Wastewater Treatment Plant

Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Works Approval Application

Appendix E Wastewater Treatment Plant

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_WAA_Final_4Dec19 Issue Number 1

Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment Parwan Protein Recovery Facility ______Report for L. & G. Meats

30637.05 | Issue Number 1 | Date 29-Nov-19 Client confidential

Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | ii

Customer: Contact: L. & G. Meats Pty Ltd Will Nunn Level 4, 3 Bowen Crescent, Melb Vic 3004 Customer reference: PO Box 33298 Melbourne 3004 30637.05 Australia. Confidentiality, copyright & reproduction: t: +61 (0) 3 9978 7823 e: [email protected] This report is the Copyright of Ricardo Energy

Environment and Planning, a trading name of Ricardo- AEA Ltd and has been prepared by Ricardo Energy Author: Environment and Planning under contract to L. & G. Meats Pty Ltd for Parwan – Fee Proposal (EPA Works Will Nunn & David Leinster Approval), dated 12 August 2019. The contents of this Approved By: report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person without the Deane Ellwood specific prior written permission of the Commercial Date: Manager at Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning. Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning accepts no 29 November 2019 liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning damage arising from any interpretation or use of the reference: information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expressed therein, other than the liability that is Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE1_WWTOA agreed in the said contract. _29Nov2019

Issue History

Issue Date Issued Document Status Number

1 1/11/2019 Draft

2 29/11/2019 Final

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | iii

Table of contents 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Background and Understanding ...... 1 1.3 Objectives ...... 1 2 Proposal ...... 2 3 Process ...... 3 3.1 Type A Plant – Fat, Meat, Blood & Bone By-product ...... 3 3.1.1 Materials Receival ...... 3 3.1.2 Blood Processing ...... 3 3.1.3 Materials Transfer and Size Reduction ...... 3 3.1.4 High-Temperature Dry-Protein Recovery ...... 4 3.1.5 Tallow Refining ...... 4 3.1.6 Meat and Bone Meal Processing ...... 4 3.2 Type B Plant – Feathers & Hair...... 4 3.2.1 Materials Receival ...... 4 3.2.2 Hydrolysis ...... 4 3.2.3 Drying ...... 4 3.2.4 Meat and Bone Meal Processing ...... 4 3.3 Type C Plant – Poultry and Fish By-product ...... 4 3.3.1 Materials Receival ...... 4 3.3.2 Materials Transfer and Size Reduction ...... 5 3.3.3 Low-Temperature Dry-Protein Recovery ...... 5 3.3.4 Liquid Processing ...... 5 3.3.5 Meal Processing ...... 5 4 Wastewater Streams ...... 6 4.1.1 Cooker Condensate (Type A Plant) ...... 6 4.1.2 Blood Stickwater (Type A Plant) ...... 6 4.1.3 Feather Meal Drying Condensate (Type B Plant) ...... 6 4.1.4 Fish Meal Dryer Condensate (Type C Plant) ...... 6 4.1.5 Evaporator Wastewater (Type C Plant) ...... 6 4.1.6 Wash-down water (All Plants) ...... 6 5 Wastewater Quality and Volume ...... 7 5.1 Wastewater Quality ...... 7 5.2 Wastewater Volume ...... 0

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | iv

5.3 Predicted Wastewater Flow and Load ...... 0 6 Trade Waste Acceptance Criteria ...... 1 7 Reclaimed Water Criteria ...... 2 7.1 Assessment Criteria ...... 2 8 Treatment Options ...... 5 9 Treatment technologies and recommendations ...... 7 9.1 Treatment technologies ...... 7 9.1.1 Primary Treatment ...... 7 9.1.2 Secondary Treatment ...... 7 9.1.3 Tertiary Treatment ...... 7 9.2 Recommendations ...... 7 10 Conclusions ...... 0

List of figures Figure 9-1: Wastewater treatment system process schematic ...... 8

List of tables Table 2-1: PRF Capacity ...... 2 Table 5-1: Typical Condensate Water Quality Data ...... 7 Table 5-2: Expected Wastewater Quality Data ...... 8 Table 5-3: Estimated Wastewater Quantity ...... 0 Table 5-4: Predicted Mass Load of Key Parameters ...... 0 Table 5-5: Predicted Concentrations of Key Parameters ...... 0 Table 6-1: Typical domestic wastewater quality ...... 1 Table 7-1: Acceptable uses of reclaimed water (Table 3, EPA Publication 464.2) ...... 2 Table 7-2: Classes of reclaimed water and corresponding standards for biological treatment and pathogen reduction. (Table 1, EPA Publication 464.2) ...... 3 Table 8-1 Treatment Options Assessment ...... 5

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 1

1 Introduction

Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning Pty Ltd (Ricardo) has been engaged by L. & G. Meats Pty Ltd (L&G Meats) to prepare a Works Approval Application for the construction of a Protein Recovery Facility (PRF) at 3922 Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road, Parwan, Victoria (the site). 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment is to provide L&G Meats with sufficient information to make an informed decision on appropriate pre-treatment technologies for treatment and disposal of wastewater from the proposed PRF. 1.2 Background and Understanding The proposed PRF will generate wastewater from materials processing and washing down of the plant. The majority of wastewater from the PRF will be from condensate, as the raw-material is heated to separate the tallow and meal. The proposed protein recovery process utilises steam to heat the raw material. During heating, the water content of the raw material is boiled off, fat is rendered out and protein rich meal solids separated. The cooking vapour is then transported to a condenser to be cooled back into liquid (condensate). The condensate is typically contaminated with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), organics (oil & grease, biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand), solids and sulphate. At the time of writing, it is proposed that wastewater generated by the PRF sill be disposed of to Western Water’s Bacchus Marsh wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), located approximately 2km north-east of the site. The disposal of wastewater from the site would occur under a trade waste agreement (TWA), which is yet to be drafted. The TWA will set out acceptance criteria for wastewater, which will limit the concentration and load of contaminants for wastewater. Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning (Ricardo) has been engaged by L&G Meats to investigate wastewater treatment technologies suitable for improving the quality of wastewater expected to be generated by the proposed PRF, to ensure the treated water is of suitable quality for acceptance to Western Water’s WWTP. Ricardo has also investigated treatment technologies that would allow irrigation of wastewater on land owned by L&G Meats partners, which is located adjacent to the PRF. 1.3 Objectives This report assesses currently available wastewater treatment technologies in consideration of the proposed site layout to pre-treat wastewater generated by the PRF. The treated wastewater will need to meet suitable acceptance criteria stipulated by Western Water or be suitable for irrigation on neighbouring land owned by L&G Meats business partners. The objective of this report is to: • Identify suitable wastewater management options for the site • Identify suitable pre-treatment options for wastewater to meet trade waste acceptance criteria • Identify other potential wastewater treatment and re-use options for the site.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 2

2 Proposal

It is proposed to establish a PRF on the site, where animal by-products will be processed. The plant will operate up to 24 hours a day, seven days per week. However, will typically operate22 hours a day 6 days a week. The PRF comprises several separate protein recovery plants that will convert waste from animal by- product into stable, usable materials including tallow, oil and protein rich meal. It will be a new purpose-built facility incorporating the best design and construction standards to minimise potential impacts on neighbouring properties and the environment. The facility will include five (5) protein recovery plants. Each plant will be specifically designed for the processing of by-products from multiple species’ including: • Cattle

• Sheep • Pigs • Poultry (including feathers) • Fish (and other seafood) • Other Phase 1 of the development will include construction of the southern two plants, with the northern plants constructed in Phase 2 of the development. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been assumed that the facility will have the capacity to process up to 51 tonnes of animal by-product per hour of operation. The assumed capacity of each phase of the PRF is detailed in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1: PRF Capacity

Waste / Assumed Plant Process Raw Product Input Process Raw Product Input Phase Process Type (tonnes/hr) (tonnes/day) (24hrs) Stream

Beef 13 312

Phase 1 Sheep Type A 13 312

Blood 5 120

Poultry Type C 12 288

Phase 2 Feathers Type B 3 72

Fish Type C 5 120

Total 51 1224

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 3

3 Process

It is proposed to construct three types of plant at the PRF. For the purpose of this assessment and works application, it has been assumed that Phase 1 of the PRF will include the construction of two Type A plants, for the processing of animal by-products from cattle and sheep abattoirs. Whilst it has been assumed that Phase 2 of the PRF will include the construction of two Type C plants for the processing of fish and poultry by-products and one Type B plant for the processing of feathers. The plants are versatile, and can receive and process material from a variety of species as follows:

• A Type A plant (Section 3.1) uses a high temperature dry protein recovery process, which is suitable for the processing of animal tissue by-product, including fat, meat, blood and bone. This type of plant will receive, and process material sourced from cattle, sheep, pig and other ‘large’ animal abattoirs.

• A Type B plant (Section 3.2) uses hydrolysation to process feathers and hair. This type of plant will primarily accept material from poultry production plants in the form of feathers.

• A Type C plant (Section 3.3) uses a low temperature cooking process to produce oil and meal. This type of plant will receive, and process material sourced from chicken and fish industries. 3.1 Type A Plant – Fat, Meat, Blood & Bone By-product 3.1.1 Materials Receival Raw animal by-products will be delivered to the site by trucks. Trucks will unload raw material into in- ground receival bins. It should be noted that there is no drainage infrastructure built into the raw- material receival bins, and all material, including any water from the bins will be processed through the cooker. 3.1.2 Blood Processing Blood will be delivered to site independently of solid animal by-products. Blood will be transferred from road tankers to a blood storage tank in the raw materials receival area. Blood processing will be undertaken through a combination of coagulation and centrifuge, as follows: • The blood will be preheated in the holding tank to ensure that high enough temperatures can be achieved in the coagulator where live steam injection increases the blood temperature to ensure effective coagulation. • The coagulated blood will then be transferred to a centrifuge where the coagulated blood solids are separated from the blood stickwater. This process removes approximately 40 % of the water content of the whole blood.

• The solids from the centrifuge will then be meter-fed into raw material transfer line described in Section 3.1.3 which feeds into the continuous cooking process. • The remaining water content of the blood will be removed as steam (condensate) during the cooking process. The rate of blood processing will depend upon the rate at which blood is received at the site. 3.1.3 Materials Transfer and Size Reduction Raw material will be transferred from the raw materials receival bin to the pre-hog via a transfer screw. The pre-hog is used for size reduction prior to cooking.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 4

3.1.4 High-Temperature Dry-Protein Recovery The high temperature dry protein recovery will take place in a continuous cooker. The cooker heats the material in a steam-jacketed vessel, until most of the water content of the raw material is evaporated. The remaining solid material is transferred through a series of presses, where the tallow is separated from the meat and bone meal. 3.1.5 Tallow Refining Tallow is further refined through a screen, centrifuge prior to final polishing. Tallow is further refined through a screen, centrifuge prior to final polishing. Any sludge generated by the tallow refining is recovered and directed back to the cooker for re-processing. As such, unlike other PRFs, the tallow refining process will not generate wastewater. The refined tallow is then transferred to internal 20 tonne tallow storage tanks. Tallow is then transferred to external tallow storage tanks. The refined tallow can then be transferred to road tankers and transferred off site 3.1.6 Meat and Bone Meal Processing The meat and bone meal from the tallow presses is transferred to a ‘cake’ bin, prior to running through a hammer mill and screen to reduce the particle size. Once the desired particle size is achieved, the meat and bone meal is transferred to the meal storage bin. The meat and bone meal can then be loaded into open top trucks or directly into shipping containers via the adjustable snorkel screw. 3.2 Type B Plant – Feathers & Hair 3.2.1 Materials Receival Feathers will be delivered to the site by trucks. Trucks will unload feathers into in-ground receival bins. It should be noted that there is no drainage infrastructure built into the raw-material receival bins, and all material, including any water from the bins will be processed through the cooker. 3.2.2 Hydrolysis Feather meal is made from poultry feathers by hydrolysing under elevated heat and pressure and then drying and grinding. The pressure hydrolysis process is necessary in order to convert the hard, fibrous proteins called keratin, which is the principal component of feathers and hog hair, into feather meal that contains the amino acids. Hydrolyzation of the feathers, prior to drying, breaks down the protein bonds in the raw material and makes the feather meal more digestible. 3.2.3 Drying The hydrolysed feathers will be transferred to a cooker / dryer to produce feather meal. 3.2.4 Meat and Bone Meal Processing The feather meal will be transferred to a meal bin storage bin ready for loading into open top trucks or directly into shipping containers via the adjustable snorkel screw.\ 3.3 Type C Plant – Poultry and Fish By-product 3.3.1 Materials Receival Raw animal by-products will be delivered to the site by trucks. Trucks will unload raw material into in- ground receival bins. It should be noted that there is no drainage infrastructure built into the raw-

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 5

material receival bins, and all material, including any water from the bins will be processed through the cooker.

3.3.2 Materials Transfer and Size Reduction Raw material will be transferred from the raw materials receival bin to the pre-hog via a transfer screw. The pre-hog is used for size reduction prior to cooking. 3.3.3 Low-Temperature Dry-Protein Recovery The low temperature dry protein recovery will take place in a continuous cooker. The cooker heats the material in a steam-jacketed vessel to separate the liquid (water and oil / fat) from the solid (meat and bone) material. The cooked material is then run through a screen and a series of presses, where the liquid is separated from the solids. 3.3.4 Liquid Processing The press liquid is further refined to separate the oil from the stick water. The oil is then polished prior to being transferee to oil storage tanks. The solids removed during the oil processing are recovered and fed through the disc dryer to recover additional meal. The separated stickwater is further processed through an evaporator to extract recoverable concentrate. The concentrate is fed through the disc dryer to recover additional meal and the remaining water is directed to the wastewater treatment system. Polished oil is the transferred to external tallow storage tanks. The refined oil can then be transferred to road tankers and transferred off site. 3.3.5 Meal Processing The meal from the presses is transferred to a disc dryer to remove residual water content, prior to being cooled and run through a mill and screen to reduce the particle size. Once the desired particle size is achieved, the meal is transferred to the meal storage bin. The meal can then be loaded into open top trucks or directly into shipping containers via the adjustable snorkel screw.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 6

4 Wastewater Streams

Wastewater at the site will be generated from a variety of processes within the PRF. Each wastewater stream will vary in quantity and quality and the approach to the management of each stream may vary. As the wastewater is generated from an organic source it will be highly biodegradable and contain BOD/COD, biodegradable solids and nutrients. 4.1.1 Cooker Condensate (Type A Plant) The cooking vapour will be the primary source of wastewater generation and will be transferred from the cooker to an air-cooled condenser, where the condensate forms. The condensate is typically contaminated with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), organics (oil & grease, biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand), solids and sulphate. 4.1.2 Blood Stickwater (Type A Plant) Blood stickwater is generated during the blood processing. It represents approximately 40% of the water content of the total blood input. Blood stickwater is a high-strength wastewater, typically contaminated with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), organics (oil & grease, biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand), solids and sulphate. 4.1.3 Feather Meal Drying Condensate (Type B Plant) Condensate from feather processing dryers is generated in a similar manner as cooker condenser, during the drying of the hydrolysed feathers. Feather drying condensate is expected to be contaminated with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus, organics and sulphate) consistent with cooker condensate. 4.1.4 Fish Meal Dryer Condensate (Type C Plant) Condensate from Meal processing dryers is generated in a similar manner as cooker condenser, during the drying of the Meal and recovered concentrate and solids. Dryer condensate is expected to be consistent with cooker condensate. 4.1.5 Evaporator Wastewater (Type C Plant) Wastewater from the wastewater processing system in the low-temperature plant is further processed to reduce loads of contaminants in the form of the recovered concentrate. The wastewater is expected to be consistent with cooker condensate. 4.1.6 Wash-down water (All Plants) Wash-down water is generated during plant cleaning activities. Wash-down water will typically carry low levels of contamination, as the protein recovery process is predominantly enclosed, and any product spills will be ‘dry-cleaned’ prior to washing down.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 7

5 Wastewater Quality and Volume

5.1 Wastewater Quality Predicted wastewater quality has been estimated using analytical results form a number of reference PRFs in Australia (Table 5-1). The reference plants have a consistent design with the proposed PRF. Table 5-1: Typical Condensate Water Quality Data

Analyte Unit Result

pH 6.1

EC µS/cm 1330

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/L 1120

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L 2140

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 190

Ammonia/um (as N) mg/L 180

Total Phosphorus mg/L <0.1

Suspended Solids mg/L 46

Chlorine mg/L 23

Calcium mg/L 10

Magnesium mg/L 4.3

Alkalinity (as CA CO3) mg/L 430

Nitrate mg/L 0.62

Nitrite mg/L 0.33

Total Grease mg/L 40

Source: Keith Engineering - reference plant data

Ricardo has also sourced reference data from publicly available reports to verify the likely contaminant loads in each of the wastewater streams. Data was sourced from the Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA, 2014) ‘Effects of rendering / blood processing on abattoir waste and emissions’ report. Data was provided for 5 PRF plants across Australia, processing either beef, sheep or a combination of the two by-products.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 8

Table 5-2: Expected Wastewater Quality Data

Stream Cooker / Dryer Condensate Blood Stickwater

Expected Expected Analyte (concentration - mg/L) Low High Low High (Median) (Median)

Total solids (TS) 150 1,300 220 8,500 62,000 16500

Total dissolved solids (TDS) 20 160 110 6020 6690 6470

Ash 20 280 88.5 4,500 7,000 6500

TS organic 63 1,020 185 4,000 55,300 10950

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) 880 2,100 1500 5,700 90,000 14000

Biochemical oxygen demand BOD 440 1,050 750 2,850 45,000 7000 (COD/2)

Ammonia (NH3 as N) 200 460 340 56 660 140

Organic nitrogen 10 20 10 340 8,190 1260

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 220 470 355 490 8,300 1400

Total phosphorus 0 1 0.073 90 250 145

Oil and grease (O+G) 30 98 46 40 500 40

Source: Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA, 2014) - Effects of rendering / blood processing on abattoir waste and emissions.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 0

5.2 Wastewater Volume The volume of condensate generated by the process is dependent on the water content of the raw material. Estimated water content has been provided by Keith Engineering, and is based on reference plants from within Australia. The estimated wastewater volumes are presented in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Estimated Wastewater Quantity

Cooker / Dryer Condensate Blood-centrifuge Washwater Total

Average Volume Blood Volume Volume Waste / Volume Production wastewater input (5 % Water/ wastewater wastewater Phase Process % Water wastewater (tonnes / hour) (tonnes / kL) tonnes/ Condensate (tonnes / kL) (tonnes / kL) Stream (tonnes / kL) per hour hour) per hour per hour per hour

Beef 13 50.00% 6.5 0 0.25 6.7 Phase 1 Sheep 13 55.00% 7.15 0 0.25 7.35 (assumed) Blood 5 50.00% 2.5 5 35.00% 1.75 4.25

Poultry 12 75.00% 9 0 0.25 9.2

Phase 2 Feathers 3 70.00% 2.1 0 0.25 2.3 (assumed) Fish 5 75.00% 3.75 0 0.25 3.95

Phase 1 31 16.15 1.75 0.5 18.3 Total

Phase 2 20 14.85 0 0.75 15.45 Total

Total 51 31 1.75 1.25 35.00

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 0

5.3 Predicted Wastewater Flow and Load

The predicted wastewater quality of various potential streams on a mass basis is shown in Table 5-4 with the overall predicted wastewater quality of Phase 1 and Phase 1 & 2 shown in Table 5-5. Table 5-4: Predicted Mass Load of Key Parameters

Phase 1 Phase 2

Analyte Unit Beef Sheep Blood Poultry Feathers Fish

COD kg/d 344 377 1430 331 82.8 142

BOD kg/d 180 198 714 166 41.4 71.1

TS kg/d 35.4 38.8 1680 48.6 12.1 20.9

TKN kg/d 75.6 82.9 143 48.6 12.1 20.9

NH3 kg/d 74.0 81.1 14.3 44.2 11.0 19.0

O&G kg/d 6.43 7.06 4.08 6.62 1.66 2.84

Flow m3/d 161 176 102 221 55.2 94.8

Table 5-5: Predicted Concentrations of Key Parameters

Analyte Unit Phase 1 (Combined) Phase 1 & 2 (Combined)

COD mg/L 4890 3220

BOD mg/L 2490 1630

TS mg/L 4000 2190

TKN mg/L 686 456

NH3 mg/L 386 290

O&G mg/L 40 34

Flow m3/d 439 840

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 1

6 Trade Waste Acceptance Criteria

Trade waste acceptance criteria have not yet been confirmed by Western Water, however it is noted that the proposed discharge location, Bacchus Marsh WWTP currently produces Class C recycled water which is irrigated on Western Water owned property adjacent to the WWTP. It does not appear that the Parwan WWTP discharges to the Werribee River and it is likely that the key parameters of concern will be a BOD/COD and nutrient concentration similar to domestic strength wastewater to ensure the plant does not become overloaded. It would be highly unusual for an existing WWTP to have sufficient capacity to process untreated PRF effluent, therefore it has been assumed that at least some form of treatment will be required prior to release to sewer. Estimates of typical domestic wastewater concentrations sourced from Australian Guidelines for Sewerage Systems – Effluent Management are provided in Table 6-1 below: Table 6-1: Typical domestic wastewater quality

Parameter Weak (mg/L) Typical (mg/L) Strong (mg/L)

BOD 100 200 500

Total Suspended Solids 150 200 450

Total Nitrogen 35 50 85

Total Phosphorus 4 10 16

Oil & Grease 50 100 150

e.coli 1 x 106 cfu/100mL 10 x 106 cfu/100mL 100 x 106 cfu/100mL

For the purpose of determining suitable potential wastewater treatment options for the PRF, it has been assumed that treated wastewater will need to be consistent with the ‘typical’ domestic wastewater quality.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 2

7 Reclaimed Water Criteria

Nationally, the use of reclaimed water is managed through the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS). Guidelines for water recycling have been prepared to enable a nationally consistent approach to the management of health and environmental risks from water recycling (NRMMC, 2006). The guidelines include: • A risk management framework; • Managing health risks; • Managing environmental risks; • Monitoring; and

• Consultation and communication. In Victoria, the use of reclaimed water is managed under the EP Act (1970), under which discharges to the environment must be managed so that they do not adversely affect the receiving environment, e.g. land, surface water or groundwater. EPA guideline 464.2 (Use of Reclaimed Water) specifies performance objectives for re-use schemes for reclaimed water. However, alternative measures may be proposed provided it is demonstrated that the alternative measures achieve the required performance objectives. EPA guideline 464.2 applies to the use of reclaimed water from sewage treatment plants, which includes human waste. However, the guidelines state that the principles (performance objectives and suggested measures) may be applied to the reuse of appropriately treated industrial water such as that proposed to be generated at the site. 7.1 Assessment Criteria

Acceptable uses for reclaimed water are summarised in Table 7-1 below: Table 7-1: Acceptable uses of reclaimed water (Table 3, EPA Publication 464.2)

Reuse Minimum Water Irrigation Key Management Controls for use Category Class Method

Withholding period of four hours before pasture use, dry or ensile fodder. Class B (including Washdown water not to be used for milking Unrestricted Irrigation of Helminth reduction) machinery. pasture Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture and fodder or fodder. for dairy animals Withholding period of five days before pasture use, Class C (including dry or ensile fodder. Unrestricted Helminth reduction) Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture or fodder

Irrigation of Withholding period of four hours before pasture use, pasture Class C (including dry or ensile fodder and fodder Unrestricted Helminth reduction) Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture for beef or fodder cattle

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 3

Reuse Minimum Water Irrigation Key Management Controls for use Category Class Method

Irrigation of pasture Withholding period of four hours before pasture use, and fodder Class C (including dry or ensile fodder. Unrestricted for sheep, Helminth reduction) Controls to ensure pigs are not exposed to pasture goats, or fodder horses, etc.

Livestock Washdown water not to be used for milking drinking machinery water or Class B Unrestricted Reclaimed water with a blue green algae bloom not washdown suitable for stock drinking. Pigs not to come into water for contact with reclaimed water dairy sheds

The corresponding standards for biological treatment and pathogen reduction are presented in Table 7-2 below: Table 7-2: Classes of reclaimed water and corresponding standards for biological treatment and pathogen reduction. (Table 1, EPA Publication 464.2)

Water Quality Objectives – Range of Uses – uses include all Class Treatment Processes a medians unless specified1,2 lower class uses

Indicative objectives Tertiary and pathogen 7 < 10 E.coli org/100 mL reduction with sufficient log Urban (non-potable): with reductions to achieve: uncontrolled public access Turbidity < 2 NTU4 <10 E.coli per 100 mL A Agricultural: e.g. human food crops < 10 / 5 mg/L BOD / SS consumed raw <1 helminth per litre pH 6 – 95 Industrial: open systems with worker < 1 protozoa per 50 litres 1 mg/L Cl2 residual (or exposure potential equivalent disinfection)6 < 1 virus per 50 litres

< 100 E.coli org/100 mL Secondary and pathogen Agricultural: e.g. dairy cattle grazing B < 20 / 30 mg/L BOD / SS8 (including helminth reduction for cattle grazing) reduction7 Industrial: e.g. washdown water pH 6 – 95

Urban (non-potable) with controlled public access < 1000 E.coli org/100 mL Secondary and pathogen reduction7 (including helminth Agricultural: e.g. human food crops C < 20 / 30 mg/L BOD / SS8 cooked/processed, grazing/fodder reduction for cattle grazing use for livestock pH 6 – 95 schemes) Industrial: systems with no potential worker exposure

< 10000 E.coli org/100 mL Agricultural: non-food crops D < 20 / 30 mg/L BOD / SS8 Secondary including instant turf, woodlots, flowers pH 6 – 95

Notes 1. Medians to be determined over a 12-month period. Refer table 6 for Notification / reclassification limits. 2. Refer also to Chapter 6 and 7 of EPA Publication 464.2, and Waste Water Irrigation Guideline (EPA Victoria, 1991 Publication 168) for additional guidance on water quality criteria and controls for salts,

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 4

nutrients and toxicants. 3. Refer section 4.4 of EPA Publication 464.2 for further description of water quality objectives for Class A reclaimed water. 4. Turbidity limit is a 24-hour median value measured pre-disinfection. The maximum value is five NTU. 5. pH range is 90th percentile. A higher upper pH limit for lagoon-based systems with algal growth may be appropriate, provided it will not be detrimental to receiving soils and disinfection efficacy is maintained. 6. Chlorine residual limit of greater than one milligram per litre after 30 minutes (or equivalent pathogen reduction level) is suggested where there is a significant risk of human contact or where reclaimed water will be within distribution systems for prolonged periods. A chlorine residual of less than one milligram per litre applies at the point of use. 7. Guidance on pathogen reduction measures and required pre-treatment levels for individual disinfection processes are described in GEM: Disinfection of Reclaimed Water (EPA Victoria, 2003 Publication 730.1). Helminth reduction is either detention in a pondage system for greater than or equal to 30 days, or by an NRE and EPA Victoria approved disinfection system (for example, sand or membrane filtration). 8. Where Class C or D is via treatment lagoons, although design limits of 20 milligrams per litre BOD and 30 milligrams per litre SS apply, only BOD is used for ongoing confirmation of plant performance. A correlation between process performance and BOD / filtered BOD should be established and in the event of an algal bloom, the filtered BOD should be less than 20 milligrams per litre. a. Where schemes pose a significant risk of direct off-site movement of reclaimed water, nutrient reductions to nominally five milligrams per litre total nitrogen and 0.5 milligrams per litre total phosphorous will be required.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 5

8 Treatment Objectives and Options

Wastewater treatment should primarily aim to recover any valuable by-products, particularly fats and proteins which may be returned for reprocessing. Additional processing of the wastewater to convert the waste stream to valuable by-products such as biogas and recycled water should also be considered, as it may be possible to offset natural gas consumption in the boilers as well as supply recycled water. Finally, treatment for compliance with disposal criteria should be the ultimate aim of any treatment scheme. Preliminary treatment of the combined waste stream should consist of physical separation of fat and solids via fine screening as a minimum. However, the proposed protein recovery process produces relatively low concentrations of oil & grease and particulate matter and are unlikely to return significant volumes of product for reprocessing from the cooker condensate streams. It has also been assumed that a screen/DAF combination will not provide suitable effluent quality for sewer discharge, however as these criteria have not yet been determined, this option may remain viable and would be the lowest capital cost option. Bioenergy production via anaerobic conversion of COD to biogas appears to be a viable option, with approximately 300kW of heat energy available, which could be used directly in boilers on site. Anaerobic pre-treatment will also significantly reduce secondary treatment aeration demand and sludge production and may include covered anaerobic lagoons, tank-based digesters and medium/high rate reactors such as anaerobic MBR, AFR or UASB. Treating water to a quality suitable for reuse for certain processes within the PRF should also be considered. This will likely require a high level of tertiary treatment, followed by nanofiltration or reverse osmosis to produce water of suitable quality. Separate treatment of individual streams should be considered, particularly for the blood stickwater stream, as it contributes over 90% of the solids load, half the COD/BOD load and a significant amount of particulate organic nitrogen. Separation of the solid fraction of this stream would significantly reduce the load on the treatment plant and potentially make the anaerobic treatment option unviable. Secondary treatment for nutrient removal can include pond systems or activated sludge systems and could result in large quantities of sludge being produced. Reducing the BOD/COD load onto this system will significantly reduce operating cost and physical size of this process. Advanced nutrient removal processes such as ammonia scrubbing and anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox) have not been considered due to commercial and technical viability. Biosolids recovered from wastewater treatment should be mechanically dewatered to as high a dryness as practical. Pathogens should already be removed via the PRF process, meaning achieving Class A biosolids quality should be possible, allowing minimal restrictions on land application and low disposal costs. The following table (Table 8-1) summarises treatment requirements and technology suitability for achieving the expected water quality parameter requirements described in Section 6. Table 8-1 Treatment Options Assessment

Treatment option Quality achievable Advantages Disadvantages

High capital and operating Onsite treatment to achieve Domestic wastewater Proven robust cost for minimal recovery sewer acceptance criteria – quality; BOD <200 technologies which can of by-products Primary treatment (Fine mg/L, TN <50 mg/L, meet modest treatment screen + DAF) plus TP <10 mg/L, SS High energy cost for requirements secondary treatment (Tank <200 mg/L aeration and highest based activated sludge plant sludge production

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 6

Treatment option Quality achievable Advantages Disadvantages with Biological Nutrient Removal)

Onsite treatment to achieve Energy recovery sewer acceptance criteria – (estimated 300kW heat Domestic wastewater Primary treatment (Fine as biogas) quality; BOD <200 screen + DAF + anaerobic High capital cost and mg/L, TN <50 mg/L, Significantly lower treatment) plus secondary moderate operating cost TP <10 mg/L, SS energy costs treatment (Tank based <200 mg/L activated sludge plant with Significantly lower Biological Nutrient Removal) sludge production

Onsite treatment to Class C quality for land application utilising Western Water or Likely lower disposal other irrigation area. Class C cost than direct to Process configuration as requirements; sewer option. Higher capital and above either with/without BOD<20 mg/L, Not reliant on Western operating cost than anaerobic pre-treatment, SS<30 mg/L, TN <50 Water if an alternative options above. followed by secondary mg/L, TP < 1 mg/L. irrigation area is treatment, followed by available tertiary treatment (e.g. media filtration) for helminth removal

Domestic wastewater Separate treatment of blood quality; BOD <200 stickwater by removing the mg/L, TN <50 mg/L, Smaller secondary Higher process complexity. solid fraction in a dedicated TP <10 mg/L, SS treatment required due Substantially lower energy chemical DAF, crossflow <200 mg/L or to lower COD/BOD, SS recovery ultrafiltration or similar. and TKN load Class C; BOD<20 Substantially higher Secondary treatment plus mg/L, SS<30 mg/L, Possibly lower capital disposal cost of primary optional tertiary treatment as TN <50 mg/L, TP < 1 cost solids option above mg/L (if tertiary treatment is included)

Onsite treatment to quality suitable for reuse in cooling towers. Excellent water quality Highest capital cost option Process configuration as above either with/without Reduced water High operating cost for anaerobic pre-treatment, Class A consumption on site by reverse osmosis process followed by secondary recovering 75% of Brine generation requires treatment, followed by wastewater disposal tertiary treatment including ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 7

9 Treatment technologies and recommendations

9.1 Treatment technologies There are a range of proven technologies to achieve the treatment requirements, regardless of the yet to be agreed sewer discharge requirements. Consideration needs to be made with regard to site layout, odour capture and treatment, truck movements for chemical delivery/biosolids removal and staging of the project prior to making a decision on the preferred process configuration. Consideration should also be given to future development and growth in the Parwan Industrial Precinct (PIP). It has been assumed that an onsite wastewater treatment plant will be required rather than an upgrade (by others) at the existing Bacchus Marsh WWTP which has not been discussed. However, it is acknowledged that this may occur in the future and reconsideration of the on site treatment approach may be required should this take place. 9.1.1 Primary Treatment Fine screening via drum screen, microscreen or similar, to remove coarse particulate matter should be included with every option considered. Anaerobic treatment may be viable depending on cost and complexity under Phase 1 or Phase 1&2 conditions and will generate biogas which can be used to replace natural gas in site boilers. Anaerobic pre-treatment also significantly reduces the variability in load on the downstream secondary treatment process as well as reducing the BOD/COD by over 80%, leading to lower aeration energy and biosolids production. A tank-based digester, either a CSTR or proprietary medium to high rate anaerobic reactor is recommended over a covered anaerobic lagoon due to significantly lower land area requirements and smaller biogas storage volume. 9.1.2 Secondary Treatment It has been assumed that secondary treatment will be required in the form of a biological nutrient removal activated sludge plant to reduce the BOD/COD, suspended solids and nitrogen load on the Bacchus Marsh WWTP or irrigation area. A tank-based activated sludge plant is recommended over a pond-based system, due to significantly lower land area requirements, in addition to lower fugitive odour emissions. 9.1.3 Tertiary Treatment If irrigation or reuse in the cooling towers is considered, additional filtration will be required. For Class C recycled water, media filtration is necessary for Helminth removal. If water was to be recycled for use in cooling towers, additional treatment in the form of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis will be required. 9.2 Recommendations Without final agreement on the required wastewater quality for discharge, making specific recommendations at the time of writing is difficult. Refinement of the estimated capital cost should be further refined via engagement with the market once the discharge quality requirements are understood. In order to meet either typical domestic wastewater quality or Class C reclaimed water quality, the following wastewater treatment system is recommended:

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 8

Figure 9-1: Wastewater treatment system process schematic

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment | 0

10 Conclusions

The proposed PRF is expected to produce moderate to high strength wastewater of variable quality, depending on the plant configuration, production rate and manner of operation. Regardless of the final configuration of the PRF, it has been assumed that wastewater treatment will be required on site or that the nearby Western Water owned treatment plant would require a significant capacity upgrade. Trade waste discharge quality requirements from Western Water were not available at the time of writing, therefore it has been assumed based on previous negotiations with similar water authorities that wastewater similar in strength to domestic quality wastewater will be acceptable for discharge to the Parwan WWTP. Onsite treatment of PRF effluent prior to discharge was selected as the most viable option. Physical screening and capture of particulate matter is recommended to recover loss of product. Following fine screening, a DAF is also recommended, to recover fine particulate and oil and grease which will also improve performance of downstream wastewater treatment processes. Anaerobic pre-treatment of the PRF wastewater is recommended for further investigation, as it will enable energy recovery in the form of biogas, which can be used in the site boilers to offset significant volumes of natural gas. Following anaerobic treatment, secondary treatment in the form of a tank based biological nutrient removal process is recommended, to remove nitrogen to levels acceptable for disposal. Depending on trade waste costs which are yet to be determined by Western Water, as well confirmation of a suitable irrigation area; the final treatment step may also consist of filtration to meet the requirements of Class C water suitable for irrigation.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTOA_Final_29Nov2019.docx Issue Number 1

Level 4, 3 Bowen Crescent Melbourne Victoria 3004 PO Box 33298 Melbourne 3004 Australia t: +61 (0) 3 9978 7823 e: [email protected]

ee.ricardo.com

Wastewater Treatment Proposal Parwan Protein Recovery Facility ______Report for L. & G. Meats

30637.05 | Issue Number 2 | Date 22-Jan-20 Client confidential

Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | ii

Environment and Planning, a trading name of Ricardo- AEA Ltd and has been prepared by Ricardo Energy Author: Environment and Planning under contract to L. & G. Meats Pty Ltd for Parwan – Fee Proposal (EPA Works Will Nunn & David Leinster Approval), dated 12 August 2019. The contents of this Approved By: report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person without the Kathy Mac Innes specific prior written permission of the Commercial Date: Manager at Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning. Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning accepts no 22 January 2020 liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning damage arising from any interpretation or use of the reference: information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expressed therein, other than the liability that is Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP agreed in the said contract. _22Jan2020

Issue History

Issue Date Issued Document Status Number

1 15/11/2019 Draft

2 29/11/2019 Final

3 22/1/2020 Final rev01

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | iii

Table of contents 1 Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Background and Understanding ...... 6 1.2 Purpose and Objective ...... 6 2 Recommended Treatment System ...... 7 2.1 Primary Treatment ...... 7 Pre-screening ...... 7 Buffer Tank ...... 7 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) ...... 7 Anaerobic Treatment ...... 7 2.2 Secondary Treatment ...... 7 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Feed Buffer Tank ...... 7 Sequencing Batch Reactor SBR ...... 7 2.3 Tertiary Treatment ...... 8 Media Filter Buffer Tank ...... 8 Media Filtration ...... 8 2.4 Programmable Logic Control ...... 8 2.5 Demonstrating Best Practice ...... 9 3 Design Basis ...... 10 3.1 Wastewater Quality and Loads ...... 10 3.2 Process Description ...... 10 3.3 Design Calculations ...... 12 Inlet Screen ...... 12 In-Ground Buffer Tank ...... 12 Primary DAF ...... 12 Anaerobic Reactor ...... 12 SBR Feed Buffer Tank ...... 12 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) ...... 12 Final Buffer Tank ...... 12 Media Filter ...... 12 Sludge Dewatering ...... 13 3.4 Location ...... 13 3.5 Odour Emissions and Control ...... 13 Odour Constituents by Plant Area ...... 13 3.5.1.1 Inlet screen, inlet buffer tank and Primary DAF ...... 14

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | iv

3.5.1.2 Anaerobic reactor and enclosed biogas flare ...... 14 3.5.1.3 SBR Feed Buffer Tanks, SBR, Final Buffer Tank ...... 14 3.5.1.4 Sludge dewatering ...... 14 Odour containment and extraction ...... 15 Odour treatment - Bio trickling Filter ...... 15 Odour Source Summary...... 16 4 Water Quality Outcomes ...... 17 5 Ongoing Management and Operation ...... 18 5.1 Land Capability ...... 18 Site Details ...... 18 Site Inspection and Review of Public Information ...... 18 Soil ...... 20 Soil Survey and Analysis ...... 20 5.2 Water Balance ...... 23 Climate Data ...... 23 Rainfall Runoff Factor ...... 23 Crop Coefficient ...... 23 Existing Water Storage Volume ...... 24 Recycled Water Quantity Parameters ...... 25 Available Irrigation Area ...... 27 Water Balance Results ...... 27 5.3 Nutrient Balance ...... 28 Crop Uptake Rate ...... 28 Wastewater Loading ...... 28 Nutrient Balance ...... 28 5.4 Salinity ...... 30 5.5 Irrigation ...... 31 5.6 Sludge management ...... 32 6 Conclusions ...... 33

List of figures Figure 3-1: Wastewater treatment system process schematic ...... 11

List of tables Table 3-1: Predicted Mass Load of Key Parameters ...... 10

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | v

Table 3-2: Predicted Concentrations of Key Parameters ...... 10 Table 3-3: Summary of Design Calculations ...... 13 Table 3-4: Odour Containment and Extraction Schedule ...... 15 Table 3-5: Estimated Odour Emissions Schedule ...... 16 Table 4-1: Estimated Treated Water Quality...... 17 Table 5-1: Site Details ...... 18 Table 5-2: Environmental Setting ...... 18 Table 5-3: Soil Assessment ...... 21 Table 5-4: BOM climate data ...... 23 Table 5-5: Crop Factors – EPA Publication 168 ...... 24 Table 5-6: Adopted Crop Coefficient ...... 24 Table 5-7: Existing Water Storage Volume - Estimate ...... 24 Table 5-8: Western Irrigation Network Offtake Agreement ...... 25 Table 5-9: Wastewater Quantity Summary ...... 26 Table 5-10: Water Balance Results ...... 27 Table 5-11: Crop Uptake Rates ...... 28 Table 5-12: Nutrient Balance Results ...... 28 Table 6-9: Salinity Risk Analysis ...... 30

Appendix A Figures Appendix B Treatment Systems Appendix C Soil Bores Appendix D Lab Data Appendix E Water Balance Appendix F Nutrient Balance

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 6

1 Introduction

Ricardo Energy Environment and Planning Pty Ltd (Ricardo) has been engaged by L. & G. Meats Pty Ltd (L&G Meats) to prepare a Works Approval Application for the construction of a Protein Recovery Facility (PRF) at 3922 Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road, Parwan, Victoria (the site). 1.1 Background and Understanding The proposed PRF will generate wastewater from materials processing and washing down of the plant. The majority of wastewater from the PRF will be from condensate, as the raw-material is heated to separate the tallow and meal. The proposed protein recovery process utilises steam to heat the raw material. During heating, the water content of the raw material is boiled off, fat is rendered out and meat and bone meal solids separated. The cooking vapour is then transported to a condenser to be cooled back into liquid (condensate). The condensate is typically contaminated with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous), organics (oil & grease, biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand) and sulphate. Ricardo previously undertook a Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment (WWTOA), which identified the preferred wastewater treatment system (WTS) for the PRF. It is preferred that wastewater is discharged to Western Water’s Bacchus Marsh treatment plant under a trade waste agreement. However, at the time of writing the WWTOA, Western Water had not provided L&G Meats with trade waste discharge limits or a draft trade waste agreement. In order to progress the Works Approval Application, it was decided that the wastewater treatment system should be designed to achieve suitable water quality for irrigation on neighbouring land owned by L & G Meats business partners. Since the completion of the WWTOA, Western Water has confirmed that there is currently limited capacity to accept wastewater at the Bacchus Marsh Treatment Plant. As such the WTS needs to be capable of producing Class C reclaimed water, as defined in EPA Victoria Publication 464.2 (Use of Reclaimed Water). There were a range of proven technologies available to achieve the treatment requirements. In determining the most appropriate system for the PRF, consideration was also made with regard to site layout, odour capture & treatment, truck movements for chemical delivery/sludge removal and staging of the project. Consideration was also given to future development and growth in the Parwan Industrial Precinct (PIP). The level of treatment on Site may vary following further discussions with Western Water in the future, as it is understood that Western Water are planning an expansion in the capacity of the Bacchus Marsh Treatment Plant. 1.2 Purpose and Objective The purpose of this Wastewater Treatment Proposal is to prepare a concept design of a wastewater treatment system (WTS) and to demonstrate that recycled water can be applied to land owned by L & Meats’ business partners. The objectives of the report are to:

• Design a wastewater treatment system capable of treating PRF wastewater to Class C recycled water quality. • Undertake a land capability assessment to determine whether all treated wastewater from the PRF can be sustainably managed at the site and surrounding land owned by L & G Meats business partners.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 7

2 Recommended Treatment System

The recommended treatment system and associated steps are presented in the sections below: 2.1 Primary Treatment Pre-screening The first stage of the primary treatment will consist of fine screening via an aboveground rotary drum screen, to remove and recover coarse particulate matter for reprocessing. The solids recovered from the inlet screen will be collected and reprocessed through the PRF. Buffer Tank The screened wastewater will gravity feed to an in-ground concrete buffer tank. The buffer tank will smooth out peak and low flow and load during PRF operations. By balancing the flow into the Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF), the operation can be optimised for the design treatment capacity. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) The second stage of the primary treatment system will consist of a DAF, through which further recovery of solids, oil & grease and total nitrogen will occur. It is intended to reprocess recovered solids from the DAF through the PRF. Anaerobic Treatment The final stage of the primary treatment will consist anaerobic treatment through an anaerobic reactor to generate biogas which can be used to supplement natural gas in site boilers. Anaerobic pre- treatment also significantly reduces the variability in load on the downstream secondary treatment process as well as reducing the BOD/COD by over 80%, leading to lower aeration energy and sludge production. A tank-based digester, either a continuous stirred tank reactor CSTR or proprietary medium to high rate anaerobic reactor was recommended over a covered anaerobic lagoon due to significantly lower land area requirements, smaller biogas storage volume and lower risk of fugitive emissions. 2.2 Secondary Treatment Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Feed Buffer Tank The SBR Feed Buffer Tank is required to balance flows into the SBR for each batch process. The SBR Feed Buffer Tank will be an above-ground panel tank construction. Sequencing Batch Reactor SBR Secondary treatment is required in the form of a biological nutrient removal activated sludge plant to reduce the BOD/COD, suspended solids and nitrogen load on the proposed irrigation area and meet the requirements of Class C reclaimed water as a minimum. A tank-based SBR was recommended over a pond-based system, due to significantly lower land area requirements, in addition to lower fugitive odour emissions. The SBR process is a non-steady state activated sludge process in which the single reactor is filled with wastewater over a discrete time period, and then operated in a batch treatment mode. The single SBR process consists of five discrete periods, Fill, React, Settle, Decant, and Idle. During the anoxic fill phase, anaerobic influent is distributed through the settled sludge and biodegradation is initiated. The influent flow is then terminated and aeration and mixing continue in the full reactor until biodegradation is complete. During the settle phase, the aeration and mixing are off and the biomass allowed to settle leaving the treated supernatant above. The treated supernatant

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 8 is then removed by the floating decanter. Settled solids can be removed from the SBR during the idle phase, prior to recommencing the next batch. 2.3 Tertiary Treatment Media Filter Buffer Tank The media filter buffer tank will balance flow through the media filtration system to ensure the design flow rate is consistently achieved, smoothing the peak and low discharges from the SBR. A consistent flow rate into the media filtration system will help to ensure consistent performance and the required treated water quality is achieved. Media Filtration Additional filtration is required for helminth removal prior to irrigation of the Class C recycled water. Media filtration removes the need for a minimum 30-day retention time in pondage systems. Further treatment would allow treated wastewater to be recycled for use in cooling towers, however given the proposed capture and use of rooftop-won rainwater, additional treatment was not considered necessary. 2.4 Programmable Logic Control The wastewater treatment system will be operated from a dedicated Operations Building using a process logic control (PLC) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. The SCADA system will provide centralised and remote monitoring and control of each aspect of the WTS. The following key parameters and aspects of the WTS will be monitored: • Water level in each of the buffer tanks and reactors. • Differential pressure across the media filtration vessels. • Gas pressure within the Anaerobic Reactor. • Bio-trickling odour filter fan operation. • Pressure and flow monitoring for the DAF system. • Anaerobic rector fan operation. • Monitoring of all SBR equipment including pumps and air pressures. Each stage of the treatment system will be interlocked, to ensure there is no loss of wastewater due to overflowing from tanks or reactors. The system will also alert both site operators and off site monitors in the event of upset operations of failure of a pump, fan or other component of the system. The remote monitoring and control will allow system changes to be implemented by the designer, to ensure ease of use and consistent system optimisation, reducing the need for frequent site inspections to monitor performance. Spare parts for pumps and fans will be retained on site to facilitate rapid repair of components. In the event that the WTS becomes disabled for a prolonged period of time and cannot be repaired, the PRF will be shut-down, to ensure no additional wastewater is generated.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 9

2.5 Demonstrating Best Practice The above described WTS is considered to represent industry best-practice in wastewater treatment for a PRF. The proposed system reduces environmental risk and optimises environmental outcomes by: • Enhancing recovery of solids, which can be reprocessed through the PRF to increase recovery of saleable product. • Ensuring wastewater will meet the requirements of Class C reclaimed water, and reduce the nutrient load in wastewater, preventing excessive nutrient application rates to irrigation areas. • Allowing beneficial reuse of wastewater through irrigation of crops on neighbouring farmland. • Utilising a tank-based system, with a relatively small operational footprint compared to a lagoon- based system. This reduces fugitive air emissions and mitigates potential odour and amenity issues at the PRF. The use of tank-based systems over lagoon systems also reduces the likelihood of leakage from poorly constructed lagoon liner systems in the future. • Facilitates the recovery of biogas, which can be used to supplement the natural gas supply to the PRF’s steam boiler systems, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • Remotely monitoring and controlling via the PLC and SCADA system will allow system changes to be implemented by the designer, to ensure ease of use and consistent system optimisation, reducing the need for frequent site inspections to monitor performance.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 10

3 Design Basis

3.1 Wastewater Quality and Loads Wastewater mass loads and quality utilised to inform the design calculations for the WTS are provided in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. Detailed water quality and load calculations are provided in Section 5 of the Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment.

Table 3-1: Predicted Mass Load of Key Parameters

Analyte Unit Phase 1 Phase 2 Total

Beef Sheep Blood Poultry Feathers Fish

TDS kg/d 17.82 19.536 278.34 11.22 24.42 6.204 357.54

COD kg/d 344 377 716 331 82.8 142 2004

BOD kg/d 180 198 361 166 41.4 71.1 1022

TS kg/d 35.4 38.8 696 48.6 12.1 20.9 853

TKN kg/d 75.6 82.9 70.2 48.6 12.1 20.9 312

NH3 kg/d 74.0 81.1 16.7 44.2 11.0 19.0 248

O&G kg/d 6.43 7.06 4.08 6.62 1.66 2.84 28.9

Flow m3/d 161 176 102 221 55.2 94.8 816

Table 3-2: Predicted Concentrations of Key Parameters

Analyte Unit Phase 1 (Combined) Phase 1 & 2 (Combined)

TDS mg/L 715 438

COD mg/L 3268 2457

BOD mg/L 1679 1253

TS mg/L 1745 1045

TKN mg/L 520 383

NH3 mg/L 392 304

O&G mg/L 40 35

Flow m3/d 442 816

3.2 Process Description

A wastewater treatment process schematic plan is provided in Figure 3-1.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 11

Figure 3-1: Wastewater treatment system process schematic

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 12

3.3 Design Calculations Inlet Screen The inlet screen will consist of a 1mm wedgewire trommel-style or drum-style inlet screen. The screen will have a capacity of 20L/s, which is based on the average flow rate of 10L/sec with a design safety factor of 2 to account for peak flows. In-Ground Buffer Tank The in-ground buffer tank is proposed to be constructed of concrete, and will act as a balancing tank to ensure consistent flows into the primary DAF. The tank will have a capacity of 200m3 which is designed based on an approximate hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 6 hours. Primary DAF The primary DAF will be a rectangular counterflow unit with a capacity of 40m3. The design basis for the DAF is to accommodate peak wastewater flow of 35m3/hr. Anaerobic Reactor The Anaerobic Reactor will be a tank-based system fitted with a double membrane roof to contain and store the produced biogas prior to use. The tank will have a capacity of approximately 1100m3, which is based on a conservative design loading rate of <2kg COD per m3 per day. The exact reactor configuration is to be determined after further consultation with the market and may be able to be made smaller. SBR Feed Buffer Tank The second buffer tank will consist of a panel tank, and will act as a balancing tank between the anaerobic reactor and the sequencing batch reactor (SBR). The tank will have a capacity of 400m3, which is based on an approximate 12hr HRT. Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) The sequencing batch reactor will consist of a single tank SBR system. The single tank SBR system will have a minimum capacity of 600m3, which is based on a 12-hour solids retention time (SRT), assuming an 80% reduction in COD in the anaerobic reactor. Final Buffer Tank The third buffer tank will consist of a panel tank, and will act as a balancing tank between the SBR and the media filters. The tank will have a capacity of 200m3 which is designed based on an approximate hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 6 hours. Media Filter The media filter is proposed to be constructed using 4 x 1m3 filter vessels. The media filtration unit has been sized to allow a filtration rate of 10m/hr. The proposed method of media filtration is an EPA Victoria approved disinfection system for helminth removal. It is proposed to use a recycled glass media in place of traditional sand media within each filter vessel. The use of glass media reduces the risk of biofouling, which reduces the amount of backwashing required. Glass media also has a significantly longer design life than conventional sand media, meaning longer intervals between replacement of the media which results in less waste production over the life of the plant. The final configuration of the media within the filter vessels is subject to detailed design, however will likely consist of multiple grades of media within each vessel for optimal filtration efficiency.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 13

Sludge Dewatering Sludge collected from the Anaerobic Reactor and SBR will be dewatered through a belt/screw press and stored in a sludge bin / truck, prior to being transported off Site for land application.

Table 3-3: Summary of Design Calculations

Treatment Unit Description Volume Footprint Design Basis Trommel style, 1mm Inlet screen N.A. 3m x 3m Peak flowrate 20l/s wedgewire In-ground buffer 6 hour hydraulic retention time Concrete in ground 200m3 8m diameter tank (HRT) Rectangular Primary DAF 40m3 3m x 7m Peak flow, mass load counterflow DAF In tank reactor with Anaerobic Load Loading rate <2kg double membrane 1100m3 16m diameter reactor COD/m3/day roof 12hr HRT to enable feed over Buffer tank Panel tank 400m3 9m diameter weekend Sequencing 15d SRT assuming 80% COD Single tank SBR 600m3 12m diameter Batch Reactor reduction in anaerobic reactor Buffer tank Panel tank 200m3 8m diameter 6hr HRT Media filter (if 4 x media filters each 4m3 4m x 8m 10m/h filtration rate required) 1m D Small dewatering Belt/screw press 2T/d 2m x 6m 15% dryness assumed. press Biogas flare, including Small emergency flare (enclosed Biogas flare 3m diameter exclusion zone type) Odour control Biological trickling Venting head space of buffer tanks 3,500m3/h 3m x 6m system filter only and dewatering 3.4 Location

The WTS is proposed to be located in the north western portion of the PRF, Figure A1. 3.5 Odour Emissions and Control Odour refers to the aggregate effect of a mixture of gases on the sense of smell. Emissions are generated during the incomplete anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in rendering plant wastewater and biosolids handling. AS 4323.3 ‘Stationary source emissions—Part 3: Determination of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry’ (Standards Australia 2001) specifies the odour unit (OU) to report odour concentration. Odour concentration is measured by determining the dilution factor required to reach the detection threshold (the dilution at which the sample has a probability of 0.5 of being perceived). The odour concentration at the detection threshold is defined as 1 OU. Once the total odour emission inventory is known, the setback distance can be determined using dispersion modelling, which can be used to determine the intensity and frequency of odours at specified locations around a source using local geographical and weather data. Odour Constituents by Plant Area Odour emitting sources around the proposed wastewater treatment plant include primary treatment systems, balance tanks, sludge dewatering and storage and small emissions during aerobic treatment. The expected constituents of the gas streams that contribute to odour are detailed below. The concentrations of each constituent will vary seasonally, daily and hourly due to changes in wastewater flow, composition or production schedule and are best estimates only.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 14

3.5.1.1 Inlet screen, inlet buffer tank and Primary DAF The main odour constituents include; • Hydrogen sulphide gas (odour threshold 0.008ppm, rotten egg odour): generated by anaerobic conditions and reduction of sulphates in the wastewater. The concentration of gas will vary seasonally due to variance in temperature and daily due to wastewater flow and load changes. Increasing temperatures and decreasing wastewater flows will result in elevated concentrations. Expected concentrations (in covered tanks) are expected to be from 10 to 50ppm. • Methyl mercaptan (odour threshold 0.14-0.18ppb, decayed cabbage / garlic odour): generated via anaerobic breakdown of protein in wastewater. Expected concentrations of 0.5 to 1 ppm under odour containment covers. • Dimethyl sulphide (odour threshold 012-0.4ppb, decayed vegetables / Putrefaction): also generated via anaerobic breakdown of protein in wastewater. Expected concentrations of 0.5 to 1 ppm under odour containment covers. • Ammonia (odour threshold 130ppb, sharp pungent odour): associated with breakdown of organic nitrogen, particularly from the blood stream. Expected concentrations of 5 to 50 ppm under odour containment covers, reducing when blood stream composition decreases. • Volatile Organic Compounds – VOCs (Odour threshold from 1ppb to 100’s ppm and varying odour type depending upon species). Compounds vary but generally include aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, and alcohols. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are also usually present. 3.5.1.2 Anaerobic reactor and enclosed biogas flare The main odour constituents include; • Hydrogen sulphide gas (odour threshold 0.008ppm, rotten egg odour): generated by anaerobic conditions and reduction of sulphates in the wastewater. Hydrogen sulphide will be a component of the biogas produced in the anaerobic reactor at expected concentration of 1,000 to 2,000ppm. As this reactor is fully enclosed, with biogas sent to site boilers or enclosed flare for combustion (>99.9% destruction), this does not contribute to odour generation at the WWTP. • Ammonia (odour threshold 130ppb, sharp pungent odour): associated with breakdown of organic nitrogen, particularly from the blood stream. Expected concentrations of 5 to 50 ppm in the biogas, which will be fully oxidised during combustion (>99.9% destruction) and does not contribute to odour generation at the WWTP. • Volatile Organic Compounds – VOCs (Odour threshold from 1ppb to 100’s ppm and varying odour type depending upon species). VOCs will be fully oxidised during combustion (>99.9% destruction) and do not contribute to odour generation at the WWTP. 3.5.1.3 SBR Feed Buffer Tanks, SBR, Final Buffer Tank The main odour constituents include;

• Hydrogen sulphide gas (odour threshold 0.008ppm, rotten egg odour): Dissolved sulphide will remain in anaerobic reactor effluent at expected concentration of 100ppm. Upon aeration, this will generally be below 0.1ppm due to rapid oxidation in the SBR. • Methyl mercaptans, dimethyl sulphide, VOCs and ammonia are generally below detection in the SBR due to rapid oxidation. 3.5.1.4 Sludge dewatering The main odour constituents are generated in the dewatering and storage of sludge.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 15

• Hydrogen sulphide gas (odour threshold 0.008ppm, rotten egg odour): concentration in storage generally in the 1 to 10ppm range depending upon storage duration. • Methyl mercaptan (odour threshold 0.14-0.18ppb, decayed cabbage / garlic odour): concentration in storage generally in the 5 to 20ppm range depending upon storage duration. • Dimethyl Sulphide (odour threshold 012-0.4ppb, decayed vegetables / Putrefaction): concentration in storage generally in the 1 to 10ppm range depending upon storage duration. • Ammonia (odour threshold 130ppb, sharp pungent odour): Generally not seen in aerobic sludge. • Volatile Organic Compounds – VOCs (Odour threshold from 1ppb to 100’s ppm and varying odour type depending upon species). Generally in the 1 to 5ppm range. Odour containment and extraction From the analysis conducted above, odour covers which are ducted and connected via forced extraction to an odour control system are recommended for the Inlet screen (including screenings bin), inlet buffer tank and primary DAF. The anaerobic reactor already has a gas tight cover for capture of produced biogas so does not require additional odour control. The SBR Feed buffer tank will be covered and connected to the odour control system due to high dissolved sulphide levels from the anaerobic digestion process. Tanks which require covers and odour extraction to ensure good odour capture is shown in the table below. To ensure good odour capture and prevent fugitive emissions from covers, an estimate on the number of air changes per hour required was made.

Table 3-4: Odour Containment and Extraction Schedule

Tank/Plant Air changes Air extraction Description Air Volume (m3) Area p/h. flowrate (Nm3/hr) Trommel style including Inlet screen 12 6 72 washpactor and bin In-ground buffer Concrete in ground (at 100 6 600 tank half full condition) Covered rectangular Primary DAF 6 6 36 counterflow DAF SBR Feed Panel tank 400 6 2400 Buffer tank Belt/screw press Small dewatering press 30 12 360 TOTAL 3468 Odour treatment - Bio trickling Filter The main method of odour treatment proposed for air extracted from the WWTP is a bio trickling filter, with stack discharge. The proposed bio trickling filter design will comprise the following elements:

• Point source air extraction volumes approximately 3,500 m3/hour. • Approximate bio trickling filter dimensions 3m x 6m, with the stack at 15m above ground level. • Design biofilter emission odour concentration 200 OU with actual emission odour concentration expected to be lower than this. • Detailed biofilter design will be the responsibility of the contractor to meet performance obligations of 200 OU. The proposed dimensions and location of the biotrickling filter is shown in the plant layout drawing. The proposed biotrickling filter location is approximate and may change during detailed design.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 16

Odour Source Summary The following table summarises the revised odour emission rate estimates for each of the process units in the proposed wastewater treatment plant, after correcting for the odour extraction and treatment system. It is noted that more conservative odour emissions have been utilised for the Odour Impact Assessment Study completed by The Odour Unit (TOU) (Appendix H of the Works Approval application).

Table 3-5: Estimated Odour Emissions Schedule

Surface Release Assumed Covered/ Capture SOER for modelling OER Source Description SOER Ref. Area (m2) Height (m) SOER (OU/s) Extracted (Y/N) rate (OU/m2/s) (OU.m3/s) Inlet screen 8 2 4 Y 95% 0.2 1.6 1 In-ground buffer tank 64 0.2 4 Y 99% 0.04 2.56 2 Primary DAF 14 2.5 10 Y 99% 0.1 1.4 2 Anaerobic Reactor 200 7 N.A. Y – covered only 100% N.A. - 2 SBR Feed Buffer tank 80 5 10 N 99% 0.1 8 2 SBR 140 5 0.2 N 0% 0.2 28 1 Final Buffer Tank 80 5 0.1 N 0% 0.1 8 1 Sludge Dewatering 10 2 10 Y 95% 0.5 5 1 Biogas flare - 4 - N 0% N.A. - - BTF flowrate (3500 N.A. (Point Nm3/h) x Odour Odour control unit 15 N.A. N 0% N.A. 194 source) concentration (200 OU) Notes: 1. Frechen et al. (2004) 2. APMC/MLA PRENV.035 (2004)

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 17

4 Water Quality Outcomes

The estimated wastewater quality following treatment in the proposed WTS is detailed in Table 4-1 below. Table 4-1: Estimated Treated Water Quality

Parameter Expected Concentration

TDS ~ 500 mg/L

BOD < 20 mg/L

SS < 30 mg/L

Total Nitrogen < 50 mg/L

Total Phosphorus < 1 mg/L

e.coli < 1000 cfu/100mL

pH 6 – 8

The treated water will meet the key quality objectives and thresholds for Class C reclaimed water, in accordance with EPA Publication 464.2 (Use of Reclaimed Water).

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 18

5 Ongoing Management and Operation

5.1 Land Capability In order to determine the irrigation management requirements for the PRF, a land capability assessment (LCA) has been completed in the sections below. The objectives of the LCA are to: • Determine the required capacity of winter storage through the completion of a water balance based on projected future wastewater generation at the Site. • Identify areas of the proposed irrigation area suitable for land application / irrigation of treated wastewater. The LCA included a review of desktop based information and intrusive soil sampling across the proposed irrigation area. Site Details The proposed irrigation area details are provided in Table 5-1 below: Table 5-1: Site Details

Item Description

Site Address 3684 Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road, Parwan 3340

Owner Faili Family, Partner’s in L&G Meats

Council Area Moorabool Shire Council

Farming Zone (FZ). The planning map is provided in Appendix A of the Works Approval Zoning Application.

Irrigation Area The total existing and proposed irrigation area is 326.7 ha

Site Inspection and Review of Public Information The findings of a site inspection and desktop review of publicly available information are provided in Table 5-2. Table 5-2: Environmental Setting

Level of Mitigation Item Description Constraint Measures

All relevant buffer distances in Section 7.1.2 of EPA Publication 464.2, Use of Reclaimed Water (EPA, 2003) are achievable from the existing and proposed irrigation Buffer area. Minor Not required Distances It is noted that the buffer distances for Class C and D reclaimed water is 100m from the edge of the wetted surface to the nearest sensitive development and 50m from the nearest surface water body.

Climate data was accessed through the Bureau of Climate Meteorology (BoM) Balliang East Reservoir climate Minor Not required station (No. 087008) online climate data website.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 19

Level of Mitigation Item Description Constraint Measures

Average annual rainfall is 736.9 mm and the maximum average monthly rainfall occurs in October (50.4 mm) whilst the minimum average monthly rainfall occurs in March, (30.6 mm).

Evaporation data was accessed through the BoM Laverton climate station (No. 087 031) average pan evaporation is 1579.3 mm.

There were no visible signs of surface dampness, spring Drainage activity or hydrophilic vegetation in the current and Minor Not required proposed irrigation area.

No evidence of sheet / rill erosion or landslip was Erosion and evident. The gradient of the existing and proposed Minor Not required Landslip irrigation areas is <5%. As such, the risk of erosion and landslip is low.

The existing and proposed irrigation areas slope gently Exposure & from east to west, and currently have no established Minor Not required Aspect vegetation. Therefore, the exposure is considered to be unimpeded.

The proposed irrigation areas are located above the Flooding Minor Not required 1:100 year flood level.

A review of the Visualising Victoria’s Groundwater Groundwater (VVG) website shows the groundwater table occurs at a Minor Not required depth of approximately 5-10m below ground.

There was no imported fill observed in the proposed Imported Fill Nil Not required irrigation areas.

Land The existing and proposed irrigation area to the south of Available for Minor Not required the PRD is approximately 75 ha in size. Irrigation

The processing area sits on a gently sloping parcel of Landform land, which gently slopes to the north-northwest towards Minor Not required Bingham’s Swamp.

Rock There was no evidence of surface rocks or rocky Nil Not required Outcrops outcrops in the existing and proposed irrigation areas

Stormwater may There is likely to be limited stormwater run-on for need to be diverted Run-on & existing and proposed irrigation areas from the Minor on the up-gradient Runoff properties to the east. side of the irrigation areas.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 20

Level of Mitigation Item Description Constraint Measures

The existing and proposed irrigation areas have a slope Slope Minor Not required of <5%.

Irrigation to be There is one localised depression within the proposed Surface restricted during irrigation area which accumulates surface water Minor Waters periods of wet occasionally. weather.

The vegetation in the proposed irrigation areas will be Vegetation Nil Not required various crops for the production of stockfeed.

Notes: NN – not needed Soil A review of the Geological Survey of Victoria 1:50 000 You Yangs Mapsheet, the existing and proposed irrigation areas are underlain by Quaternary Aged Newer Volcanics basalts. A review of Agriculture Victoria Victorian Resources Online – Port Phillip and Westernport describe soils development on Newer Volcanics basalt as follows: Dark brown and reddish brown texture-contrast soils - on plains These soils generally occur on gently undulating plains in the Werribee Plains region, consistent with the irrigation area setting. Surface soils are generally shallow (10 cm or less) and are reasonably friable dark brown to dark greyish brown silty or fine sandy clay loams, to light clays. Basalt stones and boulders may be present at the surface. The subsoils are generally dark brown, dark reddish brown or dark greyish brown medium to heavy clays that are sodic and moderately to strongly alkaline. With depth, the soils become paler in colour and often have pale yellowish grey and yellowish brown mottles. Soft calcium carbonate (lime) concretions generally occur at about 50 - 80 cm depth. Small fragments of weathered basalt to stones of variable size generally occur before 1 metre depth. These soils are mainly classified as Red Sodosols using the Australian Soil Classification. Red Sodosols can be difficult manage as they have hard, dense subsoils, with a high clay content. However, managed effectively, they are highly productive soils, and can support dryland cropping, irrigated vegetable production, pasture and orchards. The subsoil, and often the topsoil, is potentially dispersive and the range of soil water content which is conducive to root growth is limited due to poor aeration when wet and high soil strength when dry. Soil Survey and Analysis A soil sampling survey was carried out at the proposed irrigation site to determine the suitability for application of recycled water. Soil Investigations were conducted at twelve locations (BH01-12) in November 2019, (Figure A2), using a hand auger, to a maximum depth of 0.8 m bgl. This was sufficient to adequately characterise the various soil types expected at the site. One soil profile type was identified in the investigation across the proposed irrigation areas. A detailed description of the soils is provided in bore logs, Appendix C of Appendix E - WWTP. Up to 10% orange / red mottling was observed at a depth of 0.2m at BH06 and 0.35m at BH08, indicating seasonal water logging may occur, which could limit percolation of treated water through the A2 and B horizon (sub soil).

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 21

Samples of all soil types from multiple locations were collected for Emerson Aggregate Testing, and previous laboratory analytical results for soils within existing irrigation areas (S01, S02 and S03) was provided by L & G Meats (Appendix D of Appendix E - WWTP). The soil constraints for each of the encountered soil types are described in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Soil Assessment

Level of Item Description Mitigation Measures Constraint

CEC of topsoil was found to range between Cation 16 and 22.6 meq/100g. Exchange Calcium to magnesium ratio was found to Minor NN Capacity be low, and ranged between 1.49 to 1.86 (CEC) and exchangeable calcium was >7meq/100g.

Topsoils from BH01, BH02, BH03, BH04, BH05, & BH06 were found to be slaking and non-dispersive. These soils were found no contain carbonate or gypsum and Minor completely flocculated within 5 minutes of a There are no specific controls 1:5 soil:water shake test. As such these required for Class 4, 6 or 7 soils. topsoils are Emerson Class 6. Further, it is noted that Emerson Aggregate testing was Topsoils from BH07, BH08, BH09, BH10, conducted using de-ionised BH11 and BH12 were found to be non Minor water. The level of reactivity to slaking, however swelling was observed. As recycled water is expected to be such these topsoils are Emerson Class 7. Emerson lower than the observations Subsoils from BH03, BH04, BH07, BH08, Aggregate made using deionised water. BH10 and BH12, were found to be slaking Class and non-dispersive. They were also found Minor to contain carbonates or gypsum, and as such are Emerson Class 4

Subsoils from BH05, BH06, BH08 and BH11 were found to be slaking with some dispersion. As such they are classified as Irrigation must be managed as Emerson Class 2. This is likely due to Moderate to avoid saturation of the sub- relatively high sodicity, which could be soil. ameliorated through application of gypsum. Further advice from a soil agronomist is advised.

Topsoil is slightly acidic, Topsoil pH (CaCl2) ranged between 5.59 pH Minor however suitable for Lucerne and 6.29. and pasture growth.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 22

Level of Item Description Mitigation Measures Constraint

Cycling of irrigation with soaking Topsoil electrical conductivity ranged rains may be required to between 0.215-0.236 dS/cm. Which is EC Moderate manage EC where TDS of higher than optimal conditions for plant recycled water exceeds growth. 1000mg/L.

Rock No surficial coarse fragments were Minor NN Fragments observed during the soil assessment.

ESP is high across the existing irrigation area. Cycling of Sodicity Exchangeable sodium percentage of the Moderate irrigation with soaking rains (ESP) topsoil ranged between 5.7 - 8.8. required to manage sodium levels in soil.

Exchangeable sodium concentrations are generally lower than exchangeable calcium Sodium and magnesium concentrations. The SAR Absorption is generally low (<1) and is not expected to Nil NN Ratio (SAR) pose a constraint. Ongoing monitoring of topsoil is recommended to ensure irrigation of wastewater does not cause degradation.

Topsoil: approximately 0.1-0.2m Minor

There is a risk of hardpan development as a result of Soil Depth Subsoil: >0.2m. Total soil depth greater than repeated saturation of the sub- Minor 0.9m and no hardpans occur. soil. Irrigation must be managed to prevent saturation of the subsoil.

Topsoil: moderately structured clay loam/ loam: 0.5-1.5 m/day saturated conductivity Minor NN Soil Texture (Ksat) (Table 5.1, AS/NZS 1547:2013). & Subsoil: moderately to well structured light Irrigation must be managed to Permeability clay: 0.06 m/day saturated conductivity (Ksat) Moderate prevent saturation of the sub- (Table 5.1, AS/NZS 1547:2013). soil.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 23

5.2 Water Balance Climate Data Climate data for the region was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology for Balliang East (087008) and Laverton RAAF (087031) climate stations online database (BOM). Monthly rainfall and evaporation data are presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-4: BOM climate data

Mean Median 90th % monthly Calculated 90th % Mean monthly Month rainfall#1 rainfall#1 rainfall#1 monthly rainfall #1,3 evaporation#2

mm mm mm mm mm July 36.7 28.5 73 65.2 192.2 August 39 26.2 93.6 56.7 159.6 September 30.6 23.5 67.3 51.5 130.2 October 38.1 31.6 76.6 63.7 81 November 37.9 36.5 68.3 66.5 55.8 December 33.9 31.4 60.5 67.1 42 January 34.6 30.3 62.9 75.6 49.6 February 40.4 37.9 62.8 79.6 68.2 March 43.6 38 72.6 84.7 84 April 50.4 48.3 89.1 93.2 117.8 May 49.5 42.6 96.4 84.8 135 June 43.2 37.1 79.2 80.5 170.5 Annual 736.9 472.6 641.5 869.1 1285.9 Notes: 1. Rainfall data from Balliang East climate station, no. 087008 2. Evaporation data from Laverton RAAF climate station, no. 087031 3. Calculated 90th % rainfall = (90th % annual rainfall) x (median monthly rainfall/median annual rainfall) Rainfall Runoff Factor The rainfall runoff factor is the proportion of rainfall which remains onsite and infiltrates, allowing for any runoff. A rainfall runoff factor of 0.7 has been adopted for the purpose of this water balance, in accordance with EPA Publication 168. Crop Coefficient The crop factor reflects the difference in evapotranspiration rates across different times of year for different plant species. It has been assumed that 50% of the irrigation area will be used for the production of Lucerne, whilst the balance (50%) of the irrigation area will be used for pasture production. The default crop factor values (Table 5-5) for pasture have been adopted from EPA Publication 168 for the purpose of estimating evapotranspiration. The calculated crop-coefficient is provided in Table 5-6.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 24

Table 5-5: Crop Factors – EPA Publication 168

Crop Factors Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Pasture 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.7 0.7 Lucerne 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1 Eucalypts (1 year old) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Eucalypts (2 years 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 old) Eucalypts (>4 years 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 old) Vineyard (no crop 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.4 0.55 0.6 cover) Vineyard (50% cover 0.65 0.65 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.65 0.65 crop - pasture) Citrus (no crop cover) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Deciduous Orchard 0.75 0.65 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.75 (no crop cover Based on the proposed cropping regime, the following crop factors have been derived and adopted for the water balance calculations.

Table 5-6: Adopted Crop Coefficient

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Pasture (50%) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.225 0.2 0.225 0.275 0.325 0.35 0.35 Lucerne (50%) 0.475 0.45 0.425 0.4 0.35 0.275 0.275 0.325 0.375 0.425 0.475 0.5 Calculated 0.825 0.8 0.775 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.475 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.825 0.85 Existing Water Storage Volume Partners in L&G Meats own an existing storage dam to the north-east of the PRF, Figure A3 Appendix A of Appendix E - WWTP. It is proposed to utilise the existing storage dam for winter storage during non-irrigation periods. The capacity of the existing storage dam was estimated using geospatial data and aerial imagery. The volume calculations are presented in Table 5-7. The status of the liner within the existing storage dam is uncertain, however based on discussions with L&G Meats, it is likely that a liner will need to be installed. It is proposed to construct a geosynthetic liner with an equivalent leakage rate of a 1m clay liner with a conductivity of 10-9 m/s. A detailed design of the liner system will be completed following the issue of a Works Approval.

Table 5-7: Existing Water Storage Volume - Estimate

Existing Water Storage System Calculations Length (East-West) 188 m Area at top of bank (ATB) 23500 m2 Area at maximum water level Average Width (North-South) 125 m 22570 m2 (ATWL) Depth (base to top of bank) 4.99 m Area at base of batter (AB) 15025 m2 Freeboard 0.5 m Calculated Volume 83830 m3 or kL Batter Slope (internal) 1:3 Calculated Volume 83.8 ML

Notes: 1. Length and width of bank from the top inside batter 2. Depth from the base to top of bank 3. Volume = h / 3 ( ATWL + AB + SQRT ( ATHL * AB )), where h = Depth - Freeboard

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 25

Recycled Water Quantity Parameters Wastewater will be generated by the PRF at the rates described in Section 3.1. In addition to the PRF treated water, L&G Meats’ partners are also in negotiations with Western Water to purchase Class C recycled water from the Bacchus Marsh Treatment Plant. This agreement will succeed an existing recycled water offtake agreement, which currently sees the L & G Meats’ partners accept 100ML of recycled water per year. The establishment of the Western Irrigation Network (WIN) offtake agreement will result in gradational increases in the irrigation volumes of Class C recycled water on the land surrounding the PIP over the next 20 years, as detailed in Table 5-8. In order to ensure irrigation of the PRF treated wastewater is sustainable in the long term, the volumes described in the offtake agreement have been included in the water balance calculations.

Table 5-8: Western Irrigation Network Offtake Agreement Total Change in RWQ Total RWQ Change in RWQ RWQ Year Year (ML) (ML/year) (ML) (ML/yea r) Year 1 535 535 Year 11 200 1535 Year 2 0 535 Year 12 0 1535 Year 3 0 535 Year 13 0 1535 Year 4 0 535 Year 14 0 1535 Year 5 500 1035 Year 15 0 1535 Year 6 0 1035 Year 16 150 1685 Year 7 100 1135 Year 17 0 1685 Year 8 0 1135 Year 18 0 1685 Year 9 100 1235 Year 19 0 1685 Year 10 100 1335 Year 20 50 1735

The agreement allows the L & G Meats Partner’s to accept recycled water from Western Water on an as needs basis. Ricardo has calculated the likely monthly proportion of these volumes using ‘irrigation requirement’ for median rainfall conditions on a monthly basis. The ‘irrigation requirement’ calculation is provided in Appendix B of Appendix E - WWTP, and the adopted proportion of WIN recycled water taken each month is provided in Table 5-9. PRF wastewater quantities have been calculated based on assumed average operations of 22 hours a day, 7 days a week. The estimated monthly wastewater generated by the PRF are provided in Table 5-9.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal | 26

Table 5-9: Wastewater Quantity Summary

Parameter Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Days in month days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 PRF Wastewater kL/hr 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 - generation rate (average) PRF Hours of operation hrs 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 - per day (average) Volume of PRF kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Wastewater Proportion WIN Recycled % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 100% Water Taken

Notes: 1. WGR*OH*days per month 2. Proportion of WIN Wastewater taken is based on irrigation requirement, refer Appendix B of Appendix E - WWTP

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

Available Irrigation Area It is proposed to irrigate recycled water (including WIN offtake and treated PRF wastewater) on surrounding land owned by L & G Meats business partners. The existing and proposed irrigation areas are presented on Figure A2. The total existing irrigation area is 58.1ha and the total proposed irrigation area is 268.6ha, resulting in a total potential irrigation area of 326.7ha. Water Balance Results The water balance calculations for Years 1 – 20 of the proposed WIN offtake agreement have been completed and are provided in Appendix E of Appendix E - WWTP. The required irrigation area and minimum winter storage requirements were calculated for each year for both calculated 90th percentile rainfall and median rainfall scenarios. The outcomes of the water balance calculations are summarised in Table 5-10 below. Table 5-10: Water Balance Results

Median Rainfall Data Calculated 90th % Rainfall Data Winter Irrigation Adequate Winter Winter Irrigation Adequate Winter Storage Area Storage and Storage Area Storage and Required Required Irrigation Area Required Required Irrigation Area (ML) (ha) Available (Y/N) (ML) (ha) Available (Y/N) Available 83.8 326.7 ---- 83.8 326.7 ----

Year 1 19 87.1 Y 70 104.6 Y Year 2 19 87.1 Y 70 104.6 Y Year 3 19 87.1 Y 70 104.6 Y Year 4 19 87.1 Y 70 104.6 Y Year 5 19 142.4 Y 70 170.6 Y Year 6 19 142.4 Y 70 170.6 Y Year 7 19 153.4 Y 70 183.6 Y Year 8 19 153.4 Y 70 183.6 Y Year 9 19 164.5 Y 70 193.8 Y Year 10 19 175.5 Y 70 210.0 Y Year 11 19 197.6 Y 70 236.3 Y Year 12 19 197.6 Y 70 236.3 Y Year 13 19 197.6 Y 70 236.3 Y Year 14 19 197.6 Y 70 236.3 Y Year 15 19 197.6 Y 70 236.3 Y Year 16 19 214.2 Y 70 256.1 Y Year 17 19 214.2 Y 70 256.1 Y Year 18 19 214.2 Y 70 256.1 Y Year 19 19 214.2 Y 70 256.1 Y Year 20 19 219.7 Y 70 262.7 Y

Based on the water balance results, there is adequate storage and irrigation area for the estimated volume of recycled / treated water available in both a median and 90th percentile rainfall year. Additional irrigation infrastructure will be constructed prior to the commencement of the WIN

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

agreement and prior to commencing operations of the PRF. Recycled water pipeline infrastructure will be installed / upgraded in conjunction with upgrades to other services, including gas, electricity, sewer and potable water. Additional irrigation infrastructure will be progressively constructed to meet the minimum irrigation area required based on median rainfall data figures for each year of the WIN agreement (once executed). Contingency irrigation infrastructure (portable spray irrigator with pump) will be kept available to supplement central pivot irrigators in wet years.

5.3 Nutrient Balance The objective of the nutrient balance analysis is to ensure appropriate nitrogen and phosphorus application rates are considered in any recycled water irrigation strategy. Appropriate nitrogen and phosphorus application rates are required to ensure the applied nutrients are consistent with crop/pasture requirements, such that nutrients do not accumulate to such an extent that they pose a risk of migration to groundwater and nearby surface water bodies. Crop Uptake Rate In order to determine an appropriate nitrogen application rate, the rate at which nitrogen and phosphorus are applied must be balanced with crop requirements and crop removal rates. This is determined by assessing the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in the recycled water, against the ability of the crop/pasture to utilise the nutrients. The estimated rate of nitrogen and phosphorus uptake was calculated based on a 50/50 ratio of pasture and lucerne crops using reference values from EPA Publication 168, Guidelines for Wastewater Irrigation (1991), detailed in Table 5-11 below Table 5-11: Crop Uptake Rates

Ryegrass (Pasture) Lucerne Adopted (50:50)

Nitrogen 200-280 220-540 310 Phosphorus 60-80 20-30 55

Wastewater Loading The wastewater loading rates have been calculated in Appendix E of Appendix E - WWTP, and were calculated based on estimated PRF water quality and estimated PRF recycled water quantity. The calculation incorporated the recycled water data and proposed WIN Agreement recycled water volumes for years 1-20 of the WIN agreement. Nutrient Balance The nutrient balance calculations for Years 1 – 20 of the proposed WIN offtake agreement have been completed, and are provided in Appendix F of Appendix E - WWTP. The required irrigation area based on the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in recycled water for was calculated each year of the WIN agreement. The outcomes of the nutrient balance calculations are summarised in Table 5-12 below.

Table 5-12: Nutrient Balance Results

Irrigation Area Required Irrigation Area Required Adequate Irrigation for Nitrogen (ha) for Phosphorus(ha) Area Available (Y/N) Available 326.7 326.7 ----

Year 1 55.2 100.3 Y Year 2 55.2 100.3 Y

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

Irrigation Area Required Irrigation Area Required Adequate Irrigation for Nitrogen (ha) for Phosphorus(ha) Area Available (Y/N) Year 3 55.2 100.3 Y Year 4 55.2 100.3 Y Year 5 74 189.4 Y Year 6 74 189.4 Y Year 7 77.7 207.2 Y Year 8 77.7 207.2 Y Year 9 81.4 225 Y Year 10 85.2 242.8 Y Year 11 92.7 278.5 Y Year 12 92.7 278.5 Y Year 13 92.7 278.5 Y Year 14 92.7 278.5 Y Year 15 92.7 278.5 Y Year 16 98.3 305.2 Y Year 17 98.3 305.2 Y Year 18 98.3 305.2 Y Year 19 98.3 305.2 Y Year 20 100.1 314.1 Y

Based on the nutrient balance results, there is adequate irrigation area for the nitrogen and phosphorus loads in the estimated recycled / treated available for irrigation. Additional irrigation infrastructure will be constructed prior to the commencement of the WIN agreement and prior to commencing operations of the PRF.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

5.4 Salinity A common limitation of recycled water irrigation schemes is degradation of soil due to relatively saline recycled water. An assessment of the quality of recycled water with respect to potential impacts on soil salinity and sodicity has been undertaken to ensure the proposed use of recycled water for irrigation will be sustainable. The objective of defining salinity restraints is to prevent soil degradation and off-site adverse impacts related to salinity. A summary of soil salinity levels and potential risks are provided in below:

Table 5-13: Salinity Risk Analysis

Soil Salinity (dS/m) Profile Description

<0.3 Topsoil Low salinity, minimal risks to crop production.

Slightly saline, still low risks to crop production, however more 0.3-0.6 Topsoil frequent monitoring may be required

Saline, topsoil may contain toxic levels of salt. Additional analyses >0.6 Topsoil required to determine type of salts present

>1 Subsoil Potentially concerning levels of salinity in sub soil

Based on previous soil sampling undertaken, the topsoil is low salinity (0.215 – 0.236 dS/m), and risk to crop production are minimal. The expected TDS of recycled water is 500mg/L is classified as Class 2 irrigation water in accordance with EPA Publication 168. Based on this classification, there are no specific management practices required to be implemented to manage the risk of salinity. However, moderately salt tolerant crops / pasture should be selected to ensure healthy plant growth. Ongoing monitoring of soil salinity is proposed to be undertaken as part of ongoing environmental monitoring at the site.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

5.5 Irrigation Irrigation of wastewater will need to be undertaken in accordance with an Environment Improvement Plan, approved by EPA. The following best practice design and operation elements will be incorporated into recycled water irrigation: • Irrigation scheduling and application rates will be determined in accordance with forecast rainfall and evaporation conditions supported by water balance calculations. This will prevent over- irrigation and run-off of recycled water across property boundaries. • The irrigation areas are relatively flat, and irrigation will be managed to minimise runoff. As such, it is not considered necessary to construct drains or sumps to enable capture of runoff and reuse into the irrigation system. • Utilisation of the recycled water will consider nutrient loads and account for fertiliser value of nutrient loads to ensure pasture and crop production is optimised and soils are not overloaded with nutrients. This will be verified through: − annual soil monitoring at designated locations within the irrigation area to monitor nutrient loads; and − calculation of nutrient mass balance on an annual basis, with consideration of recycled water quality, load and crop / fodder production. • All reclaimed water irrigation piping systems will be constructed in accordance with AS 2698.2 Plastic Pipes and Fittings for Irrigation and Rural Applications. • Crops and pasture grown using the recycled water will be used for grazing and feeding of L & G Meats livestock (sheep and cattle). No crops will be sold to third parties, minimising the risk of inappropriate use of fodder grown using recycled water. • L & G Meats will work closely with Western Water to ensure appropriate withholding times are met prior to receiving recycled water. All irrigation areas will be withheld for a minimum of 5-days before grazing pasture or cutting of dry or ensile fodder. • All paddocks irrigated with recycled water will be sign-posted in accordance with EPA Publication 168, to notify public, visitors and site personnel of the use of recycled water. The existing irrigation system consists of two central pivot irrigators, covering an area 51.8 ha. The use of central pivot sprinkler irrigation systems ensures consistent even delivery of recycled water and reduces the risk of spray drift. Sprinkler irrigation is listed as an acceptable method of recycled water irrigation in EPA Publication 168 and 464.2, and are therefore considered best practice when benchmarked against similar recycled water reuse schemes in Victoria. The use of irrigation in the Parwan region is relatively limited, predominantly due to limited supplies of suitable groundwater. Irrigation is much more commonplace in nearby Bacchus Marsh, where extensive groundwater extraction and irrigation is used for market gardens. Given the soil profile within the proposed irrigation areas (silt loams over compact subsoils) and the slope (0-5%), the irrigation will be kept below the rates identified in Table 12 of EPA Publication 168:

• 15 mm/hr with pasture / crop cover; or • 8 mm/hr with bare soil. Irrigation scheduling will typically be undertaken on a weekly basis during the irrigation season. The scheduling will take into consideration the water deficit over the past week, with applied recycled water aimed at resupplying plants with water taken up since the previous rainfall or irrigation period. Irrigation water requirement is the differential between any rainfall and daily evaporation value with consideration of a suitable crop factor depending on the plant type.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

5.6 Sludge management Sludge will be generated by the proposed anaerobic reactor and secondary SBR process. It is proposed to dry sludge to the extent practicable through a screw press, prior to transporting sludge to neighbouring land owned by L&G Meats Partners. Pathogens will already be removed via the PRF cooking / heating processes, meaning achieving contaminant Grade C1 and treatment Grade T1 or T2 sludge quality will be possible, allowing minimal restrictions on land application and low disposal costs. Sludge will be managed and applied to land in accordance with EPA Publication 943, Guidelines for Environmental Management – Biosolids Land Application, April 2004. It is proposed to use the sludge generated through the wastewater treatment system for Agricultural uses. Based on the likely quality of sludge produced from the wastewater treatment process, the following agricultural uses are permitted:

• Human food crops consumed raw in direct contact with sludge (C1 and T1 only). Human food crops potentially consumed raw and in direct contact with sludge include lettuces, strawberries and carrots. • Dairy and cattle grazing/fodder (also poultry), human food crops consumed raw but not in direct contact (C1 and T1/T2). Human food crops potentially consumed raw but not in direct contact with sludge include those grown on trees (e.g. Fruit). • Processed food crops (C1 and T1/T2). Processed food crops refer to crops that are either cooked at greater than 70°C for two minutes or processed (such as cereals, wheat and grapes for wine production) prior to sale to the domestic market. • Sheep grazing and fodder (also horses, goats), on food crops, woodlots. Non-human food crops include turf, woodlots, flowers and ornamental plants (that is, not for human consumption).

Prior to commencing land application of any sludge, L&G Meats will prepare a sludge management plan, which will be submitted to EPA for approval. The sludge management plan will include: • Roles and responsibilities • Process overview • Application method • Application frequency • Application rate • Buffer distances • Any withholding periods • Crop management • Inspections and maintenance programs • Training programs • Monitoring and reporting requirements

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

6 Conclusions

The proposed PRF will generate wastewater from materials processing and washing down of the plant. The majority of wastewater from the PRF will be from condensate, as the raw-material is heated to separate the tallow and meal. Ricardo previously undertook a Wastewater Treatment Options Assessment (WWTOA), which identified the preferred WTS for the PRF. In the absence of agreed trade waste discharge limits, it was decided that the wastewater would be treated on Site and irrigated on neighbouring land owned by L & G Meats business partners. Since the completion of the WWTOA, Western Water has confirmed that there is currently limited capacity to accept wastewater at the Bacchus Marsh Treatment Plant. The WTS needed to be capable of producing Class C reclaimed water, as defined in EPA Vitoria Publication 464.2 (Use of Reclaimed Water). The proposed WTS will consist of primary, secondary and tertiary treatment, which will remove and recover coarse particulate matter, remove and recover solids and oil & grease and reduce nutrient loads to ensure sustainable irrigation and reuse of treated water. The WTS has also been designed to generate biogas which can be used to replace natural gas in site boilers. The proposed WTS is considered to represent industry best-practice in wastewater treatment for a PRF. The proposed system reduces environmental risk and optimises environmental outcomes by: • Enhancing recovery of solids, which could be reprocessed through the PRF to increase recovery of saleable product. • Ensuring wastewater will meet the requirements of Class C reclaimed water, and reduce the nutrient load in wastewater, preventing excessive nutrient application rates to irrigation areas. • Allowing beneficial reuse of wastewater through irrigation of crops on neighbouring farmland. • Utilising a tank-based system, with a relatively small operational footprint compared to a lagoon- based system. This reduces fugitive air emissions and mitigates potential odour and amenity issues at the PRF. The use of tank-based systems over lagoon systems also reduces the likelihood of leakage from poorly constructed lagoon liner systems in the future. • Facilitates the recovery of biogas, which can be used to supplement the natural gas supply to the PRF’s steam boiler systems, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The land-holding of L&G Meats’ Partners is sufficiently large enough, with limited limitations on irrigation of treated wastewater.

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

Appendix A Figures

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Legend Protein Recovery Facility Protein Recovery Facility WTS PRF Features Administration Biofilter Boiler House Humidifier Office Plant Tank Farm Workshop Pavement Tree Unsealed Area

Wastewater Treatment System N Figure A1

Scale: @ A3 Project Number: 30637 Revision: A Parwan Protein Recovery Facility Date: 12/11/19

Water Storage & Irrigaon Plan N Figure A2

Scale: @ A3 Project Number: 30637 Revision: A Parwan Protein Recovery Facility Date: 7/11/19

Width 125m

Length 188m

Water Storage Plan N Figure A3

Scale: @ A3 Project Number: 30637 Revision: A Parwan Protein Recovery Facility Date: 7/11/19

Appendix B Treatment Systems

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 DYSTOR® GAS HOLDER SYSTEMS DYSTOR GAS HOLDER SYSTEMS OFFER MORE STORAGE VOLUME & HIGHER OPERATING PRESSURE

The Dystor® Gas Holder system from Evoqua Water accommodate increasing gas volumes. By automatically Technologies is a unique gas holder design that’s more equalising the pressure, this system keeps the outer economical to install than steel gas holders and more membrane inflated, while exerting a constant pressure versatile and more stable than floating covers. Ideal for on the stored gas. both primary and secondary digesters, its dome-shaped, Ideal for retrofitting your existing plant, the operating engineered membrane system maximises storage of pressure can be set to fit into the existing equipment methane gas and sludge, while also containing odours. eliminating the need for re-ballasting the rest of the A manufacturer installed system means single-source digestion system. responsibility. In addition, the membranes are sealed tight to the This system includes two durable membranes. The digestion tank wall, preventing odours from escaping. outer air membrane remains inflated in a fixed position and is cable restrained to ensure system integrity and Benefits allow operating pressures up to 16” w.c (water column). An inner gas membrane moves freely as it stores or • More gas storage releases gas generated from the anaerobic digestion • More sludge storage process. • Digitally controlled • Automatic operation An air handling system maintains a preset operating • True odour containment pressure between the two membranes. A fan • Reduced maintenance supplies air to the air chamber when methane gas is • Very economical withdrawn and a pressure air control valve vents air to • Environmentally stable • Manufacturer installed

2 THE DYSTOR® AIR CONTROL SYSTEM IS COMPACT, SIMPLE TO OPERATE WHILE OFFERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SAFETY FEATURES.

ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES

Proven in many installations, the Dystor® gas holder has a number of economic advantages over conventional steel or fiberglass gas holders and floating covers. • Its installed cost is significantly less • The Dystor system holds up to six times as much gas as conventional covers maximising the available energy benefits of the anaerobic digestion process • The covers allow the sludge level to be varied throughout the entire tank depth, providing usable storage that is several times greater than the storage available with conventional gas holder covers and offering greater operational flexibility • With this membrane system, ongoing maintenance such as painting, roller and The operator interface is a user-friendly tool that allows system guide replacement are eliminated and no status to be immediately determined at a glance. The PLC can re-ballasting is required interact with the existing SCADA systems and is capable of • With reduced energy consumption, ROI is interacting with other digestion equipment, including co-generation significantly increased compared to systems systems. using steel covers

3 885 Mountain Highway, Bayswater, VIC, 3153, Australia 1300 661 809 (Ph) / +61 3 8720 6597 (Int) 1300 661 708 (Fax) / +61 3 8720 6502 (Int) www.evoqua.com.au

Dystor is a trademark of Evoqua, its subsidiaries or affiliates, in some countries.

All information presented herein is believed reliable and in accordance with accepted engineering practices. Evoqua makes no warranties as to the completeness of this information. Users are responsible for evaluating individual product suitability for specific applications. Evoqua assumes no liability whatsoever for any special, indirect or consequential damages arising from the sale, resale or misuse of its products.

OmniflO® Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) jet tech sbr technology Proven Performance Under Demanding Conditions OMNIFLO® SBR Benefits • Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) • High quality effluent at widely varying flows and loadings • No sludge recycle system • Perfect quiescent settling • Optimum energy efficiency • No clarifiers • No short circuiting • Small footprint • Flexible design • Retrofits of existing tanks • Biological phosphorous removal

The OMNIFLO® SBR Cycle effectively utilizes a single reactor

Superior Technology in Wastewater Treatment

The OMNIFLO® Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) utilizes OMNIFLO® SBR Cycle state-of-the-art equipment and controls to deliver superior Anoxic Fill Phase performance under the most demanding conditions, while offering important benefits to plant owners and operators. During Anoxic fill influent is distributed throughout the settled sludge through the Influent Distribution/Sludge Operating Principals Collection Manifold (ID/SC) and biodegration is initiated. The OMNIFLO SBR is a fill-and-draw, non-steady state The reactor is filled with wastewater and fill can be aerated, activated sludge process in which one or more reactor anoxic, or a combination of aerated and anoxic. basins are filled with wastewater during a discrete time React Phase period, and then operated in a batch treatment mode. In a single reactor basin the OMNIFLO SBR accomplishes Influent flow is terminated. Aeration and mixing continue in equalization, aeration, and clarification in a timed sequence. the full reactor until complete biodegration is achieved. In a conventional continuous flow process, multiple Settle Phase structures are required to obtain the same treatment Aeration and mixing are turned off and perfect quiescent objectives. conditions allow the biomass to settle, leaving the treated A single cycle for each reactor consists of five discrete supernatant above. periods, Fill, React, Settle, Decant, and Idle. The OMNIFLO Decant Phase SBR system is unique in its ability to handle influent flows Effluent is removed from just below the liquid surface by the and a wide range of organic loads and industrial pollutants. Floating Solids Excluding Decanter. The OMNIFLO SBR is ideally suited when nitrification, denitrification and biological phosphorous removal are Idle/Waste Sludge Phase necessary. The reactor waits to receive flow. Settled sludge is drawn The operating strategy provides process control over a wide through the ID/SC and removed from the SBR reactor. range of flows. By varying the operating strategy, aerobic or anoxic conditions can be achieved to encourage the growth of desirable microorganisms. Microorganisms can also be acclimated to a wide range of industrial and chemical processing wastes.

2 OMNIFLO® SBR Control Features • Reduction of operator time (fully automated) • Consistent, efficient process • Additional PC/SCADA systems (optional) • Equipment failure alarms and automated responses • Phone modem for remote process service capability (standard) • Continuous liquid level indication (standard on flow proportional) • D.O. control (optional) • Surge protection • Flexibility for operator to change set points

These types of state-of-the-art control strateies meet specific needs.

OMNIFLO® SBR System Controls Slug Feed Control – The slug feed control strategy utilizes The heart of the OMNIFLO® SBR is the control system. intermittent, rapid fill periods, which maximizes available The control system focuses on an operating strategy that aeration time during each cycle. This PLC based control optimizes the SBR process capabilities while minimizing system is applicable for treatment plants that have adequate required operator time and decision making. We currently influent holding capacity (influent equalization basin) prior offer three types of control systems: to the SBR. Flow Proportional Control – This state-of-the-art control system features a PLC with a simple to use operator interface. Pressure transducers are used to continuously monitor the rate of fill in each SBR reactor. As the flow changes, the aeration time is adjusted proportional to the flow. This strategy ensures that oxygen is available when needed, but does not waste power during low flow periods. The flow proportional control system also provides automatic alarm and failure response. For example, if an influent valve fails to open, the influent pump station would be pumping against a closed valve. This feature would place the affected reactor out of service and divert the flow to another in-service basin until the failure is manually acknowledged and corrected. The controls adjust the operating strategy and setpoints to provide optimal treatment with the remaining reactors.

Aeration time is adjusted proportionally to flow to ensure the right amount of oxygen is available when needed.

3 VARI-CANT® Jet Aeration System

Superior Equipment for Process Performance Jet Aeration Desgns Aeration/ Mixing Options The VARI-CANT® jet aeration system from Evoqua utilizes • Jets with submersible or dry pit pumps proven principles of jet aeration, combined with state-of- • Full floor coverage with fine & coarse bubble the-art design and materials, resulting in a system with diffusers superior performance, efficiency and trouble-free operation. • High-speed floating aerators The jet aeration system operates by intermixing air with a • Fixed fine and coarse bubble diffusers with motive liquid and injecting the stream into the wastewater. mixers The motive liquid – recirculated mixed liquor – is discharged • Mixers from an inner nozzle into an outer nozzle. Compressed • Retrievable fine and coarse bubble diffusers atmospheric air is introduced, and sheared into tiny bubbles with mixers which are entrained in the motive liquid stream and injected back into the basin. Diffused Aeration Designs We offer both fine and coarse bubble SBR installations with fixed and retrievable diffuser assemblies available. Most fine and coarse bubble designs used in SBR’s require some sort of mixing device to achieve complete mix in the basin during aeration. OMNIFLO® SBR systems are designed without a mixing device when the density of the diffusers achieve full floor coverage and the ID/SC manifold is used to distribute the influent evenly across the basin floor. Reliable and durable floating surface aerators and mixers are also available for special applications with SBR technology. OMNIFLO® SBR with Fine Bubble Diffusers

OMNIFLO® SBR with Fine Bubble Diffusers

4 Influent distribution manifold

Influent Distribution/ Sludge Collection Manifold (ID/SC) The ID/SC manifold allows intimate contact of the influent (food) with the settled biomass in the sludge blanket throughout the length of the basin. During this time, the soluble BOD is absorbed and stored by the facultative biomass until air is received to metabolize the food. The selective pressures exerted on the biomass assists in good settling and facultative organisms to predominate. The ID/ SC manifold is also used to withdraw sludge from multiple points across the basin floor. This yields the thickest sludge possible, reducing side stream sludge treatment operation and maintenance. Finally, the ID/SC prevents disruption of the sludge blanket during Filled Decant periods necessitated by high flow rates or emergency single tank operation. OMNIFLO® SBR Key Advantages • Licensed plant operators available for customer service 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week • Choice of aeration / mixing devices • Influent distribution / sludge collection manifold (ID/SC) • Non-Electro mechanical solids excluding floating decanter • State-of-the-art controls • Retrofits available for any basin geometry • Experience, Reputation, & Reliability

5 Floating solids excluding decanter Draw tube with solids excluding plug valves.

Floating Solids Excluding Decanter The Jet Tech™ floating solids excluding decanter is the only true solids excluding decanter in the industry that does not utilize electro-mechanical equipment in the basin. This state-of-the-art design utilizes multiple orifices to keep velocities at a minimum, and pulls treated effluent from below the surface to eliminate the possibility of entraining floatables. The decanters are constructed of high quality, durable, corrosive resistant materials with a manual override that is unique in the industry and requires no routine maintenance.

Fixed Decanter Jet Tech™ decanters are unique in the industry and require no routine maintenance. The fixed decanter operates similarly to the floating decanter, except it is attached to the basin wall at a fixed elevation below the bottom water level. This eliminates Decanter Advantages the flexible hose connector, knee brace and decanter rest • Innovative designs, engineered specifically for each support. In SBR systems, the fixed decanter requires the project. availability of a longer settling time since the solids must • Simple safe operation settle below the bottom water level before decanting. • No in-basin electromechanical devices requiring Non Solids Excluding Decanter maintenance The non solids excluding decanter is constructed similarly • Consistent quality performance to the solids excluding decanter, however it does not contain • Years of reliable operating experience in the field the spring loaded valves. This type of decanter is installed with installations worldwide in applications when it is not important if some solids are left in the decanted effluent.

6 The 2.4 MGD Pima Utility Wastewater Treatment Plant meets Title 22 effluent quality standards.

Proven Technology and Experience OMNIFLO® SBR Primary Markets Pima Utility • Municipal The Pima Utility Wastewater Treatment Plant located in a • Food & Beverage retirement community in Arizona was designed to treat 2.4 • Pulp & Paper million gallons per day (MGD), and produce a high quality • Petrochemical & Oil Refining effluent with disinfection, low turbidity and nitrogen levels • Pharmaceutical to meet Title 22 effluent quality standards. The rectangular • Chemical / CPI process basins were designed to be low profile and covered • Landfill /Leachate Applications for environmental aesthetics with mechanical equipment • Textile Industry installed in an enclosed building to eliminate any noise. Rahr Malting The Rahr Malting Company located in Shakopee, MN is one of the world’s largest malt producers. Since 1999, an OMNIFLO® SBR has been installed which has consistently met their wastewater treatment requirements. The Rahr Malting Co., also worked with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in cleaning up the river where the wastewater effluent is discharged to make sure oxygen consuming compounds were removed.

Fruitland, Maryland OMNIFLO® SBR installed at Rahr Malting The City of Fruitland, Maryland installed an OMNIFLO® SBR system to expand its capacity of its wastewater treatment plant and to meet the requirements for the Chesapeake Bay initiative. The OMNIFLO SBR system was selected because of its compact footprint and ability to achieve enhanced nutrient removal within a two-tank layout. This system also includes the patented VARI-CANT® Jet Aeration system from Evoqua as well.

Fruitland, Maryland Wastewater Treatment Plant

7 Visit www.evoqua.com/omniflo to connect with an expert.

2607 N. Grandview Blvd, Suite 130, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53188 +1 (866) 926-8420 (toll-free) +1 (978) 614-7233 (toll) www.evoqua.com

Jet Tech, OMNIFLO and VARI-CANT are trademarks of Evoqua, its subsidiaries or affiliates, in some countries. Equipment and features described are protected under U.S. Patents 6,244,574; 6,464,211; 7,243,912; 7,550,076; and 7,655,144.

What is AFM®?

AFM®, Activated Filter Media is a highly engineered activated filter media made from specific upcycled coloured glass types. AFM® is a direct replacement for sand in any sand filter. AFM® grade 1 is certified to remove more than 90% of 4 micron particles, more than double the fine particle retention of sand. AFM® surface activation prevents biofouling, improves biosecurity and stops channelling. AFM® has a minimum service life in excess of 10 years and provides a short pay-back.

AFM® : Simple, efficient and sustainable water treatment About Dryden Aqua

Dryden Aqua is one of the largest manufacturer of glass filtration media in the world. Our Activated Filter Media AFM® is verified to double the performance of sand filters without the need for additional investment in infrastructure.

Founder of Dryden Aqua, Dr Howard Dryden is a marine biologist with a unique knowledge combination of biology, chemistry and technology. He is the inventor and developer of the activated, bio-resistant filter media AFM®.

Dryden Aqua provides innovative solutions for drinking water, food and beverage processing, industrial process water s well as municipal and industrial waste water worldwide.

Our Mission Our mission is to provide solutions that have a positive environmental impact on our ecosystem. We help to make this world a better place - a non-toxic environment for everyone.

Our production in Edinburgh, Scotland:

2 AFM Water Treatment 2018 AFM® Performance & Benefits

Filtration performance and grade of filter media

The graph (right) results from tests Smallest particle size removed at >90% efficiency carried out by accredied lab, IFTS at 44 gpm velocity and with no flocculation under a European Programme that encourages comparative tests of AF M® Gd0 AF M® Gd1 Fresh sand EGFM Garofiltre Astral Biomar competitive products. 0 1 The tests compared performance of 5 4 AFM® Gd0 sand and crushed glass media. AFM® 10 10.5 AFM® Gd1 Grades 0 & 1 retained more than 90% 15 Fresh sand of 1µ and 4µ particles respectively. 20 22 EGFM New sand was the best of the rest with 25 Garofiltre >90% of 10.5µ particles retained. 30 30 Astr al ® 35 AFM Grade 1 therefore filters more AFM® Grade 0 removes >90% of 1µ particles Biomar than twice as well as new sand and 40 AFM® Grade 1 removes >90% of 4µ particles 39 smallest particle removed microns removed particle smallest 40 The best sand can achieve is 10.5 microns more than 5 times as well as any other 45

media tested. 50 Source: IFTS test data, France, 2014 Sand was 16/30 Leighton Buzzard sand.

AFM Grade 1 Performance at 4 & 10 micron against water flow velocity

100

Our production in Edinburgh, Scotland: 90

Performance % Performance 60 2 4 6 8 12 Water flow gpm/sqft 50

40 2 4 6 8 12 Water flow gpm/sqft

AFM® Key Points:

• AFM® is a direct replacement for sand in any type of sand filter without the need for further investments • Has more than double the fine particle retention performance of sand • Has an engineered, activated surface to adsorb fine particles including some priority substances, heavy metals and metalloids such as arsenic, ferric and manganese. • Resists biological fouling and prevents channelling • Substantially reduces product water oxidation demand • Reduces backwash water demand by an average of 50% • Provides quick ROI, usually less than 2 years on water consumption alone • Has a life cycle more than 4 times longer than sand and in excess of 10 years • Is certified toISO 9001: 2015, ISO 14001 & 18001 standards & is certified to HACCP NSF50 & for drinking water use under European DWI Reg 31 as well as NSF61.

AFM Water Treatment 2018 3 Dryden Aqua Water Treatment

Dryden Aqua Technology is applicable in all areas where biology plays a role or might influence the quality of water treatment. Some key examples are as follows:

Pre-treatment prior to membranes Maintenance of cartridge filters and fouling of membranes for RO and UF is a major cost. AFM® has much better fine particle retention than sand. It also reduces fouling because it does not contain free silica that cause silicate blockage. Sand filters are biofilters and constantly discharge bacteria into the product water to foul the membranes. AFM® resists biofouling and does not become a biofilter.

Removal of arsenic, ferric and manganese AFM® will remove many metal contaminants from the water, and is particularly effective for arsenic and ferric. Contaminated water is usually ground water which must be strongly aerated for a period of at least 30 minutes prior to filtration. If arsenic needs to be removed, additional ferric may be added to achieve a ratio of 10:1 (ferric:arsenic) to facilitate oxidation and co-precipitation.

Cooling tower side-stream filtration Water treatment is essential for cooling tower recycled water. AFM® removes nutrients to control pathogenic bacteria such as Legionella thereby reducing requirement for corrosion inhibitors, biocides and anti- scalants by up to 50%.

Tertiary treatment of effluent AFM® replaces sand in tertiary treatment filters without the need for any modifications. AFM® will not biofoul and will more than double the performance of the treatment system, offering a sustainable, low cost and high performance alternative to sand.

These are only a few extracts from a spectrum of applications for AFM® and Dryden Aqua Technology.

Dryden Aqua’s AFM® is the highest performance, most tested and most certificated filtration media on the market.

Dryden Aqua thrives on the challenge of new applications and welcomes any enquiry where our technology might make a difference.

4 AFM Water Treatment 2018 AFM® Applications

Recommended applications for Dryden Aqua AFM® PSF Typical %-age Application Type Associated Processes flow gpm/sqft reduction Municipal & Industrial Drinking Water min max Arsenic removal Oxidation 30 mins by aeration FeCl coagulation prior to >2 <8 90% AFM® filtration reduction Iron removal Oxidation 30 mins by aeration >4 <8 95% prior to AFM® filtration reduction

Manganese removal Oxidation 500mV with H2O2 or FeCl coagulation prior to >4 <8 98% NaHOCl + 30 mins aeration AFM® filtration reduction Membrane pre-filtration AFM® filtration to 5µ (AFM® 1 micron cartridge filter >4 <6 SDI <5 Gd1) or 1µ (AFM® Gd0) >2 <4 Seawater Intake Pre-screening of macro-algae AFM® filtration >4 <8 Filtration by mesh or wedgewire screens

Industrial Process Organic pollutants & oils, TSS, Water VSS & particles >1 micron Cooling tower Filtration 6-8 gpm/sqft >4 <8 sidestream filtration with AFM®

Municipal Wastewater Phosphorous & Bacteria, BOD, COD & TOC Tertiary Treatment Pre-filtration to <100 µ Oxidation 30mins with >2 <6 -95% + FeCl coagulation then AFM® NaHOCl after AFM® filters COD

Industrial Wastewater Low conc’ mineral oil Oxidation 30 mins by aeration Coagulation & PAC 98% (<50mg/l) removal flocculation prior to AFM® reduction Medium conc’ mineral Oxidation 30 mins by aeration Dissolved Air Flotation >2 <6 98% oil (<500mg/l) removal + Coagulation & PAC prior to AFM® filtration at reduction flocculation 5 - 15m/hr max.

Chromium or Copper pH correction 7.0-7.5 by MgO2 Sedimentation 30 mins >2 <6 95% removal or 8.5 (caustic). Reduction prior to AFM® filtration at reduction by dosage of Calcium 5 - 10m/hr max polysulphide via ZPM + injection of DA GF50 (sub 50 micron glass powder).

AFM® can be substituted for sand in any pressure or rapid gravity sand filter. It is suitable for many applications beyond those identified above and can be substituted for e.g. membrane filtration in many applications. It will significantly outperform sand in terms of particle retention, stability, backwash water consumption and service life.

For further information on AFM® applications and detailed instruction please consult the Dryden Aqua AFM® IFU (Information For Use) document which can be downloaded from the Dryden Aqua Website www.drydenaqua.com via the following link: https://www.drydenaqua.com/files/AFM-general/AFMInstructionsforUseJune1,2017.pdf

AFM Water Treatment 2018 5 Use of AFM® Summary of AFM® Properties and Certifications

How to use AFM® • AFM® is a direct replacement for sand in any type of sand filter • AFM® has a 15 % lower density than sand: e.g. if your filter takes 1,000 kg of sand it will only require: 1,000 x 0.85 = 850 kg of AFM®.

AFM® Grades • AFM® is produced in 4 Grades • Grades 0 and 1 provide fine filtration • Grades 2 and 3 provide support and ensure good flow distribution through the filter

Recommended operational parameters Parameter Value

Filtration velocity 1 - 12 gpm/sqft Back Wash Velocity < 18 gpm/sqft Max. operating differential pressure < 8 psi Back Wash Duration for 3 - 10 mins Water pH limits 4 - 10 Water temperature limits 33.8 - 212°F

® 0 Recommended AFM Grades and arrangement from top to bottom, in Pressure Filters Commercial 1 Grade, Size (mm) High Purification Ultra Purification Purification

2 Grade 0 0.25 - 0.50 n/a 20 % 60 % 3 Grade 1 0.4 - 1.0 70 % 50 % 20 % Grade 2 1.0 - 2.0 15 % 15 % 10 % Grade 3 2.0 - 4.0 15 % 15 % 10 %

Before first use of AFM®: Backwash AFM® for 5 minutes, 3 consecutive times, with potable water and then rinse for 5 minutes.

Item Description Package quantity List Price £ No. excl. VAT 10000 AFM® 0, particle size 0,25 - 0,4 mm Bags of 25 kg 35.00 10001 AFM® 1, particle size 0,4 – 1,0 mm Bags of 25 kg 35.00 10002 AFM® 2, particle size 1,0 – 2,0 mm Bags of 25 kg 35.00 10003 AFM® 3, particle size 2,0 – 4,0 mm Bags of 25 kg 35.00 40 bags/pallet – 24 pallets/truck

10010 AFM® 0, particle size 0,25 - 0,4 mm Bulk bags of 1000 kg 1’400.00 10011 AFM® 1, particle size 0,4 – 1,0 mm Bulk bags of 1000 kg 1’400.00 10012 AFM® 2, particle size 1,0 – 2,0 mm Bulk bags of 1000 kg 1’400.00 10013 AFM® 3, particle size 2,0 – 4,0 mm Bulk bags of 1000 kg 1’400.00

6 AFM Water Treatment 2018 Use of AFM® Summary of AFM® Properties and Certifications

Product ID

Name: Dryden Aqua AFM® - Activated Filter Media

Usage: Replaces sand in all media filtration applications Green & amber up-cycled glass. Optimised mechanical filtration Material: performance with activated mesoporous surface Unique Bio-resistant, self-sterilising, predictable performance, filtration down to 1 Features: micron (Grade 0), 4 microns (Grade 1)

About AFM® AFM® is ne of the most efficient granular filtration medium available on the market. It is highly engineered to give optimum mechanical filtration performance in a range of industrial and municipal water filtration applications.

AFM® replaces sand in all filtration applications and can be used in a conventional sand filter without modification.

AFM® Production AFM® is: • manufactured from very specific green and brown glass types • engineered to obtain optimum and consistent particle size and shape • activated to increase the surface area up to 300 times of that of crushed glass or sand. • chemically and thermally treated to ensure permanent negatively charged surface properties that make AFM® self-sterilising

AFM® Performance AFM® : • will not support bacterial growth • at up to 8gpm/sqft will consistently filter, without flocculation: - > 95% of 4µ particles (Grade 1) - >95% of 1µ particles (Grade 0) • will selectively filter positively charged ionic particles such as heavy metals • will not suffer from channelling or preferential pathways • will consistently evacuate more than 95% of retained particles using 50% or less water than required for sand. (backwash duration 5 mins max at 18 gpm/sqft). • has a minimum service lifespan of 10 years or more.

AFM® Certification Certified: • ISO 9001: 2015, ISO 14001 & 18001. • NSF 50 & 61 for potable water use. • DWI EC Regulation 31 certification for potable water use. • Europeran Water Directive (98/83/EC) & 80/778/EEC) compliant. • HACCP Certified for agriculture, food and drinks markets. • BSEN12902 and BSEN12904 compliant. • Independently tested by accredited laboratory, IFTS (Institite of Filtration and Techniques of Separation) according to EC ETV (Environmental Testing Verification) programme. Found to give vastly superior performance in filtration and backwash NSF/ANSINSF/ANSI 50 &61 61 than any other product tested.

AFM Water Treatment 2018 7 AFM® Specification

AFM® product specifications

Specification Grade 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Particle size 0,25 - 0,5 mm 0,4 - 1,0 mm 1,0 - 2,0 mm 2,0 - 4,0 mm Undersized < 5 % < 5 % < 10 % < 10 % Oversized < 5 % < 10 % < 10 % < 10 % Effective size 0,30 mm 0,45 mm 1,1 mm 2,1 mm (expressed as d10) Hardness > 7 mohs > 7 mohs > 7 mohs > 7 mohs Sphericity n/a 0,75 - 0.8 n/a n/a (average range) Uniformity coefficient 1,3 to 1,4 1,6 to 1,8 1,4 to 1,5 1,4 to 1,5 (d60/d10) Aspect ratio 2 - 2,4 2 - 2,4 2 - 2,4 2 - 2,4 Organic contamination < 50 g/tonne < 50 g/tonne < 50 g/tonne < 50 g/tonne Coloured glass > 98 % > 98 % > 98 % > 98 % (green/amber) Specific gravity (grain) 2,4 kg/l 2,4 kg/l 2,4 kg/l 2,4 kg/l Embodied energy < 72 kw/tonne < 65 kw /tonne < 50 kw/tonne < 50 kw/tonne Bulk bed density 10.68 lb/gal 10.43 lb/gal 10.26 lb/gal 10.18 lb/gal Attrition, (50 % bed expansion, 100 hour’s < 1 % < 1 % < 1 % < 1 % backwash.

8 AFM Water Treatment 2018

RICARDO ENERGY ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING PROTEIN RECOVERY PLANT PROJECT

Wastewater Treatment Process Equipment Expertise & Details The Hydroflux Group is a Sydney based internationally recognised group of companies specialising in the water and wastewater treatment sector. Other major office locations include Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland, Suva and Portsmouth, UK. Hydroflux Industrial is the industrial division of the group and a market leader in the design and construction of industrial wastewater and process water treatment systems. Hydroflux Industrial has extensive expertise in the treatment of food industry wastewater and has completed many projects for the meat and poultry industry including wastewater generated from protein recovery plants. Hydroflux Industrial provides design and construct services as well as the design and supply of its proprietary equipment and processes such as Covered Anerobic Lagoons (CAL’s), various types of aerobic biological systems including the HySMART® SBR, and the HyDAF dissolved air flotation system. Wastewater screens, and sludge handling equipment to complete a typical food industry wastewater treatment process are sourced from long term established international partners such as Huber Technology. Construction of a CAL in Rural NSW

PROTEIN RECOVERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT Wastewater from Protein Recovery Plants (PRP) comprises stick water and condensate which are very different in constitution. When a PRP is located adjacent to an abattoir, the flows are usually diluted sufficiently with the processing facility wastewater to have a relatively insignificant impact. For standalone PRP’s, wastewater treatment is far more complex and involved. Hydroflux Industrial has completed many wastewater treatment plants for abattoirs with or without PRP’s and are currently in the final stages of constructing a dedicated wastewater treatment plant comprising CAL’s and SBR’s for a PRP in rural NSW. HYDROFLUX EXPERIENCE WITH PROTEIN RECOVERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT In 2008 Hydroflux engineers completed a 250 kL/day wastewater treatment plant for a PRP. Similar to that suggested in this case, the plant incorporated screening, DAF, SBR and sludge dewatering. The system successfully reduced ammonia concentrations from over 1000 mg/L to < 50 mg/L which was required for discharge to Council’s sewer. A delicate SBR process enabled highly effective nutrient removal. Hydroflux upgraded this plant in 2013 with new balancing facilities and again in 2015 with additional SBR aeration to allow the system to handle increased flows due to expansion of facility. Also in 2015, Hydroflux installed a system that enabled condensate to by-pass the DAF which was utilised in lieu of an artificial carbon source for denitrification in the SBR. In 2016, Hydroflux supplied additional dewatering facilities by means of a screw press to enable segregation of primary and secondary sludges to reduce off-site disposal costs.

Containerised screw press to provide additional dewatering

Condensate tank to enable condensate to be used for dentification Installation of fine bubble diffusers in one of the SBR’s

CURRENT UPGRADE Due to the further expansion of the PRP, Hydroflux commenced the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant in 2019. This will be commissioned early 2020. The new wastewater treatment process is based on CAL and SBR. Equipment such as the condensate tank and sludge dewatering plant are being retained with the new design. WATER PROCESS SCHEMATIC

Wastewater treatment process proposed by Riccardo Energy

PROCESS AND EQUIPMENT The diagram above is the process nominated by Ricardo. Hydroflux has designed and constructed many wastewater treatment plants that utilise the same or very similar processes. The equipment that the process entails includes: Tanks in general – stainless steel non lined panel tanks. Screen – Rotary, Hydroflux design. Primary DAF – Hydroflux HyDAF HD50. Anaerobic reactor – design by Hydroflux partners (Hydrothane or Anergia). SBR – HySMART® by Hydroflux. Sludge dewatering – Screw press by Hydroflux’s partner HUBER. Chemical dosing – design by Hydroflux. Polymer system HydraBLEND® automatic system. Odour control – subcontract to local supplier. Identical screen internals

SCREEN

A 1 mm aperture rotary screen would be utilised in this application. We would generally suggest oversizing the unit due to the very high peak solids loads. A 900 mm diameter unit with 1200 mm length would be appropriate.

Screen and platform upstream of a HyDAF system Twin HyDAF dissolved air recycle systems supplied for a high solids load DAF application

DAF

In PRP’s, the solids loading can be in the tens of thousands of mg/L. To compensate for this high load, Hydroflux would typically oversize the DAF with a larger than “normal” dissolved air recycle stream. Having an excess of dissolved air prevents solids and grease carry over into the biological treatment plant during periods of high load. We would suggest that for a flow of 40 kL/hr, a HyDAF HD-75 would be most appropriate unit in this case with a recycle flow of 35 kL/hr. This system will maintain an adequate air to solids ratio of >0.005 with a solids load in excess of 1% and a surface loading rate at design flow of 8.1 m/hr which are well within industry standards.

HD-75 unit arriving at a dairy in Victoria. Reaction tanks for chemical dosing are at either end SBR operating at a poultry processing facility in Fiji

SBR

The SBR would be designed in house using advanced software programed with data based on experience & knowledge of biological processes operating on similar wastewater with high organic and nutrient loads. Hydroflux uses stainless steel panel tanks to construct the SBR with Hydroflux’s own decanter design. The fine bubble aeration diffusers are Aerostrip units which are supplied via our partner Aqua Consult and fabricated in Austria. The Aerostrip fine bubble diffusers are one of most efficient systems

available providing up to 4Kg O2/Kw.

Hydroflux design SBR decanter Two HUBER Q620 Screw Presses operating at Luggage Point Sewage Treatment Plant

SCREW PRESS

Hydroflux typically uses screw presses for dewatering both primary DAF sludge and waste activated sludge. The sludges can be combined or dewatered separately depending on disposal routes and costs. In this case, at an expected total dry solids load of 2 T per day, Hydroflux would suggest a HUBER Q620 which has a capacity of up to 350 Kg/hr.

Smaller press operating at a meat processing plant Photo shows a Hydroflux HyDAF HD-200 and screw press installed in a meat processing plant

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hydroflux Industrial is firmly committed to work activities being carried out safely, and with all appropriate measures taken to remove risks to the health, safety and welfare of all employees, contractors, authorised visitors, and anyone else who may be affected by our operations. Hydroflux Industrial demonstrate this commitment through the implementation of a Safety Management system under GRS Certification’s program. OHSAS 18001:2007 Certified by GRS under certificate number 47718001610008. AS/NZS 4801:2001 Certified by GRS under certificate number 4774801610008. AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIASIA +61 2 9089 8833 Head Office: Level 26, 44 Market Street Sydney NSW 200Australia Victorian Office: 84 Hotham Street, Preston VIC 3072 Australia Queensland Office: 1 Westlink Court Darra QLD 4076 Australia NEW ZEALAND +64 9 352 2052 Head Office: Level 26,Pwc Tower 188 Quay St Auckland FIJI +679 773 6950 Head Office: 217 Victoria Parade Suva Fiji UNITED KINGDOM AND EUROPE +44 23 9270 4087 Head Office: 1000 Lakeside North Harbour, Wester Road Portsmouth PO6 3EZ RT SERIES DAF (DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION) SYSTEMS

GENERAL DESCRIPTION: RT SERIES DAF FEATURES Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is a proven and effective RT Series packaged DAF systems have incorporated over physical/chemical technology for treating a variety of twenty-five years of continuous improvements with multiple industrial and municipal process and wastewater streams. installations in a variety of applications. RT systems provide DAF systems are commonly used to meet a variety of unique standard features including: treatment goals including: • Fifteen (15) different models to meet a variety of • Product recovery and reuse applications and flow ranges (10 to >2,000 gpm) • Pretreatment to meet sewer discharge limits • Complete, skid-mounted design for ease of installation • Pretreatment to reduce loading on downstream (no field assembly required) biological treatment systems • Rectangular profile for maximum space utilization • Polishing of biological treatment effluent • Rugged tank design that will not flex • Thickening of biosolids • Superior performance without the use of plate-pack Evoqua’s RT Series DAF systems are designed to remove that can foul or collapse total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand • Quality drive and pump components for long-term (BOD), and oils and greases (O&G) from a wastewater reliability stream. Contaminants are removed through the use of • An industry-leading HELLBENDER‰ whitewater system a dissolved air-in-water solution produced by injecting that is both efficient and simple to use air under pressure into a recycle stream of clarified DAF • Large, internal float hopper eliminates the need for an effluent. This recycle stream is then combined and mixed external float tank with incoming wastewater in an internal contact chamber • Standard RT series options include: where the dissolved air comes out of solution in the form • Available in 304 or 316 SST tank construction of micron-sized bubbles that attach to the contaminants. • Recycle Piping available in PVC, CPVC, 304 SST, The bubbles and contaminants rise to the surface and 316SST form a floating bed of material that is removed by a surface • Several controls platforms (Motor Starter, Relay skimmer into an internal hopper for further handling. Logic, Integrated Controller, Allen Bradley PLC/HMI) DAF EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS Utility Piping Connections and Physical Dimensions** Capacities Weight ** Requirements Specifications Shipping Shipping Discharge Operating Area (ft^2) (150# FLG) (150# FLG) (150# FLG) (150# FLA (Amps) Weight (lbs) Weight (lbs) Weight 460VAC Typ Float Hopper Settled Solids Solids Settled Volume (gals) Volume Width, overall Width, Active Surface Hieght, overall Length, overall Nominal Water Water Nominal Capacity (gals) Capacity Float Discharge Float

DAF Connection Inlet Electrical (Voltage) Electrical Model Effluent Connection

RT-015X 6.0 3” 3” 4” (3) 2” MPT 8’-3” 3’-6” 5’-3” 12 280 15 1,300 3,700

RT-03OX 9.0 4” 4” 4” (3) 2” MPT 11’-10” 4’-9” 7’-1” 30 880 60 2,760 10,260

RT-050A 23.5 6” 6” 4” 4” FLG 14’-11” 6’-4” 7’-2” 57 1,260 100 4,900 15,500

RT-070A 23.5 6” 6” 4” 4” FLG 17’-11” 6’-4” 7’-2” 73 1,550 100 5,700 19,200

RT-080A 23.5 8” 8’ 6” 4” FLG 15’-8” 8’-5” 8’-2” 78 1,900 180 5,600 26,600

RT-100A 23.5 8” 8’ 6” 4” FLG 18’-8” 8’-6” 8’-2” 101 2,400 170 7,000 33,300

RT-125A 29.0 12” 12” 6” 6” FLG 19’-1” 10’-5” 9’-8” 125 4,500 360 8,400 46,000

RT-140A 29.0 10” 10” 6” 4” FLG 24’-8” 8’-5” 8’-2” 146 3,500 180 8,600 39,900

RT-150A 29.0 12” 12” 6” 6” FLG 22’-5” 10’-5” 9’-8” 153 5,500 390 10,000 55,800

RT-160A 460VAC/3ph/60Hz 29.0 10” 10” 6” 4” FLG 27’-8” 8’-5” 8’-2” 159 4,000 180 9,400 42,500

RT-180A 29.0 12” 12” 6” 6” FLG 25’-1” 10’-5” 9’-8” 182 6,500 360 11,000 71,900

RT-240A 29.0 12” 12” 6” 6” FLG 31’-1” 10’-5” 9’-8” 239 8,450 360 12,500 83,300

RT-300A 29.0 10” 12” 6” 6” FLG 37’-1” 10’-5” 9’-8” 297 11,500 360 15,600 111,500

RT-350A 43.0 16” 16” 8” 6” FLG 37’-6” 13’-0” 10’-0” 360 12,400 780 19,000 135,600

RT-500A 43.0 16” 16” 8” 6” FLG 49’-6” 13’-0” 10’-0” 503 17,500 780 23,000 170,000

* Other voltage options available upon request ** Estimated

AVAILABLE RT SERIES DAF SYSTEM OPTIONS: KEY INDUSTRIAL MARKETS • Access platforms and stairs • Food & Beverage • Flotation cell cover to contain and vent • Oil & Gas process gasses • By product rendering • Integrated skid mounted flocculation tubes • Pulp & Paper • Flocculation mix tanks • Biochemical • Pressure transmitter/flow monitoring sensor • Manufacturing • Sludge level monitoring • Mining • Effluent TSS monitoring • Light Industry • Chemical feed systems • Polymer blend and feed systems • Comprehensive treatability testing program • Customization available with little impact on either delivery or cost

181 Thorn Hill Road, Warrendale, PA 15086

+1 (866) 926-8420 (toll-free) +1 (978) 614-7233 (toll) www.evoqua.com

Hellender is a registered trademark of Evoqua and it’s subsidiaries or affiliates in some countries.

Appendix C Soil Bores

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 SOIL BORE BH01

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH01/0.0-0.3 C6 A1 Clayey Crumb Reddish none Trace fine Dry Loam Brown gravel 0.1

0.2 BH01/0.3+ C6 A2 Clayey Crumb Dark none Trace fine Dry Loam Reddish gravel Brown 0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH02

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH2/0-0.4 C6 A1 Silty Loam Crumb Dark Brown None Some Dry coarse gravel 0.1

0.2

0.3 BH02/0.4+ C6 A2 Sandy Clay Block Dark None Some Dry Loam Reddish coarse Brown gravel 0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH03

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH03/0-0.15 C6 A1 Sandy Crumb Dark Brown None Some Dry Loam coarse gravel 0.1

BH03/0.15+ C4 A2 Heavy Dark Brown None Heavy Dry 0.2 Sandy coarse Loam Block gravel

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH04

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH04/0-0.4 C6 A1 ClayLoam No Dark Brown None Some Dry Structure / crumb 0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 BH04/0.4-0.5 C4 A2 Clay Loam Crumb Dark Brown None Some Dry

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH05

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH05/0-0.4 C6 A1 Clay Loam Crumb Dark Brown None Trace gravel Dry

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 BH05/0.4-0.5 C2 A2 Clay Loam Crumb / Dark Brown None Few coarse Dry block gravel 0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH06

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH06/0-0.2 C6 A1 Clay Loam Crumb Light Brown None None Dry

0.1 BH06/0.2+ C2 B Clay Block Brown Red (10%) Trace gravel Moist mottled red 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH07

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH07/0-0.4 C7 A1 Clay Loam Crumb Light Brown None None Dry

0.1

0.2

0.3 BH07/0.4+ C4 A2 Clay Crumb Brown None Gravel Dry

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH08

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH08/0-0.35 C7 A1 Silt Loam Crumb Light Brown None None Dry

0.1

0.2

BH08/0.35+ C4 B Clay Block Brown Orange None Moist 0.3 mottled (5%) orange

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH09

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH09/0-0.3 C7 A1 Silt Loam Crumb Light Brown None None Dry

0.1

0.2

0.3 BH09/0.4+ C2 B Clay loam Block Brown None None Moist

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH10

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH10/0-0.3 C7 A1 Silt Loam Crumb Brown None None Dry

0.1

0.2 BH10/0.3+ C4 A2 Clay loam Block Brown None None Moist

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH11

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH11/0-0.1 C7 A1 Silt Loam Crumb Red Brown None None Dry

0.1 BH11/0.1-0.2 C2 A2 Clay loam Block Red Brown None None Moist

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 SOIL BORE BH12

PROJECT NUMBER 30637 DRILLING DATE 20/11/18 TOWNSHIP Parwan PROJECT NAME Parwan Employment Precinct CLIENT L&G Meats

COMMENTS LOGGED BY JR Depth (m) Samples Emerson Class Horizon Texture Structure Colour Mottles Coarse Fragments Moisture Comments BH12/0-0.1 C7 A1 Silt Loam Crumb Brown None None Dry

0.1 BH12/0.1-0.2 C4 A2 Sandy Clay Block Reddish None None Moist Loam dark brown 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Disclaimer This bore log is intended for environmental not geotechnical purposes. Page 1 of 1 produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 22 Nov 2019 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

Appendix D Lab Data

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Result Date Parameter Sample Point Result UOM Rolling Median 16/08/2019 Aluminium, Total as Al Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.3 mg/L 0.2 21/02/2019 Aluminium, Total as Al Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Antimony Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.5 mg/L 0.5 21/02/2019 Antimony Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.5 mg/L 0.5 16/08/2019 Arsenic Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Arsenic Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Barium, as Ba Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.02 mg/L 0.015 21/02/2019 Barium, as Ba Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 16/08/2019 Beryllium, as Be Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Beryllium, as Be Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 16/08/2019 Boron Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.12 21/02/2019 Boron Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.14 mg/L 0.14 16/08/2019 Cadmium, as Cd Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Cadmium, as Cd Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 16/08/2019 Calcium, as Ca Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 18 mg/L 20.5 18/07/2019 Calcium, as Ca Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 23 mg/L 22 18/04/2019 Calcium, as Ca Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 22 mg/L 20.5 21/02/2019 Calcium, as Ca Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 23 mg/L 19 17/01/2019 Calcium, as Ca Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 17 mg/L 18 18/10/2018 Calcium, as Ca Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 19 mg/L 19 19/09/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 63 mg/L 115 16/08/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 62 mg/L 120 18/07/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 60 mg/L 125 20/06/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 160 mg/L 130 16/05/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 180 mg/L 125 18/04/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 170 mg/L 120 21/03/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 130 mg/L 115 21/02/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 150 mg/L 110 17/01/2019 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 110 mg/L 99 13/12/2018 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 88 mg/L 88 15/11/2018 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 120 mg/L 93 18/10/2018 Chemical Oxygen Demand Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 66 mg/L 66 16/08/2019 Chromium, as Cr Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Chromium, as Cr Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 16/08/2019 Cobalt, as Co Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Cobalt, as Co Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Copper, Total as Cu Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Copper, Total as Cu Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 19/09/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 1100 uS/cm 980 16/08/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 1100 uS/cm 960 18/07/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 960 uS/cm 950 20/06/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 830 uS/cm 940 16/05/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 900 uS/cm 970 18/04/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 1000 uS/cm 1000 21/03/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 1000 uS/cm 970 21/02/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 1000 uS/cm 940 17/01/2019 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 940 uS/cm 930 13/12/2018 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 920 uS/cm 920 15/11/2018 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 890 uS/cm 945 18/10/2018 Electrical Conductivity @ 25C Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 1000 uS/cm 1000 16/08/2019 Iron, Total as Fe Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.52 mg/L 0.355 21/02/2019 Iron, Total as Fe Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.19 mg/L 0.19 16/08/2019 Lead, Total as Pb Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.05 mg/L 0.05 21/02/2019 Lead, Total as Pb Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.05 mg/L 0.05 16/08/2019 Magnesium, as Mg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 18 mg/L 22.5 18/07/2019 Magnesium, as Mg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 22 mg/L 23 18/04/2019 Magnesium, as Mg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 23 mg/L 23 21/02/2019 Magnesium, as Mg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 25 mg/L 23 17/01/2019 Magnesium, as Mg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 23 mg/L 21.5 18/10/2018 Magnesium, as Mg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 20 mg/L 20 16/08/2019 Manganese, Total as Mn Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.06 mg/L 0.04 21/02/2019 Manganese, Total as Mn Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.02 mg/L 0.02 16/08/2019 Mercury, as Hg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Mercury, as Hg Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Molybdenum, as Mo Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Molybdenum, as Mo Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Nickel, Total as Ni Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Nickel, Total as Ni Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 18/07/2019 Nitrogen, Total Combined Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 11 mg/L 14.5 18/04/2019 Nitrogen, Total Combined Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 18 mg/L 18 17/01/2019 Nitrogen, Total Combined Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 6.9 mg/L 15.45 18/10/2018 Nitrogen, Total Combined Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 24 mg/L 24 18/07/2019 Phosphorus, Total as P Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 7 mg/L 9.8 18/04/2019 Phosphorus, Total as P Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 10 mg/L 10 17/01/2019 Phosphorus, Total as P Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 9.6 mg/L 10.8 18/10/2018 Phosphorus, Total as P Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 12 mg/L 12 16/08/2019 Potassium, as K Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 25 mg/L 28.5 21/02/2019 Potassium, as K Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 32 mg/L 32 16/08/2019 Selenium, as Se Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Selenium, as Se Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Silver, Total as Ag Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Silver, Total as Ag Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 18/07/2019 Sodium Absorption Ratio Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 4.2 units 4.45 18/04/2019 Sodium Absorption Ratio Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 4.7 units 4.7 17/01/2019 Sodium Absorption Ratio Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 5 units 4.4 18/10/2018 Sodium Absorption Ratio Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 3.8 units 3.8 16/08/2019 Sodium, as Na Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 95 mg/L 125 18/07/2019 Sodium, as Na Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 120 mg/L 130 18/04/2019 Sodium, as Na Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 130 mg/L 130 21/02/2019 Sodium, as Na Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 140 mg/L 130 17/01/2019 Sodium, as Na Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 130 mg/L 114 18/10/2018 Sodium, as Na Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 98 mg/L 98 16/08/2019 Strontium, Total Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.115 21/02/2019 Strontium, Total Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.13 mg/L 0.13 16/08/2019 Thallium, Total Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Thallium, Total Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Tin, Total as Sn Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Tin, Total as Sn Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Titanium, Total Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Titanium, Total Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 19/09/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 490 mg/L 475 16/08/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 430 mg/L 460 18/07/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 520 mg/L 485 20/06/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 450 mg/L 460 16/05/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 440 mg/L 485 18/04/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 550 mg/L 510 21/03/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 510 mg/L 485 21/02/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 520 mg/L 460 17/01/2019 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 520 mg/L 445 13/12/2018 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 460 mg/L 430 15/11/2018 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 370 mg/L 400 18/10/2018 Total Dissolved Solids Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 430 mg/L 430 16/08/2019 Vanadium, as V Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 21/02/2019 Vanadium, as V Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.1 mg/L 0.1 16/08/2019 Zinc, Total as Zn Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 21/02/2019 Zinc, Total as Zn Bacchus Marsh Recycled Water - Final Effluent 0.01 mg/L 0.01 Sample ID Date Received Lab Number Sample Number Grower Crop P(mg/kg) K(mg/kg) Ca(mg/kg) Mg(mg/kg) Zn(mg/kg)

S01 24/02/19 17006550 1 B TOOHEY LUCERNE 162.308 824.122 1551.79 580.796 2.879 S02 24/02/19 17006551 2 B TOOHEY LUCERNE 113.099 892.935 1572.28 509.407 3.121 S03 24/02/19 17006552 3 B TOOHEY LUCERNE 112.519 988.199 1764.08 721.91 2.145

Sample ID B(mg/kg) Cu(mg/kg) Fe(mg/kg) Mn(mg/kg) Na(mg/kg) EC(dS/m) H2O(pH) CaCl2(pH) M3-PSR Cl(mg/kg) S01 2.86 1.974 69.066 141.799 316.578 0.231 7.056 6.289 0.18 94.5 S02 1.625 1.319 99.914 79.985 258.183 0.236 6.384 5.588 0.12 92.5 S03 2.285 1.898 100.006 62.585 365.065 0.215 6.552 5.695 0.11 107

Sample ID TC (%) CNRCNR (%) CECe(meq/100g) Ca (meq/100g) Mg (meq/100g) K (meq/100g) Na (meq/100g) SAR Exchangeable Acidity BaseSaturation % S01 2.063 13.984 16 7.7 4.8 2.1 1.4 0.56 0 100 S02 2.716 17.789 19.2 7.8 4.2 2.3 1.1 0.45 3.85 80.2 S03 2.299 23.58 22.6 8.8 5.9 2.5 1.6 0.59 3.76 83.2

Sample ID Al and H % of CECe Profile Sampled (cm) Client Agronomist Lab Code NO3-N (mg/kg) NO3-N (kg/ha) NH4-N (kg/ha) RootzoneMoisture (mm) Bulk Density Moisture % W/W S01 0 15 ANDREW POWELL ES25 3.58 14.8 2.1 22.04 0.93 15.8 S02 19.8 15 ANDREW POWELL ES25 12.1 52.3 1.5 18.8 1.01 12.41 S03 16.8 15 ANDREW POWELL ES25 3.47 15.4 1.6 30.88 0.92 22.38

Sample ID Ca/Mg Ratio K/Mg Ratio NH4-N (mg/kg) %CEC Ca %CEC Mg %CEC K Date Reported S01 1.6 0.437 0.504 48.1 30 13.1 02/03/19 S02 1.86 0.547 0.345 40.6 21.9 12 02/03/19 S03 1.49 0.423 0.367 38.9 26.1 11.1 02/03/19 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

Appendix E Water Balance

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Water Budget Parameters Existing Water Storage System Calculations Length (East-West) 188 m Area at top of bank (ATB) 23500 m2 Avearge Width (North-South) 125 m Area at maximum water level (ATWL) 22570 m2 Depth (base to top of bank) 4.99 m Area at base of batter (AB) 15025 m2 Freeboard 0.5 m Calculated Volume 83830 m3 or kL Batter Slope (internal) 1: 3 Calculated Volume 83.8 ML Length and width of bank from the top inside batter Depth from the base to top of bank Volume = h / 3 ( ATWL + AB + SQRT ( ATHL * AB )), where h = Depth - Freeboard

INPUT DATA Parameter Symbol Unit Source Storage Dam Area 2.257 ha Calculated from GIS data Estimate Storage Dam Volume TS 83.8 ML Calculated from GIS data Existing Irrigation Area (South) L1 31.6 ha Calculated from GIS data Existing Irrigation Area (East) L2 26.5 ha Calculated from GIS data Potential Irrigation Areas (South) L3 268.6 ha Calculated from GIS data Total Existing, Proposed and Potential Irrigation L 326.7 ha Rainfall Runoff Factor RF 0.7 unitless Proportion of rainfall that remains onsite and infiltrates, allowing for any runoff. EPA Publication 168. Monthly Rainfall Data Balliang East (087008) BoM Station and number Monthly Pan Evaporation Data Laverton RAAF (087031) BoM Station and number

CLIMATE DATA Parameter Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Days in month days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 Evaporation (A) mm 232.5 201.6 164.3 111 71.3 48 55.8 77.5 96 142.6 171 207.7 1579.3 Crop Factor (50% pasture + 50% lucerne) 50% lucerne + 50% pasture 0.825 0.8 0.775 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.475 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.825 0.85 Mean Rainfall mm 32.5 40.2 34 37.8 36.1 32.5 33.8 36.9 44.8 48.9 44.6 43.2 474.3 Median Rainfall mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 473.4 90th percentile rainfall month mm 64.1 94.2 71.5 87.2 62.3 56.8 57 58.7 75.7 84.6 83.4 84.1 627.7 90th% annual * (median monthly/ sum of 90th percentile rainfall year (calc.) mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 median monthly)

CROP CO-EFFICIENTS pasture 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.7 0.7 lucerne 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1 Eucalypts (1 year old) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Eucalypts (2 years old) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Eucalypts (>4 years old) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vineyard (no crop cover) 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.4 0.55 0.6 Vineyard (50% cover crop - pasture) 0.65 0.65 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.65 0.65 Citrus (no crop cover) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Deciduous Orchard (no crop cover 0.75 0.65 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.75

Page 1 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Wastewater Quantity Parameters Western Irrigation Network (WIN) Commitment (s) - In addition to wastewater generated by the PRF Year Change in RWQ (ML) Total RWQ (ML/year) Year Change in RWQ (ML) Total RWQ (ML/year) Year 1 535 535 Year 11 200 1535 Year 2 0 535 Year 12 0 1535 Year 3 0 535 Year 13 0 1535 Year 4 0 535 Year 14 0 1535 Year 5 500 1035 Year 15 0 1535 Year 6 0 1035 Year 16 150 1685 Year 7 100 1135 Year 17 0 1685 Year 8 0 1135 Year 18 0 1685 Year 9 100 1235 Year 19 0 1685 Year 10 100 1335 Year 20 50 1735

WASTEWATER QUANTITY Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual PRF Wastewater generation rate (average) WGR kL/hr 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 - PRF Hours of operation per day (average) OH hrs 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 - Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 WGR*OH*days per month kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 proportional to irrigation Proportion WIN Wastewater Taken E2 requirement (C2) % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 100%

Page 2 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 1-4 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 126059 94058 76732 15912 0 0 0 0 5304 43847 68952 104136 535000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 146049 112405 97813 37400 23133 22643 23277 23093 27245 66142 89623 124849 793672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 104.6 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7305370 19 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -380 -309 -232 -110 7 23 23 17 -51 -114 -237 -323 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 730537019 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 104.6 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 3 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 5-6 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 243871 181963 148443 30783 0 0 0 0 10261 84825 133394 201459 1035000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 263861 200310 169524 52271 23133 22643 23277 23093 32202 107120 154065 222172 1293672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 170.4 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7305370 24 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -262 -221 -160 -95 7 23 23 17 -46 -73 -173 -225 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 730537024 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 170.4 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 4 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 7-8 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 267434 199544 162786 33757 0 0 0 0 11252 93020 146282 220924 1135000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 287424 217891 183867 55245 23133 22643 23277 23093 33193 115315 166953 241637 1393672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 183.6 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7305370 25 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -239 -204 -146 -92 7 23 23 17 -45 -64 -160 -206 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 730537025 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 183.6 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 5 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 9 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 290996 217125 177128 36732 0 0 0 0 12244 101216 159171 240388 1235000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 310986 235472 198209 58220 23133 22643 23277 23093 34185 123511 179842 261101 1493672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 196.8 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7305370 26 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -215 -186 -132 -89 7 23 23 17 -44 -56 -147 -186 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 730537026 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 196.8 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 6 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 10 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 314559 234706 191471 39706 0 0 0 0 13235 109412 172059 259853 1335000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 334549 253053 212552 61194 23133 22643 23277 23093 35176 131707 192730 280566 1593672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 210 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7305370 27 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -191 -168 -117 -86 7 23 23 17 -43 -48 -134 -167 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 730537027 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 210 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 7 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 11-15 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 361684 269868 220155 45654 0 0 0 0 15218 125803 197835 298782 1535000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 381674 288215 241236 67142 23133 22643 23277 23093 37159 148098 218506 319495 1793672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 236.3 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7305370 29 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -144 -133 -89 -80 7 23 23 17 -41 -32 -108 -128 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 730537029 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 236.3 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 8 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 16-19 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 397027 296239 241669 50116 0 0 0 0 16705 138096 217168 327979 1685000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 417017 314586 262750 71604 23133 22643 23277 23093 38646 160391 237839 348692 1943672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 256.1 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7 30 53 70 30 11 0 Storage for Month S ML -109 -107 -67 -75 7 23 23 17 -40 -19 -89 -99 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 7 30 53 70 30 11 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 256.1 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 9 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 20 of Proposed WIN Agreement - 90th% Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (90th percentile -calculated) B1 mm 44.3 46.2 38.1 46.6 54.6 47.4 48.6 57.8 54.7 74.5 58.4 56.5 627.7 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 31.0 32.3 26.7 32.6 38.2 33.2 34.0 40.5 38.3 52.2 40.9 39.6 439.39 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 161 129 101 45 5 0 0 2 24 55 100 137 759 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 525987 421443 329967 147015 16335 0 0 6534 78408 179685 326700 447579 2479653 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3198 2597 2107 952 55 -203 -89 95 499 893 1769 2475 14348 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 408809 305030 248840 51603 0 0 0 0 17201 142194 223612 337712 1735000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 428799 323377 269921 73091 23133 22643 23277 23093 39142 164489 244283 358425 1993672 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 262.7 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0 7 30 53 70 31 16 0 Storage for Month S ML -97 -98 -60 -74 7 23 23 17 -39 -15 -82 -89 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 7 30 53 70 31 16 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 70 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -13.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 262.7 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 10 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 1-4 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 126059 94058 76732 15912 0 0 0 0 5304 43847 68952 104136 535000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 145674 112014 97491 37005 22670 22241 22867 22603 26783 65512 89128 124370 788358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 87.1 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -416 -349 -265 -149 -39 12 7 -33 -97 -176 -290 -372 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 87.1 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 11 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 5-6 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 243871 181963 148443 30783 0 0 0 0 10261 84825 133394 201459 1035000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 263486 199919 169202 51876 22670 22241 22867 22603 31740 106490 153570 221693 1288358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 142.4 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -298 -261 -193 -134 -39 12 7 -33 -92 -135 -225 -275 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 142.4 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 12 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 7-8 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 267434 199544 162786 33757 0 0 0 0 11252 93020 146282 220924 1135000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 287049 217500 183545 54850 22670 22241 22867 22603 32731 114685 166458 241158 1388358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 153.4 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -275 -243 -179 -131 -39 12 7 -33 -91 -127 -213 -255 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 153.4 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 13 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 9 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 290996 217125 177128 36732 0 0 0 0 12244 101216 159171 240388 1235000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 310611 235081 197887 57825 22670 22241 22867 22603 33723 122881 179347 260622 1488358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 164.5 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -251 -226 -165 -128 -39 12 7 -33 -90 -119 -200 -236 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 164.5 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 14 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 10 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 314559 234706 191471 39706 0 0 0 0 13235 109412 172059 259853 1335000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 334174 252662 212230 60799 22670 22241 22867 22603 34714 131077 192235 280087 1588358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 175.5 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -228 -208 -150 -125 -39 12 7 -33 -89 -111 -187 -216 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 175.5 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 15 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 11-15 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 361684 269868 220155 45654 0 0 0 0 15218 125803 197835 298782 1535000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 381299 287824 240914 66747 22670 22241 22867 22603 36697 147468 218011 319016 1788358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 197.6 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -181 -173 -122 -119 -39 12 7 -33 -87 -94 -161 -178 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 197.6 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 16 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 16-19 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 397027 296239 241669 50116 0 0 0 0 16705 138096 217168 327979 1685000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 416642 314195 262428 71209 22670 22241 22867 22603 38184 159761 237344 348213 1938358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 214.2 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -145 -146 -100 -115 -39 12 7 -33 -86 -82 -142 -148 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 214.2 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 17 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Water Budget - Irrigation - Year 20 of Proposed WIN Agreement - Median Rainfall Parameter Symbol Formula Units Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Rainfall (median) B1 mm 27.7 28.9 23.8 29.1 34.1 29.6 30.4 36.1 34.2 46.6 36.5 35.3 392.3 Effective Rainfall B2 B1*RF mm 19.4 20.2 16.7 20.4 23.9 20.7 21.3 25.3 23.9 32.6 25.6 24.7 274.61 OUTPUTS Potential Evapotranspiration C1 I*A mm 192 161 127 78 43 24 27 43 62 107 141 177 1181.005 Irrigation Requirement C2 C1-B2 mm 172 141 111 57 19 3 5 17 38 74 116 152 905 Potential Irrigation Volume C3 10*(L*C2) (zero where negative) kL 561924 460647 362637 186219 62073 9801 16335 55539 124146 241758 378972 496584 2956635 Net Evaporation from Dams D 10(0.8*A-B1)*Total Dam Area kL 3573 2988 2429 1347 518 199 321 585 961 1523 2264 2954 19662 INPUTS Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 kL 23188 20944 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 23188 22440 23188 22440 23188 273020 Volume of WIN Wastewater (Years 1-5) E2 kL 408809 305030 248840 51603 0 0 0 0 17201 142194 223612 337712 1735000 Proportion of WIN Wastewater Taken WF % 23% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 13% 19% 30.26 Total Water for Irrigation F (E1+E2*WF)-D kL 428424 322986 269599 72696 22670 22241 22867 22603 38680 163859 243788 357946 1988358 Area Required for Irrigation G ha 219.7 STORAGE CALCULATION Storage from Previous Month SP ML 0 0 0 0 0012190 0 0 0 Storage for Month S ML -134 -138 -93 -114 -39 12 7 -33 -85 -78 -135 -139 Cumulative Storage CS ML 0 0 0 0 0121900 0 0 0

MINIMUM STORAGE REQUIREMENTS (ML) CS max 19 STORAGE REQUIREMENT SHORTFALL (ML) CS max - TS -64.8 REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G 219.7 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) L 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) G-L 0 IRRIGATION VOLUME SHORTFALL (ML) December Cumulative Storage 0

Page 18 of 18 30437_L&G Meats Water Balance_WIN_21Nov19 Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning Wastewater Treatment Proposal

Appendix F Nutrient Balance

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_AppE_WWTP_22Jan20 Issue Number 2 Wastewater / Recycled Water Quantity Parameters Western Irrigation Network (WIN) Commitment (s) - In addition to wastewater generated by the PRF Year Change in RWQ (ML) Total RWQ (ML) Year Change in RWQ (ML) Total RWQ (ML) Year 1 535 535 Year 11 200 1535 Year 2 0 535 Year 12 0 1535 Year 3 0 535 Year 13 0 1535 Year 4 0 535 Year 14 0 1535 Year 5 500 1035 Year 15 0 1535 Year 6 0 1035 Year 16 150 1685 Year 7 100 1135 Year 17 0 1685 Year 8 0 1135 Year 18 0 1685 Year 9 100 1235 Year 19 0 1685 Year 10 100 1335 Year 20 50 1735 PRF Wastewater Quantity Parameter Symbol Formula Units Annual

PRF Wastewater generation rate (average) WGR kL/hr 34 PRF Hours of operation per day (average) OH hrs 22 Volume of PRF Wastewater E1 WGR*OH*days per month ML 273

Page 1 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 1 - 5 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 535 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 6206 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 5243 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 21 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 7 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 17126 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 5516 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year

Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year

NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 55.2 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 100.3 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 100.3 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2632.1 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 5972.8 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 2 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 5 - 6 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1035 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 12006 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 10143 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 18 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 8 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 22926 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 10416 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 74 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 189.4 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 189.4 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2256.4 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 7222.7 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 3 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 7 - 8 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1135 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 13166 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 11123 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 17 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 8 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 24086 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 11396 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 77.7 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 207.2 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 207.2 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2220 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 7400.5 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 4 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 9 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1235 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 14326 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 12103 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 17 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 8 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 25246 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 12376 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 81.4 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 225 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 225 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2189.4 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 7561.9 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 5 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 10 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1335 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 15486 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 13083 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 16 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 8 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 26406 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 13356 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 85.2 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 242.8 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 242.8 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2163.3 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 7709.1 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 6 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 11 - 15 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1535 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 17806 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 15043 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 16 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 8 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 28726 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 15316 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 92.7 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 278.5 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 278.5 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2121.1 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 7967.9 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 7 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 16 - 19 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1685 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 19546 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 16513 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 16 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 9 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 30466 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 16786 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 98.3 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 305.2 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 305.2 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2095.9 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 8136.1 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 8 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19 Nutrient Balance - Irrigation - Year 20 of WIN Agreement WASTEWATER LOADING - WIN Hydraulic Load - WIN Agreement A1 1735 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C1 14.5 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Phosphorus Concentration in WIN Recycled Water C2 9.8 mg/L Median October 2018, January 2019, April 2019 and July 2019 monitoring data Available Nitrogen - WIN D1 A*C1*(1-B) 20126 kg/year Available Phosphorus - WIN D2 L*D 17003 kg/year WASTEWATER LOADING - PRF Hydraulic Load - PRF A2 273 ML/year %N Lost to Soil Processes B 0.2 unitless Nitrogen Concentration in Treated PRF Water C3 50 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<50mg/L) Phosphorus Concentration in Treated PRF Water C4 1.0 mg/L Estimated treated PRF water quality - Section 4 (<1mg/L) Available Nitrogen - PRF D3 A2*C3*(1-B) 10920 kg/year Available Phosphorus - PRF D4 A2*C4 273 kg/year TOTAL WASTEWATER LOADING Blended Irrigation Water N concentration C5 D5/(A1+A2) 15 Blended Irrigation Water P concentration C6 D6/(A1+A2) 9 Available Nitrogen D5 D1+D3 31046 kg/year Available Phosphorus D6 D2+D4 17276 kg/year CROP UPTAKE Ryegrass (200-280) ¯ Lucerne (220-540) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 210-410 Nitrogen Uptake E1 310 kg/ha.year kg/ha.year Phosphorus Uptake E2 55 kg/ha.year Ryegrass (60-80) ¯ Lucerne (20-30) (1:1). Table 6 EPA Publication 168 = 40-55 kg/ha.year NUTRIENT BALANCE Minimum Area Required for Nitrogen Uptake F1 E/A 100.1 ha Minimum Area Required for Phosphorus Uptake F2 F/B 314.1 ha

REQUIRED IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) G Max(F1,F2) 314.1 AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA (Ha) H 326.7 IRRIGATION AREA SHORTFALL (Ha) I G-H 0 MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E2*H)/(C6) 2088.5 PHOSPHORUS CONTENT(ML) MAXIMUM IRRIGATION VOLUME FOR AVAILABLE IRRIGATION AREA BASED ON I (E1*H)/(C5*(1-B)) 8188 NITROGEN CONTENT(ML)

Page 9 of 9 30437_L&G Nutrient Balance_Nov19

Level 4, 3 Bowen Crescent Melbourne Victoria 3004 PO Box 33298 Melbourne 3004 Australia t: +61 (0) 3 9978 7823 e: [email protected]

ee.ricardo.com