the emissions from the Power Station do not have the potential to cause

rainwater contamination at any nearby residences.

Recycled Water Treatment Plant

The EES assessment of odour emissions from the proposed recycled water

treatment plant to be constructed at the Port Fairy water reclamation plant

concluded that:


the risk of increased odour emissions from the reverse osmosis facility

impacting on nearby residents will be minimised by housing processes

within the recycled water treatment plant building and by monitoring the

treatment system;

any odour from the exposed water surfaces in the RO plant will be

minimal compared to the other odour sources in the plant; and

air quality will be managed according to the SEPP AQM.

There will be an extension to the existing buffer zone around the Port Fairy

water reclamation plant to accommodate the addition of the recycled water

treatment plant and reverse osmosis facility. As a 300‐m buffer already

encompasses most of this area, the total increase in buffer zone area around

the site will be 3.88 ha to the north west of the site, a total increase in buffer

area of 1%.

6.2.3 Submissions - Air Emissions

The Morgan‐Paylers expressed concern about the increase in dangerous air

emissions and requested that the Development Plan required under the

SUZ2 should include a requirement to regularly monitor the air emissions

and to provide air purification systems to the house situated on the land if

necessary.

The Proponent responded that the impact assessment modelling

demonstrates compliance with the relevant ambient design criteria in SEPP

AQM at all locations, including at the ‘Myndarra’ property (sensitive

receptor #102), with the scale of the impacts indicating that ambient air

monitoring is not required. The modelling results are based on conservative

assumptions with the highest of the resulting predictions at #102 being less

than 16% of the ambient design criterion (29.7 μg/m3 of NO2 under start‐up

conditions).

Corangamite Shire noted that there is no reference to potential adverse air

quality impacts other that during the construction stage. The Shire stated

that the figures for NO2 and CO emissions are based on the modelling of a

certain type of power station to be built but this could change. Council

requested compliance with the relevant SEPP and on‐going EPA Licence

compliance.

The Proponent responded that operational air quality assessments were

carried out and presented in the EES. The expert evidence (well as the EES

itself21) indicate that SEPP (AQM) will be complied with, and of course Shaw

21 Pages 11-20


River Power will need to comply with any Works Approval or Licence

issued by EPA.

The EPA written submission and Mr Frame’s verbal submission highlighted

the following points:

if a peaking power station (open cycle) is approved, the EPA has insisted

that the energy be recovered from the fuel and the pollutants produced

per unit of electricity (best practice) be minimised; the EPA has also

requested that when a peaking station is operated for extended periods,

consideration be given as to whether it is practicable to convert the

peaking power station into a combined cycle power station;

emissions of NOx are minimised from gas turbines by the application of

NOx control technology and it has been usual to apply dry low NOx

technology to large turbines. It is understood that the turbines for the

Power Station proposed have dry low NOx burners, but there may be a

slight energy penalty with this technology;

the turbine and compressor technologies proposed in the EES are

generally considered to satisfy the ‘best practice’ test, but this would be

confirmed when the actual equipment to be used is identified;

modelling of the key air emissions has been undertaken using EPA’s

approved model, Ausplume and applied according to the SEPP (AQM).

The assumptions used in the modelling are conservative and include an

appropriate estimate of emission rates based on a worst case scenario

during normal operation;

the modelling in the EES indicates that the air emissions will meet the

design criteria of the SEPP (AQM) for both the Power Station and the

compressor station; and

for the Recycled Water Treatment Plant the most likely impact is odour

and it is expected that there will be a minimal increase in odour.

6.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions - Air Emissions

The Panel notes the EPA’s comments regarding open cycle plants not

necessarily meeting best practice, but it is also noted that the project

proposes staged implementation to meet market demand and the conversion

from open cycle plant to closed cycle over time.

The Panel accepts the EES assessment, the evidence and the EPA advice that:

the turbine and compressor technologies proposed in the EES are

generally considered to satisfy the ‘best practice’ test to be applied by

EPA;

the results of the air impact assessment of emissions from the operation of

the Power Station and compressor station demonstrate that the ground


level concentrations for all cases considered will comply with the relevant

health‐based ambient air design criteria in SEPP‐AQM;

there will be a minimal increase in odour from the Recycled Water

Treatment Plant;

the emissions from the Power Station do not have the potential to cause

rainwater contamination at any nearby residences;

cumulative impacts at the sensitive receptors near the compressor station

are dominated by the emissions from the existing adjacent sources

(particularly from the Iona and Otway Gas Plants), but the resulting

cumulative impacts are predicted to comply with relevant design criteria

in the SEPP (AQM); and

while there is a potential for cumulative effects in relation to air quality

from the proposed Tarrone power station, it is likely that any increase

will be small, and the resulting impacts will comply with the requirement

of the SEPP (AQM).

Dust from construction of the Power Station, compressor station, recycled

water plant, gas pipeline and water pipelines can and should be managed

through Construction EMPs based on the recommendations in EPA

Victoria’s Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites and the

Australian Pipeline Industry Association Code of Environmental Practice.

6.3 Safety

6.3.1 Regulatory and Policy Framework

The DPI submission noted that the construction and operation of the gas

pipeline (including the compressor station) is regulated by the Pipelines Act

2005, in conjunction with Energy Safe Victoria (ESV). Ms Hendricks advised

that ESV would be the authority responsible for reviewing and approving

the safety aspects of the gas pipeline.

Mr Power noted that consent is required under Occupational Health and Safety

Act 2004. Under the Act, Registration or a Licence to Operate a Major

Hazard Facility must be obtained from the AEMO prior to operating the

Power Station. The Safety Case for the Power Station will be informed

through the EES, and the development of appropriate training packages and

implementation plans, including occupational health and safety management

plans and emergency response plans.


6.3.2 EES Assessment - Safety

EES Appendix 22 presents the Preliminary Hazard and Risk Assessment for

the Power Station and gas pipeline. This study was to identify the nature

and scale of hazards that might be present during the construction,

operational life and decommissioning phase of the proposed power station,

gas pipeline and compressor station. The key hazards identified were: bush

fires as a potential from a ruptured pipe, disruption of infrastructure during

construction of the gas pipeline and traffic accidents due to the increased

traffic volumes during construction.

EES Appendix 38 presents the preliminary hazard analysis for the water

pipelines and associated water infrastructure. Key hazards identified

included: chemical spills at the treatment plant, disruption of infrastructure

during construction of the pipeline and water damage from a burst of the

water mains.

The EES advised that, as Shaw River Power is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Santos, the Santos EHSMS 22 will be adopted as the basis for managing the

construction and operation of the Power Station, gas pipeline and associated

infrastructure. The contracting strategy will require the major contractors for

the project to maintain systems that reflect the requirements of the Santos

EHSMS and that these requirements form part of the project EHSMS. The

environmental, health, safety and security systems of the major contractors

will be audited prior to final contractor engagement.

Wannon Water’s standards and procedures for environmental management

will provide the framework for the management of the water pipelines and

associated water infrastructure at Port Fairy. The contractor appointed for

the construction of the water pipelines and associated infrastructure will

adopt Wannon Water’s standards, in addition to their own environmental

management standards, to ensure a high level of environmental

performance.

From a legislative perspective safety aspects of the gas pipeline [and

compressor station] are addressed in the Pipeline Regulations 2007 as

summarized by Mr Power below:

Before carrying out any pipeline operation (including the construction of

the pipeline) licensees are required to provide a Safety Management Plan

to Energy Safe Victoria23. These plans must identify the public safety

risks, specify what the licensee proposes to do to eliminate or minimise

22 Attachment 5 to the EES 23 Section 126.


those risks, and set out the matters specified in Part 6 of the Pipeline

Regulations 2007.

The pipeline operation cannot commence until the Safety Management

Plan has been accepted by Energy Safe Victoria in writing. Energy Safe

Victoria must not do so unless it is satisfied that the licensee has, in

preparing the plan, consulted any person who owns, occupies or manages

the land on which the pipeline operation is to be carried out.

These plans must be reviewed by the licensee every five years, and the

outcome of the review must be reported to Energy Safe Victoria within

28 days of completion of the review.

It is a criminal offence to carry out a pipeline operation without an

approved Safety Management Plan24 and for a licensee to breach the

plan.25


DPI submitted that the Construction EMP and Operations EMP should be

used as the main regulatory documents to capture safety conditions for the

gas pipeline. The Proponent strongly supported this position.

Corangamite Shire Council highlighted:

the need for emergency management training for local SES/CFA and

others involved in disaster planning and emergency response; and

the potential impact of road closures during the declared Fire Danger

Period may impact on the CFA’s operational response for incidents in the

vicinity of construction work.

Mr Guest of Moyne Shire advised of concerns in relation to emergency

evacuation/response issues associated with a construction camp in the event

of a bush fire.

The CFA raised the issue of work permits associated with construction work

on declared days of Total Fire Ban in its submission. However the issue of

training was not specifically raised, nor was emergency response issues

associated with either the Power Station or a construction camp.

The EES and Mr Napier acknowledged the need for further consultation with

emergency service providers, including the Country Fire Authority (CFA)

and SES, in the preparation of emergency response procedures, emergency

management plans, and the identification of implications for upgraded

24 Section 127. 25 Section 129.


infrastructure or additional training. The need to notify the CFA of any road

closures during the Declared Fire Danger Period was also noted, together

with the desirability of avoiding road closures on total fire ban days (where

possible).

6.3.4 Discussion

The Panel did not receive a submission from ESV and has therefore had to

rely on the submissions from the Proponent and the DPI that ESV will ensure

appropriate safety requirements etc for the gas pipeline and compressor

station.

The Panel noted that the preliminary HAZID analysis (Appendices 22 and

38) identified that safety impacts could be appropriately managed through

the development of Construction Safety Plans, and Construction and

Operations EMPs. However the Panel has some concerns related to the

omission of discussion in the EES in relation to setback distances for future

development along the gas pipeline. The Panel further notes that Part 6 of

the Pipeline Regulations specifically addresses requirements for Safety

Management Plans.

However while the Construction EMP and Operations EMP for the gas

pipeline are required to be approved [and monitored] by DPI which has

appropriate safety resources and experience, the Panel is concerned in

relation to the specific expertise of the Moyne Shire to review and monitor

the Construction EMP and Operations EMP for the Power Station. During

discussion at the hearing it was noted that the Power Station site is defined

as a Major Hazard Facility and therefore the Safety Management Plan should

be referred to WorkSafe Victoria for review and approval. Clause 66.06

would also require referral to WorkSafe Victoria for this type of proposal if

an application for permit was required.

The Panel notes that the proposed SUZ2 does not refer to a Safety

Management Plan for the Power Station in either the Construction EMP or

the Operations EMP. The Panel considers that the SUZ 2 should explicitly

require safety to be addressed in management plans and should provide for

a formal review by the appropriate authority.

The Panel heard from Mr Napier that the thickness of the wall of the gas

pipeline is dependant on a variety of issues including the explosive impact

distance of the pipeline to dwellings and other sensitive uses. The Panel has

not been able to identify how future dwelling construction in proximity to

the pipeline will be regulated where development is allowed as‐of‐right

under the planning scheme. Further consideration is needed of design

specifications and/or the need for an overlay to ensure safety risk is


considered and addressed before dwellings (or other sensitive uses) are built

in the vicinity of the project. The extent of such an overlay would be

determined on the basis of risk and a consultative process would be

necessary to allow those who may be affected to present their views.

As the Power Station will be a Major Hazard Facility the Panel considers the

Proponent should provide ongoing training for the CFA and SES to ensure

that adequately trained personnel are available locally to assist in emergency

situations.

Recommendations

Revise the proposed SUZ2 to require:

the Construction EMP and Operations EMP for the Power Station to

include a Safety Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified

person; and

the responsible authority to have regard to the views of ESV, WorkSafe

Victoria, the CFA and the SES on the Safety Management Plans.

Ensure appropriate management of safety risks to future development

associated with the project (Options to consider include both pipe

thickness specification in areas with potential for future development and

an overlay for land where risks associated with the proximity to the project

either preclude development or require specific design measures).

Ensure the Proponent provides ongoing training to both the CFA and SES

to enable effective responses to potential emergency situations.


6.4 Landscape and Visual Amenity

6.4.1 EES Assessment and Evidence – Visual Impacts26

Jon Shinkfield, the primary author of the LVIA, appeared at the Hearing and

his expert report responded to submissions that raised issues about visual

impacts.

The LVIA determined visual impacts by taking into account the degree of

visual modification and the degree of viewer sensitivity. Residential areas

were deemed to have higher visual sensitivity, for example, than industrial

areas largely because of the greater importance of visual amenity to the

residents. Despite a short duration of view, roads were also identified as

potentially being of higher sensitivity as there may be large numbers of

viewers.

The Power Station

The LVIA considered the visibility of the following Power Station elements:

13 additional transmission line pylons with a nominal height 65 m above

proposed finished surface levels; and

three heat recovery steam generator stacks and three cladding boxes to air

cooled condensers with respective nominal heights of 50 m and 32.9 m

above the proposed concrete platform.

Figure 6 Power Station, Switchyard and Pylon Visualisation

(Source: EES Appendix 15 Figure 1.6)

26 EES Appendix 15 documents the methodology and findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment (LVIA) for the Power Station, compressor station and gas pipeline. EES Appendix 34 addressed visual impacts from water infrastructure.


The LVIA identified the following potential measures to mitigate visual

impacts: appropriate lighting design; staging or construction method;

materials and colour selection and buffer planting.

The LVIA identified a large ‘Zone of Visual Influence’, particularly toward

the southwest of the project site, from which the Power Station would

theoretically be visible. Seven photo simulations depicted the proposed

development both before and approximately five years after planting to

mitigate impacts. Five of the viewpoints were along the Hamilton‐Port Fairy

Road, one viewpoint was to the north from Woolsthorpe‐Heywood Road

and one viewpoint was at the southern boundary of the Power Station site.

The Panel directed that further simulations be prepared from nearby

residential properties to address a gap in the analysis in the EES. These

additional simulations from receptors 89, 102, 109 showed the visual impacts

before and after harvesting of plantations.

Existing vegetation and topography partially screened views to the Power

Station site from Viewpoints 1 and 4, while the plantations partially obscure

elements of the Power Station in Viewpoints 2, 3, and 7. Plantations on

adjoining properties immediately to the north, south and west of the Power

Station site, are due to be harvested. The EES assessment from relevant

viewpoints assuming that the plantations have been harvested indicated that

impacts would increase from properties to the north and south (including

Viewpoints 2, 3 and 5.).

The LVIA identified:

visual modification ranging from ‘None’ at Viewpoints 1 and 4, through

to ‘High’ at Viewpoint 6;

visual impact ranging from ‘Negligible’ at Viewpoints 1 and 4 through to

moderate adverse at Viewpoints 3 and 6; and

planting along the Power Station site boundary would reduce the

residual visual impact level for Viewpoints 2, 3, 5 and 6 but the rating of

the adverse impact at Viewpoint 7 would be unchanged (EES Table 6.1).

The further simulations in Mr Shinkfield’s evidence from three residential

receptors within 2km of the site illustrated:

at the northern boundary of receptor 89 (the Morgan‐Payler property) the

absence of visual impacts with the plantations in place but new impacts

after harvesting;

at receptor 109 an established hedge of medium height screens lower

elements of the Power Station but additional pylons would be apparent.

A greater proportion of pylons would be apparent after harvesting of


plantations. Impacts would be greater for other properties with views in

this sector without comparable established planting; and

at receptor 89, plantations do not influence visual impacts and vegetation

around the house appears to effectively screen views from that location.

Development of the Power Station within the proposed SUZ2 is as of right

but the Development Plan required must include: ‘Details of proposed

landscaping, including such landscaping measures as appropriate both on the land

and on surrounding land to screen views of the development from existing dwellings.

The Strategic EMP (4.8 Aspect 8) refers to planting vegetation screening,

consisting of mixed plants of local provenance including some fast growing

species, within the Power Station and compressor station site, where

appropriate. It also refers to minimising disturbance to the landscape and

rehabilitation to pre‐existing conditions, designing infrastructure and

selecting materials to reduce glare, and adopting lighting strategies to

minimise night time visual impacts.

The Compressor Station & Pipelines

The 2.4 ha compressor station site is on a localised high point within

predominantly cleared agricultural land. There are 14 sensitive receptors

within 2 km of the compressor station that could theoretically have a view of

the compressor station but the number is reduced if the screening effects of

vegetation, structures, etc are taken into account.

The LVIA assumed all of the compressor station elements will be less than

3.5m in height except for the stacks (6‐7m high and 1.2m diameter) and the

fire water tanks (nominal height 5.0 m). The EES did not include any visual

representations of the proposed compressor station. The LVIA found the

visibility of the compressor station would be restricted to higher elevations

given the undulating nature of the surrounding area and the low height and

size of the proposed structures. The LVIA found ‘Views of the compressor

station would be likely to remain as distant background from very few vantage points

associated with residences.’ The majority of the gas and water pipelines

alignments traverse highly disturbed landscapes of predominantly cleared

farmland. The EES acknowledged the short‐term visual impacts caused by

the construction of the compressor station and pipelines. However,

rehabilitation works along the pipeline route are expected to result in

negligible long term visual impacts from the pipeline.

The management of visual impacts would be via the conditions and EMPs

associated with the License under the Pipelines Act 2005 and the EPA Works

Approval.


Port Fairy Recycled Water Treatment Plant

The RWTP will be a single storey building located on the south side of the

existing Wannon Water site in Port Fairy. The EES (Appendix 34) indicated

there will be no external activities associated with the operation of the plant

and visual impacts are only associated with the structure. As the proposed

structures will be very similar to existing structures and existing vegetation

is not proposed to be removed, visual simulations were not prepared. The

EES indicated that vegetation on the site to the north, east and west

intercepts views from houses and nearby roads. Works at the Port Fairy

Water Treatment Plant will be within an existing building and will have no

visual impact.

The management of visual impacts for the water supply infrastructure would

be via the Works approval.

6.4.2 Submissions

The Morgan‐Paylers submitted that the Power Station constitutes a large and

imposing industrial facility that is wholly out of keeping with the existing

rural character of the area. In addition to planting around the boundary of

the Power Station site, they sought screen planting along the entire northern

boundary and part of the western boundary of their property to mitigate the

visual impacts on the property.

The Shire of Moyne submission at the hearing indicated that, in addition to

on site screening, it will require the Management Plans to provide for a post

construction program whereby the applicants approach all landowners

within approximately 5‐7 kilometres from the site to assess what measures

can be undertaken to screen the proposal from that aspect. This procedure

has been used successfully at the Yambuk Wind Energy Facility and will take

place for the Mortlake power station currently under construction.

The Shire of Corangamite highlighted visual impacts of the introduction of

the compressor station into a rural landscape and sought a commitment to

implement EES recommendations relating to building materials.



The Power Station

The LVIA acknowledges that visual impact assessment involves firstly

determining how a particular view would be affected and then making a

judgement about the sensitivity of the landscape and its capacity to

accommodate change. Visual simulations illustrate impacts and are

important in informing consultative processes and the exercise of that

judgement. As the LVIA states ‘The use of photo simulations plays an important

part in visual impact assessments to convey the proposals to the assessors, decision

makers and the local community. A total of seven photo simulations have been

prepared to explore and illustrate the likely effect of the scheme on particular views.’

The Panel has a number of concerns about the visual impact assessment and

the EES assertion that the viewing points ‘were representative views. The views

selected within this analysis were chosen based upon the ZVI analysis, identification

of sensitive receptors and on site observations and are likely to represent locations

from which the proposed development will be most highly visible.’

The methodology concentrated on views from roads as they are accessible to

the largest number of potential receptors in the broader community and to

avoid private residences in order to eliminate the possibility of undue bias to

suit only a small number of receptors. This was despite the fact that all

residential receptors were recognised as highly sensitive and the viewpoints

were from roads with volumes of less than 600 vehicles per day. Further, the

locations selected for three of the seven simulations were almost certain to

indicate a very limited impact. The distance between the site and two of the

viewpoints (3.9 and 4.9km) meant impacts were dismissed and views from a

third view point (Orford Town Centre) were screened by buildings and

vegetation.

Nevertheless, the Panel is satisfied that the preparation and circulation of

additional simulations from residential receptors remedied this limitation in

the analysis.

The Panel considers the LVIA understated the visual impacts.

Unfortunately the Panel has no confidence that the simulations actually

reflect the likely visual impacts from the project. As the LVIA noted that

‘many of the photomontage images presented in this report (refer to Appendix A)

were taken during overcast weather conditions. The low light levels of the base

photography ‘darkens’ the foreground elements. A stronger visual contrast between

the existing foreground elements and the objects located on and along the horizon or


‘skyline’ therefore becomes more apparent. The ‘sky’ then provides a background for

the simulated objects (power and compressor station infrastructure). The overall

colour variation of the sky has been slightly altered to provide a more consistent

background onto which the simulated elements can be assessed.’

The comparison during the site inspection of the representation of the

existing conditions where pylons are visible with the actual perception of

those views, made it clear that the pylons were much more prominent than

represented. This flaw appears to have been translated to the proposed

elements of the Power Station in the simulations which show very limited

contrast between the background and the Power Station infrastructure. In

addition, the foreground and middle views appear to be exaggerated,

whereas in all cases the proposed power station components have receded to

more distant components and are understated. Our comparison of the

Mortlake power station currently under construction also suggests that the

representation of the presence of the Power Station may be understated.

Mr Shinkfield’s responded to questions from the Panel that the use of a

28mm lens camera meant that the more distant elements in the view receded.

The Panel understands that similar concerns have been raised about

photomontages prepared for some recent Wind Energy Facility proposals.

The Panel also questions the LVIA judgment that ‘Given the existing visibility

of the OHTL pylons, potential visibility of the new switchyard infrastructure and

additional OHTL pylons, and likely screening of the main built form, the proposed

development is seen as an intensification of the existing landscape character.’ The

existing powerline does currently have some presence in this rural setting

but the extent of the infrastructure proposed goes well beyond the current

intrusion.

Importantly, the timber plantations to the north, west and south of Site are

due to be harvested. The LVIA discussion recognised that visibility and

impacts from many views will increase when the screening provided by the

plantations is removed.

The Panel is of the view that the Power Station will be prominent in the rural

landscape in the locality, particularly after harvesting of timber plantations

adjoining the Site. However, no one has suggested that these impacts

outweigh the benefits to the broader community from the project and,

provided appropriate measures to mitigate visual impacts are adopted, this

should not be fatal to the project. Major infrastructure projects invariably

have significant visual impacts but in this case those impacts have been

minimised by selecting a site in an area with a dispersed settlement pattern

that is not recognised as a significant landscape. The influence of plantations

on the views from roads and the closest houses also means that existing


views comprise relatively contained landscapes in some instances (as in the

case of the Morgan‐Paylers’ property) and/or the relevant view sector

affected by the project is already modified to screen views to the wider

landscape.

The proposed planting around the Power Station perimeter will be a

significant mitigation measure in reducing short range views and the Panel

also endorses the use of low reflective materials of muted tones. In addition,

the Panel considers that off‐site mitigation of visual impacts should be

provided on nearby properties. Indeed the schedule to the proposed SUZ2

specifically contemplates that off‐site planting to screen the Power Station

may be required.

While the visual impacts associated with the Power Station will differ from

WEFs27, the Panel agrees with Council that the principles established for the

mitigation of visual impacts from WEFs provide a useful approach that

should be adopted here. Key principles that should be adopted include:

The focus on the mitigation of visual impacts is from dwellings to protect

the area used most intensively for leisure and recreation, rather than the

farming workplaces. This includes the dwelling used as a Bed and

Breakfast at the Morgan‐ Paylers’ property but the Panel does not support

their submissions that landscaping should be provided along their

property boundaries. Planting close to this most sensitive location will

intercept the views more effectively than more remote planting along the

farm boundary. Of course, they have the option of undertaking planting

themselves to ensure the screening currently provided by the plantation

is maintained.

In addition to on‐site planting, within 6 months after the Development

Plans are endorsed, owners of properties within 3 km of the Power

Station site should be offered screen planting around the curtilage of

existing dwellings on a voluntary basis. This should include

consideration of the size of plantings (ie a mix of advanced trees and tube

stock should be options), the inclusion of species with rapid growth rates;

consideration of whether the age and health of current vegetation

supports a need for reinforcement planting; responsibility and timeframe

for maintenance (at least 2 years); and any implications for existing native

vegetation. Offers should remain open to residents for up to 12 months

after Stage 1 of the Power Station is commissioned.

27 For example, the much larger footprint of WEFs means the turbines may affect much wider

sectors of views, wind turbines are much higher and the movement of blades attracts viewers but the Power Station is a much bulkier structure (equivalent to 10 storeys).


The scope of off‐site mitigation should be foreshadowed in the schedule to

the SUZ2.

The Panel notes that a number of properties that currently do not have

dwellings would be exposed to views of the Power Station. However, the

future development of those properties would allow siting and orientation of

house and their gardens to ‘design out’ unwanted views to the Power

Station.

The Compressor Station and Pipelines

Given the site’s remote location, the low height of compressor station

structures which will not break the horizon line and the proposed screen

planting around the perimeter of the compressor station, the Panel agrees

with Mr Shinkfield that few receptors would have any view of the facility

once the perimeter planting has matured. The Panel expects long‐term

visual impacts to be largely eliminated through the implementation of

commitments to develop screen planting around the compressor station and

use materials with low‐glare properties in colours and textures to blend with

the surrounding landscape28. These commitments should be incorporated in

subsequent approvals.

As noted in Chapters 3 and 4, the Panel is satisfied there has been significant

effort to avoid and minimise vegetation losses and to minimise disturbance

where pipelines cross water courses. The Panel has also emphasised the

importance of effective rehabilitation of the pipeline route after construction

in Chapter 4. In addition to achieving biodiversity and operational

objectives, these design and management measures also substantially reduce

the long term visual impact along the pipeline routes.

The Panel accepts that the visual impacts associated with the gas and water

pipelines are largely temporary changes during the construction phase, such

as the presence of construction machinery and stockpiled spoil. The

transient nature of these impacts reduces the significance of the impact.

Port Fairy Recycled Water Treatment Plant

The Panel is satisfied from the EES assessment and its own site inspections

that the visual impacts from development of water infrastructure in Port

Fairy will not be significant. The use of the site for this function is

established and recognised by the zoning of the land and the Shire of Moyne

advised that further industrial development in the locality has been

foreshadowed and endorsed by the Priority Development Panel. The

28 See EES Attachment 4 Commitments 59 and 61.


proposed development maintains a compact footprint and will be consistent

with the existing built form and scale of structures on the site. The proposed

works are separated and screened from sensitive viewpoints from roads and

houses.

Panel Recommendations

Amend the Schedule 2 to SUZ Development Plan provisions to include an

‘Off‐site Landscaping Plan’ to mitigate the visual impact of the Power

Station from all dwellings within 3km of the Power Station site. Where an

offer is accepted, the plan should:

be prepared by the relevant landowner or the proponent;

incorporate the species to be used, timetable, and maintenance

arrangements;

be implemented within 12 months of the endorsement (unless

otherwise agreed between the landowner and the Proponent); and

specify that all costs for design, implementation and maintenance are to

be the full the responsibility of the Proponent or operator.

6.5 Lighting

6.5.1 EES Assessment - Lighting

To minimise the impacts of night‐time lighting on residents and motorists,

the EES commitments29 include the use of: passive means of lighting (eg

reflector roadway markers, lines, warnings or information signs) and

directional lighting mounted no higher than 6 m from the ground. The

proposed SUZ2 requires lighting to be addressed in the EMPs.

6.5.2 Submissions

The Shire of Corangamite submitted that impacts on the dark rural landscape

at night should be minimised by ensuring manual operation of compressor

station night lighting on an as required basis.

29 See EES Attachment 4 Commitment 60.



While night lighting would be an addition to the night sky view, there would

be relatively few night time viewers due to the low density of population and

low usage of the local road network. Given the separation of the project

elements from sensitive receptors, adverse impacts from lighting on the

amenity enjoyed by nearby residents would be limited.

The Panel agrees with the Shire of Corangamite that lighting should be the

minimum required to meet safety objectives and operational requirements

for areas that are actually in use. The commitments made in the EES are

endorsed but in addition, specific consideration should be given to the use of

sensor activated lighting and baffling of lights to direct lighting downward

to the intended location and to avoid light spill above the horizontal. The

Panel considers that Schedule 2 to the SUZ, the works approval and licence

under the Pipelines Act should require this approach to be adopted in

subsequent approval processes.

Panel Recommendation

Ensure that, in addition to commitments in the EES, lighting:

is the minimum required for access and safe operation of parts of

the facility that are actually in use;

incorporates sensor activation; and

is baffled to avoid light spill above the horizontal.


7. Disruption of Existing Land Uses, Infrastructure, Traffic And Local Communities

EES Evaluation Objective: To minimise the disruption of existing land uses,

infrastructure, traffic and local communities, including in relation to the availability

of housing and the potential need to upgrade infrastructure.

7.1 Land Use Disruption

7.1.1 EES Assessment- Land Use Disruption

The table below presents the EES summary of the potential disruption of

land use and associated mitigation measures (other than due to traffic

management impacts discussed separately).

Potential Impact Mitigation Measures

. Acquisition of agricultural land for the Power Station, gas pipeline and compressor and water pipeline.

. Potential impact on use of land within the easements for the gas pipeline and water pipeline.

. Spread of weeds during construction and reinstatement of pipeline corridor.

. Restriction of uses within the pipeline easements.

. Ensure access is maintained in the vicinity of construction works.

. Progressive reinstatement of land affected by the pipeline construction.

. Ongoing communication and consultation with affected property owners, including provision of information on the reinstatement of land following construction and restrictions on the use of land within the pipeline easement.

. Implementation of environmental management measures during construction to control the spread of weeds.

. Compensation to property owners in accordance with the relevant legislation.

The Proponent advised that the proposed Farm Management Agreement

attached to the Option Agreements with landowners along the gas pipeline

route sets out:

the pipeline construction methodology on the property to allow farming

operations to continue with as little impact as possible;

agreement to re‐pasture following completion of the works; and

rights to compensation which take into account ‘Farm Management

Compensation’ for the costs of: lost productive capacity; increases in farm

management time; extraordinary disturbance such as dust or noise near

the homestead, difficulties with access to the property; temporary


severing of telephone lines; unexpected stock loss; and re‐seeding and

rehabilitation costs.

7.1.2 Discussion and Conclusions – Land Use Disruption

The Panel recognises that construction activities inevitably involve some

disruption. That disruption can be significant, albeit transient, for

development of substantial scale over an extended period and for linear

infrastructure projects that affect extensive areas.

The established regulatory framework and the EES acknowledge impacts on

construction sites and the Panel emphasises that it is vital that, in addition to

the compensation to be provided to landowners, a conscientious approach is

adopted to minimising disruption and mitigating impacts. The Panel notes

that it is in both the landowners’ and the Proponents’ interests to minimise

disruption and maximise co‐operation. The material presented in the EES,

the credibility of the evidence presented that the Proponent intends to

maintain constructive working arrangements with landowners, notably by

Mr Napier, and the fact that only one landowner made an objecting

submission, provide a level of confidence that the level of disruption will be

minimised.

The ongoing disruption due to the project is addressed in other chapters,

particularly with regard to noise and traffic impacts (see Chapters 6 and 7.2).

The Panel has concluded that these potential impacts are capable of effective

management. The Panel has found that the Power Station will impact on the

visual amenity of the locality and this is particularly relevant to amenity

dependant uses such as existing houses and the Morgan‐Paylers’ Bed and

breakfast after plantations are harvested. Nevertheless, the Panel considers

that the mitigation measures proposed provide an acceptable outcome.

7.2 Traffic Management

7.2.1 EES Assessment and Evidence – Traffic Management

Traffic issues for the two alternative development scenarios for the Power

Station are discussed in Appendices 16 and 17 of the EES. The traffic aspects

reviewed included an assessment of the road network capacity and

capabilities together with various traffic scenarios related to both

construction and operation, including access for over‐dimensional loads.

The Panel noted that the impact on the local road network will be minimised

as the proposed access routes to the Power Station are all via main roads

(apart from Riordans Road, which is proposed to be upgraded).


Following the preparation of the EES, further investigations were undertaken

to consider a possible location of the Power Station construction camp and

also, in response to queries from the Panel, the suitability of alternate routes

for over‐dimensional vehicles travelling to the Power Station site from

Portland. An alternative development scenario for the construction of the

Power Station was also assessed and was discussed in Mr Carter’s expert

witness statement and presentation.

During the Panel hearing specific issues were raised by both the Panel and

the Morgan–Payler Family in relation to access to the Power Station site

using an alternative route along McGraths Road, in preference to Riordans

Road. Mr Carter and Mr Organ advised of their traffic and flora and fauna

concerns in relation to the alternative route30. Mr Carter advised that the

length of road required to be upgraded would be increased and would

provide a less satisfactory vehicle access route than Riordans Road. Mr

Organ’s written response concluded that the alternative access route has the

potential to impact a greater area of remnant native vegetation and a larger

number of threatened species, compared with the proposed access route. Mr

Power on behalf of the Proponent confirmed that it is the Proponent’s

intention to use Riordans Road as the primary access route to the Power

Station and if established, the Construction Camp.

Mr Carter advised that the Hamilton Port Fairy Road currently has the

highest of Vic Roads service level during peak hour and noted that during

the construction of the Power Station this would only be reduced to level B

[the second highest level]; even if all construction staff were to travel to the

site by light vehicle.

There was some discussion in relation to the detailed requirements for the

upgrade of the Hamilton‐ Port Fairy Road / Riordans Road intersection. Mr

Carter advised that the design requirements would be dependant on where

the construction camp and concrete batching plant were situated in relation

to the Power Station and provided the design requirements for the worst

case.31

30 Letter [P28] dated 16 June 2010 from Mr Carter addressing traffic issues and letter [P29]

dated 16 June from Mr Organ addressing flora and fauna issues. 31 Based on the Austroads guidelines, the design requirements for Hamilton–Port Fairy

Road/Riordans Road/Smyths Road intersection layout would include: (the Panel has

chosen to highlight only the following point):

• Provision of a 3.5 m wide right turn lane in accordance with a Type AUR (Auxiliary

right turn lane) treatment on the south approach to the intersection. The length of the

auxiliary widening is 60 m with a 60 m long taper, providing adequate length for

deceleration prior to the storage of a B double to waiting for an appropriate gap in

traffic to turn.


In summary the key likely impacts identified by Mr Carter during the

construction and operation phases of the Power Station, gas pipeline and

water pipelines are:

a minimal reduction of the level of service of the Hamilton‐Port Fairy

Road during the peak construction period of the Power Station. It was

noted that the increased traffic is well within the capacity of the regional

road network and would amount to less than 5% of the Hamilton‐ Port

Fairy Roads capacity;

a requirement to upgrade the Hamilton‐Port Fairy Road/Riordans Road

intersection to VicRoads requirements;

upgrading and possible minor realignment of Riordans Road from the

intersection to the entrance of the Power Station, and possibly further to

the east if a construction camp is constructed on the Shaw River Power

land east of Old Dunmore Road;

the provision and enforcement of Traffic Management Plan(s) approved

by Moyne and Corangamite Shires, to minimise the impacts on the local

road network as the Power Station, gas pipeline, possibly a construction

camp and water pipelines are constructed;

the provision and enforcement of a Traffic Management Plan approved

by Moyne Shire to minimise usage by workers vehicles of other roads

adjacent to the Power Station site during the operation of the Power

Station;

the use of horizontal boring or HDD for crossing all sealed roads, where

practical, with open trenching an option for unsealed roads; and

upgrading of Smokey Point Road from Langleys Road, to provide all

weather access. It was noted from Mr Napier’s presentation and the site

inspection that the upgrade is proposed to minimise the impacts on the

flora and fauna in the road reserve along Smokey Point Road.


Submissions were received from the Morgan‐Payler family in relation to the

usage of roads adjacent to their property, the CFA in relation to road closures

during the declared Fire Danger Period and Corangamite and Moyne Shires

in relation to a variety of road infrastructure and traffic issues.

In addressing the Morgan – Payler Family concerns Mr Carter advised that

while traffic will need to use McGraths Road as part of the construction of

the gas pipeline, Shaw River Power has advised that access to the gas

pipeline from McGraths Road will only require use for approximately 5

weeks. Measures will be taken to limit the use of McGraths Road by power


station construction or operation traffic as part of the Traffic Management

Plan.

In relation to the various concerns raised by both Moyne and Corangamite

Shires Mr Carter indicated that the Shires’ concerns can be addressed in the

Traffic Management Plan which is to be prepared by the Proponent and

approved by the Shires prior to the commencement of construction.

Concerns were raised by the Moyne and Corangamite Shires in relation to

the use of regional roads by over‐dimensional vehicles during the

construction of the compressor station and power station. Mr Carter advised

that the movement of over‐dimensional loads will be subject to the policies,

guidelines and approvals process outlined by VicRoads as outlined in the

EES. The routes for the movement of over‐dimensional loads will form part

of the Traffic Management Plan and will be provided to VicRoads and the

Shires (where utilising roads for which the Shire is the responsible authority)

for comment and approval.

Mr Carter advised that consultation and communication with all emergency

services, including the Country Fire Authority, will form part of the Traffic

Management Plan. It is not anticipated that full road closures will be

required for pipeline road crossings. However, if temporary road closures

are required, measures such as detours, rapid trench backfill and steel plate

crossing would be defined in the Traffic Management Plan. The Traffic

Management Plan will include key project contact numbers in the event of

emergency.

7.2.3 Discussion and Conclusions – Traffic Management

The Panel accepts the evidence from the Proponents traffic expert that traffic

issues related to the project are not significant in terms of the capacity of the

existing road infrastructure. It is appropriate that the routes adopted

maximise the use of main roads and minimise the demands placed on the

local road network. The Panel is also satisfied that traffic management issues

have been adequately reviewed and issues raised by the various submitters

can be resolved, primarily by the preparation of the Traffic Management

Plan(s) which will require the Proponent to satisfactorily address the

concerns of the shires (which include those of the Morgan–Payler Family).

The Panel accepts that the traffic volume along the Hamilton–Port Fairy

Road is low and acknowledges that the Proponent has undertaken to

upgrade the intersection, including a right turn lane but remains concerned

in relation to the requirement for two B Doubles to undertake a greater than

900 left turn from Riordans Road onto the 100 kmh Hamilton – Port Fairy

Road each day and the potential for the slowly accelerating fully laden


vehicles to cause other vehicles to break heavily or to overtake as the truck

accelerates. The Panel considers that the provision o f a left turn acceleration

lane on the Hamilton–Port Fairy Road should be considered. The Panel

acknowledges that the provision of an acceleration lane will likely result in

the loss of additional native flora [including Swamp flax Lily] however the

Panel remains concerned with the safety aspects and highlights the issue for

resolution from VicRoads, which is the authority responsible for this road.

The Panel noted the Shire’s concerns in relation to the time required for them

to be able to adequately review the Traffic Management Plan and the

Proponents advice that it would make all endeavours to provide the traffic

management plan to the shires at least three months prior to the

commencement of construction.

The Proponent has not committed to providing a sealed upgrade to Riordans

Road despite the much greater use of this road both during construction and

operations by both light and heavy vehicles (including two B Double vehicles

each day). The Panel notes the traffic experts’ advice that the upgrading of

this road would provide a higher degree of safety, reduced maintenance

requirements and a reduced potential for dust. The Panel is also concerned

that the provision of an unsealed road to any proposed construction camp in

the vicinity of the Power Station would not be of a suitable safety standard.

The Panel notes that SUZ2 specifies rates of parking provisions and that

parking requirements at the Power Station will be addressed as part of

detailed design. However the Panel is cognisant of the need to ensure that

there is adequate parking area for the increased numbers of vehicles likely

during both the construction and the maintenance periods. Provision for

parking of construction and maintenance worker vehicles should be

addressed in the Development Plan and the Construction EMP’s.

As the location of the concrete batching plant was not identified in the EES

the traffic impacts were assessed in general, however when the site is

identified the Proponent will need to include a review of potential impacts in

the Traffic Management Plan.

Based on the evidence of Ms Sommerville, Mr Carter and Mr Napier the

Panel acknowledges that significant portions of the construction work force

are likely to be accommodated in Warrnambool and Port Fairy and possibly

Mortlake and that the provision of a bus service for the construction work

force would reduce traffic impacts both on the regional and local road

networks and also the parking requirements on the Power Station site. The

Panel considers that the provision of the bus service at the cost of the

Proponent would assist in promoting the major urban areas for

accommodation in comparison to other areas.


Recommendations

Review the design of the intersection of Riordans Hamilton–Port Fairy

Roads consultation with VicRoads with a view to providing an

acceleration lane for fully laden B Double trucks turning left from

Riordans Road onto the Hamilton – Port Fairy Road.

Provide a sealed upgrade of Riordans Road from the Hamilton – Port Fairy

Road intersection to:

the entrance of the Power Station before development starts, and

internally for all roads regularly used by B double vehicles; and

the entrance of the camp before development starts, if a construction

camp is proposed in the vicinity of the Power Station.

Provide a free bus service, at the cost of the Proponent, for construction

workers from locations identified in the accommodation strategy (eg

Warrnambool, Port Fairy and Mortlake) to the Power Station for the

duration of construction.

Review and address potential impacts of the concrete batching plant in the

Traffic Management Plan.

7.3 Disruption of Infrastructure

7.3.1 EES Assessment - Disruption of Infrastructure

The EES has identified a number of areas where existing infrastructure will

or might be disrupted. These are primarily related to the construction of the

pipelines and are typically at road crossings where existing services are to be

crossed. The Panel noted that the Proponent proposes to use horizontal

boring or HDD under sealed roads and open trenching as an option for

unsealed roads, this will assist in minimising the disruption of existing

services and minimise the disruption to local traffic on the roads.

Disruptions to farm operation will occur as the pipeline spread moves along

the pipe route. The disruption will be for a short period of time.

It is anticipated that Riordans Road will have to be temporarily closed or

restricted to enable the upgrade of the road to the Power Station entrance,

and possibly to the construction camp. However as there are other routes

locally available the inconvenience is anticipated to be minimal and for a

short duration.

A services identification and impact assessment was undertaken for the

water pipelines and is proposed to be undertaken for the gas pipeline once

the route is finalised and prior to the commencement of design.



Submissions from Corangamite and Moyne Shires raised issues of road

interruptions due to traffic increases and also of road degradation due to the

increased numbers of heavy vehicles. Mr Carter acknowledged both issues

but confirmed that the existing capacity of the road network was well in

excess of the proposed temporary increased volumes and that as part of the

Traffic Management Plan the Proponent, in coordination with the shires,

would undertake condition surveys of proposed heavily trafficked roads

before and after construction and that the Traffic Management Plan would

include reinstatement obligations.

Mr Guest on behalf of the Moyne Shire noted that the Proponent does not

propose to source fill material external to the site and that in the case of the

Mortlake Power Station this involved 20,000 truck movements from a quarry

to the site. Mr Napier confirmed that the Proponent was proposing to obtain

fill material from onsite which would assist in minimising traffic impacts

during the early part of construction.


The only other impacts identified by the Panel were temporary impacts as

the start up power supply to the Power Station site is established, and

potentially cut in disruptions at the Wannon Water water treatment and

recycled water treatment plants at commissioning of new works.

The Panel is satisfied that given the undertakings provided in the EES and at

the Hearing that the interruption to existing infrastructure will be minimised

and can be adequately monitored by the relevant authorities.


8. Socio- Economic Implications

The EES Socio‐economic Impact Assessment (SIA)32 provided an overview of

the area’s existing demography, employment, business and industry, social

infrastructure and ‘community values’. In this chapter the focus is on the

project implications for employment opportunities, accommodation and

community and emergency services. Other potential impacts relating to

matters such as amenity and traffic management are addressed in other

chapters dealing specifically with those issues. Evidence from Nicole

Sommerville summarised the EES analysis and findings and responded to

submissions that raised issues about socio‐economic impacts.

8.1 Economic and Employment Impacts

8.1.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Economic and Employment Impacts

The EES indicates that the project has the potential to induce an economic

impact nationally in the order of $2.18 billion (direct and indirect) during the

construction phase33 but the induced impact on the southwest Victoria region

will be substantially less. Local businesses will supply goods and services to

the project, such as catering/ food services, transportation, sub‐contract

construction skills, accommodation, and personal services. Increased activity

in the regions economy will also support economies of scale in regional

purchasing, the development of new supply markets, extended access to

goods and services and increased employment opportunities.

During construction the project is expected to generate an average of about

400 direct jobs (360 for Option 2), with about 30% of workers sourced locally.

The direct additional spend in the region would be $20.7 million if it is

assumed that 50% of the approximately $41.3 million construction workforce

wages are spent in the region. The permanent operational workforce (see

below) would result in a total ongoing spend in the region by the Stage 1

workforce of about $2.73 million annually34.

Stage Option 1 Option 2

1 30 day/20 night 4-6 day/2-4 at night

2 40 day/28 at night 40 day/28 at night

3 50 day/35 at night 50 day/35 at night

32 The EES SIA is set out in Chapters 5.4 and 11.6 and in Appendices 18 and 19. 33 ABS National Multipliers indicate multipliers of 2.67 for direct spending in the construction and

0.974 for spending in the electricity supply sector during operation of the Project. 34 Assuming an average weekly pay rate of $1,500 per worker, of which 70% is spent within the

region, approximately $54,600 per worker is expected to be spent in the region per annum.


Increased shortages of skilled labour in the region in some industries are

expected during the project construction phase, with the potential to either

increase the cost of those services or the difficulty in accessing them. The

EES suggests that appropriate skilling and employment programs prior to

construction and sourcing labour from towns such as Portland35 could

enhance the extent to which the regional community captures the potential

benefits and avoids adverse impacts associated with an influx of workers.

In addition to significant economic benefits to the local community, the

increased economic activity places additional demands, with associated

economic costs, on a range of services and infrastructure, particularly during

the construction phase. Productivity losses may result from increased travel

times for passengers and freight and the greater use of roads may increase

road maintenance and vehicle operating costs. The potential for economic

impacts from less tangible impacts, such as increased driver stress and losses

in amenity for properties adjacent to major construction transport routes,

was also identified. The EES assessment does not quantify these costs but

they are not expected to be significant. The EES suggested that these impacts

could be mitigated through effective traffic management planning (See

Chapter 7.2).

8.1.2 Submissions

The Shire of Moyne advised that the direct employment generated during

the construction of the smaller Mortlake gas fired power station peaked at

approximately 450 employees and this was around 70 more than was

predicted in the project planning phase. The Shire is preparing a social and

economic impact assessment of the Mortlake project which draws on a

survey of workers on site during March 2010 (70 survey responses).

Preliminary survey results indicate that most workers (93%) come from out

of the region with only 7% come from Moyne and Corangamite Shires.

Moyne Shire is currently working with Origin and Bilfinger Berger Services

to gather information on local business engagement in the project. However,

preliminary analysis suggests that the benefits from the Mortlake project

have been more in terms of value adding to the local community rather than

in direct employment. Most businesses in the Mortlake township have

experienced increased levels of business as a result of the project, particularly

cafes and hotels, fuel outlets, the newsagency and other retailers. Businesses

in Terang and Camperdown have also reported increased trade due to some

workers utilising motel accommodation on a short term basis.

35 Portland was identified as having a pool of skilled workers who had recently experienced job

losses.


The Shire of Moyne supports the project and the associated economic

stimulus to the region but noted that, while not a reason to refuse

infrastructure proposals, it is conscious that businesses will need to adjust to

lower levels of activity after projects have been completed. Concern was also

expressed by Corangamite Shire that there could be longer term impacts that

could seriously impair the appeal of the locality to tourists if temporary use

of tourist accommodation to house workers results in prospective tourists

being frustrated when places to stay are not available. This is believed to

have impacted on Port Campbell during the gas plant construction.

8.1.3 Discussion

The EES provided a broad brush analysis of economic implications of the

project and the extent of local expenditure and, as suggested by preliminary

data collected by the Shire of Moyne relating to the Mortlake project, the

generic assumptions made in the SIA analysis may understate the overall

level of employment generated and the extent to which labour is imported

from outside the region.

It is clear, however, that a project of this scale will inject substantial stimulus

into the region’s economy that far outweighs the loss of 110 ha of grazing

land from production. The Panel accepts that approval of the project is

supported by the substantial benefits to local businesses and those seeking

employment, particularly during the construction phase but also extending

at a lower level to the longer term operation (including major maintenance

cycles).

The Panel endorses the EES view that, in order to maximise benefits for the

local community and minimise adverse economic impacts, project

development should incorporate early consultation with local schools, TAFE

and employment providers to plan for the expansion of employment and

training programs to incorporate technical skills training directly associated

with project needs. The Mortlake project should provide useful insights into

labour market (and other) requirements that should be incorporated in

further project planning processes. The Panel understands that

infrastructure programs often promote the use of local goods and service

providers through early consultation with local businesses organisations,

registers of businesses expressing interest in supplying goods or services,

and promoting the use of local businesses by primary contractors. This

project also provides opportunities for ‘local engagement’ initiatives.


8.2 Community Services, Housing and Construction Camp(s)

8.2.1 EES Assessment and Evidence - Community Services and Housing

The SIA and Ms Sommerville’s evidence indicated that:

the majority of workers who relocate with their families (assumed to be

approximately 20% of workers) are expected to live in Warrnambool, but

towns such as Port Fairy, Koroit, Port Campbell and Hamilton would also

be likely to attract workers;

depending on the extent of construction worker sharing of housing,

estimates of additional dwelling requirements ranged between average

requirements of 110 to 250 and peak requirements between 170 to 425

dwellings;

there is a shortage of rental housing in the study area, which has resulted

in high rental costs in some towns. The SIA survey of real estate agents

indicated further upward pressure on rental prices is anticipated as

vacancy rates are expected to remain low. This would particularly impact

on access to affordable rental housing; and

the use of tourist accommodation could ease pressure on rental

accommodation with benefits for proprietors but the ability to meet peak

tourist demand would need to be carefully managed to avoid longer‐term

impacts on the tourism sector.

Measures identified to mitigate impacts on affordable housing included

maximising the employment of people who already living in the area,

encouraging workers to live in a number of towns across the area by

providing a bus service to the construction site and promoting sharing of

accommodation.

Construction Camps

The Works Approval application suggested that ‘It is anticipated that

construction workers will be housed in existing accommodation in nearby towns and

settlements. The need for a construction camp to house the construction workforce

has not been established. The decision regarding accommodation of the construction

workforce will be the responsibility of the engineer‐procure‐construct contractor,

once appointed to the Project’36.

However, the SIA and Ms Sommerville’s evidence indicated that:

36 See section 3.5 of the Works Approval Application


the need for a construction camp should be determined by the Proponent

during the detailed planning phase of the project, having regard to other

projects either under construction or planned in the area and the

availability of suitable accommodation at that time;

a camp at the Power Station site (on the eastern side of Old Dunmore

Road) would avoid the need for workers to travel and reduce traffic on

local roads;

services such as recreation, first aid, dining, etc. would be provided at the

construction camp; and

management of resident behaviour at the construction camp would avoid

potential impacts on the nearby area and communities. These typically

include matters such as such as drug and alcohol management, security

and safety, camp access and hours of movement outside of the camp,

access for non‐camp residents, noise management and worker health.

Ms Sommerville suggested that construction camps would need to be

consistent with the planning scheme and the location of would be

determined in consultation with local Councils and landowners. She

expected that, if a separate construction camp is established for gas pipeline

workers, it is likely to be located mid‐way along the pipeline (near

Warrnambool). Her evidence statement provided a rural Queensland

example of a construction camp.

Community Services and Infrastructure

The SIA anticipates that schools, hospitals and emergency services in the area

have sufficient capacity to cater for the expected influx of population

(approximately 490 workers and their families) during the construction

phase but the existing difficulty in meeting the demand for child care places

and medical services, particularly general practitioners and dental care,

could be exacerbated. Increased demand for these services could impact on

levels of service and waiting times. It also suggests that the workers and

their families may also support the viability of some sporting and recreation

clubs and facilities but there was some concern that the need to upgrade

some facilities would be reinforced.

The measures to mitigate impacts on community services recommended in

the SIA and Ms Sommerville’s evidence focussed on ‘early and ongoing

consultation’ with the various service providers to allow them to take the

influx of population into account in their planning and operations. The

providers identified include the Department of Education and Early

Childhood Development, Department of Human Services, local schools, local

hospitals and emergency services, housing support agencies, Victoria Police,


Rural Ambulance Service, Country Fire Authority and State Emergency

Services, child care and school bus operators.

8.2.2 Submissions

The Shire of Corangamite raised the potential for negative social implications

of housing such a large number of workers in an isolated location without

social and community services. It suggested construction camps should be in

towns on appropriately zoned land rather than along the pipeline route to

minimise adverse social impacts and potentially benefit the local community.

At the hearing, Council highlighted the potential for facilities such as

Brucknell Park Scout Camp and caravan parks, which have significant spare

capacity outside of the peak holiday periods, with a complementary

potential role for Glenormiston College in meeting temporary

accommodation at peak times. The Shire submitted that past experience of

deferring planning and responsibility to the project contractor for projects

such as the gas plants illustrated the need for much earlier planning.

The Shire of Moyne is concerned about the possible impact of this project on

the availability and cost of housing in the region. The Mortlake power

station worker survey responses to date37 indicate that, of 65 non‐local

respondents:

49% lived in Warrnambool; 29% in Mortlake and the remaining 22% lived

in Port Fairy, Terang, Camperdown, and the rural area surrounding

Mortlake; and

56% were living in a shared house, 21% were the sole occupant of a

house, 21% lived in a flat or apartment and 2% lived in caravan parks,

cabins, bed and breakfast accommodation, pubs and private board.

The Shire advised that anecdotal feedback from real estate agents, a regional

supported accommodation advisory committee, local people, and workers

suggests that the influx of Mortlake Power Station construction workers has

contributed substantially to increased rental prices, and to a reduction in the

availability of rental properties in Mortlake and Warrnambool. It is

Council’s understanding that very few construction workers at the Mortlake

Power Station workers relocated their families to the region.

Mr Power emphasised that, while the Proponent has a role in analysing

potential social impacts associated with the project, responsibility for broader

37 There were 70 responses to a survey of workers on the Mortlake gas fired power station

construction site during March 2010. Council is awaiting more completed surveys to gain a stronger indication of worker origin and accommodation patterns.


strategic planning or for the provision of housing and community services

rests with others, particularly State and local government.

8.2.3 Discussion

The SIA recognised that the project would create challenges in meeting the

additional demand generated for housing and a range of community services

but provided only a broad overview of the existing supply of housing and

reference to consultation with service providers. Unfortunately the SIA did

not specifically addressed whether there are towns experiencing decline with

spare infrastructure capacity to accommodate additional population;

whether it would be better to direct the additional population to

Warrnambool; or whether a construction camp (discussed further below)

provides a model that effectively addresses needs. The Mortlake power

station, which was under construction at time the SIA and accommodation

surveys were done, provides a local example of a directly comparable

infrastructure project, albeit at a smaller scale. However, there appears to

have been no attempt in the SIA to document the actual impacts and learn

from the experience gained through that project. Such an analysis could

have provided insights about how the housing market and community

services have responded.

The development of potential mitigation measures was also limited and

largely comprised recommendations for ‘early and ongoing consultation’.

The SIA provides limited progress towards more specific documentation of

where capacity exists in particular services or analysis of where it may be

most appropriate to augment services.

The following view expressed by the Panel considering the Mortlake power

station also applies in this case ‘the survey data in this respect fell well short of

providing convincing evidence that accommodation needs would be satisfactorily met

without significant impacts on the local accommodation markets.’ The Mortlake

EES Inquiry Panel recommended that the adoption of the associated

Amendment should be subject to a Section 173 agreement under the Planning

and Environment Act 1987 relating to the ‘Early conduct of an accommodation and

community services strategy for the Project’. Unfortunately this

recommendation was not implemented, apparently due to concern that there

was insufficient lead time available for effective outcomes.

The work now being undertaken by the Shire of Moyne is a positive initiative

and should inform the development of strategic planning responses for the

housing and service requirements generated by a major infrastructure

project(s).


This Panel considers there continues to be a clear need for more rigorous

planning to achieve more effective responses to the demands for housing and

community services associated with this (and other) major infrastructure

proposals. The proposed SUZ2 requires a housing and community services

strategy before development commences. The sooner this work commences

the better as delay leads to more and more constraints on realisable

responses. Therefore a formal commitment to undertake or contribute to this

work linked to approval of Amendment C36 is preferable to the proposed

SUZ requirements for the issue to be addressed at a later stage within the

Construction EMP.

The Panel agrees with submissions for the Proponent that it cannot be

burdened with responsibility for the provision of services but the input of

information and a contribution towards the funding of a co‐ordinated

regional response to the provision of housing and community services is

justified. The Panel is of the firm view that this work should not be delayed.

Rather than relating requirements to the commencement of the project, as

proposed in exhibited documents, approval of Amendment C36 should be

subject to a firm commitment to undertake or contribute to this work.

Construction Camp(s)

DPI advised that a construction camp for workers constructing the pipeline

is deemed to form part of the pipeline and therefore planning scheme

provisions would not apply. However, it is noted that the application for the

licence under the Pipelines Act made no reference to a construction camp.

Amendment C36 would, subject to approval of specified plans by the

responsible authority, enable as of right development of a construction camp

on the Power Station site (under SUZ2) and on land owned by the Proponent

to the east of Old Dunmore Road (under Clause 52.03).

SUZ2 specifies for the Power Station site that:

The Construction EMP must address:

Accommodation and community services, including but not limited to:

− A strategy to manage the accommodation needs of the workforce

− Identification of measures to minimise adverse impacts on the delivery

of social and community services to the broader community

Specifies the Operations EMP must address:

Protocols and procedures to ensure that surrounding amenity levels are

not adversely affected by activities and noise generated by persons resident

in the workers construction camp.


The proposed incorporated document associated with Clause 52.03 would

also require a development plan and an operations plan (to be approved by

the responsible authority) for a construction camp on the land to the east of

Old Dunmore Road.

The EES did not suggest that a construction camp would necessarily be

required but proceeded on the basis that the option of a temporary

construction camp should be available to the construction contractor. The

proposed SUZ2 seems to envisage that the justification for the construction

camp will be provided via a housing and community services strategy after

approval of the planning framework via Amendment C36 but prior to the

commencement of development.

The EES provided virtually no information about or assessment of the

impacts of a construction camp and the Amendment C36 specified only very

generic requirements for a development plan.

Ms Sommerville’s evidence did address the potential form and management

of camps, however, citing an example from outback Queensland.

Construction camps may be the only accommodation option in areas that are

very remote from established settlements but it is the Panel’s view that this is

not the case here.

Ms Sommerville’s evidence highlighted potential benefits associated with the

reduced need for workers to travel but she eventually acknowledged at the

hearing that accommodation in towns normally represents a more desirable

outcome. The Panel agrees with Corangamite Shire that accommodating

workers in towns is preferable to the establishing an enclave of workers in a

construction camp(s) that is isolated from urban services, to minimise

management demands and the potential amenity impacts on Orford.

It seems likely that various forms of housing will be required to meet

workers’ needs. Tourism accommodation and caravan parks in off‐peak

periods, holiday homes, scout camps, and Glenormiston College may all

form part of the accommodation mix. The ongoing construction activity on a

range of infrastructure projects, may also provide the basis for investment in

additional rental housing, possibly managed by a housing association, which

would create a long term legacy for the region. These options should be

actively pursued.

The Panel recognises that the provision of some accommodation in the form

of a construction camp may prove to be necessary but, like the Shire of

Moyne, considers a large construction camp that may be used for a number

of years warrants more careful attention than a short term camp. As the

Shire of Moyne highlighted, the siting of the construction camp anywhere


but adjoining the Hamilton‐Port Fairy Road will impact greatly on road

infrastructure, and a camp on the land east of Old Dunmore Road would

require significant upgrading of access to cater for the increased traffic. The

EES traffic assessment was on the basis that workers would be

accommodated in towns with bus services provided for workers.

The Panel does not think that the strategic justification for as of right

construction camps as proposed under Amendment C36 has been

established. However, it does support establishing discretion for Council to

consider the merits of a construction camp on the Power Station site and

Santos land to the east of Old Dunmore Road if other options prove to be

insufficient. This is a pragmatic response that would:

maintain some incentive to pursue alternative housing strategies;

recognise that a construction camp may need to form part of the housing

strategy if other options prove to be inadequate; and

provides third party rights to those who may be affected.

Nor does the Panel consider sound justification has been established yet for a

construction camp to service the gas pipeline workers. However, if this

option is pursued despite the Panel’s reservations about the need and

desirability of establishing a construction camp for pipeline workers, the

Panel considers that DPI should consult the Shire of Corangamite about the

location and conditions that should apply.

Recommendations

Require the Proponent to enter into a Section 173 agreement before

Amendment C36 is approved to the satisfaction of the DPCD and the

planning authorities to ensure early conduct of an accommodation and

community services strategy for the project.

The Proponent actively pursue the option of providing accommodation

for power station and gas pipeline construction workers in towns or

other existing facilities.

Revise the Schedule 2 to the SUZ and the Clause 52.03 incorporated

document to require a permit for a temporary construction camp.

DPI consult with the Shire of Corangamite about the location and

conditions that should apply if, despite this Panel’s recommendations,

a construction camp is proposed along the gas pipeline route for

construction workers.


9. Other Matters

9.1 Decommissioning

9.1.1 EES Assessment - Decommissioning

The EES (Chapter 7.5) indicates that the project has a design life of at least 25

years and the relevant authorities will be consulted and a decommissioning

plan will be developed to rehabilitate the sites to meet all regulatory and

environmental requirements applicable at that time. The plan will set out

procedures and measures for the:

removal or retention of buildings, plant, equipment and infrastructure;

rehabilitation of disturbed areas to a standard suitable for agreed future

uses; and

identification and management measures for known contaminated areas.

The EES notes (section 8.4) that ‘The gas pipeline will be decommissioned in

accordance with the requirements of the Pipelines Regulations 2007, Australian

Standards AS 2885: 2008, Pipelines ‐ gas and liquid petroleum and the APIA Code

of Environmental Practice ‐ Onshore Pipelines (APIA, 2009) at a minimum, or the

prevailing decommissioning standards in place at that time. Potential methods of

decommissioning include suspension, abandonment and removal of the pipeline.’

9.1.2 Submissions

The Proponent and the Shire of Moyne did not see any necessity to address

decommissioning of the Power Station via the planning process. The Shire of

Moyne noted that the planning scheme provides for the Mortlake power

station site to revert to its previous zoning, five years after the Power Station

has ceases operation.

9.1.3 Discussion

Division 3 of the Pipelines Act 2005 establishes the legislative framework for

rehabilitation after decommissioning of the gas pipeline (including the

decompression station).

Despite an apparently high level of comfort amongst all parties to the EES

process regarding decommissioning of the project, the Panel is conscious that

there may be few obvious options for reuse of the Power Station and, given

the scale of the facility, decommissioning could involve substantial costs,

technical capacity requirements and logistical demands. The Panel considers


there should be an assurance that the visual impacts from the Power Station

will be removed when it no longer creates a benefit to the community. While

in principle the Panel considers that commitments relating to

decommissioning under the relevant approvals should be ‘backed up’ by a

bond to assure the community that rehabilitation will occur, it is conscious

that the necessary administrative framework may not be in place and the

development of such a framework would require detailed consideration (see

discussion in Chapter 13.3 of the Panel Report relating to the Lal Lal Wind

Energy Facility February 2009).

Recommendation

Include requirements relating to decommissioning of the project in

relevant project approvals.

Apply a sunset provision to the SUZ2 to revive the previous Farming Zone

if the Power Station use does not operate for a nominated time (say five

years).

Evaluate the merits of requiring a bond to guarantee site rehabilitation

after decommissioning of project infrastructure.

9.2 Batching Plant

The Proponent responded to queries from the Panel that the location of a

batching plant for construction of the project will be determined by the

principal construction contractor. It could be located at the quarry, at the

Power Station site, or somewhere between. A review of potential batching

plant locations and access routes by the Proponent concluded that in all

instances, aggregate or concrete would be transported to the proposed power

station site from a route relying on Hamilton–Port Fairy Road as the

principal means of access. Therefore assumptions adopted in the EES, and

by Arup in its traffic assessment, therefore reflect reasonable worst‐case

scenarios for traffic distribution.


10. Cumulative Impacts

Within 30km of the site the following energy projects are operating or at

various stages of the planning process:

Codrington Wind energy facility and Yambuk Wind energy facility

(operating);

Ryan Corner Wind energy facility, Macarthur Wind energy facility,

Hawkesdale Wind energy facility, Woolsthorpe Wind energy facility

(planning permit granted); and

Tarrone gas fired power station (determination under Environment

Effects Act but applications not yet submitted).

Council also advised there have been preliminary discussions regarding a

geothermal project at Warrong and further potential wind energy projects at

Orford (between the proposed Shaw River and Tarrone power stations),

Warndoo and Penshurst.

Extensive areas of timber plantation are also due to be harvested.

10.1.1 EES Assessment and Evidence

The issue of cumulative impacts of this and other proposals in the locality

was not included in the scoping requirements and was not addressed in the

EES.

At the directions hearing the Panel requested that submissions address the

cumulative impacts of proposed energy facilities and timber production in

the area on roads and bridges, visual and acoustic amenity, biodiversity

values, water supply, labour supply, the supply of accommodation and

social infrastructure and services.

Although it was emphasised by the Proponent that it does not have access to

comprehensive information, cumulative impacts from the project with others

in the area were addressed in expert statements as follows:

Traffic: Mr Carter undertook further assessment of traffic impacts having

regard to the traffic impact assessments for the Shaw River Water

Pipeline, Tarrone Gas Fired Power Station and Ryan Corner Wind energy

facility38. He concluded that the available information indicates that the

38 Shaw River Water Pipeline Traffic Impact Assessment report (GHD August 2009), Tarrone Gas

Fired Power Station and Gas Pipeline (Environment Effects Referral Form, 8 December 2009) and Ryan Corner Wind energy facility (Ryan Corner Wind Farm Environment Effects Inquiry, March 2008).


cumulative traffic impacts of the multiple projects will be minor when

compared to the theoretical capacity of the road network. He noted that

‘if it is assumed that the Ryan Corner Wind Farm construction will coincide

with both the combined peak for the Power Station and water pipeline

construction, the traffic volume on Hamilton‐Port Fairy Road may increase to

approximately 930 vehicle trips per day. Again, this is less than 7% of the

theoretical capacity of Hamilton‐Port Fairy Road.’

Noise: Mr Turnbull addressed the combined noise from operation of both

the project and the proposed Tarrone Lane project (approximately 6km to

the east). He predicted that the contribution of noise from the project will

be less than 24 dB(A) under worst case conditions at the mid‐point

between the two power stations (approximately 3km from each). As this

is at least 10 dB(A) below the criterion, addition of the noise from the two

power stations will not create any potential for the criterion to be

exceeded. That is, contributions of 34 dB(A) and less than 24 dB(A) from

noise sources combine to a total noise level of 34 dB(A).

Air Quality near the Power Station: Dr Ross’s statement referred to an

EES referral document39 for the Tarrone Power Station which modelled

cumulative air emissions from the proposed Shaw River and Tarrone

power stations using the CALPUFF modelling system and found the

maximum concentrations predicted were below the SEPP (AQM) design

criteria for all modelled scenarios. While Dr Ross noted he did not have

the information necessary to validate that modelling, he considered that

the assumptions adopted by URS were overly conservative. Mr Ross

conducted preliminary testing of the potential for cumulative impacts

using the Ausplume model which confirmed that any increase in NOx at

ground level would be small40 and the resulting impacts would comply

with the requirement of the SEPP (AQM).

Air Quality near the Compressor station: Dr Ross analysed the

cumulative air quality impacts arising from the compressor station and

the existing adjacent sources – the Iona Gas Plant, Otway Gas Plant and

Minerva Gas (EES Appendix 11). He found the predicted impacts at the

sensitive receptors are dominated by emissions from the existing adjacent

sources (particularly from the Iona and Otway Gas Plants), the proposed

compressor station results in only a negligible change, and the cumulative

impacts predicted comply with relevant design criteria in the SEPP AQM.

This outcome is due to the impacts arising from the emissions from the

39 Local Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas – Tarrone Power Station. Report to AGL Energy Ltd.

URS Reference 43283491/AQ/05. October 2009. 40 The maximum increase in the NO2 ground level concentration around the Shaw River PS is

approximately 1 μg/m3. The only sensitive receptor around the Shaw River PS with any predicted increase as a result of the Tarrone PS is #106 to the west (with an increase of approximately 1 μg/m3).


compressor station being small under the meteorological conditions that

lead to the highest impacts from the gas plants and, conversely, the

meteorological conditions under which the compressor station impacts

are largest are typically not those under which the impacts from the

existing sources are largest.

10.1.2 Submissions

The written submission from Ms Nicholls, who is a long term resident of

Orford living within 3 km of the Site, expressed concern about the lack of

evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the project, timber plantation

harvesting and other major energy infrastructure projects proposed in the

area. She considers the impacts from traffic, pollution, loss of native flora

and fauna and demands of housing and social infrastructure were

understated in the EES as the combined effects of multiple projects were not

addressed.

The Shire of Moyne highlighted that the 500kV line to Portland, which passes

through the Site, is a critical element of state infrastructure and a key

criterion in terms of location and overall feasibility of current and proposed

energy projects in the region. While Council does not take issue with the

connection of either the Mortlake or Shaw River Power Stations to the grid, it

submitted that planning for future above ground significant power line

connections for other major uses, namely wind energy facilities, is needed.

Council also emphasised the importance of traffic management measures to

avoid potential adverse impacts associated with multiple projects.

Mr Power and DPCD both referred to the guidance on the issue in the

Ministerial guidelines for assessments under the Environment Effects Act 1978

which state:

While cumulative effects may be a relevant consideration for the

assessment of a project, a proponent may not have a practical ability to

provide such an assessment, for example, because of their limited access to

information on the effects of other existing activities or potential projects.

Similarly, the ability of a proponent to provide a regional perspective in an

EES will depend on the availability – usually from government agencies –

of relevant regional policies, plans, strategies, as well as regional data.

A proponent will at least need to provide an assessment of relevant effects

(e.g. on landscape values, risks to fauna or emissions to air) in a form that

can be integrated with information relating to other projects or activities,

and thus enable the Minister to assess the potential cumulative effects…….

Because of the factors constraining quantitative assessment of cumulative

effects, often only a qualitative assessment will be practicable.


Mr Power submitted it would be preferable for Government to provide a

policy structure and coordinate responses to potential cumulative impacts.


The Panel agrees with Ms Nichols that it is important that cumulative

impacts of the major infrastructure projects in the immediate area and the

region are assessed and measures to minimise adverse outcomes are

identified. Indeed, State planning policy (Clause 11.03‐7) recognises the need

for co‐ordinated planning and decision making to achieve sustainable

development and effective and efficient use of resources where economic,

social or environmental impacts extend beyond municipal boundaries.

The Panel recognises that the EES scoping did not specifically require

cumulative impacts to be addressed, the EES guidelines acknowledge that

there are constraints on the Proponents’ capacity to determine the nature of

impacts, and it is likely that many of the responses to cumulative impacts

will be beyond the influence of individual applicants. Nevertheless, there is

an expectation in the guidelines that cumulative impacts will be assessed to

the extent reasonably possible and the information that is in the public

domain should inform such an assessment. It is a weakness in the EES

Assessment that this has not occurred and this limits the Panel’s capacity to

draw conclusions about cumulative impacts. In particular the Panel was

disappointed that the EES and Panel Hearing process had not adequately

addressed:

potential accommodation impacts and potential practical solutions;

future cumulative regional visual impact of power stations, wind farms

and overhead transmission line connections to the 500kV grid; and

the potential for water pipelines to be used for supply other uses, such as

the proposed Tarrone Power Station to the north east of the Shaw River

Power Station and for other users along the route.

The evidence presented to the Inquiry provided comfort that, having regard

to other projects in the immediate area, the noise and air quality impacts due

to the Power Station should be acceptable. Further assessment of noise,

visual and other impacts would clearly be required if the potential Wind

Energy Facility to the east of the project is pursued.

The traffic evidence confirmed that, on available information, there is

significant capacity in the existing arterial road network in the immediate

vicinity of the Shaw River and from Tarrone Power Stations and Ryans

Corner Wind Energy Facility. The potential for cumulative impacts will need

to be reassessed as more certainty becomes available on the timing, traffic

volumes and traffic routes of the various projects. The Panel is satisfied that


the proposed traffic management plans can address the implications of

multiple projects and the local road network issues raised by Council but

considers that the SUZ2 EMP provisions should specifically highlight the

issue as a matter to be addressed.

The Panel noted the presence of a quarry approximately 15 km south east of

the Power Station site, and Mr Guest of Moyne Shires statement that the

provision of a bridge upgrade and 8 km of road upgrade would reduce the

current travel distance to the site from 40 km. The Panel is concerned that

the potential development of the Tarrone Power Station will result in a

similar 40 km travel requirement and recommends that Moyne Shire works

in collaboration with both Shaw River Power and Tarrone Power Station

proponents to identify if the upgrade of the shorter connecting road could

be feasibly undertaken jointly.

The Panel also notes that there is potential for the water pipelines to be used

for supply to the proposed Tarrone Power Station to the north east of the

Shaw River Power Station and for other users along the route. The Panel

considers Wannon Water should further investigate the potential for the

pipelines to be upgraded to meet the needs of the Tarrone Power Station,

should that project proceed.

In Chapter 6.2, it is acknowledged that the project has minimised and

avoided native vegetation losses and it is proposed to offset the losses that

cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of relatively small

incremental losses of native vegetation is noted, and DSE is encouraged to

monitor cumulative losses and offset obligations through its data bases and

to take a proactive strategic approach to the identification of consolidated

offset opportunities, potentially in conjunction with the Trust for Nature and

Bushbroker programs.

Despite the apparently low risk of impacts on Southern Bent‐wing bats a

preliminary monitoring program has been developed by DSE (in

consultation with the Proponent) and is endorsed by the Panel. Whereas

adverse impacts on Brolgas have been a prominent concern in a number of

WEF proposals, the material presented to the Panel did not establish

concerns about significant residual ecological impacts from the project that

would compound impacts from other projects in the locality.

The visual impacts from the extensive areas in western Victoria affected by

energy generation infrastructure proposals are increasingly raised in

objections to WEF applications. The EES and evidence to the Inquiry did not

address this issue. The proposed power station at Orford will have a

significant presence (see Chapter 6.4) but it is located in an area with a low

density of houses and, compared to WEFs, the smaller foot print and height


of the Power Station confines the visual impacts to a more limited area. The

Panel has concluded that the adverse visual impacts from the project are

acceptable but the cumulative visual impacts will require consideration as

further projects are assessed. It is noted that there may be potential for

strategic off‐site landscaping to mitigate the cumulative visual impacts from

multiple projects. For example, roadside planting could be an effective

means of reducing visual impacts (and could also secure biodiversity

benefits).

The 500kV grid is critical infrastructure for energy projects and a number of

energy generation projects have been attracted to locations along the

transmission line corridor. At a strategic planning level, the Panel sees merit

in anticipating the various implications of continued demand for

development in proximity to the 500kV power transmission line and gas

pipelines.

As noted in Chapter 8.1, the project is also expected to place significant

demands on the labour market, housing and community services and both

the benefits and demands would be compounded by concurrent construction

of multiple projects.

It is noted that DSE has already established a dedicated officer to ensure

effective responses to major infrastructure projects. After the hearing the

Shire of Moyne forwarded a copy of a letter from the Minister for Planning

(dated 10 June 2010) which responded to Municipal Association of Victoria’s

proposal for a ‘partnership approach’ to the planning and development of

Wind Energy facilities in Victoria. In that letter the Minister supported the

allocation of resources for regional co‐ordination and a dedicated wind farm

project manager and the development a regional‐scale dataset for South

West Victoria to assist in the assessment of cumulative effects of wind energy

facilities.

In addition to project based consultative processes as initiated by the Shire of

Moyne, the Panel sees strategic planning and co‐ordination of regulatory

processes on a sub‐regional level as important to achieve optimum outcomes

from the very substantial investment in the energy sector anticipated for the

region. The Panel considers the scope of initiatives being considered at a

state level should extend to other major energy projects. DPCD would

appear to be the appropriate agency to lead such a process involve the range

of stakeholders including local government, public and private

service/infrastructure providers, project proponents, representatives of

business organisations, and members of the community affected by

infrastructure projects. The Panel emphasises, however, that a pragmatic

approach with a strong focus on specific outcomes that can be realised within


the lead time of the projects will be vital. This is likely to involve identifying

‘the low hanging fruit’ and measures that can be readily employed rather

than exhaustive analysis and consultative processes.

Recommendations

Develop a strategy for and implement specific measures to ensure effective

responses to the cumulative impacts of major energy projects in the

regions (Note: DPCD is suggested as the appropriate agency to lead such a

process).

Include cumulative impacts in the scoping requirements for future EES

assessments or matters to be addressed in application documentation for

future major infrastructure projects.

Require the Proponent (and proponents for future infrastructure projects)

to enter into a Section 173 agreement to the satisfaction of the DPCD and

the relevant planning authorities to contribute to the cost of planning for

and developing co‐ordinated responses to the various major infrastructure

projects in the region.

Evaluate the merits of upgrading roads to provide better connections

between the Shaw River and Tarrone power station sites with the quarry

to the south east, and, if substantial benefits are identified, the appropriate

basis for contributions to such works.

Wannon Water investigate the potential to upgrade the capacity of the

water supply mains to the Power Station to meet the needs of the proposed

Tarrone Power Station and other users along the pipeline route.


11. Framework for Managing Environmental Effects and Risks

EES Evaluation Objective: To provide a transparent framework with clear

accountability for managing environmental effects and risks associated with the

project to achieve acceptable outcomes.

11.1 Certainty, Community Consultation and Accountability

11.1.1 Certainty

The appropriate balance between certainty and flexibility provided by the

planning framework is a perennial issue of concern to both proponents and

those who are directly affected by proposals. On the one hand the proponent

seeks an efficient approvals process with assurances about the basis for

approvals but with a level of flexibility to respond to issues that may arise as

designs develop. On the other hand, others who may be directly affected

generally seek certainty that their interests will be protected and that the

basis for the EES submissions and assessment is not compromised by

subsequent changes.

The proposed regulatory framework (ie planning scheme, EPA works

approvals and licences, pipeline license) prescribes requirements or

performance expectations in relation to:

air and water quality (via SEPPs); and

SUZ2 specifies the following matters, all of which can be varied with the

approval of the responsible Authority:

a maximum building footprint and overall height via the SUZ2

development plan requirements ‐ 45 hectares (including the switch

yard area but excluding the area used for accommodation, outdoor car

parking and landscaping) and a maximum overall height of 50 metres

above ground level;

the Hamilton – Port Fairy and Riordans Road intersection is to be

upgraded to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the responsible

authority; and

provision of 50 staff car parking spaces and 5 visitor car parking

spaces (Operations EMP).


Otherwise, the framework proposed specifies the scope of matters to be

addressed in subsequent planning approvals or licenses but does not address

the nature of responses that are expected.

As the submission on behalf of the Morgan‐Paylers emphasised, the EES

process constitutes the only opportunity for third parties to voice their

concerns about potential amenity impacts, to ensure that appropriate

mechanisms and safeguards are in place to adequately mitigate impacts on

the locality, and to secure rights in relation top enforcement if breaches of

obligations occur. It was submitted that the basic parameters for EMPs

should be established in the regulatory framework.

Mr Chessell argued that the SUZ2 does not provide sufficient assurance of

compliance with appropriate noise criteria. He argued that without an

effective monitoring regime specified in the Schedule third parties would

have little opportunity to pursue meaningful enforcement proceedings in the

event that the facility fails to comply with the terms of the Construction EMP

and Operations EMP. Mr Chessell submitted that the SUZ2 should specify

an EMP requirement to comply with the noise limits specified in the EPA

Interim Guidelines.

The Panel is concerned that the EPA does not intend to specify noise limits at

the nearest residence in the Works Approval. During questioning Mr Napier

advised that the Power Station would be constructed as a ‘turn key’ contract

which would include a noise limit requirement as part of the contract

conditions. If there is no limit specified by the EPA then there is a reduced

incentive to ensure that the Proponent makes all appropriate efforts to

minimise the impact of noise on the adjacent properties.

Mr Power strongly opposed specifying noise limits in the SUZ. He

submitted that it is not common practice to specify noise performance

standards in the planning scheme and referred to a general principle

expressed by VCAT in Australia Pty Ltd and PWM (Lyndhurst) Pty Ltd v

Greater Dandenong CC (the Sita decision) that planning permits should not

duplicate matters more appropriately regulated via licenses and works

approvals administered by the EPA, which is the pre‐eminent expert body in

relation to controlling pollution. The decision adopted the view that

conditions in planning permits should not seek to control the same matters

that are controlled by an EPA license or works approval, although a

planning permit condition requiring compliance with a license or works

approval was seen as acceptable. The reason for this approach was the fixed

nature of planning permit conditions compared to EPA license conditions

which are continually upgraded to reflect improvements to environmental

best practice and changes in government policy. The decision emphasised


that it is in the community’s best interests that current best practice is

observed when dealing with potentially polluting uses.

The Panel notes that the Sita decision related to a permit and associated

conditions, rather than establishing the planning framework parameters

under which, for example, it is determined when a use should be as of right

or when third party rights should apply. The Panel also notes that the EPA

has no statutory power to licence noise.

It is usual in Planning Schemes to adopt the noise criteria specified in

nominated EPA Guidelines. For example, SPPF Clause 15.09 and

Corangamite SUZs for Gas Processing Plant refer to compliance with the

Interim Guidelines. However, the criteria supported in this instance

represent a departure from the standards referred to in SPPF Clause 15.09.

Further, the EES assessment of the Power Station and the endorsement of the

use being as of right had regard to the compliance with various development

parameters, including the noise levels that would be experience by sensitive

uses.

It is our opinion that the neighbours are entitled to an assurance of the noise

limit that will apply to the project and these third parties should have an

avenue to enforce the noise limits. Reliance only on the EPA Works

Approval does not provide that right and the EPA does not ‘license’ noise

emissions. Similarly, the Proponent should be provided with a clearly

defined and acceptable noise level for both design and operation. The Panel

considers noise limits should be specified as requirements for the Operations

EMP in Schedule 2 to the SUZ. The works approval for the project should

also specify the maximum noise criteria to be satisfied.

The Panel also notes comments of the Panel that considered the Mortlake

Power Station EES which are also relevant to the current EES:

The Panel is concerned in particular that some of the ‘mitigation’ measures

that the Proponent is suggesting will be put in place do not neatly fit

within the legal ambit of some of the other regulatory mechanisms. Also

some of the subsequent approvals will not take place for a number of years

and the Proponent has indicated that the responsibility for seeking the

subsequent secondary authorisations may fall to contractors or indeed sub‐

contractors. Also relevant is the fact that the EES assessment processes do

not treat a proposed project as a finite ‘application’ in the same way that

planning permit processes do. Accordingly there is no certainty that a

project which might gain Panel support will remain the same (including in

terms of detailed processes and procedures and mitigation commitments)

through subsequent approvals processes.


Whereas that Mortlake Panel advocated the use of an agreement made under

Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act to ensure that commitments

made in the EES are implemented and can be enforced, the Panel agrees with

the view put by Mr Power that that the use of agreements should be avoided

where possible.

The Panel considers that it is reasonable to anticipate that the agencies

responsible for subsequent approval of works approvals, licenses and EMPs

will give considerable weight to the commitments in the EES and the

Minister’s assessment. We also recognise that the EPA and Minister for

Energy and Resources have robust powers under the Environment

Protection Act and the Pipelines Act respectively.

Nevertheless, the Panel does appreciate the concerns expressed by the

Morgan‐Paylers, particularly in relation to the Power Station, which has

greater potential for ongoing impacts than the other elements of the project.

Like the zones applied to gas plants in the region, the Panel considers that

the SUZ2 should explicitly recognise the EES and the Minister’s assessment

as the basis for secondary approvals. The schedule to the zone should also

establish key performance expectations rather than simply specifying the

scope of the further plans to be submitted for approval (see further

discussion in Chapter 11.3).

11.1.2 Co-ordination between Regulatory Agencies

There was a consensus from those who presented at the Hearing that the EES

Technical Reference Group (TRG) had been a constructive process. Indeed

the process appears to have established a high degree of confidence amongst

those involved that that it will be possible to identify appropriate response to

those issues that remain to be resolved or are likely to arise during further

development of the project design. This is a credit to both the Proponent

(and those working on its behalf) and the regulatory agencies. The TRG and

the Shire of Moyne’s community liaison processes appear to have opened

channels of communication between agencies and these co‐operative

working arrangements should be maintained.

The planning framework seeks to avoid duplication of approval processes by

minimising the number of separate approvals with an expectation that

agencies responsible for particular approvals will draw on the specialist

expertise of other agencies where necessary. For example, the Clause 52.03

incorporated document requires DSE approval of offset plans for the

removal of native vegetation and, although there is no statutory obligation to

do so, DPI advised that approval to remove native vegetation on the gas

pipeline and the offsets required would also be subject to approval by DSE.


The Panel considers that the SUZ2 should specify that the Planning

Authority should have regard to the views of nominated agencies when the

Development Plan and EMP are assessed. This will recognise that review is

required by those with more specific expertise than is available to Council

(see discussion below).

11.1.3 Consultation

The Shire of Moyne advised it intends to continue a forum for Proponents,

community members and relevant agencies relating to major infrastructure

projects, such as the Mortlake Power Station and the current project.

After the hearing the Shire of Moyne forwarded a copy of a Draft charter for

a ‘Community Engagement Committee’ for this project which would include

the Mayor, two councillors, three community representatives and two

representative of the proponent with others invited to attend meetings but

they would not be regarded as members of the Committee. The Draft

Charter identifies the following purposes for the Committee:

1. To provide advice on strategies to ensure the effective flow of information

to and from the community regarding the proposed Shaw River Power

Station project.

2. To act as a conduit for information flow between Council, the project

proponent and the community, regarding the progress of the Shaw River

Power Station project.

3. To contribute to a transparent planning process for the project, whilst not

duplicating the required statutory components of that process.

4. To assist where relevant in the resolution of issues that may arise during

the pre‐construction, and if necessary during the construction and

operational phases of the Shaw River Power Station.

5. If the project proceeds to construction, be a forum to assist Shaw River

Power to demonstrate their performance against the regulatory

obligations.

The EPA also indicated that monitoring of the project should be developed in

consultation with the local community consistent with an environmental

improvement program. EPA guidance and assistance to develop such a

program is available41.

The Shire of Moyne is commended for implementing this initiative. It was

evident at the hearing that these consultative arrangements have provided a

41 Environment Improvement Plans – An Overview Publication 938 February 2004, Guidelines For

Running Community Liaison Committees November 2001 Publication 740


valuable avenue for communication between Council, the Proponent and the

community during the preparation of the EES.

Consultative arrangements will continue to be important and will have an

extended role during construction and operational phases of the project. The

Panel sees significant merit in the operation of a forum with the roles

identified above. However, it considers the participation of key agencies is

necessary to fulfil the roles of facilitating co‐ordination between regulatory

agencies (particularly Council, EPA, DSE and DPI), reporting construction

progress and performance monitoring information, and establishing a point

to expedite action on complaints identified. As Council (and other agencies)

have specific statutory responsibilities, the Panel also queries the

circumstances where voting, as opposed to recording views in minutes,

would be necessary or appropriate.

The need for meetings will vary over the life of the project and should be

regularly reviewed.

A similar but more limited process, led by the Shire of Corangamite, should

also be in place during construction and rehabilitation phases for land in that

shire affected by the pipeline.

The Panel considers the Proponent should agree to contribute to resourcing

the process.

After the hearing, the Shire of Moyne forwarded a copy of a letter from the

Minister for Planning (dated 10 June 2010) which responded to Municipal

Association of Victoria’s proposal for a ‘partnership approach’ to the

planning and development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria. In that

letter the Minister supported, amongst other things:

the allocation of resources for regional co‐ordination and a dedicated

wind farm project manager to, amongst other things explore models for

co‐funding so that access to independent technical expertise is improved;

and

investigation of opportunities to develop a regional‐scale dataset for

South West Victoria to assist in the assessment of cumulative effects of

wind energy facilities.

The Panel considers these are both positive initiatives and their scope should

be extended to encompass other major energy projects, such as the proposed

gas fired power stations and possible geothermal proposals.


11.1.4 Compliance Testing

Accountability for compliance with commitments in the EES and subsequent

conditions of approvals is important to maintain community confidence as

well as achieving the expected mitigation of potential impacts. The Panel

considers that compliance testing by a suitably qualified, independent person

at relevant stages of the development process is important to ensure the

implementation process is adequately informed and breaches are resolved at

the earliest opportunity. This approach should avoid adverse impacts and

minimise the need for subsequent enforcement processes. It also

supplements the expertise available to the regulatory authority in the

determination of compliance on technical matters.

11.1.5 Access to Appropriate Expertise

The Minister for Planning’s response (dated 10 June 2010) to the Municipal

Association of Victoria’s proposal for a ‘partnership approach’ to the

planning and development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria is also

relevant to other major infrastructure projects put forward for development

in the region. It is noted that the Minister did not support the establishment

of a technical reference group such as would support an EES but he advised

that sufficient independent expertise exists within the State Government and

the pilot can explore how to improve Council access to those skills.

This Panel considers the task of identifying options to augment local

government expertise in relation to Wind Energy Facilities should extend to

other major infrastructure projects in the region. For the project currently

being considered, the following recommendations have a role in ensuring

decisions are underpinned by an appropriate level of technical expertise:

nominating in the SUZ2 that the Responsible Authority should have

regard to the comments of the nominated agencies (including DPI, EPA,

DSE, VicRoads, ESV, WorkSafe Victoria) as relevant;

independent auditing of compliance with specified criteria by a suitably

qualified person; and

active ongoing involvement in project specific consultative arrangements

by agencies with responsibility for project approvals or with specific

technical expertise.

Panel Recommendations

Include in EMPs, requirements for independent compliance testing by

suitably qualified people, at relevant stages of the development process.


11.2 Environmental Management Plans

Environmental management plans (EMPs) are to be prepared under separate

regulatory frameworks for each of the three project components: the Power

Station site; gas pipeline and compressor station; and water pipelines. These

plans are the principal implementation tools to manage environmental

impacts during construction and operation and as such, should reflect the

various regulatory requirements.

The exhibited Strategic EMP sets the framework for development of the

EMPs. The Strategic EMP is supported by an Integrated Risk Assessment

that includes an assessment of residual risks, thus far in the project and also

contains Management Guidelines for the full range of aspects of the project.

The Management Guidelines provide a summary of environmental

management issues, objectives for management, performance criteria,

mitigation and management measures (identified through the impact

assessment process) and monitoring requirements for each environmental

management aspect relevant to the project.

Site specific water course crossing management plans are proposed to be

prepared under the Construction EMPs for both the gas pipeline and water

pipelines. This approach will address the residual risks associated with

finalising the pipeline routes and construction methods, particularly where

subject to geotechnical investigations. Final impacts on flora and fauna

cannot be assessed until crossing methods are determined and further

targeted surveying may be required, such as for aquatic communities.

In addition to site specific management plans, species specific mitigation

measures have been identified for significant flora and fauna species and will

be incorporated in the Construction EMPs.

Measures that are site specific and go beyond the generic have been

consolidated into the table of Environmental Management Commitments.

The Panel considers the Strategic EMP and Environmental Management

Commitments provide a sound starting point for development of the

Construction EMPs. Therefore, the Panel has confined its attention to those

issues considered to be outstanding, in relation to requirements of the EMPs.

The following section consolidates various recommendations to address key

issues identified at the hearing through specific inclusions in the EMPs.


11.2.1 The Power Station Site

Both Construction and Operations EMPs are proposed as part of

Amendment C36 and will be subject to approval and monitoring of

implementation by Moyne Shire Council. Moyne Shire noted that the scope

of the environmental management plans, as presented in the proposed

Amendment C36 was not well developed. The Panel agrees with this view

and recommended the addition of more specific requirements on key issues.

Additional requirements in the Construction and Operations EMPs (required

under both SUZ2 and EPA approvals) for the Power Station site, arising from

the Panel’s recommendations include:

monitoring program for the Southern Bent‐wing Bat on the Power Station

site, generally in accordance with the preliminary monitoring program in

Appendix D;

monitoring for the impacts of discharges from the Power Station site on

aquatic ecosystems in the Shaw River, generally in accordance with the

preliminary monitoring programs in Appendix D;

vegetation management plans for any vegetation removal associated with

construction on the Power Station site and surrounds, in order to provide

appropriate management guidelines for these works and prepared to the

satisfaction of DSE;

restrictions on construction activities and construction noise management

to the satisfaction of EPA and the Responsible Authority;

noise monitoring under representative conditions at sensitive receptors

near the Power Station and compressor station during the commissioning

of each stage of the project to confirm compliance with the criteria;

compliance with the specified operational noise limits to be included in

Operations EMP;

an Off‐site Landscaping Plan to mitigate the visual impact of the Power

Station from all dwellings within 3km of the Power Station site;

management of air emissions (dust) from construction of the Power

Station, based on the recommendations in EPA Victoria’s Environmental

Guidelines for Major Construction Sites;

Safety Management Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person; this

should also provide for the Responsible Authority to have regard to the

views of ESV, WorkSafe Victoria, the CFA and the SES.


11.2.2 Gas Pipeline and Compressor Station

Construction and Operations EMPs are required under the Pipelines Act, for

the gas pipeline and compressor station. Approval and implementation of

the Construction and Operations EMPs are overseen by DPI and Energy Safe

Victoria, respectively.

The Pipelines Regulations 2007 specify the scope of a Construction EMP which

must encompass all pipeline construction activities and must address specific

environmental protection strategies and risk mitigation methodologies.

DPI advised that it adopts the following practices before it accepts the

Construction EMP:

a Cultural Heritage Management Plan must be accepted by the RAP or

equivalent;

specialist technical advice from DSE will also be sought in relation to flora

and fauna management issues to be incorporated in the Construction

EMP and a Native Vegetation Offset Plan must be accepted by DSE; and

referral of the Construction EMP to relevant government agencies for

expert comments.

Prior to the commencement of the construction or operation of the gas

pipeline, a safety management plan must be accepted by Energy Safe

Victoria and must include both Construction and Operations safety

management plans, prepared in accordance with the appropriate Australian

Standards. Additional requirements in the Construction and Operations

EMPs for the gas pipeline and compressor station, arising from the Panel’s

recommendations include:

measures to protect and re‐instate dry‐stone walls that may be impacted

by construction, to be included in the Construction EMP;

rehabilitation to former condition including:

rehabilitation monitoring for a minimum period of three years;

immediate post construction audits to confirm native vegetation

offsets; and

audits at two years post construction, to confirm actual native


site specific rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures for

rehabilitation success, specific to terrestrial flora and fauna identified

through targeted surveys;

rehabilitation techniques and monitoring requirements to be included in

the Construction EMP, specific to aquatic flora, including measures to

address the constraints on re‐establishment of aquatic flora species,

imposed by stream flow;


management of air emissions (dust) from construction based on the EPA

Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites and the

Australian Pipeline Industry Association Code of Environmental Practice;

include restrictions on construction activities and construction noise


Authority;

inform residents of the nature of the works, expected noise levels,

duration of works and a method of contact;

manage the noise impacts of the construction of the gas and water


October 2008; and

adopt the standards and procedures in ‘Australian Standard for Protection

of Trees on Development Sites 2009’ net gain assessments for any implied

further losses of old trees with post‐construction auditing of actual losses.

11.2.3 Water Pipelines

Permission will be required to construct the water supply pipelines through

several waterways, including Ware Creek through a ‘Works on Waterways’

permit issued by CMAs. This will be supported through the site specific

water crossing management plans that will be prepared by the Proponent

and incorporated in the Construction EMP.

Additional requirements in the Construction and Operations EMPs for the

water pipelines, arising from the Panel’s recommendations include:

rehabilitation to former condition including:

the management of excess excavated material;

rehabilitation monitoring for a minimum period of three years;

immediate post construction audits to confirm native vegetation

offsets; and

audits at two years post construction, to confirm actual native


requirements for the protection and re‐instatement of dry‐stone walls in a

Construction EMP (under Clause 52.03);

site specific rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures for

rehabilitation success, specific to terrestrial flora and fauna identified

through targeted surveys, to be included in the Construction EMP;

rehabilitation techniques and monitoring requirements to be included in

the Construction EMP, specific to aquatic flora, including measures to

address the constraints on re‐establishment of aquatic flora species,

imposed by stream flow;


vegetation management plans for any vegetation removal associated with

construction on the Power Station site and surrounds, in order to provide

appropriate management guidelines for these works and prepared to the

satisfaction of DSE;

management of air emissions (dust) from construction based on the EPA

Victoria’s Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites;

include restrictions on construction activities and construction noise


Authority;

inform residents of the nature of the works, expected noise levels,

duration of works and a method of contact;

manage the noise impacts of the construction of the gas and water


October 2008; and

adopt the standards and procedures in ‘Australian Standard for Protection

of Trees on Development Sites 2009’ in Construction EMPs and review net

gain assessments for any implied further losses of old trees.

11.2.4 Complaints Management

The Construction and Operations EMPs should include complaints

management procedures. The Panel suggests that the Australian Standard

Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations

(AS10002:2006) and the associated handbook The Why and how of complaints

handling HB 229‐2006 provides valuable guidance on the establishment and

operation of an effective complaints management regime. This Standard

includes the following features:

readily accessible information, flexibility in methods of making

complaints and the ability for complaints to be made free of cost to the

complainant;

immediate acknowledgement of all complaints with on‐going on

responses to address issues raised;

closure of complaints by acceptance by the complainant of the actions

taken or, where necessary, advice to the complainant on alternative forms

of recourse available;

clear responsibility and accountability for development and

implementation of action plans and progress reporting;

detailed recording of complaints including the tracking through the entire

process; and

regular auditing of the complaints handling process.


It is noted that, while these procedures aim to expedite the resolution of

complaints internally where possible, enforcements actions under the

relevant legislation may also be relevant.

Recommendation

Ensure the EMPs under the various approvals are consistent and are

generally in accordance with the Strategic EMP and Environmental

Commitments exhibited with the EES, as varied by recommendations of

this Panel and the Minister’s Assessment under the Environment Effects

Act.

Include complaints handling processes in EMPs that adopt the principles

outlined in Australian Standard Customer Satisfaction – Guidelines for

complaints handling in organizations (AS10002:2006).

11.3 Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C36

Amendment C36 is proposed to facilitate the development of the Power

Station and water pipeline by:

rezoning the Power Station site from Farming Zone (FZ) to a Special Use

Zone 2 (SUZ2);

introducing an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO4) to manage the

introduction of noise sensitive uses around the Power Station site; and

using Clause 52.03 to exempt the elements of the proposal from planning

scheme requirements if the associated incorporated document

requirements are met.

11.3.1 Schedule 2 to the Special Use Zone (SUZ2)

The rezoning of the Power Station site to SUZ2 establishes a regulatory

framework that provides for:

as of right use and development of gas‐fired power generation and

accommodation in moveable buildings for power station construction

workers (provided that conditions of the clause are satisfied);

approval of development plan and Construction EMP by the responsible

authority before development starts; and

approval of an Operations EMP by the responsible authority before the

use starts.

The SUZ2 regulatory framework relies on secondary approvals of the

Development Plan and EMPs rather than permit processes. As noted in

Chapter 11.2, the SUZ2 establishes the scope of these plans by indicating the

generic content but the only requirements specified (which can be varied


with approval of the responsible authority) relate to the Power Station height

and footprint, the upgrade of the Hamilton – Port Fairy and Riordans Road

intersection and a requirement for 50 staff and 5 visitor car parking spaces

during operation.

The Panel considers the EES has established that there is a sound planning

rationale for the project and key environmental constraints are capable of

being addressed. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to for the zoning of

the land to establish a high degree of certainty for further approvals. The

Panel supports the as of right status of the Power Station but, as discussed in

Chapter 8.2, the Panel considers a construction camp should be subject to a

permit as the strategic justification for this use being as of right has not been

established.

Further, as noted in Chapter 11.1, the Panel considers the SUZ should specify

some key performance expectations, rather than just indicating the scope of

plans to be submitted.

Mr Clarke advised that the proposed SUZ 2 was modelled on the zoning

adopted for the Mortlake Power Station. However, in considering whether

noise and other matters should be specified in the regulatory framework for

the project, the Panel also reviewed other zones applied to infrastructure

projects in the region, such as SUZ1 and SUZ4 which apply to the Iona and

Woodside Gas Processing Plants at Port Campbell. In these SUZs, the

development of the gas plants is as of right but additional guidance is

provided about the expected performance on key matters. Significantly, the

zones applied to the gas processing plants specify that:

The Development Plan must:

be generally in accordance with a plan that is nominated; and

provide that the light emissions are no greater than those required

by safety regulations.

Requirements specified for the EMPs include:

air emissions. The limits for CO, nitrogen oxides expressed as

‘NOx’ and mercaptans and other emissions must accord with the

limits established in the specified Works Approval and Licence

Framework Plan;

the noise limits must be established in accordance with the Interim

Guidelines, and prescribe octave band levels of no greater than

Lbg plus 10 dB(A);

the EMP must address the principles, actions and commitments

contained the exhibited Environment Effects Statement except

where they are specifically varied in the Minister’s assessment of


Environmental Effects and Panel Report or by the conditions of

other statutory approvals; and

the EMP must provide for agreements made pursuant to Section

173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in relation to a range

of maters such as: off‐site vegetation buffers, dams to meet fire

fighting requirements, the sealing of nominated roads, control of

use of adjacent roads by heavy vehicles, the use of a particular

property as a construction camp, the fire management/emergency

plan (including training their personnel), the setting up of an

Environmental Review Committee, and provision for owners of

land generally within 800 metres of the plant to forgo further

development for sensitive uses in exchange for financial

reimbursement.

The Panel supports specifying in the SUZ2 that the Development Plan and

EMPs must address the principles, actions and commitments contained in

the exhibited Environment Effects Statement except where they are

specifically varied in the Minister’s assessment of Environmental Effects and

Panel Report or by the conditions of other statutory approvals. In addition,

the Panel’s recommendations from earlier chapters that relate to particular

requirements should be specified in the requirements in the relevant further

plans required under SUZ2. These include:

compliance with recommended noise limits;

compliance with SEPP (Air Quality Management) and SEPP (Waters of

Victoria) design criteria and standards;

matters identified in Chapter 6.2 recommendations relating to Safety

Management Plans;

a sealed upgrade of Riordans Road from the Hamilton – Port Fairy Road

intersection to the entrance of the Power Station (before development

starts) and internally for all roads regularly used by B double vehicles

incorporation of management measures within the approved Cultural

Heritage Management Plan;

‘Off‐site Landscaping Plan’ to mitigate the visual impact;

site specific requirements in construction EMPs which include

appropriate rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures for both

aquatic and terrestrial flora; and


The Panel has reviewed the drafting of the exhibited Schedule 2 to the SUZ

and makes the following comments:

it is noted that SUZ2 does not require a permit for buildings and works

that rearrange, alter or renew existing plant if the area or height of the


plant is not increased. While the apparent intent of this exemption

appears reasonable, the Panel considers that the location of the plant or

works is also likely to be relevant in the original approval of development

and management plans (for example to avoid wetlands) and therefore

should also be included as a condition of this exemption;

the exemptions also apply to ‘… a minor rearrangement of on‐site roads and

access ways, car parking areas and landscaping provided that their areas and

effectiveness are not diminished.’ The Panel is concerned that this exemption

could allow changes to parking or access which could have adverse

environmental impacts eg on water management. It considers the

exemption applicable though the Development Plan process, which could

incorporate a significant degree of flexibility regarding car parking and

access, allows the range of issues to be addressed;

it may be clearer to refer to mitigation of impacts of the power on the

character and amenity of the surrounding area in the purpose of the zone;

and

the Panel also questions the adoption of the ‘open ended’ nature of uses

for which a permit may be sought. It is considered more appropriate to

translate the use table from the existing Farming Zone with the additional

as of right uses in the exhibited SUZ2 (except that construction camp

would be a section 2 use).

11.3.2 Schedule to Clause 52.03

Amendment to the schedule to Clause 52.03 proposes to replace planning

scheme provisions applicable to the following aspects of the project:

altering the access to Hamilton–Port Fairy Road at its intersection with

Riordans Road (with plans to be approved by the responsible authority

and VicRoads);

native vegetation removal associated with the upgrading of the Riordans

Road and Hamilton– Port Fairy Road intersection;

the use of land owned by the Proponent to the west and east of Old

Dunmore Road for a workers construction camp; and

the construction of the water pipelines from Port Fairy to the Power

Station site.

The removal of native vegetation allowed under the clause is subject to a

requirement for approval by DSE and the Responsible Authority of a plan

showing the extent of vegetation losses and an offset plan. It is noted that an

estimate of losses with post‐construction auditing to verify actual losses and

associated offset obligations is possible under this clause whereas the

incorporation of a native vegetation precinct plan under section 52.16 would


require losses and offsets to be finalised and ‘locked in’ via incorporation into

the planning scheme before any development occurs.

Clause 52.03 has a purpose42 to:

To provide in extraordinary circumstances specific controls designed

to achieve a particular land use and development outcome (Panel

emphasis).

Site specific provisions in Clause 52.03 are only expected to be used to

achieve a particular land use or development outcome that cannot be

achieved otherwise and ‘which is consistent with a major issue of policy or

necessary to achieve or develop the planning objectives of Victoria43.

The Panel is satisfied that the facilitation of the development of this major

project satisfies the criteria. Further, the EES has provided an opportunity

for views on the project to be presented and the requirements for approvals

by DSE and Council relating to vegetation removal and VicRoads and

Council relating to the intersection works ensure appropriate scrutiny of the

nominated works.

However, in addition reference should be made in this clause to

Construction EMPs for the works. This will ensure that appropriate

environmental management measures are adopted for the road and water

pipeline works for which exemptions from permit requirements are

provided eg including a vegetation management plan, post development

audits of to enable adjustments to pre‐construction estimates of vegetation

losses and associated offsets, standard construction management techniques

and the like.

As discussed in Chapter 8.2, the Panel considers a construction camp should

be subject to a permit as the strategic justification for this use being as of

right has not been established. The assessment of any such application

would have regard to the outcomes of the accommodation and community

services strategy, as well as site specific design and management

considerations.

The original submission by the Proponent sought the deletion of the water

pipelines route maps in the Schedule to Clause 52.03, and instead propose

referencing almost identical maps in the incorporated document. The Panel

agrees with Mr Clarke that it is much more transparent to include the maps

of the land to which the clause applies in the schedule rather than the less

42 The other purpose relates to transitional provisions to accommodate some site specific planning

scheme provisions that applied when new format planning schemes were introduced. 43 See for example Pages 7 and 11 Manual for Victoria Planning Provisions.


accessible incorporated document. The Panel also considers that the

schedule should indicate the address (as well as title and map details) for the

Proponents land to the east of Old Dunmore’s Road where it is

recommended that there should be discretion to apply for a permit for a

temporary construction camp.

11.3.3 Clause 52.17

It is proposed to exempt removal of native vegetation within SUZ2 from

permit requirements that would otherwise apply under Clause 52.17.

The Power Station is proposed on cleared land currently used for cattle

grazing and avoids remnant native vegetation on the site. If some losses of

native vegetation on the site do occur, the Proponent has committed offset

the losses in accordance with the Framework. There was no opposition to

this provision and the Panel accepts that appropriate commitments have

been made and will be implemented.

11.3.4 Environmental Significance Overlay 4

It is proposed to apply ESO4 to land extending from approximately 400‐

1,200m around the Power Station site which is predicted to be affected by

noise at a level of 34 dB(A) or more under adverse weather conditions. The

overlay introduces a permit requirement for development associated with

accommodation uses44.

There are currently no dwellings on the land to which it is proposed to apply

ESO4. Much of the land affected is currently owned by the Proponent (land

to the east of Old Dunmore Road) and or under plantation (adjoining land to

the north, south and west).

There were no submissions objecting to ESO4, although the Shire of Moyne

suggested it may be inconsistent to on the one hand apply the overlay and

then provide an exemption from permit requirements for the use and

development of a construction camp on the Proponent’s land to the east of

Old Dunmore Road.

The Panel accepts the justification of ESO4 to enables consideration of the

potential for landuse conflict and the creation of additional constraints on

power station operation due to the encroachment of sensitive uses. The

overlay would have a valuable role in identifying land where noise

emissions should be taken into account in future public and private decision

44 The Panel notes that some properties affected by the proposed ESO4 have lot sizes that satisfy the

condition for as of right development of a dwelling under the FZ.


making. The primary purpose of the farming zone can continue but the

overlay triggers consideration of measures to protect the amenity of

associated residential uses and foreshadows the possible for the design of

any accommodation to incorporate measures to attenuate internal noise

levels and therefore reduce the potential for conflict.

Elsewhere the Panel has indicated that it does not support as of right

development of a construction camp on the land to the east of Old

Dunmore’s Road and the provisions of ESO4 would apply to that use. The

Panel notes that mitigation of noise in construction camp dwellings would be

a consideration after the first stage of developments the Power Station would

be operational. However, it is also noted that, while the noise levels are

higher than normally expected in rural area, they comparable to noise levels

in many urban areas with established residential uses and are not so great as

to automatically render the land as uninhabitable, particularly for temporary

residential use directly associated with the noise source.

Recommendations

Maintain a Project Liaison and Monitoring Committee which:

is led by the Shire of Moyne with active participation by the Proponent

and relevant agencies (including EPA, DPI, DSE);

includes representation of nearby residents; and

is resourced by the Proponent.

Establish a similar community liaison forum led by the Shire of

Corangamite to operate during the construction and rehabilitation phases

of the gas pipeline and Compressor Station.

Revise the proposed SUZ2 table of the uses to apply the existing Farming

Zone table with the additional as of right uses in the exhibited SUZ2

(except that construction camp would be a Section 2 use).

Specify in the SUZ2 that the Development Plan and EMPs:

must address the principles, actions and commitments contained in the

exhibited Environment Effects Statement except where they are

specifically varied in the Minister’s assessment of Environmental

Effects and Panel Report or by the conditions of other statutory

approvals;

that the Responsible Authority with have regard to the views of

relevant agencies (including DPI, EPA, DSE, VicRoads, ESV, WorkSafe

Victoria) as appropriate;

the particular requirements recommended by the Panel, including:

compliance with recommended noise limits;


compliance with SEPP (Air Quality Management) and SEPP

(Waters of Victoria) design criteria and standards;

matters identified in Chapter 6.2 recommendations relating to

Safety Management Plans;

a sealed upgrade of Riordans Road from the Hamilton – Port

Fairy Road intersection to the entrance of the Power Station

(before development starts) and internally for all roads regularly

used by B double vehicles;

provision of sufficient parking at the Power Station to meet

requirements during construction phase and maintenance

periods;

incorporation of management measures from the approved

Cultural Heritage Management Plan;

an ‘Off‐site Landscaping Plan’ to mitigate the visual impact;

site specific requirements in construction EMPs which include

appropriate rehabilitation techniques and monitoring measures

for both aquatic and terrestrial flora; and


Include requirements in EMPs for auditing and testing of compliance by

suitably qualified people at key stages of development with performance

requirements of the following matters:

air emissions;

noise emissions;

surface water management systems and the quality of water discharged

from project sites;

impacts on native vegetation; and

post construction rehabilitation of pipeline easements.

Revise the exemptions from permit requirements in Clause 3 of Schedule 2

to the SUZ for buildings and works as follows:

‘Rearrange, alter or renew existing plant if the location, area or

height of the plant is not increased.’

Delete the exemption ‘‘result in a minor rearrangement of on‐site

roads and access ways, car parking areas and landscaping

provided that their areas and effectiveness are not diminished.’

Are accommodation and temporary amenities provided for

persons constructing and commissioning any plant on the land.


Include the address of the land to the east of Old Dunmore Road in the

table in the schedule to Clause 52.03 and attach the relevant maps to the

schedule to that Clause.

Require a Construction EMP for exemptions from permit requirements

under Clause 52.03.


Appendix A EES Inquiry Panel Terms of Reference


TERMS OF REFERENCE

INQUIRY UNDER ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS ACT 1978

SHAW RIVER POWER STATION PROJECT ____________________________________________________________________________

1. BACKGROUND In September 2008, Shaw River Power Station Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of Santos Ltd) referred the proposed Shaw River Power Station Project to the Minister for Planning under the Environment Effects Act 1978.

The major components of the project are: A nominal 1500 MW gas-fired power station on farming land near Orford in Moyne Shire. A high-pressure gas pipeline (including a compressor station) from the existing gas

transmission system near the Iona and Otway gas plants at Port Campbell. A water supply pipeline from the Port Fairy Water Reclamation Plant to the proposed

power station (to be constructed and operated by Wannon Water).

In November 2008, the Minister for Planning decided that an Environment Effects Statement (EES) was required under the Environment Effects Act 1978 to assess the potentially significant effects of the Shaw River Power Station Project.

In July 2009, the Minister approved scoping requirements for the EES, which specify a range of matters to be addressed in the EES, including the investigation of relevant alternatives.

The EES was placed on public exhibition from 12 March to 27 April 2010, together with Amendment C36 to the Moyne Planning Scheme and Works Approval Applications WA67398, WA67399 and WA67400). Pipeline Licence Applications PL271 and PL272 were advertised concurrently under the Pipelines Act 2005.

Works cannot commence until a cultural heritage management plan has been approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

The Inquiry for the Shaw River Power Station Project is to be appointed by the Minister for Planning under section 9(1) of the Environment Effects Act 1978. After the Inquiry provides its report to the Minister for Planning, the Minister will prepare an Assessment of the environmental effects45 of the project under the Environment Effects Act 1978 to inform the relevant Victorian statutory decisions.

2. TASK The Inquiry is required:

i. To inquire into and make findings regarding the potential environmental effects of the Shaw River Power Station Project, including the construction and operation of the power station, the high-pressure gas pipeline and water supply pipeline and associated infrastructure requirements.

ii. To consider the exhibited EES, all submissions received in response to the exhibited EES as well as other relevant matters.

iii. To recommend any modifications to the Shaw River Power Station Project as well as environmental mitigation and management measures that may be needed to achieve

45 Under the seventh edition of the Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects (June 2006), environment

for the purposes of assessment includes the physical, biological, heritage, cultural, social, health, safety and economic aspects of human surroundings, including the wider ecological and physical systems within which humans live.


acceptable environmental outcomes, within the context of applicable legislation and policy.

3. METHOD The Inquiry must consider the exhibited EES, any submissions received in response to the exhibited EES, the proponent’s response to submissions and other relevant information provided to or obtained by the Inquiry.

The Inquiry must conduct a public hearing and make other such enquiries as are relevant to its consideration of the potential environmental effects of the Shaw River Power Station Project. The Inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the following principles:

The inquiry hearings will be conducted in an open, orderly and equitable manner, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, with a minimum of formality and without the necessity for legal representation.

The inquiry process will aim to be exploratory and constructive, where adversarial behaviour is minimised.

Parties without legal representation will not be disadvantaged – cross-examination will be strictly controlled and prohibited where not relevant by the inquiry chair.

The Inquiry will meet and conduct hearings when there is a quorum of at least two of its members present including the Inquiry Chair.

4. OUTCOMES To prepare a report for the Minister for Planning presenting:

The Inquiry’s response to the matters detailed in section 2.

Relevant information and analysis in support of the Inquiry’s recommendations.

A description of the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry and a list of those consulted and heard by the Inquiry.

5. TIMING The Inquiry is required to report to the Minister for Planning in writing within six weeks of its last hearing date.

6. FEES The members of the Inquiry will receive the same fees and allowances as a panel appointed under Division 1 of Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. APPROVED:


Appendix B List of Submitters

CFA South West Area

Corangamite Shire

Department of Primary Industries

Environment Protection Authority

Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

Moyne Shire

Ms Shirley Nicholls

Mr Geoff Saffin

Santos Limited

The Morgan‐Payler Family

Wannon Water

Wind Farm Developments


Appendix C EES Table 2.1: Summary of Key Approvals and Assessments Required


Appendix D Potential Bent-Wing Bat and Water Monitoring Principles


Appendix E List of Abbreviations Used

Departments, Organisations and Businesses

AAV Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

AEMO Australian Electricity Market Operator

CFA Country Fire Authority

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DPI Department of Primary Industry

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

EPA Environment Protection Authority

ESV Energy Safe Victoria

SES State Emergency Service

Zones and Overlays

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

FZ Farming Zone

PUZ Public Use Zone

SUZ Special Use Zone

Other Terms

CCGT Combined‐cycle gas turbines

CHA Cultural Heritage Assessment

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

dB(A) Decibels, A weighting

EHSMS Environment, Health and Safety Management System

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act

EREP Environment and Resource Efficiency Plan

EVC Ecological Vegetation Community

FFG Flora and Fauna Guarantee

HAZID Hazard Identification

ha Hectare

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling

km Kilometre


kV Kilovolt

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

MRET Mandatory Renewable Energy Target

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007

NVMF Native Vegetation Management Framework

OCGT One open‐cycle gas turbine

RAP Registered Aboriginal Party

RWTP Recycled water treatment plant

SEPP State Environment Protection Policy

SEPP AQM SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001

SEPP N‐1 SEPP (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N‐1

1989.

SIA Socio‐economic Impact Assessment

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

vpd vehicles per day

VVP Victorian Volcanic Plain

WEF Wind Energy Facility

WP Warrnambool Plain

WRP Water Reclamation Plant

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

shaw river power station ees panel report - … · shaw river power station project ees & moyne...

Documents