NSW environment protection licences and dairy developments
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
This section outlines requirements relating to dairy developments under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the POEO Act). The following information identifies current triggers, operation activities and definitions that relate to environment protection licences (EPL).
Schedule 1 to the POEO Act lists a range of activities that require an EPL, known as ‘scheduled activities’. An EPL authorises the scheduled activity to be conducted and includes enforceable conditions to prevent or minimise the environmental impact of the activity. Under Schedule 1, Part 1 premises-based activities, Section 22 Livestock intensive activities of the POEO Act, dairy animal accommodation is considered a scheduled activity if the development has capacity to accommodate more than 800
dairy animals at any time.
The POEO Act definition of dairy animal accommodation is:
- animals used for the production of milk (dairy animals), and
- in free stall complexes, feed pads, loading pads,* milking sheds or stand-off areas, but not in pasture, calving areas or calving sheds.
*Loafing pads may be a more appropriate term and is an area designed to provide cows with a comfortable place to rest and move around when they are not being milked or fed. These pads are usually made of materials that offer a soft and dry surface, such as sand, straw, or other organic bedding. Proper drainage and maintenance of these areas are important to prevent mud, reduce the risk of injury, and maintain a clean environment for the cows.
This means that if the dairy complex (see Dairy industry terms and definitions) has the capacity to accommodate more than 800 milking cows (the threshold) at any time, it is considered a ‘premises-based’ scheduled activity and requires an EPL to operate. When lodging a DA application, it must be lodged as an ‘integrated development’ (see NSW Planning framework and dairy developments) and the EPA will assess the premises according to the POEO Act.
Under the POEO Act, the EPA is the ARA for all scheduled activities. Figure6 demonstrates the EPA’s role in assessing DAs that trigger the dairy animal accommodation threshold of the POEO Act.
A licence for a ‘premises-based’ scheduled activity is issued to the ‘occupier’ of the premises (that is the person or entity that has overall management or control of the premises) following DA approval and a successful licence application.
EPA involvement in the EP&A Act processes
EPL case studies
Freddy Friesian:
800+ milking herd converting to a contained housing system = EPL
Freddy Friesian has a 1,200-cow milking herd that is currently a grazing-based system. Freddy has spent many years researching intensive (dairy (restricted)) housing systems and has decided to build 2 x 600-cow freestall facilities (sheds) to accommodate his separate herds 24 hours a day. Freddy will need to prepare an environmental impact statement for his application to council, following the receipt of the Secretaries Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) and his development will be defned as designated and integrated development. He is required to have an EPL as Freddy’s herd is greater than 800 milking cows and they will be contained within the dairy complex at the same time.
Adam Ayrshire:
Freddy’s neighbour Adam Ayrshire has been on several farm tours with Freddy and has decided to build a loose housing (dairy (restricted)) facility which will accommodate his 600-cow herd 24 hours a day. Adam will need to make an application to the local council for local development approval; however, as his milking herd is less than 800 cows, he does not require an EPL.
Janice Jersey:
900 milking herd on pasture. Dairy complex holding yards and feedpad currently accommodates a maximum of 500 cows.Milking is undertaken in split milking herds of 450 cows. Facilities are used 4 times per day but do not exceed 800 cows within the complex = No EPL required.
As Janice’s milking herd has grown over time her milking facility now needs to increase to a capacity capable of accommodating the entire 900-cow herd at the same time. Janice will also seek approval to increase her feedpad t o hold up to 1,000 cows to supplementary feed her cows following each milking. Even though Janice is a grazing-based system, she will require an EPL to operate as she exceeds the 800 cow accommodation threshold in both the dairy yards and the feedpad. Like Freddy, Janice will also need to prepare an environmental impact statement for her application to Council, following the receipt of the SEARs and the development will be defned as designated and integrated development.
Hermione Holstein:
Janice’s neighbour, Hermione Holstein, has a 600-cow milking herd. Her cows live at ‘Holstein Homestead’, which is a grazing-based property. Hermione has purchased a neighbour’s 400-cow herd, however, her dairy yard is not big enough to accommodate all of her now 1,000-cow milking herd at the same time. Hermione has made the decision to split milk her herd as it fts with her pasture paddock sizes. As Hermione’s dairy will continue to accommodate less than 800 cows, she does not at this time require an EPL.
Garry Guernsey:
Barry Bull:
Garry’s neighbour, Barry Bull, has been impacted by a terrible bushfre and is using a stock containment area to accommodate his 400-cow milking herd. After 6 months of using the stock containment area Barry has made the decision not to return his cows to a grazing-based system. His dairy is also nearing the end of its life and needs replacement. Barry will need to make an application to council for the new dairy and as he has made the permanent change to a contained housing system as a dairy dry-lot he will also need to make an application for a change in use to ‘dairy (restricted)’. As this area accommodates less than 800 milking cows, he does not need an EPL.
Integrated development and EPL licensing
The EPA cannot issue a licence until development consent is obtained. IDA processes streamline the approval process for developments that require consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act and approvals, such as a licence under other legislation (see Other approvals and licences). Where the development is considered a ‘premises-based’ scheduled activity and therefore requires an EPL, the EPA is asked by the assessing consent authority to provide input into the environmental assessment requirements in the IDA process. The EPA assesses both the DA and the EIS and will either issue ‘general terms of approval’ (GTA) or indicate it does not support the application as lodged and will not issue GTA. GTA indicate the general terms which the EPA will approve for the proposal. The EPA’s licence conditions will be consistent with the GTA (see Figure 6).
For further information on scheduled development work, non-scheduled activities, state significant developments, licence applications and supporting documentation required, and fees, refer to the Guide to Licensing (NSW EPA, 2022)
As of July 2024, climate change assessment requirements apply to developments that trigger the GHG emission threshold for large emitters under EPA’s Climate Change Policy and Action Plan 2023–26. Please see Management of potential environmental impacts for more information on climate and greenhouse gas emissions.
|
|
Risk-based licensing
The EPA’s risk-based licensing system regulates activities based on the risk the activity poses to human health and the environment. EPA officers, in consultation with the licensee, assess a site’s daily operations, pollution incident risk, and the occupier’s environmental performance. This determines the risk level and environmental management category. The environmental management category is reviewed annually at the end of each licence reporting period and the risk assessment of operations and pollution incidents is reviewed at least every 5 years, or more frequently if needed or circumstances change.
The EPA developed the Risk assessment tool to help licensees understand the process
Licence limit, operating, monitoring and reporting conditions
The POEO Act and the Regulations made under the Act outline general obligations for licensees including:
- ensuring persons associated with the premises comply with the EPL (Chapter 3, Section 64)
- complying with environmental performance requirements such as pollutant concentration limits (for example, water and air - Chapter 5, Part 5.3–5.4)
- reporting incidents causing or threatening material environmental harm to the environment (Chapter 5, Part 5.7).
An EPL is granted to the licensee with site specific limits (for example, parameters for water quality, odour and noise, as relevant) and operating conditions, including competency and maintenance requirements. The conditions are aimed at preventing or minimising environmental impacts from the licensed activity.
Once the licence is granted, the holder should review all the conditions and create a plan to meet them, including allocating responsibilities. Larger operations sometimes engage a third-party consultancy to oversee monitoring and reporting requirements.
Licensees must submit an Annual Return to the EPA. An Annual Return includes a statement of compliance with the licence conditions and a pollution monitoring report. Annual Returns must be submitted within 60 days of the reporting period.
Site monitoring for an EPL may require a site-specific weather station, which must be installed and maintained in accordance with the EPA’s requirements.
Other monitoring requirements for an EPL may include groundwater monitoring, surface water monitoring, soil test results where manure streams are applied, and waste volume if manure or compost is removed from the site. Other considerations for sites may also include the management, testing and reporting on manure and/or compost exported off site.
Monitoring conditions and frequency are based on the site and environment and are detailed on a licence. Monitoring results and certain reporting requirements must be submitted with the annual return. Monitoring data must be published in compliance with the conditions of the EPL and in accordance with section 66(6) of the POEO Act. The EPA has specific requirements for how monitoring data is reported and published. Licensees must prepare a Pollution Incident Response Management Plan before commencing activities of the EPL.
The POEO Act requires that the EPA review an EPL at least every 5 years (Part 3.6 and Schedule 5).
Existing dairy animal accommodation EPLs
The EPA has identified common conditions for dairy animal accommodation EPLs (June 2023). These are for 'Discharges to Air and Water and Applications to Land'. Table 7 provides examples of the monitoring required to demonstrate compliance with EPL conditions, including effluent quality monitoring (when effluent holding ponds are in use), groundwater quality monitoring, soil monitoring (in effluent utilisation areas), and ambient surface water monitoring (where there are adjacent waterways). The conditions require multiple monitoring locations for each type of monitoring to cover the activity area. They may also specify how many samples must be undertaken at each location. The EPL holder must ensure that monitoring and reporting is undertaken by suitably qualified specialists.
The examples in Table 7 are common monitoring requirements; however, each premise’s monitoring requirements are based on the site-specific environmental assessment and therefore may differ from those listed in the table.
The list of EPLs is publicly available on the EPA’s POEO Act Public Register. Reviewing existing EPLs indicates the environmental impacts and conditions that dairy animal accommodation EPL licensees must manage, monitor and report. It also gives insight into environmental issues that will need to be addressed in the SEARs/EIS assessment process.
See the EPA’s POEO Act Public Register
| Type of monitoring point | Location description | Pollutant |
|---|---|---|
Effluent quality monitoring | Effluent holding ponds |
|
Soil quality monitoring | Surface soil monitoring points on effluent and solids application to land areas For each utilisation area, sampling and analysis of the surface (0–10cm), subsurface (10–30cm) and the base of the root zone (30–60cm) using a composite of 5 samples from each depth |
|
Ambient surface water monitoring | Downstream and upstream surface water monitoring points of any adjacent waterways |
|
Groundwater quality monitoring | Groundwater monitoring points |
|
Pollution Incident Response Management Plan
All EPL holders must prepare and maintain a Pollution Incident Response Management Plan (PIRMP) as part of their ongoing operation activities. A PIRMP is a comprehensive document that outlines the procedures in place to minimise the potential for pollution incidents on a premises. These procedures outline a clear and efficient process for notifications, actions, and communication to ensure the safe handling of incidents. The plan ensures that relevant individuals and authorities are promptly notified and kept updated if an incident occurs.
To help EPL holders develop a PIRMP, the EPA has released the Guideline: Pollution Incident Response Management Plans (PIRMP Guideline) (NSW EPA, 2024). This guideline explains the legislative requirements and provides guidance on preparing,
testing, and implementing a PIRMP.
Specific considerations that may be relevant to a PIRMP for dairy complexes are:
- surface and groundwater considerations from manure holding and applications
- land and soil considerations from nutrient (manure) applications
- noise and odour considerations associated with sensitive receptors
- dust from traffic, grain and harvesting activities
- hazardous substance management
- fire
- biosecurity
- traffic and transport.
Benefits of holding an EPL for dairy complexes
The EPA works closely with licensees to ensure, where possible, best practices in environmental management are implemented at the premises. This encourages continuous improvement in environmental performance.
Obtaining and maintaining an EPL for a dairy complex might seem challenging, however, operating without one is an offence if the dairy complex is determined to be a ‘premises-based’ scheduled activity.
Holding an EPL for a dairy complex has 2 main benefits. First, it requires the licensee to minimise their impact on the environment by meeting licence conditions and general obligations under the POEO Act. Second, by complying with the licence conditions, it demonstrates that a site is appropriately managed including monitoring and reporting.
If an EPL is required for a dairy complex, it will not only help protect the environment but can also improve the industry’s local reputation.