G & K O'connor Pty

G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd

Expert Buffer Assessment

910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South

October 2020

This report has been requested by Arnold Bloch Leibler on behalf of G&K O’Connor Pty Ltd. Authors

Expert Witness: Mr Peter J Ramsay, Managing Director and Principal Consultant Supporting Authors: Mr Nathan Williams, Senior Consultant

Distribution Record

Recipient Report Status Date Issued

G&K O’Connor Pty Ltd Revision A 2 October 2020 C/- Ellie Mason, Arnold Bloch Leibler

Peter J Ramsay & Associates Internal Copy Revision A 2 October 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. EXPERT EVIDENCE DETAILS 1 2.1 Expert Witness Details 1 2.2 Expert’s Qualifications and Experience 1 2.3 Expert’s Area of Expertise 2 2.4 Statement of Expertise 2 2.5 Other Significant Contributors to the Report 2 2.6 Instructions that Defined the Scope of the Report 2 2.7 Facts, Matters and Assumptions on which the Report Proceeds 3 2.8 Documents and Other Materials Used to Prepare the Report 3 2.8.1 Reports and Documents provided by Arnold Bloch Leibler 3 2.8.2 Other Information Sources 3 2.9 Tests or Experiments 4 2.10 Summary of Opinions 4 2.11 Provisional Opinions 4 2.12 Limitation 4 2.13 Declaration 4 3. BACKGROUND 5 4. LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDELINES 6 4.1 Pipelines Design and Construction Standard 6 5. EXPERT OPINION 7 5.1 Location Analysis 7 5.1.1 AS 2885 Location Classifications 7 5.1.2 Discussion of Location Classifications 8 6. QUESTIONS FROM LETTER OF INSTRUCTION 9 6.1 Question Regarding T2 Classification 9 6.2 Question Regarding Relocation of the Pipeline 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure F1 Locality Map Figure F2 Pipeline alignment and 50 m buffer Figure F3 Pipeline alignment with 50 m setback from Master Plan boundary USE OF REPORT

The preparation of this report has been undertaken for the purpose of providing expert advice to the Crib Point Inquiry and Advisory Committee in relation to the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. The report is to include opinions on the potential constraints of the proposed alignment of the Crib Point gas pipeline project on the future use of the land owned by G&K O’Connor Pty Ltd which is located at 910 and 940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham, Victoria and it is not intended that this report should be used for any other purpose. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Act Environment Protection Act 1970

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

VPA Victoria Planning Authority

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

UGZ Urban Growth Zone

SEPP State Environment Protection Policy

SPPF State Planning Policy Frameworks 1

1 1. INTRODUCTION

2 I was engaged by Arnold Bloch Leibler on behalf of their client, G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd, to provide an 3 expert opinion in relation to the impacts of the proposed Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project 4 (the proposed Pipeline) on the proposed future use of the O’Connor site as detailed in the approved Master 5 plan. The O’Connor site is at 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South (the Site). A copy of the 6 letter of instruction from Arnold Bloch Leibler regarding my expert witness statement is provided as 7 Appendix A.

8 I have been asked to have regard to the relevant standards of gas pipeline and the land uses proposed 9 for the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node (the Master Plan). I have also been 10 asked to consider whether the proposed route of the pipeline would constrain the future development of 11 the O’Connor land.

12 2. EXPERT EVIDENCE DETAILS

13 2.1 Expert Witness Details

14 Expert Witness: Mr Peter Ramsay 15 Address: Level 10, 222 Kings Way, South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205 16 Company: Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd

17 2.2 Expert’s Qualifications and Experience

18 I am the Managing Director and Principal Consultant of Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd. I am a 19 chemical engineer and hold a Graduate Diploma of Management and a Master of Environmental Science. 20 I have over 35 years’ experience in environmental, health & safety auditing, environmental 21 impact assessment and separation distances for industrial facilities. I also have extensive 22 experience in determining appropriate buffer distances between industrial facilities and sensitive land 23 uses to mitigate the impact of industrial residual air emissions. Prior to establishing Peter J Ramsay 24 and Associates I was Assistant Director of the Victorian Environment Protection Authority and was 25 responsible for Victoria’s Air Quality Management Program.

26 I am a Fellow of Engineers Australia and a Chartered Professional Engineer. I am appointed as an 27 Environmental Auditor under the Victorian Environment Protection Act 1970 for both Industrial Facilities 28 and Contaminated Land and accredited as a Site Auditor under the New South Wales Contaminated Land 29 Management Act 1997. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in Queensland. I have written numerous 30 papers on environmental management. 2

31 My curriculum vitae is provided in Appendix B.

32 2.3 Expert’s Area of Expertise

33 My professional career has focused on identifying and resolving environmental issues at industrial and 34 commercial facilities and the interface with residential land uses. This includes assessments of separation 35 distances for industrial premises including landfills. I have expertise and experience in determining 36 separation distances for industrial facilities and environmental, health & safety auditing. I also have 37 expertise air quality assessments, dispersion modelling and waste management.

38 2.4 Statement of Expertise

39 In view of my professional qualifications and expertise, I am well qualified to prepare and present this 40 expert witness statement to the panel.

41 2.5 Other Significant Contributors to the Report

42 I have been assisted in the preparation of my report by Mr Nathan Williams.

43 Mr Nathan Williams, Senior Consultant, holds bachelors’ degrees in chemical engineering and science 44 and has seven years’ experience in consulting. He is experienced in assessments of separation distances 45 for industries, air dispersion modelling and designing and operating equipment for pollution control at 46 industrial facilities. He also has expertise in environmental, health & safety auditing and has assisted me 47 in the preparation of numerous expert evidence reports in relation to separation distances in Victoria.

48 2.6 Instructions that Defined the Scope of the Report

49 I received written instruction from Arnold Bloch Leibler on behalf of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd on 29 50 September 2020. A copy of the instruction from Arnold Bloch Leibler is provided in Appendix A.

51 The letter of instruction of 29 September 2020 outlines the specific aspects to be addressed in the expert 52 witness statement are as follows:

53 (a) Having regard to the relevant standards and to ensure the location of the pipeline 54 does not constrain future plans for the O’Connor land, ought the pipeline adjacent to the 55 land be designed and constructed in accordance with design criteria T2?

56 (b) Alternatively, if APA propose to deliver the pipeline in accordance with design criteria 57 T1, ought the pipeline be set back 50 metres from the title boundary to avoid the 58 measurement length associated with the pipeline encroaching on the site? 3

59 My opinions on these aspects are provided in Section 6 of this report.

60 2.7 Facts, Matters and Assumptions on which the Report Proceeds

61 The following facts, matters and assumptions were used in the preparation of this report: 62 • The facts and matters detailed in the letter of instruction from Arnold Bloch Leibler; 63 • Regulatory guidelines and other literature; and 64 • My professional judgement and expertise as specified in my curriculum vitae in Appendix B.

65 2.8 Documents and Other Materials Used to Prepare the Report

66 The documentation and materials used to prepare this report included:

67 2.8.1 Reports and Documents provided by Arnold Bloch Leibler

68 On 29 September 2020, along with the written instructions, Arnold Bloch Leibler provided a copy of the 69 follow documents: 70 • State of Victoria 2018, Register Search Statement for Certificate of Title of Lot 2 on Plan of 71 Subdivision 332615J (Volume 10168 Folio 204); 72 • State of Victoria 2018, Register Search Statement for Certificate of Title of Crown Allotment 60 73 Parish of Nar-nar-goon (Volume 08913 Folio 357); 74 • Cardinia Shire Council 2019, Approved plan - South East Food Production, Export and Employment 75 Node Master Plan, approved on 1 October 2019 76 • Report titled “Separation Distances for Proposed Food Production, Export and Employment Node, 77 Pakenham”, prepared by Peter J Ramsay & Associates, dated 19 March 2019; 78 • Letter titled “Crib Point to Pakenham – Gas Import Jetty and Gas Pipeline Project G&K O’Connor 79 Submission” prepared by G&K O’Connor Pty Ltd to the Crib Point Inquiry and Advisory Committee, 80 dated 26 August 2020; 81 • Map of Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Map at scale 1:9,028, dated 18 September 2020 82 • Letter titled “Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project – Submission to Planning” prepared by Hall 83 & Wilcox Lawyers to Ken Gray of Arnold Bloch Leibler, dated 25 September 2020

84 2.8.2 Other Information Sources

85 • Advice on separation distances prepared by Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd in the letter report 86 titled “Separation Distances for Proposed Food Production, Export and Employment Node, 87 Pakenham”, dated 19 March 2019; and associated documents reviewed for the preparation of the 88 preliminary advice. 89 • Major Hazard Facilities, Advisory Committee Final Report, 19 July 2016, Planning Panels Victoria 90 (the MHF Report).

91 • Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environmental Effects Statement, Inquiry and Advisory 92 Committee, Technical Note, TN04, 25 September 2020.

93 2.9 Tests or Experiments

94 No tests or experiments were performed to assist in the preparation of this report.

95 2.10 Summary of Opinions

96 My opinions are summarised in Section 5.4 of this report.

97 2.11 Provisional Opinions

98 The opinions expressed are not considered to be provisional.

99 2.12 Limitation

100 I consider myself qualified to prepare and present the report. I have not addressed questions falling outside 101 my area of expertise, and do not consider it incomplete or inaccurate in any respect.

102 My advice is based on the Brief of Documents, which was provided by Arnold Bloch Leibler, my review of 103 relevant legislation, guidelines and documents referred to in Section 2.8 and my experience with 104 undertaking assessments of separation distances for industrial sites.

105 2.13 Declaration

106 I declare that:

107 “I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of 108 significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel”.

109 3. BACKGROUND

110 G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd and its related entities own and operate an abattoir and associated facilities 111 (packing and refrigeration facilities) at 910 – 940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South (the Site). The 112 Site is zoned Special Use Zone 7 under the Cardinia Planning Scheme and is part of the plan to develop 113 the Site into South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node (the Master Plan). The location 114 of the Site is shown in Figure F1 attached.

115 The Master Plan area is bounded by Deep Creek on the north, Koo Wee Rup Road (and proposed future 116 freeway) on the west, and the Green Wedge Zone 1 (GWZ1) on the south and east. The Master Plan 117 comprises a mix of businesses in the food product supply chain, including the current O’Connor’s 118 production facilities, retail premises, warehousing, transport and fuel depot, and associated rural industries 119 and supporting services.

120 O’Connor currently employs over 400 workers at its existing abattoir and associated facilities at the Site. 121 It is understood that the proposed Employment Node as part of the Master Plan will accommodate 122 approximately 2,000 jobs at completion, which is equivalent to 16.8 jobs per hectare of land (over a total 123 site area of 119 ha).

124 The majority of the Master Plan area is light industrial comprising warehouses, small processing plants, 125 industry related retail premises, transport terminal and supporting facilities such as offices or food stores.

126 A fuel depot is proposed as part of the Master Plan. The Fuel Depot is to be located within the transport 127 precinct which abuts the southern boundary of the Site. Fuel depots are used for the bulk storage of 128 liquid hydrocarbon fuels, generally in an above ground tank farm. Based on the use of the term fuel 129 depot, I assume that storage would be likely to be in an above ground tank farm.

130 A gas infrastructure project is proposed to transport gas from a future terminal at Crib Point to Pakenham 131 (the Proposed Pipeline), which comprises gas import jetty works at Crib Point, a 57 km long underground 132 gas transmission pipeline and associated infrastructure from the Crib Point to Pakenham. The Proposed 133 Pipeline is a high-pressure pipeline which was originally proposed to run diagonally through the southern 134 land parcel owned by O’Connor, and subsequently refined to run external to the property boundary around 135 the south east corner of the Site. The proposed construction footprint of the pipeline is within the GWZ1 136 adjoining the O’Connor land on the south and east. The location of the Proposed Pipeline with respect to 137 the Master Plan area is shown on Figure F2, attached.

138 Peter J. Ramsay and Associates Pty Ltd previously provided advice on separation distances and the 139 compatibility of the proposed gas pipeline project with land uses detailed on the approved master plan.

140 The advice was provided in a letter report titled “Separation Distances for Proposed Food Production, 141 Export and Employment Node, Pakenham”, dated 19 March 2020.

142 ABL has subsequently engaged me to provide further expert opinion on the revised alignment of the gas 143 pipeline.

144 4. LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDELINES

145 4.1 Pipelines Design and Construction Standard

146 The AS/NZS 2885 series of standards sets our specific requirements for the design, construction, testing, 147 operations and maintenance of high-pressure gas pipelines, it provides guidance for design and location 148 of the Proposed Pipeline.

149 Section 4.7.1 of the AS/NZS 2885.1:2018, Pipelines - Gas and liquid petroleum, Part 1: Design and 150 construction (the Standard) requires that the alignment of the pipeline shall be selected with consideration 151 of ‘public safety, pipeline integrity, environmental impact, and the consequences of escape of fluid”. The 152 Standard also sets out requirements to consider both the current and future land use change:

153 A pipeline shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of this Standard – 154 (a) For the land use existing at the time of design; and 155 (b) For the future land use that can reasonably determined by research of public records 156 and consultation with land planning agencies in the jurisdiction through which the 157 pipeline in proposed.

158 The recommended separation distances provided by EPA and planning policies are typically based on 159 amenity risks to sensitive receptors, however, AS/NZS 2885 series of standards identify the need for 160 separation with regard to safety risks.

161 The standards of design, including requirements for safety features and pipeline alignment, are specified 162 based on location classes within the measurement length (ML) of the pipeline. The ML is defined as the 163 distance from a pipeline where the radiation is 4.7 kW/m2 from an ignited full bore rupture and calculated 164 based on the size of the pipeline and its operating pressure regardless of the pipeline design. It is noted 165 from the environment effects statement (EES) that the calculated ML for the Proposed Pipeline is 640 166 metres.

167 The primary location classes are classified based on population density (e.g. rural, high density urban), 168 and the secondary classes are based on land usage (e.g sensitive, industrial, heavy industrial). The design 169 of the pipelines should consider the consequence to the surrounding population and the environment

170 should the pipeline system fail. The design should also respond to potential threats to the pipeline system 171 from usage of land in the vicinity, that may interfere with a pipeline and increase the risk and consequence 172 of a pipeline failure. For the safe co-location of current and future land uses with a gas pipeline, appropriate 173 separation and pipeline safety measures should be designed with consideration of land use planning to 174 ensure the pipeline design continues to be compatible with the new location classification.

175 5. EXPERT OPINION

176 5.1 Location Analysis

177 5.1.1 AS 2885 Location Classifications

178 Location classification is intended to categorize land uses to reflect the risks on and from the pipeline. 179 Where there are more populated land uses, this means a greater level of activities that may cause damage 180 to the pipeline. Failure of the pipeline system can cause more severe consequences to high density 181 residential areas and employment areas.

182 The AS/NZ 2885 classifies locations with a primary location class, and where necessary a secondary 183 class. Brief descriptions of the primary and secondary location classes are provided in Table 1and Table 184 2 respectively.

185 Table 1:Primary location classes

Primary Location Class Description

R1 (Rural) Locations generally unpopulated except for occasional isolated residences.

R2 (Rural Residential) Locations with single residence blocks typically in the range of 1 ha to 5 ha.

T1 (Low Density Urban) Suburban areas.

T2 (High Density Urban) High density urban areas.

186

187 Table 2: Secondary location classes

Secondary location Class Description

Locations which contain sensitive receptors, which in the context of AS/NZS 2885 refers to locations where people are less able to protect themselves from harm. Sensitive (S) This includes, child care centres, schools, hospitals and aged care facilities. The sensitive location class may also refer to areas of high ecological significance.

Ordinary industrial areas, consisting of factories, warehouses, commercial show- Industrial (I) rooms and other commercial/industrial facilities.

Large industrial sites, such as petrochemical facilities, mines, coal processing Heavy Industrial (HI) plants or other large industrial activities. This allows classification of areas where a pipeline failure could have significant impact on other land uses.

Secondary location Class Description

Common Infrastructure Corridor Where pipelines are collocated with other infrastructure which may cause impact (CIC) to safety management.

Locations in which crowds or congestion may lead to increased concentrations os Crowd (C) population. Examples include sports fields, roads with significant traffic congestion, or community halls.

188 5.1.2 Discussion of Location Classifications

189 I have reviewed the technical note, TN04, dated 25 September 2020, from APA regarding the Proposed 190 Pipeline. I understand that the Proposed Pipeline is to be constructed to the criteria for a T1 location 191 classification along its entire length.

192 The design of the pipeline does not change the measurement length and I note that high pressure gas 193 pipelines are frequently located in urban and suburban areas. APA propose that the area of consequence 194 is 50 metres from the location of the pipeline and this defines the Notification Area.

195 The discussion of location classification provided in TN04 does not include consideration of any land that 196 may be classified as Heavy Industrial. The difference between Industrial and Heavy Industrial land 197 classification is due to the potential impact of a failure rather than any specific threshold or scale of 198 operation. The criteria for classification of Heavy Industry are: 199 i) Sites which contain unusual threats to the pipeline system; or 200 ii) Site which contain features that may cause a pipeline failure event to escalate either in terms 201 of fire, or for the potential release of toxic or flammable materials.

202 The Master Plan includes the proposal for a fuel depot which is to be located within the 50 metre 203 consequence area from the Proposed Pipeline.

204 The fuel depot is not a Sensitive Use, according to the definition in AS 2885.6:2018. However, the above 205 ground tanks present at a fuel depot may be at risk of failure in the event of a pipeline failure if located 206 within the consequence area of the pipeline. Elevated temperature in the event of a pipeline failure and 207 fire may lead to weakening of the structure of above ground tanks introducing a risk of failure.

208 The presence of a fuel depot would be considered a feature that may cause a pipeline failure event to 209 escalate, through the release of flammable materials. Therefore, it should be classified a Heavy 210 Industrial location in accordance with AS 2885.6:2018.

211 There is no specific requirement in the AS/NZS 2885 as whether land classified as Heavy Industry 212 should be treated as R2, T1 or T2. Rather a consequence assessment should be undertaken to assess 213 the severity of risk of failure.

214 In the absence of detailed design information of the proposed fuel depot, the consequence assessment 215 cannot be undertaken. However, it is reasonable to assume that loss containment of liquid hydrocarbon 216 in the event of a pipeline failure and fire could have a catastrophic outcome, according to the definitions 217 in Table 3.1 of AS/NZS 2885.6:2018.

218 This is a real possibility given that the approved location of the fuel depot is within the Consequence 219 Area of the Proposed Pipeline. In such a case a T2 location classification would be warranted.

220 6. QUESTIONS FROM LETTER OF INSTRUCTION

221 6.1 Question Regarding T2 Classification

222 Having regard to the relevant standards and to ensure the location of the pipeline does not constrain future 223 plans for the O’Connor land, ought the pipeline adjacent to the land be designed and constructed in 224 accordance with design criteria T2?

225 The Master Plan includes a proposed fuel depot which is to be located near the southern boundary of the 226 Site. The location of the consequence area from the Proposed Pipeline includes land which is set aside 227 for the transport precinct in which the depot is to be located in the approved Master Plan.

228 If the Proposed Pipeline is to be constructed within 50 metres of the southern boundary of the Site, then 229 the secondary location classification of Heavy Industrial, with criteria for T2 is appropriate.

230 6.2 Question Regarding Relocation of the Pipeline

231 Alternatively, if APA propose to deliver the pipeline in accordance with design criteria T1, ought the pipeline 232 be set back 50 metres from the title boundary to avoid the measurement length associated with the pipeline 233 encroaching on the site?

234 Yes, if APA propose to assign the location class T1 to the pipeline, it ought to be set back 50 metres from 235 the southern boundary of the Site. This would avoid the Consequence Area and Notification Area (rather 236 than the measurement length) from the Proposed Pipeline from preventing the development of a fuel depot 237 in accordance with the Master Plan.

238 Further, I consider it would be best practice design to locate the pipeline 50 metres from the eastern 239 boundary of the Site. This would practically eliminate the risk of harm to future receptors within the Site by 240 placing them outside of the consequence area of the Proposed Pipeline.

Figures Legend

Master Plan Boundary Urban Growth Boundary

Data Sources OpenStreetMap Standard Basemap: © 2019 OpenStreetMap contributors. Available under the Open Database License, cartography licensed Property Lot Boundary: Source - Spaal Datamart Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Downloaded on 24/09/2020. hps://services.land.vic.gov.au/ SpaalDatamart

Main Map Scale 1 : 45,000 @ A4 Coordinate System: WGS84 / Pseudo Mervator

LOCALITY MAP

Expert Buﬀer Assessment regarding APA Gas Pipeline Project Urban Growth Boundary 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South

Client: G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd

Project: 924.3 Date: 01/10/2020 Figure Revision: Rev.00 Site Designed: AD Map Scale 1 : 1,200,000 @ A4 Drawn: AD F1 Reviewed: NW File: P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 O'Connor gas pipeline, Pakenham\Maps\Working\F1_Locality Map.qgz Pakenham\Maps\Working\F1_Locality O'Connor pipeline, gas P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 File: Peter J. Ramsay & Associates does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of informaon in this ﬁgure, and any person using it does so at their own risk. Peter J. Ramsay & Associates shall bear no liability for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the informaon. Legend

Master Plan Boundary Proposed Pipeline Alignment 50m Buffer 50m buffer impacted Masterplan area Master Plan Precincts Core Entry Transport Overland flow path Support/Services Water Retarding Basin

Data Sources Lot Boundary - Spaal Datamart Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Downloaded on 24/09/2020. hps://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpaalDatamart

Masterplan precinct source- South East Food Producon, Export and Employment Node Masterplan (rev8) dated 20 September 2019

Pipeline alignment - Map of Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Map at scale 1:9,028, dated 18 September 2020

Main Map Scale 1 : 9,000 @ A4 Coordinate System: GDA94 / Zone 55

PIPELINE ALIGNMENT AND 50M BUFFER

Expert Buﬀer Assessment regarding APA Gas Pipeline Project 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South

Client: G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd

Project: 924.3 Date: 01/10/2020 Figure Revision: Rev.00 Designed: NW Drawn: AD F2 Reviewed: NW File: P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 O'Connor gas pipeline, Pakenham\Maps\Working\Working_20200928.qgz O'Connor pipeline, gas P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 File: Peter J. Ramsay & Associates does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of informaon in this ﬁgure, and any person using it does so at their own risk. Peter J. Ramsay & Associates shall bear no liability for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the informaon. Legend

Master Plan Boundary Pipeline Alignemnt with 50m setback from the Masterplan boundary 50m buﬀer Surrounding Property Boundary Proposed Pipeline Alignment Master Plan Precincts Core Entry Plaza Transport Overland ﬂow path Support/Services Water Retarding Basin

Data Sources Lot Boundary - Spaal Datamart Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Downloaded on 24/09/2020. hps://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpaalDatamart

Masterplan precinct source- South East Food Producon, Export and Employment Node Masterplan (rev8) dated 20 September 2019

Main Map Scale 1 : 9,000 @ A4 Coordinate System: GDA94 / Zone 55

PIPELINE ALIGNMENT WITH 50M SETBACK FROM THE MASTERPLAN BOUNDARY AND 50M BUFFER Expert Buﬀer Assessment regarding APA Gas Pipeline Project 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South

Client: G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd

Project: 924.3 Date: 01/10/2020 Figure Revision: Rev.00 Designed: AD Drawn: AD F3 Reviewed: NW File: P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 O'Connor gas pipeline, Pakenham\Maps\Working\Working_20200928.qgz O'Connor pipeline, gas P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 File: Peter J. Ramsay & Associates does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of informaon in this ﬁgure, and any person using it does so at their own risk. Peter J. Ramsay & Associates shall bear no liability for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the informaon. Legend

Master Plan Boundary

Data Sources Source - Spaal Datamart Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Downloaded on 24/09/2020. hps:// services.land.vic.gov.au/SpaalDatamart

Main Map Scale 1 : 38,000 @ A4 Coordinate System: GDA94 / Zone 55

Zoning Legend FZ1 - FARMING ZONE - SCHEDULE 1 GRZ1 - GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SCHEDULE 1 GWZ1 - GREEN WEDGE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1 INZ1 - INDUSTRIAL 1 ZONE ZONING MAP LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE - SCHEDULE 2 PPRC - PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE PUZ5 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - CEMETERY/CREMATORIUM PUZ2 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - EDUCATION Expert Buﬀer Assessment regarding APA Gas PUZ3 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - HEALTH AND COMMUNITY Pipeline Project PUZ-6 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUZ7 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - OTHER PUBLIC USE 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South PUZ1 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - SERVICE AND UTILITY PUZ4 - PUBLIC USE ZONE - TRANSPORT Client: G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd RDZ1 - ROAD ZONE - CATEGORY 1 RDZ2 - ROAD ZONE - CATEGORY 2 SUZ1 - SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1 Project: 924.3 SUZ4 - SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 4 Date: 01/10/2020 Figure SUZ5 - SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 5 Revision: Rev.00 SUZ7 - SPECIAL USE ZONE - SCHEDULE 7 Designed: NW Drawn: AD F4 UGZ - URBAN GROWTH ZONE Reviewed: NW File: P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 O'Connor gas pipeline, Pakenham\Maps\Working\Working_20200928.qgz O'Connor pipeline, gas P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 File: Peter J. Ramsay & Associates does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of informaon in this ﬁgure, and any person using it does so at their own risk. Peter J. Ramsay & Associates shall bear no liability for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the informaon. Legend

Master Plan Boundary Proposed Pipeline Alignment 50m _Buﬀer 50m_buﬀer impacted area Master Plan Precincts (Rev3) Core Entry plaza Transport Support

Data Sources Lot Boundary - Spaal Datamart Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Downloaded on 24/09/2020. hps://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpaalDatamart

Masterplan precinct source- South East Food Producon, Export and Employment Node Masterplan (re3) dated 22 November 2018

Pipeline alignment - Map of Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Map at scale 1:9,028, dated 18 September 2020

Main Map Scale 1 : 9,000 @ A4 Coordinate System: GDA94 / Zone 55

INDICATIVE LOCATION OF LAND USES WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN AREA

Expert Buﬀer Assessment regarding APA Gas Pipeline Project 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South

Client: G&K O'Connor Pty Ltd

Project: 924.3 Date: 01/10/2020 Figure Revision: Rev.00 Designed: NW Drawn: AD F5 Reviewed: NW File: P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 O'Connor gas pipeline, Pakenham\Maps\Working\Working_20200928.qgz O'Connor pipeline, gas P:\Projects\924_Aronold_Bloch_Leibler\03 File: Peter J. Ramsay & Associates does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of informaon in this ﬁgure, and any person using it does so at their own risk. Peter J. Ramsay & Associates shall bear no liability for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the informaon. Appendix A

Letter of Instruction Level 21 333 Collins Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia

www.abl.com.au

29 September 2020

By E-mail Your Ref

Privileged & Confidential communication File No. 011914935

Peter Ramsay Contact Peter J Ramsay & Associates Ellie Mason [email protected] Direct 61 3 9229 9807 [email protected] Partners Mark M Leibler AC Henry D Lanzer AM Partner Joseph Borensztajn AM Leon Zwier Ken Gray Philip Chester Direct 61 3 9229 9874 Ross A Paterson Stephen L Sharp [email protected] Kenneth A Gray Kevin F Frawley Zaven Mardirossian Dear Mr Ramsay Jonathan M Wenig Paul Sokolowski Paul Rubenstein Peter M Seidel Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Crib Point-Pakenham Gas Pipeline John Mitchell Ben Mahoney Inquiry, Advisory Committee and Panel Jonathan Milner John Mengolian Caroline Goulden Matthew Lees 1 We act for G&K O’Connor Pty Ltd (O’Connor). Genevieve Sexton Jeremy Leibler Nathan Briner 2 As you know, O’Connor and its related entities own land in Pakenham South, including Jonathan Caplan Justin Vaatstra at 910 and 940 Koo Wee Rup Road. Title searches are at tab 1. Its current operations Clint Harding Susanna Ford comprise an abattoir, packing facilities, refrigeration. Tyrone McCarthy Teresa Ward Christine Fleer Jeremy Lanzer 3 The O’Connor land is zoned Special Use Zone, Schedule 7 under the Cardinia Planning Bridget Little Scheme, and is designated as the South East Food Production, Export and Gia Cari Jason van Grieken Employment Node. Elyse Hilton Jonathan Ortner Stephen Lloyd Scott Phillips 4 Development and use under SUZ7 is to be guided by a master plan. Gavin Hammerschlag Consultant Jane C Sheridan 5 On 1 October 2019, Council, as the responsible authority under the Planning Scheme, Special Counsel Sam Dollard approved a master plan for the land. A copy of the approved master plan (drawn by Laila De Melo Warren Lee Urban Design Pty Ltd, 20 September 2019, rev 8) is at tab . Damien Cuddihy 2 Zoe Chung Barbara Bell Emily Simmons 6 As you also know, an Inquiry and Advisory Committee has been appointed to consider Senior Associates Liam Thomson the following project: Bridgid Cowling Brianna Youngson Rebecca Zwier (a) A Gas Import Jetty Works comprising a floating storage and regasification unit Kaitilin Lowdon Lara O'Rorke (FSRU) at Crib Point Jetty, jetty infrastructure including marine loading arms Stephanie Campbell Claire Stubbe and gas piping on the jetty, and the Crib Point Receiving Facility on land Briely Trollope Laura Cochrane adjacent to the jetty. Dorian Henneron Rachel Soh Greg Judd (b) A Pipeline Works consisting of an underground gas transmission pipeline Ben Friis-O'Toole Elly Bishop approximately 57 kilometres long to transport gas from the Crib Point Receiving Liam Cavell Raphael Leibler Facility to the Victorian Transmission System east of Pakenham, and Gabriel Sakkal Peter Scott associated infrastructure such as the Pakenham Delivery Facility to monitor and Mark Macrae David Monteith regulate the gas, two above-ground mainline valves to enable isolation of the Elyse Moore Rebekah French pipeline in an emergency and a facility to enable in-line inspections of the Gisella D’Costa pipeline. Lisa Garson Vidushee Deora Luke Jedynak Emily Korda Jenny Leongue ABL/8261210v1 Chris Murphy Gabrielle Piesiewicz Michael Repse Anna Sapountsis Jessica Thrower

Peter Ramsay Arnold Bloch Leibler Peter J Ramsay & Associates Page: 2 Date: 29 September 2020

7 The project’s proponents are AGL Wholesale Gas Limited for the FSRU, jetty works and Crib Point receiving facility and APA Transmission Pty. Limited (APA) for the pipeline and other components of the project.

8 The initial proposal for the pipeline crossed part of the O’Connor’s land at lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 332615J. A copy of your initial report on separation distances dated 19 March 2019 is at tab 3. A copy of O’Connor’s submission to the Committee, relying on your report, is at tab 4.

9 More recently, O’Connor and APA representatives met to discuss the pipeline. The new proposal for the pipeline results in its construction external to the O’Connor land but directly adjacent to the title boundary. A letter confirming this proposal is at tab 5.

10 Our client remains concerned that the new proposal will constrain future subdivision, use and development of the land in accordance with the Master Plan.

Instructions

11 You are briefed with the enclosed documents.

12 Our client requests that you prepare an expert report which provides your opinion on the following matters:

(a) Having regard to the relevant standards and to ensure the location of the pipeline does not constrain future plans for the O’Connor land, ought the pipeline adjacent to the land be designed and constructed in accordance with design criteria T2?

(b) Alternatively, if APA propose to deliver the pipeline in accordance with design criteria T1, ought the pipeline be set back 50 metres from the title boundary to avoid the measurement length associated with the pipeline encroaching on the site?

13 Please prepare your report in accordance with the Guide to Expert Evidence at tab 6. Consistent with that Guide to Expert Evidence, we would be grateful if you could include in your report:

(a) details of your qualifications, experience and area of expertise;

(b) a copy of this letter of instruction; and

“I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.”

14 We would be grateful if you could provide the report by the evening of this Thursday, 1 October 2020.

15 It is possible that you will be asked to give evidence in relation to your report to the Committee via online platform between mid-November and 15 December 2020.

ABL/8261210v1

Peter Ramsay Arnold Bloch Leibler Peter J Ramsay & Associates Page: 3 Date: 29 September 2020

Please contact me if you have any queries in relation to this matter.

Yours sincerely Arnold Bloch Leibler

Ken Gray Partner

ABL/8261210v1 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. The State of Victoria accepts no responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Page 1 of 1 Land Act 1958 VOLUME 10168 FOLIO 204 Security no : 124074588970L Produced 24/10/2018 09:14 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 332615J. PARENT TITLES : Volume 09255 Folio 336 to Volume 09255 Folio 338 Created by instrument PS332615J 11/05/1994

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor PAKENHAM LAND CO PTY LTD of KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM VIC 3810 AK305374Y 23/04/2013

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

MORTGAGE AK305375W 23/04/2013 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD

Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE PS332615J FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Street Address: KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM VIC 3810

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICES

NIL eCT Control 16089P NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED Effective from 23/10/2016

DOCUMENT END

Title 10168/204 Page 1 of 1 Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. The State of Victoria accepts no responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT (Title Search) Transfer of Page 1 of 1 Land Act 1958 VOLUME 08913 FOLIO 357 Security no : 124074588960W Produced 24/10/2018 09:11 PM

LAND DESCRIPTION

Crown Allotment 60 Parish of Nar-nar-goon. PARENT TITLE Volume 07169 Folio 724 Created by instrument E256627 17/12/1971

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR

Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor G. & K. O'CONNOR NOMINEES PTY LTD of 71 GATESHEAD DRIVE WANTIRNA SOUTH G723145 27/07/1977

ENCUMBRANCES, CAVEATS AND NOTICES

MORTGAGE AG672738T 05/08/2009 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD

For details of any other encumbrances see the plan or imaged folio set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below.

DIAGRAM LOCATION

SEE TP560337Y FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES

ACTIVITY IN THE LAST 125 DAYS

NIL

------END OF REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT------

Additional information: (not part of the Register Search Statement)

Street Address: 940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM VIC 3810

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICES

NIL eCT Control 16089P NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED Effective from 23/10/2016

DOCUMENT END

Title 8913/357 Page 1 of 1 Imaged Document Cover Sheet

The document following this cover sheet is an imaged document supplied by LANDATA®, Land Use Victoria.

Document Type Plan Document Identification TP560337Y Number of Pages 1 (excluding this cover sheet)

Document Assembled 24/10/2018 21:12

Copyright and disclaimer notice: © State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act and for the purposes of Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 or pursuant to a written agreement. The information is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATAÂ® System. The State of Victoria accepts no responsibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information.

The document is invalid if this cover sheet is removed or altered.

1 October 2019

Megan Schutz Schutz consulting [email protected]

Dear Madam,

Application No.: Masterplan Approval Property No.: 4465352900 Address: 940 Koo Wee Rup, Pakenham Proposal: Approval of South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node Masterplan

Please find enclosed your copy of the approved endorsed Master Plan.

If you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact Council’s Development Services department on 5943 4263 or [email protected]

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Schreuder Senior Statutory Planner

Cardinia Shire Council PO Box 7 Phone: 1300 787 624 ABN: 32 210 906 807 Pakenham 3810 Email: [email protected] 20 Siding Ave, Officer (DX 81006) Web: cardinia.vic.gov.au

19 March 2019

Ms Megan Schutz Director Schutz Consulting Pty Ltd PO Box 462 MT ELIZA VIC 3930 [email protected]

Re: Separation Distances for Proposed Food Production, Export and Employment Node, Pakenham

Dear Ms Schutz,

We refer to our engagement to provide a review of separation distances to enable the development of the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node (the Employment Node), which is zoned Special Use Zone 7, on Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South (the Site). In addition we have considered the compatibility of the proposed APA Crib Point to Pakenham gas pipeline having regard to the Masterplan for the Site.

1 RECOMMENDED SEPARATION DISTANCES

Separation distances are also referred to interchangeably as buffers or buffer distances, are implemented between land uses from which occasional releases of unintended emissions, particularly odour and dust may impact on the amenity of nearby sensitive land use, such as residential dwellings. They are also intended to protect the amenity of sensitive land uses due to occasional emissions from upset conditions which may be episodic and irregular. There is an acknowledgement that even well designed and operated facilities will from time to time encounter such upset conditions. Separation distances will be required to avoid conflict between potential future sensitive land uses and the businesses in the Employment Node.

There are two sources for recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions; the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) has published a guideline, Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions, March 2013 (EPA Publication 1518), and Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential (Clause 53.10) from the Cardinia Planning Scheme.

EPA Publication 1518 is applicable to both encroachment of industrial land uses within the vicinity of existing sensitive land use and vice-versa. However, Clause 53.10 is intended only to protect existing sensitive land use from encroachment by new industrial development. In this situation it is appropriate to

consider both sources of recommended buffer in order to prevent the introduction of sensitive land use which would preclude the planned development of the Employment Node.

In order to allow the complete development of the Employment Node as described in the Masterplan rev3, dated 22 November 2018 (the Masterplan), it is recommended that separation distances be maintained to allow development of potential land uses identified on the Masterplan. A summary of the potential land uses described on the Masterplan that may require a separation distance from sensitive land uses is provided in Table 1. The location ID is described from the Masterplan and a copy of the Masterplan is attached. It is intended that the potential activity described for each location ID would generate the largest separation distance to provide a conservative estimate of the recommended separation.

Table 1 Summary of recommended separation distances Location Potential Activity Separation Source Notes ID (m) EPA Rendering and casings works, A 1,000 Publication Maintain existing land use >200 tonnes per year 1518 Clause A Rendering and casings works 1,000 Maintain existing land use 53.10 EPA Rendering and casings works, Allow future expansion of existing B 1,000 Publication >200 tonnes per year land use 1518 Clause Allow future expansion of existing B Rendering and casings works 1,000 53.10 land use Clause Allow cool storage related to retail D & H Freezing and cool store 150 53.10 premises and warehouses Clause Allow cool storage related to retail E & F Freezing and cool store 150 53.10 premises and commercial display EPA Allow production of veterinary Pharmaceutical and veterinary G 500 Publication products associated with R&D production 1518 precinct Allow production of veterinary Pharmaceutical and veterinary Clause G 1,000 products associated with R&D production 53.10 precinct Grain and stockfeed mill and Allow for transfer of inputs such as EPA handling facility; Transfer stockfeed, waste materials I 250 Publication station; Storage of wet-salted or generated from industry including 1518 unprocessed hides transport of hides Rural industry handling, Allow transport terminal for handling processing or packing Clause agricultural produce; allow for grain I agricultural produce; Grain 300 53.10 elevator; allow for temporary storage elevator; Temporary storage of of industrial waste. industrial waste Clause Allow cool storage related to retail J Freezing and cool store 150 53.10 premises and warehouses Storage of petroleum products EPA K or crude oil in tanks, tanks 250 Publication Allow large fuel depot >2,000 tonnes with fixed roof 1518

Location Potential Activity Separation Source Notes ID (m) Storage of petroleum products or crude oil in tanks exceeding Clause K 300 Allow large fuel depot 2,000 tonnes capacity with 53.10 fixed roof Leather tanning and dressing; Leather and artificial leather Allow variety of potential rural Clause L, M & N goods production; Rural 300 industry associated with 53.10 industry handling, processing Employment Node or packing agricultural produce

The areal extent of the recommended separation distances are provided on Figures 1. Figure 1 shows the extent of separation distances recommended under both EPA Publication 1518 and Clause 53.10. To prevent conflict with the Employment Node sensitive land uses should not be allowed to encroach within the recommended separation distances.

2 GAS PIPELINE

The proposed gas pipeline crosses a part of the Site, Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 332615J, the locations of the proposed easement and temporary construction area are shown on the Plan of Easement and Temporary Construction Area (Rev 9), dated 1 December 2018.

The planned South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node, is described on, the Masterplan.

Planning for Major Hazard Facilities - Pipelines

The need for adequate separation distances from gas pipelines was subject of discussion in the recent Review of Major Hazard Facilities, and is discussed in chapter 5 of the Major Hazard Facilities, Advisory Committee Final Report, 19 July 2016, Planning Panels Victoria (the MHF Report).

The MHF Report identifies that there are inconsistencies between the intent and definitions used between the planning documents and references for pipeline design.

In planning policy, separation distances are typically considered based on risk to amenity but in some circumstances may include consideration of risk to human health. The recommended separation distances in the guideline produced by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) are to protect against adverse amenity impacts due to industrial residual air emissions of odour and particulates (dust).

In the design standards for pipelines, the AS/NZS 2885 series of standards, the recommendations for separation from sensitive receptors are based on safety risk. In this context, sensitive receptors are those at risk of harm due to an incident. Although some consideration is given to amenity impact due to noise

from pipeline maintenance, the main consideration is risk of harm. The level of risk is determined by the number of people who may be at risk and the activities occurring near the pipeline.

In this case the existing abattoir and rendering facility at the Site employs over 400 people. In addition we have been provided with a report, 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham South East Food Production, Export & Employment Node, Economic Impact Assessment, dated 22 February 2019,in which it is stated that the Employment Node is expected to generate an additional 1,527 full time equivalent jobs within the Site. Therefore, the design of the pipeline must provide consideration for the presence of approximately 2,000 persons within the boundary of the Site.

Location Classifications

The AS/NZS 2885 series of standards makes allowance for risk by classifying locations. Locations are classified with a primary location class and an optional secondary class. The general descriptions of the primary and secondary location classes are provided in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 2: Primary location classes

Primary Location Class Description R1 (Rural) Locations generally unpopulated except for occasional isolated residences. R2 (Rural Residential) Locations with single residence blocks typically in the range of 1 ha to 5 ha. T1 (Low Density Urban) Suburban areas. T2 (High Density Urban) High density urban areas.

Table 3: Secondary location classes Secondary location Class Description Sensitive (S) Locations which contains sensitive receptors, which in the context of AS/NZS 2885 refers to locations where people are less able to protect themselves from harm. This includes, child care centres, schools, hospitals and aged care facilities. The sensitive location class may also refer to areas of high ecological significance. Industrial (I) Ordinary industrial areas, consisting of factories, warehouses, commercial show- rooms and other commercial/industrial facilities. Heavy Industrial (HI) Large industrial sites, such as petrochemical facilities, mines, coal processing plants or other large industrial activities. This allows classification of areas where a pipeline failure could have significant impact on other Common Infrastructure Corridor Where pipelines are collocated with other infrastructure which may cause impact (CIC) to safety management. Submerged (W) Submerged pipelines.

3 COMPATABILITY WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

The presence of gas pipelines in the vicinity of industrial land uses is not unusual. However, it does introduce a risk of harm to people who are employed in the industrial areas. Once the development of the Site is completed in accordance with the Masterplan it is expected that approximately 2,000 full time employees will be working at the Site. There is a risk of harm to people working in locations near the pipeline in the event of a pipe failure or other incident and this risk must be addressed. It would be best practice to eliminate this risk by avoiding the collocation of the pipeline and the industrial land use with a large number of employees. If it is not possible to avoid the collocation then the pipeline must be designed to include safety features to control the risk due to its location in an industrial area.

The requirement to consider future land use when selecting the route for the pipeline is described in Section 4.7.1 of AS 2885.1:2018. It is considered that the land uses described in the Masterplan could reasonably be determined by considering the zoning of the Site as SUZ7 (Special Use Zone 7) in accordance with the Cardinia Planning Scheme. For clarity, Section 4.7.1 of AS 2885.1:2018 is quoted in italics, below:

The route of a pipeline shall be selected having regard to public safety, pipeline integrity, environmental impact, and the consequence of escape of fluid.

A pipeline shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of this Standard – a) For the land use existing at the time of design; and b) For the future land use that can be reasonably determined by research of public records and consultation with land planning agencies in the jurisdiction through which the pipeline is proposed.

Considering the hierarchy of control measures described by SafeWork Australia, WorkSafe Victoria, and good practice for risk management, the preferred method for controlling risk associated with a particular hazard is elimination of the hazard. In this case, the hazard is the coincidence of the gas pipeline and the development on the Site. It is noted that the land immediately south and east of the Site is zoned GWZ1 (Green Wedge Zone 1) and is therefore not expected to be subject to future development. Relocation of the pipeline to the south and east of the Site would effectively eliminate the hazard and should be considered as the preferred option in accordance with the hierarchy of control in AS 2885.1:2018.

If the pipeline cannot be relocated away from the Site then it must be designed and installed in such a manner that it allows for consideration of the already planned development at the Site which is described in the masterplan. This would involve consideration of engineering control under the risk management hierarchy. In this case, the planned development described in the Masterplan is classified as Industrial (I). The presence of the ‘fuel depot’ at location K in the Masterplan is likely considered Heavy Industrial (HI) subject to the size of the depot. There are particular requirements and recommendations for pipelines to

be constructed in locations classified as Industrial and Heavy Industrial, in accordance with the AS 2885 series of standards.

In accordance with the requirement of section 4.7.1 of AS 2885.1:2018 the route selection of the pipeline must consider the consequence to public safety. The best way to prevent harm and to minimise the risk to public safety is to relocate the pipeline away from the planned industrial development at the Site.

4 CONCLUSIONS

To prevent conflict with the Employment Node sensitive land uses should not be allowed to encroach within the recommended separation distances described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1.

The collocation of the gas pipeline and the Employment Node described in the Masterplan introduces a safety risk to future workers. This risk should be eliminated by the relocation of the gas pipeline to the GWZ1 zoned land to the south and east of the Site.

However, if the proposed gas pipeline cannot be relocated then in accordance with AS 2885.1:2018, the pipeline must be designed and constructed to allow for the development for future land uses described in the Masterplan.

USE OF REPORT

The preparation of this letter report has been undertaken for the purpose of providing environmental advice regarding the planned use of land described in the Masterplan (rev 3) 22 November 2016 and the presence of a proposed APA pipeline and this report cannot be used for any other purpose. This report is prepared solely for the benefit of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd and Schutz Consulting Pty Ltd. This report is provided on the condition that it or any part of it will not be made available to any other party except with the prior written consent of Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd (which consent may or may not be given at its discretion).

DISCLAIMER

This letter report is provided on the basis that Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd disclaims all liability to any person other than G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd and Schutz Consulting Pty Ltd in respect of the actions, errors or omissions of any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, upon the contents of this report. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this letter please do not hesitate to contact Mr Nathan Williams or Mr Peter Ramsay on 03 9690 0522. Kind regards,

Peter J Ramsay & Associates

LegendLEGEND BUFFER ZONE: EPA Publicaon 1518 & Clause 53.10 Site Boundary Support 1000m Buffer AB 300m Buffer K Environmental Advice Precinct Type Transport Red Buffer 300m Buffer LMN Core 150m Buffer D 1000m Buffer AB Blue Buffer Food Producon, Export and Employment Node Project: 981.3 Entry 1000m Buffer G in the vicinity of the O'Connor Australia Date: 13/03/2019 250m Buffer K 150m Buffer EF Producon Precinct, on Koo Wee Rup Road, Figure Revision: DraA Plaza/Drainage 250m Buffer I 150m Buffer J Designed: NW Pankenham Drawn: KMK Scale 1 : 10,000 @ A3 500m buffer G 300m Buffer I F1 Reviewed: NW Coordinate System: GDA94 / MGA Zone 55 Schutz Consulng Pty Ltd File: P:\Projects\981_Schutz_Consulng\03\Maps\DRAFT_A\F1_Blue&Red_Buffers.qgz Peter J. Ramsay & Associates does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information in this figure, and any person using it does so at their own risk. Peter J. Ramsay & Associates shall bear no liability for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information.

Expert Witnesses

April 2019

Introduction An expert witness has specialised knowledge from training, study or experience. A Panel may rely on that specialised knowledge to form an opinion about an issue that is relevant to the Hearing. Generally more weight will be given to expert evidence that is independent. This Guide applies to: • instructing an expert witness preparing expert evidence • the preparation of the expert’s evidence • the presentation of the evidence at the Hearing • questioning (‘cross examination’) of an expert witness. The Guide explains what happens when an expert witness is to be called at a Hearing. A Panel may make specific Directions that vary this Guide. Parties calling an expert witness must make sure that the expert is made aware of this guide when they are retained.

Expert witness' duty to the Panel An expert witness: • has a paramount duty to the Panel • has an overriding duty to assist the Panel on matters relevant to the expert's expertise • is not an advocate for a party • must not withhold material matters known to the witness even if it may be unfavourable to a particular party.

The expert witness statement An expert witness preparing a written statement for a Hearing must do so in accordance with this Guide. The statement must include: • the expert’s name and address • the expert’s qualifications, experience and area of expertise • details of any other significant contributors to the statement (if there are any), and their expertise • all instructions that define the scope of the statement (original and supplementary and whether in writing or verbal) • details and qualifications of any person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert has relied in preparing the statement. All experts must declare in their statements: ‘I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.’

Planning Panels Victoria  Expert witnesses

Sometimes, an expert witness may have prepared an earlier report or advice that informed the Planning Scheme Amendment or proposal under consideration by the Panel. In these circumstances, the expert should not provide a revised version of that report. Instead, the expert’s witness statement should include: • a clear reference to the earlier report(s) • details of the expert’s role in preparing or overseeing the earlier report(s) • confirmation that the expert adopts the earlier report(s) and identifying: - any key assumptions made in preparing the earlier report(s) - any departure from findings or opinion expressed in the earlier report(s), and why - any questions falling outside the expert's expertise - whether the earlier report is incomplete or inaccurate in any respect • details of any changed circumstances or assumptions since the earlier report(s) were prepared, and whether these affect the opinions expressed in the earlier report(s). Where the expert was not involved in the preparation of earlier reports or advice that informed the Planning Scheme Amendment or proposal, the expert’s statement should include: • the facts, matters and assumptions on which the expert relies in preparing the statement • reference to documents and materials the expert has used in preparing the statement • a summary of the expert’s opinion(s), including provisional opinions.

Where the expert materially changes their opinion An expert witness who changes their opinion on a material matter after the circulation of evidence must communicate that change in writing to the Panel and all parties to the Hearing and explain why their opinion has changed.

Privacy Expert witness reports are usually published on a website. They are also available to all parties to a proceeding. An expert witness statement should not refer to submitters by name. Where necessary, submitters should be referenced by submission number. Expert witnesses should inform themselves of their obligations under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. Personal information contained in submissions should be used in accordance with the principles in the Act. For more information on Privacy refer to the separate Guide to Privacy at Planning Panels Victoria.

Form of statement Expert witness statements must be provided in the following form. All copies Witness statements and any supporting information must: • be prepared at A4 page size, unless otherwise directed • use a black, 12 point font (Arial or Calibri preferred) • have numbered paragraphs and pages. Maps, images or plans must be at a high-definition resolution of at least 600 pixels per inch.

Page 2

Planning Panels Victoria  Expert witnesses

Electronic copies An electronic version of a document must be less than 10MB in size and provided to: • parties on the distribution list in accordance with the Panel’s Direction • the Panel in unlocked ‘pdf’ or Microsoft Word format • the Planning Authority in a format suitable for uploading to its website. Paper copies Paper copies of evidence are generally not required. Where the Panel directs a paper copy, each document must be: • two-hole punched • stapled, not bound • printed on both sides of each page. Maps, images or plans may be printed at A3 and be folded within the report so they can be read without being removed.

Circulation of expert reports Parties must confirm at the Directions Hearing any evidence they will be calling at the Public Hearing. Expert reports must be circulated five working days before the Hearing starts or as directed by the Panel. People not on the evidence circulation list can obtain electronic copies by contacting the Panel Co- ordinator on 8392 5115.

Directions relating to expert witnesses The Panel may direct that expert witnesses address certain matters in their evidence, to enable all parties to gain a clear understanding of the basis of evidence to be presented. Examples include a response to specific questions asked by the Panel, or to explain the methodology, assumptions and inputs that contributed to the expert’s assessment.

Expert meeting prior to the Hearing The Panel may direct that expert witnesses in the same technical area meet before the Hearing and prepare a statement of agreed opinions and facts. The expert meeting is for technical experts to discuss the issues without instructors, to identify (and if possible reduce) areas of disagreement in the Hearing. This ensures a more efficient and effective process. The Panel will provide specific directions for an expert meeting where required.

Evidence at the Hearing Experts should identify any errors in their statement at the Hearing at the start of giving evidence. Witnesses should summarise key opinions in their evidence in no more than 30 minutes. Experts can prepare a summary statement or presentation for the Hearing, but this must be drawn from the circulated evidence. Responses to other expert reports that constitute new material must be clearly identified.

Page 3

Planning Panels Victoria  Expert witnesses

Cross examination An expert witness may be questioned by parties, advocates and the Panel. Questions put to expert witnesses must be relevant, directed to matters of fact or professional opinion, and must genuinely assist the Panel in understanding the issues. To ask questions of a witness, a party must be present for the whole of the evidence summary and questioning of the witness. The Panel may regulate cross-examination to ensure an efficient hearing and that the cross examination remains relevant to the issues. The Panel may limit cross-examination that is not of benefit to the Panel.

Consequences of not complying with a Direction The Panel has a broad range of powers to control Hearings under Division 2, Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It is important to comply with Directions. The consequences of a failure to comply may be significant. For example, a Panel may refuse to allow an expert to present evidence at the Hearing.

Other witnesses A range of other people with specialist expertise appear at Panels including: • technical staff from agencies or Councils, who might make submissions in place of giving evidence • lay witnesses who may have specialist knowledge. Past examples have included business owners, farmers and boat skippers. These witnesses are generally not subject to cross examination but may be asked questions by the Panel or by other parties through the Chair.

Further information Further information about Planning Panels Victoria can be found at: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/panels-and-committees/panels-and-committees

Page 4

Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline

49.2

49.1

48.9

48.6 48.8 48.5 48.7 48.4

48.3

48.2

48.1

47.9

47.8

47.7

46.8 46.7 46.9 47 47.1 47.6 46.6 47.2 47.3 46.5 47.4 47.5

46.4

46.3

46.2

18/09/2020, 1:43:53 pm 1:9,028 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 mi 100m Alignment Point Open - Cut Construction Footprint 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 km Construction Methodology Easement/Licence Area DCDB (Adjusted)

HDD Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Maxar | SECURED | Vicmap Basemaps is a licensed service available on 9 to 5 Service Level Agreement (SLA). It should be also noted that Vicmap Basemaps hosting hardware is managed 24/7 but we are un... | VIC.GOV.AU / VIC DATA

25 September 2020 Our ref: MLL NLB 134395.0005

Ken Gray Meg Lee Partner Arnold Bloch Leibler [email protected] Level 21, 333 Collins Street +61 3 9603 3312 MELBOURNE VIC 3000 By email: [email protected] Natalie Bannister Partner [email protected] +61 3 9603 3566

Dear Ken

Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project – Submission to Planning

I refer to the discussion on 18 September 2020 between the representatives of G&K O’Connor and APA regarding the Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project and G&K O’Connor’s Submission on the Environment Effect Statement (“EES”).

This letter confirms information about the proposed pipeline route’s location and design as outlined in our discussion. We trust the following information will resolve the concerns raised in the Submission.

Pipeline route location

We have attached a plan which confirms that the pipeline route is not located within the abattoir site, being Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 332615J (Volume 10168 Folio 205) and Crown Allotment 60 Parish of Nar Nar Goon (Volume 8913 Folio 357) (collectively, “the Site”). APA does not require access or land tenure to any part of the Site to construct and operate the pipeline. Further, APA does not propose to serve any statutory notices to the registered proprietors of the Site to seek any access to the Site to construct or operate the Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline.

We believe there may be some misunderstanding of the alignment presented in the EES. The relevant features shown in Map 22 of the EES Map Book, referred to in your client’s submission, are noted in the map legend as “Pipeline Open Cut” and “Construction Footprint”. The “Pipeline Works Project Area” includes areas that were considered in assessments, but may no longer be impacted by the current proposed alignment. Your client’s site is no longer included in the pipeline alignment.

Pipeline design

As a proponent under the Pipelines Act 2005 (Vic), APA must identify the potential environmental, social and safety impacts arising from the proposed pipeline and pipeline operations, and the appropriate measures to control, mitigate and manage these impacts. A key aspect of this process is to consider the current and reasonably foreseeable future land uses surrounding the pipeline corridor. The area considered is determined by the ‘measurement length’ calculated for the pipeline.

Level 11, Rialto South Tower 525 Collins Street Melbourne 3000 Australia T +61 3 9603 3555 F +61 3 9670 9632 GPO BOX 4190 Melbourne 3001 DX 320 Melbourne www.hallandwilcox.com.au

27016756_4

The design of the proposed pipeline has considered the current and potential future land use of Special Use Zone 7 within the Cardinia Planning Scheme. The proposed pipeline design, as it sits adjacent to the Site, conservatively adopts the higher design criteria consistent with a T1 (suburban) location according to Australian Standard 2885 Pipelines – Gas and liquid petroleum (AS2885). This means the pipeline in this locality is designed to the same standard as where it is traversing urban environments and is considered a “no rupture” pipeline.

Land Use and APA’s Planning Position

A pipeline is designed to respond to the existing and reasonably foreseeable environments, taking account of all identifiable credible threats. An event resulting in a full bore rupture and ignition impacting the entire measurement length is generally not a credible scenario. Where a full-bore rupture is not deemed a credible event, typically a reduced notification zone in the order of 50 metres is sought to capture the reduced area of consequence of remaining credible threats such as pipeline puncture.

A notification area of 50 metres each side of the pipeline is consistent with the planning provisions currently in the final draft of the Pakenham East PSP where APA’s pipeline is also classified as a “no rupture” pipeline.

APA typically seeks to limit sensitive uses from establishing within the measurement length or where the pipeline is determined to be a “no rupture” pipeline within that 50 metre reduced area of consequence.

Within this reduced area of consequence APA is specifically interested in ‘Sensitive Land Uses’. AS2885 defines a sensitive use as one which may increase the consequences of failure due to its use by members of the community who may be unable to protect themselves from the consequences of a pipeline failure.

To this end, APA’s position, is that the land uses listed below be preferably located outside of the consequence area of the pipeline and that either the Pipeline Licensee or a government body (such as Energy Safe Victoria) be recognised as a Referral Authority within the planning framework.

 Aged Care Facilities.  Place of assembly or worship.

 Retirement villages.  Higher density residential uses.

 Child care / family day care  Other uses, as determined by the relevant centres. decision maker, as substantially used by community members unable to protect  Cinema based entertainment themselves from the consequences of facility. pipeline failure.  Schools or other educational establishments.

 Prisons / corrective institutions.

 Hospitals and medical centres.

If you require any further information on technical aspects of the EES, please do not hesitate to contact Phil McCutcheon on telephone 0472 845 967 or via email [email protected] or alternatively you can email the project team at: [email protected].

27016756_4

Yours faithfully

Hall & Wilcox

27016756_4

910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD, PAKENHAM SOUTH EAST FOOD PRODUCTION, EXPORT & EMPLOYMENT NODE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

22 FEBRUARY 2019 PREPARED FOR G & K O'CONNOR PTY LTD

URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE: Director Rhys Quick Senior Consultant Mike Zhang Project Code P0005564 Report Number Final

You must read the important disclaimer appearing within the body of this report. urbis.com.au CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction & Key Findings ...... i 1. Development Context ...... 2 1.1. History & Current Operations of G & K O’Connor ...... 2 1.2. Site Context ...... 2 1.3. The South East Food Production, Export & Employment Node ...... 4 2. Shire of Cardinia Employment Context ...... 6 2.1. Occupation of Local Residents ...... 6 2.2. Composition of Jobs Provided Locally ...... 7 2.3. Scale of Local Businesses ...... 8 2.4. Local Employment and Business Summary ...... 10 3. Benefits of the Subject Development ...... 11 3.1. Economic Benefit Quantification ...... 11 3.1.1. Methodology ...... 11 3.1.2. Construction Phase ...... 12 3.1.3. Operation Phase ...... 13 3.2. Manifestation of Benefits ...... 14 3.2.1. Meeting the Demand for Premium Australian Beef in the Global Market ...... 14 3.2.2. Greater Synergy with Local Businesses ...... 14 3.2.3. Creating Employment Opportunities Suitable for Local Residents ...... 14 3.2.4. Support for Other Services ...... 15 3.3. Summary ...... 15 Disclaimer ...... 16 Appendix A – Calculations of Ongoing Jobs

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION & KEY FINDINGS

Urbis have been engaged G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd to prepare an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) for its proposed development in the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node at 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham. G & K O’Connor currently operates an abattoir and associated rendering plants on land within the designated precinct. The precinct is envisaged to become a mixed-use agribusiness industrial cluster focusing on the production, distribution and sales of primarily premium meat products on which the company has built its reputation. It is also to incorporate other associated rural industries leveraging local agriculture and produce. Key findings of this assessment are summarised below:

• Cardinia resident workers (i.e. residents of the Shire who work) are currently engaged in a broad mix of occupations of varying levels of skill, although with a relatively higher weighting towards blue-collar occupations compared with the Melbourne average.

• The Cardinia local job market appears relatively well-aligned with the current level of skills of local resident workers, although the number of jobs currently available within the municipality remain limited, resulting in a sizeable resident worker population travelling elsewhere to access employment opportunities.

• While this is typical of a growth area municipality where employment opportunities are generally less, it highlights the need to provide more jobs locally, in particular those suited to local skills. As such, any development that can generate jobs closer to home would benefit the local workforce and the local economy more generally

• As such, the economic and employment benefits of the proposed development of the Precinct will be significant. Jobs and economic value added will be generated through the construction phase and then as a result of the ongoing operation of the development:

In total, the construction phase is anticipated to generate a total of 161 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) jobs annually and corresponding Gross Value Added (GVA) contributions of approximately $ 20.8 million per annum to the Victoria economy in constant 2018-dollar value during the assumed ten- year development period of between 2020 and 2030. A significant proportion of these benefits are expected to be retained locally within the Shire of Cardinia, with the remaining benefits flowing through the rest of the State.

At full capacity, the ongoing operation of the development will likely be able to support some 1,527 direct FTE jobs and close to $210 million of direct GVA on an annualised basis. All the direct benefits will be retained in the Shire of Cardinia given the project location. There will also likely be some 1,291 indirect FTE jobs generated both within the Shire and across the rest of the State, and an indirect GVA benefit of close to $189 million in constant 2018-dollar value per annum.

• Those economic benefits will manifest in several ways including:

Providing a significant number of employment opportunities well-aligned with the current skills of local resident workers of the Shire of Cardinia and surrounding areas.

Meeting the growing demand for premium Australian beef and beef products from overseas markets. Strengthening and driving the consolidation of Pakenham South as an agribusiness hub for the production and export of premium foods, in particular meat and meat products, resulting in a magnification of economic growth for the broader region

Generating greater synergy with local businesses, in particular those in the agricultural sector, such as farmers and other rural production businesses.

Creating significant retail spending potential from future workers, generating demand for other service sector businesses.

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX INTRODUCTION & KEY FINDINGS i

1. DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT This section provides an overview of the subject site and proposed development of the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node. 1.1. HISTORY & CURRENT OPERATIONS OF G & K O’CONNOR G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd (O’Connor) is one of Australia’s leading processors and exporters of premium beef. The company is renowned for supplying quality beef to key international markets including China, Japan, the US and Europe and has built its reputation as a trusted wholesale brand globally. According to information provided by O’Connor:

• The business is currently accredited to supply 41 countries, more than any other producers in Australia.

• While Japan has remained as the business’ top export destination, sales to China have increased significantly, representing now 25% of its annual sales of over $250 million worth of beef products.

• Its operations include $150-$180 million worth of cattle purchasing each year, with 60-70% of this purchase being from the neighbouring Gippsland region, home to some of Australia’s best quality cattle. This is considered of great regional economic significance.

• Currently the O’Connor abattoir employs over 400 staff, with plans to employ 20-40 additional staff in the short term with the expansion of on-site refrigeration capacity. As a local business, O’Connor also sources employment locally, with workers mainly coming from neighbouring suburbs, including Pakenham, Pakenham South, Dandenong, Berwick and Koo Wee Rup. It is understood the proposed South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node is to further expand the capacity of O’Connor’s operations, thus consolidating its market position as one of Australia’s leading beef producers while creating more opportunities for other businesses across the region through the local supply chain. 1.2. SITE CONTEXT The proposed development at 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham is located approximately 3.5km to the south of the Pakenham town centre, covering a total site area of approximately 119 ha. As shown on Map 1.1:

• The subject site is to the immediate south east of the future Pakenham East Employment Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) area across Healesville-Koo Wee Rup Road, on rural land just outside of Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary. It forms a bookend to the Southern State Significant Industrial Precinct (SSIP).

• It is also in relatively close proximity to the other two future PSPs within the Shire of Cardinia, Pakenham East (Deep Creek) and Pakenham West Employment PSPs.

• The land is immediately south of the South East Water Pakenham Water Treatment Precinct.

• Transport accessibility is convenient via Healesville-Koo Wee Rup Road, which will soon be upgraded to a freeway with increased road capacity and improved traffic flow.

• Currently, the O’Connor abattoir operation occupies land in the north east corner of the site. The remainder of site is largely rural farmland (refer to Figure 1 in the subsequent sub-section) subject to major development of the precinct.

URBIS 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX

Regional Context Map 1.1

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 3

1.3. THE SOUTH EAST FOOD PRODUCTION, EXPORT & EMPLOYMENT NODE The subject land is zoned Special Use Zone, Schedule 7. This schedule relates to the future development of the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node, as adopted by Cardinia Council in 2013. The purpose of the node is detailed in the Schedule as follows:

• To enhance the local, national and global market competitiveness of food production within the South- East region.

• To provide for an integrated supply chain enabling the use and development of the site for co-location of food processing facilities.

• To provide for the continued use of land for abattoir purposes as well as the use and development of land for food production through the co-location of other uses.

• To protect the area from the encroachment of sensitive land uses.

• To promote food security and sustainable agriculture in the region. The following uses have been proposed based on the master plan for the subject site (Figure 1).

Proposed Uses 940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham Table 1.1

Land Area Est. Floorspace Precinct Land Use (ha) (Sq.m)

O'Connor Australia Production Precinct (current) 8,350 Core 28.0 Future Expansion Area N/A

Freeway Service Centre 2.0 6,000

Retail Premises - Primary Produce Sales (Market Format) 4.0 12,000

Retail Premises - Manufacturing Sales 4.7 17,600 Entry Commercial Display 1.7 6,400

R&D Precinct - Veterinary Centre 10.6 31,500

Rural Store/Warehouse 2.5 10,000

Transport Terminal 3.1 -

Transport Rural Store/Warehouse 11.0 36,400

Fuel Depot/Utilities 1.0 4,000

Warehouse/Cold Store 3.0 12,000 Support/ Rural Industry - Value-add Processing, Service Industries 13.0 53,600 Services Rural Industry Expansion - Value-add Processing, Service Industries 6.2 25,000

Total Existing & Future 90.8 222,850 Source: G & K O'Connor; Traffix Group; Urbis Once developed, the entire precinct is expected to accommodate a total of around 214,500 sq.m of additional floorspace (i.e. excluding the existing abattoir of around 8,350 sq.m) across a broad range of food manufacturing/processing, retail and warehousing uses. The development of the node will create many employment opportunities for local residents, as well as downstream opportunities for the local and regional rural businesses. As will be assessed in the subsequent section shortly, the new jobs are expected to be available for workers across a range of skill levels, including many without formal qualification (e.g. blue-collar occupations) which will be well aligned with the current skills of many Shire of Cardinia residents.

URBIS 4 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX

Figure 1 – Proposed Master Plan

Source: G & K O’Connor; Traffix Group

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT 5

2. SHIRE OF CARDINIA EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT

In this section, we consider the occupations of residents of the Shire of Cardinia compared against the occupations of workers within the municipality, before considering the nature of businesses in the area to contextualise the assessment of benefits of development of the proposed food production precinct. 2.1. OCCUPATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTS Table 2.1 shows the distribution of resident occupations for Cardinia compared to Greater Melbourne, based on the latest Journey to Work data from the 2016 ABS Census. Of note:

• Cardinia resident workers (i.e. residents of the Shire who work) are engaged in a broad mix of occupations of varying levels of skills.

• Approximately 41% of local workers are employed in white-collar occupations including Managers, Professionals and Clerical and Administration Workers, representing the largest occupation category within the LGA, albeit the share is well below the Melbourne average of 53%.

• There is an above average share of resident workers engaged in blue-collar occupations such as Technicians and Trades Worker, Machinery Operators and Drivers and Labourers (38%) relative to the metropolitan-wide distribution (27%).

• Another 21% of residents work as either Sales Workers or Community and Personal Service Workers.

Resident Workers by Occupation 2016 Proportion of Resident Workers, Shire of Cardinia vs. Greater Melbourne Table 2.1

Occupation Cardinia LGA Greater Melbourne Managers 12.0% 13.4% Professionals 14.8% 25.4% Technicians and Trades Workers 18.5% 12.8% Community and Personal Service Workers 10.8% 10.4% Clerical and Administrative Workers 14.3% 14.1% Sales Workers 10.4% 9.9% Machinery Operators and Drivers 8.4% 5.7% Labourers 10.9% 8.2%

Source: 2016 ABS Census; Urbis

URBIS SHIRE OF CARDINIA EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX 2.2. COMPOSITION OF JOBS PROVIDED LOCALLY This section reviews the occupations of persons employed within the Cardinia LGA compared to those employed across Greater Melbourne. Table 2.2 shows the distribution of workers by occupation. Of note:

• While jobs in blue-collar occupations represent a higher than average proportion within the municipality (35% vs.25%), the distribution of local jobs in Cardinia are more even across the eight occupation types relative to the rest of Melbourne where there are more white-collar jobs.

• This also indicates that the local job market appears well aligned with the current level of skills of local resident workers, albeit the number of jobs currently available within the municipality remain limited, resulting in a sizeable resident worker population travelling elsewhere to access employment opportunities.

Jobs in the Area by Occupation 2016 Shire of Cardinia vs. Greater Melbourne Table 2.2 Occupation Cardinia LGA Greater Melbourne Managers 12.7% 13.8% Professionals 15.0% 26.0% Technicians and Trades Workers 16.1% 11.7% Community and Personal Service Workers 12.2% 10.4% Clerical and Administrative Workers 11.7% 14.6% Sales Workers 13.2% 10.1% Machinery Operators and Drivers 6.6% 5.7% Labourers 12.6% 7.7% Source: 2016 ABS Census; Urbis

As presented in Table 2.3 below, the Shire of Cardinia is running a net loss of workers to elsewhere. Of all the 44,250 resident workers in Cardinia, less than 32% work within the municipality. Most residents have to travel outside of the LGA to work. While this is typical of a growth area municipality where employment opportunities are generally less, it highlights the need to provide more jobs locally, in particular those suited to local skills. As such, any development that has the ability to generate jobs closer to home would benefit the local workforce and the local economy more generally, particularly if the jobs generated align with the skills of local residents.

Job Containment by Occupation 2016 Shire of Cardinia Table 2.3 Live & Job Resident Total Jobs in Net Job Work in Containment Workers Cardinia Import/Export Occupation Cardinia (%) (1) (2) (3) = (2) - (1) (4) (5) = (4)/(1) Managers 5,300 2,890 -2,410 1,814 34.2% Professionals 6,540 3,410 -3,130 1,643 25.1% Technicians and Trades Workers 8,200 3,660 -4,540 2,175 26.5% Community and Personal Service Workers 4,760 2,780 -1,980 1,751 36.8% Clerical and Administrative Workers 6,310 2,670 -3,640 1,796 28.5% Sales Workers 4,610 3,000 -1,610 2,018 43.8% Machinery Operators and Drivers 3,710 1,510 -2,200 912 24.6% Labourers 4,820 2,870 -1,950 1,837 38.1% Total 44,250 22,790 -21,460 13,946 31.5% Source: 2016 ABS Census; Urbis

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX SHIRE OF CARDINIA EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT 2.3. SCALE OF LOCAL BUSINESSES Charts 2.3 and 2.4 overleaf illustrate the distribution of businesses by size in 2012 and 2017, in both absolute number and relative share within the Shire of Cardinia. Of note:

• There was a total of approximately 7,842 businesses within the Shire of Cardinia as at the end of June 2017, up from around 6,700 in 2012.

• Most businesses in the area employ few people. Over 98% or some 7,722 of the businesses in 2017 employed less than 20 people, including:

− Around 92% or 7,179 businesses classified as micro businesses, including 61% being non- employing businesses (e.g. sole proprietorships and partnerships without employees), and some 31% of businesses which employed between 1 and 4 people; and

− Around 7% being small businesses which employed between 5 and 19 people

• The number of businesses with 20-199 employees increased from 103 to 117, the proportion, however, remained small at around 1.5% during 2012 to 2017. While there are three organisations that employing more than 200 workers in the municipality (of which G&K O’Connor is one), 1,069 of the 1,142 new businesses in the Shire were within the micro business category employing less than 20 workers.

• Generally, while the structure of local business by size of employment has stayed largely stable, there has been a slight shift in weighting towards smaller firms, with the number of smaller businesses in absolute terms recording the greatest growth between 2012 and 2017. In summary, the growth of local businesses has been driven largely by micro businesses (i.e. non-employing and 1-4 employees) in recent years. Although this is important to the municipality’s economy, the more catalytic employment gains will come from the introduction of large businesses and employment clusters that are able to generate downstream activities and opportunities for smaller businesses. As such, the South East Product, Export and Employment Node will likely be an example of a significant large-scale employment cluster that will support local small businesses.

URBIS SHIRE OF CARDINIA EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX Number of Local Businesses by Employment Size* Shire of Cardinia, 2012 & 2017, as at June Chart 2.3

Proportion of Local Businesses by Employment Size* Shire of Cardinia, 2012 & 2017, as at June Chart 2.4

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX SHIRE OF CARDINIA EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT 2.4. LOCAL EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS SUMMARY The statistics presented in this section have highlighted the following key points:

• Residents of the Shire of Cardinia exhibit a broad mix of occupations of varying levels of skills, although a higher proportion are employed in blue-collar occupations that can require less formal qualifications or skills.

• Currently, jobs provided in the municipality are also rather evenly distributed across occupation type, with a heavier weighting towards the blue-collar occupations rather than white-collar roles.

• The local job market remains small relative to the growing population. A high proportion of residents of the municipality are leaving the area to find employment, including blue-collar occupations such as Technicians and Trades Workers and Machinery Operators and Drivers.

• Most businesses within the municipality are small, with there being only three large businesses with over 200 employees as of 2017. In this context, the development of the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node, built upon the existing capacity of the O’Connor operation, will assist in addressing some of the employment deficiency in the area. It would have the potential to become a game changer in the local employment market, supporting local residents in accessing more job opportunities likely to be well-aligned with the existing skills of local resident workers who are currently leaving the area to access such jobs. In addition, it is also expected to generate wider benefits through the local supply chain across the broader region. The subsequent section presents a more detailed analysis of the benefits the subject development would be able to bring about.

URBIS SHIRE OF CARDINIA EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX 3. BENEFITS OF THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT

Having established the need to provide more jobs locally and the potential significance of the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node, this section quantifies the benefits likely to be generated as a result of the proposed development of the precinct, along with a manifestation of other benefits. 3.1. ECONOMIC BENEFIT QUANTIFICATION 3.1.1. Methodology Analysis presented in the subsequent sub-sections uses REMPLAN economic modelling to assess current and potential economic impacts. REMPLAN is an Input-Output model that captures inter-industry relationships within an economy. It can assess the area-specific direct and flow-on implications across industry sectors in terms of employment, wages and salaries, output and value-added, allowing for analysis of impact on the local Shire of Cardinia level as well as on the State of Victoria. Key points regarding the workings or terminology of the model are as follows:

• REMPLAN uses either the value of investment or employment generation as the primary input. For this analysis, the estimated value of total upfront investment has been used as the key input to assess the benefits of the construction phase, whereas indicative future employment in the various facilities is the input to assessing the on-going economic benefits of the operation phase.

• Outputs from the model include employment generated through the project and economic Gross Value Added (GVA) at both the local and the state level.

• Employment generated is calculated on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis over the life of the construction phase; or in terms of the on-going operations, total on-going jobs generated. An FTE job is based on 35 hours per week for 52 weeks per annum.

• Gross Value Added or GVA is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in an area, industry or sector of an economy during a certain period of time. In this case, GVA represents the total economic contribution of the project.

• Both the direct and indirect benefits are modelled for employment and value added:

− Direct refers to the effect felt within the industry as a result of the investment. For example, the construction phase will directly result in the creation of construction jobs.

− Indirect effects are 1) those felt within industries that supply goods to the industries directly affected and 2) to industries that benefit from the wages that are earned and spent by those employed within the industries directly affected.

• Economic benefits are modelled for the construction and the on-going operation phases. For both phases, the employment and value-added numbers are presented on an annualised basis. Construction phase benefits accrue each year the project is under construction. On-going benefits accrue each year of operation.

• It should be noted that the results presented below are estimates only based on the existing state of economic activity in the area. Due to the static nature of input-output modelling, they have the potential to overstate the actual effects. Nonetheless, the analysis still reflects the fact that employment growth and economic value added will be positive for the local area and State.

• Urbis consider that in the absence of this investment it is unlikely that a similar project would be undertaken within the same period at the subject location, and therefore the investment can be considered additional. The following sub-sections present a summary of benefits for these two phases.

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX BENEFITS OF THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT 3.1.2. Construction Phase In estimating the development cost of the proposed development, Urbis has had reference to the construction cost of relevant building types on a square metre rate basis, drawing from the latest data published by Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook (2018). Based on the floor area assumptions prepared by Traffix Group, the proposed development is estimated to have a total construction cost of around $269 million inclusive of GST over an assumed development timeframe of 10 years. This equates to an annualised construction cost of some $26.9 million in constant 2018-dollar value. As shown in Table 3.1 below, construction of the proposed development is estimated to be able to generate 67 direct FTE jobs on average for the equivalent of one year during construction, and another 94 FTE jobs indirectly created across other industries, including 66 of those FTE jobs to be available within the Shire of Cardinia. These job estimates are equivalent to approximately $8.2 million in direct Gross Value Added (GVA) on average per year during the construction period, and $12.6 million in indirect GVA annually in constant 2018- dollar terms inclusive of GST for the State. It is expected that all the direct benefits are to be felt within the Shire of Cardinia as this is the project location, with an additional $8.2 million value add spin-off effect within the Shire, and a further $4.4 million across the rest of the State. Total cumulative GVA contribution likely to be generated during the ten-year development period is estimated at around $208 million in constant 2018-dollar value.

Construction Phase Benefits 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham Table 3.1 Direct Indirect Construction Phase Total Benefits Benefits Benefits Employment1

Shire of Cardinia 67 66 133 Rest of Victoria - 28 28 Victoria 67 94 161

Gross Value Added (GVA)2 Shire of Cardinia 8.2 8.2 16.4 Rest of Victoria - 4.4 4.4 Victoria 8.2 12.6 20.8 1. Full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs for the equivalent of one year of employment during construction. 2. Annual benefits measured in constant M$ 2018 dollar value including GST. Source: G & K O'Connor; REMPLAN; Urbis

URBIS BENEFITS OF THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX 3.1.3. Operation Phase Potential annual economic benefits (in jobs and GVA) resulting from the ongoing operation of the precinct are estimated here. The number of direct jobs for the proposed development was estimated by referring to industry benchmarks and Urbis’ experience in staffing requirements for the various land uses proposed, again, based on the proposed scale of each of these components from the master plan. These jobs are then converted to an FTE base by applying a total job to FTE job ratio to each of the relevant industries at the local level. The conversion ratio is derived from the ANZSIC employment by industry statistics for the Shire of Cardinia using REMPLAN. More detailed calculations are shown in Appendix A. Direct jobs are entered into REMPLAN to produce an estimate for indirect jobs and direct and indirect GVA. It is estimated that the proposed development would have the capacity to provide around 1,527 direct FTE jobs in total at full capacity during the on-going operation phase. All direct jobs are obviously within the Shire of Cardinia, given the location of the development. The direct jobs are estimated to induce a further 1,291 indirect FTE jobs, including 844 jobs within the Shire of Cardinia and some 447 jobs for the rest of the State as a result of flow-on effects. There will be an estimated $398.5 million per annum in direct and indirect GVA contribution generated from the ongoing operation and management of the proposed precinct to the Victorian economy. This includes close to $210 million direct GVA benefit and some $189 million indirect GVA benefit for the State (see Table 3.2). Again, the majority of these GVA benefits will likely be retained within the Shire.

Operation Phase Benefits 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham, at Full Capacity Table 3.2 Direct Indirect Operation Phase Total Benefits Benefits Benefits On-going Annual Employment (At Capacity)1

Shire of Cardinia 1,527 844 2,371 Rest of Victoria - 447 447 Victoria 1,527 1,291 2,818

On-going Annual GVA (At Capacity)2

Shire of Cardinia 209.6 122.2 331.7 Rest of Victoria - 66.8 66.8 Victoria 209.6 188.9 398.5 1. Full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs for the equivalent of one year of employment during operation. 2. Annual benefits measured in constant $M 2018 dollar value including GST. Source: G & K O'Connor; REMPLAN; Urbis

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX BENEFITS OF THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT 3.2. MANIFESTATION OF BENEFITS The sub-section above has provided a quantification of the economic benefits to the Shire of Cardinia LGA and the State more broadly. However, these benefits will manifest in many ways that are critically important to the continued development of the economy and for residents and workers of the area. Below we provide a description of the tangible economic benefits that are either the representation of the jobs and value add created, or other benefits that are more difficult to quantify but no less valuable. 3.2.1. Meeting the Demand for Premium Australian Beef in the Global Market Australia has long been regarded as a major producer and exporter of quality beef in the global market. As shown in Chart 3.1 below, demand for Australian beef from overseas markets has remained strong, in particular in major Asian markets where import of Australian beef increased by 36% in volume over the past decade. Much of this growth has been generated by demand from China, which consumed close to 163,000 tonnes SWT (i.e. shipping weight) or 15% of total Australian beef export in 2018, up from a mere 0.3% ten years ago. With the growing purchasing power of the Chinese middle class and concern for food safety, the appetite for premium Australian beef is likely to be even stronger. As such, the proposed precinct development will further consolidate the presence and reputation of Australian beef in the global market; the increased processing capacity at G & K O’Connor, which already exports a quarter of its annual production to China, will also help secure access to this growing market for locally grown beef and beef products.

Total Australian Beef Export by Major Regional Markets Tonnes Shipping Weight (SWT) Chart 3.1 900,000 Asia Major* US & Canada Other 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 * Includes Japan, South Korea, China Mainland, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Taiwan and Malaysia Source: Meat & Livestock Australia

3.2.2. Greater Synergy with Local Businesses The existing O’Connor abattoir and meat processing operation relies on the supply of cattle from farmers. It is understood that 70% of its annual purchase of cattle is sourced from the neighbouring Gippsland region, indicating the business’ deep connection with the local supply chain and its regional significance. The expanded operations will no doubt further support local farmers, creating new business opportunities and economic benefits that go beyond the municipal boundaries. 3.2.3. Creating Employment Opportunities Suitable for Local Residents During both the construction and operation phases of the proposed development, employment opportunities will be created. Local residents will have the opportunity to fill these jobs. In both phases, jobs will be accessible to individuals with or without formal qualifications, allowing for greater access to employment prospects for all. This would be a great benefit for an outer metropolitan LGA such as Cardinia where any employment opportunities closer to home will be valuable.

URBIS BENEFITS OF THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX 3.2.4. Support for Other Services The introduction of close to 1,530 FTE roles into Pakenham South, along with other employment that might flow through other businesses that may be attracted to this precinct, will create significant opportunities for retail and other service businesses, either existing or those who may set up in future. Results of surveys of workers undertaken by Urbis show the average spend by workers can be significant close to their place of work, or on their way to and from work. Across the 1,530 FTE workers (many more individuals when allowing for part time and casual work, refer to Appendix A), the South East Food Production, Export and Employment Node development could generate significant annual retail expenditure. The additional income generated by workers related to the project will also be available to be directed back into the local economy. This represents a share of the indirect jobs and value added in the Shire of Cardinia and the rest of the State. 3.3. SUMMARY In summary, the benefits of the proposed development of the South East Food Product, Export and Employment Node at 910-940 Koo Wee Rup Road, Pakenham will be significant in economic terms. Jobs and economic value added will be generated through the construction phase and then as a result the ongoing operation of the facility. Overall, it is anticipated that the development would provide a net economic benefit in terms of:

• Providing a significant amount of employment opportunities well-aligned with the current skills of local resident workers of the Shire of Cardinia and surrounding areas.

• Meeting the growing demand for premium Australian beef and beef products from overseas markets.

• Strengthening and driving the consolidation of Pakenham South as an agribusiness hub for the production and export of premium foods, in particular meat and meat products, resulting in a magnification of economic growth for the broader region

• Generating greater synergy with local businesses, in particular those in the agricultural sector, such as farmers and other rural production businesses.

• Creating significant retail spending potential from future workers, generating demand for other service sector businesses.

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX BENEFITS OF THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT DISCLAIMER

This report is dated 22 February 2019 and incorporates information and events up to that date only and excludes any information arising, or event occurring, after that date which may affect the validity of Urbis Pty Ltd’s (Urbis) opinion in this report. Urbis prepared this report on the instructions, and for the benefit only, of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd (Instructing Party) for the purpose of Economic Impact Assessment (Purpose) and not for any other purpose or use. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Urbis expressly disclaims all liability, whether direct or indirect, to the Instructing Party which relies or purports to rely on this report for any purpose other than the Purpose, and to any other person which relies or purports to rely on this report for any purpose whatsoever (including the Purpose). In preparing this report, Urbis was required to make judgements which may be affected by unforeseen future events, the likelihood and effects of which are not capable of precise assessment. All surveys, forecasts, projections and recommendations contained in or associated with this report are made in good faith and on the basis of information supplied to Urbis at the date of this report, and upon which Urbis relied. Achievement of the projections and budgets set out in this report will depend, among other things, on the actions of others over which Urbis has no control. In preparing this report, Urbis may rely on or refer to documents in a language other than English, which Urbis may arrange to be translated. Urbis is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such translations and disclaims any liability for any statement or opinion made in this report being inaccurate or incomplete arising from such translations. Whilst Urbis has made all reasonable inquiries it believes necessary in preparing this report, it is not responsible for determining the completeness or accuracy of information provided to it. Urbis (including its officers and personnel) is not liable for any errors or omissions, including in information provided by the Instructing Party or another person or upon which Urbis relies, provided that such errors or omissions are not made by Urbis recklessly or in bad faith. This report has been prepared with due care and diligence by Urbis and the statements and opinions given by Urbis in this report are given in good faith and in the reasonable belief that they are correct and not misleading, subject to the limitations above.

URBIS DISCLAIMER 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX APPENDIX A CALCULATIONS OF ONGOING JOBS

URBIS APPENDICES 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX Estimated Ongoing Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs at Capacity 910-940 Koo Wee Rup, Pakenham Employment Land Area Total Total Jobs to Est. FTE Precinct Land Use ANZIC Industry Category Density (ha) Jobs FTE Jobs Ratio Jobs (jobs/ha) O'Connor Australia Production Precinct (current) 1 Manufacturing - 400 1.00 401.5 Core 28.0 Future Expansion Area 2 Manufacturing - 40 1.00 40.0

Freeway Service Centre Retail Trade 2.0 25 50 1.38 36.0

Retail Premises - Primary Produce Sales (Market Format) Retail Trade 4.0 75 300 1.38 217.0

Retail Premises - Manufacturing Sales Retail Trade 4.7 62 291 1.38 210.5 Entry Commercial Display Retail Trade 1.7 63 107 1.38 77.5

R&D Precinct - Veterinary Centre Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 10.6 30 318 1.11 287.0

Rural Store/Warehouse Transport, Postal & Warehousing 2.5 15 38 1.00 37.5

Transport Terminal Transport, Postal & Warehousing 3.1 5 16 1.00 15.5

Transport Rural Store/Warehouse Transport, Postal & Warehousing 11.0 15 165 1.00 164.5

Fuel Depot/Utilities Electricity, Gas, Water & Waste Services 1.0 10 10 0.95 10.5

Warehouse/Cold Store Transport, Postal & Warehousing 3.0 15 45 1.00 45.0 Support/ Rural Industry - Value-add Processing, Service Industries Manufacturing 13.0 20 260 1.00 261.0 Services Rural Industry Expansion - Value-add Processing, Service Industries Manufacturing 6.2 20 124 1.00 124.5

Total Existing & Future 90.8 2,164 1,928.0 1. Existing jobs data sourced from G & K O'Connor and converted to an FTE basis. 2. Jobs information based on G & K O'Connor's plan to hire up to 40 additional workers over the next six months or so, converted to an FTE basis. More jobs are likely to be created beyond that time as a result of further expansion of its current operation. Source: G & K O'Connor; Traffix Group; Urbis

URBIS 910-940 KOO WEE RUP ROAD PAKENHAM EIA.DOCX APPENDICES

Appendix B

Peter Ramsay Curriculum Vitae Peter J Ramsay Managing Director

. Fellow of The Australian Institute of Company Fields of Competence Directors. . Past Chairman of the Environmental Branch, . Lead environmental auditing of landfills and Victorian Division, Engineers Australia, 1987/88. industrial facilities . Member of Clean Air Society of Australia and . Separation distances for industrial facilities and New Zealand. landfills . Member of Australian Water and Wastewater . Contaminated site assessment and remediation Association. . Environmental improvement plans and pollution . Member of Air and Waste Management reduction programs Association (USA). . Environmental impact assessment . Australian Environment Business Network . Cleaner production and waste minimisation . Australian Sustainable Business Group . Air quality management . EHS management Key Projects

Experience Summary Lead auditor for environmental audits of Alcoa aluminium smelters, BHP steel mills and manufacturing Peter has been Managing Director and Principal facilities. Consultant of Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd since February 1988. He has over 30 years’ Management of due diligence audits for mergers and experience in pollution control, cleaner production, due acquisitions for major real estate transactions. diligence audits, environmental auditing, environmental management systems and environmental assessment. Management of Phase I and II environmental Peter is a Chartered Professional Engineer and a assessments of soil and groundwater at large scale Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia. He is industrial facilities. appointed as an Environmental Auditor under the Victorian Environment Protection Act 1970 for both Management of remedial projects throughout Australia. contaminated land and industrial facilities. He is also accredited as a Site Auditor under the New South Statutory environmental audits of land under Australian Wales Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and legislation of contaminated sites, landfills and a range of is a registered professional engineer in Queensland. industrial facilities.

Education Statutory environmental audits of risk to the environment from landfill operations throughout Victoria. Diploma of Chemical Engineering, RMIT, 1970. Statutory environmental audits of risk to the Graduate Diploma of Management, RMIT, 1973. environment from the construction of landfill liners throughout Victoria. Master of Environmental Science, Monash University, 1978. Statutory environmental audits of risk of harm to groundwaters at landfills throughout Victoria.

Language Proficiency Expert evidence on separation distance for landfills and (None, Fair, Moderate, Excellent, Native) industrial facilities. . English: Speak/Read/Write - Native/Native/Native Auditor verification of monitoring programs and cell design at landfills throughout Victoria. Professional Affiliations and Cleaner production and waste minimisation strategies for industries. Registrations Air quality management and assessment for industry. . Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia (FIEAust).

Peter J Ramsay Managing Director

Odour control and impact assessment for industrial Environment Protection Authority, Publication facilities ranging from poultry farms to manufacturing 148, Melbourne, Australia, 1982. facilities. . Ramsay, P.J. Stationary Source Control in Victoria: The benefits of Licensing and Monitoring, Waste to energy projects and carbon management. 50th Annual Conference of Australian Institute of Health Surveyors, Victoria Division, Moonee Regulatory permitting for new and existing industrial Valley, Melbourne, Australia, 22 May 1981. facilities. . Ramsay, P.J. Air Pollution Control of Aluminium Smelters in North America. A Review of Emission Audits of wastewater treatment facilities and water Limits and Control Strategies for Aluminium reuse strategies. Smelters in North America with implications for Victoria, Environment Protection Authority, Environmental impact assessment for new facilities. Publication 114, Melbourne, Australia, 1980. . Hulme, J. and Ramsay, P. Industrial Pollution and Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) policies and Community Attitudes, Monash University. Victoria, procedures. Preparing and documenting sound EHS Australia, 1978. management systems.

Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOPS) to determine regulatory compliance.

Environmental risk assessment to determine regulatory compliance.

Publications

. Ramsay, P.J. Sustainable Challenges Facing Business, Paper presented at the Environment Essentials Conference, Australian Environment Business Network (AEBN), Parkville, 16 September 2004. . Ramsay, P.J. Property Council of Australia Guide to Due Diligence, author of Environmental section of the 2003 (current) edition, Brisbane 2003. . Ramsay, P.J. Property Council of Australia Publication Guide to Due Diligence, Author of Environmental section, Brisbane, 1998. . Ramsay, P.J. and Van Schoten, M.W. The Critical Need for Quality Assurance in Contaminated Site Assessment, Paper presented at the 3rd National Hazardous Solid Waste Convention, Darling Harbour, Sydney, 26-30 May 1996. . Ramsay, P.J. and Thiele, G.A., Assessment of Odour Buffer Zones for Wastewater Treatment Plants, Clean Air, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 48-52, 1995. . Ramsay, P.J. and Wareham, A.E. The Role of Buffer Zones in Environmental Management, Symposium on Siting, Engineering and Management of Hazardous Industries, Institution of Engineers Australia, Melbourne, Australia, 13 and 14 April 1983. . Ramsay, P.J. Report on Study: Fluoride Levels in Vegetation and Ambient Air in the Portland Area,