//
[2014] WASAT 12
General information, not legal advice.
State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
2014-01-28
Original judgment source is linked above.
Dust Assessment
Stage 1 - Dust Dispersion Modelling
(a) engage independent air quality consultants to assess and quantify the potential emissions for each potential emission source of the proposed plant; and
(b) request historical dust monitoring records from the City for the locality (as described in the evidence of Mr Martin).
Stage 2 - Site Baseline Monitoring and Modelling
103 At subsequent directions hearings on 9 December 2011 and 6 February 2012, it was agreed that this letter, speaking generally, set an agenda for further defining the investigations that would be needed following the Tribunal's expression of its provisional views.
104 The Tribunal granted a request by then counsel for the applicant, Mr Hardy, for a two month adjournment to enable Ransberg to plan to best effect the required baseline monitoring of air quality.
105 At a further directions hearing held on 17 July 2012, the Tribunal was informed that the dust experts appointed by each party had reached agreement on how the baseline monitoring was to be undertaken, and that in fact a three month period of monitoring had been accomplished, ending in early July 2012. Work on technology verification and the dispersion modelling was also underway.
106 On 25 September 2012, then counsel for the respondent, Mr Nicholson, informed the Tribunal that the City, having had time to review the results of the three month dust monitoring in a report supplied by Ransberg, had concluded that because certain monitoring data were missing from the record of monitoring so far, existing concerns over air quality had not been allayed. While the City did not agree with the applicant that data substitution could overcome the monitoring report's alleged deficiencies, the City had no issue with Ransberg proceeding to complete the predictive modelling report.
107 The parties, sensibly, consented to one of the Tribunal's panel members, Mr Curry, mediating any technical issues between the dust experts while remaining on the hearing panel. (A similar practice was followed in Keysbrook Leucoxene, at [10]).
108 Following two mediations at a subsequent directions hearing on 5 February 2013 we were informed that Ransberg had extended the baseline monitoring period so as to make data substitution unnecessary, and that five sets of reports and data had been supplied to the City. The matter was again adjourned into mediation after which programming orders were made for the resumed final hearing. This was held in October 2013.
109 At the resumed final hearing, the Tribunal turned first to the issue of the background dust monitoring.
110 The Tribunal heard evidence from two expert witnesses on air quality and dust, Mr Gary Graham (engaged on behalf of the applicant), and Mr David Pitt, previously mentioned, engaged by the respondent.
111 Mr Graham addressed the results of the two baseline air quality monitoring programs which had been conducted at the subject land and which covered the period from 6 April 2012 to 6 April 2013. As is set out above, the purpose of the monitoring was to collect sitespecific data to assist with the quantification of baseline conditions at the site for use in subsequent studies.
112 The experts agreed that the 12 months of onsite ambient (background) air quality monitoring had been collected at an air quality monitoring station established on the site. Data were collected on background dust conditions in terms of total suspended particles (TSP); PM10 particles (see above) measured via a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM); monthly dust deposition rates; and local wind conditions from an onsite weather station. It was also agreed by the experts that the monitoring had been properly conducted to meet the required technical standards.
113 Under questioning from the Tribunal, the experts confirmed that throughout the 12 month monitoring period there had been, with respect to the critical measurement, no PM10 24 hour averages exceeding the 50μg/m3 NEPM standard. This was despite measured daily averages reaching between 40 and 50μg/m3 on nine days over summer, three days in autumn and one day in the spring months. The mean 24 hour average PM10 for the whole year was 23.1μg/m3 which compares with the NEPM standard of 30μg/m3 for a whole year.
114 The monitoring results for summer measurements (December to February) also demonstrated that winds at the site were either from the southeast or south south-east during the majority of the hours when background PM10 levels rose above the level of 25μg/m3. Accordingly, at times of relatively poor air quality, any fugitive dust from the subject land would be likely to be carried towards the sensitive residential premises.
115 In his witness statement, Mr Pitt observed that the background PM10 concentrations measured at the site were approximately 43% higher than those measured over the same period at the DER's Caversham monitoring site, northeast of Perth and the site. The highest daily levels of particulates in Caversham were generally associated with smoke received from fires or burning off elsewhere in the southwest region. The experts agreed that this site would be the nearest site for comparison of airborne particulates. Mr Pitt also stated that the long term record from Caversham showed significant betweenyear variations in ambient air quality, which meant that any one year's background monitoring results had a limited capacity to predict another year's results.
116 The second air quality issue is in relation to the modelling of dust dispersion from the site of the proposed plant. As this issue is particularly critical as to whether or not the proposal ought to be approved, it is necessary to closely examine the detail of the modelling and its underlying assumptions.
117 Mr Graham explained to the Tribunal that likely dust emissions from the proposed plant had formed the basis of an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA). This study used the AUSPLUME method of atmospheric dispersion modelling, applying a range of input data required to predict fugitive emissions and the anticipated air quality impacts of the proposed batching plant's operation.
118 The experts agreed that it was very difficult to predict actual operational emissions. During the past year, the two experts had jointly designed sensitivity tests on possible sources of dust with the aim of reducing these uncertainties. In addition to meteorological data, input data for the modelling included the identification and description of emission sources from the operation, applicable emissions controls, details of local topography, and the location of the five closest sensitive receptors among the residences to the north and northeast.
119 Six main emission sources were identified in the study:
120 Modelling 'scenario 1' was designed to represent a maximum daily production rate of 500m3, while 'scenario 2' represented a typical daily production rate of 135m3.
121 In Mr Pitt's view, the higher figure for scenario 1 would be closer to 400m3 per day as the claimed annual capacity of the plant was 120,000m3. This was the figure likely to be assessed by the DER for licensing purposes.
122 The experts agreed that the USA's Environmental Protection Agency's Handbook AP42 specified updated emissions factors for concrete batching plants. These were the factors that were used and documented in the AQIA and better reflected more recent technological advances in the industry. These emissions factors were less conservative than the older comparable emissions factors taken from the Australian National Pollution Inventory (NPI) emissions factor handbook for estimating emissions from concrete batching plants.
123 The experts also agreed that an Environmental Management System that incorporated an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and an ambient dust monitoring system would provide an ongoing mechanism to minimise the potential for adverse dust impacts.
124 The experts noted that the applicant's submitted dust management plan assumes a continuously high standard of 'housekeeping' for the yard area on the site and relied heavily upon water sprays and washdown control of site dust. An overall dust control factor of 50% was assumed for modelling of emission factor controls to be achieved by watering. Mr Graham stated that some emissions sources had no water control factor applied, such as that from the FEL operation, other than the periodic wash-down of spillages.
125 It was uncontested that the average dust deposition rate for the project site was measured at 2.7 grams per square metre per month during the March to July period. This figure was used for modelling purposes. Importantly, the additional (incremental) dust deposition predicted by the model to result from the project was below 0.1 grams per square metre per month.
126 The experts further agreed that the AQIA demonstrates that the anticipated ground level impacts at the closest residential receptor locations would comply with the relevant assessment criteria for PM10, for both scenarios of concrete production referred to above. For scenario 1, for the higher throughput, two days of exceedances of the PM10 24 hour NEPM standard of 50 micrograms are predicted at one of the receptors, with one exceedance predicted at three of the other receptors. Under scenario 2, two exceedances are still predicted for one receptor, but (only by very narrow margins) none at the other four.
127 However, the experts' joint statement cautioned that:
1.1 ... as with all modelling studies, there are inevitably a wide range of uncertainties that may result in model under- or overprediction, and demonstration of compliance through dispersion modelling does not necessarily indicate that the ambient air quality criteria will be achieved in reality if the plant was operational.
128 Importantly, Mr Graham was of the view that in any future operational context, actual compliance with the NEPM criteria for PM10 at the sensitive premises would need to be monitored. Both experts agreed that there were interstate precedents for planning approval conditions that would control the incremental contribution a facility made to 24 hour average PM10 levels at sensitive receptors.
129 They further agreed that the modelling study and subsequent AQIA conducted for this proposal predicted the worst case scenario for dust dispersion from any plant emissions to that received at the nearest residential housing. The numerical relationship between the worst case scenario for particulates travelling downwind to the sensitive receptors compared with onsite air quality, impacted by operational emission sources at the plant, had been established by the modelling. That numerical relationship could be used as a quantitative basis for setting allowable limits to operational emissions and their impact on PM10 levels.
130 In practical terms, implementing such limits could be facilitated by ongoing monitoring involving retention of the established TEOM (PM10) monitor located near the site's northern boundary, and installing a nearby second TEOM off the site, in accordance with measurement standards.
131 Mr Pitt's view was that any such demonstration of compliance could not be achieved in less than approximately three years of operations, by which time the facility might reasonably be expected to have reached maximum throughput, with the associated dust emissions and impacts becoming established.
The design and technology of wet-mix concrete plants
132 The related issue raised by the Tribunal and addressed by the applicant related to the need to demonstrate 'authoritative assessments from elsewhere such as would justify or verify the claims of the applicant as to the superior performance characteristics of [the wet-mix] system' in relation to dust control.
133 For Ransberg, its counsel, Mr Hardy, submitted, as an overarching consideration, that it was possible to distinguish between what was 'best practice' and what was 'best' in relation to the design of such a plant. While it was theoretically possible to design and construct a completely enclosed concrete batching plant with virtual exclusion of dust emissions, this was not an economic proposition for this site in its planning and commercial context, and for which continuous night-time production was not contemplated.
134 Uncontested documentary evidence provided by Mr Lukic (for the applicant) indicated that the DEC had conducted an Environmental Assessment Report in 2010 (Assessment Report) on a proposal for the construction of a wet-mix concrete batching plant at Lot 201 Miguel Road, Bibra Lake. The Assessment Report cited a premises throughput capacity of concrete production of 135,000 tonnes per year. The Assessment Report's 'Location of Premises' noted that:
Lot 201 Miguel Road, Bibra Lake is surrounded by industrial and commercial land uses on neighbouring properties. The closest residential area to the proposed premises is the suburb of Yangebup, located approximately 300 m south east from the proposed premises at its closest residential point ...
The concrete batching plant works using fresh, wet cement in its process ... aggregate materials are fed into the hopper bins using a front end loader. A conveyor system then feeds the aggregates into the electric powered batching plant, where they are mixed with water for transfer into waiting concrete trucks. Mixing is undertaken through a fully automated process, and plant mixes for different concrete blends are controlled through the inputs into the system by the Plant Manager at the computer console ...
136 In DEC's documented risk assessment, in acknowledging that there was the potential for dust emissions during construction and then operation of the plant, it was said that these emissions will be managed under the Concrete Batching Regulations.
137 Mr Lukic told the Tribunal that this facility was now undergoing commissioning, and that there was another wet-mix plant operating on Barrow Island.
138 In the above 'interim' position (as of December 2011), the Tribunal indicated that it would need to be satisfied that there was independently assessed evidence (or equivalent) that the proposal's new technology and operating system was not likely to generate a problematic level of fugitive dust, under sustained yearin/yearout maximum levels of production throughput. Both normal operating conditions (and those involving contingencies for example, any component failures say, as regards dust filters, or accidents) would be relevant to establishing such justification. A suitable line of evidence might arise from one year or more of dust monitoring in relation to the performance assessment of a plant similar to that presently contemplated.
139 The applicant was unable to offer any such evidence; but, on the other hand, nor was there evidence refuting the applicant's claims. The Tribunal accepts the broad evidence of technological improvements inherent in the design of the technology but, in the absence of any quantified independent record, the Tribunal must regard the environmental performance of wetmix technology in limiting dust emissions as being, at this stage, unconfirmed.
140 It is indeed curious, given the applicant's sustained efforts at base line monitoring and general engagement on the environmental aspects of the proposal, that such data could not be located. Nevertheless, for the reasons given below, such defects have not been in the end fatal to the applicant's case.
Should the precautionary principle be invoked to justify refusal?
141 In relation to dust issues and their possible impacts upon health and amenity, in Wattleup Road Development Company Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2011] WASAT 160 (Wattleup Road) the Tribunal had applied the 'precautionary principle' to refuse certain development. See Wattleup Road, at [46] [71]. Mr Slarke, for the respondent, submitted that the application of this principle would justify refusal of the proposal.
142 This principle arises, in part, from the objectives of the PD Act and State Planning Policy No 1 State Planning Framework Policy (SPP 1). At clause 3 of SPP 1 it is stated that:
The protection of environmental assets and the wise use and management of resources are essential to encourage more ecologically sustainable land use and development. Planning should contribute to a more sustainable future by:
...
143 In Wattleup Road, at [65], the Tribunal cited with approval Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133; (2006) 146 LGERA 10 (Telstra). In Telstra, Preston CJ said, at [128]:
The application of the precautionary principle and the concomitant need to take precautionary measures is triggered by the satisfaction of two conditions precedent or thresholds: a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage. These conditions or thresholds are cumulative. Once both of these conditions or thresholds are satisfied, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate: N de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, 2005 at 155.
144 In Environmental and Planning Law in New South Wales (Federation Press: 3rd ed, 2012) the learned authors say of this decision, at 26:
This is an important judgment, as it not only analyses the precautionary principle and identifies the process for its application, but also emphasises that the principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof. Consequently, once a threat of serious or irreversible harm has been established, the precautionary principle operates to create the assumption that the threat is certain, requiring action on the part of the decisionmaker.
145 The Tribunal accepted the following expert evidence in Wattleup Road, at [51]:
Health professionals and scientists are most concerned with particles small enough to be inhaled by humans. Particles larger than PM10 ... are usually caught in the nose and throat and expelled[,] while PM10 and smaller particles may lodge throughout the lungs. ... [P]articles 2.5 microns and less in diameter have a greater capacity to penetrate the alveoli [gas exchange cells] of the lungs and travel across the cellular membrane.
The health effects that result from exposure to high levels of dust generally tend to be specific to the cardio-pulmonary system ... [a]nyone can be affected by high levels of dust but the risk is greatest for individuals with clinical respiratory and cardiovascular disease, the elderly, babies and young children.
Substantial evidence exists demonstrating the link between exposure to PM and increased risk of cardiac and respiratory disorders ...
Current research has not been able to determine a concentration level below which PM does not affect cardiopulmonary health ... it is not possible to define a scientific valid 'safe' level at which the majority of the population will be spared adverse health effects.
146 The Tribunal's view in Wattleup Road, at [68] and [71], was that:
There is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage for residents of the proposed subdivision in relation to dust from the [Residue Drying/Disposal/Storage Area] and the sand quarry to the south and southeast of the site. Furthermore, there is scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage. Conditions precedent to the satisfaction of the precautionary principle are therefore established. Consequently, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, provided that it is proportionate to the threat, appropriate and cost-effective. Adequate air quality monitoring requires prior consultation with the DEC, monitoring for a period of at least 12 months and assessment and reporting in relation to relevant standards for PM10 and TSP and chemical composition of dust.
...
Balancing the planning considerations, the Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the precautionary principle warrants refusal of the proposed subdivision, unless and until adequate air quality monitoring is undertaken and reviewed in relation to the site demonstrating that the proposed subdivision would be acceptable in relation to the health and amenity impacts of dust.
147 Mr Slarke argued that for similar reasons, refusal of the proposal was the correct and preferable decision in this review.
148 In terms of 'serious environmental damage', Mr Hardy did acknowledge how little 'headroom' there was in terms of meeting NEPM health standards for particulates and that exceedances could result in his client not being able to continue operations. Operational responsiveness is a matter to which the Tribunal will return below. In any case, Mr Hardy argued that by reason of:
there would be no 'irreversible environmental damage'.
149 We accept that it is appropriate to apply the precautionary principle here. However, we think that the concessions given by Ransberg in the light of the experts' evidence and the measures proposed will mean that refusal is not warranted.
150 In particular, the Tribunal is satisfied that a full and proper 12 months of background monitoring of PM10 and TSP has been carried out at the site, and that the likely dispersion emissions from the proposed facility have been properly modelled. Hence, the scientific uncertainties are fewer than in Wattleup Road and the combined effect of this with the capacity for onsite control of emissions (including shut downs) significantly lowers the potential risk to public health arising out of the operation of a wet-mix plant.
151 We turn to discuss what further measures ought to apply to the proposed development in the light of the potential risk to public health. These matters must go into the mix of conditions.
152 The results of a year's monitoring for background particulates demonstrate compliance with the NEPM. Modelling the emissions on the proposed operations of the plant indicates that particulates can be managed to meet the NEPM, although only marginally so, and a small number of exceedances of the NEPM for daily average PM10 levels are predicted to occur at the nearest residences.
153 Uncertainties remain, however, regarding both background PM10 (such as from inter-annual weather differences) and PM10 levels at sensitive premises due to error factors in the modelling.
154 Mr Hardy also submitted that it was possible that future external events in background air quality, such as a series of large bushfires or changes in rainfall, could mean air quality standards and the outcomes for particulates, which were properly but imperfectly modelled for the proposal, are not necessarily achieved over any one year. Such circumstances, which would be entirely beyond the control of the applicant should be, he submitted, properly contemplated and pragmatically acted upon.
155 There may also be ongoing regulatory problems with regard to dust emissions from nearby facilities, already the subject of many community complaints and concerns. There appears to be no wider prospect of regulatory control for cumulative PM10 levels at dust-generating sites. The NEPM is a public health standard, not a regulatory criterion for licensing purposes.
156 The Tribunal has therefore not been given any satisfactory assurance that ambient air quality in the locality will necessarily improve over time rather than deteriorate further.
157 The Tribunal accepts the City's contention that it is possible that air quality, measured by PM10 levels at the sensitive premises, may not comply with the NEPM with the plant at full production throughput. Even so, importantly, the experts' evidence suggests that any 'threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage' from Ransberg's proposals could be avoided by proper management of the operation.
158 Any failure to control emissions is very likely to impact upon PM10 levels at sensitive receptors downwind. The Tribunal accepts Ransberg's concession to the effect that the applicant must, and would, carry all the operational risks. To this end, the risk of unacceptable emissions would be further reduced if the plant's operations were subject to conditions that set maximum acceptable onsite dust levels and stipulated when operations would be suspended or shut down. This would occur when continuous monitoring of ongoing emissions and ambient air quality triggered threshold mechanisms.
159 On the related issue of the wet-mix design of the plant, the Ransberg proposal is, as we have seen, for a concrete batching plant with many advanced features of modern wet-mix technology and operational improvements for dust control, albeit in an unenclosed facility. In assessing the benefits arising from wet-mix technology, as has already been indicated, an important underlying area of risk and uncertainty arises from the failure of the applicant to provide the Tribunal with satisfactory evidence, either from Australia or from overseas, of the alleged improvements in dust emission associated with wet-mix batching plants.
160 The Tribunal takes the view that the Assessment Report for a similar wet-mix plant at Bibra Lake, conducted by then DEC for the purposes of licensing under Pt V of the EP Act (see above), indicates that, at least for some regulatory purposes, the design and technology has been evaluated and has been found to be acceptable in relation to a new concrete batching plant to be constructed to operate at a metropolitan location.
161 The applicant had initially proposed that, if approval were to be given, the period of operational monitoring needed to characterise and validate the plant's operation would be one year of data. The respondent's dust expert, Mr Pitt, had argued that more than one year would be needed, because it was desirable to give the plant's operators the opportunity to finetune their procedures and then to gauge emissions over at least one year under full production throughput. This would probably necessitate three years' monitoring. Arguably, even a limited application of the precautionary approach would justify a continuing collection of emissions performance data.
162 The Tribunal prefers Mr Pitt's suggested approach because of the importance of having accurate data in a relatively marginal situation for air quality, such as this, where cumulative dust impact is critical. In other words, there remains a basis for the continuing and indefinite risk that total particulates at sensitive residences may exceed the NEPM, and that continuing monitoring would be required as the evidentiary trigger for an appropriate response or shutdown. A sensible approach requires a condition to be imposed upon the applicant to resource the ongoing independent monitoring of dust emissions and predicting air quality at the key receptors. This should be continued indefinitely or until the City is satisfied that the operating experience of cumulative air quality has shown that the risk of exceeding the NEPM standard for annual particulates has abated.
163 Moreover, the Tribunal agrees with the City, in that the trigger criteria and the component elements of a system capable of responding to problem air quality must be certain at the outset. For example, it must be clear how the key information about the likely circumstances of dust particulates' exceedance, such as on a day of high background concentration, would be conveyed to site management and acted upon. Similarly, it must be clear as to how dust monitoring would connect with site operations. A mechanism capable of prompt and reliable triggering of alerts and shutdown actions, for specific operations or for wholeofplant, must be outlined. That mechanism, and its resourcing, must be conditioned for approval to be granted and should not, in the Tribunal's view, be left entirely to the future detail of an EMP.
164 Finally, we address the issue of the fairness of an implied cost burden falling on the applicant as the 'last one in' where a potentially significant, if minor, dust source among other industries leads to a cumulative pollution impact. The Tribunal is of the view that this risk or cost should be carried by the applicant as an incident of the proposed land use. Ransberg would be, in effect, using the last possible part of the particulates pollution 'budget' for the locality.
DR 243 of 2011 Retaining walls at the northern end of the site
165 In summary, the Tribunal has concluded that the stepped retaining wall now proposed at the northern end of the site and at the retaining walls along sections of the respective side boundaries would not have an unacceptable adverse visual impact on the residential area to the north. The rear boundary wall as now proposed would be of less bulk, would be generally consistent with the wall on the adjacent property, and would be softened by the proposed landscaping. The Tribunal has determined that the now proposed rear retaining walls should be approved.
166 This review required the Tribunal to determine whether exercising the discretion available under TPS 24 and allowing the proposed noxious industry would be consistent with orderly and proper planning, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the proximity to the site of an established residential area; that is, in determining the merits of the proposal, the Tribunal was required to give proper consideration to sound town planning principles, any relevant town planning scheme provisions and any relevant policies.
167 TPS 24 requires that particular consideration be given to the preservation of the amenity of the locality.
168 The Tribunal examined the elements of the proposed development that the parties agreed would directly impact on the local amenity. The Tribunal found that noise would be appropriately controlled by the applicant's proposed design modifications and control of operating hours. The Tribunal further found that the proposed modified height of the development would not negatively affect the visual amenity of the surrounding area and therefore could be supported, as provided for under TPS 24. This was because the bulk of the silos were to be reduced to the allowed height of 12 metres, and the limited extension above this height would have limited impact at a distance of over 300 metres from the residences and relative to the bulk of the existing industrial structures on neighbouring lots.
169 Critical to determining whether there would be an amenity impact that would be fatal to the proposed development was the issue of potential dust generated by the operations of the plant and whether there would be sufficient buffer distance between the plant and the neighbouring residential area. Under SPP 4.1, a buffer distance is required between the proposed development and the neighbouring residential area. The related Guidance Statement No 3 stipulated a generic buffer distance of 300 metres, but also provided that this distance could be varied in circumstances of nontypical processing techniques and scientific study based on site and industryspecific information.
170 Determining whether the buffer distance separating the proposed development and the residential area could be, in effect, reduced involved the balancing of the following considerations:
171 The Tribunal has therefore concluded that, with conditions requiring appropriate management practices, the modified concrete batching plant now proposed warrants approval. In short, the development would be consistent with orderly and proper planning because, subject to conditions, it would be sufficiently separated from the residential area as required by SPP 4.1, and would be consistent with the planning objectives of TPS 24.
172 The parties undertook to complete agreed draft conditions for both matters. This document was received by the Tribunal in December 2013 and, for the record, those agreed conditions are reproduced below.
173 The Tribunal will require the parties to negotiate in good faith to bring into the Tribunal, as soon as is practicable, a set of consolidated amended conditions (including amended plans), being conditions not inconsistent with these reasons. With the parties' consent, Mr Curry will be available to assist with this task.
DRAFT CONDITIONS AGREED BY THE PARTIES
...
(a) 12.4µg/m3 as a 24-hour average on any day when the ambient concentration (inclusive of the contribution from emissions from the Land) exceeds 50µg/m3 of particulate matter as PM10 as a 24-hour average; or
The annual report referred to above, shall be submitted by no more than 30 days after each calendar year to which the data relates.
The requirement for continued dust monitoring may be reviewed by the City at the request of the Applicant following the provision of an EMS audit required by condition (9).
(ii) Noise management, including the use of appropriate acoustic barriers and low noise front end loaders;
(xi) Contingency measures to be adopted in the event of potential or actual unacceptable emissions from the site; and
(xii) Checklists and personnel responsibilities for actions assigned by the EMP.
174 For the foregoing reasons the orders of the Tribunal are:
I certify that this and the preceding [174] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
Keysbrook Leucoxene Pty Ltd and Shire of SerpentineJarrahdale [2012] WASAT 212
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133; (2006) 146 LGERA 10
Wattleup Road Development Company Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2011] WASAT 160
(2006) 146 LGERA 10