Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Cement and Slag Receival andDispatch TerminalMayfield North

February 2013

EnfoReTeMa

Feb

Prep

Um

on be

Ind ProjProjRepoDate

New PO B75 YoTeraPh: 0

www

nvironmor Cemeeceival erminalayfield

ruary 2013

pared by

mwelt (Austra

ehalf of

ependent Ce

ect Director: ect Manager: ort No: e:

wcastle

Box 3024 ork Street

alba, NSW 2284 02 4950 5322

w.umwelt.com.au

mental Aent and and Dis, North

alia) Pty Lim

ement and L

Peter Rod W2520/Febru

AssessmeSlag patch

ited

ime Pty Ltd

Jamieson Williams

R07/FINAL ary 2013

ent

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.umwelt.com.au/

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Executive Summary

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited

2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 1

Executive Summary Independent Cement and Lime Pty Ltd (ICL) has secured an option from the Newcastle Port Corporation (NPC) for a long term lease over a site within the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site. ICL proposes to construct and operate a 'State-of-the-Art' cement and ground slag receival and dispatch terminal on the site. The site will be between approximately 2.45 hectares in size with the location and exact boundaries of the site being determined at the time the lease between ICL and NPC is finalised. The cement and ground slag will be imported by ship, unloaded using either self-unloading ships or a Siwertel system that will transfer the cement and slag via a pipeline operated under negative pressure and then stored in silos from where it will be subsequently distributed by sealed road tankers to local, regional and State-wide concrete batching plants and other end users. Following the closure of the BHP operations in September 1999, decommissioning and rehabilitation activities have followed. The BHP area has been subject to a number of development applications and associated modifications, the most recent being the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan (AECOM 2010), which was approved by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 16 July 2012. The location of the proposed cement terminal has been determined in consultation with Newcastle Port Corporation to provide access to existing wharf facilities and to be set back sufficiently from the wharf to enable other activities to occur on the wharf and not be impeded by cement terminal infrastructure. The proposed terminal is a stand-alone development that is located on land associated with the Concept Plan. With reference to the Concept Plan the proposed terminal is located across the boundary of the Bulk and General Precinct and the General Purpose Precinct.

The Concept Plan identifies that the Bulk and General Precinct would be used for the handling and storing of bulk goods such as grain and other dry bulk goods, including cement. The proposed cement terminal (i.e. the handling and storing of bulk cement and ground slag) is consistent with the description of the Bulk and General Precinct. The Concept Plan identifies that the adjoining General Purpose Precinct would be used for handling and storing cargo containers, heavy machinery, break bulk and Roll On, Roll Off cargo. Various buildings and infrastructure would be located in the precinct, including covered storage areas and areas of hardstand. The proposed cement terminal (i.e. the handling and storing of bulk cement and ground slag in concrete silos which are effectively covered storage areas is also consistent with the description of the General Purpose Precinct. The Concept Plan Approval notes that the construction and operation of the cement terminal is to be assessed as a transitional Part 3A project under Schedule 6A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (i.e. the proposed cement terminal is a stand-alone project that is located within the boundaries of the Concept Plan).

The proposed development is consistent with activities to be undertaken within the Concept Plan's Bulk and General Precinct and General Purpose Precinct and can be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with environmental performance standards of the Concept Plan. Accordingly ICL proposes to construct and operate a cement and ground slag receival and dispatch terminal on the identified area which forms part of the former BHP site.

Need for the Project It is envisaged that the proposed terminal will be used to supply cement and slag to markets in Sydney, Newcastle and north coast regions. At present ICL supplies cement to these areas via road transport from terminal in Port Kembla. Some cement is also delivered to these areas from Brisbane.


Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 2

ICL currently transports approximately 178 truck loads (i.e. 356 truck movements) of cement and/or ground slag per week to Newcastle area out of its existing Port Kembla facility. This involves trucks travelling up to 480 kilometre round trip on public roads to deliver cement and/or ground slag. This number has been increasing annually and is expected to increase in the future in line with marketing activities and expected increases in demand from the construction industry. This Project will avoid such truck deliveries by providing a local terminal for the receival of cement and/or ground slag directly by ship and distribution by sealed road tankers to customers within NSW. By 2015 the expected saving will be 2,800,000 truck kilometres per year. The Project The key operational components associated with the Project are as follows: • Receival: the receival of cement and slag by ship;

• Transfer: the transfer of incoming cement and slag from the berth to the terminal via two sealed pipelines of approximately 400 millimetre diameter;

• Storage: the storage of cement and slag in silos; and

• Dispatch: the distribution of cement and slag by road tanker to batching plants and other end users.

ICL proposes to undertake the proposal in three discrete phases, as outlined below: Stage 1: involves establishing ship unloading facilities at either Mayfield Berth No. 3 or Mayfield Berth No. 4, constructing a 35,000 tonne capacity silo, amenities and service buildings and a transfer pipeline linking the berth(s) and storage silo. The establishment of ship unloading facilities will be dependent on the status of the Mayfield Berth No. 3 upgrade. Should the Mayfield Berth No. 3 not be operational when construction of the cement terminal is completed, ships will initially be unloaded at the Mayfield Berth No. 4. If the upgrade of the Mayfield Berth No. 3 is likely to be completed in the near future, the ship unloading facility (i.e. Siwertell unloader) may not be constructed at the Mayfield Berth No. 4 to avoid the need to relocate the ship unloading facilities. If this is the case, ICL will use self-discharging ships until the wharf facilities at Mayfield Berth No. 3 are operational. Stage 2: involves the construction of the Siwertell ship unloading facilities at the Mayfield Berth No. 3, if the Mayfield Berth No. 3 was not operational when construction of the cement terminal was completed and thus Mayfield Berth No. 4 and self-discharging ships were used. Stage 3: involves the construction of the second 35,000 tonne capacity storage silo. The construction of the second silo will be determined by market demand and is likely to be required when the total throughput exceeds 350,000 tonnes per year. It is proposed to operate the terminal up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ICL proposes to construct a modern cement terminal using the best available technology at the time of detailed design. This will result in a state-of-the-art facility which is energy efficient and minimises potential environmental impacts. A DVD showing operations at ICL’s plant in Melbourne which is similar to the proposed terminal and utilises the same environmental controls is provided in the inside back cover of this document.




Consultation Consultation has been undertaken with the general community, neighbouring businesses, interest groups, and government agencies during the preparation of the Environmental Assessment (EA), with a commitment to continue discussions during and following lodgement and exhibition processes and throughout the life of the operation. The consultation program has included written correspondence, individual meetings and presentations to community interest groups and neighbouring industry. A public Information Session, which was advertised in the Newcastle Herald and local free newspapers, was also held in September 2012.

Approval Process The Project is a ‘Major Project’ pursuant to Schedule 1 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Major Projects) and will be assessed under the transitional provisions of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Department of

Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) has provided Director-Generals Requirements (DGRs) for preparation of this EA. The Minister for Planning will be the determining authority for the Project, which will be placed on public exhibition for comment prior to determination. Key Environmental Issues

Noise

Noise modelling of the proposed terminal has identified that the construction and operation of the terminal under the worst case meteorological conditions will comply with the EPA and the Concept Plan Approval noise goals at all locations during the day, evening and night time periods. As such, operation of the Project is not predicted to result in any adverse noise impacts during the day, evening and night time periods, at all receiver locations or limit any future developments within the area associated with the Concept Plan. The Project is predicted to make a negligible contribution to cumulative noise levels in the surrounding area. Air Quality A comprehensive air quality assessment was undertaken as part of the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure approved the Concept Plan on 16 July 2012, which detailed air quality criteria for the site and surrounding residential areas. The predicted air quality levels for the operation of the Project have been compared against the EPA and Concept Plan Approval air quality criteria. The comparative assessment found that under the worst case meteorological conditions the predicted dust emissions associated with the operation of the terminal can be effectively managed; such that their impact is expected to be negligible (i.e. the predicted air quality levels are less than the OEH and Concept Plan Approval air quality criteria). Similarly the dust emissions associated with the construction of the terminal can be effectively managed through routine construction management techniques, such that their impact is expected to be negligible. The Project is predicted to make a negligible contribution to cumulative air quality in the area. Road and Sea Traffic

A comprehensive road and sea traffic assessment was undertaken as part of the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan, which considered the cumulative traffic impacts




from the Concept Plan development in its entirety. A comparative assessment between the predictions contained in the Concept Plan against that associated with the Project was undertaken. The assessment found the Project at maximum operational levels which are not expected to be achieved until after at least 10 years of operation would on average generate approximately 58 laden truck movements per day (i.e. 116 truck movements). This is not expected to result in any adverse traffic impact beyond that considered in the Concept Plan Approval. The traffic assessment for the approved Concept Plan assumed 161 laden truck trips per day (i.e. 322 truck movements) from the Bulk and General Precinct, 112 laden truck trips (i.e. 224 truck movements) from the General Purpose Precinct and 1268 truck trips per day (i.e. 2536 truck movements) for the Concept Plan Project in total. The Project at maximum operational levels is predicted to require 32 ship loads of cement/slag per year. Based on the existing capacity within the Port of Newcastle and expected growth in ship numbers, it is anticipated that these additional ships can be readily accommodated, without any adverse impact on the existing shipping operations. Visual

The current visual character/views of the former BHP steelwork site are dominated by the existing industrial and port facilities. A series of photomontages from surrounding view points have been prepared. These demonstrate that the inclusion of the proposed ICL project will be consistent with the visual context of the area. Therefore only minor visual impacts from this location are anticipated. It is noted that prior to 1999 this site was part of the former BHP Steelworks which determined the visual context of the area. Soil and Water

Standard erosion and sediment control measures will be installed prior to the commencement of ground disturbance construction activities. Clean water will be diverted around the site. Water collected from ‘dirty areas’ within the terminal will be treated on site within the first flush system, which includes and oil/water separator, prior to being discharged to the existing trunk drainage network. The site is located adjacent to the Hunter River. Contamination The site has been the subject of an extensive remediation program, which has involved re-contouring and capping of the Project area. It was recognised within the Contaminated Site Management Plan (CSMP) developed for the remediation works that following the completion of the remediation works further development of the site would be proposed. The CSMP included a process for the contaminated site auditor to confirm that any proposed works comply with the CSMP. ICL will undertake the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the CSMP, this includes the handling and management of excavated spoil in accordance with the material management plan approved for the remediation of the BHP closure area. It is intended that any material excavated during the construction process will be incorporated into the site. Once finally shaped the whole site will be capped with concrete.




Hazard and Risks

A preliminary hazard screening has been undertaken which confirmed that the Project will not store quantities of Dangerous Goods above the relevant thresholds and therefore it can be assumed there is unlikely to be a significant off-site risk and the proposal is therefore not classified as ‘potentially hazardous industry’. Greenhouse Gas

A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) assessment has been undertaken for the Project, which indicates that the operation of the Project will result in approximately 7,900 TCO2-e of Scope 1 GHG emissions. This represents 0.0015% of Australia’s total GHG emissions for 2020. The Project’s greenhouse gas emissions assessment found that the Project is unlikely to limit Australia meeting its national and international greenhouse gas targets. The Project in isolation is unlikely to have an impact on climate change. Supply of cement and slag from the proposed terminal rather than ICL’s Port Kembla facilities is expected to reduce truck travel associated with the delivery of cement by 28 million km/year by 2015. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the transport of cement and slag by approximately 4125 TCO2-e per year offsetting approximately 52% of the Scope 1 GHG emissions. Waste Management The management of waste materials generated by the construction and operation of the Project will be managed through the design; procurement of construction materials and purchasing; identification and segregation of reusable and recyclable materials; processing materials for recycling and considering environmental impacts for waste removal processes.

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Table of Contents


2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 1.1

1.1 Background........................................................................................ 1.1

1.2 Site History......................................................................................... 1.2

1.3 Overview of the Existing Environment ............................................ 1.4

1.3.1 Project Area and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................... 1.4

1.3.1 Property Description and Land Ownership ................................................... 1.5

1.4 Overview of the Planning and Approval Process ........................... 1.5

1.5 Project Team ...................................................................................... 1.6

1.6 Purpose of the Document ................................................................. 1.6

1.7 Environmental Assessment Structure ............................................. 1.6

2.0 Project Description .................................................................... 2.1

2.1 General Overview .............................................................................. 2.1

2.2 Wharf-Side Facilities ......................................................................... 2.1

2.3 Terminal Facilities ............................................................................. 2.2

2.4 Services and Utilities ........................................................................ 2.3

2.5 Project Construction ......................................................................... 2.3

2.6 Traffic and Access ............................................................................. 2.4

2.6.1 Ship Movements .......................................................................................... 2.4

2.6.2 Heavy Vehicle Traffic Movements ................................................................ 2.5

2.6.3 Light Vehicle Traffic Movements .................................................................. 2.6

2.7 Workforce and Hours of Operation .................................................. 2.6

2.8 Site Remediation and Construction ................................................. 2.7

2.9 Security .............................................................................................. 2.8

3.0 Planning Considerations .......................................................... 3.1

3.1 Commonwealth Legislation .............................................................. 3.1

3.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .................. 3.1

3.1.2 Native Title Act 1993.................................................................................... 3.1

3.2 New South Wales Legislation ........................................................... 3.1

3.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979...................................... 3.1

3.2.2 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 ..................................... 3.3

3.2.3 Water Act 1912 ............................................................................................ 3.3

3.2.4 Roads Act 1993 ........................................................................................... 3.3

3.2.5 Water Management Act 2000 ...................................................................... 3.4



2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 ii

3.3 State Environmental Planning Policies ........................................... 3.4

3.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) .......................... 3.4

3.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy 33 Hazardous and Offensive Development ............................................................................................... 3.4

3.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy 44 Koala Habitat Protection ................ 3.4

3.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (Remediation of Land) 1998 ........... 3.5

3.3.5 State Environmental Planning Policy 71 Coastal Protection ......................... 3.5

3.4 Newcastle Development Control Plan (2012) .................................. 3.7

3.5 Mayfield Port – Related Activities Concept Plan (09_0096) ........... 3.7

4.0 Stakeholder Consultation ......................................................... 4.1

4.1 Authority Consultation ...................................................................... 4.1

4.2 Community Consultation .................................................................. 4.2

4.2.1 Key Community Issues Identified ................................................................. 4.4

4.3 Consultation with other Stakeholders ............................................. 4.4

4.3.1 Neighbouring Industry.................................................................................. 4.4

5.0 Environmental Assessment ..................................................... 5.1

5.1 Environmental Risk Assessment ..................................................... 5.1

5.2 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................... 5.2

5.2.1 Assessment Criteria .................................................................................... 5.2

5.2.2 Noise Modelling Methodology ...................................................................... 5.5

5.2.3 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment ...................................................... 5.5

5.2.4 Cumulative Noise Impacts ........................................................................... 5.8

5.2.5 Noise Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................... 5.9

5.3 Air Quality and Odour ....................................................................... 5.9

5.3.1 Climate and Meteorology ............................................................................. 5.9

5.3.2 Existing Air Quality .................................................................................... 5.10

5.3.3 Air Quality Criteria ..................................................................................... 5.10

5.3.4 Assessment Methodology .......................................................................... 5.12

5.3.5 Air Quality Impact Assessment .................................................................. 5.12

5.3.6 Air Quality Management and Mitigation Measures...................................... 5.13

5.4 Transport and Access (Land, Sea and Parking) ........................... 5.14

5.4.1 Road Transport Impact Assessment .......................................................... 5.14

5.4.2 Road Traffic Control Measures .................................................................. 5.15

5.4.3 Sea Transport Impact Assessment ............................................................ 5.15

5.4.1 Sea Traffic Control Measures .................................................................... 5.15

5.5 Visual Assessment .......................................................................... 5.15

5.5.1 Existing Visual Amenity ............................................................................. 5.15

5.5.2 Visibility of the Project................................................................................ 5.16



2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 iii

5.5.3 Viewing Points and Assessment Methodology ........................................... 5.16

5.5.4 Visual Impact Assessment ......................................................................... 5.17

5.5.5 Summary of Visual Impacts ....................................................................... 5.18

5.5.6 Visual Amenity Management ..................................................................... 5.18

5.6 Soil and Water .................................................................................. 5.18

5.6.1 Existing Environment ................................................................................. 5.19

5.6.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................... 5.19

5.6.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5.20

5.7 Contamination ................................................................................. 5.21

5.7.1 Existing Environment ................................................................................. 5.21


5.7.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5.23

5.8 Hazards and Risks ........................................................................... 5.25

5.8.1 SEPP 33 Assessment................................................................................ 5.25

5.8.2 Preliminary Screening................................................................................ 5.26

5.8.3 Hazardous Materials Inventory .................................................................. 5.26

5.8.4 Transport Screening .................................................................................. 5.26

5.8.5 Assessment of Potentially Offensive .......................................................... 5.26

5.9 Greenhouse Gas .............................................................................. 5.27

5.9.1 Assessment Methodology .......................................................................... 5.27

5.9.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption .............................. 5.28


5.9.4 Greenhouse Gas Management .................................................................. 5.30

5.10 Waste ................................................................................................ 5.30

5.10.1 Management Principles ............................................................................. 5.30

5.10.2 Waste Streams .......................................................................................... 5.31

6.0 Statement of Commitments ...................................................... 6.1

6.1 Operational Controls ......................................................................... 6.1

6.2 Noise ................................................................................................... 6.1

6.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................... 6.3

6.4 Road and Sea Traffic ......................................................................... 6.3

6.5 Visual .................................................................................................. 6.4

6.6 Soil and Water .................................................................................... 6.4

6.7 Contamination ................................................................................... 6.4

6.8 Hazard and Risk ................................................................................. 6.5

6.9 Greenhouse Gas ................................................................................ 6.5

6.10 Waste .................................................................................................. 6.5


Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 iv

6.11 Environmental Management, Monitoring, Auditing and Reporting .................................................................................... 6.5

6.12 Community Engagement .................................................................. 6.6

7.0 Justification of the Project ...................................................... 7.1 7.1 Suitability of the Site ......................................................................... 7.1 7.2 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 7.2 7.3 Economic and Social Benefits of the Project ................................. 7.4 7.4 Consistent with the Objects of the EP&A Act ................................. 7.4

7.4.1 Ecologically Sustainable Development ...........................................................7.5

7.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 7.7

8.0 Checklist of EA Requirements ................................................ 8.1

9.0 References ................................................................................ 9.1

10.0 Abbreviations and Glossary .................................................. 10.1

FIGURES 1.1 Locality Plan and Project Area ................................................................ 1.1 1.2 Position of Terminal Relative to Precinct Areas as set out

in the Concept Plan Approval ................................................................... 1.3 1.3 Surrounding Land Use .............................................................................. 1.4 2.1 Proposed Cement Terminal and Wharf Facility Layout .......................... 2.1 2.2 Cross Section of Proposed Cement Terminal and

Wharf Facility Layout ................................................................................. 2.1 5.1 Predicted Operational Noise Contours .................................................... 5.6 5.2 Air Quality Monitoring and Meteorological Monitoring Locations ........ 5.9 5.3 Visual Assessment Points ...................................................................... 5.16 5.4 Assessment Point A (Photo Montage from the Brewery Jetty) ........... 5.16 5.5 Assessment Point B (Photo Montage from the Obelisk) ...................... 5.16 5.6 Assessment Point C (Photo Montage from Carrington Units) ............. 5.16



2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 v

5.7 Assessment Point D (Photo Montage from Crebert Street, Mayfield) . 5.16 5.8 Assessment Point E (Photo Montage from Stockton Marina) .............. 5.16 5.9 Assessment Point F (Photo Montage from Stockton Park) .................. 5.16 5.10 Remediation Areas .................................................................................. 5.22

Appendices

1 Schedule of Lands 2 Director-General Requirements 3 Project Team 4 Environmental Assessment Statement of Authorship 5 Community Information Sheet 6 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment 7 Noise Assessment 8 Air Quality Assessment 9 Limited Phase 2 Environmental Investigation 10 Greenhouse Gas Assessment

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Introduction

Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited 2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 1.1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Independent Cement and Lime Pty Ltd (ICL) was established in 1987 via a partnership between The Barro Group and Adelaide Brighton, with each owning 50% of the business. Together with its subsidiary companies Steel Cement Pty Ltd and Building Products Supplies Pty Ltd, ICL is a specialist supplier of cement and cement-blended products to the construction, building, road making and agricultural industries and major retail outlets throughout Victoria and New South Wales. All three companies are certified to AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000 and have an ongoing and total commitment to quality and customer service. Steel Cement Pty Ltd is a manufacturing arm with purpose-built, state-of-the-art blending facilities which supplies ICL with combinations of cementitious materials to meet specific project requirements, including Ecoblend brand environmentally preferable blends. Building Products Supplies Pty Ltd offers a wide range of bagged cement, drymix products and building related products on a wholesale basis throughout Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. The ICL group employs approximately 95 people. ICL currently operates existing bulk cement receival, storage and dispatch facilities at Port Melbourne. The company imports cement into the Port Melbourne terminal, where it is unloaded, stored in silos and distributed to batching plants and other end users by road tankers. These facilities are similar to the proposed facilities at Mayfield North and use the same environmental controls as will be utilised at the proposed facility. A DVD showing unloading and transfer of cement at ICL’s Melbourne facility is provided in the inside back cover of this document. ICL has secured an option for a long term lease over a site within the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site, from the Newcastle Ports Corporation (NPC). ICL proposes to construct and operate a cement terminal on Part Lot 333 DP 1176879, Mayfield North (refer to Figure 1.1). The terminal is located adjacent to the South Arm of the Hunter River at Mayfield North. Associated with the terminal are wharf receival facilities, a pipeline connecting the terminal with the berth facilities, truck loading facilities, administration and amenities buildings. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in Section 2.0. In overview, the operations can be described as the following activities: • Receival: the receival of cement and slag by ship;

• Transfer: the transfer of incoming cement and slag from the berth to the terminal via two sealed pipelines of approximately 400 millimetre diameter;

• Storage: the storage of cement and slag in silos; and

• Dispatch: the distribution of cement and slag by road tanker to batching plants and other end users.



2520/R07/FINAL February 2013 1.2

The Project has been declared a Major Project and will be assessed under the transitional provisions of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) (refer to Section 3.2.1). While the Project is located on land associated with the Concept

Plan Approval, it will be assessed as a stand-alone project. The NSW Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will be the consent authority for the Project. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) on behalf of ICL in accordance with the Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) that were issued for the Project by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I). This EA includes a description of the Project, a discussion of the planning and environmental context, a detailed environmental impact assessment for the identified key issues, identifies the required management and mitigation measures, and contains a Statement of Commitments to be implemented as part of the Project.

1.2 Site History

The proposed cement and slag terminal is located within the BHP closure area at Mayfield North (refer to Figure 1.1). The site was formerly part of the BHP Newcastle Steelworks

Main Site. Prior to the development of the site for industrial use in 1866, the site consisted largely of swamp land, mangroves and scrub, with minor farming and dairying undertaken in the area (URS 2000). Between 1866 and 1906 the site was developed for port use, construction and operation of a copper smelter. BHP commenced operation of a steelworks at the site in 1915, expanding operations through reclamation and filling of the site with steelworks wastes (URS 2000). Coal and iron ore were transported to the site by rail and ship respectively. In September 1999 iron and steel making operations at the site ceased and decommissioning and rehabilitation activities have followed. The proposed site has remained unoccupied since that time. In April 2001, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning granted Development Consent for Remediation of the closure area and Development of a Multi-Purpose Terminal (DA 293-08-00). Approved works include remediation of the entire closure area, staged approval for construction and operation of a Multi-Purpose Terminal, incorporating a container terminal, general cargo handling facility and bulk handling terminal, associated rail, road and wharf infrastructure and dredging of the South Arm of the Hunter River. In July 2002, BHP transferred ownership of the closure area to the NSW Government and in 2003, the Regional Land Management Corporation (RLMC) was created by the State Government to manage remediation and redevelopment works for the closure area. In July 2008, management of the site was transferred to the NPC. In September 2005, a Voluntary Remediation Agreement (VRA) was signed between the Department of Environment and Conservation (now Environment Protection Authority (EPA)) and the RLMC (now Hunter Development Corporation). The VRA establishes the remediation strategy for the site. Remediation works within the most contaminated portion of the site (Area 1), (being capping, drainage works and the installation of a subterranean barrier wall) was completed in June 2008. Remediation of the remainder of the site (Area 2) involves re-contouring and installation of a low permeability cap. Between 2002 and 2007, the majority of the structures on the site were demolished for safety reasons or to allow for remediation works to proceed.



In the first half of 2007, NPC announced plans to invest $22 million on refurbishment of the former BHP Ore Berth Five wharf which is centrally located over what will become two future berths referred to as Mayfield Berths No. 3 and 4 and the provision of up to 8 hectares adjoining the berths for port-related uses, such as cargo handling, storage or an assembly area. The proposed cement terminal will utilise the refurbished former BHP Ore Berth Five wharf for unloading of bulk cement and ground slag. In June 2008, NPC submitted a Section 96 application to modify DA 293-08-00 to allow for minor alterations and temporary relocation of the General Cargo Handling Facility, refurbishment of the BHP Ore Berth Five wharf and an interim change to site access. The modifications are intended as an interim Stage 1 development, to maximise use of existing site infrastructure and minimise capital expenditure in the early stages of development in order to stimulate development of the area. The proposed cement and slag terminal will utilise the refurbished wharf and interim site access sought as part of this modification. In 2010, NPC submitted the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan for the proposed development of port-related activities on a portion (i.e. 90 hectares on the portside) of the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site. The proposed terminal is a stand-alone development located within the boundary of the Concept Plan approval. The Concept Plan identifies five key land-based operational precincts which would be developed and operated through 2034. Of relevance to the ICL project are the Bulk and General Precinct and the General Purpose Precinct with the proposed cement and slag terminal being located across the boundary of these two Precincts (refer to Figure 1.2). The Precincts are: • NPC Operations Precinct: This precinct would be used by NPC for managing all

operations within the Port of Newcastle and would include facilities and equipment such as office, storage sheds, vehicle and marine equipment, Newcastle Port Corporation dredging vessel, pilot cutters and a helipad.

• Bulk and General Precinct: This precinct would be used for the handling and storing of bulk goods such as grain and other dry bulk goods, including cement, fertiliser, and coke cargoes, and for other general purposes. Various buildings and infrastructure would be located in the precinct, including covered storage areas, storage silos, conveyor systems and office buildings.

• General Purpose Precinct: This precinct would be used for handling and storing cargo containers, heavy machinery, break bulk and Roll On, Roll Off cargo. Various buildings and infrastructure would be located in the precinct, including covered storage areas and areas of hardstand.

• Container Terminal Precinct: Approximately 1 million, twenty foot equivalent units per annum, containers would be handled within this precinct. Buildings and infrastructure including quayside and mobile cranes, rail mounted gantries, hardstand areas and administration buildings would be required to support operations within this precinct.

• Bulk Liquid Precinct: This precinct would be used for storage, blending and distribution of high quality fuels and biofuels. Buildings and structures including tank farms with steel storage tanks, fuel distribution pipelines and administration buildings would be required to support operations within this precinct.

There is also a Berth Precinct proposed along the portside edge of the South Arm of the Hunter River containing seven shipping berths, one berth each for the NPC Operations, Bulk and General Precinct, and the General Purpose Precinct, three berths for the Container Terminal Precinct and one berth for the Bulk Liquid Precinct.



The ICL cement and slag terminal is located across the boundary of the Bulk and General and the General Purpose Precincts and is consistent with the stated descriptions and environmental performance standards and will utilise wharf space in the Berth Precinct. The Concept Plan was approved by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 16 July 2012. 1.3 Overview of the Existing Environment

1.3.1 Project Area and Surrounding Land Uses

The Project is located on the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site, in Mayfield, approximately 4.5 kilometres north-west of the Newcastle Central Business District. The proposed cement terminal is located in the south-eastern portion of the land associated with the Concept Plan. At present, the Marstel bulk fuel facility is the only other development within the area of the Concept Plan. Other port-related activities are expected to be developed within the area of the Concept Plan and around the cement terminal over time. Outside to the Concept Plan area and to the west of the proposed cement terminal are the future Intertrade Industrial Park, to the south and south-west is the Carrington Coal Terminal, owned and operated by the Port Waratah Coal Service (PWCS), to the north-west is OneSteel, and to the east is the South Arm of the Hunter River and Kooragang Island. Some of the businesses which occupy Kooragang Island include PWCS, Cargill Australia, Air Liquide, Orica, Incitec Pivot, Sawmillers Exports, Newcastle Woodchipping, Cleanaway, Mountain Industries, Blue Circle Cement, Boral, Port Hunter Commodities, Sims Metals, Kooragang Bulk Facilities and Transfield. The proposed cement terminal site is therefore surrounded by other industrial land users. These businesses provide a range of industrial services, such as: cement production, concrete batching and recycling, concrete building products, oilseed processing, fertiliser manufacturing and distribution, and ammonium manufacturing. In addition, surrounding industrial land use includes a hazardous waste management facility, LPG gas distribution facilities, a scrap metal reclamation facility, a licensed landfill and a number of engineering and fabrication operations (refer to Figure 1.3). The port facilities within the area are primarily used for the handling of raw materials, including coal, alumina, coke, wood chips, phosphate rock, and a number of agricultural products, most of which are utilised in the range of manufacturing operations associated with the heavy industry land uses within the area. There are also a number of transport and logistic companies located within the Kooragang Island industrial area. The nearest residential areas are located in Mayfield approximately 1.4 kilometres to the west across Industrial Drive; Tighes Hill, approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south-west; Carrington, approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south; and Stockton approximately 1.7 kilometres to the south-east across the Hunter River (refer to Figure 1.3). Fronditha Hippocrates Aged Care Centre is located in Crebert Street, Mayfield, approximately 2.3 kilometres to the west of the Project area. Kara Nursing Home and Mayfield Nursing Home are located in Mayfield approximately 2.5 kilometres to the west of the Project area (refer to Figure 1.3). A number of schools are located in the surrounding area including:

• Hunter Christian School, located at Mayfield North approximately 2.6 kilometres to the north-west;



• Mayfield East Public School, approximately 1.5 kilometres to the west;

• St Columbans Primary School and San Clemente High School at Mayfield East approximately 2.2 kilometres to the west;

• Tighes Hill Public School approximately 1.9 kilometres to the south-west; and

• Carrington Public School, located at Carrington approximately 2.5 kilometres to the South.

There are no hospitals located within 3 kilometres of the Project area. Industrial and port-related land uses therefore dominate the immediate surrounding land uses. Within the Concept Plan area, there are considerable areas of vacant industrial land. NPC controls much of this land, with commercial leases being established between NPC and entities to utilise land within this area. As noted in Section 1.0, ICL has an option agreement with NPC for a long term lease over the proposed site. 1.3.1 Property Description and Land Ownership

All land within the Project area is owned by the State of New South Wales, and managed by NPC (refer to Appendix 1). 1.4 Overview of the Planning and Approval Process

This section contains an overview of the planning context for the Project and the process followed during the preparation of the EA. A detailed discussion of the planning context for the Project is included in Section 3.0. The Project requires approval under the transitional Part 3A provisions of the EP&A Act as it is of a class of development listed in Schedule 1 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Major Projects) 2005. The Minister for Planning will therefore be the determining authority for the Project. The Department of Planning (now the Department of Planning and Infrastructure) has issued DGRs for the EA and these are provided in Appendix 2 and discussed further in Section 4.0. While the Project is located on land within the Bulk and General Precinct and General Purpose Precinct of the Concept Plan Approval and is consistent with both stated Precinct descriptions, the Concept Plan Approval notes that the construction and operation of the cement terminal is to be assessed as a transitional Part 3A project under Schedule 6A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (i.e. the proposed cement terminal is a stand-alone project). The construction and operation of the proposed cement and ground slag receival and dispatch terminal on part of the former BHP site is consistent with the stated Bulk and General Precinct description and environmental performance standards of the Concept Plan. If Project approval is granted under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, an Environment Protection Licence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 will be required prior to the commencement of construction of the Project.




A licence under Part 5 of the Water Act 1912 will be required if groundwater is to be

intercepted.

1.5 Project Team

Umwelt has prepared this EA on behalf of ICL. Further details of the Project Team are provided in Appendix 3.

1.6 Purpose of the Document

The purpose of this EA is to enable the consideration of the environmental implications associated with the Project. The EA has been prepared in accordance with the EP&A Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (refer to EA Statement of Authorship in Appendix 4).

1.7 Environmental Assessment Structure

An overview of the structure of this EA is provided below. The Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the Project, the consultation process,

the major outcomes of the EA, and an outline of the key project commitments to mitigate potential impacts. Section 1.0 introduces the Project, outlines the project background and site history, provides

a summary of the key project details, outlines the project team involved in producing the EA and the structure of the EA. Section 2.0 contains a detailed description of the proposed Project.

Section 3.0 describes the planning context for the Project, including the applicability of

Commonwealth and State legislation. Section 4.0 contains a description of the stakeholder consultation program and the environmental and community issues identified as part of this process for detailed assessment in the EA. Section 5.0 contains a description of the existing environment and a comprehensive analysis

and assessment of the key environmental assessment issues relevant to the Project, including the project specific and cumulative impacts. Section 6.0 details the draft Statement of Commitments proposed to be adopted throughout

the life of the Project in order to mitigate impacts. Section 7.0 contains a conclusion as required by the DGRs.

Sections 8.0 to 10.0 provide a checklist of the DGRs considered in the preparation of the EA, a list of references referred to in the EA, a list of abbreviations and glossary of technical terms.

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Project Description



2.0 Project Description

2.1 General Overview

The proposed cement terminal will receive bulk cement and ground slag via ships unloaded from the Mayfield Berth No. 3 and distribute bulk product via road tankers. Should the Mayfield Berth No. 3 not be operational when construction of the cement terminal is completed, ships will initially be unloaded at the Mayfield Berth No. 4. If the upgrade of the Mayfield Berth No. 3 is likely to be completed in the near future, the ship unloading facility (i.e. Siwertell unloader) may not be constructed at the Mayfield Berth No. 4 to avoid the need to relocate the ship unloading facilities. If this is the case, ICL will use self-discharging ships until the wharf facilities at Mayfield Berth No. 3 are operational. The proposed terminal will have a maximum bulk product throughput capacity of approximately 800,000 tonnes per year. At maximum operations the estimated throughput is predicted to consist of 600,000 tonnes per year of bulk dry cement and approximately 200,000 tonnes per year of ground slag. Maximum operation is unlikely to be achieved until at least 10 years following the commencement of operations. An indicative throughput schedule is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Indicative Throughput Volumes

Year Throughput (tonnes)

Year 1 165,000

Year 2 200,000

Year 3 300,000

Year 4 350,000

Year 5 400,000

Year 10 530,000

Maximum 800,000

The general arrangement and cross sections of the Project can be seen in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, while the main components are described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

2.2 Wharf-Side Facilities

For self-discharging ships, two 400 millimetre diameter pipes will be connected to the ship and compressors on board the ship will pump the cement at a flow rate up to 400 tonnes per hour (t/hr) per pipe. If possible, the pipes will be located below ground. For impact assessment purposes however, it has been assumed that the pipes will be located above ground. These operations will be totally sealed and there will be no discharges or emissions from slag and cement unloading operations other than from the dust collection systems fitted to the silos. Communication links between the ship and the silos will ensure that dust collectors are active and the fill status of the silos is constantly monitored, with an automatic fill cut-off when the silos reach capacity. The unloading facilities proposed to be constructed include a Siwertell unloader system, enclosed screw conveyors, pipework and compressor room to pneumatically convey cement from the wharf to storage silos at the terminal (refer to Figures 2.1 and 2.2).

For standard bulk ships, the Siwertell unloader will be used. The Siwertell is a continuous unloader based on screw technology designed specifically for unloading of dry bulk goods



such as cement, grain, coal or fertilisers. The totally enclosed screw system ensures no spillage and minimal dust generation when the cement and ground slag is unloaded from the ship’s hold. The Siwertell will have an unloading capacity of 800 t/hr. Crane rails on the wharf deck will allow the entire unit to move between the ships hatches. The Siwertell inlet feeder will be positioned below the surface of the cement or ground slag and is capable of digging in all directions and breaking up compacted material. The Siwertell unit will transfer the product via the enclosed screw conveyors to an enclosed hopper from where the cement will be conveyed pneumatically via pipes to the silos for storage. These are the same pneumatic pipes that will be used for conveying cement and ground slag from self-discharging ships. A dust filter will be incorporated in the transfer hopper to filter air displaced by the incoming cement or ground slag. As the cement or ground slag level drops in the hold, and the Siwertell head is no longer below the cement or ground slag surface, a clean-up head will be attached. This head will have a rotating/sweeping motion to remove the cement and ground slag from the bottom of the hold. Further unloading of the holds will be undertaken by manual cleaning techniques. The plant control system will be integrated with the unloading operations to ensure that dust controls and dust collectors are active and operational at all times during unloading of ships. A remote operator will typically be stationed on the ship adjacent to the hatch during unloading and will control the motion of the Siwertell within the hold to ensure efficient operation. Unloading operations will normally cease during rain events or when the wind speed exceeds 25 knots for a sustained period. Wind speed will be monitored by an anemometer which will raise an alarm if a 20 knot wind speed is exceeded. The proposed Siwertell unloading system will be capable of unloading other bulk dry powder products if required. 2.3 Terminal Facilities

The proposed cement terminal will be located on a parcel of land in the south-eastern corner of the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site (refer to Figure 1.1). The exact size, location and boundaries of the cement terminal site will be determined at the time of finalising the lease between ICL and NPC. Terminal facilities will consist of the following key elements (refer to Figures 2.1 and 2.2): • two 35,000 tonne capacity inverted cone concrete storage silos approximately 30 metres

in diameter and approximately 53 metres high;

• an enclosed drive through truck loading facility beneath each silo to provide for bulk dispatch via sealed road tankers;

• pipework to convey product from the berths to the 35,000 tonne capacity inverted cone storage silos;

• a storage area for mobile equipment associated with the Siwertell ship unloading unit;

• a compressor building;

• an administration office;

• a concrete hardstand; and

• an access road and parking facilities.



The proposed silos will have an inverted cone at the centre of the silo base that allows for self-emptying of the silo. Level detection devices installed in each of the silos will ensure the silos are filled to a predetermined level and will not be overfilled. A series of reverse pulse dust collectors will filter the conveying air from the cement or ground slag to the atmosphere, with dust returned to the silo. Truck loading facilities will be located directly beneath the inverted cone silos, within the silo enclosure. Trucks will be loaded via a sealed pipe transfer system which includes an inbuilt dust collection unit that returns dust to the tanker during loading. Automated load control will ensure that tankers are loaded in a controlled sequence which includes flow control valves for a trickle feed when nearing the target weight. The loading system requires the driver to be present throughout loading operations with the use of a push button prompt every 30 seconds for loading to continue. The loading system will be fitted with an emergency shut off to immediately discontinue loading in the event of an emergency. Trucks will distribute the cement and slag to local, regional and State-wide destinations. 2.4 Services and Utilities

Under the Agreement to Lease between NPC and ICL, NPC is responsible for providing access and services to boundary of the proposed cement terminal by the time the plant is to be commissioned. It is envisaged that these services will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Concept Approval. Until that time NPC is to provide access via Selwyn Street across the former BHP Steelworks land to the cement terminal site and assist ICL in securing provision of suitable temporary services. If permanent services are not available to the boundary of the site during the construction phase, ICL proposes to: • use an on-site pump out system for wastewater;

• use mobile power generators to supply electricity;

• use mobile telecommunications on-site; and

• draw water for construction and commissioning purposes from the Mayfield Berth No. 3 and/or Mayfield Berth No. 4.

2.5 Project Construction

ICL proposes to undertake construction of the Project as outlined below. Stage 1: involves establishing ship unloading facilities at either Mayfield Berth No. 3 or Mayfield Berth No. 4, constructing a 35,000 tonne capacity silo, amenities and service buildings and a transfer pipeline linking the berth(s) and storage silo. The establishment of ship unloading facilities will be dependent on the status of the Mayfield Berth No. 3 upgrade. Should the Mayfield Berth No. 3 not be operational when construction of the cement terminal is completed, ships will initially be unloaded at the Mayfield Berth No. 4. If the upgrade of the Mayfield Berth No. 3 is likely to be completed in the near future, the ship unloading facility (e.g. Siwertell unloader and enclosed screw and pneumatic conveyor) may not be constructed at the Mayfield Berth No. 4 to avoid the need to relocate the ship unloading



facilities. If this is the case, ICL will use self-discharging ships until the wharf facilities at Mayfield Berth No. 3 are operational. It is also noted that the pile foundations for the second silo will be constructed during Stage 1 to enable the site to be capped with concrete prior to commencing operations. Stage 2: involves the construction of the Siwertell ship unloading facilities at the Mayfield Berth No. 3, if the Mayfield Berth No. 3 is not operational when construction of the cement terminal is completed and Mayfield Berth No. 4 and self-discharging ships will be used. Stage 3: involves the construction of the second 35,000 tonne capacity storage silo. The construction of the second silo will be determined by market demand and is likely to be required when the total throughput exceeds 350,000 tonnes per year. Construction of the cement terminal will utilise the best available technology at the time of detailed design. This will result in a modern state-of-the-art facility which is energy efficient and minimises potential environmental impacts. 2.6 Traffic and Access

The proposed development will receive bulk materials by ships with up to 30,000 tonne capacity and distribute cement and ground slag from the silos via road tankers with 45, 35 or 27 tonne capacities. The development will result in the following traffic generation: • ship movements associated with importing bulk materials;

• truck movements associated with the distribution of bulk materials; and

• light vehicle movements associated with employees, visitors, couriers etc.

In the future ICL will also continue to review the use of rail transport of bulk cement from the site to long haul locations to the north and west and will utilise rail if cement can be rail transported to market destinations in an efficient and feasible manner. Until NPC establish the permanent access points and internal road network within the closure area, the Project will utilise the existing Selwyn Street entry to access the site. Selwyn Street intersects with Industrial Drive, which is a signalised intersection. Industrial Drive is a four to six lane arterial road and is a designated heavy vehicle route. Industrial Drive has linkages north, south and west via the Pacific Highway, New England Highway and F3 Freeway. 2.6.1 Ship Movements

It is estimated that at full operation approximately 600,000 tonnes of cement and 200,000 tonnes of slag will pass through the terminal annually. Consequently there will be up to 24 shipments of cement per year and 8 shipments of ground slag delivered to the site per year. This estimate of shipments is based on an average shipment capacity of approximately 25,000 tonnes of cement or slag. The terminal will be able to receive vessels with a capacity of up to 30,000 tonnes. As set out in Table 2.2, full operation is unlikely to be achieved until at least 10 years following the commencement of operations. At full operation it is expected that there will be approximately 32 ships per year or approximately 1 to 2 ships per week.




Table 2.2 – Indicative Shipments per Year

Year Shipments (per year)

Year 1 7

Year 2 8

Year 3 12

Year 4 14

Year 5 16

Year 10 21

Maximum 32

Unloading time for each of the ships used to deliver cement and slag will range from approximately 35 hours to 50 hours. The arrival of ships at the site will be scheduled well in advance to ensure that ships can proceed directly to the unloading wharf upon arrival at the Port so as to prevent conflict with other ship movements.

2.6.2 Heavy Vehicle Traffic Movements

It is anticipated that at full operation, there will be an average of 58 bulk truck deliveries from the cement terminal per day (i.e. 116 truck movements). This is based on operation over 24 hours, 350 days per year and assumes that 63% of deliveries will be made by B-Doubles (45 tonne capacity), 28% of the deliveries will be made by truck and dogs (35 tonne capacity) and 9% by single truck (27 tonne capacity). Truck capacities may increase over time and will be operated in accordance with relevant industry standards as these changes occur. As set out in Table 2.3 full production capacity is unlikely to be achieved for a number of

years following commencement of operations.

Table 2.3 – Indicative Truck Deliveries per Day

Year Total Trucks (per day)

Laden Trucks Truck Movements

Year 1 12 24

Year 2 14 28

Year 3 22 44

Year 4 25 50

Year 5 29 58

Year 10 38 76

Maximum 58 116

The Project’s average daily traffic generation of 58 heavy vehicles (i.e. 116 truck movements) is well within the daily traffic numbers for the Bulk and General Precinct (i.e. 161 trucks per day/322 truck movements), the General Purpose Precinct (122 trucks per day/224 truck movements) and that for the overall development (i.e. 1268 trucks per day/2536 truck movements) as detailed in the Concept Plan. Therefore, it is considered likely that the local traffic network will be able to accommodate the projected traffic flows associated with the Project.




As discussed, the proposed cement and slag terminal will have a maximum throughput capacity of 800,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) with throughput at maximum capacity not being achieved for at least 10 years after operations commence. Product will be transported to markets in Newcastle, Sydney, North Central NSW and Northern NSW. Table 2.4 shows an indicative breakdown, as a percentage of total tonnage by year, for the distribution of cement and ground slag to end users from the Mayfield cement terminal.

Table 2.4 – Indicative Breakdown of Distribution Locations

Distribution Location

Year Northern NSW Central Coast Sydney North Newcastle Area

1 25% 9% 24% 24%

2 25% 9% 29% 37%

3 25% 9% 38% 28%

4 25% 9% 38% 28%

5 25% 9% 38% 28%

10 25% 9% 38% 28%

Maximum 25% 9% 38% 28%

2.6.3 Light Vehicle Traffic Movements

A total of approximately 15 staff will be employed at the site split over two shifts, resulting in up to approximately 30 employee light vehicle movements per day. An additional four light vehicle movements per day have been assumed for visitors etc representing a total of 34 light vehicle movements per day. It is anticipated that up to 19 of these light vehicle movements could occur during a worst case peak hour, at shift change time. ICL will encourage its employees and contractors to car pool. For impact assessment purposes however this has not been considered. The predicted maximum light vehicle movements generated from the Project (i.e. 34 movements per day) (when the development is operating at its maximum capacity), are well within the light vehicle 300 movements per day allowed for in the Concept Plan. At least 15 car parking spaces will be provided within the terminal site. The locations of these and emergency truck parking area are shown on Figure 2.1.

2.7 Workforce and Hours of Operation

During construction phase it is estimated that there will be up to approximately 50 people on-site at any one time. Construction will be undertaken 6 days per week: Monday to Friday 7.00 am to 6.00 pm; Saturday 8.00 am to 1.00 pm; with no work on Sundays or public holidays. During the construction of the silos activities will occur 24 hours per day for approximately four weeks. Construction of the pile caps will also occur 24 hours per day and has a duration of approximately one week. This is required to enable the concrete to be poured continuously. Once operational the proposed development will employ approximately 15 staff over two shifts. It is expected that the maximum number of staff during any one shift will be




10 employees. This includes administration staff, unloading operators, maintenance staff, various sub-contractor maintenance staff and various sub-contractor transport operators. The cement terminal will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Trucking operations however will be undertaken approximately 350 days per year.

2.8 Site Remediation and Construction

The proposed site is located within the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site. Previous investigations have identified that surface fill material and groundwater within parts of the former BHP site are contaminated and may pose a significant risk of harm to human health and the environment without remediation. The former BHP site has been divided into two areas based on the level of contamination present, Area 1 being the most contaminated portion of the site and Area 2 being contaminated to a lesser extent. The proposed cement terminal is located within Area 2. Remediation of the BHP closure area was approved by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in 2001 as part of the consent for the Multi-Purpose Terminal (DA 293-08-00). In September 2005, a VRA was established between the RLMC (now the Hunter Development Corporation) and DECC (now EPA) confirming a remediation strategy for the site. This remediation strategy reflects the remedial action plan approved as part of DA 293-08-00. The VRA requires the installation and maintenance of site capping across the closure area, recontouring and installation of site drainage infrastructure, and installation of a subterranean barrier wall to control groundwater movement within a portion of the closure area. Capping material for the closure area is required to consist of either hardstand (concrete or asphalt) or a minimum 500 millimetres thick engineered low permeability cap of coal washery reject. In March 2008, a Contaminated Site Management Plan (CSMP) was prepared in accordance with DA 293-08-00 to provide a common framework for development of the site This plan sets out requirements in respect of the design, delivery, completion, verification, use and maintenance of all works carried out on site. This plan was updated in September 2009. The proposed cement terminal will be required to comply with the requirements of the CSMP in all aspects of design, construction and ongoing site maintenance. Remediation works within the most contaminated portion of the site (Area 1), (being capping, drainage works and the installation of a subterranean barrier wall) was completed in June 2008. Remediation of the remainder of the site (Area 2) involves re-contouring and installation of a low permeability cap in accordance with DA 293-08-00 and the CSMP (Hunter Development Corporation, 2009). Capping and recontouring of the cement terminal site has been undertaken in accordance with DA 293-08-00 and the CSMP. The remediation works are to be certified by a Site Auditor via a Site Audit Statement, which confirms that the site is suitable for the proposed use. Minor reshaping of the surface of the proposed ICL site will occur during construction. Once ground disturbance works and reshaping activities are completed, the entire site will be capped with concrete. To enable this to be achieved during the construction program and prior to the commencement of operations on the site, it is intended to establish the piles and foundations required for Silo 2 as part of the Stage 1 construction program of works.




2.9 Security

The site will be secured with chain wire ‘person proof’ fencing, CCTV, security patrols, operator/driver vigilance, security entrance gates and security access pass for after hours access.

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Planning Considerations



3.0 Planning Considerations

3.1 Commonwealth Legislation

3.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC). Under the EPBC Act, approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage is required for any action that may have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). The provisions of this legislation relevant to the proposal relate to potential impacts on migratory and threatened species, listed in the EPBC Act, and RAMSAR listed wetlands. Actions that are considered to have a significant impact on a matter of NES are defined under the EPBC Act as a ‘controlled action’. The proposal is located approximately 2.0 kilometres to the south-west of the Hunter Estuary National Park (a RAMSAR wetland). A number of migratory and threatened species listed in the EPBC Act are known to occur in the area. The proposal is located entirely within an area previously disturbed by industrial activities and does not directly impact on the nearby RAMSAR wetland. Off-site impacts (noise and dust) are also not expected to significantly contribute to existing ambient levels. On this basis, the proposal is considered not to have a significant impact on the wetland or listed species, and therefore is not considered to be a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act.

3.1.2 Native Title Act 1993

The Native Title Act 1993 is administered by the National Native Title Tribunal. The Tribunal

is responsible for maintaining a register of native title claimants and bodies to whom native title rights have been granted. A search of the register undertaken in September 2012, indicated that there are no existing native title claims over land within the Project area.

3.2 New South Wales Legislation

3.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The proposed development has been declared a major project by the Minister of Planning and will be assessed under the transitional provisions of Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Section 75R(1) of the EP&A Act provides that

environmental planning instruments, other than SEPPs, do not apply to Major Projects under Part 3A of the Act, other than as detailed below. Permissibility

By virtue of the site lying within the SP1 Special Activities zone of the Newcastle Port Site Land Zoning Map under the Major Development SEPP, Schedule 3 of Major Development SEPP also applies to the proposed Project. Part 20 (4) to Schedule 3 nullifies the effect of all Environmental Planning Instruments on Three Ports land, apart from SEPPs. This has the result that the LEP 2012 does not apply to the proposed Project.




Under Clause 11(3) the Project is permitted with consent as it can be classified as port facilities (being development for the unloading of freight into or from vessels and associated receival, land transport and storage facilities). Under Part 20 (11) of Schedule 3, the objectives of Zone SP1 Special Activities are as follows:

a) To provide for special land uses that are not provided for in other zones; b) To provide for sites with special natural characteristics that are not provided for in

other zones; c) To facilitate development that is in keeping with the special characteristics of the site

or its existing or intended special use, and that minimises any adverse impacts on surrounding land;

d) To maximise the use of waterfront areas to accommodate port facilities and

industrial, maritime industrial and bulk storage premises that benefit from being located close to port facilities;

e) To enable the efficient movement and operation of commercial shipping, and to

provide for the efficient handling and distribution of freight from port areas through the provision of transport infrastructure;

f) To facilitate the development that by its nature or scale requires separation from

residential areas and other sensitive land uses; and g) To encourage employment opportunities.

Section 75J(3)(b) of the EP&A Act and clause 8O of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 provides that the Minister cannot approve the carrying out of a project that would be wholly prohibited under an environmental planning instrument. The proposed Project would be in keeping with the special characteristics of the site and both its historical past use and current adjacent use as an industrial area. Use of the proposed location would assist in minimising adverse impacts on surrounding land, as the site is already highly modified. The efficient use of port facilities and existing transport infrastructure are also factors making this site suitable for the proposed Project. Separation from residential areas is also desirable for this Project. The Project is consistent with the objectives of the Major Development SEPP and is permissible with development consent. In addition to approval under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the Project may also require approvals under a number of additional Acts or assessment under State Environmental Planning Policies. Under Section 75U of the EP&A Act, if the Project is granted project approval under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the approvals set out in Table 3.1, which may otherwise have been

relevant, will not be required to carry out the Project.




Table 3.1 – Approvals Legislation Which Do Not Apply Under Part 3A

Act Approval

Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) Permit for works or structures within a waterway

Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) Disturbance to an item listed on State Heritage Register or Interim Heritage Order; Excavation permit

National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 (NP&W Act)

Preliminary research permit; consent to destroy relics

Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) Water use approval, water management work approval or activity approval

If the Project is granted project approval under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, the following approvals must not be refused by the relevant approval authority and must be substantially consistent with the terms of the Project Approval (see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 – Approvals Legislation to be Applied Consistently

Act Approval Authority

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999

Environmental Protection Licence

Environment Protection Authority

Roads Act 1993 Permit to impact on a public road

Local roads – Newcastle City Council

State Roads – Roads and Maritime Services

Water Act 1912 Groundwater extraction licence under Part 5.

Controlled Activity Approval.

NSW Office of Water Department of Water and Energy

3.2.2 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (PoEO Act) is administered by the Environment Protection Authority and establishes the procedures for issue of licences for environmental protection including waste, air, water and noise pollution control. The owner or operator of a premises that is engaged in scheduled activities is required to hold an Environment Protection Licence (EPL) and comply at all times with the conditions of that licence. The EPL for the Project should be consistent with the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan Approval.

3.2.3 Water Act 1912

A licence under Part 5 of the Water Act 1912 will be required for groundwater interception and management if groundwater is to be intercepted as part of construction activities for the Project.

3.2.4 Roads Act 1993

The Roads Act 1993 is administered by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), local Council or the Department of Lands (DoL). RMS has jurisdiction over major roads, the local council over minor roads, and the DoL over road reserves. Under the Act applications are required to be made to the Minister for the closure of Crown roads and for works on public roads.




There are no known Crown roads within the Project site. Access to the site will be via the existing driveway located off Selwyn Street. Selwyn Street connects to Industrial Drive at a signalised intersection. Interim access will be via Industrial Drive and Selwyn Street until the road infrastructure is established as part of the start up phase of development of the closure area. As such no such approval under the Roads Act will be required.

3.2.5 Water Management Act 2000

The Water Management Act 2000 applies to all water resources declared by proclamation to

be part of the State. The act is administered by the NSW Office of Water. The Water Sharing Plan for the Hunter Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources commenced on 1 August 2009. The Water Sharing Plan includes the Hunter unregulated rivers and creeks and the alluvial groundwater above the tidal limit and tidal pool areas of the Hunter River. As such, the sections of the Hunter River adjacent to the ICL Project area are not included in the Water Sharing Plan. Under Section 91 of the Act approval is required for ‘controlled activities’ (which includes the erection of a building or the carrying out of a work (within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) which are carried out in, on or under waterfront land

(i.e. the bed of and land within 40 metres of the Hunter Regulated River Water Source). However, as detailed in Section 3.2.1, an activity approval under Section 91 of the Water

Management Act is not required for projects approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act and therefore, is not required for the ICL Project.

3.3 State Environmental Planning Policies

3.3.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development)

The Major Development SEPP establishes that the land on which the Project is situated has been declared a state significant site for the purposes of the EP&A Act under Schedule 3 of the Major Projects SEPP. The state significant site declaration for site includes a range of relevant planning provisions for development within the Newcastle Port area. In general, these provisions primarily relate to the development other than development to which Part 3A applies.

3.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy 33 Hazardous and Offensive Development

SEPP No. 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development requires the consent authority to consider whether an industrial proposal is a potentially hazardous industry or a potentially offensive industry. A hazard assessment is completed for potentially hazardous developments to assist the consent authority to determine acceptability. A Preliminary Hazard Analysis has been undertaken as part of the EA. Further details can be found in Section 5.8.

3.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy 44 Koala Habitat Protection

SEPP No. 44 restricts the granting of development consent for proposals on land identified as core koala habitat without preparation of a plan of management. There is no clearing




required for this development and no off-site impacts on koala habitat therefore this SEPP does not apply. 3.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (Remediation of Land) 1998

SEPP No. 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether the land on which the proposal will be undertaken is contaminated. Furthermore, if the land is contaminated, whether it is suitable for the purpose of the proposed development and if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose of the proposed development. It is noted that an approved CSMP applies to the BHP closure area. ICL will undertake the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the CSMP. A contamination report was undertaken as part of the EA. The results are discussed in Section 5.7.

3.3.5 State Environmental Planning Policy 71 Coastal Protection

The Project would be located within the coastal zone as defined by SEPP 71 which makes provisions regarding protection of coastal attributes, protection of natural and cultural heritage elements, coastal environmental protection, and the retention of foreshore public access. Clause 8 of the SEPP provides matters for consideration to be taken into account by a consent authority when determining an application to carry out development. They include:

a) The aims of this Policy as set out in clause 2; b) Existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons

with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved;

c) Opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for

pedestrians or persons with a disability; d) The suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship

with the surrounding area; e) Any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal

foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore;

f) The scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and

improve these qualities; g) Measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats;

h) Measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries

Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats;

i) Existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors; j) The likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any

likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards; k) Measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based

coastal activities;




l) Measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals;

m) Likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal water bodies; n) The conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historical

significance; o) Only in cases in which a Council prepares a draft local environmental plan that

applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities; and

p) Only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed

development is determined:

i) The cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment; and ii) Measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is

efficient.

In response to these matters, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with SEPP 71 as follows: Existing public access is not available to the site and new public access would be

detrimental to the security of the site and pose a hazard risk. Public access along this section of the foreshore would not be a priority given the industrial nature of the area.

The proposed use is compatible with the industrial nature of the locality.

There would be no detrimental impact on views to and from the foreshore.

The scenic qualities of the coast in the proposed location have already been

characterised by industrial buildings and port-related activities.

The site has been completely cleared and covered with crushed rock as part of remediation activities.

There are no existing wildlife corridors.

Existing coastal processes would not be impacted by the Project, nor is it considered

that those processes would impact on the development of the site.

The Project is not expected to impact upon existing water borne activities. The port facilities are intended to be utilised some 32 times per year with lengthy scheduling, so would not impede other shipping or boating activities.

Water quality effects would be minimised through the implementation of a Water

Management Plan.

No known heritage items would be affected by the proposal.

The cumulative effects of the development have been considered as part of this EA and are considered to be minimal.

Energy and water efficiency measures are proposed for the new facility.



3.4 Newcastle Development Control Plan (2012)

The provisions of the Development Control Plan (DCP) and most specifically Element 3.13 Industrial Development provides guidelines for the development within the closure area. Section 75R of the EP&A Act notes that the Newcastle Development Control Plan (DCP) does not apply to this Project as it is a Major Project defined under Part 3A of the Act. Nevertheless, the guidelines are outlined below and where possible have been incorporated into the proposed development: • Site coverage – the cement terminal includes parking, manoeuvring, loading areas and

setbacks. The design of the access driveway, and internal access roads, will conform to Australian Standard AS 2890.2:2002 – Off Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities. In excess of 15 parking spaces have been provided on-site. The proposal is therefore consistent with the objective of facilitation industrial development (see Section 2.0).

• Character and Amenity – the cement terminal is consistent with the existing visual character and amenity of the area (see Section 5.5).

• Open Storage and Work Areas – only distant views of the cement terminal are available from the residential areas of Mayfield and Stockton which are approximately 1.4 and 1.7 kilometres away respectively (see Section 5.5).

• Building Setbacks – the cement terminal is located in the BHP closure area, which is located approximately 270 metres away from the nearest street frontage. Landscaping will consist of potted plants and/or above ground planter boxes.

• Loading, Unloading and Servicing Areas – ships will be unloaded at the wharf while road tankers will be loaded directly below the silos (see Section 2.0).

• Parking and Vehicle Access – The design of the access driveway, and internal access roads, will conform to Australian Standard AS 2890.2:2002 – Off Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities. In excess of 15 parking spaces have been provided on-site. The site will be accessed off Selwyn Street. The proposal is therefore consistent with the objective of facilitation of industrial development (see Section 2.0).

In summary, the Project is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the DCP.

3.5 Mayfield Port – Related Activities Concept Plan (09_0096)

The Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan, which was approved by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 16 July 2012, outlines the development objectives for future port-related industrial activities on the former BHP Newcastle Steelworks site. The concept identifies five key land-based operational precincts which would be developed commencing in 2011, with operational activities reaching the predicted maximum by approximately 2034. The proposed terminal is a stand-alone development that is located on land that is within the Concept Plan area. With reference to the Concept Plan the precincts of relevance to the ICL Project are the Bulk and General Precinct and General Purpose Precinct. These precincts are proposed to be used for handling and storing bulk goods such as grain and other dry bulk goods, including cement, fertiliser, and coke cargoes, and for other general purposes and used for handling and storing cargo containers, heavy machinery, break bulk and Roll On, Roll Off cargo respectively. Various buildings and infrastructure including areas of hardstand, covered storage areas, storage silos, conveyor systems and office buildings will be located at the junction of these two Precincts.



The Concept Plan established broad parameters and environmental performance criteria to guide future development. The parameters and environmental performance criteria of relevance to the ICL Project are detailed in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 – Concept Plan Broad Parameters and Environmental Performance Criteria

Aspect Broad

Parameters/Environmental Performance Criteria

ICL Proposal

Materials Handled Importing, exporting and storing bulk goods such as cement

Import, storage and distribution of cement and ground slag

Material Throughput Import of 700,000 tonnes per year of cement of the 2,400,000 tonnes per year from the Bulk and General Precinct as a whole and 350,000 tonnes per year by the General Purpose Precinct as a whole.

600,000 tonnes per year of cement and 200,000 tonnes per year of ground slag

Trucks per day 55 trucks per day for the transport of 700,000 tonnes of cement.

58 trucks per day at maximum throughput for transport of cement and ground slag

Truck Movements daytime peak hour

24 for the Bulk and General Precinct and 16 for the General Purpose Precinct

6

Intersection Level of Service Industrial Drive/George Street – D Industrial Drive/Ingal Street – D

ICL’s traffic numbers are well within the total for the Concept Plan. The level of service for the intersections is therefore expected to be consistent with that predicted within the Concept Plan. See Section 5.4 for further detail.

Employee Traffic Movements 2024

300 total AM Peak Hour • 210 entering the site; and • 90 exiting the site. PM Peak Hour • 120 entering the site; and • 180 exiting the site.

34 total AM Peak Hour • 14 entering the site; and • 5 exiting the site. PM Peak Hour • 5 entering the site; and • 14 exiting the site.

Proposed infrastructure Silos, conveyor systems, office buildings and receival facilities

Silos, conveyor systems, office buildings and receival facilities

Year Development is Expected to commence

2011 2013

Trade type/Use Cement import Cement and slag import Land side transport requirements

100% by road 100% by road

Key Facility/building Requirements

Ship unloader (such as a flexible screw conveyor from the ship) cone storage silos/storage areas (at least two hoppers)/road receival facility.

Siwertell ship unloader, two silos and truck loading facility




Table 3.3 – Concept Plan Broad Parameters and Environmental Performance Criteria (cont)

Aspect Broad Parameters/Environmental Performance Criteria

ICL Proposal

Staging of Operations (from 2009)

2-5 years 3 to 8 years

Ship movements 100 per year for the General Purpose and the Bulk and General Precincts

32 Ship movements per year at maximum throughput

Noise Noise goals for four residential locations specified

The Project will comply with the noise goals at each residential location.

See Section 5.2 for further detail.

Air Quality Air quality goals for fourteen locations specified

The Project will comply with the air quality goals at each location.


Hazard and Risk The Bulk and General Precinct would not be used for the storage and handling of Dangerous Goods. The General Purpose Precinct has potential to be used for the storage and handling of Dangerous Goods at times.

The Project will not store or handle Dangerous Goods.


Water Management No significant impacts on the water environment

No significant water impacts are predicted to occur due to the construction or operation of the Project.


Heritage and Cultural Undertake archaeological testing, monitoring, recording and salvage should there be impacts that have not been investigated

There are no heritage or cultural items located within the Project area.

Infrastructure No adverse impact on existing users

Local services to be utilised by the Project will be consistent with that proposed as part of the Concept Plan. Consultation with local service providers has indicated that there is available capacity to service the Project.

Contamination Development of the site will not compromise the remediation works nor pose a risk to the environment or personnel.

ICL will seek approval from the site contaminator auditor for the construction and operation of the Project prior to undertaking any construction works. The Project will not compromise the environmental performance standards as detailed in the CSMP.




Table 3.3 – Concept Plan Broad Parameters and Environmental Performance Criteria (cont)

Aspect Broad Parameters/Environmental Performance Criteria

ICL Proposal

Visual Minimise the potential for visual impacts.

The Project is consistent with the existing visual character of the region and will not appear out of place. See Section 5.5 for further detail.

Ecology No performance criteria or objectives have been set.

The Project will not adversely impact the existing ecological values of the area.

Waste No performance criteria or objectives have been set.

The construction and operation of the Project will be undertaken in a manner which minimises the generation of wastes.


Climate change and Sustainability

Incorporate sustainability strategies into the design and operation of the Project


The ICL cement and slag terminal is is located across the boundary of the Bulk and General and the General Purpose Precincts and is consistent with the descriptions and environmental performance standards contained in the Concept Plan and will utilise wharf space in the Berth Precinct.

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Stakeholder Consultation



4.0 Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation with the community, government authorities, neighbouring industry and other relevant stakeholders has been undertaken during preparation of the EA since the issue of DGRs. The consultation process aimed to inform stakeholders about the proposal and to identify relevant issues to be investigated and assessed during the preparation of the EA. Consultation has also been undertaken to inform stakeholders about the outcomes of the EA process. Further details on the community and agency consultation undertaken for the proposal are outlined below.

4.1 Authority Consultation

A number of key government authorities were consulted throughout the assessment period to identify the key agency issues for assessment and discuss specific issues relevant to the proposal. DP&I were initially consulted to confirm the application of the Part 3A approval path for the proposal. A Preliminary EA (Umwelt 2009) for the Project was prepared in October 2009 and was distributed to relevant agencies for review. Project briefings were also provided to DP&I and a number of other key government agencies as outlined in Table 4.1.

Following the lodgement of the Project Application and Preliminary EA, DP&I provided the DGRs for the Project on 15 October 2009. DGRs were reissued on 14 July 2010 and again on 27 February 2012.

Table 4.1 – Summary of Agency Consultation

Agency Date Purpose

Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I)

15 October 2009 DP&I provides DGRs for the Project. A planning focus meeting was not held for the Project.

14 July 2010 DP&I issues updated DGRs for the Project.

27 February 2012 DP&I issues updated DGRs for the Project.

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

10 February 2012 EPA provided updated EA requirements to DP&I for consideration in the DGRs provided in Appendix 2.

New South Wales Office of Water (NOW)

15 February 2012 NOW provided updated EA requirements to DP&I for consideration in the DGRs provided in Appendix 2.

Newcastle City Council (NCC)

20 February 2012 NCC provided updated EA requirements to DP&I for consideration in the DGRs provided in Appendix 2.

Newcastle Port Corporation (NPC)

20 February 2012 NPC provided updated EA requirements to DP&I for consideration in the DGRs provided in Appendix 2.

May – September 2012

Ongoing correspondence including meetings with NPC was undertaken. NPC was briefed on the Project, including proposed community consultation process and relevant community stakeholders that have been identified.

19 September 2012

A letter was sent to NPC as part of wider consultation correspondence outlining the Project and inviting input into the general EA process.



Table 4.1 – Summary of Agency Consultation (cont) Agency Date Purpose 8 October 2012 Request from NPC to include specific noise,

vibration, air quality and transport information within the EA to enable the assessment of cumulative impacts.

October 2012 9 November 2012

Meetings to discuss the findings of the EA and NPC concerns.

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

10 December 2008

RMS provided EA requirements to DP&I for consideration in the DGRs provided in Appendix 2.

Hunter Development Corporation (HDC)

20 February 2012 HDC provided updated EA requirements to DP&I for consideration in the DGRs provided in Appendix 2.

19 September 2012

A letter was sent to HDC as part of wider consultation correspondence outlining the Project and inviting input into the general EA process.

8 October 2012 Meeting between ICL and HDC to outline the proposal and ensure all HDC issues and interests were addressed. The main item of discussion was the status of site remediation.

The land associated with the Project is owned by the State Property Authority and managed by NPC. ICL has undertaken ongoing consultation with NPC throughout the preparation of the EA. Consultation has included meetings, ongoing phone liaison and the provision of information outlining the Project. 4.2 Community Consultation

The Project is of interest to the local community, particularly the neighbouring communities of Mayfield and Stockton, who are located 1.4 and 1.7 kilometres from the proposal site. These communities have demonstrated considerable prior interest in future development of the former Steelworks site, as well as industry in the local area generally. ICL has undertaken consultation with representatives from the Mayfield and Stockton community groups and conducted a public information session to inform the wider community about the Project. While beyond the scope of the DGRs, ICL ensured direct contact between ICL and community members was undertaken, to encourage open up-front engagement. The primary aim of consultation program was to notify and inform community stakeholders about the Project and receive feedback from a cross section of the local community to assist in the identification of key environment and community issues. Community groups consulted during the process included: • Correct Planning and Consultation for Mayfield;

• Mayfield Community Consultative Committee;

• Mayfield East Public School and P&C committee;

• Carrington Residents Action Group;

• Tighes Hill Community Group;



• Throsby Village Alliance;

• Citizens and Kooragang Alliance (CAKA);

• Stockton Residents Action Group;

• Greater Lifestyle of Wickham (GLOW); and

• Mayfield Business Association/Mayfield Main Streets.

A range of consultative mechanisms were used to engage the community throughout the preparation of the EA as outlined in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 – Community Consultation Methods Method Description Written correspondence

Two letters were distributed to community groups and neighbouring industry: • Letter 1 outlined the proposal, provided supporting drawings, and offered

direct consultation and meetings with groups; and • Letter 2 informed of the Community Information Session, and

acknowledged their interest and input to date. Follow up emails between specific interested stakeholders were undertaken upon request, including provision of additional technical information.

Direct phone calls Umwelt called stakeholders to inform of pending written correspondence, understand issues, make a direct offer to organise a consultation meeting specific to the needs of the stakeholder, and seek advice regarding other potential stakeholders or interested community groups. Follow up phone calls were undertaken according to stakeholder interest, availability and request.

Individual Briefing Meetings

ICL undertook a number of briefing meetings with community group representatives as well as neighbouring industry stakeholders to outline the Project and answer questions. These were carried out by a personal visit by ICL to neighbouring sites or agreed community locations.

Community Presentation

A presentation was made to Mayfield East Public School Parent and Citizens committee on 23 October 2012 to outline the Project and invite feedback through questions. Approximately 20 people attended the presentation.

Community Information Session

A community information session was held at the Mayfield Bowling Club on 24 October 2012. The session was advertised in the Newcastle Herald and local free newspapers – the Star and Stockton Local – prior to the day. Story boards were used to outline the Project details to attendees, and ICL provided high level Company representation on the day. Twelve people attended the session, including representation from all key community groups.

Project Community Information Sheets

Two Community Information Sheets outlining the Project and key findings of the EA was prepared and made available to stakeholders at the Community Information Session and meetings (refer to Appendix 5).

Flyer along Haulage Route

A flyer advising of Community Information Session was distributed to approximately 70 residences and community organisations along Industrial Drive between Selwyn Street and Maitland Road. The flyer also included contact details for Umwelt with the offer of further information if requested.

Project DVD ICL produced a 5 minute DVD outlining the Proposal and including footage of its similar cement receival and dispatch operation in Melbourne, including images and commentary regarding proposed dust management, truck management, and other environmental and safety controls.

Issues noted during this process have been considered in the preparation of the EA and are discussed in Section 4.2.1.



4.2.1 Key Community Issues Identified

The primary community issues relating to the Project raised during the consultation process include: • capacity of the existing road network to cope with the additional trucks;

• potential for dust air emissions from the handling of cement and slag materials; and

• potential contributions to existing industrial noise levels.

These issues have been considered in the Project design and the detailed assessment outlined in Section 5.0. 4.3 Consultation with other Stakeholders

4.3.1 Neighbouring Industry

ICL consulted with neighbouring businesses within the vicinity of the terminal. This consultation was undertaken to provide neighbouring operations with an overview of the Project and to discuss specific operational interactions with the Project, as well as discuss potential workforce, environment or amenity concerns. Consultation with these stakeholders included a number of individual meetings attended by Umwelt and a representative of ICL, and the provision of information outlining the Project. The neighbouring industrial operations specifically consulted throughout project planning and preparation of the EA included: • OneSteel;

• Koppers;

• Hunter Business Chamber;

• Port Waratah Coal Services;

• Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group;

• Pacific National;

• BHP Billiton; and

• Hunter Development Corporation.

Issues raised during this consultation included:

• on-site operational interactions (e.g. train-line crossing);

• shipping and wharf interactions;

• vehicle interactions and road safety on Selwyn Street, especially between light and heavy vehicles;

• on-site storage of hazardous materials or dangerous goods;



• provision of utilities (water, electricity) during construction and operation;

• potential for cooperative industry response to cumulative community issues;

• dust management during construction and operation; and

• legacy of site remediation.

It is considered that all issues raised have been taken on board and addressed within the EA and during consultation discussions.

EA – Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch Facility Environmental Assessment


5.0 Environmental Assessment

5.1 Environmental Risk Assessment

The DGRs for the EA required the conduct of ‘a risk assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, identifying the key issues for further assessment’. This risk assessment was undertaken as part of the Preliminary EA (Umwelt, October 2009) and the process used and outcomes are discussed in this section. The risk analysis was completed using the risk assessment process described in AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk Management. The risk matrix, consequence table and likelihood table used for the assessment is included in Appendix 6. Consistent with AS/NZS 4360, environmental risks have been categorised as low, medium, high or extreme. As shown in Appendix 6, the majority of activities are rated as low or medium level risks, with one high risk and no extreme risks. The preliminary environmental risk analysis identified the following issues as requiring detailed investigation in the EA, including: • disturbance of contaminated land;

• noise;

• air quality;

• visual impacts; and

• traffic.

The Preliminary EA was provided to DoP (now DP&I) along with the Project Application for consideration in issuing the DGRs for the Project. The Preliminary EA was also provided to other relevant government agencies with whom DoP consulted regarding the DGRs. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the key environmental assessment issues identified in the DGRs and provides reference to the section of the EA in which these issues have been addressed.

Table 5.1 – Key Environmental and Community Issues

Issue EA Reference Noise 5.2 Air Quality 5.3 Transport and Access 5.4 Soil and Water 5.6 Contamination 5.7 Hazard and Risk Heritage 5.8 Greenhouse Gas 5.9 Waste Management 5.10




5.2 Noise and Vibration

In accordance with the DGRs for the Project, a comprehensive noise assessment has been undertaken by Umwelt. This assessment predicts the noise levels that are expected to result from the Project and provides an assessment of these noise levels against the noise goals. This section provides an overview of the noise assessment, which is included in Appendix 7.

5.2.1 Assessment Criteria

Construction Noise Criteria

Construction of the Project as described in Section 2.0 is expected to occur over a 1 to 2 year period. EPA recognises that construction activities could generate higher noise levels than normal operational noises. DECCW’s (now EPA’s) Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECCW 2009) provides criteria for construction activities as presented in Table 5.2 for various types of land uses. The criteria are intended to guide the need for and

the selection of feasible and reasonable work practices to minimise construction noise impacts.

Table 5.2 – OEH Construction Noise Criteria at Residences, dB(A)

Construction Time Construction Noise Criterion LAeq, 15 minute

Recommended standard hours Monday to Friday 7.00 am to 6.00 pm Saturday 8.00 am to 1.00 pm No work on Sundays or public holidays

Rating Background Noise Level + 10 dB

External

Outside recommended standard hours Rating Background Noise Level + 5 dB

External

Classrooms 45 dB(A)

Internal noise level when in use.

Industrial premises 75 dB(A)

External

Offices, retail outlets 70 dB(A)

External

Source: Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECCW 2009)

The construction noise criteria for representative receiver locations are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 – Construction Criteria for Representative Receiver Locations, dB(A)

Representative Receiver Location Daytime Construction

Noise Criteria, LAeq, 15 minute

N1 – 54 Arthur Street, Mayfield 62

N2 – 67 Forfar Street, Stockton 47

N3 – 25 Kitchener Parade, Mayfield East 53

N4 – 2 Crebert Street, Mayfield 1 59

N5 – 32 Elizabeth Street, Carrington 1 54

N6 – 186 Fullerton Street, Stockton 2

55

Note 1: Source: Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan Environmental Assessment (AECOM 2010)

Note 2: Source: Proposed Ammonium Nitrate Facility Expansion- Orica Kooragang Island (AECOM 2009)




Operational Noise Criteria

The noise assessment undertaken for the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan detailed the existing noise level within the surrounding area and established the noise impact assessment criteria based on the existing noise environment in accordance with EPA guidelines (i.e. the NSW Industrial Noise Policy [INP]). The subsequent Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan Project Approval details the operational noise goals (refer to Table 5.4). These noise goals have been adopted to assess the impact of the Project.

It is noted that where the intrusiveness criteria is numerically less than the amenity criteria, the intrusiveness criteria becomes the Project-Specific Noise Level (PSNL) applicable for the Project, as compliance with the intrusiveness criteria will result in compliance with the amenity criteria. However where the amenity criteria is below the intrusiveness criteria both criteria become applicable when assessing the Project. When the intrusive noise criteria are greater than the amenity criteria it indicates that there is an existing level of industrial noise in the area. Compliance with the intrusiveness criteria will minimise the level of annoyance, while compliance with the amenity criteria will limit continuing increases of overall noise in the vicinity of the Project.

Table 5.4 – Project-Specific Noise Levels (PSNL), dB(A)

Location Project-Specific Noise Levels LAeq, Period 1 Concept

Approval Night Time Noise Goal

Day Evening Night

N1 – 54 Arthur Street, Mayfield

57 LAeq (15 minute) 5 54 LAeq (15 minute)

5 45 LAeq (15 minute)

5

432 LAeq (night)

52 LAeq (day) 4 49 LAeq (evening) 4 41 LAeq (night) 4

N2 – 67 Forfar Street, Stockton



5

38 LAeq (evening) 4 34 LAeq (night) 4

N3 – 25 Kitchener Parade, Mayfield East



5

39 LAeq (night) 4

N4 – 2 Crebert Street, Mayfield



5

43 LAeq (night)

43 LAeq (night) 4

N5 – 32 Elizabeth Street, Carrington



5

45 LAeq (night)

N6 – 186 Fullerton Street, Stockton



5

373 LAeq (night)

49 LAeq (day) 4 47 LAeq (evening) 4 45 LAeq (night) 4

Note 1: Daytime 0700 hours to 1800 hours, Evening 1800 hours to 2200 hours, Night-time 2200 hours to 0700 hours.

Note 2: Project Approval noise goal location 1 Arthur Street, Mayfield.

Note 3: Project Approval noise goal location Stockton.

Note 4: Amenity Criteria

Note 5: Intrusiveness Criteria Comparing the PSNL and Concept Plan Approval night time noise goals (i.e. the most stringent criteria) for the same general locations shows the PSNL are less than or equal to the project approval night time noise goals, with the exception of Stockton. The AECOM 2010 EA that accompanied the Concept Plan Approval application did not identify a PSNL for Stockton. The noise goal as shown in the Concept Plan Approval relates to the modelled noise emission at Stockton.




Sleep Disturbance Criteria The sleep disturbance criteria are based on the guideline publication of the OEH Noise Guide for Local Government (DECCW 2010), which suggests that to prevent sleep disturbance, the LA1,1minute or LAmax level of a noise source should not exceed the LA90 background noise level by more than 15 dB when measured outside the bedroom window. The sleep disturbance criteria for the monitoring locations N1 through N6 are presented in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 – Sleep Disturbance Criteria, dB(A) Night 10.00 pm – 7.00 am

Representative Receiver Location Measured RBL LA90,Night

Sleep Disturbance Criteria, LA1,1minute

N1 – 54 Arthur Street, Mayfield 40 55

N2 – 67 Forfar Street, Stockton 33 48

N3 – 25 Kitchener Parade, Mayfield East 39 54

N4 – 2 Crebert Street, Mayfield 1 40 55

N5 – 32 Elizabeth Street, Carrington 1 39 54

N6 – 186 Fullerton Street, Stockton 2

51 66

Note 1: Source: Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan Environmental Assessment (AECOM 2010)

Note 2: Source: Proposed Ammonium Nitrate Facility Expansion- Orica Kooragang Island (AECOM 2009)

Road Traffic Criteria

The EPA’s NSW Road Noise Policy (DECCW 2011) (RNP) sets out criteria for road traffic noise through the provision of a framework that addresses traffic noise issues associated with new developments, new or upgraded road developments or planned building developments. Table 5.6 outlines the criteria relevant to the truck movements associated with delivery

vehicles arriving and departing and the use of the streets identified as the primary access routes, in this case use of Industrial Drive. Selwyn Street has not been considered as there are no receivers located along this section of the transport route. Under the road category definitions provided in Table 2 of the RNP (DECCW 2011), Industrial Drive is considered a sub-arterial road.

Table 5.6 – Road Noise Criteria, dB(A)

Road Category Type of project/land use Assessment Criteria dB(A)

Day (7.00 am – 10.00 pm)

Night (10.00 pm –

7.00 am)

Residential Land Uses1

Freeway/arterial/sub-arterial roads

Existing residences affected by additional traffic on existing freeways/arterial/sub-arterial roads generated by land use developments

LAeq(15 hour)

60 (external)

LAeq(9 hour) 55 (external)

Source: NSW Road Noise Policy (DECCW, 2011)

Note 1: Taken from Table 3 NSW Road Noise Policy (DECCW, 2011)




In addition, the RNP (DECCW 2011) requires that any increase in the total traffic noise level due to a proposed project or traffic-generating development must also be considered. For existing residences and other sensitive land uses affected by additional traffic on existing roads generated by land use developments, the RNP states that ‘any increase in the total traffic noise level should be limited to 2 dB above that of the corresponding ‘no build option’.

5.2.2 Noise Modelling Methodology

Noise levels at receiver locations were calculated using the Environmental Noise Model (ENM). This model has been endorsed by the EPA for environmental noise assessment. ENM takes account of noise attenuation due to geometric spreading, atmospheric absorption, shielding and the effect of acoustically soft ground. It can also be used to predict noise levels under various meteorological conditions, defined by a combination of temperature gradient, wind speed and wind direction. The model uses sound power level data for all relevant items of plant and equipment as detailed in the noise impact assessment (Appendix 7). The sound power levels adopted are

based on currently feasible, reasonable and achievable noise emissions levels. Data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) station at the Williamtown RAAF Base was used to derive the various meteorological conditions used in the model. The meteorological station is located approximately 13.6 kilometres from the Project site and is located inland from the exposed coast similar to the Project site and is considered representative of the meteorological conditions experienced at the Project site. Noise modelling was conducted for the construction and operational phases under five (5) meteorological conditions. A typical ‘worst-case’ scenario was modelled (i.e. Scenario 3 which includes inversion conditions with a northerly wind) for the operation of the Project. Temperature inversions are an important atmospheric factor that influences noise impacts. This results from variations in temperature occurring in layers in the atmosphere that can increase noise impacts. The INP includes a methodology for estimating the effect of inversions, however the noise modelling for the Project has considered existing temperature inversion conditions. As a result, the calculated noise levels more accurately reflect expected noise impacts, in comparison to the default industrial noise policy temperature inversion assumptions which would otherwise apply.

5.2.3 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Construction Noise Impacts

The potential noise impact from the noise sources associated with the construction of the Project, as outlined in Section 6.2 of the noise impact assessment (Appendix 7), has been

modelled using the EPA endorsed Environmental Noise Model. The predicted LA10(15minute) noise level from the construction activities at representative receiver locations during standard and non-standard hours can be seen in Table 5.7. The predicted noise levels during non-standard hours is less than that predicted for standard hours due to the reduced number of noise sources (i.e. the construction activities undertaken during non-standard hours is limited to that associated with the concrete pour operations). The maximum construction noise criteria for representative receiver locations are presented in Table 5.7.




Table 5.7 – Predicted Maximum Construction LA10(15minute) Noise

Receiver ID

Construction Noise Criterion Recommended Standard Hours

Predicted Construction Noise Levels

Met Scenario 1 3 m/s SE

wind

Met Scenario 2 3 m/s NW

wind

Met Scenario 3 Inversion

Conditions

Met Scenario 4 3 m/s NE

wind

Met Scenario Neutral

Conditions

Standard Hours – Monday to Friday 7.00 am to 6.00 pm, Saturday 8.00 am to 1.00 pm

N1 62 40 23 NA1

38 27

N2 47 24 39 NA1 29 32

N3 53 42 31 NA1 44 38

N4 59 43 33 NA1 43 38

N5 54 31 45 NA1 45 35

N6 55 25 39 NA1 27 31

Non-standard Hours – Silo concrete pour

N1 57 35 18 33 33 22

N2 42 19 34 32 24 27

N3 48 37 26 37 39 33

N4 54 38 28 37 38 33

N5 49 26 40 40 40 30

N6 50 20 34 32 22 26 1Temperate inversions unlikely to occur in Standard hours of operation.

All of the predicted construction noise levels are below the relevant assessment criteria for each receiver location. Vibration Impacts

Vibration impacts associated with the proposed development will be limited to pile driving during the construction phase, if piling driving is utilised. As the site is in excess of 1.4 kilometres from sensitive receivers, it is considered unlikely that there will be potential for significant vibration impacts. Operational Noise Impacts

The potential noise impact from the operation of the Project, as outlined in Section 6 of the noise impact assessment (Appendix 7), has been modelled under five different scenarios

using the OEH endorsed Environmental Noise Model. The ENM model of the operation of the Project was based on the purpose-built Siwertell unloader as it represented the worst-case scenario. The predicted noise levels from each meteorological scenario for the operation of the Project have been assessed against the Project Specific Noise Level for the night time period. The predicted noise levels associated with night time operation of the terminal are shown in Table 5.8. Figure 5.1 shows the predicted night-time temperature inversion conditions

contours as these are considered to be the worst case. The night time Project Specific Noise Level criteria are the more stringent criteria and thus only these predictions have been presented.



Table 5.8 – Predicted Noise Impact - Siwertell Unloading Ship, dB(A)

Receiver ID

Night-time PSNL

Predicted Operational Noise Levels Met

Scenario 13 m/s SE

wind

Met Scenario 23 m/s NW

wind

Met Scenario 3Inversion

Conditions

Met Scenario 4 3 m/s NE

wind

Met Scenario Neutral

Conditions N1* 41 31 14 29 30 19 N2 34 18 32 30 23 25 N3 39 33 23 34 36 30 N4* 43 < 35 25 34 36 30 N5* 44 21 34 34 34 26 N6* 45 18 33 31 20 24

* Concept Plan Approval Noise Locations The predicted operational noise levels for the operation of the Project under each meteorological scenario are below the night time project Specific Noise Level, at each of the representative receiver locations. As these receiver locations are nearest the site and have the most stringent noise goals, the predicted noise levels from the operation of the Project is expected to comply at all other residential, commercial, education and industrial locations, as they are further away from the Project and/or have less stringent (i.e. higher) noise goals. The Concept Plan Approval specifies day evening and night time noise goals at four residential locations (i.e. A – 1 Arthur Street, Mayfield, B – 2 Crebert Street, Mayfield, C – 32 Elizabeth Street, Carrington and D – Stockton). The night time noise goal are the most stringent, being 43 dB(A), 43 dB(A), 45 dB(A) and 37 dB(A) respectively. The four residential locations as specified in the Concept Plan Approval are located outside the 35 dB(A) contour for the worst case modelled meteorological scenario for the Project, as shown on Figure 5.1. The noise emissions from the Project at the four Concept Plan Approval locations are therefore ≤ 36 dB(A) (i.e. less than the Concept Plan Approval noise goals) and as a result the predicted received noise levels from the Project under worst case meteorological conditions are in excess of 6 dB(A) to 14 dB(A) below noise levels specified for the Concept Plan Approval. Sleep Disturbance Noise sources that could lead to sleep disturbance are typically transient noises and often have tonal characteristics. Activities occurring within the night time period that could lead to sleep disturbance include: • reversing beepers typically designed to operate 10 dB above the local noise level in the

1000 Hz range, therefore requiring a reversing beeper with a typical sound power level of 112 dB(A); and

• baghouse cleaning activities where pulses of compressed air are passed through the baghouse to dislodge accumulated dust.

The predicted received LA1,1minute noise levels associated with these activities, under inversion meteorological conditions, are presented in Table 5.9.




Table 5.9 – Predicted LA1,1 minute Sleep Disturbance Noise Levels, dB(A), Under a 3o inversion and 0.8 m/s northerly wind

Receiver ID Sleep Disturbance

Criteria Reversing Beeper

Reverse Pulse Baghouse

N1 55 29 29

N2 48 31 31

N3 54 35 34

N4 55 36 34

N5 54 35 35

N6 66 32 31

The results in Table 5.9 indicate that the LA1,1 minute noise levels associated with activities

proposed to occur within the night time period are unlikely to lead to sleep disturbance in the nearby residential areas. Traffic Noise Impacts

The road traffic noise assessment found that the existing day time and night time noise levels on Industrial Drive exceeds the NSW Road Noise Policy criteria. Road traffic noise levels at the nearest residential receiver located on Selwyn Street were well below the NSW Road Noise Policy criteria. The Project is predicted to represent less than 1% of the traffic numbers on Industrial Drive for the years 2013 and 2034. These additional vehicles equate to a 0.1 dB(A) and 1.1 dB(A) increase in road traffic noise at a setback distance of 25 metres on Industrial Drive for the year 2034 during the day time and night time periods respectively, which is considered to be negligible. This is less than the maximum increase of 2 dB recommended in the NSW Road Noise Policy. The road traffic noise levels at Selwyn Street at a setback distance of 250 metres (i.e. the nearest residential receiver) for the year 2034 during the day time and night time periods are predicted to be 0.2 dB(A) and 1.3 dB(A) respectively. These levels are well below the NSW Road Noise Policy criteria. Any potential impact is therefore considered to be insignificant.

5.2.4 Cumulative Noise Impacts

The noise goals, as detailed in Section 5.2.1, considers the noise emissions from the existing industrial activities which surround the Project and the noise emissions associated with the future development of the various activities associated within each precinct of the Concept Plan. As shown in Table 5.8, the predicted noise emissions from the Project are below the night

time project specific noise goal at each residential receiver which are the most stringent noise goals. As such the Project will also comply with the day and evening noise criteria. The predicted noise emissions from the Project are also below the Concept Plan Approval night time noise goals at each location and only use a very small component of the available noise envelope. As such, the cumulative noise associated with subsequent developments is not, at this stage, likely to pose a significant constraint to future developments.




5.2.5 Noise Management and Mitigation Measures

Noise modelling of the Project has identified that the construction and operation of the Project will comply with the OEH and Concept Plan Approval noise goals at all locations during the day, evening and night time periods (see Appendix 7).

During the detailed design and procurement process ICL will confirm that the noise emissions from the terminal meet the OEH and Concept Plan Approval goals. As part of the pre commissioning process of the Project, ICL will undertake a noise review to confirm the performance of individual plant and the overall Project. Tri-annual noise monitoring in line with environmental reporting requirements, will be undertaken when all components of the plant are in operation, with the objective of confirming the acoustic performance of the Project. Further monitoring may be undertaken should any complaints be received by ICL during the life of the operation. Monitoring results and modelling outputs will be provided to NPC to enable whole of site modelling to be undertaken as required.

5.3 Air Quality and Odour

An air quality impact assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the DGRs for the EA. The assessment report is included as Appendix 8. The assessment details the existing

air quality environment for the local area, identifies potential air quality impacts associated with the proposal and assesses predicted emissions from the proposal against the relevant criteria. The main emissions sources associated with Project are from the handling/transfer of cement and ground slag. Specifically these emissions will be associated with transfer points along the transfer pipeline, silos and from baghouse filters and some fugitive emissions during the unloading of ships and loading of trucks. As such the key air quality considerations include depositional dust, Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and PM10. In addition it is expected that there will be some minor dust emissions associated with the construction activities. The Project has been designed to reduce the potential for air quality impacts, including the use of negative pressure enclosures and dust extraction systems. A summary of the key findings of the assessment is provided in the following sections.

5.3.1 Climate and Meteorology

Meteorological data has been sourced from the BoM station at the Williamtown RAAF Base. The meteorological station is located approximately 13.6 kilometres from the Project site (refer to Figure 5.2). The Williamtown RAAF Base weather station is located away from the

exposed coast similar to the Project site and is considered representative of the meteorological conditions experienced at the Project site. Data from the Williamtown RAAF Base meteorological station indicates that on an annual basis, the most common winds are from the West North West (WNW). In the summer months, winds from the east indicate the direction of the sea-breeze while winds in winter are predominantly from the WNW. To use the wind data to assess dispersion it is necessary to also have available data on atmospheric stability. A stability class was calculated for each hour of the meteorological data using sigma-theta (a measure of the fluctuation of the horizontal wind direction) according to the method recommended by the US EPA (US EPA 1986).




5.3.2 Existing Air Quality

PM10 air quality monitoring data is collected by the EPA at its Newcastle monitoring station. Six dust deposition monitoring sites are also located within the Steel River Industrial Estate, Mayfield West (refer to Figure 5.2). A summary of the PM10 and dust deposition data is provided in Tables 5.10 and 5.11.

Table 5.10 – Summary of Background 24 Hour Maximum and Annual Average PM10

Levels for Newcastle

2009 2010 2011

PM10 Avg 24hr (μg/m

3)

PM10 Max 24hr (μg/m

3)


3)


3)


3)


3)

24 hour 86.6 57.1 49.2

Annual Average 24 - 19 - 19 -

Air Quality Criteria 30 50 30 50 30 50

Table 5.11 – Summary of Dust Deposition Levels at Steel River Estate for 2003–2005

Year Dust Deposition – g/m2/month

SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 SR6

2003 Maximum 1.6 7.2 2.2 1.5 3.4 5.6

Average 1.2 1.7 1.2 0.8 1.4 3.9

2004 Maximum 3.3 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.7 27.5

Average 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.7

2005 Maximum 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.4 4.8

Average 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.3 2.0 2.1

Source: Holmes Air Sciences (2008)

Note: Refer to Figure 5.2 for the location of monitoring sites SR1 to SR6 within the Steel River Estate.

The highest measured values have been used as conservative estimates of background concentrations for the air quality assessment (refer to Appendix 8).

Monitoring of background particulate matter found that the annual average PM10

concentration was below the EPA criteria of 30 g/m3 at all locations. Maximum 24-hour

PM10 averages were, however, found to be above the EPA goal of 50 g/m3 on several occasions at all monitoring locations, with the highest 24-hour average PM10 generally occurring in spring and summer. Dust deposition data from the Steel River site shows that annual average dust deposition levels have been below the EPA goal of 4 g/m2/month, with the average for all gauges found to be 1.6 g/m2/month.

5.3.3 Air Quality Criteria

This assessment utilises the relevant (i.e. PM10, TSP and depositional dust) air quality criteria contained in the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan Project Approval (refer to




Table 5.12). The adopted criteria is consistent with that specified by EPA’s Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in NSW (DECC 2005).

In addition to the dust criteria, the Concept Plan Project Approval details criteria associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e. SO2 and NO2) and criteria associated with the existing contamination present within the BHP closure area (e.g. PAH and BTEX). The impact of the Project in relation to the combustion related air quality criteria has not been considered as the potential emissions sources, being exhaust emissions from trucks, are considered to be transient and occur over a wide area, such that any impact would not significantly contribute to the existing background level or be measurable or distinguishable from the existing background level. Similarly the air quality criteria associated with the contamination issues has not been considered as the area of PAH and VOC contamination was largely confined to Area 1 and contamination work in Area 2 has now been completed. It is noted the PAH and VOC are odorous compounds and therefore have the potential to cause off-site odour impacts. It is unlikely that such compounds would be encountered during the construction activities (i.e. excavation works and pile installation) as they are predominantly located in Area 1, which is outside of the Project area. However, should they be encountered it is unlikely that any offensive odour would be detected at any surrounding residential area due to low volume of potentially contaminated material to be handled and the large separation distance between the odour source and the surrounding residential areas. The nearest residential area is Mayfield which is 1.4 kilometres from the Project. When assessing the potential air quality impacts associated with a proposed operation, it is necessary to compare the existing air quality environment, the proposed operation and the relevant air quality criteria. Air quality criteria are used to assess the potential for ambient air quality to give rise to adverse health or nuisance effects.

Table 5.12 – Relevant Air Quality Criteria

Pollutant Criterion Averaging Period Source

PM10 50 µg/m3 *

+

30 µg/m3

24 Hour

Annual Average

DECC

DECC

TSP 90 µg/m3

Annual Average DECC

Depositional dust 2 g/m2/month (Maximum

increase in deposited dust)

4 g/m2/month (Maximum

allowable deposited dust)

Annual Average

Annual Average

DECC

Solid particles (Total) 20 mg/m3 - PoEO (Clean

Air) Regulations 2010

* Non-cumulative for purposes of impact assessment.

+ 5 exceedances allowed per year.

The assessment of PM10, TSP and depositional dust emissions from a Project against air quality criteria considers the existing levels of each substance and the contribution of the Project, i.e. the cumulative impact. The 24 hour goal for PM10, relates to the Project emissions alone and does not take into account any existing background concentrations.




5.3.4 Assessment Methodology

The air quality assessment (refer to Appendix 8) has been undertaken in accordance with

the Approved Methods and Guidance for Modelling of Air Pollutants in NSW (DECC 2005). The guidelines specify how assessments based on the use of air dispersion models should be undertaken. They include guidelines for the preparation of meteorological data to be used in dispersion models, the way in which emissions should be estimated and the relevant air quality criteria for assessing the significance of predicted air quality impacts associated with a Project. The specific approach to the air quality assessment (refer to Appendix 8) included

dispersion modelling based on the existing meteorological conditions and emissions factors to estimate emissions from Project-related processes. Off-site air quality impacts have been predicted using AUSPLUME. AUSPLUME is widely used throughout Australia and is regarded as a ‘state-of-the-art’ model. The AUSPLUME model is accepted by the EPA for air quality impacts assessment. The model has utilised meteorological data collected from the Williamtown RAAF Base meteorological station; existing air quality data collected from the EPA-operated air quality monitoring stations at Newcastle and Steel River; and estimated emissions rates and characteristics associated with the operation of the Project.

5.3.5 Air Quality Impact Assessment

Construction Phase

During the construction phase dust emissions are the dominant source of air emissions. The dust emissions can be effectively managed through routine construction management techniques, such that their impact is expected to be negligible. Construction of the Project will not be odorous and therefore no odour impacts are predicted to occur. Operational Phase

Dust emissions will occur during the handling/transfer of cement and ground slag. Specifically these emissions will be associated with transfer points along the screw conveyor and silos and from baghouse filters and some fugitive emissions during the unloading of ships and loading of trucks. Table 5.13 summarises the highest predicted ground level concentrations for PM10, TSP and Depositional Dust at all sensitive receiver locations due to the operation of the Project under the worst case operating conditions. Estimates of background levels are provided and combined with predicted project-related emissions to provide an indication of the cumulative air quality impacts as a result of the operation of the terminal (refer to Table 5.13).



Table 5.13 – Highest Predicted Ground-level Pollutant Concentrations for PM10, TSP and Depositional Dust

Pollutant and Averaging Time Assessment

Criteria Existing Levels

Project Contribution

Cumulative Level (Project Contribution + Existing)

Max 24 Hour Average PM10* 50 26.7 0.90 27.60

Annual Average PM10 30 21.07 0.18 21.25

Annual Average TSP 90 52.68 0.24 52.92

Deposited Dust 4 1.61 0.14 1.75 As outlined in Table 5.13, there are no predicted exceedances of the relevant air quality assessment criteria (i.e. Concept Plan Approval or the EPA’s goals). The results of the air quality assessment predict that the emissions from the Project will be substantially below the relevant air quality goals (i.e. the EPA and Concept Plan Approval air quality goals). It is also noted that the EPA nominated air quality goal contours are located within the site boundary and thus no adverse impact on any nearby receptors of the port are expected to occur. Operation of the Project will involve the transfer and storage of cement and slag. Both of these materials are not considered odour generating and therefore no odour impacts are predicted to occur. 5.3.6 Air Quality Management and Mitigation Measures

As outlined in Section 5.3.5, the air quality assessment (refer to Appendix 8) has indicated that the Project will not have a significant impact on air quality during construction or operation of the Project. Furthermore, the air quality assessment has indicated that the predicted emissions from the Project are substantially below relevant criteria. ICL has committed to the following air quality management and mitigation measures for the Project: • maintenance of appropriate dust management controls during the construction phase of

the Project including minimisation of disturbed areas, watering of exposed surfaces during construction and the stabilisation of exposed areas post-construction;

• cement/slag unloading and loading operations will be undertaken in a negative pressure environment;

• cement and ground slag will be pneumatically conveyed via sealed pipe transfer from the ship to storage silos. The conveying air will be cleaned using fabric filtration pollution control devices to remove any dust prior to being released to the atmosphere;

• level sensors will be incorporated into the silos which automatically stop filling operations when the silo reaches capacity;

• alarms and interlocks will activate should failure of any critical item of pollution control equipment occur;

• sealed material transfer equipment;

• regular dry sweeping of paved areas;



• ship unloading operations will normally cease during rain events or when the wind speed exceeds 25 knots for a sustained period;

• wind speed will be monitored by an anemometer which will raise an alarm if a 20 knot wind speed is exceeded;

• preventative maintenance programs to maintain high availability of plant and equipment; and

• standard operating procedures for unloading and loading processes.

5.4 Transport and Access (Land, Sea and Parking)

A detailed road and sea traffic assessment was undertaken within the Mayfield Site Port-Related Activities Concept Plan. This assessment compares the contribution of the Project relative to that detailed in and approved under the Concept Plan, rather than reassessing the impact of the Project in isolation. 5.4.1 Road Transport Impact Assessment

The Concept Plan assumed 700,000 tonnes of cement would be distributed in 35 tonne capacity trucks, 24 hours per day, 7 days a week 365 days a year (AECOM 2010). This results in an average of 55 truck deliveries per day. It is anticipated that at full operation the Project will generate on average 58 bulk truck deliveries per day (i.e. 116 truck movements) of cement and slag. This is based on 24 hour operation, 350 days per year and assumes that 63% of deliveries will be made by B-Doubles (45 tonne capacity), 28% of the deliveries will be made by truck and dogs (35 tonne capacity) and 9% by single truck (27 tonne capacity). The Projects maximum average daily traffic numbers are less than the 161 trucks trips per day (i.e. 322 truck movements) allowed for as part of the Bulk and General Precinct, the 112 truck trips per day (i.e. 224 truck movements) from the General Purpose Precinct and the 1268 truck trips per day (i.e. 2536 truck movements) allowed for in total under the Concept Plan Project Approval. As there is significant spare capacity within the Concept Plan approved traffic system at present, even with the inclusion of the approved Marstel bulk fuel facility traffic numbers, the Level of Service of the Industrial Drive/George Street intersection will not be adversely impacted by the Project. As only a small component of the overall traffic movements have been utilised by the Project, the cumulative traffic associated with subsequent developments are at this stage not likely to pose a significant constraint to future developments. The majority of the traffic impacts that are considered in the Concept Plan are due to the operation of the Container Terminal. The Concept Plan Approval correspondingly includes container truck thresholds, which when exceeded require intersection performance to be reviewed and intersection upgrades undertaken if performance of the intersection is unsatisfactory. The proposed cement terminal will not trigger any of these thresholds.

Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch...

Documents

Transcript of Cement and Slag Receival and Dispatch...