E co M anagement S ervices Pty L tdE co M anagement S ervices Pty L tdE co M anagement S ervices Pty L td

WATER QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY of

WINERY AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENTS In the

MOUNT LOFTY RANGES WATERSHED

P O Box 379 BLACKWOOD SA 5051 TEL: 8270 3066 FAX: 8270 3706 EMAIL: pfmems@senet.com.au

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY of

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

STAGE 2 — TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

Eco Management Services Pty Ltd Land Energy Pty Ltd

Dr Jeanette Chapman ARUP Water

Ref 303/02 February 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Aim and Outline of the Study 3 2.0 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 4 2.1 Site Visits and Industry Consultation 5 3.0 DEVELOPMENT IN THE ADELAIDE HILLS WINE REGION 6 3.1 Adelaide Hills Wine Region: a brief description 6 3.2 Current Development 6 3.3 Industry Studies of Future Development to 2012 6 3.4 Winery Development Scenarios to 2012 9 3.5 Scenario for Ancillary Development 10 3.6 Allocation of Winery and Ancillary Development by

Catchment 10 3.6.1 Current Winery Development 12 4.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF POTENTIAL WINERY SPILL

MATERIALS 13 4.1 The Manufacture of Wine: Focusing on the AHWR 13 4.2 Characteristics of Winery Wastewater 19 4.2.1 Stormwater Management 21 4.2.2 Solid Production Waste 23 4.3 Ethanol-based Refrigeration Brines 23 4.4 Chemicals 24 4.5 Fuel 25 4.6 Relative Total Loading of Biological Oxygen Demand,

Nitrogen and Phosphorus 25 5.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF POTENTIAL WINERY AND

ANCILLARY SEWAGE WASTE SPILL MATERIALS 28 5.1 Standards for Waste Management 28 5.2 Issues Affecting Successful Management of Sewage

Effluent Systems 30

6.0 REVIEW OF PAST INCIDENCE REPORTS AND AVAILABLE INDUSTRY AUDITS 32 6.1 Stormwater Management from Open Processing Areas 32 6.2 Modification of Existing Buildings to Become Wineries 33 6.3 Rapid Expansion of Infrastructure 33

6.4 Management Deficiencies 33 6.5 Transportation of Waste to Effluent Treatment Works 33 7.0 DETERMINATION OF THE PROBABILITY OF A SPILL BY

FAULT TREE ANALYSIS 35 7.1 Fault Tree Methodology 35 7.1.1 Human Error 36 7.1.2 Equipment Failure Rates 39 7.1.3 Fault Tree Mathematics 41 7.1.4 Binominal Distribution 42 7.2 Results of the Risk Analysis 42 7.2.1 Leak of Raw Product 42 7.2.1.1 Results 44 7.2.2 Wastewater Collection and Storage System Fails 44 7.2.2.1 Results 46 7.2.3 Leakage of Refrigeration Brine 47

7.2.3.1 Leak of Refrigeration Brine from the Storage Tank 47

7.2.3.2 Leak of Brine from Refrigeration Unit and Pipe Network 48

7.2.4 Leakage of Irrigation Water 48 7.2.5 Leakage of Sewage Effluent 50 7.2.6 Fire 51 7.3 Combined Failure of all Sources for Generic Wineries 52 7.3.1 Allocation of Spill Volume Categories 52 7.3.2 Combined Risk of Spillage from Generic Wineries 53

8.0 DETERMINING SPILL VOLUMES REACHING WATERCOURSES 55

8.1 Locational Criticality 55 8.2 Method of Determining Overland Flow Spill Volumes

Reaching Watercourses 55 8.2.1 Liquid Spill Dynamics - Modelling 55

8.2.2 Generic Spill Events – The Effect of the Main Variables 60

8.2.3 Selected Scenario Graphs 61 8.3 Existing Wineries – Specific Site Modelling 62 9.0 WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL FROM WINERIES AND

ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT 70 9.1 Potential Pollutants and Environmental Values 70 9.2 Potential Effects on Riverine Aquatic Ecosystems 73

9.2.1 General Approach 73 9.2.2 Characteristics of the Receiving Waters 73

9.2.2.1 Flow Patterns 73 9.2.2.2 Habitat Value 74

9.2.3 ANZECC (2000) Guidelines 75 9.2.4 Potential Effects of Winery Pollutants on Aquatic Ecosystems 78

9.2.4.1 Characterisation of Pollutants 78 9.2.4.2 Effects of BOD/COD on Stream

Dissolved Oxygen 80 9.2.4.3 Effects of Brine (Ethanol) 83 9.2.4.4 Nutrients 83

9.3 Potential Effects on Agricultural Use 84 9.3.1 Irrigation 84 9.3.2 Stock Water 84 9.4 Potential Effects on Recreation and Amenity 85 9.5 Domestic Water Supply 88 9.5.1 Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs 88 9.5.1.1 Water Quality Issues 88 9.5.1.2 Key Pollutants from Wineries 89 9.5.2 Instream Domestic Supply 91

10.0 COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY RISKS FOR DEVEPOPMENT SCENARIOS 96

10.1 Introduction 96 10.2 Retrofitting of Existing Wineries 96 10.2.1 Retrofitting Trade Waste System 96

10.2.2 Retrofitting of Brine Tank and Refrigeration/Pipe Network 98

10.2.3 Retrofitting for Product 98 10.2.4 Irrigation 99 10.2.5 Fire 100 10.2.6 Compliance 100 10.3 Retention Basins 100

10.3.1 Interception in Existing On-Farm Dams Acting As Retention Basins 100

10.3.2 Use of Constructed Retention Basins in Future Development Scenarios 101

10.4 Format and Interpretation of Summary Tables 103 10.5 Comparative Water Quality Risks 104 10.5.1 Existing Wineries and Scenario 1 104 10.5.2 Winery Development Scenarios 2 and 3 108 10.5.3 Multiple Wineries on the Same Watercourse 113 10.5.4 Comparison of Risk with Generic Wineries 113 10.6 Ancillary Developments 114 11.0 WINERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 115 11.1 Management Options 115 11.2 Nature and Variation in Winery Wastewaters 116 11.3 Treatment Processes 116 11.4 Reduction at Source 117 11.5 Specific Treatment Technologies 118 11.5.1 Flow/Loading Equalisation 118 11.5.2 Screening 118 11.5.3 Primary Sedimentation/Flotation 118 11.5.4 Aerobic Biological Treatment 121 11.5.5 Anaerobic Biological Treatment 121 11.5.6 Secondary Sedimentation/Flotation 122 11.5.7 Advanced Treatment 122 11.5.8 Reedbed Treatment Systems 123

11.6 Wastewater Treatment Industry Survey 123 11.6.1 Survey Results 124 11.7 Applicable Technologies 125 11.7.1 Very Small (≤ 2000 T) Wineries 125 11.7.2 Small Wineries (200 to 2000 T) 126 11.7.3 Irrigation Re-use as Secondary Treatment 126 11.7.4 Packaged Treatment Plants 127 11.7.5 Indicative Capital and Operating Costs 127 11.7.6 Buyer Beware 127 12.0 SUMMARY OF KEY STUDY FINDINGS 128 12.1 Study Findings 128 12.1.1 Protecting MLRW Environmental Values 128

12.1.2 Comparison of the Existing Situation and Development Scenarios for Wineries 129

12.1.3 Ancillary Development 131 12.2 Assumptions for Best Management Practice 131

12.2.1 New Wineries of 50, 200, 500, 2,000 and 4,000 Tonne Capacities 131

12.2.2 Existing Winery Developments 133 12.2.3 Ancillary Development 134 12.3 Development Cost and Viability 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Location of current winery developments Table 3.2 Allocation of wineries by catchment for three development Scenarios Table 3.3 Allocation of ancillary developments by catchment Table 4.1 General processing operations, stage of processing and types of equipment used for each stage by wineries within the Mount Lofty Region Watershed Table 4.2 Median concentrations of constituents in winery wastewater produced during different production stages Table 4.3 General (median) chemical characteristics of juice, must and Wine of red grape varieties Table 4.4 Number and capacities of rotary fermenters allocated to wineries of 2000 T and 4000 T processing capacities Table 4.5 Number and capacities of static/potter/open fermenters allocated to wineries of 50 T to 4000 T processing capacities

Table 4.6 Number and capacities of tanks allocated to wineries of 50 T to 4000 T processing capacities Table 4.7 Peak daily flow of wastewater during vintage and non-vintage Assigned to wineries of different capacities for the risk assessment Table 4.8 Composition of undiluted ALCOOL, ethanol-based refrigerant brine products Table 4.9 Volume of refrigerant brine stored in tanks or refrigeration unit/pipe network by wineries of ≥500 T Table 4.10 Chemicals used and kept on site by wineries within the AHWR Table 4.11 Relative total loads of biological oxygen demand, nitrogen and phosphorus of sewage effluent from winery or ancillary developments, winery wastewater, product (juice, must or wine) and ethanol-based refrigeration brine Table 5.1 Assumed influent waste characteristics for winery sewage and ancillary development Table 5.2 Composition of winery sewage effluent Table 5.3 Composition of ancillary sewage effluent Table 6.1 Summary of past EPA-SA Pollution Incidence Reports involving winery and ancillary development across South Australia Table 7.1 Human Error Rates Table 7.2 Probability of Error Table 7.3 Generic Human Error Rates Table 7.4 Multipliers for performance shaping factors Table 7.5 Typical component breakdown failure rates Table 7.6 Above ground storage tank failure data Table 7.7 Summary of frequency of spill initiation from any source for a generic 50 T winery Table 7.8 Frequency of uncontrolled spillage from all sources for the generic wineries Table 8.1 Input Data Selection Table Table 8.2 Order of input for each data category (top row) and identifier code (1 to 3) Table 8.3 Winery and ancillary development – Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study – Stage 2 Table 8.4 Winery and ancillary development – Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study – Stage 2 Table 8.5 Winery and ancillary development – Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study – Stage 2 Table 8.6 Winery and ancillary development – Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study – Stage 2 Table 8.7 Winery and ancillary development – Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study – Stage 2 Table 8.8 Winery and ancillary development – Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study – Stage 2 Table 9.1 Instream parameters which could be impacted by a spill from winery or ancillary development Table 9.2 Total biological oxygen demand, nitrogen and phosphorus loading in spills of nominal volume originating from various sources.

Table 9.3 Water Quality Guidelines Table 9.4 Trigger values for thermotolerant coliforms in irrigation waters used for food and non-food crops Table 9.5 Water quality characteristics relevant to recreational use Table 9.6 Summary of Water Quality Guidelines for Recreational Waters Table 9.7 Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading in spills of nominal volume from various sources in the Onkaparinga River Table 9.8 Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading in spills of nominal volume from various sources in the River Torrens Table 10.1 Multiplying factors applied to generic human error rates based on current circumstances of existing winery developments Table 10.2 Effect of retro fitting (RF) at existing wineries on frequency of failure of the wastewater collection and storage system Table 10.3 Effect of retrofitting (RF) at existing wineries on failure frequency of refrigeration brine Table 10.4 Effect of varying irrigation system management and use of bunding around discharge sites of frequency of uncontrolled spillage Table 10.5 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 1 on Onkaparinga Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Table 10.6 Risk of spillages with Scenario 1 compared to existing situation with approved wineries Table 10.7 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 1 on Finniss Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.8 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 1 on Torrens Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.9 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on Onkaparinga Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.10 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on Torrens Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.11 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on South Para Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.12 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on Angas Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.13 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenarios 2 and 3 on Finniss Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.14 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on Onkaparinga Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.15 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on Torrens Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk

Table 10.16 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on South Para Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.17 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on Angas Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk Table 10.18 Risk of spillage associated with the ancillary development scenario Table 11.1 Treatment processes applied to winery wastewater Table 11.2 Main winery wastewater constituents and effectiveness of treatment technology Table 11.3 Frequency of occurrence of basic technologies in submissions LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Monthly wastewater volume generated by a generic 2000 T and

600 T winery Figure 4.2 Mean rainfall relative to vintage for McLaren Vale, McLaren Vale Wine District Figure 4.3 Mean rainfall relative to vintage for Bridgewater, Adelaide Hills Wine District Figure 8.1 Liquid spill propagation flowchart and calculation sheet Figure 8.2 Effects of distance to watercourse and slope on spill volume residuum for Scenario 32 (x)n 22 2 Figure 8.3 Effects of distance to watercourse and slope on spill volume residuum for Scenario 22 n2 2(x) 2 Figure 9.1 Illustration of potential impacts of uncontrolled spills from winery or ancillary development on waterways. Figure 9.2 Steps involved in applying the guidelines for protection of aquatic ecosystems (ANZECC 2002) Figure 9.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Pollutants in Spills LIST OF MAPS Map 1 Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Map 2 The Adelaide Hills Wine Region LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I Questionnaire on Winery Wastewater Treatment

Technology Appendix II Fault Tree Analysis Appendix III Fault Tree Results for Generic Wineries Appendix IV Generic Spill Events No Spill Retention Basin Appendix V Spill Volume Residuum for Selected Scenarios

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment I Consultancy/Contractor Tender Specification Attachment II ANONb (2002) Adelaide Hills Vintage Overview Attachment III Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed Winery and Ancillary Development Demand Analysis GLOSSARY

Executive Summary -i -

WATER QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY OF WINERY AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MOUNT LOFTY RANGES WATERSHED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND The Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed (MLRW) which covers nine main catchments (Refer Map 1), supplies on average 60% of the potable water used by metropolitan Adelaide. Therefore achieving satisfactory water quality in inputs to the reservoirs is an important management objective. Satisfactory water quality in the ranges is also important for agricultural use, recreation/amenity, in-stream domestic water supply and for the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. Agricultural and urban development has increased the potential for surface water contamination by a range of pollutants including pathogens, pesticides, sediment, organic matter, nutrients, etc. Concerns with existing water quality led State Cabinet in 1999 to support implementation of a program over five years aimed at improving and protecting water quality in the Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed. This included establishing a regional office of the South Australia Environment Protection Agency (EPA-SA). The program was additional to those already implemented by Catchment Water Management Boards, SA Water - who manages metropolitan Adelaide’s water supply - and by community groups funded by the Natural Heritage Trust. Winery and ancillary development is one of several industries operating within the MLRW. Wineries are facilities in which processing of grapes to make wine is conducted. Ancillary developments are cellar door sales of wine and restaurant facilities, operated with a winery facility or as stand-alone businesses. Under the current Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed Plan Amendment Report (PAR) further ancillary development is possible, but no new winery development outside townships other than associated with the existing ten licensees is permitted. A condition of signing the PAR by the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning was that the Environment Protection Authority conducts a water quality risk study of winery and ancillary development within the MLRW. The Study Brief is included as Attachment I. The consultancy was awarded by tender. The project was administered by a Steering Committee with representation from: 1. Environment Protection Authority, South Australia (2 members) 2. CSIRO, Land and Water (Independent Chair) 3. The Adelaide Hills Wine Region Association 4. Office of Economic Development, South Australia 5. Tourism, South Australia 6. Planning, South Australia.

Executive Summary -ii -

As stated in the Study Brief the Water Quality Risk Assessment has been undertaken with the following broad objective: “…conduct an objective, scientific review of the surface water quality risks associated with winery, cellar door sales and restaurant developments in the Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed, over a range of possible development scenarios which could eventuate in the next 10 years depending on economic conditions and regional planning policies.” BASIS OF ASSESSMENT Three winery development scenarios were identified for assessment: SCENARIO 1: Existing Licensees (10) all projected to 2,000 tonnes (t) capacity, possible

under the current PAR. SCENARIO 2: Surveyed Industry Projection to 2012 (Jenkins 2001) of a total regional

crush of approximately 14,500 t comprising a mixture of existing licences of varying capacity up to 2,000 t and an additional 20 to 30 mostly at the boutique (<200 t) end of the scale. New entrants would most likely come from existing brand owners.

SCENARIO 3: Partial Unlimited Development which considered additional larger

wineries up to 4,000 t capacity at the expense of smaller wineries with an overall total crush of 26,500 t. This was examined to determine if fewer facilities would reduce potential numbers of point sources of pollution and be easier to manage from a regulatory perspective.

One ancillary development scenario was assessed, based on a study by SA Tourism (SATC 2002), which comprises:

• thirty two cellar door sale facilities where light lunches could be served; • eight restaurant/function centre facilities.

All ancillary developments were considered as separate developments to wineries. The development scenarios are summarised in Table S1 below, which indicates size and distribution of wineries. In Scenarios 1 and 2, eighty percent are allocated to the Onkaparinga Catchment, based on the distribution of existing EPA licences, and the remainder to other catchments based on the distribution of current brand owners.

Executive Summary -iii -

Table S1 Allocation of Wineries for the Three Scenarios

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1: Existing Licensees

CATCHMENT: Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas Total

No. Wineries (all 2000 t) 8 1 1 10 Total Tonnage 16000 2000 2000 20000 Total No. 10 Total Tonnage 20000

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2: Surveyed Industry Projection

CATCHMENT: Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas Generic Wineries 50 t 5 3 1 1 2 200 t 3 0 0 1 0 500 t 2 1 1 2000 t 0 0 Total No. Wineries 10 4 2 2 2 20 Total Tonnage 1850 650 550 250 100 3400

Existing Wineries (approved tonnage) 50 t 1 1 200 t 1 1 500 t 1 2000 t 5 Total Total 8 1 0 1 0 10 TOTAL TONNAGE 10750 200 0 50 0 11000 Total No. 30 Total Tonnage 14400

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3: Partial Unlimited Development

CATCHMENT: Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas Generic Wineries 50 t 3 2 1 1 1 200 t 3 1 2 1 1 500 t 4 1 2 2000 t 2 1 4000 t 1 Total 13 5 5 2 2 27 TOTAL TONNAGE 10750 2800 1450 250 250 15500

Existing Wineries (approved tonnage) 50 t 1 1 200 t 1 1 500 t 1 2000 t 5 Total No. Wineries 8 1 0 1 0 10 Total Tonnage 10750 200 0 50 0 11000 Total No. 37 Total Tonnage 26500 As part of the study, a maximum of three wineries in a single sub-catchment were also considered to determine levels of risk.

Executive Summary -iv -

The development scenario for ancillary development is summarised in Table S2 below. Table S2 Allocation of ancillary developments by catchment#.

CATCHMENT Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas

*Cellar Door 15 3 1 1 1 Stand-alone Cellar Door 6 2 1 1 1 *Restaurant/Cellar Door 2 1 1 1 Stand alone R/CD 1 *Function Centre/Cellar Door 1 1 Total No. Total 25 7 3 2 3 40 * including winery # No ancillary facilities were allocated to the following catchments: Little Para, Myponga, Currency, Hindmarsh. GENERIC WINERIES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE Risk profiles for generic wineries of 50 t, 200 t, 500 t, 2,000 t and 4,000 t were developed for the assessment of overall risk in the development scenarios. While the study identified areas of risk which could be improved, assumptions had to be made about best management practices applied with respect to construction, siting, management and maintenance of new wineries, as follows: Processing Equipment and Storage Tanks:

• Housed within buildings or under roof canopies.

• Fitted with locks.

Buildings:

• Locked and alarmed for unauthorised entry.

• Walls and floors contain and convey spills to trade waste or to the isolation bund (refrigeration brine).

• Meet current standards for materials and construction methods.

Weather and Climate:

• Standard storm event: one in ten years Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) and sixty minutes duration.

• Standard climate: one in ten wet year (10 yr ARI).

Fire – a holistic approach incorporating:

• Separating areas within buildings of low, moderate and high fuel load.

• Minimising fuel loads around buildings.

• Measures to increase the chance of extinguishing the initial fire.

Executive Summary -v -

Containment:

• Trade waste system used to contain spillage from processing and storage of product, and from refrigeration brine circulation systems.

• Isolation bund used to contain spillage from refrigeration brine storage tanks and

refrigeration units and pipe network leading to cross over to trade waste.

• Earthen bund used to contain runoff and spills from irrigated discharge sites.

• Retention basins used to service all winery buildings and trade waste collection/storage/treatment systems.

Wastewater Treatment:

• Treatment would be required before onsite discharge of wastewater by irrigation. Auditing:

• Compliance determined by an independent auditor before commissioning new or upgraded developments requiring council approval, and of the site each time the EPA licence is renewed.

Management:

• Development of an Environment Management Plan (EMP) that identifies items that could conspire to cause environmental impacts, and what the potential impacts would be.

• Documentation of areas of responsibility for employees, standard operating

procedures, maintenance with reference with the EMP.

• Preparation of an irrigation management plan for wastewater discharge sites.

• Preparation of contingency plans for spillage incidents.

• Training of staff and contractors on environmental duty of care, response and reporting of incidents.

These assumptions are further detailed in Chapter 12 of the report. PROTECTING SURFACE WATER QUALITY IN THE MLRW Protecting and improving water quality in the MLRW is a high priority. Defining the potential impacts on water quality from wineries and the future possible development scenarios has involved consideration of a wide range of factors, including: ● The volume of spilled materials that could reach a watercourse/reservoir.

● The composition of pollutants contained in spilled material.

Executive Summary -vi -

● The predicted frequency of spill events, duration, extent of area affected and recovery period. ● The actual effects on the environmental values of the receiving waters. Following the national approach as outlined in the Australian and New Zealand

Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC 2000) Australian and new Zealand Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, encompassing:

• Domestic water supply, particularly Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs.

• The protection of downstream aquatic ecosystems.

• Agricultural water supply,

◦ Stock water use ◦ Irrigation water

• Recreation and amenity GROUNDWATER Groundwater impact from Winery and Ancillary Development was specifically excluded from the study terms of reference. However, the potential for groundwater contamination and the need for its minimisation should be acknowledged. RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH Identification of Risks: Identification of what, why and how hazards arise:

• Research on the wineries currently operating in the MLRW. • Establishing the characteristics of potential winery spill materials and winery

wastewater.

• Determining the relevant issues associated with Ancillary Development.

• Review of any incident and accident reports (the main source being EPA reports) and of available industry audits.

Analysis of Risks: Determination of existing controls and establishment of the likelihood of spill events and the severity of the consequence.

• Identification of existing risk treatment and/or control measures. • The use of fault-tree analysis techniques to identify the component-level risk

issues of a spill at a winery, including an assessment of external influences such as storms, etc. This formed the basis of an assessment of the frequency and volume of spills at each winery.

Executive Summary -vii -

• Determination of the site factors and location criticality which include slope, surface condition, vegetative cover, distance to watercourse, availability of retention basins, etc. This enabled an assessment of the volume of a spill which was likely to reach a watercourse.

Assessment and Prioritisation of Risks: In assessing the level of risk associated with a spill from a winery, the frequency and consequence assessment were combined to determine the severity of impact on the watercourse. Although this tool is not normally applied retrospectively, part of the results of this assessment indicated areas of improvement for each of the existing wineries. Treatment of Risks: This relates to future use in winery developments as to the most effective risk treatments, but at the discretion of EPA-SA, may be applied to currently operating wineries. The main aim was risk reduction through adoption of ‘best practice’ system design and management. STUDY FINDINGS Protecting MLRW Environmental Values With respect to water quality protection in the MLRW in the context of Winery and Ancillary Development, the key findings are:

• Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs

There is very little risk to water supply reservoirs from spills originating from winery or ancillary developments either with the existing wineries or with the development scenarios. Even the largest anticipated spill event is unlikely to impact on the reservoirs. With best management practice the probability of such an event is extremely low, with a probable frequency exceeding 1 in 10,000 years (an acceptable level of risk is suggested as having a 1 in 100 year event frequency).

• Agricultural use, recreation/amenity, in-stream domestic water supply and the protection of aquatic ecosystems

The high strength of winery product, alcohol-based refrigeration brine, and untreated winery wastewater would be sufficient to adversely impact water quality in watercourses, for the above-mentioned environmental values. Depending on the volume of the spill and flow conditions, the entire length of the watercourse could be impacted.

Alcohol-based refrigeration brine potentially exhibits the most

significant potential for impact on surface water quality, justifying significant upgrade of facilities used to store and circulate this refrigerant liquid.

Executive Summary -viii -

Following a spill event, a watercourse or downstream farm dam impacted by a spill would recover relatively quickly in terms of physico-chemical conditions, however the aquatic ecosystems effected may take months or even years to recover fully. However, with best management practice the probability of spill events which could cause significant impact is very low in risk assessment terms, (less than 1 in 10,000 years).

Comparison of the existing situation and development scenarios for wineries Table S3 summarises the total frequency of spills from all sources, for:

• The existing wineries at the current approved tonnage without retrofitting as they were located, designed and operated in July 2002.

• The existing wineries at the current approved tonnage with retrofitting. • The existing licensees, all at 2,000 t (scenario 1) with retrofitting.

Retrofitting of existing wineries aims to reduce frequency of spill initiation from the various sources to that of new generic wineries of a similar size. The process would involve retrospective assessment of the principle identified potential water quality risk factors at each individual (existing) facility, and the implementation of works (e.g. Spill Retention Basins) or operational modifications which would serve to mitigate the identified risk factors to an acceptable level. Table S3 Risk of spills with Scenario 1 compared to existing situations with and without retrofitting and constructed retention basins.

Spill Volume Category Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large SubstantialRange of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

TOTAL ALL SOURCES (VINTAGE) a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.1349 0.1897 1.2690 0.3773 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting 0.1349 0.1897 0.0212 0.0673 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031*

b) 2000 t with retrofitting 0.2584 0.0015 0.1053 0.0000 0.0250 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031* TOTAL ALL SOURCES (NON-VINTAGE) a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.3181 0.0062 0.8374 0.3773 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting 0.3181 0.0062 0.0212 0.0673 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031* b) 2000 t with retrofitting 0.2584 0.0015 0.1053 0.0000 0.0250 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031*

* One existing site may not be able to fit a full-sized retention basin within the boundaries. A site bund may be an alternative, but might not contain spilt materials and fire fighting water. It this was the case the failure rate for fire will remain at 0.003 per annum and thus determine the combined frequency for the spill volume category. Note: Examples of numerical frequencies vs probabilities: 0.1349 = 13.49/100 yrs or 1.3/10yrs 0.0000 = failure rate is less than every 10,000 yrs

Executive Summary -ix -

Table S4 Winery Development Scenario 2 Spill Volume Category Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

Onkaparinga TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.7423 0.2566 0.0747 0.0766 0.0000 0.0156 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.8981 0.1008 0.0747 0.0766 0.0000 0.0156 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Torrens TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.3241 0.0185 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.3241 0.0185 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Finniss TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1986 0.0266 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1986 0.0266 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 South Para TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1256 0.0034 0.0204 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1256 0.0034 0.0204 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Angas TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1460 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1460 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Executive Summary -x -

Table S5 Winery Development Scenario 3 Spill Volume Category Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

Onkaparinga TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.7015 0.4086 0.1160 0.1237 0.0000 0.0454 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.9625 0.1476 0.1160 0.1237 0.0000 0.0454 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Torrens TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.3037 0.0883 0.0269 0.0235 0.0000 0.0031 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.3563 0.0357 0.0269 0.0235 0.0000 0.0031 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Finniss TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1986 0.0266 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1986 0.0266 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 South Para TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.2833 0.0444 0.0470 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.2833 0.0444 0.0470 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Angas TOTAL - Vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1256 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL - Non-vintage: with retrofitting existing wineries 0.1256 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Table S4 (above) summarises the total frequency of spills from all sources for Scenario 2 and Table S5 presents the same information for Scenario 3.

Executive Summary -xi -

The general findings of the Water Quality Risk Assessment, with reference to the described scenarios are: Winery Development Winery Product or Refrigeration Brine Spillage • The current situation with the existing wineries presents the greatest relative surface

water quality risk. Two of the eight constructed wineries exhibited inadequate infrastructure or safeguards against potential water quality risk. In the tables above, if at least one winery has inadequate spill prevention and/or management structures in place, the risk values for this winery determine the overall risk for all wineries in the same catchment. For example, if one winery had a risk factor of 0.2 (1 event in 5 years) and all other wineries in the same catchment had a total risk factor of 0.0000 (less than 1 in 10,000 years), the cumulative total for the catchment would be 0.2. With the existing wineries, current risk levels could be reduced by appropriate retrofitting.

• For scenarios 1, 2 and 3, total risks are at very low levels (1 in 10,000 years or less), assuming best management practice for new generic wineries and retrofitting of existing wineries.

• The primary potential cause of spill events was determined as human error. • For spillage from sources which were served by an internal containment system viz. loss

of product from tanks and fermenters, the frequency of failure was in the order of 1 in 10,000 years or less.

• Storage vessel overflows or rupture were the most likely event to result in increased

potential for off-site spill discharge. • Incorporating constructed retention basins to contain spills reduced the frequency of

failure to less than one in 10,000 years for all winery development scenarios. • Without retention basins, the presence of interception dams (if appropriately sited)

could also effectively contain spills. • Siting of wineries influences risk and the volume of spills reaching watercourses. In this

regard, the distance of the primary spill site to the nearest watercourse was found to be the most significant locality factor.

• Risk Frequency values reflect the occurrence of a malfunction and/or uncontrolled spill

event, and not necessarily loss to a watercourse. Wastewater Treatment and Re-use • Irrigation of wastewater poses a relatively high individual risk to water quality

(approximately 1 in 100 yrs). However, the use of receiving-site bunding and/or spill retention basins would reduce potential risks to less than 1 in 10,000 years.

Executive Summary -xii -

• Not all sites in the study area would be suitable for discharge of winery wastewater by

irrigation or installation of retention basins. • Treatment of winery wastewater to reduce biological and chemical loadings could

significantly reduce the consequence of a spill entering surface waters, and allow beneficial reuse of the water resource for irrigation of vineyards, etc.

• A number of wastewater treatment technologies and systems exist for treating

wastewater generated by small wineries to enable storage of effluent for subsequent beneficial reuse. The capital and operating costs of these treatment technologies can be prohibitive, and even uneconomic. However, the decision to invest in such technology in order to achieve acceptable treated effluent quality must and will be made by the proponents, based on their individual goals and priorities.

• Irrigation re-use of untreated or partially treated winery wastewater is not considered

appropriate for the MLRW. Ancillary Development As indicated above for the winery scenarios, sewage collection and treatment, without remedial retrofitting presented a combined risk of greater than 1 in 100 years, thus representing an unacceptably high frequency of failure, as shown in Table S6. An unknown proportion of these failures would result in leaks, and spills involving small volumes (<1 kL) which would be readily absorbed before they reached a surface watercourse. The feasibility of incorporating forms of ‘containment’ could be considered in consultation with designers for inclusion in future systems. Similarly, auditing requirements could also be considered. Because these measures are speculative, they were not included in the risk assessment. They could also have implications for all on-site sewage systems within the MLRW. Ancillary Development Waste Discharges • Sewage collection and treatment poses the greatest individual risk in terms of ancillary

development, and would be least amenable to inclusion of a retention basin. • Sewage treatment and disposal systems related to ancillary developments generally

involve smaller volumes (up to 5 kL), and slower rates of release, increasing the potential for absorption of spills over a given distance, and thereby reducing the spill volume residuum potentially reaching a given watercourse.

• High rates of failure of sewage treatment and disposal occur (approximately 1 in 20

yrs), primarily as a result of overloading, poor maintenance and/or inadequate design. • Risks could be greatly minimised and frequency of failure reduced to low levels if

systems were adequately designed to cater for maximum projected loadings, were

Executive Summary -xiii -

properly installed, monitored and subject to regular independent audits and performance checks.

Table S6 Development Scenario: Ancillary Type of Development Cellar Door Restaurant Function Centre Peak Staff No 3 6 8 Peak Visitation No. 100 100 250 Daily Hydraulic load (kL) 1.6 1.7 4

Onkaparinga No. Developments 21 3 1 Failure Rate* 1.1046 0.1578 0.0526 Torrens No. Developments 5 1 1 Failure Rate* 0.2630 0.0526 0.0526 South Para No. Developments 2 1 0 Failure Rate* (per annum) 0.1052 0.0526 0 Finniss No. Developments 2 0 0 Failure Rate* (per annum) 0.1052 0 0

Angas

No. Developments 2 1 0 Failure Rate* (per annum) 0.1052 0.0526 0

* Based on installing a septic/aeration/irrigation system

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed (MLRW), which includes nine main catchments (Map 1), supplies on average 60% of the potable water used by metropolitan Adelaide. In addition, the surface water resources in the MLRW are also important for agriculture, recreation/amenity and the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. Agricultural and urban development has the potential for surface water contamination by a range of pollutants, including pathogens, pesticides, sediment, organic matter, nutrients, and other contaminants, which represents ongoing risk to water supply. This concern led State Cabinet in 1999 to support implementation of a program over five years aimed at improving and protecting water quality in the Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed. It included establishing a regional office of the South Australia Environment Protection Agency (EPA-SA). The program was additional to those already implemented by Catchment Water Management Boards, SA Water (who manages metropolitan Adelaide’s water supply), and by community groups funded by the Natural Heritage Trust. Winery and ancillary development is one of several industries operating within the MLRW. Wineries are facilities in which processing of grapes to make wine is conducted. There are currently ten winery licensees outside townships within the watershed, and two within townships. Ancillary developments are cellar door sales of wine and restaurant facilities, operated with a winery facility or as stand-alone businesses. There are twelve cellar door sales and six restaurant facilities within the watershed including facilities within townships. In mid 2001 the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning gave approval of the Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed Amendment Plan Amendment Report (PAR). The PAR enabled further ancillary developments of certain size, location and design, but restricted expansion of wineries within the watershed but outside towns to the existing ten licensees. The Adelaide Hills Wine Region Association believed that adopting this approach to winery development was potentially counter to best available science and associated practice, and would adversely affect wine and tourism industries in the Region. In response the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning advised State Cabinet on signing the PAR that EPA-SA would conduct a water quality risk study of winery and ancillary development within the MLRW. EPA-SA in turn requested Infrastructure SA who was currently assessing infrastructure requirements within the MLRW to ‘fast track’ the analysis section on the wine industry and provide an estimate of potential winery and ancillary development to 2012, costs of construction in comparison with regions outside the MLRW, and associated infrastructure requirement associated with power, tourism, communications, access and industry-specific needs. The South Australian Tourism Commission (2002) provided a report on potential additional ancillary developments within the MLRW to assist this study.

2

3

1.2 Aim and Outline of the Study

The Water Quality Risk Assessment Study of Winery and Ancillary Development in the Mount Lofty Watershed Region aim, as stated in the consultancy brief, is as follows: “to conduct an objective, scientific review of the surface water quality risks associated with winery, cellar door sales and restaurant developments in the Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed, over a range of possible development scenarios which could eventuate in the next ten years depending on economic conditions and regional planning policies”. The study is divided into three stages: Stage 1: Information gathering and formulation of water quality risk assessment

methodology. Stage 2: Determine the relative risks to water quality of different development scenarios

for wineries and ancillary activities in the Watershed. Stage 3: Analyse broad land-use planning, infrastructure, emission control and licensing

implications of feasible development options. This report summarises methodology developed during Stage 1 and approved by the Steering Committee overseeing the study, and outcomes of the water quality risk assessment accounting for future development of winery/ancillary facilities within the MLRW to 2012 conducted in Stage 2. The report maintains confidentiality of information provided by existing companies, and of identities of individual sites. The water quality risk assessment identified:

• key locality, design and management factors affecting risk of contamination of surface waterways and resultant impacts, and

• viable development with justification. Approval by the Minister for the Environment is required before Stage 3 of the project can proceed. The Steering Committee consisted of representatives of:

1. Environment Protection Authority, South Australia (2 members, including project manager)

2. CSIRO, Land and Water (independent chair) 3. The Adelaide Hills Wine Region Association 4. Office of Economic Development, South Australia 5. Tourism, South Australia 6. Planning, South Australia

4

2.0 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The aim of the assessment is to identify the risk of adverse effects of current and potential winery and ancillary development outside of townships within the MLRW to surface water quality. Water quality is considered in relation to the protection of domestic water supply (particularly the reservoirs), agricultural use, recreation/amenity and the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. The methodology used is based on the Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management. This standard provides the framework for the Risk Assessment which combines both “top down” high level hazard assessment coupled with “bottom up” quantitative hazard assessment. It is important to note that the methodology presented here is a recognised standard procedure, the principles of which could equally be applied to risk assessment of any other industry large or small. The main elements form part of an iterative process and include: (a) Establish the Context: This step establishes the strategic, organisational and risk

management context in which the rest of the risk assessment will take place. (b) Identify Risks: Identify what, why and how hazards arise. This includes but is not

limited to: • Research of the wineries currently operating in the Mount Lofty area; • Establishing the characteristics of potential winery spill materials and winery

wastewater; • Determining the issues associated with the Ancillary Developments, and • Review of any incident and accident reports, the main source being EPA reports,

and of available industry audits. (c) Analyse Risks: Determine existing controls and establish the likelihood of the events

and the severity of the consequence. This will include: • Identification of existing risk treatment &/or control measures. • The use of fault tree analysis techniques to identify the component level risk

issues of a spill at a winery, including an assessment of external influences such as storms etc. This will form the assessment of the frequency and volumes of spills at each winery.

• Determining the location criticality, influences on which include slope, surface condition, vegetative cover, distance to watercourse, availability of retention basins on site etc. This will form an assessment as to the consequence of the spill on water quality.

(d) Assess and Prioritise Risks: In assessing the level of risk associated with a spill from a

winery, the frequency and consequence assessment are combined to determine the severity of impact on the watercourse of that event. Although this tool is not normally

5

applied retrospectively, part of the results of this assessment will indicate areas of improvement for each of the existing wineries.

(e) Treat Risks: This is for future use in winery developments as to the most effective risk

treatments, but at the discretion of EPA-SA, may be applied to currently operating wineries. Some possible risk treatments include: • Risk reduction: which will be the main aim of any control measures

recommended. This study will enable development of ‘best practice’ design and management which will reduce the level of risk associated with spill occurring from a winery which subsequently adversely affects the quality of water in the Mount Lofty Watershed Region.

• Risk retention: this is not desirable for the expected risks, and it is likely that it will be possible to either implement a risk mitigation strategy or insure for the expected risks

• Insurance: not recommended for the expected risks but possibly necessary as a precaution

2.1 Site Visits and Industry Consultation

Extensive gathering of data on winery and ancillary operations within the Adelaide Hills Wine Region (AHWR) was undertaken during Stage I to enable assessment of potential sources of liquid spills and volumes stored onsite to determine which required risk assessment, and to develop an understanding of events that must conspire together to cause a spill and generate initial fault trees. This included:

• Site visits of wineries, cellar door sales and restaurant facilities; • Developing an industry survey on chemicals stored onsite, which was coordinated

by the AHWR Executive Officer, and; • Meeting with the AHWR to outline the study and discuss various issues and

factual material. The fault trees were refined in Stage 2 to enable quantification of spill events. This required:

• Revisiting existing wineries, and ancillary developments, and; • Consultation with winery designers, the AHWR; the Country Fire Service,

manufacturers of domestic effluent systems and using referenced information. In addition a survey (Appendix I) was developed and sent to manufacturers of wastewater treatment systems to enable existing and emerging technologies suitable for wineries within the AHWR to be reviewed. The outcome of the review is discussed in Chapter 11.

6

3.0 DEVELOPMENT IN THE ADELAIDE HILLS WINE REGION

3.1 Adelaide Hills Wine Region: a brief description

The Australian Wine Industry is divided into a number of formal geographical regions for marketing purposes. The Adelaide Hills Wine Region (AHWR) is defined as that part of the Mount Lofty Ranges which has an altitude of 400 metres or more (Map 2), and includes the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed. The AHWR is regarded as one of Australia’s premier cool climate wine regions. The landscape varies from gently sloping to the east to deep gullies with steep slopes where the western edges meet the plains of metropolitan Adelaide. The resultant cool and humid climate together with the highest rainfall in the State favours production of cool climate varieties of wine. Deep soils on the steep slopes offer good drainage and protection from frost. A criss-cross of north-facing slopes by the fertile valleys enables the sun’s full benefit to be captured whilst protecting the vines against cold southerly winds. There is a gradual warming and drying of climate from a ‘central’ section at Piccadilly, allowing production of grape varieties best suited to the localised climates that members of the AHWR use to make premium wines including Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Merlot and Shiraz.

3.2 Current Development

Approved winery development within the watershed but outside townships was capped at ten in 2001. Eight wineries currently exist, and two are at varying stages of design, approval or construction. Eight of the wineries are located in the Onkaparinga catchment; Table 3.1 lists the current approved tonnage for wineries located within and outside that catchment. For reasons of confidentiality, company names and exact locations will not be given in this report. Ancillary development is spread out within South Para, Torrens, Onkaparinga, Angas and Finniss catchments (refer to Map 2).

Table 3.1. Location of current winery developments.

Approved Tonnage (August 2002)

Onkaparinga Catchment

Other Catchments

≤50 T 1 1 >50 – ≤ 200 T 1 1

>200 – ≤ 500 T 1 >500 – ≤ 2000 T 5

3.3 Industry Studies of Future Development to 2012

Understanding the ‘hands-on’ effort required to capture the full qualities of the grapes and make them into the super/ultra premium wines, and the features of the Region which attract tourists, underlies the current and future direction in which AHWR community members wish to see their region develop. There are also important economic considerations that essentially exclude commercial speculators from investing in the AHWR. Jenkins (2001) provides a full report; an outline follows.

7

Map 2 The Adelaide Hills Wine Region, location of current brand owners is Indicated by the numbered circles.

Brand Owners

8

Making super/ultra premium wines is a twenty-four hour per day commitment. For example open fermenters used for making red wine varieties require plunging every 3-4 hours, and several may be in operation at any given time. Most current makers of wines are at the boutique end of the range (<50 T) and believe that processing wine at a contract facility compromises their ability to manage the ferment day and night for the desired quality of wine. Consumers often want to see how the wine for which they will pay a premium price is made on-site. Since niche marketing of the product is important to a commercially viable winery, particularly at the ‘boutique’ end, any negative publicity is viewed as potentially undermining the wine and tourism industry within the AHWR. Most industry members consider that the region will become a destination for tourists using their own transport attracted by the quality of its wines and by the environmental and rural character of the landscape. Winemakers based outside the region also use the premium grapes for wines. Some of these wines are recognised for their consistent excellence and are leading brands. Consequently 50% of current grape production and 70% of future plantings are under long-term contracts to externally based companies, who are unlikely to give up their best lines of grapes. The contracts might allow producers to keep 5-15 % of the crop to make their own wines. Based on the projected maximum estimate of increased grape production in the AHWR during the next ten years (35000 T) approximately 14250 T will not be under contract. Economic viability is a major determinant of future grape planting. Jenkins (2001) through extensive consultation with current industry members, real estate agents, and viticultural development service providers, estimated that the effective price per hectare of undeveloped land is between $48,000 and $81,000. The higher prices were due to a combination of high real estate prices driven by the ‘lifestyle’ category and small percentage of holdings suited to grape vine production. A combination of small plots removing economies of scale, higher incidence of pests and disease, and steep terrain that requires hand-pruning and picking result in average production costs per hectare of $12,000 being double that of almost all other geographical wine districts in South Australia. Average yields are also lower and highly variable between seasons – 18919 T in 2001 and 11057 T in 2002, thus returns per hectare are less likely to meet costs unless super or ultra premium varieties are planted. As a result Jenkins (2001) concluded that wine industry commercial reality and not speculative investment schemes will drive future growth of vineyards in the AHWR, and that the estimate of 14250 T available for crush within ten years may be optimistic. Joint discussion with the AHWRA during Stage 1 of this project confirmed these estimates and conclusions, as well as the SA Utilising and Pricing Survey 2002 – report for AHWRA (Attachment II). There is a strong commitment from winemakers to produce and sell wine made only from local grapes to preserve the reputation of the AHWR; most imported grapes are currently processed at one facility. To sustain the environmental and rural quality that attracts tourists winemakers within the AHWRA generally agree that winery development will be small scale, up to a maximum of 2000 T with most wineries at the ‘boutique’ end. Similarly offering cellar door access either by appointment and/or during set hours of opening will cater for the needs of discerning tourists to also view the separate winemaking facility. Extending cellar door developments to include eateries/restaurants except at a small number of sites is unlikely due to the availability of facilities within the nearby townships. Cellar door facilities are more likely to provide areas for visitors to rest and eat, and may serve ‘light lunches’.

9

The South Australian Tourism commission (2002) in a winery and ancillary demand analysis within the MLRW (Attachment III) concluded:

• “Given the results of the three methodologies used, the scenario outlined by the

consultant for eight additional restaurants for the MLR Watershed within the next decade is realistic.” The report indicated that a high proportion would be located in and close to existing townships.

• “Given the results of the projections used for cellar doors, it is reasonable to expect

between fourteen and forty additional cellar doors for the MLR Watershed within the next decade, with a high realistic scenario being twenty seven.”

Industry members estimated that existing major wine regions have a minimum of forty ancillary developments.

3.4 Winery Development Scenarios to 2012

Considerable effort by Jenkins (2001) and SA Tourism in consultation with the wine and grape industry, support industries, and local councils have respectively enabled ‘best development scenario estimates’ for winery and ancillary development within the MLRW to 2012. Two additional ‘hypothetical winery development scenarios’ were requested by the steering committee. Consultation with owner/operators of existing wineries and with design engineers resulted in agreement that some retrospective fitting of existing facilities as required would be undertaken to achieve uniform standards, and thus should be included in assessment of development scenarios. Most wineries are currently undertaking expansion/improvement activities that could accommodate design changes as negotiated. As a result three scenarios for winery development were assessed: Development Scenario 1: Existing ten wineries all to 2000 T, with some “Existing Licensees’ retrospective fitting. (This does not imply that all existing licensees desire or intend to process 2000 T). Development Scenario 2: Existing ten wineries at current approved tonnage with “Surveyed Industry Projection” some retrospective fitting. Additional generic wineries

at ‘best practice’ allocated by tonnage as indicated by Jenkins (2001).

Development Scenario 3: Existing ten wineries at current approved tonnage with “Partial Unlimited Development” some retrospective fitting. Additional generic wineries

at ‘best practice’ allocated by numbers and tonnage to favour larger sized wineries including a 4000 T winery, at the expense of smaller wineries.

Development scenarios 1 and 3, which included owners of current wineries, are considered hypothetical as they lie above the tonnage indicated by the survey of Jenkins (2001). However there is provision in the current PAR for the ten existing wineries to seek development approval to 2000 T, whether by current or future owners. In reality, not all sites would achieve approval for various reasons. Furthermore there is current ‘activity’ both

10

within the MLRW (within townships) and just outside the eastern boundary of the MLRW for wineries considerably larger than 2000 T and which could act as contract facilities for brand owners of wines within the AHWR to make their own wine. However, there is only partial support for the concept of making wine in centralised locations for the reasons given in Section 3.3. Development of fewer larger wineries would potentially reduce the number of point sources of pollution and from a regulatory perspective may be easier to manage.

3.5 Scenario for Ancillary Development

For this study ancillary developments were assessed as separate facilities to wineries. Only one current winery had incorporated facilities that could be used for cellar door sales on weekends. Thus a single scenario representing the upper end of potential ancillary development to 2012 was assessed with each of the three development scenarios for wineries:

• 32 cellar door sales either ‘stand alone’ developments or with additional winery development at the same location. Each cellar door sale would cater for a potential peak daily visitation rate of 100 persons, and would provide light lunches;

• 6 restaurant facilities either ‘stand alone’ developments or with additional winery

development at the same location. Each restaurant would cater for a potential peak daily visitation rate of 100 persons;

• 2 restaurant/ function centres either ‘stand alone’ developments or with additional

winery development at the same location. Each facility would cater for a potential peak daily visitation rate of 250 persons.

Peak daily visitation numbers and support staff, and provision of food by cellar door sale facilities determine minimum size requirements of sewerage systems based on standards outlined by DHS1 WCS Standard (1995). Existing cellar door sales outlets, restaurants and function centres operated by the Wine Industry and Food and Beverage Industry were contacted to obtain staff numbers required to service the above peak visitation levels.

3.6 Allocation of Winery and Ancillary Development by Catchment

Allocation of wineries and ancillary developments to individual catchments was based on the distribution of locations of existing brand owners within the MLRW, but with around 80% allocated to Onkaparinga Catchment. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 respectively show the allocation of wineries to catchments for the three development scenarios, and of ancillary development.

1 DHS: Department of Human Services, formerly South Australia Health Commission.

11

Table 3.2. Allocation of wineries by catchment for three development scenarios: 1) current wineries all to 2000 T with some retrofitting; 2) Existing wineries at current approved tonnage with retrofitting and additional generic wineries based on Jenkins (2001) estimates; 3) Existing wineries at current approved tonnage with retrofitting and additional generic wineries favouring larger tonnages#1.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 1: Existing Licensees CATCHMENT: Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas Total

No. Wineries (all 2000 T) 8 1 1 10 Total Tonnage 16000 2000 2000 20000 Total No. 10 Total Tonnage 20000

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2: Surveyed Industry Projection CATCHMENT: Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas Generic Wineries 50 T 5 3 1 1 2 200 T 3 0 0 1 0 500 T 2 1 1 2000 T 0 0 Total No. Wineries 10 4 2 2 2 20 Total Tonnage 1850 650 550 250 100 3400

Existing Wineries (approved tonnage) 50 T 1 1 200 T 1 1 500 T 1 2000 T 5 Total Total 8 1 0 1 0 10 TOTAL TONNAGE 10750 200 0 50 0 11000 Total No. 30 Total Tonnage 14400

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 3: Partial Unlimited Development

CATCHMENT: Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas Generic Wineries 50 T 3 2 1 1 1 200 T 3 1 2 1 1 500 T 4 1 2 2000 T 2 1 4000 T 1 Total 13 5 5 2 2 27 TOTAL TONNAGE 10750 2800 1450 250 250 15500

Existing Wineries (approved tonnage) 50 T 1 1 200 T 1 1 500 T 1 2000 T 5 Total No. Wineries 8 1 0 1 0 10 Total Tonnage 10750 200 0 50 0 11000 Total No. 37 Total Tonnage 26500 #1. No wineries were allocated to the following catchments: Little Para, Myponga, Currency and Hindmarsh.

12

Table 3.3. Allocation of ancillary developments by catchment#1.

CATCHMENT Onkaparinga Torrens South Para Finniss Angas

*Cellar Door 15 3 1 1 1 Stand-alone Cellar Door 6 2 1 1 1 *Restaurant/Cellar Door 2 1 1 1 stand alone R/CD 1 *Function Centre/Cellar Door 1 1 Total No. Total 25 7 3 2 3 40 * with winery #1. No ancillary facilities were allocated to the following catchments: Little Para, Myponga, Currency and Hindmarsh.

3.6.1 Current Winery Development

Assessment of the risk of spillage of winery development with current infrastructure was also conducted for comparison with that after some retrofitting. Outcomes assisted the suggestion of best practice standards for winery development within the MLRW, discussed in Section 10.2.

13

4.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF POTENTIAL WINERY SPILL MATERIALS

4.1 The Manufacture of Wine: Focusing on the AHWR

Wineries within the AHWR produce premium red and white wine styles. As a general rule, white wine grape varieties will ripen earlier than red wine varieties allowing harvest to be spread over a number of weeks. Grapes can be also imported from other wine regions, thus further extending the harvest period. However to market a wine as an AHWR brand, at least 85% of the content must come from vineyards within the region; most AHWR brands contain 100% of locally grown grapes. Table 4.1 lists the processing operations and equipment used in wine manufacture, and the production period. Harvest heralds the start of vintage. Vintage is the period where crushing of grapes and fermentation of grape juice to wine takes place. Vintage normally lasts about four to six weeks within the AHWR, beginning in March-April and ending by May-early June depending on the season. The remainder of the year is nominally called non-vintage. During non-vintage cellar operations of maturation, clarification, stabilisation and blending occur to prepare the wine for final bottling. These operations may take a few weeks to greater than twelve months depending on the style of wine. During vintage, more frequent transfer of product between the processing operations and associated cleaning operations results in greater ranges and peak concentrations of most wastewater parameters. Hence for characterising wastewater, vintage is normally separated into early, peak, and post vintage. Less frequent transfer of wine and cleaning of equipment are required during the non-vintage period hence both wastewater volume (Figure 4.1) and the range in composition of most chemical constituents are considerably lower during this period. Each winery, however, has its unique combination of wine styles, processing operations and cleaning procedures. Furthermore several processing and cleaning operations can be in concurrent use, each independently producing liquid waste with distinct characteristics. As a result, there is no typical winery wastewater. Rather each winery will generate wastewater with unique characteristics that will vary in amount or concentration within a range. Table 4.2 shows the median concentration of wastewater composition for the various production stages.

14

Table 4.1. General processing operations, stage of processing and types of equipment used for each stage by wineries within the Mount Lofty Region Watershed.

Process Operation Brief Description

Types of Equipment Used Process Stage

Harvest

Picking and transportation of grapes to the winery.

Hand, or mechanical bins/trucks of varying capacity

Viticultural Activity

De-stem/ crush Separate and removes stalks and roller/crushed to pre-determined level as affects flavour profiles and yield.

Crusher / de-stemmer

Vintage

Press-whites Separates the juice from skins, seeds and pulp.

Airbag press Vintage

Primary Ferment

Microbiological metabolism of sugar in the grape juice primarily to ethanol and other fermentation products.

Whites: Tanks, Barrels Reds: Fermenters- rotary, potters, open

Vintage

Press-reds As above with the difference that the liquid is wine

Airbag press Vintage

Malolactic Ferment (M-L) -red some whites

Microbiological transformation of malic acid to lactic acid. M-L fermentation is conducted during processing to reduce acidity, add complexity and to avoid spontaneous M-L fermentation after bottling which has detrimental effect on flavour.

Tank with inoculant (provides better control) Barrel containing residue of previous M-L ferment

Vintage Post vintage

Mature Development of wine characteristics during storage.

Tanks, barrels, bottles

Non-vintage

Stabilise 'Cold' stabilise wine from formation of crystals using cold temperatures to promote their precipitation during storage before bottling. 'Warm' stabilise from formation of protein haze by treating wine using bentonite or egg white albumen, which attracts the protein and allows removal by settling (fining, before bottling).

Tanks Post-vintage, Non-vintage

Blending Mixing of different batches of wine of similar and/or mixed varieties to produce the desired result.

Tanks Non-vintage

Bottling Final packaging of wine into bottled product.

Packaging materials and equipment for bottling and labelling.

Non-vintage

Other: Rotating drum vacuum filtration (RDVF)

Separation of product at pressing or by decanting 'racking' from tanks and barrels leaves behind lees containing considerable wine product. Many wineries further extract product by RDVF.

RDVF unit

Post vintage Non-vintage

Storage Steel tanks are used for long-term storage of bulk product which is more efficient on space than in bottles. Steel tanks are also sized to minimise number of separate batches of a given product type, thus minimising unnecessary transfer operations.

Tanks of various capacities

All year, on and off.

15

Figure 4.1 Monthly wastewater volume generated by a generic 2000 T and 600 T winery. Table 4.2. Median concentrations of constituents in winery wastewater produced during

different production stages.

Parameter Production Stage Early-vintage Peak-vintage Post-Vintage Non-Vintage pH

5.5

5.8

5.5-8.0*

6.5

Electrical Conductivity (EC, dS/m)

1.1 1.0 2.2 1.5

Suspended Solids (mg/L) 1500 1000 500 100 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD, mg/L)

2000 3000 4500 1500

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD, mg/L)

3000 5000 7000 2000

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN, mg/L)

10 50 20 12

Total Phosphorus (TP, mg/L) 6 12 7 5 * Increased caustic washing produces high pH flows periodically during this period. Product: Juice, Must and Wine: A key change in product characteristics and terminology occurs during primary fermentation. Primary fermentation normally occurs after pressing for white wine varieties, and before pressing for premium red wine varieties so as to maximise extraction of colour and flavour compounds from the skins. Thus depending on the stage of processing the product is termed: Must: The mash of skins, pulp, seeds and juice produced by crushing. Juice: The liquid component of must, the liquid component of crushed fruit or the liquid

outflow from white variety fruit on pressing.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2000

T w

iner

y (k

L)

0

50

100

150

200

250

600

T w

iner

y (k

L)

2000 t 600 t

16

Wine: The liquid remaining after completion of fermentation stages and its separation from the yeast and bacteria which together with other residues forms the lees. The 'raw' wine usually requires further processing to prepare it for final bottling.

Table 4.3 lists the general chemical characteristics of juice, must, and wine of red grape varieties. At this macro level white wine varieties have similar product chemistry. Minor differences arise due to different sequencing of process operations and general requirement for additional clarification than red wine varieties. Table 4.3. General (median) chemical characteristics of juice, must, and wine of red

grape varieties.

Parameter Juice Must Wine

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD, mg/L)

200000 220000 170000

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD, mg/L)

190000 155000 120000

Sugars (%) 20 – 25 20 – 25 0.5 Organic Acids (mg/L) 10000 7000 5000 Alcohols (mg/L) 0 0 130000 – 150000 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN, mg/L)

1000 800 350

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 10 170 70 pH 3.0 – 3.5 3.0 – 3.5 3.0 – 3.8 Electrical Conductivity (dS/m) TDS (mg/L, by calculation)

2.5 – 3.5 1380 – 1930

2.5 – 3.5 1380 – 1930

2.5 – 3.5 1380 – 1930

Equipment used to store product: Product is stored in: Vintage only:

• Rotary fermenters, rotary fermenters are not normally be used by wineries processing 500 tonnes or less.

• Static fermenters including (SWAP) potter fermenters; open (vat) fermenters. Vintage and Non-vintage:

• Barrels • Tanks (variable volume static fermenters may also be used for storing wine) • Bottles

Wineries will normally use multiple units of similar types of equipment to conduct process operations which involve holding product. As a general rule, smaller wineries will have smaller batches of wine and use smaller equipment. However a small winery may keep one or two larger tanks to enable blending prior to bottling. Tables 4.4 to 4.6 provide ‘standard’ lists of rotary fermenters, static/potter/open fermenters, and tanks assigned to wineries of the various sizes used in the development scenarios for the risk assessment. As a ‘worse case’ scenario the equipment is listed in the tables from largest capacity to smallest capacity to a maximum of twenty units with a separate nominal total number of units, as the risk of concurrent spillage of more than twenty units is remote to justify separate listing. Days of

17

use must also be provided for the risk analysis. The lists were generated after discussion with industry members who operated wineries of similar sizes. Barrels and bottles are of standard sizes, respectively 225 L ‘barriques’ and 750 mL. Storage of various lines of product in a larger number of smaller vessels has the effect of respectively increased risk of equipment failure, but reduced volumes lost. Smaller volumes are more readily contained by wastewater storage systems. Examples of spillage involving small volumes include dropping a pallet of full bottles or a barrel, where spill volumes are less than 0.5 kL. Similarly if a barrel at the base of a stack was sufficiently impacted by a forklift or other vehicle to disturb the stack, consultation with industry concurred that at worst, the full contents of 1 or 2 barrels and partial contents of another 2-3 barrels would be lost, which could be easily contained by the trade waste system. Thus consultation with the project manager on the steering committee resulted in agreement that spillage associated with bottled product and barrels would not be included in the risk analysis due to the small volumes involved. Use of equipment capacity of fermenters and tanks for allocation of spill volume into various size categories will be outlined in Section 7.3.1. Table 4.4. Number and capacities of rotary fermenters allocated to wineries of 2000 T

and 4000 T processing capacities. Note that wineries of 500 T or less normally do not use rotary fermenters.

2000 T 4000 T No.

Capacity (kL) 1 28 28 2 28 28 3 15 28 4 15 28 5 15 28 6 15 7 15 8 15 9 15

Total No. 5 9 No. days used per annum 84 84

18

Table 4.5. Number and capacities of static/potter/open fermenters allocated to wineries of 50 T to 4000 T processing capacities.

No. Capacity (kL)

50 T 200 T 500 T 2000 T 4000 T 1 3 10 10 10 15 2 3 10 10 10 15 3 3 10 10 10 15 4 2.5 5 10 10 15 5 2.5 5 10 10 15 6 2.5 5 7.5 10 10 7 2.5 5 7.5 10 10 8 2.5 5 7.5 10 10 9 2.5 5 7.5 10 10

10 2.5 5 7.5 11 2.5 5 7.5 12 2.5 7.5 13 2.5 7.5 14 2.5 7.5

Total No. 14 11 14 9 9 Days used per annum

84 84 84 84 84

Table 4.6. Number and capacities of tanks allocated to wineries of 50 T to 4000 T

processing capacities.

No. Capacity (kL)

50 T 200 T 500 T 2000 T 4000 T 1 9 10 24 45 45 2 9 10 24 45 45 3 9 10 24 24 45 4 3 10 15 24 45 5 3 10 15 24 45 6 3 5 15 24 45 7 3 5 15 24 24 8 3 5 10 24 24 9 2.5 10 24 24

10 2.5 10 24 24 11 2.5 10 24 24 12 10 24 24 13 10 24 24 14 10 24 24 15 10 24 24 16 10 24 24 17 10 24 24 18 7.5 24 24 19 7.5 24 24 20 7.5 24 24

Total No. 8 11 51 84 170 Days used per annum

241 241 241 241 241

19

4.2 Characteristics of Winery Wastewater

Winery Wastewater Production Stages: Winery wastewater is produced predominantly by washdown, rinsing and line purging processes. Consequently it is a mixture of water, cleaning chemicals and lost product, at varying levels of dilution indicated by the considerably lower levels of these substances in the composite wastewater compared to that present in juice, must, and wine. Alkaline/caustic washing is considered as the most effective cleaning method. Sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate is most commonly used, although many wineries in the AHWR prefer to use sodium metasilicate. Residues of alkaline agents must be removed by use of a weak acid (usually citric acid), which can be optional, followed by a final rinse with water. The relatively large quantities of water result in many compounds dissociating (separation into charged ‘ionic’ components) and ‘hydrolysing’ (surrounded by water molecules which keeps the ions in solution) which affect observed levels of measures such as pH and electrical conductivity. The values of major parameters given in Table 4.3 represent a general guide of the relative strength of winery wastewater at different production stages, based on actual measurements taken from wineries throughout South Australia, as there was insufficient data from wineries within the AHWR. Four nominal wastewater production stages were deemed to occur during a calendar year: Early Vintage: Harvest and fermentation of early varieties commenced, volume of wastewater is rapidly rising. Duration is one to two weeks. Peak Vintage: Processing of grapes has reached full capacity with regular transfer operations between equipment and associated cleaning, volume of wastewater peaked to a maximum and beginning to decline. Duration two to four weeks depending on the peak-to-mean ratio. Post Vintage: Harvest has concluded with the various batches of must and wine at varying stages of processing. Transfer operations are becoming less frequent due to both completion of early processing stages and longer times required for processing post-fermentation, volume rapidly decreasing from peak to non-vintage baseline levels although one or more 'secondary' peaks can occur, associated with barrel operations and cleaning. Duration is two to four weeks, with possible secondary peaks of varying duration. Non-vintage: Cellar operations, infrequent transfer and cleaning results in discontinuous and/or low flow of wastewater. Small wineries may not generate any wastewater over extended periods. Duration is about forty weeks. Parameters: Water: is the dominant component of winery wastewater. Comparison of the organic loading represented by biological oxygen demand, and chemical oxygen demand of product and composite wastewater suggests that water makes up at least 98% of total volume. Water acts as a solvent of dissolved substances and a medium for transport of suspended solids. The potential volume of a spillage is a critical component affecting potential environmental impact. An off-site spill must by definition have sufficient volume to reach a waterway. A spill may be due to single events involving larger volumes, or be due to

20

consecutive events involving smaller volumes and/or constant leaks which could 'pave the way' for a subsequent spill, which otherwise may not have been sufficient to reach a waterway on its own. The portion of spill volume entering the waterway will in part affect the extent of spatial contact with the environment, as outlined in Chapter 8. For the purpose of this study all wineries are assumed to conduct all processing operations including bottling, to enable standard wastewater volume data (Table 4.7) to be assigned to existing and generic wineries of different production capacities used for the development scenarios. In reality many wineries only partially process, thus requiring calculation of the 'effective crush' which accounts for the production stages conducted on and off-site. Both the wastewater chemical characteristics outlined in Table 4.2 and volume data were based on industry-wide information as there was insufficient data from wineries within the AHWR.

Table 4.7. Peak daily flow of wastewater during vintage and non-vintage, assigned to

wineries of different capacities for the risk assessment.

Peak daily Flow (kL/d) Winery Size Vintage Non Vintage

50 T 1 0.5 200 T 4 2 500 T 10 3 2000 T 24 12 4000 T 70 30

Organic Loading: Juice, must and wine are rich sources of organic substrates, which are primarily acids – tartaric, lactic, malic, citric; sugars – fructose, glucose; and alcohols – ethanol, and glycerol (Chapman 1995). Organic compounds are essentially combinations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and sometimes nitrogen. Collectively they represent the most significant sources of chemical energy used by living organisms. Many organisms extract the energy by oxidation requiring use of oxygen. Organic substrates in winery wastewater are readily metabolised by oxidative micro-organisms. As a result the micro-organisms will rapidly remove oxygen from surrounding environs, in water at far greater rates than replenishment. A standard measurement of potential amount of oxygen removal for microbial metabolism is the biological oxygen demand (BOD). Micro-organisms cannot fully oxidise the substrates. To determine the potential extent or degradability of a substrate a second analysis of the full chemical oxidation is required, referred to as chemical oxygen demand (COD). The ratio of BOD/COD is one indication of bio-degradability. The abovementioned organic substrates all have BOD/COD ratios >0.5, which is considered readily biodegradable (Santos Oliveira et al. 1975; Mauganet 1978). Nitrogen and Phosphorus: Nitrogen and phosphorus are predominantly found in proteins which, to prevent haze in wine, are partially removed by bentonite or other clarifying substances. Winery wastewater has minor amounts of nitrate and nitrite, however there is a potential for their formation as products of metabolism of the proteins and general turnover of microbial populations, thus total amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus on a weight to volume basis are normally measured.

21

Acidity and Alkalinity: Measured ostensibly by pH, composite winery wastewater is typically moderately acidic due to the presence of various types of organic acids and formation of carbonic acid from carbon dioxide. Individual waste streams can vary in pH from moderately to highly alkaline caustic cleaning waste to moderately acidic for product waste, or acid washwater. pH is measured using a logarithmic scale to the base ten. As a standard, pH 7 is defined as neutral, >7 alkaline and <7 acidic. Interpreting the relative acidities of solutions by the logarithmic scale is that a solution of pH 6 is ten times more acidic than one at pH 7, pH 5 is one hundred times more acidic than at pH 7, pH 4 is one thousand times more acidic than pH 7 etc. Salinity: Winery wastewater is moderately saline. Major sources of salinity are the source of water used by the winery, use of caustic chemicals for cleaning, and product loss. Salinity is most commonly measured by electrical conductivity. Suspended Solids: These are essentially mixtures of fine particles originating from grapes, precipitated complexes, yeast and bacteria from fermentation, and filter media. Larger solid particles are removed from the wastewater by settling and passing through screens or filters. Suspended solids are normally measured on a weight to volume basis after separation of settleable solids.

4.2.1 Stormwater Management

The MLRW has districts with the highest average annual rainfall within South Australia. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show that the average rainfall is considerably higher during vintage in the Adelaide Hills Wine Region compared with the adjacent Southern Vales Wine Region based around the Willunga basin. Wineries within the MLRW normally opt to completely cover all processing areas to:

• Make the work environment safer, more comfortable and more secure.

• Keep stormwater out of trade waste therefore eliminating the need for diversion systems of questionable efficacy at detecting contaminated waste, and to minimise total volume which is especially important if wastewater is transported to offsite effluent treatment works.

A small, uncovered area may be retained to allow trucks to tip harvested grapes into the crusher (to ensure sufficient clearance from building structures). During this time stormwater can be diverted into trade waste. Thus for the purpose of risk assessment of generic wineries, all wineries up to 2000 T were assume to completely cover the processing area as outlined above. The 4000 T generic winery was assumed to keep the tank farm uncovered.

22

MLR WARQ - Mean Rainfall

Figure 4.3 Mean rainfall relative to vintage for Bridgewater, Adelaide Hills Wine District

McLAREN VALE VINTAGE RAINFALL (mm)

BRIDGEWATER VINTAGE RAINFALL (mm)

Figure 4.2 Mean rainfall relative to vintage for McLaren Vale, McLaren Vale Wine District

0

50

100

150Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Vintage PeriodMean Rainfall (mm)

0

50

100

150Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Vintage PeriodMean Rainfall (mm)

23

4.2.2 Solid Production Waste

Marc: About 0.25 T of marc (skins, seeds, pulp, and stems) is separated by crushing and pressing per tonne of grapes processed, although the extent of pressing is also an individual decision of winemakers as it affects wine quality. Diatomaceous Earth Filtration (DEF) Waste: Approximately 100 kg of filter material is consumed per 100 T grapes processed, although the use of DEF is again an individual choice by winemakers. The above solids are kept separate to liquid waste streams. Marc is usually trucked off-site either for extraction of by-products or for composting before being returned to the vineyard. DEF waste is often sent offsite as solid waste or mixed with marc and composted. Some is also washed into trade waste. Rainfall on open stockpiles of these wastes can produce contaminated leachate. Usually in the AHWR marc is placed in trucks/bins for immediate offsite removal.

4.3 Ethanol-based Refrigeration Brines

Vinification is traditionally conducted at around 15°C. Tanks and fermenters are designed to allow reticulation of a coolant. Small wineries below 500 T typically used chilled water. Ethanol-based refrigerants are used by wineries processing 500 T or more. Either ethanol denatured using methanol ‘ALCOOL™’, or a low flammability mixture which enables the working concentration of ethanol to be reduced below 24% by weight ‘ALCOOL –LF™’, is used. The flammability of the ethanol brine has implications for storage and handling, and it is understood that most wineries within the AHWR are switching to ALCOOL-LF™. Table 4.8 provides an ingredient list of undiluted ALCOOL™ and ALCOOL-LF™. Wineries normally have a storage tank of working strength brine and a separate refrigeration unit and circulation system, with considerable volumes kept onsite (Table 4.9). Thus potential spills of ethanol brine from both the storage tank and refrigeration unit/pipe network were analysed in the risk assessment. Table 4.8. Composition of undiluted ALCOOL™, ethanol-based refrigerant brine products.

ALCOOL -LF™ Content (by volume)

Ethanol >60% Low-flammability coolant from the glycol family

0-30%

Dye (rhodamine) 10 ppm* by weight Corrosion Inhibitor (sodium nitrite) 5%

ALCOOL™

Ethanol 93.1% Methanol 1.9% Dye (rhodamine) 10 ppm by weight Corrosion Inhibitor (sodium nitrite) 5%

Source: CSR Product Specification Sheets; * ppm is equivalent to milligrams per litre (mg/L)

24

Table 4.9. Volume of refrigerant brine stored in tanks or refrigeration unit/pipe network by wineries of ≥500 T. Wineries processing <500 T normally use chilled water.

Volume (kL)

Size Tank Refrigeration

Unit/Pipes 50 T 0 0 200 T 0 0 500 T 10 3 2000 T 22.5 10 4000 T 32 18

4.4 Chemicals

A survey of wineries within the AHWR including companies located outside the watershed relating to chemicals used and stored on site is summarised in Table 4.10. Almost all chemicals are stored as solids, with the greatest quantity of liquid indicated 100 L of sodium hydroxide. Given the low volumes of liquid chemicals stored on site, consultation with the project manager on the steering committee resulted in agreement that spillage associated with stored chemicals would not be included in the final risk analysis.

25

Table 4.10. Chemicals used and kept on site by wineries within the AHWR2.

4.5 Fuel

Wineries within the AHWR normally do not have on-site diesel and petrol storage tanks, as it is easier to hold accounts with local service stations. Thus spillage of fuel was not considered in the fault tree analysis. Forklifts are generally fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) which is stored on-site.

4.6 Relative Total Loading of Biological Oxygen Demand, Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Early in the study, biological oxygen demand (BOD) through its effects on oxygen removal from waterways was considered one of the most important parameter of spillage materials originating from winery and ancillary development. Nitrogen and phosphorus also have important potential impacts on surface water quality. Thus to assist with developing appropriate levels of management for the generic wineries relative BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus load in product, alcohol brine, winery wastewater and sewage effluent were determined. Measured BOD of product, winery wastewater and sewage effluent, and consideration of relative ethanol content of ALCOOL-LF™ to wine in the absence of an actual measure was rated. It is noteworthy that the BOD measurement is based on microbial

2 The coordination of the industry survey by A Webber, Executive Officer, AHWR is acknowledged.

Name Use Amount on site Solid/Liquid/Gas

Tartaric acid Wine additive 1-1000 kg Solid Malic acid Wine additive 25 – 200 kg Solid Citric acid Wine additive 25 – 200 kg Solid Ascorbic acid Wine additive 1 – 25 kg Solid Lactic acid Wine additive 10 L Liquid Lactic casein Processing aid 5 kg Solid Potassium meta- bisulphite Wine additive 25 – 200 kg Solid Di-ammonium phosphate Wine additive 25 – 200 kg Solid Sulphur Dioxide Wine additive

Wine additive 9 – 25 kg 9 – 25 kg

Solid Gas

PVPP Processing aid 10 – 20 kg Solid Pre-coat earth Processing aid 20 - 200 kg Solid Diatomaceous Earth (various types)

Processing aid 50 – 200 kg Solid

Sodium Bentonite Processing aid 50 – 300 kg Solid Carbon dioxide Processing aid 20 – 400 kg Gas Nitrogen Processing aid 10 – 20 kg Gas Sodium Hypochlorite Cleaning

Bleaching 20 L Liquid

Sodium Meta bisulphite Cleaning 25 – 300 kg Solid Sodium Hydroxide Cleaning 50 - 100 L

25 kg Liquid Solid

Sodium Metasilicate Cleaning 25 kg Solid Hydrochloric acid 30% Cleaning 2 L Liquid Soda Ash Cleaning 25 - 40 kg Solid Oak conditioner Cleaning barrels 20 kg Solid

26

activity. High solution concentrations of constituent materials can lower microbial activity thus producing lower BOD than theoretically possible. Dilution of substances in dams and waterways may potentially allow more complete microbial metabolism of the organic substrates. Impacts on waterways are discussed in Chapter 9. Table 4.11 lists the total BOD loading for a 15 kilolitre (15000 L) ‘spill’ of the various spill materials associated with winery and ancillary developments. The table shows that relative loadings of BOD in product and ethanol-based refrigeration brine are in the order of 100 times higher than in sewage or wastewater, requiring a higher priority when assessing risk. Management of product, alcohol brine, wastewater and sewage effluent was given the following aims: Spillage of Product: The very high biological oxygen demand in winery product could potentially affect a significant length of waterway under certain circumstances, thus the aim of spill management was to ‘prevent’ an uncontrolled spill event. Spillage of Ethanol-based Refrigeration Brine: The toxicity of ethanol-based refrigeration brine products to aquatic life meant that inclusion of features that protect the environment from spillage was imperative, thus the aim of spill management was to ‘prevent’ an uncontrolled spill event. Spillage of Winery Wastewater: Winery wastewater has a much lower biological oxygen demand per unit volume than product, but still significantly higher levels than found in natural waterways, thus the aim of spill management was to ‘avoid’ uncontrolled events. Sewage Effluent: Sewage has varying biological oxygen demand per litre of effluent depending on the extent of treatment prior to the point of system breakdown. Total daily volumes produced are also relatively low (volume category 1 or 2) to the above sources of spillage, and failure of sewage system often form ‘pools’ rather than flowing spills. Thus ‘minimising’ leaks and spills was the main management aim. The above aims of spillage management were incorporated in system design of the generic wineries considered in the fault tree analysis, as outlined in Chapter 7.

27

Table 4.11. Relative total loads of biological oxygen demand, nitrogen and phosphorus of sewage effluent from winery or ancillary developments, winery wastewater, product (juice, must or wine) and ethanol-based refrigeration brine. Loads are based on a ‘spill’ of one kilolitre.

Source of Spill Load % of SE mg/L

BOD Sewage Effluent (SE)1 933 1.0 Winery Wastewater2 -vin 3167 3.4 -non vin 1500 1.6 Wine/Juice tank2 148333 158.9 Brine tank3 205714 220.4

Nitrogen Sewage Effluent (SE) 40 1.0 Winery Wastewater -vin 50 0.8 -non vin 12 0.2 Wine/Juice tank 1000 16.1 Brine tank 2409 387.1

Phosphorus Sewage Effluent (SE) 25 1.0 Winery Wastewater -vin 12 0.4 -non vin 5 0.2 Wine/Juice tank 170 5.5 Brine tank no phosphorus

1. Untreated Effluent; nitrogen and phosphorus in both organic and inorganic forms

2. Nitrogen and phosphorus present primarily as protein 3 Nitrogen is present as nitrite; no phosphorus present

28

5.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF POTENTIAL WINERY AND ANCILLARY SEWAGE WASTE SPILL MATERIALS

5.1 Standards for Waste Management

In 1988 the Department of Human Services (DHS; formerly South Australian Health Commission) released the current standard "Waste Control Systems: Standard for the Construction, Installation and Operation of Septic Tank systems in South Australia (hereafter called the DHS WCS Standard). Waste Control Systems are of five main forms:

1. Septic Tank, Subsurface Effluent Disposal (soakage trench); 2. Septic Tank, Septic Tank Effluent Disposal Schemes (STEDS); 3. Septic Tank, Aeration/Disinfection, Irrigation e.g. Envirocycle, Super-Treat systems; 4. Septic Tank, Sand Filtration/Disinfection, Irrigation, and 5. Storage, Transportation to an approved Treatment Works.

According to the DHS WCS Standard, the aims are as follows: Septic tank: to provide a minimum 24 hr retention time to enable removal of suspended solids by 60-70% and provide basic primary treatment via mainly anaerobic bacterial action to reduce the biological oxygen demand by 30%. Septic tanks have three main zones: scum (oils/grease that floats on the surface), detention (where solids settle from influent and primary treatment mostly occurs), and sludge (accumulation of solids at the base). Minimum capacity is therefore the sum of calculated rate of sludge accumulation/divided by frequency of desludging and of daily inflow in litres per person per day. Desludging should occur whenever the volume available for detention falls below 50% of total capacity. Note that commercial kitchens (e.g. in restaurants) must install an approved grease arrestor to minimise amounts of oil and grease entering septic tanks. Subsurface Effluent Disposal: to ensure safe and hygienic disposal of septic tank effluent. There are a number of site and soil criteria that must be satisfied. When satisfied, the size of the system is based on the effective percolation rate of the installation (tunnel, trench or well), number of persons using the system, and assumed daily inflow in litres per person per day. Sand filter: to provide secondary treatment by filtration, natural aeration and biological oxidation through aerobic and nitrifying organisms. The filter beds are sized to ensure that the hydraulic and organic loads are kept within 50 L or 25 g biological oxygen demand (BOD) respectively, per m2 top surface area of the filter bed over 24 hr. Assumed sewage BOD loading for winery and ancillary development is provided in Table 5.1. Design of systems must ensure that final treated effluent has a BOD <20 mg/L and Suspended Solids <30 mg/L. Aerobic Systems: to provide secondary treatment by artificial aeration, biological oxidation followed by clarification to remove suspended solids and return of the solids to the septic tank or aeration chamber. Assumed sewage BOD loading for winery and ancillary development is provided in Table 5.1. Design of systems must ensure that final treated effluent has a BOD <20 mg/L and Suspended Solids <30 mg/L.

29

Disinfection: usually chlorination based systems which reduce the coliform bacterial count to safe levels for irrigation (usually <10 cfu (colony forming units) /100 mL) maintained by ensuring minimum levels of free chlorine in the reclaimed water as sampled from the irrigation emitter (at least 0.5 mg/L). Table 5.1 outlines the assumed amounts of sludge, daily inflow, and biological oxygen demand for design of waste control systems for winery sewage, restaurants and cellar door sales. Table 5.1. Assumed influent waste characteristics for winery sewage and ancillary

development. Source: DHS WCS Standard (1995)

Facility Sludge/Scum rate L/person/year

Daily Inflow Rate L/person

BOD1

mg per employee or person (mg)

Winery -staff ablutions, work place installations

25 - 35

30 - 47 20000

Wine Tasting/ Cellar Door Sales

Visitors: 5 Staff: 25

Visitors: 8 Staff: 30

8000

Restaurant -assumes liquor license

35 20 15000 per person or

15000 per meal 1. BOD biological oxygen demand loading for design of aerated secondary systems based on 50000 (50

g) milligrams per person ex the septic tank. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 respectively list the daily flow and biological oxygen demand (BOD) at varying stages of treatment for winery sewage waste and ancillary sewage waste for the development scenarios given in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. Total nitrogen and total phosphorus were calculated from BOD for untreated effluent. Table 5.2. Composition of winery sewage effluent1.

Parameter 50 T 200 T 500 T 2000 T 4000 T

Daily Hydraulic load Peak Vintage Staff No.1 3 5 10 26 50 (kL) 0.141 0.235 0.47 1.222 2.35 Peak Non-vintage Staff No.1 1 2 6 20 60 (kL) 0.047 0.094 0.282 0.94 2.82

Average Composition All Wineries (mg/L) BOD TN TP Free Cl Influent to Septic 426 18 12 n.a Ex Septic2 298 n.a n.a n.a Ex Aeration Unit <20 n.a n.a >500

1. Staff Numbers included office and casual employees as obtained from industry. 2. Assumed 30% reduction of the influent BOD.

30

Table 5.3. Composition of ancillary sewage effluent.

Parameter Cellar Door/ Light Lunch Restaurant Function Centre

Daily Hydraulic load Peak Staff Number1 3 5 8 Peak Daily Visitation 100 100 250 (kL) 1.59 1.65 3.99 Average Composition all Ancillary (mg/L) BOD TN TP

Influent to Septic 933 40 25 Ex Septic2 661 n.a n.a Ex Aerobic WWTP <20 n.a n.a Free Chlorine >500 mg/L

1. Staff numbers obtained from industry 2. Assumed 30% reduction of the influent BOD.

5.2 Issues Affecting Successful Management of Sewage Effluent Systems

The DHS WCM Standard emphasises that practices on-site such as cleaning methods and chemicals used affects the microbiological population mix and efficacy of primary and secondary treatment. In turn, potential rate of accumulation of sludge/scum and reduction in organic loading and final faecal coliform count immediately prior to discharge will therefore differ between sites. Adjustments may be necessary to meet quality criteria applied to surface irrigation of reclaimed effluent. The Adelaide Hills Council initiated a survey on sewage waste control systems of domestic premises within the Mount Lofty Watershed (Arnold and Gallasch, 2001). The major issue was pooling of effluent at the surface and subsequent entry into watercourses reducing catchment suitability to provide safe water for sewage, stock, or irrigation use, for use by metropolitan Adelaide, and reduced area suitable for human contact and recreational activity. Possible reasons given by Arnold and Gallasch (2001) for system failure included: General:

• Lack of education of residents on waste control management specific to the system installed.

Septic Tank, Subsurface Effluent Disposal Systems: 48% failure: all potentially impacting watercourses (Arnold and Gallasch, 2001)

• Age, where older systems refer to those installed before adoption of current standards in 1988:

inadequate size positioning in soil types that would no longer meet current standards positioning of older systems too close (<50m) to waterways

• Higher number of residents than that used for system design resulting in excessive

flow rates.

31

• Inadequate desludging of septic tanks reducing retention times to less than 24 hrs and thus ineffective removal of suspended solids and scum and primary reduction of BOD.

• Clogging of subsurface effluent disposal systems particularly when associated with

poorly maintained septic tanks. Aerobic Treatment Systems: 53% unsatisfactory, 25% potentially impacting watercourses

• Dedicated irrigation areas of insufficient size, or inappropriate soil types or subsurface hydrology.

• Mechanical failure of air blowers and submersible pumps. These pumps were prone to

burning out or failure and were only guaranteed for 3 years. (High cost of repairs was also an issue.)

• Clogging of sand filter beds.

• Inadequate levels of free chlorine resulting in greater pathogen survival.

The report concluded that septic tanks combined with subsurface effluent disposal systems were more prone to failure than when combined with aerobic treatment systems, primarily as the latter technology was only available from the mid 1980's and were generally much larger systems than older soakage trenches.

32

6.0 REVIEW OF PAST INCIDENT REPORTS AND AVAILABLE INDUSTRY AUDITS

Reports and information relating to the State wine industry from the following sources were reviewed to source factors that may potentially contribute to spillage incidence:

• Environment Protection Authority of South Australia - The Prosecution Investigation Unit:

Reports of past pollution incidents involving winery and ancillary development, collated in Table 6.1.

− All but one incident occurred outside the AHWR. − Estimated spill volumes were usually small <1000 L.

However, in some cases large quantities of winery wastewater were spilled (e.g. the North Para River incident in 2000).

Additional information provided by the Prosecution Investigation Unit.

• Report for Management of Winery Wastewater in Highly Sensitive Areas, ARUP (2000). Prepared for Dept. Industry and Trade, March 2000. The winery used as the case study was located in the AHWR.

• Audit of Waste Management Systems of Wineries on the North Para River, Chapman

(2000). Prepared for EPA-SA, November 2002. The terms of reference for this study enabled a general audit of systems and management.

• Regional Report – Environmental Management Audit of Wineries in the Langhorne

Creek/Adelaide Hills Region of South Australia, URS (2002). Prepared for Environment Protection Authority SA, March 2002. The terms of reference for this study enabled a comprehensive audit of systems and management. Only one of the wineries audited was from the Adelaide Hills Wine Region.

Factors which potentially contribute to spill incidents identified in these sources are summarised in the following sections. This information has also been used in the assessment of risk in this study.

6.1 Stormwater Management from Open Processing Areas

Management of stormwater from open processing areas could have the following possible deficiencies:

• stormwater volume not fully factored into effluent volume data in system design;

• inability to identify risks associated with stormwater systems as a result of spills, e.g., how stormwater systems interconnect (through not having detailed site maps);

• use of ‘mechanical’ systems for diverting stormwater from trade waste – these systems could not distinguish incidents producing high levels of wastewater;

• use of single probes such as electrical conductivity or pH for diverting stormwater from trade waste. Single probes might not result in release of water to the

33

environment with safe levels of other parameters such as biological oxygen demand, as these parameters are not necessarily related.

6.2 Modification of Existing Buildings to Become Wineries

Modification of existing buildings to become wineries could have the following potential problems:

• Pipes and other structures often made of materials which no longer meet the current minimal standards, and

• Plans of old pipe networks usually do not exist which may result in designers ‘missing’ potential weakness in infrastructure which may subsequently fail.

6.3 Rapid Expansion of Infrastructure

The speed of expansion within the State wine industry could have the following potential problem:

• Ensuring adequate quality control. For example URS (2002) found that investigated sites did not have adequate warning devices, alarms, status lights etc. when a system failure occurs, or adequate bunding.

Introducing independent auditing of structures before final approval before commissioning could provide better assurance of quality control.

6.4 Management Deficiencies

URS (2002) highlighted a number of areas of deficiency:

• Failure to balance influent versus effluent data when designing irrigation discharge sites for winery wastewater;

• Lack of formal documented procedures identifying areas of responsibility for employees in relation to environmental matters;

• Non-existent or outdated standard operating procedures;

• Lack of training of staff and contractors on their environmental responsibilities;

• Lack of periodic maintenance, especially calibration of meters and routine inspection of plant, and

• General untidiness such as not regularly removing leaf matter that could block drains.

6.5 Transportation of Waste to Effluent Treatment Works

ARUP (2000) noted that municipal works have limited treatment capacities which when reached could result in changes to written agreements requiring industry to transport their wastewater to other sites. Changes could have significant implications for transport costs and economic viability of this option, as well as generating risk associated with greater vehicle movement to sites outside the watershed.

34

Winery-composite

Major spill into waterway Via stormwater pipe Pump failure, mechanical AND 2. Alarm failure due to power loss AND 3. Design of system (flap) for diverting stormwater off hard ground surfaces in high rainfall events -could not distinguish water types

Major environmental impact on downstream ecosystem.

Winery Spillage into creek Via pipe 1. Human Error of type difficult to conceive: lack of detailed knowledge of old pipe network during modification and part decommissioning of a section of old trade waste system allowing uncontrolled outflow from a drain untilled fault discovered.

Immediate response by company upon detection - affected pool was pumped out

1. The words AND, OR, are used in the context of probability.

Table 6.1 Summary of past EPA-SA Pollution Incidence Reports involving winery and ancillary development across South Australia1.

What: Incident: Where and How: Other Comments: Winery and/or Ancillary

Main mechanism of discharge to external environment

Contributing Factors

Winery-cleaning waste from individual process

Spill of unknown volume into waterway

Stormwater outlet leading to waterway

1. Human Operational Error in routinely performed task AND 2. Human Error of type difficult to conceive –shifting and using unit in an area where the spillage bypassed the trade waste collection system.

1. Special mention made of disregard of planning approval 2. Affected section was pumped out on request.

Winery-composite

Spill into creek resulting in no apparent pollution

Surface runoff from an irrigated discharge site.

1. Pipe rupture: AND 2. Bunded area already half filled with stormwater

Probable winery Discolouration of water in waterway

Probable subsurface seepage that became sufficient to detect

Age: worn-out pipes with 'open' joints AND Higher generation of waste due to combination of vintage and a major regional annual special event OR Potential seepage of wastewater from a storage lagoon

1. Toilets on septic system adjacent to waterway were decommissioned 2. Affected section was bunded and water removed on request, action caused banks of the river to slump.

Winery-composite

Discharge into creek Via pipe Pump failure AND 2. Failure to recognise consequence of system failure -presence of pipe connecting wastewater collection dam to creek, used in the past for flushing, but not blocked off when this practiced was ceased

Affected section was pumped out on request.

Winery-composite

Discharge into creek Pipe rupture, adjacent to creek

1. Pipe rupture 1. Affected pool was pumped out and water replaced.

Winery-product loss from process operation

Spillage into waterway, small unknown quantity

Surface runoff 1. Human Operational Error in routinely performed task AND 2. Human Error of type difficult to conceive –shifting and using unit in an area where the spillage bypassed the trade waste collection system.

Wastewater entering the dry creek was readily absorbed by the creek bed 2. Use of temporary bund reduced spill volume

35

7.0 DETERMINATION OF THE PROBABILITY OF A SPILL BY FAULT TREE ANALYSIS

Risk analysis was used to determine which events must conspire together to bring about a loss of control, which in this case is a spill of various liquids from wineries and of domestic sewage from winery and ancillary developments, and assessing which factors have the greatest importance. The probability (frequency of occurrence) of a spill in a winery was determined using fault tree analysis. This will be combined with location criticality factors to determine the impact/consequence of the spill to the surrounding environment (specifically waterways) in the subsequent chapters.

7.1 Fault Tree Methodology

Fault trees were used to develop the causes for various events of uncontrolled spillages from wineries, and of leak/spillage from sewage effluent systems of both winery and ancillary developments. Potential sources of uncontrolled spillages identified were:

• Spillage of raw product: rotary fermenters, static fermenters or tanks

• Spillage of refrigeration brine: storage tank or refrigeration unit/pipe network

• Spillage of wastewater from the collection and storage system

• Spillage of wastewater from irrigation discharge sites including pipe networks leading to the sites

• Leak or spillage of sewage effluent These fault trees did not consider failure due to structural fire or bushfire as it was considered that these events would have the potential to cause the winery to lose large quantities of stored liquids and wastewater mixed with water if the Country Fire Service (CFS) intervenes. These types of events are described as a common mode of failure, and have been assessed in a separate fault tree, viz:

• Spillage of raw product, refrigeration brine or wastewater due to fire Independent variables that must conspire together to bring about an event used to construct the fault trees were identified from:

• Consultation with the Wine Industry

• Site visits of existing winery and ancillary developments

• Consideration of past pollution incident reports and other studies outlined in Chapters 5 and 6

• Consultation with designers of winery equipment

36

• Consultation with designers of stormwater diversion systems and trade waste systems for wineries

• Consultation with designers of sewage treatment systems

• Consultation with EPA-SA officers with experience in the wine industry The frequency for each event was assigned and used in calculating the final frequency of occurrence using Boolean mathematics and logic gates. The strength of this technique is that as well as determining the frequency of the event occurring, it highlighted where the ‘weak’ or ‘critical’ areas are in the current system for either proposed generic or currently operating wineries. The difficulty was in determining the input values, and ensuring that there were no common inputs or processes that are affected simultaneously by one external factor. In this project the mechanical inputs were found from the literature but the ‘human’ related inputs were more difficult to quantify and provide literature references for. In this case, statistical data was utilised as appropriate, outlined below, as well as the experience of the project participants in consultation with the Wine Industry. The fault tree for an event is made up of the failure of the system containing the liquids and the failure of the system that should contain the spilt liquid; it was considered that a loss of control occurred when both of these occurred at the same time. Using this technique, the difference in the frequency for the spills and their subsequent impact can be compared to each other for a particular winery and then to each of the development scenarios within a given catchment in the MLRW.

7.1.1 Human Error

The following figures stem from the failure rates of humans performing: Table 7.1. Human Error Rates.

TYPE OF ACTIVITY PROBABILITY OF ERROR PER TASK

Critical Routine Task (tank isolation) Non-Critical Routine Task (misreading temperature data) Non Routine Operations (start up, maintenance) Check List Inspection Walk Around Inspection High Stress Operations; Responding after major accident -first time -after five minutes -after thirty minutes -after several hours

0.001 0.003 0.01 0.1 0.5

1

0.9 0.1 0.01

(Source: US Atomic Energy Commission Reactor Safety Study, 1975).

37

Smith (1993) summarised various sources of human error. The following is an extract from this reference. Table 7.2. Probability of Error. TYPE OF ACTIVITY PROBABILITY OF ERROR PER TASK Routine Simple Task Read Checklist or digital display wrongly Set switch (multiposition) wrongly Routine Task with Care Needed Fail to reset valve after some related task Dial 10 digits wrongly Complicated Non-routine Task Fail to recognise incorrect status in roving inspection Fail to notice wrong position on valves

0.001 0.001

0.01 0.06

0.1 0.5

(Source: Smith, 1993) A coarse summary has it that human errors in trained tasks occur typically at the rate of 1 in 100 per demand, checklist errors are notorious (1 in 10) and even critical tasks can produce error rates of 1 in 1000. Further data is available from the E&P Forum QRA Datasheet Directory (1996) on human factors and errors as shown below in Table 7.3 and 7.4. Table 7.3. Generic Human Error Rates.

Error type Type of behaviour

Nominal human error probability

(per demand)

1 Extraordinary errors of the type difficult to conceive how they could occur: stress free, powerful cues initiating for success

10-5

2 Error in regularly performed commonplace simple tasks with minimum stress. 10-4

3 Errors of commission such as operating the wrong button or reading the wrong display. More complex task, less time available, some cues necessary.

10-3

4 Errors of omission where dependence is placed on situation cues and memory. Complex, unfamiliar task with little feedback and some distraction.

10-2

5 Highly complex task, considerable stress, little time to perform it. 10-1

6 Process involving creative thinking; unfamiliar complex operation where time is short, stress is high. 10-1 to 1

(Source: E&P Forum QRA Datasheet Directory, 1996 Table 15.1)

38

Table 7.4. Multipliers for Performance Shaping Factors (maximum predicted value by which unreliability might change going from “good” conditions to “bad”).

Error-Producing Condition Multiplier Unfamiliarity with a situation which is potentially important but which only occurs infrequently or which is novel

17

A shortage of time available for error detection and correction 11 A low signal-noise ratio 10 A means of suppressing or over-riding information or features 9 No means of conveying spatial and functional information to operators in a form which they can readily assimilate

8

A mismatch between an operator’s model of the world and that imagined by a designer

8

No obvious means of reversing an unintended action 8 A channel capacity overload particularly one caused by simultaneous presentation of non-redundant information

6

A need to unlearn a technique and apply one which requires the application of an opposing philosophy.

6

The need to transfer specific knowledge from task to task without loss. 5.5 Ambiguity in the required performance standards 5 A mismatch between perceived and real risk. 4 Poor, ambiguous or ill-matched system feedback. 4 No clear direct and timely confirmation of an intended action from the portion of the systems over which control is to be exerted.

4

Operator inexperience (eg. newly-qualified tradesman versus “expert”). 3 An impoverished quality of information conveyed by procedures and person/person interaction

3

Little or no independent checking or testing of output. 3 A conflict between immediate and long-term objectives 2.5 No diversity of information input for veracity checks. 2.5 A mismatch between the educational achievement level of an individual and the requirements of the task.

2

An incentive to use more dangerous procedures. 2 Little opportunity to exercise mind and body outside the immediate confines of a job.

1.8

Unreliable instrumentation (enough that is noticed) 1.6 A need for absolute judgements which are beyond the capabilities or experience of an operator.

1.6

Unclear allocation of function and responsibility. 1.6 No obvious way to keep track of progress during an activity. 1.4 A danger that finite physical capabilities will be exceeded. 1.4 Little or no intrinsic meaning in a task. 1.4 High-level emotional stress. 1.3 Evidence of ill-health amongst operatives, especially fever. 1.2 Low workforce morale. 1.2 Inconsistency in meaning of displays and procedures. 1.2 A poor or hostile environment (below 75% of health of life-threatening severity)

1.15

Prolonged inactivity or high repetitious cycling of low mental workload tasks.

1.1 for 1st half hour 1.05 for each hour thereafter

Disruption of normal work-sleep cycles 1.1 Task Pacing caused by the intervention of others. 1.06 Additional team members over and above those necessary to perform task normally and satisfactorily.

1.03 per additional person.

Age of personnel performing perceptual task. 1.02 (Source: E&P Forum QRA Datasheet Directory, 1996 Table 15.2 )

39

The above standard tables on ‘Human Error’ are task-based. Thus the number of tasks associated with maintenance and operation of equipment were estimated by consultation with industry in order to assign a per annum failure rate. This exercise was considered necessary to determine whether size of winery significantly affected rates of human error through different ‘intensity’ of use of equipment. The outcome was no difference or slight difference between wineries of different size where lower use of some equipment by small wineries reduced the associated rate of human error. A multiplier was included in all operational human error due to effects of vintage and levels of training of particularly casual staff.

7.1.2 Equipment Failure Rates

The following table provides a list of typical breakdown failure rates for mechanical parts from Lees (1995). It is emphasised that the data can vary according to operating environments, system interactions and maintenance regimes. Table 7.5. Typical Component Breakdown Failure Rates.

Equipment Type Failure Rate (yr-1) Storage tanks - Atmospheric tank

30 x 10-6

Storage tanks - Refrigerated tank – Single wall 10 x 10-6 Storage tanks - Refrigerated tank – Double wall 1 x 10-6 Valve rupture (all types) 9 x 10-5 Valve fails to shut 1 x 10-3 Blocked filters 9 x 10-3 Seals –‘O’ ring seals 1.8 x 10-3 Seals – Sliding seals 2.6 x 10-2 Pipe rupture (pipe diameter < 3in) 8.76 x 10-6 Pipe rupture (pipe diameter > 3in) 8.76 x 10-7 Pump – failure to run, given start, in normal environment 2.6 x 10-1 (Source: Lees, 1996 Appendix 14 & Chapter 12)

40

Table 7.6. Above Ground Storage Tank Failure Data.

Equipment Type Failure Mode Failure(1)

Rate (yr-1) References and Remarks

Above Ground Storage Tank (Production Facility)

External leakage 1.5 x 10-2 EL, pg. 26 (Ref.1)

Atmospheric storage tank

Serious leakage 9.6 x 10-5 Rijnmond, Table IX.I (Ref.2)

Atmospheric storage tank

Catastrophic rupture

6 x 10-6 Rijnmond, Table IX.I (Ref.2)

Cryogenic LNG storage tank _double-walled (steel outer shell; aluminium or 9% nickel-steel inner shell)

Major failure (external leak)

9.6 x 10-3 GRI, pg. 9 (Ref.3)

Atmospheric storage tank_ mild steel

All modes (specific failure modes were not listed)

3.9 x 10-2 GENDATA (Ref.4)

Storage tank Leaks 1.1 x 10-2 NPRD-91/FMD-91 (Ref. 5 and 6) Failure rates calculated using failure data from NRPD-91 and failure mode distributions from FMD-91. NPRD-91 data selected for tanks that store oil.

Storage tank Rupture/Puncture 8.8 x 10-4 NPRD-91/FMD-91 (Ref. 5 and 6) Failure rates calculated using failure data from NRPD-91 and failure mode distributions from FMD-91. NPRD-91 data selected for tanks that store oil.

Above Ground Storage Tank

External leakage 2.5 x 10-2 HSB, pg. 127 (Ref.7)

Major Release 6.9 x 10-6 HSB, pg. 122 (Ref.7) Above Ground Storage Tank

External leakage 7.2 x 10-3 Oil & Gas, pg. 31 (Ref.8)

(Source: E&P Forum QRA Datasheet Directory, 1996 Table 10.3.1) Note (1) Example: 2 x 10-2 = 02 times per year = approximately once every two months

41

7.1.3 Fault Tree Mathematics

There are two types of logic gates associated with fault trees: ‘or’ (OR) and ‘and’ (&) gates. An ‘OR’ (or) gate is used in the scenario when a system fails if any of the components of that system fail; in the example below, the failure of either component A or component B causes a system failure.

The total probability of at least one of two independent events occurring simultaneously equals the overlapping area, that is, Pr(A) plus Pr(B) less Pr(A)x Pr(B). The simplified mathematics for an OR gate is as follows for the above example-

Pr(System Failure) = 1 - [(1-Prf (Component A)) x (1-Prf (Component B))] Where the probability of failure (Prf) is described as either a frequency (per month, per year etc) or as a likelihood (therefore between 0 and 1). An & (and) gate is used in the scenario when a system fails only when all of the components of that system fail; in the example below, both component A and component B failing at the same time causes a system failure.

The mathematics for an & gate is as follows for the above example-

Pr(System Failure) = Prf(Component A) x Prf (Component B) Where the probability of failure (Prf) is described on as either a frequency (per month, per year etc) or as a likelihood (therefore between 0 and 1).

42

7.1.4 Binomial Distribution

For a number of cases there will be a number of the same types of vessels at one winery, for example rotary fermenters, static fermenters and tanks. To determine the frequency that x out of this total number will fail at any one time, binomial mathematics is used.

)(1)1()Pr( xx pfpfxnx −−⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛= for x = 0, 1, 2, …, n

where )!(!

!xnx

nxn

−=⎟

⎠⎞

⎜⎝⎛

)1)(2)(3)...(2)(1(! −−= xxxx (factorial) pf =probability of failure x = the proportion (number) of the total number of tanks which might fail at one time As x gets larger the probability of failure becomes smaller until it is negligible; for this assessment after preliminary analysis, the limit has been set at the simultaneous failure of 20 tanks.

7.2 Results of the Risk Analysis

The completed fault trees are presented in Appendix II, a summary is provided below.

7.2.1 Leak of Raw Product

Separate fault trees were prepared for loss of raw product from a:

• Rotary fermenter • Static/Potter/Open fermenter • Tanks

As outlined in Chapter 4 spillage events associated with wine bottles and barrels were not included in the risk analysis due to the low volumes involved. Example: Rotary fermenter Each of the items in ‘Leak of Product” rotary fermenters, static fermenters and tanks had similar lines of input. An example of the inputs into the fault trees for a rotary fermenter is shown below.

43

The various items which could lead to failure of the rotary fermenter included:

• Failure due to vandalism: Attempted vandalism Area not enclosed in a building or entered long enough to cause

spill, No security system or locks installed, or fails

• Storm damage: Severe storms causing damage Area not enclosed in a building or storm damages building/tank

• Mechanical failure: Component failure of singled walled tank, valve, or seal Component failure due to infrequent or incorrect maintenance

• Operational Error which is not responded to within 10 minutes • Punctured/collision with forklift

Bunding In enclosed wineries the walls of the building can often act as a ‘bund’ that ensures that any spill of raw product is contained within the structure and directed to the trade waste system. The 4000 T generic winery was assumed to have tanks in unroofed areas with six tanks contain in a bund of sufficient size to contain 120% of the capacity of the largest tank: a standard currently used by EPA-SA. The function of the bund is to contain a spill and thus is left offline to trade waste except during cleaning operations, estimated at six days per group of six tanks. Stormwater would nominally be tested before release. For simplicity, bunding was shown as a separate fault tree:

• Bunding fails: No bunding Bunding fails structurally Bunding left online to trade waste Bunding has insufficient capacity

Failure The failure of the rotary fermenter, static/potter/open fementer or tank was combined with failure of the bund to contain the initial spill which if continuously left online to trade waste always fails, and with the waste water system failing and therefore failing to contain the additional spill to determine the frequency of contaminate spilt per unit (x). The number of days of operation of equipment operation was imputed to calculate the per annum failure rate of the unit.

44

The total number (n) of units at a winery of nominal tonnage was imputed into the binomial distribution calculation to determine the simultaneous failure of x/n units on a per annum basis.

7.2.1.1 Results The high value of the stored product has resulted in considerable investment of research and development in equipment design with low mechanical failure rates. Consultation with industry concluded that tasks associated with use and maintenance of equipment are simple and it would take an inconceivable error such as leaving a hatch open and not immediately detecting the problem for major spills to occur. Enclosing equipment within buildings effectively minimise vandalism and damage from storms. The outcome was a unit failure rate in the order of 2 to 3 times per 1000 years. A 2000 T winery has around ninety tanks on-site hence the failure rate of any one of the ninety tanks failing is much greater, approximately 1.5 times every 10 years. Therefore, containing the initial spill in a bund and/or treatment system is vital to prevent regular events of uncontrolled spillage of product. The number of days that the bund was left online to trade waste determined overall failure of the bund. Hence adopting a very simple management strategy to keep bunded tanks offline except during cleaning would not only reduce reliance on an operational trade waste collection/storage system to contain a spill but also enable the option for collecting spilt product from the bund which may have residual value for recovery of by-products.

7.2.2 Wastewater Collection and Storage System Fails

This fault tree is combined with each of the fault trees for leak of raw product and of brine from refrigeration unit/pipe network to determine the frequency that loss of liquid actually occurs. The wastewater collection and storage system can also fail in isolation resulting in loss of wastewater. The fault tree was divided into two main sections:

• Wastewater storage system fails

• Wastewater/spill cannot enter storage system The wastewater storage system was assumed to include a sump that pumped wastewater into storage tanks. Overflow from the sump would gravity feed directly into a surrounding bunded area. The main storage system was assumed to consist of a series of interconnected non-pressurised tanks with wastewater flowing by gravity; provision for pumps was also included in the fault tree. Overflow from the tanks would also directly enter the bunded area. The nominal combined capacity of the sump/tanks/bund was assumed to be sufficient to hold four days of wastewater flow at peak vintage and stormwater arising from 1 in 10 year storm events of sixty minutes duration. Systems with pumps would use two pumps, with one working and one as standby. Alarms for high water levels and/or overflow in event of a single pump failure allowing the second pump to operate continuously or for events resulting in rate of input of trade waste to exceed pumping capacity of a single pump to enable both

45

pumps to simultaneously operate. Alarms would prompt a response by the owner/operator to rectify the problem. Alarms would be triggered by high water levels in each of the first two tanks of a series. Alarms would prompt a response by the owner/operator to rectify the problem. Stormwater diversion systems were defaulted to the trade waste. Use of a single probe and alarm system was assumed. Based on the above, various items which could lead to failure of the wastewater sump or tanks to store the spilt product or trade waste included:

• Wastewater sump fails: Wastewater sump structurally fails Pump failure:

Mechanical failure Power failure

These factors are combined with the following to give an overall failure which would result in overflow: alarm failure failure to respond

Failure of stormwater diversion system resulting in sump filling with stormwater flow: Probe failure Valve failure Pump failure –mechanical or power

These factors are combined with the following to give an overall failure: Alarm failure Failure to respond to alarm

• Wastewater tank fails:

Wastewater tank structurally fails Pump failure:

Mechanical failure Power failure

These factors are combined with the following to give an overall failure which would result in overflow: alarm failure failure to respond

• Contribution of human error to waste storage system failure:

Operator error increasing impact of event Component failure due to infrequent or incorrect maintenance

These failures were combined with failure of the bund to contain the initial spill. Bund failure was influenced by:

• No bund (existing wineries only)

46

• Bund fails structurally • Bund capacity exceeded by wastewater • Bund capacity exceeded by stormwater flow

Various items which could lead to the spill or wastewater failing to enter the trade waste collection system included:

• No drains to capture spill: Human error contributing to spill bypassing trade waste

system (e.g., moves equipment outside the trade waste drainage system)

No trade waste drains installed

• Final drain fails preventing spill/wastewater entering sump/tanks: Grates/pipes blocked and not cleaned quickly Pipe diameter incorrectly sized

• In ground wastewater pipes fail:

Failure due to age/decay Fracture due to extra stress and large loads like trucks etc or

in soil which is subject to contraction/expansion Incorrect installation

• Stormwater diversion system defaulted to the environment fails:

Probe failure Valve failure Pump failure –mechanical or power

These factors are combined with the following to give an overall failure: Alarm failure Failure to respond to alarm

7.2.2.1 Results Inclusion of two pumps and alarm systems which are routinely relied on by existing wineries that tanker wastewater to effluent treatment work has help develop a culture of rapid response to alarms, and thus very low chance of system failure. The relative overall complexity in designing and managing a trade waste collection and storage system however resulted in human error dominating failure of both the sump/tank storage system which necessitated inclusion of a functional bund as a backup system, and of the spill failing to enter the trade waste collection system thereby bypassing the sump/tank/bund. The latter form of human error was the weakest component in the fault tree analysis and thus determined overall unit failure rate of 9 in 1000 years. This was primarily due to equipment being moved outside the trade waste collection system, and subsequently used in a manner that generated an uncontrolled spill. This was most likely at sites with inadequate room within the trade waste system to house

47

all equipment such as static fermenters during vintage, or as a result of renovations of existing structures not being completed in time for vintage. If these conditions apply at a given site the inability to reverse an unintentional factor would apply a potential multiplying factor of failure of 8.0 (Table 7.4). It is unlikely that this form of human error would apply to wine stored in tanks as they are fixed. The only exception could be the use of variable volume static fermenters as storage tanks outside vintage, since the design of the units allow them to be moved around the winery. Conversely at least one existing winery demonstrated that a well design purposed built structure could almost eliminate this type of error. Structural failure of the pipe network was also a potentially important source of failure. This would be more applicable to sites renovating existing buildings where current standards of pipe networks did not apply. From E&P Forum (1996, Table 7.4) not fully documenting existing pipe networks could potentially suppress vital information which has a multiplying factor of 9.0. Enclosing the winery within a building avoids the need for stormwater diversion systems and thus the associated risk of failure.

7.2.3 Leakage of Refrigeration Brine

Separate fault trees were required for failure of tanks used to store ethanol brine mixtures and of the refrigeration unit/pipe network.

7.2.3.1 Leak of Refrigeration Brine from the Storage Tank The various items which could lead to a spill of brine from the storage tank are similar to those shown to those presented in Section 7.2.1, ‘Leak of Raw Product’ Fault tree input example, Rotary fermenter. The exception was removal of the operator error component. It became evident early in the study that the working strengths of ethanol brine mixtures were toxic to aquatic life as outlined in Chapter 9, as well as adversely affect onsite wastewater treatment systems or in their absence cause damage or death of irrigated discharge sites. Thus an isolation bund that could contain the entire contents of the stored brine to effectively achieve an aim of no offsite spillage was incorporated into the fault tree analysis. The bund would not contain drains hence any spilt brine would need to be pumped out. Thus failure of the bund would be determined by structural failure rates, based on a nominal life span of fifteen years. Failure of the brine tank was combined with failure of the bund to contain the initial spill to determine overall failure rate, 1 in 500,000 years. The only time the isolation bund would nominally fail to contain a spill would be as a result of a fire of greater than twenty minutes duration. Spillage resulting from fire is separately considered in Section 7.2.5.

48

7.2.3.2 Leak of Brine from Refrigeration Unit and Pipe Network Various items which could lead to spill of brine from the refrigeration unit and pipe network included those presented in Section 7.2.1, ‘Leak of Raw Product’ Fault tree input example, Rotary fermenter, with the following adjustments:

• Mechanical failure Removal of tank failure and insertion of: Failure of the

refrigeration plant

• Failure of brine pipe network: included as an additional source of failure With an assumed life of fifteen years, failure of the refrigeration plant determined the unit failure. Thus using systems with higher working life span or replacing the unit at the end of its guaranteed life span would nominally decrease overall failure rate. As with brine stored in the tank, containment of brine circulating within the refrigeration unit and pipe network was incorporated into the fault tree analysis with the aim of no offsite spillage of brine. Part of the pipe network service areas within the winery and thus leaks would be contained by the wastewater collection and storage system. Pipe network outside the processing area and the refrigeration plant could be linked to the isolation bund used for the storage tank. Thus failure of the refrigeration plant and pipe network was combined with failure of the wastewater collection and storage system or combined with failure of the isolation bund to determine final unit failure, 2 in 10000 years.

7.2.4 Leakage of Irrigation Water

The management of spillage of raw product and brine form a ‘coherent’ management group, culminating with management of spillage from the wastewater collection and storage system as a backup system, or in its own right. Irrigation is a separate management component, although its sizing and weekly site management must be able to balance hydraulic inputs including irrigation wastewater/stormwater with outputs according to the water budget. Irrigation also represents the stage at which treatment of the wastewater can significantly alter the consequence of spillage. Various items which could lead to the spill or wastewater from the pipe network leading to, or from the irrigation discharge site included: Failure within the discharge site:

• Failure of irrigation control system: Failure of irrigation control module Failure of soil moisture detection probes or not installed

• Management system inadequate, not installed correctly or not properly

monitored

49

• In-ground pipe failure within wastewater discharge site: Failure due to age/decay Fracture due to soil movement or extra stress placed by

loads such as vehicle traffic Incorrect installation

High failure due to human error in management was assumed. As a result combined human influences resulted in failure for the irrigation system of 8 in 10 years. Failure is assumed to result in saturation of the surrounding soil and formation of surface pools of wastewater. Surface pooling of water can also result when rainfall intensity exceeds infiltration rates or drainage rates when the soil profile becomes fully wetted. This was assumed to occur twenty-one days on average during the wettest year in ten standard used for calculating the water budget. Thus surface pooling and runoff of stormwater is an annual event which must be managed. EPA–SA require that wastewater discharge sites are bunded to retain all runoff. Bund failure was influenced by:

• No retention bunding (always fails) • Bund fails structurally • Bund capacity exceeded by wastewater or stormwater flow

Bund capacity was assumed to cater for a 1 in 10 year storm event of sixty minutes duration, which is a different calculation than use of the wettest year in ten climatic data for calculation of the water budget. Thus failure of the irrigation system was combined with failure of the bund to give the final unit failure of 1 in 100 years. This rate of failure could be reduced by avoiding irrigation when the soil is saturated and during high intensity storms. In addition of failure within the irrigated discharge site, spillage can occur from failure of the pipe network leading to the discharge site:

• In ground pipe failure within wastewater discharge site: Failure due to age/decay Fracture due to soil movement or extra stress placed by

loads such as vehicle traffic Incorrect installation

Failure rate of the external pipe network was estimated to be around 6 in 1000 years. However the pipe network can cross over land not directly owned by the winery, including across waterways. In situations where location of the pipe is not marked the suppression of over-riding information affecting decisions has a multiplying factor of 9.0 in contributing to human error (Table 7.4), such as in the past incident where a contractor on an unrelated job accidentally dug up a pipe leading to a wastewater irrigated discharge site (refer Table 6.1).

50

7.2.5 Leakage of Sewage Effluent

Separate fault trees were prepared for leakage of effluent from septic/soakage trench system, septic/aeration/irrigation system, and storage tank/discharge to sewer. The items that could lead to leak of effluent from a septic-soakage trench system included:

• Surface pooling of raw effluent from septic tank: Failure of underground tank causing leakage of sewage Leakage reaches the surface

• Surface pooling of effluent ex. septic from soakage trench:

Management system inadequate, not installed correctly or not properly monitored

Surface pooling due to failure of soakage trench The items that could lead to leak of effluent from a septic-aeration-irrigation system included:

• Surface pooling of raw effluent from septic tank: Failure of underground tank causing leakage of sewage Leakage reaches the surface

• Surface pooling of effluent ex. septic from aeration unit:

Underground storage tank ruptures System failure (pump, alarm, etc.)

• Surface pooling of effluent ex. aeration from irrigated site:

Management system inadequate, not installed correctly or not properly monitored

Pipe rupture: • Failure due to age/decay • Fracture due to soil movement or extra stress placed

by loads such as vehicle traffic • Incorrect Installation

The items that could lead to leak of effluent from a storage tank-discharge to sewer system included:

• Surface pooling of raw effluent from storage tank: Failure of underground tank causing leakage of sewage Leakage reaches the surface

• Failure of pumps/alarms to sewer:

Pump failure in distribution unit: Mechanical failure Power failure

51

These factors are combined with the following to give an overall system failure: Alarm failure Failure to respond to alarm

Which, in turn, is combined with the following: Sewage sump designed with insufficient capacity

• Surface pooling of raw effluent from septic tank:

Failure of underground tank causing leakage of sewage

For septic/soakage trench and septic/aeration/irrigation systems failure to adequately design, install correctly or regularly monitor the discharge component, soakage trench or irrigation system, was the major determinant of final unit failure, 2-5 per 100 years. Systems discharging to sewer were less influenced by human error, hence had a failure of 5 in 1000 years.

7.2.6 Fire

It has been assumed that a fire that is not extinguished within a relatively short period of time after ignition will continue to grow and cause substantial damage and therefore large loss of product and wastewater. The items that could lead to fire included:

• Spread of bushfire to winery buildings Vicinity of the buildings to fire Bushfire

• Uncontrolled fire in ancillary kitchen • Fire in process area

• Fire in ancillary kitchen

• Chemical fire

• Brine tank fire

Each of the above combines with the following to give overall failure: • Fire not suppressed:

Sprinkler fails or is not installed Occupants/CFS fail to suppress fire

In event of fire of the brine tank the combined loss of brine and amounts of fire fighting water used was assumed to always exceed bund capacity.

52

Emphasis on fire management is attempting to quickly suppress the fire. The final rate of unit failure, 3 in 1000 years was influenced by the combined failures of the individual sources of fires. Consultation with the wine industry and CFS suggested that fuel loads:

• within winery buildings essentially containing steel tanks and concrete would be too low to sustain a fire;

• within winery buildings with barrels containing product (which keeps the wood moist) low especially if the barrels are raised off the ground, providing greater chance to suppress fire;

• within winery buildings containing bottled product moderately low providing all combustible packaging material is raised off the ground, providing a chance to suppress the fire

• within office buildings containing ancillary kitchen/tea rooms or tasting room high due to presence of readily combustible materials, reducing chance of suppressing fire.

Thus keeping the processing area in separate buildings to the office and ancillary kitchen/tea room or tasting room would reduce potential loss of product.

7.3 Combined Failure of all Sources for Generic Wineries

7.3.1 Allocation of Spill Volume Categories

Five arbitrary spill volume categories were identified to assist modelling of the effects of the passage of the spill from its point of uncontrolled release to entry into the nearest waterway on per cent attenuation of volume, as detailed in Chapter 8. The categories are:

1. Very Small: up to 1 kL 2. Small: 1 to 5 kL 3. Moderate: 5 to 10 kL 4. Large: 10 to 25 kL 5. Very Large: 25 to 50 kL

The potential volume associated with spillage from the various sources was imputed into a summary table and allocated to either the above categories or an additional sixth category ‘substantial’ (50 kL). Frequencies of failure associated with the various sources could then be allocated to the six volume categories, and a summed total provided. Effect of increased winery size was to move spill volumes from lower categories to higher categories, since larger equipment is used and more staff required.

53

7.3.2 Combined Risk of Spillage from Generic Wineries

Summary tables were prepared for each size of generic winery; an example is shown in Table 7.7. Increase winery size shifted frequencies to larger spill volume categories (Table 7.8). It should be understood that these frequencies are for spill initiation. The actual volume that could potentially reach the watercourse will depend on locality factors outlined in Chapter 8. Table 7.7. Summary of frequency of spill initiation from any source for a generic

50 T winery. Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large SubstantialRange of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes Sewerage collection & treatment 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.0526 0.0204 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes Sewerage collection & treatment 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.0526 0.0204 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

54

Table 7.8. Frequency of uncontrolled spillage from all sources for the Generic Wineries. Unit is per annum. Vintage Non-vintage Spill Volume (kilolitres) Spill Volume (kilolitres) 0 to 1 >1 to 5 >5 to 15 >15 to 25 >25 to 50 >50 0 to 1 >1 to 5 >5 to 15 >15 to 25 >25 to 50 >50 Sewerage collection & treatment 50 T 0.0526 0.0526 200 T 0.0526 0.0526 500 T 0.0526 0.0526 2000 T 0.0526 0.0526 4000 T 0.00526 0.0526 Irrigation Wastewater 50 T 0.0116 0.0116 200 T 0.0116 0.0116 500 T 0.0116 0.0116 2000 T 0.0116 0.0116 4000 T 0.0116 0.0116 Wastewater Collection Plant 50 T 0.0088 0.0088 200 T 0.0088 0.0088 500 T 0.0088 0.0088 2000 T 0.0088 0.0088 4000 T 0.0088 0.0088 Fire 50 T 0.00312 0.00312 200 T 0.00312 0.00312 500 T 0.00312 0.00312 2000 T 0.00312 0.00312 4000 T 0.00312 0.00312 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 50 T not used not used 200 T not used not used 500 T 0.00025 0.00025 2000 T 0.00025 0.00025 4000 T 0.00025 0.00025 Note: Frequency of uncontrolled spillage of product - fermenters and tanks, and brine - storage tank, was less than one in ten thousand years.

55

8.0 DETERMINING SPILL VOLUMES REACHING WATERCOURSES

8.1 Locational Criticality

While spillages may occur at winery sites, the potential impact on watercourses or reservoirs depends upon the quantity (and quality) of material spilled. During the Stage 1 investigation, most existing winery sites were visited and site plans obtained. As expected, no two sites are the same, in that a number of wineries are located immediately adjacent (i.e. between 50-100 m) or at some distance to a major watercourse (i.e. 500-1500 m). In the absence of artificial drainage to direct spills direct to watercourses or retention basins to intercept them, with greater distance there is a reduced risk of any spillage material reaching a watercourse. In this regard, the following factors all interact to determine the degree to which a spill might enter a watercourse:

1. Slope of land between winery and watercourse. 2. Soil type and soil permeability. 3. Vegetative cover of the land between winery and watercourse. 4. Distance of the winery from the watercourse. 5. Soil moisture levels at the time of the spill. 6. Volume of the spill. 7. Spill duration.

8.2 Method of Determining Overland Flow Spill Volumes Reaching Watercourses

An analytical model was produced as part of Stage 1 to assist in the assessment of the potential for a liquid spill in a winery to reach a nearby watercourse and the extent to which environmental conditions might effect the propagation of such a spill. Effect of the presence of an interceding dam in the spill flow path is included as part of the model.

8.2.1 Liquid Spill Dynamics – Modeling

A numerical model has been produced to facilitate assessment of the potential for a liquid spill in a winery to reach the nearest specified watercourse (or other nominated impact point) and the extent to which the prevailing site and environmental conditions might effect the propagation or attenuation of such a spill. The model evolves in three stages: Input Data – Comprises seven specific input variables relating to the spill event under analysis, specific locational and physiographic elements relating to the winery site, and the characteristics of the landscape and vegetation between the spill focus and the nearest watercourse. Output Data – A range of computed parameters which use the values of the variables provided in the Input Data to model the likely outcome of the interaction between the physical environment, prevailing conditions and the spill event.

56

Results – The Spill Volume Residuum, and/or the proportion of the primary spill volume which the numerical model calculates would reach the nominated watercourse under the prevailing input and site environmental conditions. A flowchart illustrating the analytical process has been produced to demonstrate the interaction between the respective input variables and the calculated output parameters (Figure 8.1). Each element of the process as depicted in the flowchart is described below. Input Data Spill Event Data 1. Primary Spill Volume (PSV) The gross volume of a point-source spill or other concentrated discharge which has the potential to leave the immediate winery precinct. 2. Spill Duration The period over which the spill occurs. Differentiates between a surge discharge and a “leak”, determining the rate or intensity of discharge, and the geometry of the initial spill pattern at ground level. Locational Data 3. Distance To Watercourse Spill flow-path distance over ground from the point-source or centroid of the spill to the nearest specified watercourse nominally down-gradient of the spill location. The spill-path may not necessarily be a straight line or the shortest distance between the two points. 4. Spill-Path Modal Slope Sloping ground generally comprises a variety of gradients and morphologies. The modal slope is an estimate of the equivalent compound slope (equal-area or average slope) taken over the longitudinal cross-section of the spill flow-path. The site characteristic data described below has been classified into a limited number of categories to describe and quantify in terms of the model, the range of conditions normally encountered in the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed. These are shown in the Input Data Selection Table (Table 8.1).

57

Figure 8.1 Liquid spill propagation flowchart and calculation sheet. (Example)

SpillVolume

(kL) Spill50.0 Intensity

[Flow Rate](L/s) 33.7 67%

Spill 166.7 SpillDuration Flow-path

(s) Area300 (m2)

331

Distance to SpillWatercourse Transit Time Flow-path

(m) (s) Infiltration100 728 Volume Loss

(kL)16.3

Spill-pathModal Slope

(%) Flow-path6 Spill-stream Infiltration

Velocity DepthVegetation (m/s) (mm)

Cover 0.2 49.3Surface

Roughness0.39

Surface SoilTexture

[Infiltration Rate](mm/hr)

580

Soil MoistureStatus

[Season](%)0.35

OUTPUT DATA RESULTSINPUT DATA

SITE H

Spill Volume Residuum (kL

%)

Discharge to Watercourse

(kL)

Flow-path Interception Dam (ML)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Volu

me

(kL)

Spill Volume (kL) 50

Total Infiltration Loss 16.28044672

Volume Reaching Watercourse 33.71955328

58

Table 8.1 Input Data Selection Table.

INPUT DATA SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION CATEGORIES CATEGORY 3 2 1

Spill Volume Very Large Moderate Very Small (kL) 50 10 1

Spill Duration Brief Moderate Extended (sec) 10 300 3600

Distance Very Close Moderate Very Far To < 50 m 100 - 200 m 500 - 1000 m+

Watercourse 50 150 750

Spill Flow-path Very Steep Hilly Level Modal Slope 60 - 100% 20 - 40% 0 - 10%

Note: 100% = 1 in 1 = 45o 100 30 3

Vegetation Row Crops Grassland Dense Forest Land Use Downslope Pasture and Understorey

Surface Roughness Compacted Soil Friable Soils Cracking Soil 0.9 0.5 0.3

Surface Soil Texture C LSCL/L S Structural Inf Rate (mm/h) 30 220 1500

Season Winter Spring Autumn Soil Moisture Status Wet Moist Dry

0.35 0.55 1 A scenario comprising a large primary spill volume (3), and large distance to watercourse (1) with all other variables set as “medium” (2) would be identified from Table 8.1 as:

32 12 22 2 5. Vegetation Cover – Surface Roughness This parameter covers a range of physical flow-path surface characteristics which can influence the velocity of overland flow, and therefore transit time infiltration. These include vegetation type and density, land use including cultivation practices, and natural surface conditions such as desiccation cracking rock outcrops etc. This is a non-dimensional propagation or attenuation factor based on the categorical values in the Input Data Selection Table.

59

6. Surface Soil Texture – (Infiltration Rate) Textural classification of soils is used extensively in soil surveys and land capability assessments, and can be used to estimate the likely behaviour of a surface soil in terms of infiltration rate under transient inundation conditions. The initial (structural or sorptive) infiltration rate is significantly greater than the ultimate saturated (textural) hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of the upper soil layers. Both are used in conjunction with other data to estimate the likely degree of infiltration loss during an overland spill event. This is an estimated or measured physical soil characteristic with nominal values shown in the Input Selection Table (mm/h). 7. Soil Moisture Status – (Season) The degree of antecedent soil moisture in a soil profile has a significant influence on the amount of additional soil moisture it is able to absorb, and the rate of infiltration. Antecedent soil moisture is primarily a function of cumulative rainfall, irrigation or storm events, and therefore generally related to seasonal conditions. This is a non-dimensional propagation or attenuation factor based on the categorical values in the Input Data Selection Table. Output Data 1. Spill Intensity Calculated from the spill volume divided by the spill duration, this produces a flow-rate which characterises the intensity of a spill. Intensity can influence propagation/attenuation factors, spill-stream velocity and the geometry of the initial spill pattern. Calculated as a flow rate in L/s. 2. Spill-Stream Velocity A function of flow rate, slope, and surface conditions, the velocity of the spill-stream combines with the distance to the nominated watercourse to produce a spill transit time. Measured in m/s. 3. Spill Transit Time The total time required for the design spill to traverse the intervening distance between the spill location and the nominated watercourse, including the initial spill duration input value. Calculated in seconds. 4. Flow-Path Area Calculated on a theoretical trapezoidal flow path geometry, based on distance to nominated watercourse and spill intensity. Measured in m2. 5. Infiltration Depth Surface soil infiltration rate, soil moisture status and transit time combine to yield a time-dependent infiltration rate for the design spill-stream. This is a combination of initial

60

structural infiltration rate and subsequent saturated hydraulic conductivity. Measured in mm equivalent depth. 6. Infiltration Volume Loss Flow-path area multiplied by Infiltration depth produces an equivalent volume loss to infiltration, measured in kilolitres, kL, which is subsequently subtracted from the Primary Spill Volume to yield the Spill Volume Residuum (SVR) which is discussed in the following section. Results 1. Spill Volume Residuum The initial spill volume minus the calculated infiltration loss volume yields the calculated residual volume which would reach the nominated watercourse given the various influences upon it in the course of the spill/transit event. Calculated and measured in kL and percentage of the initial spill volume reaching the nominated watercourse.

8.2.2 Generic Spill Events - The Effect of the Main Variables

In order to evaluate the results of the spill dynamics modelling over a range of likely input variables, each of the seven input variables was assigned three values representing a worst case, median and low value of each of the respective variables. This reduced the number of combinations to 37 or 2,187 separate modelled scenarios. These were computed to confirm the stability of the computer model and to provide a reference table of a representative range of input scenarios and results, and are included in Appendix IV. Scenario Identification Each scenario has a unique seven-digit code for identification and reference, comprising a combination of the digits 3, 2 and 1 to represent Worst, Medium and Best values (or the equivalent qualitative measure) respectively for each of the seven Input Data Categories, in the order listed in Table 8.1. The system operates as shown below. The equivalent input data values associated with these three identifiers are shown for each Input Data Category in Table 8.2. The data entries for the above example are italicised. Table 8.2 Order of input for each data category (top row), and identifier code (1 to 3).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 INPUT DATA

CATEGORY

Primary Spill

Volume

Spill Duration

Distance to Watercourse

Spill-path

Slope

Vegetation Surface Type

Surface Soil Type

Soil Moisture

Status Identifier 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1

61

8.2.3 Selected Scenario Graphs

To illustrate the effect of the most sensitive variables with respect to Spill Volume Residuum, a series of selected scenarios have been modelled and the output generated in graphical form. These graphs are included in Appendix V. Two have been selected by way of example, to illustrate the output generated. A brief description of the salient factor of the scenario accompanies each graph. Figure 8.2 below depicts the output of the spill dynamics model for the following set of input data values:

• Primary Spill Volume 50 kL (3) - Very Large • Spill Duration 300 s (2) - Moderate • Distance to Watercourse Independent Variable (x) - Variable • Spill-path Slope Five slopes modelled (n) - Variable • Vegetation 0.5 (2) - Medium • Soil Type (Infiltration Rate) 220 mm/h (2) - Medium • Soil Moisture Status 0.55 (2) - Medium

SVR vs Distance to Watercourse & Slope - Scenario 32 (x)n 22 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Distance to Watercourse (m)

Spill

Vol

ume

Res

iduu

m (k

L)

SP Modal Slope 100%SP Modal Slope 50%SP Modal Slope 30%SP Modal Slope 15%SP Modal Slope 3%

Figure 8.2 Effects of distance to watercourse and slope on spill volume residuum for

Scenario 32 (x)n 22 2 The five traces shown in Figure 8.2 above indicate a non-linear relationship between the variables and illustrate that under environmental conditions which can be regarded as

62

“average”, and in the context of a significant spill event, the range of set-back distances which produce minimal spill volume residuum to the nominated water course is from approximately 250 m to 750 m depending on the steepness of spill-path slope. Figure 8.3 below depicts the output of the spill dynamics model for the following set of input data values:

• Primary Spill Volume 10 kL (2) - Moderate • Spill Duration 300 s (2) - Moderate • Distance to Watercourse Five distances modelled (n) - Variable • Spill-path Slope 30 % (2) - Medium • Vegetation 0.5 (2) - Medium • Soil Type (Infiltration Rate) Independent Variable (x) - Variable • Soil Moisture Status 0.55 (2) - Medium

The traces in Figure 8.3 show more linear relationships between infiltration rate and spill volume residuum with varying set-back distances. The traces illustrate that for small set-back distances, with most environmental variables set at “average” conditions, the infiltration rate of the soils need to be very high in order to avoid a significant spill volume reaching the watercourse. It also appears on the basis of these results that under the modelled scenario, a set-back distance of 300 m or more affords substantial latitude in the range of soil infiltration values which might produce a significant spill residuum. That is, with larger set-back distances poorer (or heavier - clay) soils become less of a problem.

8.3 Existing Wineries - Specific Site Modelling

In addition to the generic modelling output discussed previously, each of the ten existing and/or approved winery sites in the Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed has been analysed using the spill dynamics model. The results are presented in Tables 8.3 to 8.8, each showing the ten sites, alphabetically coded, with six combinations of input data, namely:

• Three Primary Spill Volumes - 50, 10 and 1 kL • Two Soil Moisture States - Wet, and Dry. • One Spill Duration - 300 s

The results indicate a substantial range of potential spill residuum values, which is to be expected given the large range of site conditions. In summary, important points to note are:

• For all of the existing wineries, small spills in either dry (representing vintage) or wet (largely non-vintage) do not reach the watercourse.

• For larger spills, of the order of 10 KL, in dry conditions no spill material reaches

watercourses. Even in wet conditions, spill volumes only reach watercourses for two wineries which are in close proximity (approximately 50 m) to watercourses.

63

SVR vs Soil Type & Dist. to Watercourse - Scenario 22 n2 2(x) 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Soil Type - Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)

Spill

Vol

ume

Res

iduu

m (k

L)

50 m to Watercourse150 m to Watercourse300 m to Watercourse500 m to Watercourse750 m to Watercourse

Figure 8.3 Effects of distance to watercourse and slope on spill volume residuum for Scenario 22 n2 2(x) 2

• For very large spills, in dry and wet conditions a proportion of the spill material

would reach a watercourse (assuming no retention basin interception), depending upon distance as indicated previously.

The significance of the residual spill material is discussed in the following Section.

64

Table 8.3 Winery and Ancillary Development - Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed Water Quality Risk Assessment Study - Stage 2 EXAMPLE: Spill Dynamics Analysis - Existing Approvals 50 kL Spill 300 Sec Duration Wet Soil

Existing Winery Site Input Data Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J

Winery Operating 2003? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Primary Spill Volume (kL) §

(50, 10, 1) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Spill Duration (sec) (300)

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Distance to Watercourse (m)

200 50 400 130 380 200 200 100 50 100

Spill Flow-path Modal Slope (%)

3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5

Vegetation/Land Use Vineyard Pasture Pasture Tall grass Pasture Pasture Turf Woodland Pasture Pasture Surface Roughness 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.39 0.5 0.5

Surface Soil Texture SL SL LS SL. LS LS L SL SL SL Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 580 580 580 580 580 580 220 580 580 580 Seasonal Soil Moisture Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet

Status (Wet/Dry) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Spill Retention Basin

(SRB) In Place? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Spill Volume Residuum

Reaching Water Course ł Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J WITHOUT (kL) 8.9 44.9 0.0 23.0 0.0 8.3 35.6 33.7 44.7 33.4 SRB* (% of PSV) 18% 90% 0% 46% 0% 17% 71% 67% 89% 67% WITH (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% § Maximum likely Primary Spill Volumes for various sizes of facility are given in Appendix III. Shaded examples indicate a non-applicable spill volume. ł Impact on groundwater is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the potential for significant infiltration volumes should not be ignored. * Spill Retention Basin assumed to be adequately designed and constructed to contain the nominated spill volume without overflow.

65

Table 8.4 Winery and Ancillary Development - Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed EXAMPLE: Water Quality Risk Assessment Study - Stage 2 50 kL Spill 300 Sec Duration Dry Soil Spill Dynamics Analysis - Existing Approvals

Existing Winery Site Input Data Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J

Winery Operating 2003? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Primary Spill Volume (kL) §

(50, 10, 1) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Spill Duration (sec) (300)

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Distance to Watercourse (m)

200 50 400 130 380 200 200 100 50 100

Spill Flow-path Modal Slope (%)

3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5

Vegetation/Land Use Vineyard Pasture Pasture Tall grass Pasture Pasture Turf Woodland Pasture Pasture Surface Roughness 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.39 0.5 0.5

Surface Soil Texture SL SL LS SL. LS LS L SL SL SL Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 580 580 580 580 580 580 220 580 580 580 Seasonal Soil Moisture Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

Status (Wet/Dry) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Spill Retention Basin

(SRB) In Place? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Spill Volume Residuum

Reaching Water Course ł Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J WITHOUT (kL) 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 3.5 34.8 2.4 SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 71% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 7% 70% 5% WITH (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% § Maximum likely Primary Spill Volumes for various sizes of facility are given in Appendix III. Shaded examples indicate a non-applicable spill volume. ł Impact on groundwater is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the potential for significant infiltration volumes should not be ignored. * Spill Retention Basin assumed to be adequately designed and constructed to contain the nominated spill volume without overflow.

66

Table 8.5 Winery and Ancillary Development - Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed EXAMPLE: Water Quality Risk Assessment Study - Stage 2 10 kL Spill 300 Sec Duration Wet Soil Spill Dynamics Analysis - Existing Approvals

Existing Winery Site Input Data Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J

Winery Operating 2003? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Primary Spill Volume (kL) §

(50, 10, 1) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Spill Duration (sec) (300)

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Distance to Watercourse (m)

200 50 400 130 380 200 200 100 50 100

Spill Flow-path Modal Slope (%)

3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5

Vegetation/Land Use Vineyard Pasture Pasture Tall grass Pasture Pasture Turf Woodland Pasture Pasture Surface Roughness 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.39 0.5 0.5

Surface Soil Texture SL SL LS SL. LS LS L SL SL SL Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 580 580 580 580 580 580 220 580 580 580 Seasonal Soil Moisture Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet

Status (Wet/Dry) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Spill Retention Basin

(SRB) In Place? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Spill Volume Residuum

Reaching Water Course ł Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J WITHOUT (kL) 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 60% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 58% 0% WITH (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% § Maximum likely Primary Spill Volumes for various sizes of facility are given in Appendix III. ł Impact on groundwater is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the potential for significant infiltration volumes should not be ignored. * Spill Retention Basin assumed to be adequately designed and constructed to contain the nominated spill volume without overflow.

67

Table 8.6 Winery and Ancillary Development - Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed EXAMPLE: Water Quality Risk Assessment Study - Stage 2 10 kL Spill 300 Sec Duration Dry Soil Spill Dynamics Analysis - Existing Approvals

Existing Winery Site Input Data Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J

Winery Operating 2003? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Primary Spill Volume (kL) §

(50, 10, 1) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Spill Duration (sec) (300)

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Distance to Watercourse (m)

200 50 400 130 380 200 200 100 50 100

Spill Flow-path Modal Slope (%)

3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5

Vegetation/Land Use Vineyard Pasture Pasture Tall grass Pasture Pasture Turf Woodland Pasture Pasture Surface Roughness 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.39 0.5 0.5

Surface Soil Texture SL SL LS SL. LS LS L SL SL SL Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 580 580 580 580 580 580 220 580 580 580 Seasonal Soil Moisture Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

Status (Wet/Dry) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Spill Retention Basin

(SRB) In Place? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Spill Volume Residuum Reaching Water Course ł Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J WITHOUT (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WITH (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% § Maximum likely Primary Spill Volumes for various sizes of facility are given in Appendix III. ł Impact on groundwater is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the potential for significant infiltration volumes should not be ignored. * Spill Retention Basin assumed to be adequately designed and constructed to contain the nominated spill volume without overflow.

68

Table 8.7 Winery and Ancillary Development - Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed EXAMPLE: Water Quality Risk Assessment Study - Stage 2 1 kL Spill 300 Sec Duration Wet Soil Spill Dynamics Analysis - Existing Approvals

Existing Winery Site Input Data Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J

Winery Operating 2003? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Primary Spill Volume (kL) §

(50, 10, 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Spill Duration (sec) (300)

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Distance to Watercourse (m)

200 50 400 130 380 200 200 100 50 100

Spill Flow-path Modal Slope (%)

3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5

Vegetation/Land Use Vineyard Pasture Pasture Tall grass Pasture Pasture Turf Woodland Pasture Pasture Surface Roughness 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.39 0.5 0.5

Surface Soil Texture SL SL LS SL. LS LS L SL SL SL Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 580 580 580 580 580 580 220 580 580 580 Seasonal Soil Moisture Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet Wet

Status (Wet/Dry) 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Spill Retention Basin

(SRB) In Place? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Spill Volume Residuum

Reaching Water Course ł Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J WITHOUT (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WITH (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% § Maximum likely Primary Spill Volumes for various sizes of facility are given in Appendix III. ł Impact on groundwater is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the potential for significant infiltration volumes should not be ignored. * Spill Retention Basin assumed to be adequately designed and constructed to contain the nominated spill volume without overflow.

69

Table 8.8 Winery and Ancillary Development - Mount Lofty Ranges Watershed EXAMPLE: Water Quality Risk Assessment Study - Stage 2 1 kL Spill 300 Sec Duration Dry Soil Spill Dynamics Analysis - Existing Approvals

Existing Winery Site Input Data Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J

Winery Operating 2003? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Primary Spill Volume (kL) §

(50, 10, 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Spill Duration (sec) (300)

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Distance to Watercourse (m)

200 50 400 130 380 200 200 100 50 100

Spill Flow-path Modal Slope (%)

3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 1.5

Vegetation/Land Use Vineyard Pasture Pasture Tall grass Pasture Pasture Turf Woodland Pasture Pasture Surface Roughness 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.39 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.39 0.5 0.5

Surface Soil Texture SL SL LS SL. LS LS L SL SL SL Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) 580 580 580 580 580 580 220 580 580 580 Seasonal Soil Moisture Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry

Status (Wet/Dry) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Spill Retention Basin

(SRB) In Place? No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Spill Volume Residuum

Reaching Water Course ł Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H Site I Site J WITHOUT (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WITH (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SRB* (% of PSV) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% § Maximum likely Primary Spill Volumes for various sizes of facility are given in Appendix III. ł Impact on groundwater is beyond the scope of this analysis, however the potential for significant infiltration volumes should not be ignored. * Spill Retention Basin assumed to be adequately designed and constructed to contain the nominated spill volume without overflow.

70

9.0 WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL FROM WINERIES AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT

9.1 Potential Pollutants and Environmental Values

As indicated in Chapters 4 and 5, the principal potential pollutants from a winery and from ancillary development, or important instream parameters which could be impacted by a spill, are summarised in Table 9.1 Table 9.1. Instream parameters which could be impacted by a spill from winery or ancillary development.

Parameter Winery

Ancillary/Winery Sewage

BOD b b COD b - Nutrients - Phosphorus

- Nitrogen b b

b b

Total Dissolved Solids b - pH b - Turbidity (Cloudiness)/Suspended Solids b - Ethanol b - Chlorine (Free) - b Pathogens (Faecal bacteria) - b Total organic Carbon b b The greatest generally perceived risk is from large spill events. For these, as discussed in the following sections, the effects of a large BOD load, nutrients and the toxicity of ethanol in a brine spill would be the greatest concerns. The relative loads of BOD and the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus for different spill volumes and sources within wineries are included in Table 9.2. Defining the potential impacts of water quality from wineries and the future possible development scenarios involves a consideration of a wide range of factors, including:

• The volume of the pollutants actually reaching the watercourse/reservoirs. • The actual effects on the environmental values of the receiving waters.

Following the national approach as outlined in the ANZECC (2000) Guidelines these are:

• The protection of downstream aquatic ecosystems. • Agricultural water supply, i.e.,

Stock water use Irrigation water

• Recreation and amenity. • Domestic water supply, particularly the Metropolitan Water

Supply Reservoirs. • The predicted frequency of spill events.

These are described in the following Sections.

71

Table 9.2 Total biological oxygen demand, nitrogen and phosphorus loading in spills of nominal volume originating from various sources. Unit is kilograms.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 1 5 10 25 50 >50

Biological Oxygen Demand Juice/Must/Wine1 148.3 741.7 1483.3 3708.3 7417 >7416 Brine-Tank2 205.7 1028.6 2057.1 5142.9 10286 >10285 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 205.7 1028.6 2057.1 5142.9 10286 >10285 Sewerage collection & treatment3 0.9 4.7 9.3 23.3 47 >47 Wastewater Collection Plant1 3.2 15.8 31.7 79.2 158 >158 1.5 7.5 15.0 37.5 75 >75 Irrigation Wastewater1 3.2 15.8 31.7 79.2 158 >158 1.5 7.5 15.0 37.5 75 >75 Fire any of the above Ancillary: sewerage3 0.9 4.7 9.3 23.3 47 >47

Nitrogen Juice/Must/Wine1 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50 >50 Brine-Tank2 24.1 120.4 240.9 602.2 1204 >1204 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 24.1 120.4 240.9 602.2 1204 >1204 Sewerage collection & treatment3 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.6 3.1 >3.1 Wastewater Collection Plant1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.5 >2.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 >0.6 Irrigation Wastewater1 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.3 2.5 >2.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 >0.6 Fire any of the above Ancillary: sewerage3 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.6 3.1 >3.1

Phosphorus Juice/Must/Wine1 0.2 0.9 1.7 4.3 8.5 >8.5 Brine-Tank2 no phosphorus Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 no phosphorus Sewerage collection & treatment3 0.031 0.156 0.311 0.778 1.56 >1.56 Wastewater Collection Plant1 0.012 0.060 0.120 0.300 0.60 >0.60 0.005 0.025 0.050 0.125 0.25 >0.25 Irrigation Wastewater1 0.012 0.060 0.120 0.300 0.60 >0.60 0.005 0.025 0.050 0.125 0.25 >0.25 Fire any of the above Ancillary: sewerage3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.56 >1.56

1. Nitrogen and phosphorus present primarily as protein 2. Nitrogen is present as nitrite; no phosphorus present 3. Nitrogen and phosphorus in both organic and inorganic forms

Depending upon flow patterns and size of the spill, impacts may occur downstream as indicated diagrammatically in Figure 9.1 below.

72

Minor tributary Effects on: * Aquatic ecosystems * Agriculture (irrigation, stock) * Amenity, recreation * Domestic supply Tributary Effects on: * Aquatic ecosystems * Agriculture (irrigation, stock) * Amenity, recreation * Domestic supply Farm dams may totally intercept spill and prevent further downstream Main River Effects on: impact. May be impacts on * Aquatic ecosystems dams with respect to: * Agriculture (irrigation, stock) * Amenity, recreation * Agriculture (irrigation, stock) * Domestic supply * Aquatic ecosystems * Recreation, amenity * Domestic supply Figure 9.1 Illustration of potential impacts of uncontrolled spills from winery or

ancillary development on waterways.

Winery

Reservoir

Spill path

or Ancillary

73

With the study area being in the Mount Lofty Ranges Metropolitan Watershed, protection of the reservoirs is a high priority. A spill however would impact on downstream watercourses, potentially affecting aquatic ecosystems, agricultural use, recreational activities and domestic water supplies. Many of the watercourses in the Ranges have farm dams. Mainly established for agricultural purposes, as irrigation or stock water supplies, many are large enough to intercept spills.

9.2 Potential Effects on Riverine Aquatic Ecosystems

9.2.1 General Approach

There is an absence of site-specific information on the smaller watercourses which would be directly affected, including hydrological and biological data, for the existing wineries. It is also unknown where new wineries in the future development scenarios would be located. Consequently, this limits the precise definition of impacts on existing aquatic communities. However, a general assessment can be made of the relative impacts of spills of various sizes, different spill materials and frequencies of occurrence. In this regard in considering the effects of a spill on aquatic ecosystems consideration is given to the following:

• Relevant water quality guidelines, which include protocols for assessing water quality status and impacts.

• The type of pollutants involved in spills and their impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

• The characteristics of watercourses with particular regard to: Flow and dilution (season) Seasonal vulnerability of biota

• An indication of likely extent (length of watercourse affected), and duration of effects.

• The likely frequency of spill events.

9.2.2 Characteristics of the Receiving Waters

9.2.2.1 Flow Patterns The majority of existing wineries, including those already developed or approved, are located on tributary streams in the ranges. These are invariably ephemeral in nature. Typically, because of the distinct seasonal pattern of rainfall and runoff, the natural flow patterns of rivers within South Australia are:

• Lowest flows in summer months • Intermediate flows in spring and autumn • Highest flows in winter months

74

Eight of the ten existing or approved winery sites are located within the Onkaparinga River Catchment. Runoff data has been obtained from modelling using the existing gauging network, by the Department of Water Resources (K. Teoh, pers. comm.).

75

For example, data for Inverbrackie Creek is summarised below for the 20, 50 and 80 percentile and average monthly runoff. Inverbrackie Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20 Percentile 81 52 40 35 90 628 1077 1445 1242 753 376 163 80 Percentile 15 7 6 7 10 16 64 167 133 86 47 23 Median 43 24 18 17 27 83 415 540 530 289 120 71 Average 64 43 26 38 108 343 640 756 709 448 220 128 As can be seen, during the period December to April runoff is very low. What the modelling cannot provide is estimates of actual flow. For most of the smaller watercourses in the catchments of the Ranges as a result of seepage, evaporation, farm dams intercepting flows and direct pumping from watercourses, there would be nil flow during the summer period, in many cases lasting through to May-June. Equally what cannot be shown is the effect of base groundwater discharge (spring flows), or occasional summer storms or in the case of the Hahndorf Creek, the discharge from the Hahndorf WWTP. Natural flow patterns have been greatly altered by the extent of agricultural development and the number of farm dams. With existing farm dams, it is generally found that the onset of flows at the beginning of the wet season in the streams is delayed. In the main channel of the Onkaparinga River and Torrens River flow patterns are significantly altered with their use as an aquaduct for Murray River water. Many of these watercourses while having nil flow, have pools (in addition to the farm dams) which are important refugia for aquatic fauna. Many species also survive in a dormant state in the deeper sediments, referred to as the hyporheic zone, and re-emerge with the onset of flows. The occasional summer storms help maintain the refugia pools and wet the hyporheic zone.

9.2.2.2 Habitat Value To adequately define the impact of a spill on aquatic ecosystems or quantify the effects required site-specific information or the aquatic communities. The initial examination of the existing winery sites as part of Stage 1 indicates that they are largely located near minor watercourses where there is little information available. Even though they are ephemeral, these minor tributaries can be important habitat for aquatic fauna. In general, in the Mt Lofty Ranges, impacts on native species have been severe in places, due to modification of flows, changes in water quality, loss of habitat and the introduction of exotic plants and feral animals (fish and invertebrates). Some areas of the ranges still support population of native fish species, and most streams are capable of rehabilitation. The catchment water management plans aim not only to improve water quality, but also to increase biodiversity values. The pre-European unmodified catchments were dynamic systems which required native fish to migrate rapidly and colonise favourable conditions when available. Even in median years, relatively few of the tributaries carried flow over the dry/summer period. The size and quality of drought refugia would determine the minimum populations of native fish which could survive annual and longer habitat

76

minima. While these key refugia would have constituted primarily the lower reaches of the main river, where minor summer flows are likely to have continued, there would also have been the isolated pools in some of the tributaries. At the end of a drought period, which generally occurred in Autumn or Winter, most native fish had to be ready to reproduce rapidly so that their offspring could recolonise the much greater extent of water (and other resources) available throughout the catchments during this period. Juveniles of most species also display a strong tendency to move upstream (e.g. Galaxias) or into newly inundated shallows shortly after hatching. The gauntlet effect of introduced predators such as Gambusia and redfin perch is highly significant in this migration. Fish passage barriers, (e.g. farm dams across headwater streamcourses) impede passage and, at worst, sterilise areas of catchment to the inoculation of young native fish. As in floodplain systems, some types of barriers may not act during periods of significant flow, so young fish can successfully colonise new waters. However, as flows recede with the approach of summer, barriers may act to prevent these same fish from retreating to refugial waters. The pools therefore, where present, are potentially important refuges to both fish and some invertebrate species. From the above comments, it is also apparent that the onset of flows is a sensitive time for juvenile species. During a spill event, with nil flow in a watercourse, there is limited potential for the spill to be transported any great distance downstream. In this sense the effects are likely to be restricted in extent, but may impact on refugia pools. This situation does however, provide an opportunity for retrieving the spilled material by pumping out the contained material. During high flows the dilution will mitigate the effects of the spill, as well as subsequent microbial decomposition of one of the principal contaminants, BOD. It is during the period of the onset of flows in watercourses that a spill may have its greatest impact, with a large spill potentially affecting a large watercourse reach during the period when juvenile species are most at risk.

9.2.3 ANZECC (2000) Guidelines

The general approach in the ANZECC (2000) and previous 1992 Guidelines, is that for each water body, or section of water body (e.g. stretch of a river), the desirable environmental values should be defined and water quality objectives determined to protect existing or achieve these values. The philosophical approach should be to use the guidelines to help achieve management goals and maintain environmental values, not simply managing to ensure that particular numerical guidelines are met. Any particular water quality issue or problem of concern (e.g. algal toxicity, algal blooms, deoxygenation, loss of biodiversity) should first be identified, followed by identification and understanding of the environmental processes that most influence or affect the issue of concern. The 2000 guidelines emphasise that water quality status must be assessed in terms of local conditions (climate, land use, soil types etc.) rather than strict adherence to national values. As a first stage investigation, “trigger values” are provided for water

77

quality indicators for aquatic ecosystems and suggest that if observed data exceed these values, then further action (i.e. monitoring, refer Figure 9.2) may be warranted. In the 2000 Guidelines a distinction is made between upland and lowland reaches of riverine systems. This is in part because of the significant differences in flow and background levels of naturally occurring materials. Background levels will vary from location to location, including for example:

• from the upper reaches of a river to the lower reaches; • from areas with high mineralisation (higher naturally occurring metal

concentrations) to areas of relatively low mineralisation, and • different land use patterns

Seasonal differences in many determinants are to be expected at most locations as a response to the pronounced seasonal variation in flows. For some parameters such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and redox a pronounced diurnal variation can also occur. For the main pollutants of concern in this study, the ANZECC 2000 trigger values are included in Table 9.3. These are used as default values due to the absence of sufficient data to define water quality objectives at most locations. The current ANZECC (2000) Guidelines refer to upland and lowland streams. However, Cugley (pers. comm.) advises that in South Australia, all streams are classified as lowland streams. These are ephemeral in nature and most flow events are episodic in nature with corresponding relatively large variations in concentrations. No values are provided for BOD or COD. In the absence of any detailed information and background levels, or in situations where water quality objectives have not been defined for a particular water body, reference to the Guidelines may be appropriate. However, it has to be done with some caution and certainly for the protection of aquatic ecosystems, some of the indicative values, or even criterion should not be automatically adopted as absolute values. Large spills, of a strong waste, are very likely to have major impacts on downstream systems. While the chemical effects, e.g. elevated BOD levels, may be transitory, the ecological impacts may impact aquatic ecosystems for months to years. The ANZECC (2000) Guidelines provide an assessment approach more suited to ambient conditions with continuous pollutant inputs, although the variations due to seasonal and stormflow patterns are recognised. The general ANZECC (2000) approach for the steps involved in applying the guidelines are summarised in Figure 9.2. As can be seen in each of the major steps, defining primary management aims, determining appropriate guideline trigger values and the application of trigger values, invariably require detailed information, either detailed scientific data on the waterbodies together with monitoring data.

78

Table 9.3. Water Quality Guidelines.

DO (% Satn) pH

TP

µg/L FRP µg/L

TN µg/L

NOx µg/L

NH4

µg/L

NH3-N µg/L Lower

Limit Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

Ethanol

µg/L Cl(2)

µg/L TDS (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

ANZECC (2000) Trigger Values for slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystems

Lowland Rivers 100 40 1000 100 100 900(1) 90 ND 6.5 9.0 1400 3 100-5000

1-50

Lakes and Reservoirs 25 10 1000 100 25 900(1) 90 ND 6.5 9.0 1400 3 1-100 ANZECC (1992) Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, Section 2 Aquatic Ecosystems.

10-100(4)

- 10-750(4) NR NR 0.02-0.03(1)

>6000ug/L (>80-90%

satn)

6.5 9.0 NR NR 1000 <10%

EWS (1988) Recommenced Objectives for Mt Lofty Ranges – Primary Reservoirs

25(3) NR NR NR NR NR NR 6.5 9.2 NR 500 200

Agricultural Use Irrigation Water 800-

12000(5) NR 25000-

125000(5) NR NR NR NR NR 6 9 NR See note

(8) NR

Stock Water NR NR NR See note (7)

NR NR NR 6 9 NR NR 2000-3000(6)

NR

(1) Depends upon pH and temperature NR None recommended (2) As free chlorine ND Insufficient data (3) In reservoir waters (4) Indicative values only (5) Short term trigger values (up to 20yrs) (6) Most sensitive is poultry, then 2500-4000 for dairy cattle (7) 400 mg/L as nitrate, 30 mg/L as nitrite (8) Depends on crop, pasture are within 1000-7500 mg/L, the most sensitive vegetable crops are <950, with moderately tolerant within the 950-4500 mg/L range

79

Figure 9.2 Steps involved in applying the guidelines for protection of aquatic ecosystems

(ANZECC 2002)

9.2.4 Potential Effects of Winery Pollutants on Aquatic Ecosystems

9.2.4.1 Characterisation of Pollutants The pollutants or physical and chemical stressors that could be contained in a spill that could have either direct or indirect effects on aquatic ecosystems are indicated below in Figure 9.3.

Determining appropriate guideline trigger values

Define Primary Management Aims • Define the water body (using scientific information, monitoring data, classify

ecosystem type) • Determine environmental values to be protected • Determine level of protection • Identify environmental concerns

e.g. - toxic effects - nuisance aquatic plant growth - maintenance of dissolved oxygen - effects due to changes in salinity

• Determine major natural and anthropogenic factors affecting the ecosystem • Determine ‘management goals’

- Often defined in biological terms

Determine appropriate Guideline Trigger Values for selected indictors • Determine a balance of indicator types (based upon level of protection and local

constraints, conditions) • Select indicators relevant to concerns and goals • Determine appropriate guideline trigger values (low risk concentrations of

contaminants/stressors; may depend on level of protection) • Determine specific indicators to be applied

Apply the Trigger Values using (risk-based) Decision Trees or Guideline ‘packages’, using

• Water quality monitoring data • Site specific environmental information • Effects of ecosystem-specific modifying factors (pollutants)

80

Direct effect Indirect effect (modified, from ANZECC 2000) Figure 9.3 Direct and Indirect Effects of Pollutants in Spills (modified from ANZECC

2000). DO = dissolved oxygen; BOD = biological oxygen demand; COD = chemical oxygen; DOC = dissolved organic carbon; SPM = suspended particulate matter

Of the above pollutants, the load of BOD/COD in spill materials, the volume and toxicity of ethanol in a brine spill and nutrients, would be the greatest immediate concern and these are discussed further in the following sections. Other pollutants, including the turbidity/colour of spills, suspended particulate matter, salinity are likely to be more transitory in effect and their potential impact on aquatic ecosystems over shadowed by the BOD/COD. In wastewater, without modification, pH levels are between 4.9-6.5, and in product between 3.0-3.5. Such levels in watercourses if prolonged would have direct and indirect impacts. Low levels are conducive to remobilisation of pollutants, such as heavy metals, from sediments and also increase their toxicity. While it would take a very large dilution for BOD/COD levels to be reduced to levels where there was minimal impact on aquatic ecosystems, (200-2000 depending on material), a much smaller dilution factor (10:1) would likely modify instream values to an acceptable level. Consequently, impacts from low pH are likely to be relatively short lived. Nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) occur in all materials (refer Table 9.2). In all watercourses in the ranges and the Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs, nutrient enrichment causing eutrophication is an important issue, potentially affecting all environmental values. Excess nutrients result in excessive algal growth and also facilitate the growth of algal blooms, including toxic blooms. Traces of free chlorine may occur in any disinfected wastewater.

Types of physical and chemical stressors

Stressors directly toxic to biota • ammonia • salinity • pH • Low DO (from BOD/COD) • ethanol • chlorine

Stressors that are not toxic but can directly affect ecosystems & biota e.g. • Nutrients • Turbidity

Stressors (or factors) that can modify effects of other stressors e.g. • pH – release metals • DOC, SPM – complex metals and

reduce toxicity • DO change (due to BOD/COD) –

change redox conditions and release P, release of hydrogen sulphide

81

9.2.4.2 Effects of BOD/COD on Stream Dissolved Oxygen BOD and Stream Dissolved Oxygen As summarised in ANZECC (2000), low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration has an adverse effect on many aquatic organisms (e.g. fish, invertebrates and micro-organisms) which depend upon oxygen dissolved in the water for efficient functioning. It can also cause reducing conditions in sediments, so the sediments release previously bound nutrients and toxicants (e.g. heavy metals) to the water column where they may add to any existing problems. The concentration of DO is highly dependent on temperature, salinity, biological activity (microbial, primary production) and rate of transfer from the atmosphere. Under natural conditions, DO will change, sometimes considerably, over a daily (diurnal) period. Of greater concern is the significant decrease in DO that can occur when organic matter is added (e.g. from sewage effluent or dead plant material or in this case from a spill). The depletion of DO depends on the load of biodegradable organic material and microbial activity, and re-aeration mechanisms operating. The previous ANZECC (1992) Guidelines recommended that dissolved oxygen should not normally be permitted to fall below 6 mgL-1 or 80-90% saturation, determined over at least one diurnal cycle. However, it is stated in ANZECC (2000) that these guidelines were based almost exclusively on overseas data, since there were very few data on the oxygen tolerance of Australian or New Zealand aquatic organisms. It is possible that many Australian aquatic fauna species may tolerate short periods of low oxygen, as an adoption to the normal diurnal patterns that may occur, particularly in low flow situations, and when watercourses are restricted to refugia pools. With diurnal rhythms periods of low oxygen (i.e. below normal saturation) usually only last a few hours, and even then oxygen levels would not be reduced to zero. What they cannot tolerate is prolonged periods of oxygen stress. If a spill occurs with a large BOD (or COD) load, oxygen levels would likely be reduced to zero, and this may last days to weeks. A large spill into a dry river bed may only have localised effects, providing an opportunity of removal. While any pools immediately downstream of a spill might lose all species, recolonisation would eventually occur. Because of the seasonal occurrence of many invertebrate species, in the absence of biological information defining species, it should be assumed that this may take months to years for full recovery. It should not be assumed that dry conditions equate to an absence of aquatic fauna. Many species take refuge during these periods in a subsurface zone on the river bed, which can hold moisture for extended periods (referred to as hyporheic zone). A large BOD load soaking into the sediments may impact on their ability to emerge and colonise the watercourse when flows resume.

82

Determining Relative Potential BOD Impacts on Watercourses

An assessment of the potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems in preferably based upon:

• Size of spill and length of watercourse impacted. This would need to involve seasonal impacts. If, for example, a large spill occurs during nil flow conditions, impacts may be localised, and allow the opportunity for retrieval of the spilled material. However, the sub-surface aquatic life will still be mostly killed off.

• Frequency of spills. Aquatic communities will eventually recover even following

a severe disturbance, e.g. period of deoxygenation due to high BOD. Even though a waterbody may return to its former physico-chemical status, it would likely take a considerable time for aquatic communities to recover. There will be a loss of all but the most tolerant species. Predatory species will also be lost, potentially producing conditions suitable for the development of nuisance insect populations.

• Loss of important species. An important aspect is the presence of rare species, fish

invertebrates, frogs, etc. Little site-specific data is available for the majority of the minor watercourses. This also includes a consideration of spills during periods when juveniles are more vulnerable.

At this stage in examining future development scenarios, it is unknown where new wineries would be located. The only assessment that can be made is of the potential impact of spills. Even for existing wineries, in the absence of site-specific ecological information, comment can only be based on the size and characteristics of the spill. One of the more important aspects is the length of watercourse and duration of impact. A number of models are available to describe BOD/DO relationships, the self- purification coefficient (hc) of watercourses, deoxygenation (K) and reaeration coefficient (K2). This invariably requires:

• Monitoring data at intervals along a watercourse (BOD, DO, Temperature, etc.) • Flow data (velocities, daily, monthly flows, etc.)

This level of information is not available for the watercourses. As indicated previously in Section 9.2.2.1, some modelled runoff data is available for some of the main tributaries, at the confluence with the main Onkaparinga River channel. However, this is not actual flow data in the watercourses. A method of indicating the relative length of a watercourse that might be affected by a discharge of BOD is outlined below. However it is based on only the following information being available:

• Monthly runoff summary information (20, 50 & 80th percentile flows) • Distances along watercourse • Volume of spill • BOD concentration of spill

83

The most conservative method that might be available for estimating the length of a watercourse affected would be to use the following equation, based only on the deoxygenation rate: BODt = BOD0(1 – e-K1t) BODt = biochemical oxygen demand at time, t BODo = biochemical oxygen demand at time, t=0 Kl = first order rate coefficient As t increases, e-Kl t tends to 0, and BODt tends to BOD0, therefore giving an estimate of the maximum time that could elapse for the waste BOD to be assimilated. This estimate ignores any reoxygenation or self-purification that might occur in the stream. If some measure of the stream flow is known, then with an estimate for t, a conversion to an estimate of x (the length of watercourse affected) can be made. A value for K1 of 0.5 day-1 is adopted, (K1 ranges between 0.35-0.7 for untreated waste water). No information is available on winery wastewater, so the nominated value is used with caution, as the distance travelled downstream is sensitive to this value. Other values may be utilised if they are deemed to provide a more realistic assessment. A conservative basis for selecting t might be to arrive at a value for BOD0(1-e-klt) of 1 mg/L. This will be dependant on the influent BOD (instantaneously diluted). A value 1 mg/L is presented in the Victorian EPA paper “Waste Assimilation Studies – Low flow Conditions” as a reasonable estimate of the background BOD in a stream. Virtually all of the watercourses have relatively low flows, particularly the minor tributaries. It is during the autumn-early winter period that the effect of a spill would be most pronounced (end vintage period). As an indication of the potential for spillages to impact on watercourses, a simple worked example for a brine spill (highest BOD), is as follows:

Spill Characteristics Pollution Load (kg BOD) 775 Spill Volume (L) 5 000 Spill BOD concn (mg/L) 155 000 Time over which volume enters stream (s) 300 Deoxygenation coefficient (K1 day-1 base e) 0.5 Stream Characteristics 20 percentile flow (m3/s) 0.1 50 percentile flow (m3/s) 0.3 80 percentile flow (m3/s) 1 Average cross-section area (m2) 1.5 Initial BOD (mg/L) target 20

84

Calculations (50 percentile flow) Initial BOD0 (mg/L) – after dilution 8 177 instantaneous Time to reach background level (days) 12 (note: deoxygenation only) Reduction % due to self-purification 50% Distance travelled downstream (km) 103.7

The above calculation indicates that a considerable length of watercourse (103.7km) would be impacted, and it would take 12 days for the spill to travel this distance and finally reach the initial working target of 20 mg/L. This target would still be too high to satisfy EPA requirements, which is 10 mg/L. No tributary stream has a length of 103.7 km. The above calculation merely indicates that such a BOD load has the potential to impact a significant length of a watercourse. This could occur with spills of product or brine. As stated earlier, the intention is to provide an indication of the potential scale of impact in the absence of site-specific field data. When flowing, the spill would travel downstream, progressively impacting different reaches of the watercourse. With further dilution and natural self purification it would take up to 12 days for the last reach to be impacted.

9.2.4.3 Effects of Brine (Ethanol) Discharged in a spill, ethanol also exerts a very high BOD load, higher than other potential spill materials/volume. It also exerts a direct toxicity effect at relatively low concentrations (trigger value is 1.4 mg/L). Because of the volumes potentially involved, this would have a severe effect, even during high flows with high dilution.

9.2.4.4 Nutrients The plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus occur in winery wastewater (refer Tables 3.2 and 4.11). A proportion is present as bioavailable forms. Much higher concentrations are found in product, in protein material. High concentrations of nitrogen occur in brine as bioavailable nitrite in low flammability refrigeration brine (refer Table 4.11). In brine there is no phosphorus, which is usually the most significant nutrient in freshwater aquatic ecosystems. Nutrients introduced to aquatic ecosystems as non-bioavailable forms, through various biological and chemical pathways may later become bioavailable. The load of nutrients involved in a spill event, is likely to be relatively small compared to instream annual loads derived from catchment runoff in the ranges. Even so, as nutrient enrichment and the occurrence of algal blooms in watercourses, farm dams and reservoirs is a significant issue, it is clearly preferable that additional loads from spill events be avoided. Nutrient loads, in spill events may end up in instream dams downstream of a dam, eventually contributing to eutrophication of these water bodies, with effects on ecosystem structure. Nutrients from sewage effluent may also impact on stream ecosystems. Although the loads in sewage effluent are comparatively small, there is still a potential for a significant impact. A spill event, although having severe effects, is of relatively short duration and may be an infrequent occurrence. A continuous input of a poorly located or malfunctioning effluent

85

disposal system may provide a continuous nutrient input, causing progressive nutrient enrichment of downstream watercourses or ponds.

9.3 Potential Effects on Agricultural Use

The ANZECC (2000) trigger values for irrigation and stock water use for the pollutants of concern are summarized in Table 9.3, and the issues summarised below.

9.3.1 Irrigation

The characteristics of winery wastewater were summarised in Table 4.2 and for Juice, Must and Wine in Table 4.3. These data are compared with the ANZECC (2000) values for Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen and for TDS and the following comments are made:

• A spill of wastewater is unlikely to have any impact on irrigation use as a result of nutrient or TDS levels.

• Product (juice/must/wine) has phosphorus concentrations (10-170 mg/L as

proteins) which exceed the recommended total phosphorus guideline values of 0.8-12.0 mg/L. Similarly for Total nitrogen the range in concentration (350-1000 mg/L, as protein, measured as TKN) exceed the recommended (25-125 mg/L). With no dilution (nil flows) the impact would be localized. With flowing watercourses there will be some downstream impact, but with dilution in the watercourse or a downstream farm dam would eventually reduce levels to below guideline values.

• In brine there are very high levels of nitrite (5% by volume) and this may have a

severe impact downstream. The pH of juice/must/wine is low (3-3.5) and would render the receiving water unsuitable until levels increase to an acceptable range as a result of dilution. With ancillary developments, the risk would be associated with pathogens from septic effluent disposal. The ANZECC (2000) trigger values for thermotolerant coliforms (faecal coliforms) are summarised below in Table 9.4.

9.3.2 Stock Water

The relevant water quality guideline values for stock water are included in Table 9.3. There is unlikely to be an issue with levels of nitrogen (as nitrate or nitrite) or TDS with product or wastewater, particularly as to travel any distance would require flows in watercourses resulting in dilution. There will likely be a severe impact with brine. The high concentration of nitrite would cause water to exceed the 30 mg/L guideline value for stock water. It is unknown to what extent taste or ethanol content in produce or brine spillages would render water unpalatable or unsuitable for use. In the absence of information in this regard it would be prudent to assume that this is the case, and assume that the length of watercourse and duration impacted by BOD, also represents the period unsuitable for stock.

86

Table 9.4 Trigger values for thermotolerant coliforms in irrigation waters used for food and non-food cropsa.

Intended Irrigation Use Level of thermotolerant coliforms (median values)

Raw human food crops in direct contact with irrigation water (e.g. via sprays, irrigation of salad vegetables)

<10 cfub / 100 mL

Raw human food crops not in direct contact with irrigation water (edible produce separated from contact with water, e.g. by peel, use of trickle irrigation); or crops sold to consumers cooked or processed.

<1000 cfu / 100 mL

Pasture and fodder for dairy animals (without withholding period)

<100 cfu / 100 mL

Pasture and fodder for dairy animals (with withholding period of 5 days)

<1000 cfu / 100 mL

Pasture and fodder (for grazing animals except pigs and dairy animals, i.e. cattle, sheep and goats)

<1000 cfu / 100 mL

Silviculture, turf, cotton, etc. (restricted public access) <10 000 cfu / 100 mL a Source – ANZECC (2000) b cfu = colony forming units It is to be noted that most watercourses in the Ranges could occasionally have levels of these bacteria, particularly during storm events. As for irrigation, the low pH of a product spill may initially render the receiving water unsuitable for stock, until diluted. Stock water should contain less than 100 thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms per 100 mL (median value). For the brine, process wastewaters and product, there is no significant risk. As for all domestic septic systems there is a potential risk from the winery or ancillary development with inappropriately located or malfunctioning sewage waste disposal systems. As noted for irrigation water supply, most watercourses in the Ranges would have high faecal coliforms, particularly during storm events.

9.4 Potential Effects on Recreation and Amenity

The water quality characteristics relevant to recreational use are summarised in Table 9.5 and general water quality guidelines in Table 9.6 (source ANZECC 2000). As indicated previously, the ANZECC (2000) guidelines are generally provided for ambient conditions, and while recognizing the episodic nature of storm events do not clearly address the short term impacts of spillages. As described previously, the impacts of BOD on receiving waters can be severe, resulting in odours, fish kills, etc. which would impact greatly on amenity.

87

Table 9.5 Water quality characteristics relevant to recreational use

Characteristics Primary contact (e.g. swimming)

Secondary contact

(e.g. boating)

Visual use (no contact)

Microbiological guidelines X X

Nuisance organisms (e.g. algae) X X X Physical and chemical guidelines: Aesthetics Clarity Colour pH Temperature Toxic chemicals Oil, debris

X X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

X The potential effects of wineries are briefly discussed below with regards spillages and ancillary development. Spillages Spillages of product and wastewater would result in changes to water quality which would directly affect suitability for recreation, including pH, colour and possibly odour. As mentioned above a high BOD would impact on aquatic ecosystems by deoxygenation potentially causing odours and fish kills, immediately affecting amenity. There may also be a longer term perception of a polluted stream long after the watercourse had returned to its previous physico-chemical condition. Although large spills are likely to impact on downstream watercourses for a considerable distance, the physico-chemical impact would be of relatively short duration. The deoxygenation caused by high BOD may indirectly cause a problem with mosquitoes or other nuisance insects. Deoxygenation during the summer/autumn period when there are either low flows or only pool refugia may result in the loss of aquatic species including predatory insects and fish. This would provide conditions suitable for the development of large numbers of nuisance insects. Spillages of brine, consisting of ethanol, coolant, rhodamine dye and a corrosion inhibitor (sodium nitrite) are hazardous until diluted, with irritations to the skin with contact, acute effects if swallowed and with vapours causing eye and respiratory problems. Some types of brine contain a propriety glycol component, which without knowing the identity of the propriety structure, could be persistent.

Sewage Effluent (Ancillary Development)

The principal concern with sewage effluent from wineries would be nutrient discharge to watercourses, with inadequate treatment or disposal and as a potential source of pathogens with no or inadequate disinfection. In addition to surface flow, contamination could also occur as a result of subsurface leakage, through leaching and movement within the vadose zone and/or aquifers reach downgradient surface waterways.

88

Table 9.6 Summary of Water Quality Guidelines for Recreational Waters

Parameter Guideline

Microbiological Primary contact Secondary contact Nuisance organisms

The median bacterial content in fresh and marine waters taken over the bathing season should not exceed 150 faecal coliform organisms/100 mL or 35 enterococci organisms/100 mL. Pathogenic free-living protozoans should be absent from bodies of fresh water. The median value in fresh and marine waters should not exceed 1000 faecal coliform organisms/100 mL or 230 enterococci organisms/100 mL. Macrophytes, phytoplankton scums, filamentous algal mats, sewage fungus, leeches, etc., should not be present in excessive amounts. Direct contact activities should be discouraged if algal levels of 15,000-20,000 cells/mL are present, depending on the algal species. Large numbers of midges and aquatic worms should also be avoided.

Physical and chemical Visual clarity & colour pH Temperature Toxic chemicals Surface films

To protect the aesthetic quality of waterbody: The natural visual clarity should not be reduced by more than 20%; The natural hue of the water should not be changed by more than 10 points on the Munsell Scale; The natural reflectance of the water should not be changed by more than 50%. To protect the visual clarity of waters used for swimming, the horizontal sighting of a 200 mm diameter black disc should exceed 1.6m. The pH of the water should be within the range 5.0-9.0, assuming that the buffering capacity of the water is low near the extremes of the pH limits. For prolonged exposure, temperatures should be in the range 15-35ºC. Waters containing chemicals that are either toxic or irritating to the skin or mucous membranes are unsuitable for recreation. Oil and petrochemicals should not be noticeable as a visible film on the water nor should they be detectable by odour.

The potential impact of nutrients is, as referred to above, nutrient enrichment of downstream waterbodies causing algal scums, or algal blooms including blooms of toxic algae. Toxic algal blooms would directly affect recreation, whereas excessive algal growth would impact on general amenity. Large numbers of faecal indicator bacteria used as indicators of the potential presence of pathogens would also directly impact on recreation.

89

9.5 Domestic Water Supply

The ranges are the major source of domestic water supply from runoff from the catchments and pumped River Murray water which is stored in the reservoirs. Within the ranges some water may be used directly for domestic supply from watercourses or the numerous farm dams. Issues in relation to these are summarised below.

9.5.1 Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs

9.5.1.1 Water Quality Issues The ANZECC (2000) Guidelines indicate that were local site specific guidelines or objectives are available these should be used in preference. In this regard reference is made to the raw water quality objectives for the reservoirs formulated by the E&WS Department (EWS 1988), and relevant physico-chemical parameters are also included in Table 9.3. Their stated purpose in relation to water quality issues was recently summarised by Eco Management Services Pty Ltd (EMS 2000) for the Torrens Catchment Water Management Plan, and some of the following notes are taken from that source. It was necessary to clarify the need for type and extent of water quality management in the catchments having regard to the quality of water desired in storages and the balance between water treatment, reservoir treatment and catchment management costs. At the time the E&WS Department was responsible for managing the land use activities under the Waterworks Act Regulations and the State Government Policy on Water Quality for the Mount Lofty Ranges. These objectives were formulated before the establishment of the Catchment Water Management Boards, or the Mount Lofty Ranges Review. These objectives have not been revised since and remain a reference. Overall the approach taken in deriving the objectives was summarised by E&WS (1988) as follows:

• Attention was given to drinking water requirements not recreational or environmental aspects.

• It was assumed that all metropolitan supplies will receive conventional treatment. • Some consideration had been given to cost of water treatment especially with

regard to colour and turbidity. • The objectives were not based on what is currently achievable, they were a first

attempt at establishing true objectives. In deriving the objectives a distinction was made between:

• Water entering primary reservoirs (e.g. Mt Bold) • Water entering supply reservoirs (e.g. Happy Valley) • Water entering filtration plants

The reservoirs generally would be regarded as eutrophic, or at best mesotrophic, i.e. they are nutrient rich and have high biological productivity. The nutrient of primary concern is phosphorus. It is also generally agreed that this is easier to control than the other important nutrient, nitrogen. As a consequence of the high nutrient status there are problems of algal

90

(phytoplankton) growth. The numbers often exceed the recommended objective for supplies to filtration plants. This can lead to problems of taste and odour which is relatively costly to remove. Large numbers of zooplankton can also be a problem. There are now occasional problems with the toxic cyanobacteria (blue green algae). An objective of a mean annual concentration, for phosphorus of 25 µg/L was suggested for reservoir water. It was considered that the objective was a reasonable one with the current state of knowledge, and may be revised as more work on nutrient budgets of the reservoirs is undertaken, particularly on the contributions made from the nutrient rich reservoir sediments. Spillages occurring anywhere in the catchment could add to the total nutrient load. Even though the proportion of soluble (or bioavailable fractions) is small, with various biological and chemical processes, the breakdown of the organic fraction may result in increased soluble fractions entering the reservoirs. Colour and turbidity are important measures of aesthetic quality of water. High values can affect the efficiency of chlorination through exerting a chlorine demand and require higher coagulant doses. In the reservoirs higher colour values than turbidity usually occur. All filtration plants are designed to treat water with a wide range of colour and turbidity than can be expected from supply reservoirs. However, although it is anticipated that the levels of turbidity in water reaching the plants will be removed in the process of reducing colour, an objective for turbidity is recommended as a nominal value which should not be exceeded in the long term. High turbidities have other potential effects associated with sedimentation, nutrient cycles and reservoir behaviour. The importance of high standards for microbiological quality of sewerage supplies is generally understood. The objectives recommended for input into direct supply or primary storage reservoirs take into account the reduction due to die off that can occur. Information from routine surveys indicates that a 90% reduction (median numbers) can occur. However, at times, very large numbers in input water are recorded although often many are non-viable organisms. Short-circuiting and inputs from birds can add to numbers. Problems associated with Cryptosporidium and Giardia have been encountered in some of the rivers and streams in the watershed of the Mount Lofty Ranges.

9.5.1.2 Key Pollutants from Wineries For wineries, the key pollutants of concern are those associated with:

• Spill events – the significance of: - nutrient loads from large spills reaching the reservoirs; - BOD loads from large spill events reaching the reservoirs, and - brine, a hazardous substance reaching the reservoirs.

• Irrigation and sewage – the significance of:

- nutrient loads from poor irrigation (of winery wastewater) practice, or sewage effluent reaching reservoirs, and

- faecal bacteria from sewage effluent reaching the reservoirs. The potential impacts of these various materials are briefly discussed below.

91

(a) Nutrients In spill events nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon, adding to the existing loads entering the reservoirs is likely to be a major concern Nine of the ten approved wineries and most of the future scenario wineries are in the Onkaparinga and Torrens Catchments. Data on total loads for nitrogen and phosphorus for these reservoirs is as follows:

• Onkaparinga Catchment (Mt Bold Reservoir) from Wood (1986). - Total phosphorus 12,800 kg/annum - Total nitrogen 170,000 kg/annum Even though 18 years has elapsed since these loads were determined, although there have been changes in land use and improvements in land management practices, they still provide a basis for defining the general magnitude in relation to a spill event.

• Torrens Catchment (rural - Kangaroo Creek and Millbrook Reservoirs), from the

Torrens Catchment Water Management Plan – Working Paper on Water Quality and Aquatic Biodiversity (EMS 2000).

- Total phosphorus

Rural catchment 4410 kg/annum Urban catchment (below Gorge Weir) 4786 kg/annum

- Total nitrogen

Rural catchment 40827 kg/annum Urban catchment 74545 kg/annum

For each of the types of spill materials and the volumes that could be involved from, very small to very large, the load of nitrogen and phosphorus has been determined and is included in Table 9.7 for the Onkaparinga Catchment upstream of Mt. Bold Reservoir, and Table 9.8 for the Rural Torrens Catchment. Also included is the estimated frequency of spill events. Reviewing these data, it is apparent that in general the percentage contribution is minor. Even for very large spills (50 KL) the load of phosphorus is still very small, maximum 0.193% for the Torrens and 0.066% for the Onkaparinga. This also assumes that all of the nutrients reach the reservoir, which is unlikely to be the case. This in itself would suggest that such a spill may not have any significant impact on the reservoirs. (b) BOD Although a large BOD load would have a major impact on watercourses, any residual BOD load reaching the main water supply reservoirs would be massively diluted. This is only likely to occur when watercourses are flowing. While there is unlikely to be a significant impact, it is still undesirable. However, as indicated in Chapter 10.0, the frequency of this occurring is extremely low, with a probability of <1:10000 years for the largest spill.

92

(c) Brine A brine spill, resulting in a large volume reaching a reservoir because of its toxicity at low concentrations, would impact on fauna (fish, zooplankton), facilitating the development of algal blooms. While this may not pose a direct risk to consumers, because of monitoring and treatment before disinfection, it would cause difficulties for reservoir managers. It is to be noted that brine is also a hazardous material, though like BOD, it is likely to be massively diluted. (d) Sewage Effluent Large spills of sewage effluent on a scale likely to impact on the reservoir are very unlikely. It is more likely that an inadequate system (e.g. septic too small for the effluent load, failed soakage system, soakage are too near to a watercourse, etc.) or one that is poorly maintained could result in a small but constant discharge into watercourses. This would add an additional nutrient and bacterial load to the watercourses, some of which would reach the reservoir. The Water Quality Objectives for the Mount Lofty Ranges (EWS 1988), recognised the fact that being developed catchments, numbers of faecal bacteria would occur in influent watercourses to the reservoirs, and indicated a targe of 8000 organisms/100 mL. With adequate disposal and disinfection of sewage effluent when disposed of on site, there should be minimal risk.

9.5.2 Instream Domestic Supply

Anywhere in the Mount Lofty Ranges, water may be taken from either watercourses or farm dams and used for domestic supply, although the extent of this is unknown. With the existing general quality of water, it should be assumed that taken directly it is unsuitable, mainly because of the frequency of occurrence of faecal bacteria. Domestic water supplies should have zero faecal bacteria. Therefore supplies should be disinfected. Wineries could adversely impact on this potential domestic use, as a consequence of:

• Wastewater or product spills, causing anoxic conditions, having high colour, odour or taste problems.

• Brine spills, being initially a hazardous material, and very high nitrite levels. • Sewage effluent (with inadequate disinfection) adding to faecal bacteria numbers. • Nutrients, contributing to algal growths affecting intakes, producing taste or odour

problems and also contributing to potential toxic algal blooms.

93

Table 9.7 Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading (in kg) in spills of nominal volume from various sources, also expressed as a percentage

Load (kg)

% of Onkaparinga annual load Load (kg)

% of Onkaparinga annual load Load (kg)

% of Onkaparinga annual load

NitrogenJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 1.0 0.0006 5.0 0.0029 10.0 0.0059 - non vintage 1.0 0.0006 5.0 0.0029 10.0 0.0059Brine-Tank2 24.1 0.0142 120.4 0.0708 240.9 0.1417Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 24.1 0.0142 120.4 0.0708 240.9 0.1417Sewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 0.1 0.0001 0.3 0.0002 0.6 0.0004 - non vintage 0.1 0.0001 0.3 0.0002 0.6 0.0004Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 0.1 0.0001 0.3 0.0002 0.5 0.0003 - non vintage 0.0 0.0000 0.1 0.0001 0.1 0.0001Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 0.1 0.0001 0.3 0.0002 0.5 0.0003 - non vintage 0.0 0.0000 0.1 0.0001 0.1 0.0001Fire any of the aboveAncillary: sewerage3 0.1 0.0001 0.3 0.0002 0.6 0.0004PhosphorusJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 0.2 0.0016 0.9 0.0070 1.7 0.0133 - non vintage 0.2 0.0016 0.9 0.0070 1.7 0.0133Brine-Tank2 no phosphorusBrine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 no phosphorusSewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 0.031 0.0002 0.156 0.0012 0.311 0.0024 - non vintage 0.031 0.0002 0.156 0.0012 0.311 0.0024Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 0.012 0.0001 0.060 0.0005 0.120 0.0009 - non vintage 0.005 0.00004 0.025 0.0002 0.050 0.0004Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 0.120 0.0009 0.060 0.0005 0.120 0.0009 - non vintage 0.005 0.00004 0.025 0.0002 0.050 0.0004Fire any of the aboveAncillary: sewerage3 0.0 0.0000 0.2 0.0016 0.3 0.0023Notes: 1. Nitrogen and phosphorus present primarily as protein.2. Nitrogen is present as nitrite; no phosphorus is present.3. Nitrogen and phosphorus in both organic and inorganic forms.4. Annual loads in the Onkaparinga River: TN = 170 000kg, TP = 12 800kg.

of annual load in the Onkaparinga River4

Spill Volume Category Load (assume 1kL) Load (assume 5kL)

1Very Small

2

Load (assume 10kL)Small

3Moderate

5. Spillage frequency of 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 yrs

94

Table 9.7 Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading (in kg) in spills of nominal volume from various sources, also expressed as a percentage

Load (kg)

% of Onkaparinga annual load Load (kg)

% of Onkaparinga annual load Load (kg)

% of Onkaparinga annual load

Nitrogen25.0 0.0147 50 0.0294 >50 >0.0294

- non vintage 25.0 0.0147 50 0.0294 >50 >0.0294Brine-Tank2 602.2 0.3542 1204 0.7082 >1204 >0.7082Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 602.2 0.3542 1204 0.7082 >1204 >0.7082Sewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 1.6 0.0009 3.1 0.0018 >3.1 >0.0018 - non vintage 1.6 0.0009 3.1 0.0018 >3.1 >0.0018Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 1.3 0.0008 2.5 0.0015 >2.5 >0.0015 - non vintage 0.3 0.0002 0.6 0.0004 >0.6 >0.0004Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 1.3 0.0008 2.5 0.0015 >2.5 >0.0015 - non vintage 0.3 0.0002 0.6 0.0004 >0.6 >0.0004FireAncillary: sewerage3 1.6 0.0009 3.1 0.0018 >3.1 >0.0018PhosphorusJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 4.3 0.0336 8.5 0.0664 >8.5 >0.0664 - non vintage 4.3 0.0336 8.5 0.0664Brine-Tank2

Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2

Sewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 0.778 0.0061 1.56 0.0122 >1.56 >0.0122 - non vintage 0.778 0.0061 1.56 0.0122 >1.56 >0.0122Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 0.300 0.0023 0.60 0.0047 >0.60 >0.0047 - non vintage 0.125 0.0010 0.25 0.0020 >0.25 >0.0020Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 0.300 0.0023 0.60 0.0047 >0.60 >0.0047 - non vintage 0.125 0.0010 0.25 0.0020 >0.25 >0.0020FireAncillary: sewerage3 0.8 0.0063 1.56 0.0122 >1.56 >0.0122Notes: 1. Nitrogen and phosphorus present primarily as protein. 5. Spillage frequency of 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 yrs2. Nitrogen is present as nitrite; no phosphorus is present.3. Nitrogen and phosphorus in both organic and inorganic forms.4. Annual loads in the Onkaparinga River: TN = 170 000kg, TP = 12 800kg.

of annual load in the Onkaparinga River4

Spill Volume Category Very Large Substantial

Load (assume 50kL) Load (assume >50kL)Load (assume 25kL)

4Large

5 6

95

Table 9.8 Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading (in kg) in spills of nominal volume from various sources, expressed as a percentage of annual Load in the River Torrens4

Spill Volume Category

Load (kg)% of Torrens annual load Load (kg)

% of Torrens annual load Load (kg)

% of Torrens annual load

NitrogenJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 1.0 0.0024 5.0 0.0122 10.0 0.0245 - non vintage 1.0 0.0024 5.0 0.0122 10.0 0.0245Brine-Tank2 24.1 0.0590 120.4 0.2949 240.9 0.5901Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 24.1 0.0590 120.4 0.2949 240.9 0.5901Sewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 0.1 0.0002 0.3 0.0007 0.6 0.0015 - non vintage 0.1 0.0002 0.3 0.0007 0.6 0.0015Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 0.1 0.0002 0.3 0.0007 0.5 0.0012 - non vintage 0.0 0.0000 0.1 0.0002 0.1 0.0002Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 0.1 0.0002 0.3 0.0007 0.5 0.0012 - non vintage 0.0 0.0000 0.1 0.0002 0.1 0.0002Fire any of the aboveAncillary: sewerage 0.1 0.0002 0.3 0.0007 0.6 0.0015

PhosphorusJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 0.2 0.0045 0.9 0.0204 1.7 0.0385 - non vintage 0.2 0.0045 0.9 0.0204 1.7 0.0385Brine-Tank2 no phosphorusBrine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 no phosphorusSewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 0.031 0.0007 0.156 0.0035 0.311 0.0071 - non vintage 0.031 0.0007 0.156 0.0035 0.311 0.0071Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 0.012 0.0003 0.060 0.0014 0.120 0.0027 - non vintage 0.005 0.0001 0.025 0.0006 0.050 0.0011Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 0.120 0.0027 0.060 0.0014 0.120 0.0027 - non vintage 0.005 0.0001 0.025 0.0006 0.050 0.0011Fire any of the aboveAncillary: sewerage3 0.0 0.0000 0.2 0.0045 0.3 0.0068Notes: 1. Nitrogen and phosphorus present primarily as protein.2. Nitrogen is present as nitrite; no phosphorus is present.3. Nitrogen and phosphorus in both organic and inorganic forms.4. Annual loads in the River Torrens: TN = 40 827kg, TP = 4410kg.

31Very Small

2Small

5. Spillage frequency of 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 yrs

ModerateLoad (assume 1kL) Load (assume 5kL) Load (assume 10kL)

96

Table 9.8 Total nitrogen and phosphorus loading (in kg) in spills of nominal volume from various sources, expressed as a percentage of annual load in the River Torrens4

Spill Volume Category

Load (kg)% of Torrens annual load Load (kg)

% of Torrens annual load Load (kg)

% of Torrens annual load

NitrogenJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 25.0 0.0612 50 0.1225 >50 >0.1225 - non vintage 25.0 0.0612 50 0.1225 >50 >0.1225Brine-Tank2 602.2 1.4750 1204 2.9490 >1204 >2.949Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2 602.2 1.4750 1204 2.9490 >1204 >2.949Sewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 1.6 0.0039 3.1 0.0076 >3.1 >0.0076 - non vintage 1.6 0.0039 3.1 0.0076 >3.1 >0.0076Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 1.3 0.0032 2.5 0.0061 >2.5 >0.0061 - non vintage 0.3 0.0007 0.6 0.0015 >0.6 >0.0015Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 1.3 0.0032 2.5 0.0061 >2.5 >0.0061 - non vintage 0.3 0.0007 0.6 0.0015 >0.6 >0.0015FireAncillary: sewerage3 1.6 0.0039 3.1 0.0076 >3.1 >0.0076PhosphorusJuice/Must/Wine1 - vintage 4.3 0.0975 8.5 0.1927 >8.5 >0.1927 - non vintageBrine-Tank2

Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes2

Sewerage collection & treatment3 - vintage 0.778 0.0176 1.56 0.0354 >1.56 >0.0354 - non vintage 0.778 0.0176 1.56 0.0354 >1.56 >0.0354Wastewater Collection Plant1 - vintage 0.300 0.0068 0.60 0.0136 >0.60 >0.0136 - non vintage 0.125 0.0028 0.25 0.0057 >0.25 >0.0057Irrigation Wastewater1 - vintage 0.300 0.0068 0.60 0.0136 >0.60 >0.0136 - non vintage 0.125 0.0028 0.25 0.0057 >0.25 >0.0057FireAncillary: sewerage3 0.8 0.0181 1.56 0.0354 >1.56 >0.0354

5Large Very Large Substantial

3 4

Load (assume 25kL) Load (assume 50kL) Load (assume >50kL)

5. Spillage frequency of 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Notes: 1. Nitrogen and phosphorus present primarily as protein.3. Nitrogen and phosphorus in both organic and inorganic forms.

2. Nitrogen is present as nitrite; no phosphorus is present.4. Annual loads in the River Torrens: TN= 40 827kg, TP=4410kg

97

10.0 COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY RISKS FOR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

10.1 Introduction

In each of the development scenarios retrofitting of existing wineries has been assumed. The aim and effects of retrofitting are outlined in Section 10.2. In the assessment of future scenarios, the benefits of incorporating a retention basin(s), as an additional environmental safeguard feature against frequency of spills has also been examined. A general description of retention basins is outlined in Section 10.3, and the general format and interpretation of summary tables for the development scenarios in Section 10.4. Development scenarios for wineries are discussed in Section 10.5 and for the ancillary scenario in Section 10.6.

10.2 Retrofitting of Existing Wineries

The general aim of retrofitting of existing wineries was to reduce potential frequency of spill initiation to those of the generic wineries of similar sizes. A discussion of the objectives of retrofitting, the range of existing systems and the difference in frequency of spill initiation excluding retention basins is provided.

10.2.1 Retrofitting Trade Waste System

Objectives of retrofitting were to: • ensure that there is a sump/tank/bunded storage system of sufficient capacity to

hold four days wastewater flow at peak vintage flow plus stormwater from any exposed processing area (e.g. crusher) for a 1 in 10 year storm event of sixty minutes duration.

• ensure that two pumps are used with high and overflow alarms, and that storage tanks connected in series have alarms on the first and second tank.

There was considerable variability in the standard of design among existing wineries. Sites ranged from systems which met the above criteria to amateur jobs of varying levels of success in the containment of potential spillages. Most wineries used appropriate equipment. At the times of site visits, one small winery used a small plastic drum as a sump, a second small winery had a wastewater tank on an inadequate support. Multiplying effects due to human error as described in Chapter 7 were applied to the existing wineries. These are based on current circumstance and owner experience in winery operation, on a subjective basis for sites recently purchased, to the maximum

98

values included in Table 10.1. In reality, variable multipliers for generic rates of human error would apply at different times of the year and with prevailing circumstances. Table 10.1. Multiplying factors applied to generic human error rates based on

current circumstances of existing winery developments. Description (from Table 7.4)

Multiplier No. Sites

Default minimum: Operator inexperience (eg. newly-qualified tradesman versus “expert”).

3

51

A means of suppressing or over-riding information or features 9 4

Unfamiliarity with a situation which is potentially important but which only occurs infrequently or which is novel

17 1

1. Two ‘undeveloped sites’ defaulted to minimum multiplier. The default minimum multiplier accounted for the circumstances primarily experienced during vintage where staff members operate under increased stress and fatigue, and when casual employees bolster staff numbers. Education of casuals had the highest multiplier with respect to risk, which established the default value. “Suppressing information” covered important information that might be missed with respect to affecting risk. Examples included:

• Not having a map of the pipe network which is applicable to older sites, sites being renovated from past uses, and sites with uncovered processing areas, and

• Not fully appreciating the implications of design requirements applicable to smaller winery operators which have built their winery from scratch.

Inadequate experience in winery operation would make it very difficult to appreciate the reasons for particular design features or tasks required to minimise error; this was the highest multiplier in the table. Rates of human error could be reduced through:

• drafting standard operating procedures (SOPs); • staff training in a manner that maximises the number of trained individuals in

all areas of operation (which may require rotation of duties); • response to spillage incidents including office staff, and • engaging in mocked drills to achieve practical readiness.

An example used by one company was to release a sizable amount of water containing an amount of dye to track its path. Drains and bunds did operate satisfactorily, (i.e. contained the spill). However a map was still required of interconnecting drains. Most current owners appreciate the importance of avoiding

99

spills to waterways however they do not have the level of readiness to fully respond to various spill situations. Effects on spillage frequency of retrospective fitting and improved education and training, are shown in Table 10.2. Smaller wineries had the greater number of issues. Table 10.2. Effect of retrofitting (RF) at existing wineries on frequency of failure

of the wastewater collection and storage system.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Onkaparinga –No RF 0.0177 0.0673 0.1010 Onkaparinga –RF 0.0177 0.0088 0.0411 Other Catchments –No RF 0.0673 0.1088 Other Catchments –RF 0.0088 0.0088

10.2.2 Retrofitting of Brine Tank and Refrigeration/Pipe Network

Prior this study, the importance of containing spillage of ethanol-based brine solutions may not have been fully appreciated. Thus the objectives of retrofitting of the brine tank and refrigeration unit/pipe network were to:

• provide adequate protection from vandalism, storm damage, and collision with vehicles, and

• contain spills in an isolation bund or trade waste system. Only one site had most of these features as well as an interception drain directing spillage to the trade waste system, which must also fail for the initial spill to become uncontrolled. However the efficacy of treatment of a mixed trade waste, brine spill could be compromised resulting in potential damage to the irrigated receiving site. Only the larger wineries (2000 t current approved, all in Onkaparinga) currently use ethanol-based refrigeration brine systems. Effects on spillage frequency of retrospective fitting are shown in Table 10.3. Table 10.3. Effect of retrofitting (RF) at existing wineries on failure frequency of

refrigeration brine from either the storage tank or refrigeration unit and pipe network.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 R/Pipe Tank Onkaparinga –No RF 0.0002 0.4316 0.2501 Onkaparinga –RF 0.0002 0.0008 0.0000

10.2.3 Retrofitting for Product

Retrofitting of the trade waste system also affected spillage frequency of product, although risk levels were already very low. Some smaller wineries still used

100

alternative vessels for product handing, usually to reduce the initial capital investment. An example was plastic static fermenters. Most operators were however aware of the risk of damage and took appropriate levels of care, or planned to phase out their use as part of expansion plans. However bunding should be considered as an added layer of protection if equipment not specifically designed for wineries is used.

10.2.4 Irrigation

Six of the eight3 existing wineries in the Onkaparinga catchment, and one of the two wineries located in other catchments do not discharge their wastewater by irrigation. Improvements at one site would be needed to conform to planning approvals – the deficiencies apparently inherited from the past owner. This site defaulted to ‘always failing’. Site locality may prevent spillage into a waterway. Surface pooling promotes saturated flow through the soil profile and a potential point source contamination of groundwater. Table 10.4 shows the impact of poor site design and management, and use of bunding on frequency of site failure. Table 10.4 Effect of varying irrigation system management and use of bunding

around discharge sites of frequency of uncontrolled spillage.

Description Frequency, per annum, of failure

Non complying site design with no bunding – pooling by both wastewater and stormwater

386

Complying site design with no bunding – wastewater pooling only

0.77

Complying site design with no bunding – pooling by both wastewater and stormwater

22

Complying site design with bunding – pooling by both wastewater and stormwater

0.0116

In the one in ten wet year climatic scenario, pooling by stormwater was assumed to occur twenty-one days per annum. In the first example the wastewater system fails every day of the year, essentially whenever wastewater is applied, and an additional 21 days of stormwater pooling or runoff occurs. The third ‘default’ failure for wastewater on a non-bunded site is mostly determined by failure of management such as not regularly inspecting discharge sites. Pooling of wastewater might occur from a broken irrigation emitter, or due to over irrigation, etc.

3 Assuming that one yet to be constructed winery will discharge wastewater by irrigation.

101

Irrigation should always be avoided at times when stormwater pooling or runoff is likely, which forms part of ongoing site monitoring. Bunding of sites and recycling of pooled water from the bund further reduces incidence of uncontrolled spillage. Alternatively wineries could treat the wastewater. Treated wastewater would pose less risk to environs resulting from fracture of pipes leading to and spillage from the irrigated sites. A review of existing and new wastewater treatment technologies including potential levels of treatment and costs is outlined in Chapter 11. If treatment aimed to reduce biological oxygen demand to levels which at least enabled long-term storage of the treated effluent as a ‘stand alone facility’, it could be reused by itself or as ‘shandy’ with dam water for irrigation of vines or trees during warmer months when they most need the water resource. Current experience of other wineries within the State which irrigate vineyards is that there is enhanced awareness of potential effects of salts and other constituents added by the effluent on grape quality. In turn, this leads to greater effort to reduce wastage of chemicals and product entering trade waste. This fits into the core objectives of the Australian Wine Industry’s Environment Strategy (Jones, 2002). Only one of the existing sites irrigates with treated effluent. If either the sewage treatment system or trade waste treatment system fails, the effluent can be transported off-site to a registered treatment works.

10.2.5 Fire

Existing wineries were at varying levels of readiness to put out an initial fire, hence operators should contact the CFS to organise site visits.

10.2.6 Compliance

One small winery currently has non-compliance issues associated with both the trade waste system and irrigation management. Given that most deficiencies in current wineries and non-compliance with planning approvals are mostly at the small scale, approval to begin making wine might need to be made contingent on a full system audit by an independent person.

10.3 Retention Basins

10.3.1 Interception in Existing On-Farm Dams Acting as Retention Basins

Site visits of existing wineries revealed that many had large water supply dams. In most cases any spillage would be intercepted in these dams.

102

These dams will effectively function as wet detention basins. There is now an abundant literature on their performance in reducing pollutant levels in contaminated stormwater runoff

103

Key factors are:

• Capacity of the dam and volume of spill

This will determine the initial dilution. In most cases the capacities are large and it is apparent that dilution factors will be large.

• Residence time in the system

The longer the residence time the greater will be:

Microbial decay of BOD The reduction in nutrients The die off of pathogens

During vintage, end summer-early autumn, it is more than likely that these dams will be below capacity, resulting in very long residence times.

Also, in a number of cases, there were instream dams downstream on adjacent properties. These are of sufficient capacity to intercept any spill, and may prevent further downstream impacts including the prevention of any contaminants reaching the reservoirs. However, there would be impacts on the dams, and this situation is not desirable.

10.3.2 Use of Constructed Retention Basins in Future Development Scenarios

Earlier sections on product loss and loss of brine highlighted the important role of the trade waste system in containing uncontrolled spills from those sources with no reported spillage incident, and reducing risk of spillage to less than one in ten thousand years. The aim of constructing retention basins is the same – to contain spills from areas within the winery complex they service. Retention basins would be sized to have the capacity to intercept the largest spill (probably 50-70 kL) and would be isolated from any stormwater path. They would be relatively small, e.g. approximately 5 metres wide, 10 metres long and 1.5 metres deep. They could be landscaped as a grass swale and need not affect the overall amenity of the site. Alternatively a constructed bund could be used according to the bunding guidelines prepared by EPA-SA. Any spillages contained within the basin could be more easily cleaned up and appropriately disposed of, which would form part of documentation requested for contingency planning. Proposed retention basin(s) should be located in close proximity to the winery for the following reasons. As the spill moves overland, its volume is reduced largely by infiltration which may result in partial or complete prevention of the spill reaching the nearest watercourse. Although the study brief for this Water Quality Risk Assessment has specifically excluded the potential effects on groundwater, infiltrated spill materials may still eventually reach watercourses in groundwater discharge. This mode of entry of spill materials into watercourses has not been addressed in this investigation. Infiltration could be minimised by ensuring drains and retention basins are constructed with impervious clay or synthetic liners.

104

Using the bunding guidelines, viz:

• 120% of tank capacity – wine tanks, brine tanks, fermenters, trade waste • 130% of tank capacity – flammable liquids • 25% of total storage capacity – bottled wine and barrels

and (&)

• output of all automatic fire fighting sprinklers generated over twenty minutes or capacity of stored fire fighting water kept onsite.

and (&)

• stormwater generated by a one in ten year storm of twenty minutes duration. The various items which could lead to a spill from the retention basin included:

• Structural failure • Capacity exceeded: product & stormwater & fire fighting water

which had an assumed combined failure rate of one in one hundred years. Actual failure rate would be less as it is dependent on the frequency of initiation of each type of spill event, which created an unresolvable circular reference in the mathematics used in the fault tree analysis. The effect of constructing retention basins on frequency of uncontrolled spills for the various development scenarios was calculated from the total for a given spill volume category for vintage and non-vintage, and shown as a separate line below the totals. As an ‘and’ (&) operand the individual frequencies (Prf) are multiplied, which being an exponential relationship rapidly reduces the chance of both systems failing at the same time as shown below. The shaded column illustrates the potential effect of the constructed retention basin on frequency of combined failure.

Failure AND(&) per annum 10 1 0.1 0.01

10 0.011402510 0.001140836 0.000114089 0.000011409 1 0.000114142 0.000011415 0.000001141

0.1 0.000001142 0.000000114 0.01 0.000000011

Thus constructed retention basins have the potential to reduce uncontrolled spillage events to less than one in ten thousand years. However retention basins are not able to fully cover systems with underground pipes and tanks which could fail underground. For these systems the aim of management would be to reduce unit failure rate to less than one in one hundred years using regular auditing by independent persons of structural integrity, and to only irrigate with treated effluent – domestic and winery. Irrespective, the environmental benefit of a retention basin or sub-surface bund should be weighed against the difficulty in its construction around underground tanks, used for effluent treatment and storage, in consultation with designers.

105

10.4 Format and Interpretation of Summary Tables

Table 10.5 shows an example summary table. Each table provides for a given source of spill initiation the total frequency from all developments for vintage and non vintage allocated to the catchment. Cells entered with a 0.0000 have a frequency of less than one in ten thousand years. Blank cells to the right of the last entry along a given row imply that a spill volume of that potential size is not possible over a given twenty four hour period. The worse case scenario was assumed in allocating spill volumes, i.e. the largest spill volume possible. This should be interpreted as for any given incident any nominal spill volume up to the worst case maximum can occur. Thus blank cells to the left of entries along a given row of the table imply that there were no sites with spills of that volume category in the worst case scenario, and not that small spills never occur. Totals for all source materials are shown for each spill volume category. The effect of incorporating retention basins was then applied to these totals, with the outcome shown along the row below. Table 10.5 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 1 on

Onkaparinga Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0015 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2584 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0706 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0347 Fire 0.0250 TOTAL: 0.2584 0.0015 0.1053 0.0000 0.0250

with Retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0015 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2584 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0706 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0347 Fire 0.0250 TOTAL: 0.2584 0.0015 0.1053 0.0000 0.0250

with Retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

106

10.5 Comparative Water Quality Risks

10.5.1 Existing Wineries and Scenario 1

Scenario 1, involved ten existing licensees within the MLRW outside townships assuming all were at 2000 tonnes capacity. Eight are located in the Onkaparinga Catchment, one in the Torrens Catchment and one in the Finniss Catchment. Data for volume categories and combined frequency of spills for various materials for Scenario 1 for the Onkaparinga Catchment is provided in Table 10.6, and also includes, for comparison, the existing wineries at the current approved tonnage with and without retrofitting. Including retention basins in retrofitting is shown separately. A single winery out of the eight was considered to be too close to a watercourse to fit a retention basin. However, on discussion with winery designers the site could be bunded to achieve the same aim. The risks associated with Scenario 1 for the Onkaparinga Catchment are separately included in Table 10.5, the Finniss Catchment in Table 10.7 and the Torrens Catchment in Table 10.8. Reviewing the data in Tables 10.5 and 10.6 for the Onkaparinga Catchment, it is seen that:

• With retrofitting, particularly the inclusion of a retention basin, risks become very low (<1:10 000 years). Without retrofitting, including the use of a retention basin, the current situation and Scenario 1 would pose an unacceptable risk with frequencies of spillage being less than 1 in 100 years. However, it only takes one winery with inadequate infrastructure or safeguards to produce a high total frequency.

• The sewage collection and treatment poses the greatest individual risk, and

would be least amenable to inclusion of a retention basin or area bund in retrofitting. However, volumes are relatively small, up to 5 kL over 24 hr for the worst case, and occur as ‘continual slower losses’ rather than ‘sudden rapid losses’. It is important to note that with sewage collection, treatment and disposal, the risk frequency values reflect the occurrence of a malfunction and not a loss to a watercourse. Because of the high frequency, it does indicate the need for adequate capacity, installation, maintenance and importantly regular auditing.

• Irrigation of wastewater also has a relatively high individual risk.

Retrofitting, particularly if a retention basin system is installed will reduce risks to less than 1:10 000 years. However not all sites would be suitable for discharge of winery wastewater by irrigation and/or installation of retention basins. Treating the wastewater to safe levels of chemical load could significantly reduce the consequence of a spill entering surface waterways. Additionally wineries are required to prepare irrigation management plan based on water and nutrient balance models to cater for the maximum tonnage proposed. In addition each licensed winery is required to monitor the volume and loading applied to irrigated discharge

107

sites, with the data audited by an independent verifier. Improved management and auditing should significantly reduce unit failure rate.

For the single winery in the Finniss Catchment (refer Table 10.7) and the Torrens Catchment (refer Table 10.8), with retrofitting risks are reduced to less than 1:10 000 years. It will be a matter for the State Government to determine a frequency interval which is considered to be sufficiently low to be an acceptable risk level. It is apparent that with retrofitting, frequencies of less than 1:10 000 years can be achieved for wineries. This may be considered an acceptable risk level, particularly when compared to episodic events which can have major impacts on watercourses, dams and reservoirs, for example:

• Fire

Many large fires are widespread, impacting on a number of subcatchments and watercourses. As a result of fires, pollutant loads increase dramatically.

• Flood Events

The 1 in 100 year return interval flood event is now important for determining risk levels. During these large scale regional events most watercourses are impacted, with erosion of banks and silting of watercourses. During these events massive pollutant loads are introduced to watercourses and into reservoir systems.

As an interim measure, it is suggested that for each catchment a minimum total frequency of between 1:100 – 1:1000 years be adopted as a standard for spill events. In this regard it is also to be noted that unlike fire or floods, with a spill only one watercourse would be impacted.

108

Table 10.6. Risk of spillages with Scenario 1 compared to existing situations without and with retrofitting and constructed retention basins.

Spill Volume Category Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

Juice/Must/Wine: all year a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CT - with retrofitting 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Brine-Tank: all year a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.0000 0.2501 CT - with retrofitting 0.0000 0.0000 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000

Brine- Refrigeration Unit & Pipes: all year a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.0002 0.4316 CT - with retrofitting 0.0002 0.0008 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000

Sewerage collection & treatment: vintage a) CT - current DHS standards 0.1056 0.1833 CT - with retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retention basin 0.0000 Sewerage collection & treatment: non-vintage a) CT - current DHS standards 0.2889 CT - with retention basin 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retention basin 0.0000

Wastewater Collection Plant: all year a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.0177 0.0673 0.1010 CT - with retrofitting 0.0177 0.0088 0.0411 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Irrigation Wastewater: all year only four out of the eight existing wineries irrigate a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.0116 0.7701 0.0231 CT - with retrofitting 0.0116 0.0116 0.0231 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000

Fire: all year a) CT - no retention basin 0.0062 0.0031 0.0156 CT - with retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031* b) 2000 t with retention basin 0.0031*

TOTAL ALL SOURCES - VINTAGE a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.1349 0.1897 1.2690 0.3773 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting 0.1349 0.1897 0.0212 0.0673 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031* b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031*

109

Table 10.6. Risk of spillages with Scenario 1 compared to existing situations without and with retrofitting and constructed retention basins (contd)

Spill Volume Category Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

TOTAL ALL SOURCES - NON-VINTAGE a) Current Tonnage - without retrofitting 0.3181 0.0062 0.8374 0.3773 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting 0.3181 0.0062 0.0212 0.0673 0.0000 0.0156 CT - with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031* b) 2000 t with retrofitting & retention basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031*

* One existing site may not be able to fit a full-sized retention lagoon within the boundaries. A site bund may be an alternative, but might not contain spilt materials and fire fighting water. It this was the case the failure rate for fire will remain at 0.003 p.a, and thus determine the combined frequency for the spill volume category.

Table 10.7. Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 1 on Finniss Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum. Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.0526 0.0002 0.0204 0.0000 0.0031

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.0526 0.0002 0.0204 0.0000 0.0031

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

110

10.5.2 Winery Development Scenarios 2 and 3

The risk of spills associated with scenario 2 for the Onkaparinga Catchment is included in Table 10.9, for the Torrens Catchment in Table 10.10, for the South Para Catchment in Table 10.11, for the Angas Catchment in Table 10.12 and for the Finniss Catchment in Table 10.13. Similarly for Scenario 3, the risk of spills for the Onkaparinga Catchment is included in Table 10.14, for the Torrens Catchment in Table 10.15, for the South Para Catchment in Table 10.16 and for the Angas Catchment in Table 10.17. The Scenario 3 risks for the Finniss Catchment were also included in Table 10.13. Reviewing these data it can be seen that in all cases, with retrospective fitting risks are very low, all less than 1:10 000 years. As for Scenario 1, retrofitting, particularly the inclusion of a retention basin had the most noticeable effect on the frequency of spills which could potentially leave a site and reach a watercourse, for sewage, and wastewater from either the treatment plant and irrigation area. Reviewing the tables, it can be seen that without retrofitting and the use of a retention basin, the risk level is unacceptably high for the sewage collection and treatment, wastewater collection plant and for wastewater irrigation, in that total frequencies are less than 1 in 100 years. With product (wine/juice/must) and refrigeration brine the risk of failure was already very low (2:10 000 or less).

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater not used Fire 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.0526 0.0002 0.0088 0.0000 0.0031

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater not used Fire 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.0526 0.0000 0.0002 0.0088 0.0000 0.0031

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.8. Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 1 on Torrens Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

111

It is noteworthy though, that if a retention basin or site bund was not feasible for only one, the risk of spillage from any given source from that site would determine the overall risk for the catchment.

112

Table 10.9. Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on Onkaparinga Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum. Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0005 0.0010 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.6837 0.1558 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0530 0.0353 0.0265 0.0441 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0694 0.0463 0.0347 0.0231 Fire 0.0187 0.0125 0.0094 0.0156 TOTAL: 0.8060 0.2566 0.0747 0.0766 0.0000 0.0156

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0005 0.0010 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.8394 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0530 0.0353 0.0265 0.0441 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0694 0.0463 0.0347 0.0231 Fire 0.0187 0.0125 0.0094 0.0156 TOTAL: 0.9618 0.1008 0.0747 0.0766 0.0000 0.0156

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.10 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on Torrens Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum. Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50

Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2630 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0265 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0347 0.0116 Fire 0.0094 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.3241 0.0185 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2630 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0265 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0347 0.0116 Fire 0.0094 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.3241 0.0185 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

113

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1052 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.1256 0.0034 0.0204 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1052 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.1256 0.0034 0.0204 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.11 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on South Para Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank not used Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes not used Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1052 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0177 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0231 Fire 0.0062 TOTAL: 0.1460 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank not used Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes not used Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1052 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0177 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0231 Fire 0.0062 TOTAL: 0.1460 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.12 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 2 on Angas Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

114

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank not used Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes not used Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1578 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0177 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0231 0.0116 Fire 0.0062 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.1986 0.0266 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank not used Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes not used Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1578 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0177 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0231 0.0116 Fire 0.0062 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.1986 0.0266 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.13 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenarios 2 and 3 on Finniss Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0010 0.0015 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.6837 0.3135 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0353 0.0353 0.0441 0.0618 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0463 0.0463 0.0578 0.0463 0.0116 Fire 0.0125 0.0125 0.0156 0.0250 TOTAL: 0.7652 0.4086 0.1160 0.1237 0.0000 0.0454

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0010 0.0015 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.9446 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0353 0.0353 0.0441 0.0618 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0463 0.0463 0.0578 0.0463 0.0116 Fire 0.0125 0.0125 0.0156 0.0250 TOTAL: 1.0262 0.1476 0.1160 0.1237 0.0000 0.0454

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.14 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on Onkaparinga Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

115

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2630 0.0526 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0177 0.0177 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0231 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 Fire 0.0062 0.0062 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.3037 0.0883 0.0269 0.0235 0.0000 0.0031

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0002 0.0002 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.3155 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0177 0.0177 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0231 0.0116 0.0116 0.0116 Fire 0.0062 0.0062 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.3563 0.0357 0.0269 0.0235 0.0000 0.0031

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.15 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on Torrens Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0005 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2630 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 0.0177 0.0177 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 0.0231 0.0231 Fire 0.0031 0.0062 0.0062 TOTAL: 0.2833 0.0444 0.0470 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank 0.0000 Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes 0.0005 Sewerage collection & treatment 0.2630 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 0.0177 0.0177 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 0.0231 0.0231 Fire 0.0031 0.0062 0.0062 TOTAL: 0.2833 0.0444 0.0470 0.0062 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.16 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on South Para Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

116

10.5.3 Multiple Wineries on the Same Watercourse

Intuitively, it may be assumed that if a number of wineries were located in the same subcatchment (say 3-4), it may lead to an increased risk to an unacceptable level. As indicated in the table for all catchments, and scenarios with retrofitting of existing wineries and inclusion of the proposed barriers for new wineries, the total risk still remains below 1:10,000 years. Consequently it is considered that there is no significant difference in risk levels between a single winery or multiple wineries.

10.5.4 Comparison of Risk with Generic Wineries

The frequency of uncontrolled spillages from all sources for the generic wineries of 50, 200, 500, 2000 and 4000 tonne capacity were summarised in Table 7.8. As capacity increases, the risks of larger spill initiation increases. The risk to watercourses and impacts on environmental values depends on the volume actually reaching a watercourse, and this depends on locality factors as outlined in Chapter 8. Risk levels are all reduced to less than 1 in 10 000 years with retrofitting. It is to be noted that development scenario 3, for the Onkaparinga Catchment included one 4000 tonne winery, but the combined risk was still less than 1 in 10 000 years.

Spill Volume Category 1 2 3 4 5 6Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Substantial

Range of Spill Volume (kL) 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 >50 Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank not used Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes not used Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1052 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 0.0031 TOTAL: 0.1256 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Non Vintage Juice/Must/Wine 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Brine-Tank not used Brine- Refrigeration Unit and Pipes not used Sewerage collection & treatment 0.1052 Wastewater Collection Plant 0.0088 0.0088 Irrigation Wastewater 0.0116 0.0116 Fire 0.0031 0.0031

TOTAL: 0.1256 0.0235 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000with Retention Basin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Note: 0.0000 implies failure rate is less than one in every 10 000 years.

Table 10.17 Risk of spillage associated with Winery Development Scenario 3 on Angas Catchment, and effect of constructed retention basins on the risk. Unit is per annum.

117

10.6 Ancillary Developments

The combined effects of ancillary development allocated to various catchments in the watershed is given in Table 10.18, assuming that all developments use a septic – aeration – irrigation system, without retrofitting. Table 10.18. Risk of spillage associated with the Ancillary Development Scenario. Unit is per annum.

Type of Development Cellar Door Restaurant Function Centre Peak Staff No 3 6 8 Peak Visitation No. 100 100 250 Daily Hydraulic load (kL) 1.6 1.7 4

Onkaparinga No. Developments 21 3 1 Failure Rate* 1.1046 0.1578 0.0526 Torrens No. Developments 5 1 1 Failure Rate* 0.2630 0.0526 0.0526 South Para No. Developments 2 1 0 Failure Rate* (per annum) 0.1052 0.0526 0 Finniss No. Developments 2 0 0 Failure Rate* (per annum) 0.1052 0 0 Angas No. Developments 2 1 0 Failure Rate* (per annum) 0.1052 0.0526 0

* Based on installing a septic/aeration/irrigation system In Section 5.2, based on the Mount Lofty Watershed survey of Arnold and Gallasch (2001), the main factors in the rate of failure of domestic sewage effluent and disposal systems, were outlined. Although the BOD and nutrient loads in sewage effluent are comparatively small compared with other potential spill materials, there is still a potential for a significant impact on downstream aquatic ecosystems, as outlined in Chapter 9. The above failure rates (without retrofitting) do not reflect the actual risk to water quality. Locality factors, as outlined in Chapter 8.0 indicate whether any material reaches the watercourses. Nevertheless, the failure rates are considered to be too high. It is therefore essential that systems are adequately designed, installed and monitored. Failure to do this is seen as the principal determinant of the final failure rate of 2-5:100 years (refer Section 7.2.5). If systems are installed or upgraded as necessary to meet DHS standards, and regularly audited (every two years or so), the risk can be greatly minimized.

118

11.0 WINERY WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

11.1 Management Options

A range of wastewater treatment approaches and technologies is available to the wine industry. The adoption of a particular method or system of treatment and management will depend on a winery’s specific site and operating conditions. A spectrum of treatment and management methodologies exists, ranging from minimal on-site treatment and physical removal from the site to a licensed waste receival depot, through to full tertiary treatment, polishing and total on-site re-use. The Adelaide Hills water catchment area is inherently more sensitive to potential environmental impact than other areas. Therefore consideration of winery wastewater treatment and final management of winery effluent is influenced by this sensitivity. This would tend to polarise the anticipated response to these issues to either end of the treatment and management spectrum previously mentioned. That is, it is likely that viable and sustainable solutions would be confined to either; total off-site wastewater ‘disposal’ by immediate removal from site, or high level treatment and total on-site re-use of high quality wastewater. Some wineries may consider that their specific location, or operational circumstances would allow them to contemplate an on-site ‘disposal’ system approach, and if such an approach could be successfully justified, it would allow the use of realistic levels of technological complexity to match the capabilities and resources of the organisation. Treatment systems must be appropriate for the size, nature and location of the winery, and must take into account the ability of the operator to effectively manage the processes involved, while ensuring that environmental impact is minimised. The availability of (and requirement for) sufficient suitable land for the various types of wastewater management system will also play an important role in system selection. The pattern of production of wastewater from a winery is characterised by a large peak during vintage with a relatively constant daily volume during the non-vintage periods, punctuated by periodic increases associated with bottling, barrel washing (in some facilities) and immediate pre-vintage tank and equipment washing. Winery wastewater treatment systems must be able to accommodate these wide variations in flow and strength without requiring major changes to plant or operational input. Wineries in the Adelaide Hills are also prone to late vintage rainfall, which must be considered in the design of any wastewater treatment and management strategy or system. The range of treatment technologies potentially available to the industry is broad. Application of any one or a combination of the possible methods needs to be informed by the rather unique characteristics of the wastes typically produced, and the significant variation in volumetric output from day to day and from one vintage to the next.

119

11.2 Nature and Variation of Winery Wastewaters

Wineries which make extensive use of diatomaceous earth or perlite pre-coat filtration will have a substantial raw wastewater solids load, and would benefit from a solids-separation step early in the treatment chain. The technologies available for achieving solids separation can range from simple physical screening, through various solids settling methods, flotation, chemically-assisted coagulation, electro-coagulation/ flocculation, and membrane technologies. Solids removal is however only effective to the extent that biodegradable material in the wastewater stream is particulate as opposed to dissolved. The ratio of the soluble component compared to the total with respect to Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ranges in most wineries from approximately 40 to 95%, indicating in the latter case, limited potential to reduce soluble biological contaminants by solids removal alone. Stabilisation and conversion of biodegradable and putrescible components of winery wastewater to environmentally compatible materials is a necessary step in the reduction of organic strength. This can be achieved by the action of anaerobic, aerobic or facultative micro-organisms, either alone or in combination. The dominant characteristics of winery wastewater are intrinsically low pH (with periodic high pH excursions due to ‘Caustic washes’), and relatively high Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). These two characteristics, combined with a significant concentration of Sulphurous compounds, used for low-level disinfection and as a preservative, produce a wastewater which has a propensity to encourage the proliferation of anaerobic acidophilic bacteria if impounded for even short periods. The low dissolved oxygen (reducing) conditions, availability of H+ ions and initially higher oxidation-state Sulphur compounds often produce Hydrogen Sulphide and Thiols - extremely malodorous and undesirable off-gases. Some of these gases have been classified as potentially carcinogenic.

11.3 Treatment Processes

For the reasons given above, the comparatively high monitoring and process control requirements, and the fact that the treated effluent from an anaerobic process normally requires a subsequent aerobic step prior to environmental release or beneficial re-use, the majority of wineries would not be considered likely candidates for anaerobic wastewater treatment. Aerobic treatment processes inherently produce relatively benign metabolic by-products such as CO2 (albeit a ‘greenhouse’ gas) and water. Aerobic bio-degradation combined with adequate flow-equalisation and mixing also appears to promote pH neutrality without the necessity to introduce pH correcting agents into the wastewater. Both anaerobic and aerobic processes involve the production of a substantial micro-organism biomass by conversion of biodegradable ‘food’, to new micro-organisms, which is known as ‘sludge’. While the anaerobic process tends to produce relatively smaller volumes of sludge than a comparable aerobic process, both processes require a sludge management system, which constitutes a waste sub-stream which must be

120

considered and handled appropriately. Facultative systems, which describes a class of micro-organisms which can operate with or without the presence of free oxygen, are generally restricted to use in older, more conservative technologies such as treatment lagoons and ponds, and generally with lower strength wastewaters. Such systems require large areas and volumes of pondage, and can be prone to breakthrough of anaerobic gaseous emissions and malodour production during periods of sudden increased loading. All of the above treatment process approaches can be used as pre-treatment stages for subsequent treatment in reedbed or constructed wetland systems. These ‘natural’ or ‘soft’ technology systems can provide the required back-up treatment capacity at times when the primary treatment process is overtaxed and not performing to the required level, such as in situations of excessive loading. Wineries in the Adelaide Hills have generally tended to be restricted to the smaller end of the processing capacity scale (up to 2000 t). This along with frequently constrained site area, might favour a compact, batch-process treatment system approach such as a fixed-film or attached-growth aerobic system, which can adapt to variations in wastewater volume and quality without significant process alteration.

11.4 Reduction at Source

An important aspect of addressing the wastewater treatment and management needs of any winery, but particularly those in environmentally sensitive settings, is the development and implementation of upstream processing cleaner-production strategies, in conjunction with waste and loss-reduction programs. Effective and targeted waste minimisation strategies at the production stage can have a profound effect on wastewater characteristics and generation patterns. For example, the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation is supporting a project to develop new enzyme-based cleaning products as alternatives to the use of Sodium Hydroxide. Treatment and management of winery wastewater should not be considered in isolation from other winery activities such as solid waste management. All on-site containment or treatment systems will generate a solid waste ‘sludge’, which will require handling and disposal or active management, e.g. combination with marc and other green waste material in a composting program. An important aspect of winery and ancillary wastewater treatment and management in the Adelaide Hills is the impact of rainfall and stormwater accessions to the wastewater treatment system via exposed catchment areas, or from direct roofwater diversion. The incidence of orogenic rainfall (induced by altitude changes) at higher elevations and in the latter stages of vintage can mean a significant unexpected increase in wastewater volume, albeit with a factor of dilution (refer Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Various stormwater diversion mechanisms have been proposed and implemented with mixed success, and this issue requires substantive assessment in the context of the planning and design of winery wastewater systems in the Mount Lofty Ranges catchment.

121

11.5 Specific Treatment Technologies

Winery wastewater can be treated by a combination of physical, chemical and biological processes depending on the required end-use, the degree of complexity which can be tolerated or managed, and the particular conditions prevailing at each individual site. The following is a brief description of some of the major treatment processes which are often applied to winery wastewater treatment and which are referred to throughout this section - often by the process name initials, arranged generally in order of process flow. Table 11.1 presents these unit processes in a sequential order to provide a basis for subsequent discussion of the relevant applications and functions of each. Table 11.2 lists some of the main winery wastewater constituents against the generic effectiveness of the range of treatment technologies assessed, which provides some basis on which selection or assessment of a specific type of treatment step or technology might be made or dismissed.

11.5.1 Flow/Loading Equalisation

When flow quantity and quality variations are significant, holding tanks can be incorporated at the head of the treatment plant to allow wastewater to be supplied to the plant at a more uniform rate and quality. More uniform flows and concentrations reduce the variability of treatment and allow a more compact wastewater treatment plant to be designed with higher utilisation of all process units. The equalisation tank is mixed and sometimes aerated to avoid anoxic conditions developing.

11.5.2 Screening

Screens are used to remove coarse debris from the raw wastewater before it enters the treatment plant proper. Large solids can damage pumps, valves and other equipment, and gross grape processing solids are responsible for a significant proportion of the suspended and to a lesser extent, the dissolved organic load entering the plant. Suitable screens should have an aperture of less than 1.0 mm and have a mechanism to automatically remove solids to a bin for removal.

11.5.3 Primary Sedimentation / Flotation

Primary clarifiers and sedimentation tanks are designed to remove settleable solids from a wastewater before biological treatment. Removal of biodegradable solids by sedimentation is generally less expensive than using secondary treatment to remove the entire biological load. Another variation of this process is the Tangential Flow Separator (TFS) which separates solids from liquids using a combination of gravity and centrifugal forces. An augmentation of static gravity sedimentation is Chemically Assisted Sedimentation (CAS), which involves the addition of coagulant and/or flocculent reagents to induce the formation of larger aggregate particles which settle more readily and can be separated more easily from the liquid phase of the wastewater.

122

Table 11.1. Treatment Processes Applied to Winery Wastewater.

TREATMENT STEP

PRE-TREATMENT

PRIMARY TREATMENT

SECONDARY TREATMENT TERTIARY TREATMENT

ADVANCED TREATMENT

Treatment Technologies

Screening (0.5 - 1.0 mm)

Primary Sedimentation

Flotation

Aerobic Biological Treatment

Anaerobic Biological Treatment

Secondary Sedimentation

Flotation

Filtration Adsorption Ion-

Exchange

Membrane Technologies

Oxidisation Irradiation

Static Screens (Strainers)

Gravity Settling (Sedimentation

Tanks)

Complete-Mixed Activated Sludge

Complete-Mixed Anaerobic Reactor

Gravity Settling (Sedimentation

Tanks)

Sand Filtration Micro-Filtration Ultraviolet Irradiation

Rotating Screens (Strainers)

Clarification (Static Upflow Clarifier)

Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

Contact Process Anaerobic Reactor

Clarification (Static Upflow Clarifier)

Disc Filtration

Ultra-Filtration Ozonation

Auger Screens (Strainers)

Chemically Assisted Sedimentation (CAS)

Moving-Bed Bio-Reactor

Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket

(UASB)

Chemically Assisted Sedimentation (CAS)

Continuous Cleaning Screen

Filtration

Nano-Filtration Per-Ozonation (+ H2O2)

Flow and Loading Equalisation

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

Fixed-Bed Bio-Reactor

Fixed-Film Anaerobic Reactor

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)

Granular Activated

Carbon (GAC)

Reverse Osmosis Chlorination

Cavitation Air Flotation (CAF)

Bio-Filtration Fluidised-Bed Anaerobic Reactor

Cavitation Air Flotation (CAF)

Electrodialysis

Induced Air Flotation (IAF)

Induced Air Flotation (IAF)

Electro flocculation (EF)

Electro flocculation (EF)

Spec

ific

Proc

ess M

echa

nism

s

Tangential Flow Separator (TFS)

SOLIDS Sludge Streams from these processes will usually require dewatering - the main methods being:

Drying-beds, Vacuum De-watering, V-fold belt-press or Centrifuge.

123

Table 11.2. Main Winery Wastewater Constituents and Effectiveness of Treatment Technology.

CONTAMINANT REMOVAL RATES

PRE-TREATMENT

PRIMARY TREATMENT

SECONDARY TREATMENT

TERTIARY TREATMENT

ADVANCED TREATMENT

CONTAMINANT CATEGORY

Screening (0.5 - 1.0 mm)

Primary Sedimentation

Flotation

Aerobic Biological Treatment

Anaerobic Biological Treatment

Secondary Sedimentation

Flotation

Filtration Adsorption

Ion-Exchange

Membrane Technologies

Oxidisation Irradiation Disinfection

Gross Solids 2 3 • 3 1 1 1 • Suspended Organic Matter 4 2 • 3 1 1 1 • Dissolved Organic Matter 4 3 1 2 4 1 1 •

Diatomaceous Earth 4 2 • • 2 • • • Total Nitrogen • • 4 4 • 3 2 •

Total Phosphorus • 2 3 4 2 • 1 • Sulphides • • 1 • • 1 1 • Salinity • • • • • • 2 •

Pathogens • 4 4 4 4 3 1 2 Key (Removal Rates): 1 = 80 to 100%, 2 = 50 to 80%, 3 = 20 to 50%, 4 = 0 to 20%, • = Not Applicable.

124

Flotation is used to separate suspended matter from wastewater. Various methods are employed to create bubbles at the base of the flotation unit, which buoy up suspended particles which are then skimmed from the surface, these are described as:

• DAF - Dissolved Air Flotation • CAF - Cavitation Air Flotation • IAF - Induced Air Flotation • EF - Electro-flocculation (combines the function of CAS and flotation)

Variants such as electro-coagulation also exist.

11.5.4 Aerobic Biological Treatment

Many types of processes are possible for the aerobic biological removal of dissolved and suspended organics such as those found in winery wastewater. In this process, oxygen in the air is supplied to micro-organisms which are in contact with the wastewater. The micro-organisms metabolise the organic material into carbon dioxide and other end products, and new biomass (cells), reducing the biological oxygen demand (BOD) usually by an order of magnitude at least. One of the most common such process is the activated sludge process, where the micro-organisms are mixed with the wastewater, usually in a completely mixed reactor. Air is pumped into the aeration vessel to supply oxygen and provide mixing. One form of the activated sludge process which has been used in several recent winery wastewater treatment plants is the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), which uses a single vessel to perform all of the major processes including secondary clarification. The same biological processes can take place in a film of micro-organisms which are encouraged to attach themselves to a solid support media. Where the support media is fixed, the process is referred to as a fixed-bed, when the support matrix comprises small free-moving media components, it is called a moving-bed system, or a bio-filter. All aerobic biological treatment processes convert some of the dissolved organics into biological solids that must normally be removed by a sedimentation process of some kind following the biological treatment unit. Aerobic processes do not normally require pH adjustment unless they are designed for nitrification, which winery wastewater plants do not normally require.

11.5.5 Anaerobic Biological Treatment

Many high strength wastewaters are amenable to treatment by an anaerobic process. Anaerobic treatment occurs in enclosed reactors to prevent access to oxygen. The anaerobic micro-organisms in contact with the wastewater convert the dissolved and suspended organics into biomass and methane. The biological solids produced in an anaerobic process must be settled in a clarifier or other similar process following the process, or which may be built into the reactor vessel. Suspended growth or complete-mixed anaerobic processes are also known as anaerobic contact processes. Fixed-film processes include the fluidised-bed and the

125

upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB), where in the latter case dense granules of micro-organisms are retained in the reactor by inertia. The primary sedimentation step is often omitted where an anaerobic reactor is used. The relatively high levels of sulphurous compounds used in the winemaking process, and which find their way into the wastewater stream, mean that the potential for production of mal-odorous gases such as hydrogen sulphide exists for the anaerobic process. This, combined with the fact that an anaerobic process step needs to be followed by an aerobic process, has reduced the prevalence of anaerobic treatment plants being used in the wine industry in Australia.

11.5.6 Secondary Sedimentation / Flotation

This class of processes is the same as primary sedimentation (11.5.3) with the main difference being the nature of the material to be treated. Whereas the primary sedimentation step is designed to reduce suspended solids from overloading the subsequent biological treatment step, the secondary sedimentation process is designed to remove the biomass (micro-organisms) created in the process of bio-degrading the organics in the wastewater, from the treated effluent. It can also have an effect on the quality of the final effluent where the main biological process is overloaded or not performing to specification by reducing carry-over of suspended material.

11.5.7 Advanced Treatment

There is a range of technologies which can be used to further treat or polish the treated effluent from a secondary treatment plant. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is one such process which involves passing the treated effluent through a bed of specially prepared carbon which has a very large surface area, and capacity to adsorb charged ions onto the surface of the carbon particles. Filtration is often used to remove fine colloidal or suspended particles that cannot be settled in a sedimentation process. Sand filters and fine disc filters can be used in this role to further reduce suspended solids and associated residual BOD levels. Membrane Technologies. This class of water and wastewater treatment technology has been developing rapidly over the last three decades and has now reached a point where it may be economically feasible to apply it to the treatment of winery wastewater for the production of very high quality treated effluent which could be used in almost any application. Membrane technologies are classified into five main groups:

• Microfiltration (MF) • Ultrafiltration (UF) • Nanofiltration (NF) • Reverse Osmosis (RO) • Electrodialysis (ED)

The common feature of all of these is the use of pressure (and electric current in the case of electrodialysis) to drive a liquid through a membrane that is permeable to some components, but not to others. In comparison, microfiltration will remove

126

bacteria and protozoa from water, and electrodialysis can remove individual ionic species from an aqueous solution. The feed water must be pre-treated to remove the majority of suspended and biological solids to prevent membrane fouling. In the context of winery wastewater, membranes could be used to polish pre-treated wastewater to the extent that it could be used for almost any purpose. Reverse osmosis can be used to reduce the salinity of the treated wastewater which is often too high to be sustainably used to irrigate vineyards. Other membranes could be employed to reduce the pathogen count in the final treated effluent where septic tank or similar wastewater is discharged to the winery wastewater system Oxidisation and Irradiation. A final advanced treatment step which can be used to produce high quality effluent is chemical or irradiation-based oxidation or disinfection. The most commonly used materials are:

• Chlorine • Ultraviolet Radiation • Ozone • Hydrogen Peroxide

Ozone can be used in combination with hydrogen peroxide or UV radiation to produce an effect greater than the individual effect of either one alone. The main purpose for the use of such technologies would be for final disinfection of the treated effluent prior to use in contaminant-sensitive areas.

11.5.8 Reedbed Treatment Systems

Reedbed Treatment Systems (RBTS) and Constructed Wetland Systems (CWS) do not appear in the main comparative tables in this section as they were not represented in any of the wastewater treatment industry responses received as a result of the enquiries made regarding winery wastewater treatment. It is however relevant to mention in this context that a combination of solids removal, secondary aerobic treatment and a properly designed, artificially lined, RBTS or CWS could provide a viable and effective method of wastewater treatment for wineries in the very small category (≤ 200 t) provided that the site is suitable for the required pond and associated structures, and provided that there is no intention to increase processing capacity significantly in the future, at the subject site.

11.6 Wastewater Treatment Industry Survey

In order to gain an appreciation of the latest technologies and systems approaches to the treatment of winery wastewater in Australia, with particular emphasis on the type and scale of winery, both at present and in the future, which characterise the Mount Lofty Ranges catchment, submissions were invited from twenty one companies. The respondents were selected based on their known interest and presence in the winery wastewater treatment field, or by their description of capability as published in The Australian Water Directory 2002, published by the Australian Water Association.

127

A letter was sent to each of the selected companies, with a questionnaire relating to the particular technology, products or systems promoted by the organisation in relation to this study. A letter of introduction and authority from the South Australian Environment Protection Authority, on behalf of the study steering committee was also attached. An example of the survey letters and questionnaire has been included as Appendix I. After a second round of enquiry to follow up on the first, a final list of sixteen respondents had provided information in varying degrees of detail, from submissions of two pages to more than one hundred pages.

11.6.1 Survey Results

There was, perhaps predictably, a diverse range of products, technologies, systems and opinions evident from the submissions received from the respondent companies. Some offered a single product or technology, which concentrated on a particular aspect of the wastewater stream. Others offered complete treatment trains and turn-key solutions involving multiple products and technologies. In order to gain an appreciation for the main technological approaches submitted by this group of respondents, Table 11.3 has been prepared which gives the frequency of occurrence of the basic technologies in the submissions received. Table 11.3. Frequency of Occurrence of Basic Technologies in Submissions.

Technology Type Number of times

submitted Chemically Assisted Sedimentation (CAS) 4 Flotation (2xEF, 1xDAF, 1xIAF, 1xCAF) 5 Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) 4 Rotary Screens 2 Aerobic Bioreactor 2 Aerobic Biofilter 1 Membrane Bioreactor (Aerobic) 1 Membrane Advanced Treatment 1 Anaerobic/Aerobic Combination Plant 1 General Equipment Range (No specific system) 2

The general impression gained by an assessment of the submissions was that there has been a gradual realisation on the part of the wastewater treatment industry in general that winery wastewater presents unique and substantial challenges to the deployment of many of the existing and established treatment technologies available. Many of the respondents indicated that research into winery wastewater application was on-going and there were some offers of trial and pilot-scale plants to assist with this research and development effort. In general it appears that the majority of the technologies (with the possible exception of anaerobic secondary treatment) currently available to the wine industry have the capability to perform adequately and to

128

provide treated effluent of the standard required. However, based on the submissions received and on extensive industry experience it is considered that there is an endemic underestimation of the nature and variability of winery wastewater and that it is often assumed that it is similar to other food industry wastewater streams in these respects. The risk presented by this situation is that systems may be specified and costed based on loadings and performance assumptions which are ultimately incorrect and can produce underperforming plants. The response to such an eventuality is most often a re-assessment of the plant (belatedly armed with the knowledge which should have been obtained in the first instance), and a proposal to upgrade the system to perform correctly. This is generally an expensive option, as retrofitting existing plants is often difficult and inefficient, unless expansion has been considered in the original design brief. Those organisations who have gained significant winery wastewater treatment experience, and whose design approach has been modified accordingly, or whose product has been developed “from the ground up” with winery wastewater as the primary treatment subject are the most likely to provide a feasible treatment solution.

11.7 Applicable Technologies

More than 60% of South Australia wineries crush less than 200 t per year (Wine Industry Directory 2002). This equates to an approximate annual wastewater generation volume for this group of wineries of less than 400 kL, and for many it is substantially less than this volume. It may be surprising therefore that the majority of wastewater treatment technologies, products and systems were not easily scaled-down to suit this very small capacity segment of the industry. This is generally due to the requirement for manufacturers to minimise inventory and product range complexity, combined with the fact that much of the existing product range being designed into winery wastewater systems are modifications of existing equipment, often from applications with significantly higher throughput requirements.

11.7.1 Very Small (≤ 200 t) Wineries

Of the range of applicable technologies which are currently available to the wine industry, the following are considered to be most appropriate for the very small scale facility, specifically in respect of economy of scale considerations.

• Small application rotary drum screens • Small IAF solids separation plants • Simple small scale aerobic secondary treatment plants (possibly custom built) • Reed Bed Treatment Systems were site conditions permit • Small (low flow) membrane plants

Depending on the desired or dictated end-use or disposal applications, one of more of these technologies could be combined to produce a wastewater treatment system

129

which will minimise the potential for environmental impact, and in most cases allow some degree of beneficial re-use on the winery site.

11.7.2 Small Wineries (200 to 2000 t)

Some wineries in this category crushing between 200 and 500 effective tonnes per annum will find themselves in the same positions as the very small wineries due to the fact that they have a very low specific wastewater production rate (in terms of kL per Tonne effective crush). The list of appropriate technologies shown above would be applicable to such facilities as the main design criterion is daily (vintage) flow rate, and highly efficient operations in this category can produce flow rates as low as 3 to 4 kL per day (excluding stormwater accessions). In the case of facilities in this low wastewater volume (and flow) category it may be worth considering the possibility of combining the wastewater streams from ancillary developments on the same site such as cellar door, restaurants etc. with the winery wastewater to increase the supply rate to any potential wastewater treatment system. This would impose additional restrictions on the handling and end-use options for the wastewater and treated effluent, and would also carry additional OH&S implications, however it may be worthwhile despite these additional issues if the cost of treatment per unit volume of wastewater is reduced. From 500 t to the nominal maximum capacity in this category (2,000 t), economies of scale should begin to operate favourably in most cases, with the majority of the currently available technologies, systems and packaged plants being suitable, provided that the appropriate level of winery wastewater characterisation and design criteria establishment has been undertaken.

11.7.3 Irrigation Re-use as Secondary Treatment

There are several documented instances in South Australia of primary treated winery wastewater being irrigated onto dedicated receiving-sites, which rely on the ability of plant-soil systems to degrade and assimilate the applied wastewater. The success of such systems is heavily dependent on the nature of the soil profile, the physiography and hydrogeology of the receiving-site, and appropriate design and operation of the system. Given the physiographic conditions which predominate throughout most of the Mount Lofty Ranges catchment, the importance of the area with respect to its role as a water supply catchment, and the intrinsic requirement for such direct irrigation re-use systems to allow a degree of percolation and possible accession to groundwater to control soil salinity, it is considered that such systems are not an appropriate option for application in the Mount Lofty Ranges catchment area. This does not imply that the application of this type of system in less sensitive and more appropriate settings will necessarily result in environmental impact.

130

11.7.4 Packaged Treatment Plants

A number of “packaged” wastewater treatment plants is available for treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters, with a small number of these purported to be designed specifically for winery wastewater treatment. Packaged plants generally comprise a complete treatment train including primary and secondary treatment steps, most often with some manner of tertiary treatment or effluent polishing process step. The advantages of such systems are the tight control over process steps, with little scope for intervention by the operator, the relative ease of installation, and a small footprint. The inability for the winery operator to make significant adjustment to such plants can be a disadvantage if influent loads are not maintained within the specified design parameters. This often necessitates the use of flow equalisation capacity prior to the packaged plant to ensure correct influent characteristics to the packaged plant. Such plants need to be matched carefully to the individual winery operation to ensure that both over-treatment and under-treatment are avoided. Packaged plants may prove uneconomic for wineries at the very small end of the processing capacity spectrum.

11.7.5 Indicative Capital and Operating Costs

Table 11.4 provides information on the end-use or disposal options potentially available to wineries in the Mount Lofty Ranges catchment, depending on the degree of treatment afforded the wastewater and therefore the quality of the final treated effluent. For each of the broad categories of treatment, indicative capital and operating costs have been estimated for a generic 200 t and 2000 t winery. This is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject, but represents a concise bracketing of the general types of wastewater treatment technologies currently available in Australia, and the order of costs indicated by the respondents to the winery wastewater treatment industry survey.

11.7.6 Buyer Beware

Consideration of any proposal for a wastewater treatment system should be made with the assistance of an independent party who is not involved in the supply or marketing of such systems, and can provide dispassionate advice as to the appropriateness of the proposal for the treatment of winery wastewater in general, and for the individual winery specifically, and/or critical comparison between alternatives being offered.

131

12.0 SUMMARY OF KEY STUDY FINDINGS

From the preceding chapters, the key study findings are summarised in this Section. In the assessment of risks with the generic wineries and the development scenarios, assumptions were made as to the requirements for development approval. These assumptions are also outlined.

12.1 Study Findings

12.1.1 Protecting MLRW Environmental Values

With respect to water quality protection in the MLRW in the context of Winery and Ancillary Development, the key findings are:

• Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs

There is very little risk to water supply reservoirs from spills originating from winery or ancillary developments. Even the largest anticipated spill event is unlikely to impact on the reservoirs. With best management practice the probability of such an event is extremely low, with a probable frequency exceeding 1 in 10,000 years (an acceptable level of risk is suggested as having a 1 in 100 year event frequency).

• Agricultural use, recreation/amenity, in-stream domestic water supply and the protection of aquatic ecosystems

The high strength of winery product, alcohol-based refrigeration brine, and untreated winery wastewater would be sufficient to adversely impact water quality in watercourses, for the above-mentioned environmental values. Depending on the volume of the spill and flow conditions, the entire length of the watercourse could be impacted.

Alcohol-based refrigeration brine potentially exhibits the most

significant potential for impact on surface water quality, justifying significant upgrade of facilities used to store and circulate this refrigerant liquid.

Following a spill event, a watercourse or downstream farm dam

impacted by a spill would recover relatively quickly in terms of physico-chemical conditions, however the aquatic ecosystems effected may take months or even years to recover fully. However, with best management practice the probability of spill events which could cause significant impact is very low in risk assessment terms, (less than 1 in 10,000 years).

132

12.1.2 Comparison of the Existing Situation and Development Scenarios for Wineries

The total frequency of spills from all sources for the Onkaparinga Catchment was summarised in Table 10.6 for:

• The existing wineries at the current approved tonnage without retrofitting.

• The existing wineries at the current approved tonnage with retrofitting. • The existing licensees, all at 2,000 T (scenario 1) with retrofitting.

Retrofitting of existing wineries aims to reduce frequency of spill initiation from the various sources to that of new generic wineries of a similar size. The process would involve retrospective assessment of the principle identified potential water quality risk factors at each individual (existing) facility, and the implementation of works (e.g. Spill Retention Basins) or operational modifications which would serve to mitigate the identified risk factors to an acceptable level. Scenario 1 for the Finniss and Torrens Catchments were summarised in Tables 10.7 and 10.8 respectively. The findings for Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 were summarised for all catchments in Tables 10.9-10.17. The general findings of the Water Quality Risk Assessment, with reference to the described scenarios are: Winery Development Winery Product or Refrigeration Brine Spillage • The current situation with the existing wineries presents the greatest relative

surface water quality risk. Two of the eight constructed wineries exhibited inadequate infrastructure or safeguards against potential water quality risk. In the tables above, if at least one winery has inadequate spill prevention and/or management structures in place, the risk values for this winery determine the overall risk for all wineries in the same catchment. For example, if one winery had a risk factor of 0.2 (1 event in 5 years) and all other wineries in the same catchment had a total risk factor of 0.0000 (less than 1 in 10,000 years), the cumulative total for the catchment would be 0.2. With the existing wineries, current risk levels could be reduced by appropriate retrofitting.

• For scenarios 1, 2 and 3, total risks are at very low levels (1 in 10,000 years or less), assuming best management practice for new generic wineries and retrofitting of existing wineries.

• The primary potential cause of spill events was determined as human error.

133

• For spillage from sources which were served by an internal containment system

viz. loss of product from tanks and fermenters, the frequency of failure was in the order of 1 in 10,000 years or less.

• Storage vessel overflows or rupture were the most likely event to result in

increased potential for off-site spill discharge. • Incorporating constructed retention basins to contain spills reduced the

frequency of failure to less than one in 10,000 years for all winery development scenarios.

• Without retention basins, the presence of interception dams (if appropriately

sited) could also effectively contain spills. • Siting of wineries influences risk and the volume of spills reaching

watercourses. In this regard, the distance of the primary spill site to the nearest watercourse was found to be the most significant locality factor.

• Risk Frequency values reflect the occurrence of a malfunction and/or

uncontrolled spill event, and not necessarily loss to a watercourse. Wastewater Treatment and Re-use • Irrigation of wastewater poses a relatively high individual risk to water quality.

• The use of receiving-site bunding and/or Spill Retention basins would reduce potential risks to less than 1 in 10,000 years.

• Not all sites in the study area would be suitable for discharge of winery

wastewater by irrigation or installation of retention basins. • Treatment of winery wastewater to reduce biological and chemical loadings

could significantly reduce the consequence of a spill entering surface waters, and allow beneficial reuse of the water resource for irrigation of vineyards, etc.

• A number of wastewater treatment technologies and systems exist for treating

wastewater generated by small wineries to enable storage of effluent for subsequent beneficial reuse. The capital and operating costs of these treatment technologies can be prohibitive, and even uneconomic. However, the decision to invest in such technology in order to achieve acceptable treated effluent quality must and will be made by the proponents, based on their individual goals and priorities.

• Irrigation re-use of untreated or partially treated wastewater is not considered

appropriate for the MLRW.

134

12.1.3 Ancillary Development

As indicated above for the winery scenarios, sewage collection and treatment, without remedial retrofitting presented a combined risk of greater than 1 in 100 years, thus representing an unacceptably high frequency of failure, as shown in Table S6. An unknown proportion of these failures would result in leaks, and spills involving small volumes (<1kL) which would be readily absorbed before they reached a surface watercourse. The feasibility of incorporating forms of ‘containment’ could be considered in consultation with designers for inclusion in future systems. Similarly, auditing requirements could also be considered. Because these measures are speculative, they were not included in the risk assessment. They could also have implications for all on-site sewage systems within the MLRW. Ancillary Development Waste Discharges • Sewage collection and treatment poses the greatest individual risk in terms of

ancillary development, and would be least amenable to inclusion of a retention basin.

• Sewage treatment and disposal systems related to ancillary developments

generally involve smaller volumes (up to 5 kL), and slower rates of release, increasing the potential for absorption of spills over a given distance, and thereby reducing the spill volume residuum potentially reaching a given watercourse.

• High rates of failure of sewage treatment and disposal occur, primarily as a

result of overloading, poor maintenance and/or inadequate design. • Risks could be greatly minimised and frequency of failure reduced to low levels

if systems were adequately designed to cater for maximum projected loadings, were properly installed, monitored and subject to regular independent audits and performance checks.

12.2 Assumptions for Best Management Practice

12.2.1 New Wineries of 50, 200, 500, 2,000 and 4,000 Tonne Capacities

The following system and management requirements were assumed for all new generic winery developments.

Processing Equipment:

• All processing equipment, and the refrigeration plant and storage tank, would be housed within buildings or under roof canopies with the following exceptions:

135

crushers (to provide enough clearance for tipping grapes into the units);

‘tank farm’ 4000 T winery only.

• Processing equipment and storage tanks would be fitted with locks that prevent unauthorised persons readily opening valves, etc.

Buildings:

• Buildings would be lockable and alarmed for unauthorised entry;

• Building would be designed to ensure walls and floors always contain and convey spills to trade waste or isolation bund – refrigeration brine storage tanks;

• Buildings would meet current standards for materials used and construction methods.

Weather and climate:

• Developments would have the ability to cater for storm events of one in ten years recurrence and sixty minutes duration;

• Irrigated discharge sites would have the ability to cater for 1-in-10 Wet climatic years in design of dedicated irrigated discharge sites, which is the current de-facto standard used.

Fire – an holistic approach incorporating:

• Separation or use of separate buildings for areas of low, moderate, and high fuel load;

• Landscaping around structures that avoid direct contact with trees and other sources of fuels;

• Alarms, automatic sprinklers and other necessary fire fighting equipment that increase the chance of extinguishing the initial fire.

Containment:

• Use of trade waste to contain spillage from areas used to store and process product;

• Use of trade waste to contain spillage from refrigeration brine circulation systems;

• Use of an isolation bund to contain spillage from refrigeration brine storage tanks and refrigeration units and pipe network leading to cross over to trade waste;

• Use of an earthen bund to contain runoff and spills from irrigated discharge sites;

• Use of bunding around wine tanks – 4000 T winery (optional for wineries which enclose tanks within buildings);

• Use of retention basins to service all winery buildings, and trade waste collection/storage/treatment systems. Note that retention basins should be constructed in a manner that requires any liquid to be pumped out.

136

Wastewater Treatment:

• Design of a treatment system suitable to enable extended on-site storage in stand-alone facilities without odour generation – exemption may be granted for sites that discharge to sewer.

Auditing:

• Full system audits by a person independent to the company would be undertaken to ensure compliance before commissioning new or upgraded developments requiring council approval.

• Site audits to be undertaken by a person independent to the company to ensure compliance, at each EPA licence renewal application.

Management:

• Environment Management Plan

It was assumed that an Environment Management Plan would be required which would aim to identify items or situations which may conspire to cause environmental impact. For the benefit of the operators it would define what the potential impacts were likely to be.

A key emphasis of the plan would be to ensure that owners and operators, and not a delegated consultant, are fully aware of their environmental responsibilities and concerns about potential impacts of development, and are able to discuss the issues and negotiate appropriate measures to reduce risk before construction commences, once approved is granted.

• Management would develop formal documented procedures identifying areas of responsibility for employees in relation to environmental matters, which would have reference to:

the aims and objectives of the Environmental Management Plan

standard operating procedures for use of equipment;

schedules for routine plant maintenance, especially calibration of meters, routine inspection and maintenance procedures;

training and awareness sessions for staff and contractors relating to their environmental responsibilities including reporting of incidents;

contingency plans for various ‘incidents’ which could create a potential risk of environmental harm.

• For irrigation, pre-discharge wastewater treatment would be required as well as the preparation of an Irrigation Management Plan.

12.2.2 Existing Winery Developments

It was assumed that existing winery developments would:

• undertake retrofitting with the aim of improving system design to the abovementioned assumptions for the generic wineries;

• address areas of management as outlined above.

137

The aim of retrofitting and improved management is to reduce frequency of spill initiation from the various sources to that which is outlined for generic wineries.

12.2.3 Ancillary Development

• Sewage collection, treatment and disposal system to be designed to meet DHS Standards and cater for the projected population including a ‘peaking factor’.

• As an additional safeguard an adequate buffer zone to the nearest watercourse be provided.

• The system would need to be audited by an independent person every two years to ensure satisfactory operation and to prevent the development of problems, particularly with effluent disposal/re-use.

12.3 Development Cost and Viability

It became apparent early in the study that it was inappropriate to judge viable development based on economic terms, as each development has its unique combination of factors affecting the economic return – many beyond the scope of this study. However Jenkins (2001) highlighted the high cost of development of both vineyards and wineries, providing an estimate for the latter of between $2½ and $3½ million for a 500 T winery depending on the quality of the public interface (cellar door facilities etc.). This range could be expected to cover additional costs of bunding and retention basins, but may not fully cover the cost of treatment systems and full system audits required before commissioning. In comparison, costs of construction outside the MLRW were estimated at $1 to $1½ million per 1000 T capacity. Cost of expanding a 500 T winery to 2000 T was considered minimal to the start-up cost at it would primarily involve expanding production and storage capacity. With such additional construction standards, relative cost of construction of ‘boutique’ wineries of 200 T or less would be likely to cost at least three times more than if built outside the watershed. Expansion from this lower initial size to 2000 T could also incur potential major expenditure as many storage vessels become too small to be of efficient for use in the larger winery as well as the likelihood of requiring rotary fermenters and alcohol brine for cooling for the larger crush capacity. In addition, reducing costs was a major factor influencing use of non-purpose built equipment, which in many instances had greater risk of mechanical failure or damage due to impact by vehicles etc, although their simpler construction and operation reduced potential rates of human error. Similarly lack of funds was a major factor in non-compliance either in types of systems installed and/or in meeting regulatory deadlines. Consequently cost of production could be a major deterrent, particularly for entrants at the very small end of the range. However exceptions are still possible where developers are prepared to employ inordinate amounts of capital to achieve a ‘life-style’ or idealistic goal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANONa (2002) Draft Environmental Code of Practice for Wineries and Distilleries in South

Australia – Best Practice in Environmental Management. (Environment Protection Authority, Government of South Australia, and South Australian Wine and Brandy Industry Association Inc.) 16 pp.

ANONb (2002) Adelaide Hills Vintage Overview. SA Pricing and Utilisation Survey 2002.

(Department of Industry and Trade, Unpublished). pp 2-7. ANONc (2002) Adelaide Hills Wine Region, Australia. (Tourism SA) 24pp. ANZECC (1992), Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, November 1992.

ANZECC (2000), Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and

Marine Waters. Environment Australia Pub. October 2000.Anon (2002) SA Utilisation and Pricing Survey. Section 2 Adelaide Hills XX Xpp.

Arnold, K., and Gallasch, T. (2001) Mount Lofty Ranges Waste Control System Project.

(Adelaide Hills Council) 63 pp Arup Stokes (2000) Project Report for Management of Winery Wastewater in Highly

Sensitive Areas. Prepared for Dept. Industry and Trade, March 2000. Chadwick A and Morphett J, Hydraulics in Civil and Environmental Engineering – Second

Edition. E & FN Spon. 1995. Chapman, J. A. (1995) Land Disposal of Winery and Distillery Wastewaters. The

University of Adelaide. 191 pp. Chapman J. (2000) Audit of Waste Management Systems of Wineries on the North Para

River. 23pp. Chapman, J. A, P. Baker, and S. Wills (2001) Winery Wastewater Handbook: Production,

Impacts, and Management 120 pp. (Winetitles). Craig RF, Soil Mechanics – Fifth Edition. Chapman & Hall. 1995. E&P Forum (1996), QRA Datasheet Directory, Risk Assessment Report No11.8/250, The Oil

Industry International Exploration & Production Forum, London. Eco Management Services Pty Ltd (2000) Revised Torrens Catchment Water Management

Plan. Working Paper on Water Quality, Riverine Habitat and Aquatic Biodiversity. Prepared for Tonkin Consulting on behalf of the Torrens Catchment Water Management Board, August 2000.

Engineering & Water Supply Department 1988, 'Objectives For Raw Water Quality In The Mount Lofty Ranges Catchments', Water Quality Control Committee Working Group, EWS Lib. Ref. 2743/87.

Environment Protection Authority of Victoria 1977, Waste Assimilation Studies – Low Flow

Conditions, Report prep. By Water Quality Branch, Report No. 40/77, September 1977.

Jenkins, R. (2001) Adelaide hills Watershed – Winery Demand & Infrastructure Study.

(Infrastructure SA) 13pp. Jones K. (2002) Sustaining Success – The Australian Wine Industry Environmental

Strategy. (South Australian Wine and Brandy Industry Association Inc.) 16pp. Kutilek M and Nielsen DR, Soil Hydrology. Catena Verlag. 1994. Lees F P (1995), Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2nd Edition, Butterworth-

Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, UK, (3 Volumes.). McDonald RC et al, Australian Soil and Land Survey – Second Edition. Inkata Press. 1990. Mauganet, J. (1978) Les eaux résiduaires dans les industries viti-vinicoles leur originie et les

possibilités de traitement. Review of French Oenology 71, 23–29. Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment Disposal Re-use – Third Edition.

McGraw Hill. 1991. Morris WA, Run-off Routing Model Parameter Evaluation for Ungauged Catchments. Hydrol

& Water Resources Symposium. The Institution of Engineers Australia. 1982. Pilgrim DH (Ed), Australian Rainfall and Runoff - Vol. 1. The Institution of Engineers

Australia. 1991. Richter J et al, Models for Processes in the Soil. Catena Verlag. 1990. SAHC WCM Standard: South Australian Health Commission (1995) Waste Control systems:

Standard for the Construction, Installation and Operation of Septic Tank systems in south Australia. (Government of South Australia, SAHC 08/406/059) 158 pp

Santos Oliveira, J., Magalhaes da Cunha, J. and Picado Reya, A-M. (1975) Épuration des

eaus résiduaires des caves devinification et des distilleries. Bulletin O.I.V. 529, 443–453.

Smith David J (1993), Reliability, Maintainability and Risk. Practical Methods for Engineers,

Fourth Edition. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. South Australian Tourist Commission (SATC 2002) Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed: Winery

and Ancillary Development Demand Analysis. 5pp. Tebbutt THY, Principles of Water Quality Control - Fourth Edition. Pergamon Press. 1992.

URS (2002) Regional Report – Environmental Management Audit of Wineries in the

Langhorne Creek/Adelaide Hills Region of South Australia. Prepared for Environment Protection Authority SA, March 2002.

Wood, G. 1986, Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed, Impact of Land Use on Water Quality and

Implications for Reservoir Water Quality Management. EWS Lib Ref 3319/86.

APPENDIX I Questionnaire on Winery Wastewater Treatment Technology

APPENDIX II Fault Tree

Analysis

APPENDIX III Fault Tree Results For Generic Wineries

APPENDIX IV Generic Spill Events No Spill Retention Basin

APPENDIX V Spill Volume Residuum For Selected Scenarios

ATTACHMENT I Consultancy/Contractor Tender Specification

ATTACHMENT II ANONb (2002) Adelaide Hills Vintage Overview

ATTACHMENT III Mt Lofty Ranges Watershed Winery and Ancillary Development Demand Analysis

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Aeration:

A process for continuously creating new air/liquid interfaces to promote the transfer of oxygen across the interface. This may be achieved by spraying the liquid in the air, eg. Spray irrigation of sewage; bubbling air through the liquid eg. Diffused air aeration in the activated sludge process; agitating the liquid, eg. Mechanical aeration in the activated sludge process; allowing the liquid to flows in thin films over a weir; or other air entrainment processes such as dissolved air or two phase flows.

Aerobic:

A process or condition that occurs in the presence of dissolved or free oxygen.

Alcohol:

One of the basic constituents of wine, alcohol is a tasteless and colourless chemical that occurs naturally during fermentation when sugars from grape juice are processed by yeast. The alcohol that is found in wine is primarily ethyl alcohol though other alcohols can be found in smaller amounts. The alcohol content of wine ranges from about 8% to 14% by volume, and the correct amount of alcohol is essential to a wine's body and balance. Alcohol is the intoxicating component of wine, and most countries require the alcohol content of a wine to be shown on its label.

Anaerobic:

A process or condition that occurs without the presence of dissolved or free oxygen.

Ascorbic Acid:.

Vitamin C. Can be found in greater concentration in unripe grapes than in ripe ones, but often is added to wine as an antioxidant

Bacteria: Single celled organisms that have no nucleus. Bentonite:

A very fine clay used as a fining or clarifying agent in wine to remove protein, to achieve Heat Stabilization or to remove another fining agent.

Bioavailable: The fraction of the total chemical in the surrounding environment that can be taken up by organisms. The environment may include water, sediment, suspended particles, and food items.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD):

The decrease in oxygen content in mg/L of a sample of water in the dark at a certain temperature over a certain period of time, which is caused by the bacterial breakdown of organic matter. Usually, the decomposition has proceeded so far after 20 days, that no further change occurs. The oxygen demand is measured after 5 days (BOD5), at which time 70% of the final value usually has been reached.

Biomass:

Amount of living organic matter eg. Leaves, branches, trunk, bark and roots of a tree.

Biota: The sum total of the living organisms of any designated area.

Blending:

The process of combining different wines to create a composite that's better than any of the wines separately. The wines blended might be from different varieties, different regions, different wood- and non-wood-aging, different vintages, and even wines made from different fruit.

Bloom: An unusually large number of organisms per unit of water, usually algae, made up of one or a few species.

Brine:

A coined name given to an alcohol and water solution which is used as the refrigerant in tank cooling systems in many wineries.

Bunding:

An earth or other solid embankment used for confining liquid or sludge.

Citric Acid:

A colourless acid found in all citrus fruit, pineapples, and in lesser amounts in several other fruit. Used as an acidic cleaning agent in winery cleaning operations. It is sometimes added to cheaper wines to increase their acidity.

Clarify:

The process of a wine becoming clear, which occurs when all of the yeast and microscopic fragments of pulp from the base ingredients of the wine settle to the bottom of the secondary, leaving a clear wine without haze.

Clarifier:

A vessel in which solids are induced to separate from a liquid medium. The clarified liquid supernatant is generally drawn off from the top of the vessel, and the settled solids removed from the base.

Codes of Practice:

Guidelines published to assist industry meet or exceed its legal obligations. Generally do not have the same force and effect as an Act.

Cold Stabilization:

The process of removing excess potassium and tartaric acid under chilled conditions as Potassium Bitartrate to prevent its precipitation in the bottle when chilled.

Concentration: The quantifiable amount of chemical in the surrounding water, food or sediment.

Criteria (water quality): Scientific data evaluated to derive the recommended limits for water uses.

Criticality:

In reference to a parameter, this is the level of importance the parameter has to the operation of the system.

Crush:

Crushing refers to putting newly picked grapes into a "de-stemmer," a machine that de-stems the fruit and crushes it, releasing juice from the berry.

Diatomaceous Earth:

A fine filtration medium composed of the siliceous (silica-based) exo-skeletal remains of small marine invertebrates called diatoms.

Diammonium Phosphate:

One of the major ingredients in almost all yeast nutrients and energizers, serving as their basic source of nitrogen. Also known as DAP.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO):

The concentration of oxygen dissolved in water or effluent in milligrams per litre (mg/L). The colder the water, the greater the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in it. In fresh water, oxygen is soluble up to 14.6 mg/L at 0oC, and up to 8.4 mg/L at 25oC. Fish and other aquatic organisms usually require more than 4 mg/L of DO to survive.

Diurnal: Daily. EC: Electrical conductivity. Ece:

Electrical conductivity or measure of salt content in the extracted soil water when the soil is saturated with water, expressed as dS/m.

EC(1:5):

Electrical conductivity or salt content as measured in a 1:5 soil solution, expressed as dS/m.

Effluent:

Effluent means: (a) wastewater from sewage collection or treatment plants; or (b) wastewater from collection or treatment systems that are ancillary to processing industries involving livestock, agriculture, wood, paper or food, being wastewater that is conveyed from the place of generation by means of a pipe. Canal or other conventional method used in irrigation (but not by means of tanker or truck); or (c) wastewater from collection or treatment systems that are ancillary to intensive livestock, agriculture or agricultural industries, being wastewater that is released by means of a pipe, canal or other conventional method used in irrigation as part of the day-to-day farming operations.

Effluent Irrigation System:

Irrigation system that uses effluent. Irrigation of effluent is not synonymous with disposal.

Environmental Management System (EMS):

Provides order and consistency for an organisation to address environmental concerns through the allocation of resources and evaluation of practices.

Environmental values: Particular values or uses of the environment that are conducive to public benefit, welfare, safety or health and that require protection from the effects of pollution, waste discharges and deposits. Several environmental values may be designated for a specific waterbody.

Ethanol:

An alcohol, C2H5OH, produced by distillation or as the principal alcohol in an alcohol fermentation by yeast. Also know as Ethyl Alcohol.

Eutrophic: Abundant in nutrients and having high rates of productivity frequently resulting in oxygen depletion below the surface layer of a waterbody.

Eutrophication:

Enrichment of waters with nutrients, primarily phosphorus, causing abundant aquatic plant growth.

Failure Domain:

In analysis work, this refers to an analysis which seeks to determine the probability of a system not operating correctly.

Fault Tree: A symbolic logic model generated in the failure domain, which traces the failure pathways from a pre-determined, undesirable condition or event of a system to the failures or faults which could act as causal agents.

Fermentation: The process of yeast acting upon sugar to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide.

Fermenter: A vessel used to contain and facilitate fermentation of the juice or must to produce wine and other fermentation products.

Filtering: The process of removing yeast cells and other micro-organisms that could spoil the wine, as well as any remaining sediment that would keep it from being crystal clear, by pumping the wine through cellulose pads, pads lined with diatomaceous earth, or especially fine membranes.

Filtration: The process of passing a fluid through a porous medium to separate suspended solids from the fluid.

Fining: Removing suspended solids from a cloudy wine by temperature adjustment, blending with an already cleared wine of the same variety, filtering, or adding a fining material such as egg albumen, milk, gelatine, casein, or bentonite.

Flocculate: To aggregate, or clump together individual, tiny soil particles, especially fine clay into small clumps or floccules.

Flocculation: The process of settling or compacting of lees or sediment. Lightly or loosely flocculated lees are less dense than tightly or compactly flocculated ones. Good flocculation implies greater density

Gross Lees: Loose sediments containing a large quantity of fine pulp from the fruit or other base materials from which the wine is made. The pulp does not compact well on its own and therefore is loosely suspended in wine. Gross lees can be compacted somewhat by adding gelatine to the wine, or they can be coarsely filtered or centrifuged to recover much of the wine trapped within them.

Groundwater: All waters occurring below the land surface. Infiltration rate: The rate at which water can enter the soil surface. It

affects the rate at which a soil may recharge with water and because it affects the likelihood of surface runoff and hence erosion during heavy rain or irrigation.

Kilolitre (kL): A unit of volume equal to 1000 litres or 1 cubic metre.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Sum of organically bound N and ammonium N in

materials containing organic matter. Ammonium is determined after digestion with boiling sulphuric acid – a chemical process that reduces organically bound nitrogen or ammonium.

Lactic Acid: An acid formed in trace amounts during yeast fermentation and in larger quantities during malolactic fermentation, in which bacteria convert malic acid into lactic acid and carbon dioxide. See Malolactic Fermentation.

Lees: Deposits of yeast and other solids formed during fermentation. This sediment is usually separated from the wine by racking. Sometimes the wine is left in contact with the lees in an attempt to develop more flavour.

Maceration: The period of time grape juice spends in contact with the skins and seeds.

Malic Acid: A naturally occurring acid found in apples, cherries, grapes grown in less sunny regions, and certain other fruit. It is the presence of malic acid, along with Bacillus gracile, which sometimes produces malo-lactic fermentation.

Malolactic Fermentation: This is a bacterial fermentation which can occur after yeast fermentation slows down or finishes. The bacterium Bacillus gracile converts malic acid into lactic acid and carbon dioxide. Lactic acid is much less harsh than malic and thereby softens and smooths the wine, but the wine also is endowed with a cleaner, fresher taste. In addition, diacetyl is produced as a by-product, which resembles the smell of heated butter and adds complexity to wine. MLF is a positive event in some cases and has a downside in others--the fruitiness of wines undergoing MLF is diminished and sometimes off-odours can result. To ensure MLF, the wine should not be heavily sulphured and it should be inoculated with an MLF culture.

Marc: The residue of pressed pulp, skins and seeds after pressing. When pressed under great pressure, a cake or brick results.

Maturation: The process of aging in bulk or in bottles or both, to achieve smoothness (in acidity), mellowness (in tannins and other phenols) and unique character and complexity. The major activities in this process are the chemical reduction of certain compounds into others, primarily by hydrolysis or oxidation, and the joining together of short molecular chains into longer ones. Volatile esters, ethers and acids create bouquet, which is not the same as aroma.

Metabisulfite: Potassium Metabisulfite or Sodium Metabisulfite. Micro-organisms: Microscopic organisms that are not visible to the naked

eye, ie. Bacteria, viruses, yeasts, algae, fungi and protozoa. Micro-organisms appear in all habitats, including soil, water, skin, hair, intestines etc.

Milligrams per Litre (mg/L):

A unit of concentration of a substance in a fluid (usually water). Equivalent to parts per million (ppm) when the fluid is water.

Modal Slope: The average or equivalent slope derived from a sloping landform with multiple and varying slopes in cross-section.

Must: The combination of basic ingredients, both solid and liquid, from which wine is made. The liquid content of must is called liquor or simply juice, while the solids, when pushed to the surface by rising carbon dioxide, is called the cap. When the alcohol content reaches 8 or 9%, the liquid component is more accurately referred to as wine.

Nutrient: A ‘food’ essential for a cell, organism or plant growth. Phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium are essential for plant growth. In excess, they are potentially serious pollutants encouraging nuisance growth of algae and aquatic plants in water. Nitrate-nitrogen poses a direct threat to human health. Nitrogen is much more mobile and its form is primarily mediated by micro-organisms. Phosphorus is considered the major element responsible for potential algae blooms.

Organic carbon: That part of organic matter, which is composed of organic carbon.

Oxidation (Oxidisation): The process of reaction between many molecular components of wine with oxygen, resulting eventually in a darkening (browning) of the wine and the development of undesirable odours and flavours. Also; the metabolic process employed by aerobic organisms using oxygen as the ultimate electron acceptor during catabolism and respiration.

Pathogen: An organism capable of eliciting disease symptoms in another organism.

Percolation: The downward movement of water through soil contributing to internal drainage; that is, the descent of water through the soil pores and rock crevices. It sometimes leads to leaching.

Perlite: An alumino-silicate rock which is processed to form a fine filtration medium. Similar in application to diatomaceous earth.

Permeability: The ease, with which water may penetrate or force its way through rock, gravel or soils. Coarse sands and gravels permit rapid flow, and are rated as highly permeable materials. Microscopic pores in clay impede flows and are designated as impermeable or of low permeability.

pH: A chemical shorthand for [p]otential of [H]ydrogen, used to express relative acidity or alkalinity in solution, in terms of strength rather than amount, on a logarithmic scale. A pH of 7 is neutral; above 7 is increasing alkalinity and below 7 is increasing acidity. Thus, a pH of 3 is 10 times more acidic than a ph of 4. See Acidity.

Piezometer: A non-pumping bore, generally of small diameter that is used to measure the elevation of the water table or potentiometric surface and for the collection of groundwater samples. A piezometer generally has a short bore screen through which water can enter.

Pollution: Emission or discharge of matter, be it solid, liquid or gaseous, which causes a deleterious change in the physical, chemical or biological condition of the environment.

Potassium Bitartrate: A salt of potassium and tartaric acid which can precipitate out of a wine as crystals under chilled conditions.

Potassium Metabisulfite: One of several compounds which may be used to sanitize winemaking equipment and utensils (the other being sodium metabisulfite). Its action, in water, inhibits harmful bacteria through the release of sulphur dioxide, a powerful antiseptic. It can be used for sanitizing equipment and the must from which wine is to be made.

Potassium Sorbate: Potassium sorbate produces sorbic acid when added to wine. It serves two purposes; when active fermentation has ceased and the wine racked the final time after clearing, its use will prevent future fermentation. When a wine is sweetened before bottling potassium sorbate is used to prevent re-fermentation. It should always be used in conjunction with potassium metabisulfite. It is primarily used with sweet wines and sparkling wines, but may be added to table wines which exhibit difficulty in maintaining clarity after fining.

Press: To use pressure to force juice out of fruit pulp, or a device used to achieve this result.

Primary Treatment: Wastewater treatment by screening, grit removal, sedimentation with sludge digestion to remove gross and settleable solids.

Pulp: The soft, juice-laden flesh of the grape or other fruit. Racking: The process of siphoning the wine off the lees to

stabilize it and allow clarification.

Retrofitting: The implementation of works (e.g. Spill Retention Basins) or operational modifications which would serve to mitigate the identified principle potential water quality risk factors at an existing facility, to an acceptable level.

Rotary Fermenter: A cylindrical fermenter installed with the long axis horizontal and which slowly rotates to mix the ferment, and to allow removal of the must and lees after fermentation has finished.

Runoff: Runoff consists of all surface water flow, both over the ground surface as overland flow, and in streams as channel flow. It may originate from excess precipitation that can’t infiltrate the soil or as the outflow of groundwater along lines where the watertable intersects the earth’s surface.

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity:

The flow of water through soil per unit of energy gradient. It is an important measure of the drainage capacity of the soil.

Secondary treatment: A combination of processes used to remove biodegradable organics and suspended solids in wastewater. It removes 85% of BOD and suspended solids, generally by biological and chemical treatment processes. Secondary effluent generally has BOD <20mg/L, TSS < 30mg/L but may rise to >100 due to algal solids in lagoon or pond systems.

Sediment: The grainy, bitter-tasting deposit sometimes found in bottles of older wines. Sediment is the natural separation of bitartrates, tannins, and colour pigments that occurs as wines age and may indicate a wine of superior maturity. Also known as Crust, especially in port wines.

Sludge: The accumulated solids separated from effluent during treatment and storage.

Sodium Benzoate: Sold as "Stabilizing Tablets," sodium benzoate is used, one crushed tablet per gallon of wine, to stop future fermentation. It is used when active fermentation has ceased and the wine racked the final time after clearing. It is generally used with sweet wines and sparkling wines, but may be added to table wines which exhibit difficulty in maintaining clarity after fining. For sweet wines, the final sugar syrup and crushed tablet may be added at the same time.

Sodium Metabisulfite: One of two compounds commonly used to sanitize winemaking equipment and utensils, the other being potassium metabisulfite. Its action, in water, inhibits harmful bacteria through the release of sulphur dioxide, a powerful antiseptic.

Soil Structure: The combination or arrangement of individual soil particles into definable aggregates, or ped, which are characterised and classified on the basis of size, shape and degree of distinctness.

Spill Volume Residuum (SVR):

The theoretical residual volume which would reach a nominated watercourse as a result of a given spill event and prevailing conditions.

Stabilization: The process of rendering a wine stable, either naturally or through intervention.

Sump: A low point in an irrigation system at which water can be collected and transferred elsewhere in the system.

Suspended Solids: The solids in suspension in wastewater that are removable by laboratory filtering, usually by a filter of nominal pore size of about 1.2 microns.

Tertiary treatment: Includes treatment processes beyond secondary or biological processes that further improve effluent quality. Tertiary treatment processes include detention in lagoons, conventional filtration via sand, dual media or membrane filters (which may include coagulant dosing) and land based or wetland processes.

Table Wine: A still wine, usually light to medium in body, dry to semi-dry, low to moderate in alcohol (10% to 13% by volume), and often served with meals. Also called dinner wine.

Tannin: Tannic acid, essential for good aging qualities and balance, gives most wines their "zest" or "bite." Tannin is found naturally in the stems, skins and pips (seeds) of most red and dark fruit such as grapes, elderberries, sloes, apples, and plums, but also in pear skins, oak leaves, and dark tea leaves. Most grains, roots and flowers used in winemaking lack any or sufficient tannin, so must be supplemented with grape tannin or tannin from another source. Wines containing too much tannin can be ameliorated by adding a little sugar or glycerine, fined with gelatine, or blended with another, softer wine.

Tartaric Acid: A reddish acid found in grapes and several other fruit. Texture: The name given to soil on the basis of how moist fine

earth (<2mm) behaves when manipulated in various ways by hand.

TKN: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Total dissolved solids (TDS):

Combined concentration of dissolved mineral salts in effluent.

Total organic carbon (TOC):

The total organic carbon content of wastewater.

Wastewater: Water, which is collected and transported to a treatment plant (often by sewer). Wastewater normally includes water from both domestic and industrial sources.

Wine Yeast: Yeast cultured especially for winemaking, with such desirable attributes a as high alcohol tolerance, firmer sediment formation, and less flavour fluctuation. Wine yeasts are usually obtained from a winemaking/brewing specialty shop or by mail order.

Wood Aging: This is the process of maturing wine in barrels or casks prior to bottling. This process allows young wines to soften and absorb some of the wood's flavours and tannins and allows the wine's flavours to become concentrated through slight evaporation through the wood. While oak is the overwhelming wood of choice for wood aging, mesquite, hickory, pecan, apple, orange, and cherry wood can also contribute unique qualities to wines aged with their chips or shavings.

Yeast: A unicellular fungi, principally of the genus Saccharomyces, capable of fermenting carbohydrates.