sepp33 review hostmann-steinberg australia pty ltd

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. INTRODUCTION1.1. BackgroundHostmann-Steinberg Australia Pty Ltd (HSA) has undertaken the fit-out and use of anexisting building for the re-packaging and blending of imported ink for distributionthroughout Australia.HSA has engaged Sherpa Consulting Pty Ltd (Sherpa) to carry out the hazards andrisk component of the Director-Generals Requirements (DGR 642) under thisdesignated development. As part of this process, Sherpa is to <strong>review</strong> the developmentusing the State Environmental Planning Policy 33 – Hazardous and OffensiveDevelopment (SEPP 33) of the proposed development and determine whether it wouldbe considered by SEPP 33 to be ‘potentially hazardous industry’ or ‘potentiallyoffensive industry’.1.2. SEPP 33 ApplicabilitySEPP 33 links the permissibility of an industrial development to its offsite safety andenvironmental risks. Developments that involve storage, handling, or processingmaterials which, in the absence of locational, technical or operational controls, maycreate an off-site risk or offence to people, property or the environment are defined bySEPP 33 as ‘potentially hazardous industry’ or ‘potentially offensive industry’.Development proposals that are classified as potentially hazardous industry mustundergo a Preliminary Hazard Assessment (PHA) to determine the risk to people,property and the environment. If the residual risk exceeds the acceptability criteria, thedevelopment is ‘hazardous industry’ and may not be permissible within NSW.Developments that have the potential to emit contaminants to the environment andwhich require an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) are ‘potentially offensive’.1.3. Scope and ObjectivesThe objectives of the SEPP 33 <strong>review</strong> are to: Determine whether the project is ‘potentially hazardous’, hence establishwhether a PHA is required and document the basis for the decision.Determine whether the project is ‘potentially offensive’, and document the basisfor the decision.1.4. MethodThe screening process published in the NSW Department of Planning guidelineHazardous & Offensive Development Application Guidelines – Applying SEPP 33(January 2011) was used to establish whether the development is ‘potentiallyhazardous’ or ‘potentially offensive’.Document: 20659-001Revision: 0Revision Date: 20 September 2012Document ID: 20659-001 Rev 0Page 6
2. SEPP 33 ASSESSMENT2.1. Potentially Hazardous DevelopmentSEPP 33 defines potentially hazardous industry as follows:‘Potentially hazardous industry’ means a development for the purposes of an industry which, ifthe development were to operate without employing any measures (including, for example,isolation from existing or likely future development on other land) to reduce or minimise its impactin the locality or on the existing or likely future development on other land, would pose asignificant risk in relation to the locality:(a) to human health, life or property; or(b) to the biophysical environment, and:includes a hazardous industry and a hazardous storage establishment.To determine whether a proposed development is potentially hazardous, the riskscreening process in the Applying SEPP 33 guideline considers the type and quantityof hazardous materials to be stored on the site and the distance of the storage area tothe nearest site boundary, as well as the expected number of transport movements.‘Hazardous materials’ are defined within the Applying SEPP 33 guideline assubstances that fall within the classification of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code(ADG), ie have a Dangerous Goods (DG) classification.2.2. Dangerous GoodsA list of the types and quantities of materials stored or handled at the development,together with the relevant SEPP 33 screening threshold is presented in Table 2.1. Theinformation was based on the ADG Assessment Report (Ref 3), but for the quantity ofaerosols this was reduced to four hundred, 300 gram cans after discussion with HSA.The proportion of propellant (and thus Class 2.1 Dangerous Good) in each can wasdetermined to be 10-30% w/w (Ref 2). 30% w/w hydrocarbon propellant was used asthe basis of calculation to account for worst case scenario.Table 2.1 shows that all inventories stored on site do not exceed the SEPP 33screening threshold and thus proposed development is not ‘potentially hazardous’.A site layout is presented in Figure 2.1; and a layout showing the site boundary inrelation to the Dangerous Goods storage locations is shown in Figure 2.2.Document: 20659-001Revision: 0Revision Date: 20 September 2012Document ID: 20659-001 Rev 0Page 7
Page 2: DOCUMENT REVISION RECORDREV DATE DE
Page 5: ABBREVIATIONSADGDGDGRDoPEPLHSAmNSWP
Page 9 and 10: 2.3. Transportation IssuesA list of
Page 11 and 12: 2.4. Other HazardsAdditional hazard
Page 13 and 14: FIGURE 2.2:SITE LAYOUT DRAWING SHOW
Page 15 and 16: 4. CONCLUSIONThe screening risk ass

sepp33 review hostmann-steinberg australia pty ltd

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?