Dunmore Sand and Soil - Boral · , of Schedule 5 (Condition 9(5)) in Development Consent DA...

Dunmore Sand and Soil

Annual Review

2016-2017

Document Control Version Prepared by Date Distribution

1.0 Ellie Randall Environmental Coordinator Boral CMC

August 2017 Department of Planning and Environment

Available on the Boral Dunmore Quarry Website

1.1 Ellie Randall Environmental Coordinator Boral CMC

October 2017 Department of Planning and Environment

Available on the Boral Dunmore Quarry Website

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose/Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Background and Site Description ............................................................................................................ 2

2. Dunmore Sand and Soil Quarry Operations .................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Quarry Development .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.1. Last 12 Months ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2. Next 12 Months .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2. Production, Sales & Transport ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.1. Last 12 Months ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2. Next 12 Months .............................................................................................................................. 5

2.3. Water Management ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3.1. Flood Storage Capacity ................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2. Western Tributary .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.4. Flora and Fauna Management ................................................................................................................ 7 2.4.1. Flora and Fauna Management Plan ............................................................................................... 7

2.4.2. Rehabilitation Management Progress Report ................................................................................ 7

2.4.3. Next 12 Months .............................................................................................................................. 8

2.5. Waste Management ............................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1. Waste Minimisation Measures ...................................................................................................... 8

3. Complaints and Community Management ..................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Complaints Summary and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 9 3.2. Community ............................................................................................................................................ 10

4. Environmental Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1. Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.2. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 14

4.2.1. Deposited Dust ............................................................................................................................. 14

4.2.2. PM10 .............................................................................................................................................. 21

4.3. Meteorology ......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.4. Water .................................................................................................................................................... 24

4.4.1. Surface Water............................................................................................................................... 24

4.4.2. Ground Water .............................................................................................................................. 36

5. Compliance ................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.1. Management Plans ............................................................................................................................... 37 5.2. Independent Audit ................................................................................................................................ 37 5.3. Site Significant Incident ......................................................................................................................... 37

6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1 – Noise Monitoring Locations.............................................................................................................. 40 Appendix 2 – Air Quality Monitoring Locations ...................................................................................................... 42 Appendix 3 – Surface Water Quality Monitoring Locations ................................................................................... 44 Appendix 4 – Wind Roses ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix 5 – Annual Noise Assessment Report ..................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 6 – Annual Monitoring Report at 38 Tabbita Road, Dunmore, NSW ..................................................... 51 Appendix 7: Approval of Site Management Plans .................................................................................................. 52 Appendix 8: Pollution Incident Notification Log ..................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 9: Official Caution - EPA .......................................................................................................................... 54

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose/Scope This report has been prepared to address Annual Review requirements in accordance with Condition

9, of Schedule 5 (Condition 9(5)) in Development Consent DA 195-8-2004 for Dunmore Sand and Soil

Quarry. The review and associated report accounts for the period between 1 July 2016 and 30 June

2017. Condition 9(5) and all other relevant conditions required as part of the Annual Review are

outlined in Table 1 with reference to the section of this report where each has been addressed.

Table 1: Relevant Conditions of Approval

Condition of Approval

Condition Requirements Where addressed

in this report

5(9)

By the end of September each year, or other timing as may be agreed by the Secretary, the Applicant must review the environmental performance of the development to the satisfaction of the Secretary. This review must:

(a) Describe the development (including rehabilitation that was carried out in the previous financial year, and the development that is proposed to be carried out over the current financial year,

(b) Include a comprehensive review of the monitoring results and complaints records of the development over the previous financial year, which includes a comparison of these results against: • The relevant statutory requirements, limits or performance

measures/criteria; • Requirements of any plan or program required under this

consent; • The monitoring results of previous years; and • The relevant predictions in the documents listed in

condition 2(a) of Schedule 2; (c) Identify any non-compliances over the last year, and describe

what actions were (or are being) taken to ensure compliance; (d) Identify any trends in the monitoring data over the life of the

development; (e) Identify any discrepancies between the predicted and actual

impacts of the development, and analyse the potential cause of any significant discrepancies; and

(f) Describe what measures will be implemented over the current financial year to improve the environmental performance of the development.

The Applicant must ensure that copies of the Annual Review are submitted to Council and are available to the Community Consultative Committee (see condition 6 of schedule 5) and any interested person upon request.

Section 2

Section 2.5, 3 & 4

Section 5

Sections 3 & 4

Sections 3 & 4

Sections 2, 3 & 4

3(27) The Applicant must ensure that the flood storage capacity of the site is no less than the pre-existing flood storage capacity at all stages of the development. Details of the available flood storage capacity must be

Section 2.3

1 | P a g e

reported in the Annual Review.

3(57)

The Applicant must maximise the use of rail transport for delivery/despatch outside the Illawarra Region, to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Details of transportation modes and measures to assess and encourage rail transport must be provided in the Annual Review.

Section 2.2.1

3(72)

The Applicant must: (a) Provide annual production data to the DPI using the standard

form for that purpose; and (b) Include a copy of this data in the Annual Review.

Section 2.2.1

1.2. Background and Site Description

Dunmore Sand and Soil Quarry, owned and operated by Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd, is located at

Tabbita Road Dunmore, approximately 12 kilometres north-west of Kiama in the Shellharbour Local

Government Area. Dunmore Sand and Soil produces a range of sand and landscaping products through

the process of sand dredging.

Development Consent (DA 195-8-2004), issued 29 June 2005 for stages 2, 3 and 4 by the Minister for

Infrastructure and Planning, allows Boral to produce up to 800,000 tonnes of product per year, and

transport it offsite by road and rail to local and regional markets.

Dunmore Sand and Soil (the site) covers approximately 88 hectares and is surrounded by private

property, predominantly agricultural grazing land and tracts of remnant native vegetation, to the south

and north. The site is bound by the Princess Motorway (Kiama Bypass) to the east and directly to the

west is the Boral owned and operated Dunmore Quarry.

Operation of the quarry involves the sequential dredging and excavation of approximately eight million

tonnes of sand and soil from Stage 2, 3 and 4. The method of extraction of these resources includes

both sand and soil extraction by excavator and dredge sand extraction, followed by washing, processing

and material blending. The final product is then stockpiled on site until they are transported to local and

regional markets. A layout of the site is illustrated in Figure 1.

A summary of all the approvals relevant to the Dunmore Sand and Soil Quarry are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Approvals

Approval Type Approval Authority Approval No. Date Granted

Development Consent Department of Planning & Environment 195-8-2004 29/06/2005

Environment Protection Licence Environment Protection Authority 11147 04/05/04

Water Extraction Licence Department of Primary Industries - Water 10BL600813 01/07/2011

Controlled Activity Approval Department of Primary Industries - Water 10 ERM2010/1116 14/12/2015

2 | P a g e

Figure 1: Site Layout

3 | P a g e

2. Dunmore Sand and Soil Quarry Operations

2.1. Quarry Development

2.1.1. Last 12 Months

Throughout this reporting period, sand dredging was completed in stage 2 and commenced in stage 3

area. During the earlier months of the reporting period the site focused on removing the remaining

resources in stage 2 towards the western end of the project, ensuring the full extent of the material was

extracted prior to commencing dredging operations in stage 3.

2.1.2. Next 12 Months

The next 12 months we will continue to focus on dredging within the stage 3 area. Pending approval of

the Controlled Activities Application, stage 3 will extend within 10 meters of Rocklow Creek. At this

preliminary stage of expansion works within stage 3, the remaining areas will need to be stripped back

with the removal of topsoil from this area.

2.2. Production, Sales & Transport

2.2.1. Last 12 Months

Table 3 details the production figures for the reporting period. In total Dunmore Sand and Soil produced

434,240 tonnes during the reporting period; this is below the potential consented capacity of 800,000

tonnes of product per calendar year. Table 4 provides the estimated production data (2016-2017) which

will be reported to the Department of Primary Industries (DPI).

Table 3: Production Data

Month Production (t) Sales (t)

Road Rail Transfers Out Jan 2016 31,601 6,037 11,001 Feb 2016 36,524 13,757 14,734 Mar 2016 37,193 16,218 13,210 Apr 2016 41,947 17,732 13,232 May 2016 6,860 27,340 10,975 Jun 2016 57,490 17,398 13,239 Jul 2016 38,175 5,798 18,465 Aug 2016 29,631 18,805 13,197 Sep 2016 30,248 23,532 10,224 Oct 2016 40,002 15,699 11,025 Nov 2016 54,497 24,235 8,790

4 | P a g e

Dec 2016 30,072 17,352 6,007

Total 434,240 203,900 144,099

Table 4: Production Data (DPI Annual Return Format)

Product Quantity Tonnes FY17

Virgin Materials Crushed Coarse Aggregates

Over 75mm Over 30mm to 75mm 5mm to 30mm 48,211 Under 5mm Natural Sand Manufactured Sand 86,067

Prepared Road Base & Sub Base

Other Unprocessed Materials 9,454

Construction Sand Excluding Industrial 347,549

Industrial Sand Foundry, Moulding Glass Other (Specify)

TOTAL SITE PRODUCTION


Overall production is expected to continue within stage 3 with a higher annual production rate compared

to FY17 as the dredge will remain in stage 3. Pending the approval of the Controlled Activities

Application the dredging pond will expand slightly south within 10 meters of Rocklow Creek to capture all

resources approved within the Development Consent.

2.3. Water Management

2.3.1. Flood Storage Capacity

The site is located at the confluence of three tributaries of the Minnamurra River and, given the close

proximity of groundwater to the surface, has a very high potential for flooding. Water backing up along

Rocklow Creek from the Minnamurra River is also a major contributor to on-site flooding. Peak tidal

flows in these waterways also influence the flood levels and duration of inundation on the site (R. W.

Corkery & Co 2006).

5 | P a g e

Major floods occur in the Dunmore area at least once every 10 years and, during these events, parts of

the site are likely to be inundated to a depth of one to 1.5 metres and remain inundated for a few days

(R. W. Corkery & Co 2006).

The Environmental Management Plan (R. W. Corkery & Co 2006) noted that the RTA designed and

constructed the North Kiama by-pass to “match the openings of the downstream railway embankment

which was designed and constructed following a flood study completed by Webb McKeown (1989) –

predicting a 100 year average recurrence interval (ARI) flood level of up to 3.3m on Rocklow Creek”.

The EMP went on to state that: “The culvert system would, therefore, not impact on local flooding

regimes, which based on previous flood studies of Rocklow Creek, (including Webb McKeown 1989),

are considered to approximate the following:

• 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI): 3.6m AHD • 20 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI): 3.3m AHD • 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI): 3.2m AHD.”

To protect the site from floods up to and including the 1 in 100 year event the processing and stockpile

area have been constructed above 3.6m AHD and site bunds are generally at 3.7 metres AHD. The

majority of the access road off Tabbita Road is also above 3.6 metres AHD; however, the ramp

abutting Tabbita Road was constructed below 3.6 metres AHD due to the presence of overhead

powerlines and potential safety risks to heavy vehicles.

2.3.2. Western Tributary

In accordance with Controlled Activing Approval 10ERM2010/116, the works to make alterations to the

Western Tributary channel for Stage 2 and 3 operations were undertaken. The exit point and

hydrologically designed weir of the Stage 2 operational pond was installed. This structure was

designed with special consideration given to highly turbid waters and large flood events. Further, the

section of the channel located within the Stage 3 footprint was realigned to flow through Culvert No.4

of the Princes Highway. This realignment included the formation of a small pond upstream of the

culvert. Figure 2 below portrays the successful realignment of the channel.

Figure 2: Stage 3 Western

Tributary Channel – looking

North.

6 | P a g e

2.4. Flora and Fauna Management

2.4.1. Flora and Fauna Management Plan

2.4.1.1. Summary In accordance with Condition 4(38), a Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP) was prepared by

Arcadis for Boral in February 2017. This FFMP incorporated a Vegetation Clearing Protocol, a

Compensatory Habitat Management Plan and a Pest and Weed Management Plan.

2.4.2. Rehabilitation Management Progress Report

Rehabilitation of Dunmore Sand and Soil has commenced during the FY17 reporting period.

Rehabilitation activities undertaken to date have been in accordance with the Flora and Fauna

Management and Rehabilitation Plan prepared by Arcadias (2017). The current location of dredging is in

stage three (note: no rehabilitation has occurred in stage 3) with stage 2 dredging completed in FY17.

Throughout this reporting period, rehabilitation works have begun along the northern area of stage 2 with

six thousand, three hundred native plants of varying species planted (see figures 3 & 4 below).

Landform construction of the south eastern section of stage 2 has commenced with VENM infill placed

to form the foundations for the swamp oak floodplain forest. The banks of the realigned Western

Tributary channel in Stage 3 was also rehabilitated, with the laying of Jute Matting and plant out of

approximately 2600 tube stock of varying species (see figure 2 above).

Figure 3: Stage 2 northern area looking west.

Figure 4: Stage 2 northern area looking north east.

The Rehabilitation Management Plan and the Flora and Fauna Management Plan have been reviewed,

updated and approved during the reporting period.

7 | P a g e


Over the next reporting period Dunmore Sand and Soil intends to continue rehabilitation of stage 2 area.

This will include:

• Construction and planting of the habitat island using native flora species,

• Continued planting of native flora species to the north of stage 2, heading towards the western

boundary; and

• Placement of VENM infill to the south eastern area of stage 2 working towards north of the site.

The site Rehabilitation Management Plan and Flora and Fauna Management Plan will be reviewed will

be updated throughout the FY18 reporting period.

2.5. Waste Management

2.5.1. Waste Minimisation Measures Boral is committed to ensuring its extraction and processing activities produces minimal waste material.

Approximately 85-90% of the sand processed at Dunmore Sand and Soil becomes washed sand for

internal and external sales. The remaining 10-15% of by product created during the washing process is

considered as fines material or oversized material. The fines material is washed into the fines ponds

which is used in the creation of the wetlands area, while the oversized product is used in site

rehabilitation.

Boral is committed to continuing non-production waste management minimisation in accordance with the

waste hierarchy, and minimising the amount of waste sent to landfill. To achieve this, all liquid and solid

wastes are classified and sorted so they can be appropriately re-used or recycled. Table 5 below

outlines the total waste and waste types generated from Dunmore Sand and Soil over the reporting

period. These waste management practices will continue over the next 12 months, with a particular

focus on managing site recyclable products.

8 | P a g e

Table 5: Waste Streams

3. Complaints and Community Management

3.1. Complaints Summary and Analysis

Dunmore Sand and Soil Quarry maintain a complaint register that identifies actions required to resolve

issues and concerns raised by the community. The complaints register is also published on the Boral

website.

During the reporting period the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made an enquiry regarding

water quality downstream of the project. The site responded by collecting and analysis water quality, as

well as conducting a site inspection with the EPA. After reviewing water quality results it was deemed

that site was within its licenced water quality limits. Figure 5 provides an overview of the noise, vibration

and dust complaints received since 2007. There have been minimal complaints received over the history

of the project.

General Waste Tonnes Cardboard Tonnes Commingle Waste Tonnes Effluent Litres

Jul-2016 0.394 0.029 0.03 0

Aug-2016 0.327 0.068 0.03 0

Sep-2016 0.472 0 0.03 0

Oct-2016 0.488 0 0.03 500

Nov-2016 0.491 0.098 0.03 3000

Dec-2016 0.331 0.048 0.03 0

Jan-2017 0.32 0.029 0.03 0

Feb-2017 0.337 0.091 0.03 0

Mar-2017 0.742 0.145 0.03 300

Apr-2017 0.318 0.048 0.03 0

May-2017 0.246 0.08 0.03 0

Jun-2017 0.265 0 0.03 0

Total 4.731 0.636 0.36 3800

9 | P a g e

Figure 5

3.2. Community

The Dunmore Sand and Soil Community Consultative Committee (CCC) continues to serve as a

valuable dialogue between Boral and the local community with valuable input and feedback being

provided by the community regarding operations and plans. Members are informed of the environmental

performance of the site, provided with an update on operations and given a chance to tour the site and

ask questions they may have regarding the operation. CCC members have also been diligent in

disseminating the information from the meetings to other interested community members in the local

area. The minutes of each meeting is published in the Boral website. The CCC met twice during the

2016-2017 reporting period. No community contributions were undertaken during the reporting period.

4. Environmental Monitoring

4.1. Noise

A noise monitoring program was prepared in recognition of Schedule 3 Condition 16 to monitor noise at

the three receiver locations specified in the consent and EPL. These locations are displayed in Appendix

1. The noise monitoring program includes:

• Annual attended noise monitoring surveys within the months of winter; and

• Annual unattended noise monitoring surveys within the months of winter.

10 | P a g e

A Noise Compliance Assessment Report was prepared by SLR Consulting Australia and presents

results of attended and unattended noise monitoring surveys undertaken during August 2016 at receiver

locations 1 (Renton Residence), 2 (Dunmore Village) and 3 (Stocker Residence).

The report found that Dunmore Sand and Soil achieved compliance with the licence noise limits at all

locations during all monitoring periods. A copy of the Noise Compliance Assessment Report is attached

as Appendix 5 of this report.

Figure 6 and 7 provides a graphical representation of the noise monitoring results (estimated Dunmore

Sand and Soil LAeq [15 minute] contribution sourced from Annual Noise Monitoring Assessments) from

financial year 12 to the current financial year 17.

11 | P a g e

Figure 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

dBA

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Attended Noise Monitoring FY12-FY17

Site 1: Morning Shoulder Monitoring (Laeq 15minutes)Site 2: Morning Shoulder Monitoring (Laeq 15minutes)Site 3: Morning Shoulder Monitoring (Laeq 15minutes)Site 1: Day Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes)

Site 2: Day Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes)

Site 3: Day Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes)

Linear (Site 1: Morning Shoulder Monitoring (Laeq 15minutes))Linear (Site 2: Morning Shoulder Monitoring (Laeq 15minutes))Linear (Site 3: Morning Shoulder Monitoring (Laeq 15minutes))Linear (Site 1: Day Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes))

Linear (Site 2: Day Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes))

Linear (Site 3: Day Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes))

12 | P a g e

Figure 7

Note: No data available at location 1 during FY17 due to equipment malfunction.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

dBA

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Unattended Noise Monitoring FY12-FY17

Site 1: Daytime Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes)

Site 1: Evening Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes)

Site 1: Night Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes)







Linear (Site 1: Daytime Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes))

Linear (Site 1: Evening Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes))

Linear (Site 1: Night Monitoring (Laeq 15 minutes))







13 | P a g e

4.2. Air Quality

4.2.1. Deposited Dust

The air quality monitoring program includes 5 deposited dust gauges that have been in operation for

approximately 10 years. The location of these dust gauges can be seen Appendix 2. Table 6 present the

results of deposited dust monitoring during the reporting period content as well as averages for previous

reporting periods. Figure 13 and 14 provide a graphical representation of the annual averages and linear

trend patterns for the life of the project at each monitoring location. At the commencement of the

reporting period deposited dust gauges 7a and 9 have been decommissioned in accordance with the Air

Quality Monitoring Program. Deposited dust gauge 10 (DD10) has replaced deposited dust gauge 7a.

4.2.1.1. DD2 (EPL2) Deposited dust gauge 2 (DD2) yielded an annual average insoluble solids of2.28 g/m2/month, with an

average ash content of 1.56 g/m2/month. The assessment criteria of 4g/m2/month (Insoluble Impact

Assessment Criteria) was not exceeded during the reporting period for both insoluble solids and ash

content. Figure 8 below displays the monthly monitoring results for the reporting period.

Figure 8

The trend patterns over the life of the project at DD2, for both insoluble solids and ash content remained

consistent with lower deposited dust levels. These results are within the EIS predicted annual deposited

dust.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

g/m

2/m

onth

Month

Dunmore Sand and Soil FY17 Dust Monitoring - DD2

Insoluble Solids

Ash Content

Goal - 4g/m2/month

14 | P a g e

4.2.1.2. DD 5 Deposited dust gauge 5 (DD5) yielded an annual average insoluble solid content of 2.67 g/m2/month and

annual average ash content of 1.77 g/m2/month suggesting that the quarry contribution was relatively

minor. The assessment criteria of 4g/m2/month (Insoluble Impact Assessment Criteria) was exceeded

on one (1) occasion during the reporting period for insoluble solids however there was no ash content

greater than 4g/m2/month. Figure 9 below displays the monthly monitoring results for the reporting

period.

Figure 9

The trend patterns over the life of the project at DD5 for both insoluble solids and ash content have

remained consistent and relatively neutral. These results are within the EIS predicted annual deposited

dust.

4.2.1.3. DD 6 Deposited dust gauge 6 (DD6) yielded an annual average insoluble solids of 3.31 g/m2/month, with an


Assessment Criteria) was exceeded of two (2) occasions during the reporting period for insoluble

solids however there was no ash content greater than 4g/m2/month. Figure 10 below displays the

monthly monitoring results for the reporting period.

0

1

2

3

4

5

g/m

2/m

onth

Month


Insoluble Solids

Ash Content

Goal - 4g/m2/month

15 | P a g e

Figure 10

The trend patterns over the life of the project at DD6, for both insoluble solids and ash content have

decrease with lower deposited dust levels. These results are within the EIS predicted annual deposited

dust.

4.2.1.4. DD 8 Deposited dust gauge 8 (DD8) yielded an annual average insoluble solids of 2.07 g/m2/month, with an


Assessment Criteria) was not exceeded during the reporting period for both insoluble solids and ash

content. Figure 11 below displays the monthly monitoring results for the reporting period.

Figure 11

02468

10121416

g/m

2/m

onth

Month


Insoluble Solids

Ash Content

Goal - 4g/m2/month

0

1

2

3

4

5

g/m

2/m

onth

Month


Insoluble Solids

Ash Content

Goal - 4g/m2/month

16 | P a g e

The trend patterns over the life of the project at DD8, for both insoluble solids and ash content have

varied with both increases and decreases reported in deposited dust levels. These results are within the

EIS predicted annual deposited dust. During the months of August 2016, September 2016 and February

2017 samples were not available for testing due to broken bottles. This area has now been fenced off so

cattle cannot come into contact with the dust bottles.

4.2.1.5. DD10 Deposited dust gauge 10 (DD10) yielded an annual average insoluble solids of 2.01 g/m2/month, with

an average ash content of 1.30 g/m2/month. The assessment criteria of 4g/m2/month (Insoluble Impact

Assessment Criteria) was exceeded on one (1) occasion during the reporting period for insoluble solids

however there was no ash content greater than 4g/m2/month.. Figure 12 below displays the monthly

monitoring results for the reporting period.

Figure 12

The trend patterns over the life of the project at DD10, for both insoluble solids and ash content have remained consistent. These results are within the EIS predicted annual deposited dust.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

g/m

2/m

onth

Month


Insoluble Solids

Ash Content

Goal - 4g/m2/month

17 | P a g e

Table 6: Deposited Dust Measurements

Month DD2 grams/m2/month DD5 grams/m2/month DD6 grams/m2/month DD8 grams/m2/month DD7b/10 grams/m2/month

Dominant Wind Direction

Direction of Strongest

Winds Production

Tonnes Insoluble Solids Ash Insoluble Solids Ash Insoluble Solids Ash Insoluble Solids Ash Insoluble Solids Ash

FY07 Average 3.68 1.9 3.3 2.1 5.75 3.36 7.62 3.54

FY08 Average 2.97 1.84 2.88 1.66 4.23 2.43 5.95 3.48

FY09 Average 3.07 1.98 3.79 1.94 3.83 2.87 3.85 1.75

FY10 Average 5.29 3.3 3.42 2.5 4.88 2.96 7.01 3.29

FY11 Average 6.16 3.68 3.42 1.99 3.92 2.47 12.2 6.21

FY12 Average 5.51 2.82 3.09 1.82 3.17 2.32 6.81 3.99

FY13 Average 4.19 2.19 3.26 1.84 3.7 2.48 4.9 2.81

FY14 Average 2.21 1.42 3.63 1.76 2.67 1.58 2.68 1.81

FY15 Average 3.57 1.77 2.55 1.46 3.94 2 5.93 4.96 3.38 2.01

FY16 Average 1.85 1.19 2.59 1.44 2.55 1.55 2.01 1.38 2.66 1.66

FY17 Average 2.28 1.56 2.67 1.77 3.31 1.68 2.07 1.50 2.01 1.30

Jul-2016 1.79 1.45 3.25 2.25 1.47 1.34 2.52 2.37 1.48 1.13 WSW WSW 38,175

Aug-2016 2.4 1.88 2.02 1.62 1.48 1.36 ** ** 1.4 1.23 W, SSW W 38,175

Sep-2016 2.72 1.85 3.65 2.35 1.57 1.31 ** ** 1.71 1.28 WNW, W WNW 29,631

Oct-2016 1.97 1.5 2.92 2.06 3.95 2.16 1.93 1.31 1.62 1.1 WNW, W W 30,248

Nov-2016 2.49 1.55 2.97 1.72 2.98 1.86 - - 2.57 1.65 WSW, W WSW 40,002

Dec-2016 3.79 2.11 2.27 1.52 14.1 3.48 2.27 1.48 4.34 1.89 W W 54,497

Jan-2017 2.37 2.01 3.28 2.2 6.31 3.39 3.44 2.34 2.22 1.61 WNW, SSE WNW 30,072

Feb-2017 1.34 1.08 1.71 1.54 0.72 0.68 ** ** 0.31 0.1 SSW, W, NE SSW 28,156

Mar-2017 1.58 0.79 0.63 0.52 0.62 0.17 0.71 0.42 0.82 0.66 SW, SSW, S SW 28,687

Apr-2017 3.38 1.94 3.45 1.96 1.96 1.4 1.73 1.43 2.22 1.64 W, S W 30,355

May-2017 1.85 1.18 4.24 2.2 2.58 1.6 2.4 1.41 1.74 1.16 W, S, WNW W 22,815

Jun-2017 1.67 1.32 1.7 1.25 1.97 1.36 1.56 1.25 3.74 2.1 SSW, WSW SSW 12,726

FY17 Average 2.28 1.56 2.67 1.77 3.31 1.68 2.07 1.50 2.01 1.30

Note: Insoluble impact assessment criterion is 4 g/m2/month. ** No sample available. Damage to bottle.

18 | P a g e

Figure 13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

FY07Average

FY08Average

FY09Average

FY10Average

FY11Average

FY12Average

FY13Average

FY14Average

FY15Average

FY16Average

FY17Average

g/m

2/m

onth

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Dust Monitoring Insoluble Solids FY07-FY17 Average

DD2 Insolunle Solids

DD5 Insoluble Solids




Linear (DD2 Insolunle Solids)

Linear (DD5 Insoluble Solids)



19 | P a g e

Figure 14

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FY07Average

FY08Average

FY09Average

FY10Average

FY11Average

FY12Average

FY13Average

FY14Average

FY15Average

FY16Average

FY17Average

g/m

2/m

onth

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Dust Monitoring Ash Content FY07-FY17 Average

DD2 Ash Content

DD5 Ash Content

DD6 Ash Content

DD8 Ash Content

DD10 Ash Content

Linear (DD5 Ash Content)




20 | P a g e

4.2.1.6. Deposited Dust Summary and Opportunities for Improvement

Analysis of the deposited dust records indicates that there were 4 exceedances of insoluble solids

monthly results; however no exceedances of ash content recorded across the reporting period. It is

evident that the quarry contribution may be limited.

To continue managing air quality and dust levels the site will continue dust management; via the

application of the water cart on roads and the entrance road. Further, the site will continue to actively

manage dust on site through supervisor inspections and watering of stockpiles.

Measures planned for the coming year include:

• Investigate the use of an early warning network to predict wind strength and direction to assist in

management of dust on site through various dust suppression techniques.

4.2.2. PM10

The monitoring program for finer particulates includes monitoring of dust finer than 10 micron through

use of a high volume air sampler (HVAS). The HVAS runs for a 24 hour period every 6 days, please

refer to Appendix 2 for an indication of the where the HVAS is located (identified as monitoring point 5).

The PM10 monitoring results for the 2016-2017 reporting period are represented graphically in Figure 15

and monitoring results for the life of the project are represented in Figure 16.

The annual average of recorded results of was 11.98 μg/m3. The lowest recorded result was 0.24μg/m3

on 02 September 2016 and the highest being 54.43μg/m3 on 30 January 2017. It was noted that on the

30th of January 2017 severe fire danger was forecast within the Illawarra which may have impacted on

the higher than normal results. As a result, the short term impact assessment criterion of 50μg/m3 was

exceeded once during the reporting period. These results indicate that PM10 dust levels are well below

long term impact assessment criteria; consistent with previous years reporting; and consistent with the

EIS predicted maximum 24 hour PM10 concentration and predicted annual average. Furthermore, trend

analysis indicates that over the life of the project the sample average has decreased.

21 | P a g e

Figure 15

22 | P a g e

Figure 26

23 | P a g e

4.3. Meteorology

A meteorological monitoring station has been operating at Dunmore since 2002. Table 7 presents a

summary of the results of rainfall received during the reporting period against that received in previous

years and regional averages. Seasonal wind roses showing the local wind movements are available in

Appendix 4.

Table 7: Rainfall Data

Month Rainfall (mm) Regional

FY17 Averages**

(mm) 2010-11 2011- 12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

July 78 194 39 57.9 5 48 97.5 64.6

August 72 85.5 4.5 17 252 327 76 57

September 145.5 58.5 11.5 85.5 150.5 82 51 54.2

October 126 124.5 83.5 6.5 102.5 36.5 32 18.8

November 198 165.5 25 173 24 48 33 31.4

December 147.5 60.5 32 71.5 232.5 116.5 58 40.4

January 59.5 52 183 42.5 192.5 155.5 32.5 2.4

February 48 307.5 142.5 59 99.5 29.5 283 248

March 362.5 146.5 23.5 326 57 145 441 376.6

April 37.4* 85 136 64.5 308.5 37.5 40.5 37.4

May 58.3* 9.5 81 13 49 35.5 51.5 30.8

June 74 88 239 34 76 429 57 42.2

Total 1407 1377 1000.5 950.4 1549 1490 1253 1003.8

* Source: Bureau of Meteorology, Climate Statistics for Australian Location, Wollongong University ** Source: Bureau of Meteorology, Climate Statistics for Australian Location, Albion Park (Wollongong Airport. Red) values indicate month received higher than the regional average rainfall.

4.4. Water

4.4.1. Surface Water

Water quality monitoring was collected from existing water monitoring points as per the conditions of

Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) 11147 and Development Consent DA 195-8-2004 (see

Appendix 3 for all Dunmore Sand and Soil water monitoring locations). The five (5) licenced monitoring

points include:

• DW12 (EPL11)

• DW11 (EPL12)

• DW20a (EPL9)

• DW21 (EPL10); and

24 | P a g e

• DW18 (EPL13).

The main water monitoring parameters tested across Dunmore Sand and Soil include:

• pH,

• Turbidity (NTU),

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS); and

• Electrical Conductivity (EC).

Figures 17 to 20 provide a comparison of water quality results across all monitoring points for Dunmore

Sand and Soil (note: there are no relevant predictions provided in the EIS to provide a comparison).

Monitoring point DW12 (EPL11) is located upstream of Dunmore Sand and Soil in a North West location.

The site is highly influenced by farming practises with cattle often found within the waters of the

monitoring locations. The site is furthermore influenced by water discharge from nearby quarry practices

not associated with Boral.

During the reporting period DW12 (EPL11) recorded a minimum pH of 6.4 and a maximum pH of 8.5

with an annual average of 7.23. The minimum turbidity was 7.5 and the maximum was 950 with an

annual average of 148.53. The minimum TSS recorded at site was 1.6 with a maximum of 1108 and an

annual average of 161.60. The minimum EC recorded was 162 with a maximum of 310 and an average

of 239.29. Table 8 provides a summary of the annual monitoring results.

Table 8: DW12 (EPL11) FY17 Monitoring Results

Month DW12 (EPL11) pH NTU TSS EC

Jul-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Aug-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Sep-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Oct-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Nov-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Dec-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

25 | P a g e

Jan-2017 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Feb-2017 6.4 7.5 4.8 242

Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Mar-2017

7.9 14 2 229 8.5 15.2 1.6 220 6.8 24 2 212 6.9 17 5.2 300

6.7 12 7.6 310

Apr-2017 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

May-2017 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Jun-2017

7.4 950 1108 162 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.


FY17 Average 7.23 148.53 161.60 239.29

Monitoring point DW11 (EPL12) is located upstream of Dunmore Sand and Soil in a North, North/West

location. The site is highly influenced by farming practises and water discharge from nearby quarry

practices not associated with Boral. Table 9 provides a summary of the annual monitoring results.


with an annual average of 7.76. The minimum turbidity was 3.1 and the maximum was 380 with an

annual average of 61.65. The minimum TSS recorded at site was 1.6 with a maximum of 313 and an

annual average of 313. The minimum EC recorded was 167 with a maximum of 821 and an average of

596.



Jul-2016 7.9 7.2 11 619

Aug-2016

8 6.8 1.6 767

8.1 39 49 821

Sep-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Oct-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected. Nov-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected. Dec-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

26 | P a g e


Feb-2017 7.7 20 9.6 597 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Mar-2017

8.14 62 21 523 8.45 26 5.6 620 7.2 58 84 312 6.7 18 4.4 670

7.9 58 9.6 680

Apr-2017 8.3 3.1 4 780

May-2017 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Jun-2017 7 380 313 167

Water level too low. No Sample Collected. Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

FY17 Average 7.76 61.65 46.62 596.00

Monitoring point DW20 (EPL9) is located downstream of Dunmore Sand and Soil in a South East

location. The site is influenced by Dunmore Sand and Soil water discharge from stage 2 works and from

the Princess Highway. Table 10 provides a summary of the annual monitoring results.

During the reporting period DW20 (EPL9) recorded a minimum pH of 6.7 and a maximum pH of 8.2 with

an annual average of 7.68. The minimum turbidity was 6.1 and the maximum was 85 with an annual

average of 34.33. The minimum TSS recorded at site was 3.6 with a maximum of 48 and an annual

average of 21.4. The minimum EC recorded was 320 with a maximum of 1860 and an average of 666.5.



Jul-2016 7.8 60 30 447

Aug-2016 8 85 48 455

8.1 45 23 454

Sep-2016 7.8 60 37 555 Oct-2016 No rain event, no sample collected. Nov-2016 No rain event, no sample collected. Dec-2016 8 6.1 9.2 976 Jan-2017 No rain event, no sample collected.

Feb-2017 7.2 6.8 5.6 1860 8.2 28 3.6 1210

Mar-2017

7.9 22 9.2 747 8.1 23 9.6 700 6.7 58 45 430 6.9 39 15 422

27 | P a g e

7.1 27 16 320

Apr-2017 7.8 18 13 538

May-2017 7.8 33 19 531 7.5 37 24 653

Jun-2017 7.8 25 24 544 8 23 24 588

7.6 22 30 567 FY17 Average 7.68 34.33 21.4 666.5

Monitoring point DW21 (EPL10) is located downstream of Dunmore Sand and Soil in a South,

South/East location. The site is influenced by water run-off from the Princess Highway. Water from the

project does not enter this site. Table 11 provides a summary of the annual monitoring results.

During the reporting period DW21 (EPL10) recorded a minimum pH of 7.1 and a maximum pH of 8 with

an annual average of 7.44. The minimum turbidity was 8.1 and the maximum was 27 with an annual


average of 19.72. The minimum EC recorded was 1735 with a maximum of 14320 and an average of

4676.



Jul-2016

Aug-2016

Sep-2016

Oct-2016 Nov-2016 Dec-2016 Jan-2017

Feb-2017

Mar-2017

28 | P a g e

Apr-2017

May-2017 8 8.9 5.6 3480

7.4 27 24 1990

Jun-2017 7.3 18 41 14320 7.1 11 18 1735 7.4 8.1 10 1855

FY17 Average 7.44 14.6 19.72 4676 Note: Water monitoring at DW21 (EPL10) did not commence until May 2017.

Monitoring point DW18 (EPL13) is located south of Dunmore Sand and Soil in a South, South/West

location in Rocklow Creek. The site is influenced by farming practises and water discharge from nearby

quarry practices associated with Boral. Table 12 provides a summary of the annual monitoring results.


with an annual average of 7.3. The minimum turbidity was 8.6 and the maximum was 90 with an annual



1906.9.



Jul-2016 7.2 14 21 431

Aug-2016


7.5 13 18 356

8.2 18 22 377

Sep-2016 7.9 15 17 479

Oct-2016 7.6 8.9 15 737

Nov-2016 Water level too low. No Sample Collected.

Dec-2016 7.7 60 52 29800


Feb-2017 6.8 90 53 421

8 30 3.2 770

Mar-2017

6.9 21 17 316

8.4 27.5 16 260

6.7 58 10 180

29 | P a g e

- 8.6 14 320

6.9 21 7.2 316

7.1 27 14 320

- - 5.2 -

Apr-2017 7.1 7.1 9.6 427

May-2017 7.3 19 16 621

7.1 18 18 560

Jun-2017

7.1 28 26 546

7.1 15 26 421

7 22 22 479

FY17 Average 7.3 26.1 19.2 1906.9

During the reporting period Dunmore Sand and Soil released water from stage 2 works at point DW16.

Water leaving this site passes water monitoring point DW20a (EPL9). Table 13 provides a summary of

the annual monitoring results.

During the reporting period DW16 recorded a minimum pH of 6.7 and a maximum pH of 8.2 with an

annual average of 7.7. The minimum turbidity was 4.6 and the maximum was 115 with an annual



639.75.

Table 13: 16 FY17 Monitoring Results

Month DW16 pH NTU TSS EC

Jul-2016 8.1 70 37 446

Aug-2016 7.9 60 36 458

Sep-2016 7.2 57.6 - 590

Oct-2016 8 75 44 567

Nov-2016 8 15 12 613

Dec-2016 7.1 41 42 664

Jan-2017 7.6 4.6 6.8 2130

Feb-2017 8 17 17 698

8.15 27 8.8 690

Mar-2017 7.3 33 8.4 746

7.85 34.1 8.4 620

30 | P a g e

6.8 115 35 480

6.7 28 9.6 520

7.2 48 9.6 490

Apr-2017 7.8 20 20 486

May-2017 7.9 38 16 505

7.9 37 22 514

Jun-2017

8.2 32 27 518

8 36 24 523

8.1 36 24 537

FY17 Average 7.7 41.2 21.5 639.75

The water discharged throughout the reporting period were within the water discharge limits of the

Development Consent with a TSS limit of 50mg/L and a pH of + or – 1 within the 100 percent

concentration limit.

31 | P a g e

Figure 17

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FY06Average

FY07Average

FY08Average

FY09Average

FY10Average

FY11Average

FY12Average

FY13Average

FY14Average

FY15Average

FY16Average

FY17Average

pH

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Waster Monitoring pH FY06-FY17 Average

DW9 pHDW10 pHDW11 (EPL12) pHDW12 (EPL11)DW13 pHDW17 pHDW18 (EPL13)DW16DW15DW19DW20a (EPL9)DW21 (EPL10)Linear (DW9 pH)Linear (DW10 pH)Linear (DW11 (EPL12) pH)Linear (DW12 (EPL11))Linear (DW13 pH)Linear (DW17 pH)Linear (DW18 (EPL13))Linear (DW16)Linear (DW15)Linear (DW20a (EPL9))Linear (DW21 (EPL10))

32 | P a g e

Figure 18

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FY07Average

FY08Average

FY09Average

FY10Average

FY11Average

FY12Average

FY13Average

FY14Average

FY15Average

FY16Average

FY17Average

NTU

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Water Monitoring Turbidity FY07-FY17 Average DW9 Turbidity

DW10 TurbidityDW11 (EPL12) TurbidityDW12 (EPL11) TurbidityDW13 TurbidityDW17 TurbidityDW18 (EPL13) TurbidityDW16 TurbidityDW15 TurbidityDW19 TurbidityDW20a (EPL9) TurbidityDW21 (EPL10) TurbidityLinear (DW9 Turbidity)Linear (DW10 Turbidity)Linear (DW11 (EPL12) Turbidity)Linear (DW12 (EPL11) Turbidity)Linear (DW13 Turbidity)Linear (DW17 Turbidity)Linear (DW18 (EPL13) Turbidity)Linear (DW16 Turbidity)Linear (DW15 Turbidity)Linear (DW20a (EPL9) Turbidity)

33 | P a g e

Figure 19

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FY07Average

FY08Average

FY09Average

FY10Average

FY11Average

FY12Average

FY13Average

FY14Average

FY15Average

FY16Average

FY17Average

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/L)

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Water Monitoring Total Suspended Solids FY07-FY17 Average

DW9 TSSDW10 TSSDW11 (EPL12) TSSDW12 (EPL11) TSSDW13 TSSDW17 TSSDW18 (EPL13) TSSDW16 TSSDW15 TSSDW19 TSSDW20a (EPL9) TSSDW21 (EPL10) TSSLinear (DW9 TSS)Linear (DW10 TSS)Linear (DW11 (EPL12) TSS)Linear (DW12 (EPL11) TSS)Linear (DW13 TSS)Linear (DW17 TSS)Linear (DW18 (EPL13) TSS)Linear (DW16 TSS)Linear (DW15 TSS)Linear (DW20a (EPL9) TSS)

34 | P a g e

Figure 20

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

FY07Average

FY08Average

FY09Average

FY10Average

FY11Average

FY12Average

FY13Average

FY14Average

FY15Average

FY16Average

FY17Average

EC (μ

S/cm

)

Financial Year

Dunmore Sand and Soil Water Monitoring Electrical Conductivity FY07-FY17 Average

DW9 ECDW10 ECDW11 (EPL12) ECDW12 (EPL11) ECDW13 ECDW17 ECDW18 (EPL13) ECDW16 ECDW15 ECDW19 ECDW20a (EPL9) ECDW21 (EPL10) ECLinear (DW9 EC)Linear (DW10 EC)Linear (DW11 (EPL12) EC)Linear (DW12 (EPL11) EC)Linear (DW13 EC)Linear (DW17 EC)Linear (DW18 (EPL13) EC)Linear (DW16 EC)Linear (DW15 EC)Linear (DW20a (EPL9) EC)

35 | P a g e

4.4.2. Ground Water

During the reporting period Environmental Earth Sciences NSW were engaged by Boral to undertake a

review of the annual groundwater environmental monitoring data undertaken during the 2016 – 2017

period (Appendix 6). The results from the analysis indicate that groundwater levels have remained stable

indicating that there has been little to no impact from sand dredging activities (note: there are no relevant

predictions provided in the EIS to provide a comparison).

Groundwater monitoring will continue across the Dunmore Sand and Soil borehole sites during the FY18

reporting period. It is expected that with the progression of sand dredging in stage 3 and the potential

approval of the controlled activities application that borehole sites BH-F and DG-17 may be destroyed

due to progression dredging activities.

36 | P a g e

5. Compliance

5.1. Management Plans

During the reporting period several key management plans were reviewed, updated and approved by

the DPE. The plans approved include:

• Noise Monitoring Program,

• Air Quality Monitoring Program,

• Flora and Fauna Management Plan,

• Rehabilitation Management Plan; and

• Long Term Management Strategy.

The Water Management Plan is current in review and is expected to be approved during the FY18

reporting period. See Appendix 7 for approval notice.

5.2. Independent Audit

During the reporting period, no audits were conducted at Dunmore Sand and Soil. In the FY18 reporting

period the Independent Environmental Audit will be conducted by an endorsed auditor as per the sites

Development Consent.

5.3. Site Significant Incident

During the reporting period, a significant incident occurred where the Pollution Incident Response

Management Plan (PIRMP) was required to be implemented. On May the 15th 2017 at approximately

06:00am the sand dredge (in stage 3) sunk. As per the requirements of the PIRMP key stakeholders

were notified (See appendix 8 for Pollution Incident Notification Log) and an assessment of the incident

was made along with commencement of site clean-up. As a result of the incident, potentially 4000 litres

of diesel fuel, 500 litres of hydraulic oil and 40 litres of engine oil sunk with the dredge and was released

in the stage 3 pond (note: stage 3 pond is a closed loop pond and no water is discharged or leaves site

from this pond). Immediate clean up response was initiated and included the removal of oily water via

sucker truck and dispersal of booms to limit the spread of the oil. Daily water samples were collected

and analysed for major water quality parameters and included the testing of hydrocarbons. An

investigation into the cause of the dredge sinking found the bilge pump discharge line had become

dislodged from the deck of the dredge and fell into the dredging pond. As a result, the bilge pump

siphoned water back into the dredge causing it to fill with water and sink. Dunmore Sand and Soil was

37 | P a g e

issued with and Official Caution (see Appendix 9) from the EPA which outlines the circumstances behind

the incident and clean-up actions along with other responsive actions to the incident. Although the

incident was an undesirable event the site‘s activated PIRMP was implemented effectively minimising

potential harm to the environment.

38 | P a g e

6. Conclusion Dunmore Sand and Soil continues to focus on ensuring the environment and neighbouring community

are not adversely impacted by site operations.

Throughout this reporting period extraction and processing of sand materials has remained consistent

with previous years. As resources within stage 2 were nearing completion the focus was to remove the

remaining consent resources prior to commencing operations in stage 3.

This reporting period saw the commencement of rehabilitation within stage 2 area, which will remain a

strong focus during the FY18 reporting period and will be monitored to ensure effected and long term

site rehabilitation.

During the reporting period a Controlled Activities Application was submitted to the Department of

Planning and Infrastructure – Water, where it is currently awaiting approval. Once granted dredging of

sand within stage 3 will 10 meters of Rocklow Creek.

The FY17 reporting period also contained a strong focus on maintaining regulatory compliance.

Approval of various management plans were granted throughout the reporting period and it is expected

that once the Water Management Plan has completed its final review, that It will be approved early in the

FY18 reporting period.

39 | P a g e

Appendix 1 – Noise Monitoring Locations

40 | P a g e

41 | P a g e

Appendix 2 – Air Quality Monitoring Locations

42 | P a g e

DD8

DD10/7b

DD6

Monitoring Point 5 PM10

DD2

DD5

43 | P a g e

Appendix 3 – Surface Water Quality Monitoring Locations

44 | P a g e

45 | P a g e

Appendix 4 – Wind Roses

46 | P a g e

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

47 | P a g e

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

48 | P a g e

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

49 | P a g e

Appendix 5 – Annual Noise Assessment Report

50 | P a g e

Annual Compliance Noise Monitoring 2016


Tabbita Road, Dunmore

Report Number 610.11631-R7

30 August 2016

Boral Property Group

38 Tabbita Road

DUNMORE NSW 2259

Version: Revision 0

Boral Property Group Annual Compliance Noise Monitoring 2016 Dunmore Sand and Soil Tabbita Road, Dunmore

Report Number 610.11631-R7 30 August 2016

Revision 0 Page 2

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

Annual Compliance Noise Monitoring 2016


Tabbita Road, Dunmore

PREPARED BY:

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd ABN 29 001 584 612

2 Lincoln Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia

(PO Box 176 Lane Cove NSW 1595 Australia)

T: +61 2 9427 8100 F: +61 2 9427 8200

[email protected] www.slrconsulting.com

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the

timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with the Client.

Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected,

which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of Boral Property Group.

No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties.

This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR.

SLR disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Reference Status Date Prepared Checked Authorised

610.11631-R7 Revision 0 30 August 2016 Nicholas Vandenberg

Dick Godson Dick Godson



Revision 0 Page 3

Table of Contents


1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 METHODOLOGY 4

2.1 Noise Monitoring Locations 4

2.2 Operator Attended Noise Monitoring 5

2.3 Unattended Continuous Noise Monitoring 6

3 OPERATOR ATTENDED NOISE MONITORING RESULTS 6

3.1 Compliance Monitoring 6

4 UNATTENDED NOISE MONITORING RESULTS 8

5 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION 9

5.1 Operational Noise Levels 9

5.1.1 Renton Residence Receiver Area 9

5.1.2 Dunmore Village Receiver Area 9

5.1.3 Stocker Residence Receiver Area 10

6 CONCLUSION 10

TABLES

Table 1 Monitoring Locations 5 Table 2 Logger Locations, Type and Serial Number 6 Table 3 Attended Noise Monitoring Survey Results – Location 1 – Renton Residence 7 Table 4 Attended Noise Monitoring Survey Results – Location 2 – 25 Shellharbour Road,

Dunmore Village 7 Table 5 Attended Noise Monitoring Survey Results – Location 3 – Stocker Residence 8 Table 6 Unattended Continuous Noise Monitoring Results (dBA Re 20 µPa) 8 Table 7 Compliance Noise Assessment - Operations 9

FIGURES

Figure 1 Noise Monitoring Locations 5



Revision 0 Page 4


1 INTRODUCTION

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR) has conducted a noise compliance survey of the operations of the Dunmore Lakes Sand Project (DLSP), over the period 8 August 2016 to 18 August 2016. The assessment consisted of operator attended and unattended noise monitoring at the Stocker, Renton and Dunmore Village residential locations. The data contained within this report represents the results of the 2016 annual noise compliance monitoring.

The purpose of this assessment was to determine the noise contribution from Stage 2 operations of the DLSP in relation to the Development Consent DA195-8-2004 (DA) and the Environment Protection Licence (EPL) noise limits at the nominated assessment locations.

An explanation of acoustic terminology and descriptors discussed throughout the report is included in Appendix A.

2 METHODOLOGY

The noise measurements and assessments in this report have been prepared in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1055-1997 “Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise” Part 1, 2 and 3 and with reference to the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP).

All acoustic instrumentation employed throughout the monitoring programme has been designed to comply with the requirements of IEC 61672.1-2004 ‘Electroacoustics – Sound Level Metres – Specifications’ and carries current NATA or manufacturer calibration certificates.

The objectives of the noise monitoring assessment are as follows:

Measure the DLSP noise contribution at the Renton, Dunmore Village and Stocker residential locations. Noise surveys comprised operator-attended and unattended noise logger monitoring.

Qualify all sources of noise during each of the attended surveys, including the estimated contribution or maximum level of each source.

Assess the noise emissions of DLSP in relation to the DA/EPL limits for the site with regard to wind speed and direction during the noise surveys.

2.1 Noise Monitoring Locations

Operator attended and unattended noise measurements were conducted at the locations presented in Table 1 and Figure 1.



Revision 0 Page 5


Table 1 Monitoring Locations

Location Description

Location 1 Renton Residence – James Road

Location 2 Dunmore Village – 25 Shellharbour Road

Location 3 Stocker Residence – 40 Swamp Road

Figure 1 Noise Monitoring Locations

Note: Image courtesy of Nearmap (dated 21 June 2014).

2.2 Operator Attended Noise Monitoring

Operator attended noise surveys were conducted at each monitoring location in order to determine the character and contribution of noise sources, including the sand plant noise, to the overall ambient noise level. Operator attended noise measurements were conducted using a one-third octave integrating Bruel & Kjaer 2270 Type 1 sound level meter (S/N 3004636).

Location 1

Location 2

Location 3

Project Site



Revision 0 Page 6


2.3 Unattended Continuous Noise Monitoring

Environmental noise loggers were deployed at Location 1, Location 2 and Location 3 on Monday 8 August 2016. Noise loggers were programmed to continuously recorded statistical noise level indices in 15 minute intervals, including LAmax, LA1, LA50, LA90, LA99, LAmin and LAeq. Logger locations and their respective serial numbers are provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Logger Locations, Type and Serial Number

Location Logger Type Serial Number

Location 1 ARL Type EL-316 16-207-021



3 OPERATOR ATTENDED NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

3.1 Compliance Monitoring

Operator attended noise measurements were conducted during the daytime and morning shoulder periods on 8

August 2016, 17 August 2016 and 18 August 2016. A summary of the operator attended

measurements presenting the estimated contribution of DLSP noise sources is contained in Table 3 to Table 5.

The table provides the following information:

Monitoring location

Date and Time

Wind velocity (m/s) at 1.5 m above the ground.

Temperature (Temp) in degrees Celsius

DLSP contribution - LAeq(15minute)

DA/EPL Limit LAeq(15minute)



Revision 0 Page 7


Table 3 Attended Noise Monitoring Survey Results – Location 1 – Renton Residence

Period

DA/EPL Limit

LAeq(15minute)

Date/Start Time/ Weather

Primary Noise Descriptor

(dBA re 20 Pa)

Description of Noise Emissions and Typical Maximum Noise Levels (dBA)

LAmax LA1 LA10 LA90 LAeq

Morning Shoulder

46 dBA

09-08-2016 06:21 5

0 C

Calm to 1m/s W

68 60 58 53 56 Traffic – 53 to 60 dBA Birds – 53 to 68 dBA Other industry - <45 to 55 dBA Plane – 50 dBA

DLSP faintly Audible on occasion Excavator bucket – <60 dBA

Estimated LAeq(15minute) Contribution - <43 dBA

Day

46 dBA

18-08-2016 08:22 16ºC

1 m/s NE

65 61 51 44 49 Princes Hwy - <43 to 47 dBA Birds – 49 to 64 dBA Resident – 54 to 57 dBA Rooster 54 to 63 dBA Cow – 53 dBA Plane 53 to 56 dBA

DLSP Faintly Audible Excavator/Truck <38 to 44 dBA

Estimated LAeq(15minute) Contribution - 40 dBA

Table 4 Attended Noise Monitoring Survey Results – Location 2 – 25 Shellharbour Road, Dunmore Village

Period

DA/EPL Limit

LAeq(15minute)



(dBA re 20 Pa)



Morning Shoulder

47 dBA

09-08-2016 06:00 5

0 C

Calm to 1m/s W

68 66 64 59 62 Traffic – 55 to 68 dBA Train – 57- 60 dBA

DLSP Not Audible Estimated LAeq(15minute) Contribution - <49 dBA

Day

49 dBA

18-08-2016 08:55 17ºC

1 m/s NE

73 62 56 50 55 Traffic – 52 to 62 dBA Local Traffic – 63 to 73 dBA Train horn – 59 dBA| Birds – 50 to 62 dBA Dog 58 to 63 dBA

DLSP Not Audible




Revision 0 Page 8


Table 5 Attended Noise Monitoring Survey Results – Location 3 – Stocker Residence

Period

DA/EPL Limit

LAeq(15minute)



(dBA re 20 Pa)



Morning Shoulder

49 dBA

09-08-2016 06:45 5

0 C

Calm to 1m/s W

63 61 59 56 58 Birds – 59 to 62 dBA Traffic – 58 to 59 dBA Local Traffic – 58 to 60 dBA

DLSP Not Audible


Day

49 dBA

17-08-2015 17:09 20ºC

1m/s NW

60 55 52 46 49 Local Traffic – 53 to 58 dBA Princes Hwy – 45 to 50 dBA Engine Noises ~ 39 to 43 dBA

DLSP Not Audible


4 UNATTENDED NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

The unattended noise survey was conducted from 8 August 2016 to 18 August 2016. Weather data was obtained from the weather station located at Albion Park. Noise data during periods of any rainfall and/or wind speeds in excess of 5 m/s was discarded from the analysis.

A summary of the results of the noise survey are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Unattended Continuous Noise Monitoring Results (dBA Re 20 µPa)

Location Period LA1 LA10 LA90 LAeq

1 – Renton Residence

Daytime Equipment Malfunctioned. No data available.

Evening

Night

2- Dunmore Village Daytime 64 60 48 60

Evening 62 59 50 58

Night 63 58 36 57

3 – Stocker Residence

Daytime 58 54 43 53

Evening 55 51 43 49

Night 54 49 32 49

Note: No data available for Location 1 due to equipment malfunction.



Revision 0 Page 9


5 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Operational Noise Levels

A summary of the measured noise levels and assessment of compliance is provided in Table 7.

Table 7 Compliance Noise Assessment - Operations

Location Estimated Contribution Consent Conditions Compliance

Morning Shoulder

Day Morning Shoulder

Day Morning Shoulder

Day

1. Renton <43 40 46 46 Yes Yes

2. Dunmore Village

<491 <40

1 47 49 Yes

Yes

3. Stocker <461 <36

1 47 49 Yes Yes

1 – Estimated contribution equal LA90 minus 10 dBA

A review of Table 7 indicates that compliance with the consent conditions was achieved at all locations during the monitoring period. Further discussion of the noise monitoring survey results at each location is provided below.

5.1.1 Renton Residence Receiver Area

This location represents receptors located to the north of DLSP. Road traffic from the Princes Highway and birds were the dominant noise sources at this location. Additionally, other noise sources included animals and planes.

Noise contributions from DLSP at the Renton residence were estimated to be:

<43 dB LAeq(15minute) during the morning shoulder period.

40 dB LAeq(15minute) during the daytime period.

Dunmore Lakes Sand Plant (DLSP) was observed to be audible only at times during both monitoring periods due to plant operating on the edge of the lake and trucks traversing around the lake.

5.1.2 Dunmore Village Receiver Area

This location represents receptors located to the east of DLSP. Noise generated from road traffic from the Princes Highway and Shellharbour Road was the dominant noise sources at this location.

Noise contributions from DLSP within Dunmore Village were estimated to be:


<40 dB LAeq(15minute) during the daytime period.

DLSP was not observed to be audible during the noise monitoring periods and was therefore deemed to comply with the relevant DA/EPL Limits.



Revision 0 Page 10


5.1.3 Stocker Residence Receiver Area

This location represents receptors located to the south of DLSP. Noise generated from road traffic and birds were the dominant noise sources at this measurement location.

Noise contributions from DLSP at the Stocker residence were estimated to be:


<36 dB LAeq(15minute) during the daytime period.

DLSP was not observed to be audible during the noise monitoring periods and therefore noise from the operation was deemed to comply with the relevant DA/EPL Limits.

6 CONCLUSION

SLR was engaged by the Boral Property Group to conduct a noise compliance survey of the operations of the DLSP. Operator attended and unattended noise monitoring was conducted at three (3) locations in order to determine the estimated noise contribution from the DLSP operations.

The results of noise monitoring have indicated that compliance was achieved at all locations during all monitoring periods.

Appendix A Report 610.11631

Page 1 of 2

Acoustic Terminology

(610.11631�Appendix A.docx) SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

1 Sound Level or Noise Level

The terms ‘sound’ and ‘noise’ are almost interchangeable, except that in common usage ‘noise’ is often used to refer to unwanted sound.

Sound (or noise) consists of minute fluctuations in atmospheric pressure capable of evoking the sense of hearing. The human ear responds to changes in sound pressure over a very wide range. The loudest sound pressure to which the human ear responds is ten million times greater than the softest. The decibel (abbreviated as dB) scale reduces this ratio to a more manageable size by the use of logarithms.

The symbols SPL, L or LP are commonly used to represent Sound Pressure Level. The symbol LA represents A�weighted Sound Pressure Level. The standard reference unit for Sound Pressure Levels expressed in decibels is 2 x 10

�5 Pa.

2 ‘A’ Weighted Sound Pressure Level

The overall level of a sound is usually expressed in terms of dBA, which is measured using a sound level meter with an ‘A�weighting’ filter. This is an electronic filter having a frequency response corresponding approximately to that of human hearing.

People’s hearing is most sensitive to sounds at mid frequencies (500 Hz to 4000 Hz), and less sensitive at lower and higher frequencies. Thus, the level of a sound in dBA is a good measure of the loudness of that sound. Different sources having the same dBA level generally sound about equally loud.

A change of 1 dBA or 2 dBA in the level of a sound is difficult for most people to detect, whilst a 3 dBA to 5 dBA change corresponds to a small but noticeable change in loudness. A 10 dBA change corresponds to an approximate doubling or halving in loudness. The table below lists examples of typical noise levels

Sound Pressure Level (dBA)

Typical Source

Subjective Evaluation

130 Threshold of pain Intolerable

120 Heavy rock concert Extremely noisy

110 Grinding on steel

100 Loud car horn at 3 m Very noisy

90 Construction site with pneumatic hammering

80 Kerbside of busy street Loud

70 Loud radio or television

60 Department store Moderate to quiet

50 General Office

40 Inside private office Quiet to very quiet

30 Inside bedroom

20 Recording studio Almost silent

Other weightings (eg B, C and D) are less commonly used than A�weighting. Sound Levels measured without any weighting are referred to as ‘linear’, and the units are expressed as dB(lin) or dB.

3 Sound Power Level

The Sound Power of a source is the rate at which it emits acoustic energy. As with Sound Pressure Levels, Sound Power Levels are expressed in decibel units (dB or dBA), but may be identified by the symbols SWL or LW, or by the reference unit 10

�12 W.

The relationship between Sound Power and Sound Pressure may be likened to an electric radiator, which is characterised by a power rating, but has an effect on the surrounding environment that can be measured in terms of a different parameter, temperature.

4 Statistical Noise Levels

Sounds that vary in level over time, such as road traffic noise and most community noise, are commonly described in terms of the statistical exceedance levels LAN, where LAN is the A�weighted sound pressure level exceeded for N% of a given measurement period. For example, the LA1 is the noise level exceeded for 1% of the time, LA10 the noise exceeded for 10% of the time, and so on.

The following figure presents a hypothetical 15 minute noise survey, illustrating various common statistical indices of interest.

LA1

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LAmax

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00

Monitoring or Survey Period (minutes)

So

un

d P

res

su

re L

ev

el

(d

BA

)

Of particular relevance, are:

LA1 The noise level exceeded for 1% of the 15 minute interval.

LA10 The noise level exceed for 10% of the 15 minute interval. This is commonly referred to as the average maximum noise level.

LA90 The noise level exceeded for 90% of the sample period. This noise level is described as the average minimum background sound level (in the absence of the source under consideration), or simply the background level.

LAeq The A�weighted equivalent noise level (basically the average noise level). It is defined as the steady sound level that contains the same amount of acoustical energy as the corresponding time�varying sound.

When dealing with numerous days of statistical noise data, it is sometimes necessary to define the typical noise levels at a given monitoring location for a particular time of day. A standardised method is available for determining these representative levels.

This method produces a level representing the ‘repeatable minimum’ LA90 noise level over the daytime and night�time measurement periods, as required by the EPA. In addition the method produces mean or ‘average’ levels representative of the other descriptors (LAeq, LA10, etc).

5 Tonality

Tonal noise contains one or more prominent tones (ie distinct frequency components), and is normally regarded as more offensive than ‘broad band’ noise.

6 Impulsiveness

An impulsive noise is characterised by one or more short sharp peaks in the time domain, such as occurs during hammering.

Appendix A Report 610.11631

Page 2 of 2

Acoustic Terminology

(610.11631�Appendix A.docx) SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

7 Frequency Analysis

Frequency analysis is the process used to examine the tones (or frequency components) which make up the overall noise or vibration signal. This analysis was traditionally carried out using analogue electronic filters, but is now normally carried out using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysers.

The units for frequency are Hertz (Hz), which represent the number of cycles per second.

Frequency analysis can be in:

• Octave bands (where the centre frequency and width of each band is double the previous band)

• 1/3 octave bands (3 bands in each octave band)

• Narrow band (where the spectrum is divided into 400 or more bands of equal width)

The following figure shows a 1/3 octave band frequency analysis where the noise is dominated by the 200 Hz band. Note that the indicated level of each individual band is less than the overall level, which is the logarithmic sum of the bands.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

125

160

200

250

315

400

500

630

800

100

0

1250

160

0

2000

250

0

3150

Overa

ll

1/3 Octave Band Centre Frequency (Hz)

So

un

d P

ressu

re L

evel

(dB

A)

8 Vibration

Vibration may be defined as cyclic or transient motion. This motion can be measured in terms of its displacement, velocity or acceleration. Most assessments of human response to vibration or the risk of damage to buildings use measurements of vibration velocity. These may be expressed in terms of ‘peak’ velocity or ‘rms’ velocity.

The former is the maximum instantaneous velocity, without any averaging, and is sometimes referred to as ‘peak particle velocity’, or PPV. The latter incorporates ‘root mean squared’ averaging over some defined time period.

Vibration measurements may be carried out in a single axis or alternatively as triaxial measurements. Where triaxial measurements are used, the axes are commonly designated vertical, longitudinal (aligned toward the source) and transverse.

The common units for velocity are millimetres per second (mm/s). As with noise, decibel units can also be used, in which case the reference level should always be stated. A vibration level V, expressed in mm/s can be converted to decibels by the formula 20 log (V/Vo), where Vo is the reference level (10

�9 m/s). Care is

required in this regard, as other reference levels may be used by some organizations.

9 Human Perception of Vibration

People are able to ‘feel’ vibration at levels lower than those required to cause even superficial damage to the most susceptible classes of building (even though they may not be disturbed by the motion). An individual's perception of motion or response to vibration depends very strongly on previous experience and expectations, and on other connotations associated with the perceived source of the vibration. For example, the vibration that a person responds to as ‘normal’ in a car, bus or train is considerably higher than what is perceived as ‘normal’ in a shop, office or dwelling.

10 Over:Pressure

The term ‘over�pressure’ is used to describe the air pressure pulse emitted during blasting or similar events. The peak level of an event is normally measured using a microphone in the same manner as linear noise (ie unweighted), at frequencies both in and below the audible range.

11 Ground:borne Noise, Structure:borne Noise and Regenerated Noise

Noise that propagates through a structure as vibration and is radiated by vibrating wall and floor surfaces is termed ‘structure�borne noise’, ‘ground�borne noise’ or ‘regenerated noise’. This noise originates as vibration and propagates between the source and receiver through the ground and/or building structural elements, rather than through the air.

Typical sources of ground�borne or structure�borne noise include tunnelling works, underground railways, excavation plant (eg rockbreakers), and building services plant (eg fans, compressors and generators).

The following figure presents the various paths by which vibration and ground�borne noise may be transmitted between a source and receiver for construction activities occurring within a tunnel.

The term ‘regenerated noise’ is also used in other instances where energy is converted to noise away from the primary source. One example would be a fan blowing air through a discharge grill. The fan is the energy source and primary noise source. Additional noise may be created by the aerodynamic effect of the discharge grill in the airstream. This secondary noise is referred to as regenerated noise

Appendix B1 Statistical Ambient Noise Levels – Location 2 - Page 1 of 6

Appendix B2 Statistical Ambient Noise Levels – Location 3 – 1 of 6

Appendix 6 – Annual Monitoring Report at 38 Tabbita Road, Dunmore, NSW

51 | P a g e

13 July 2017 Dunmore Sand & Soil Pty Ltd

c/- Boral Quarries

38 Tabbita Road Dunmore NSW 2529 Attention: Ellie Randall Environmental Coordinator Dear Ellie Annual report on groundwater level monitoring at the Swamp Road Quarry, Dunmore NSW – May 2016 to May 2017

1.0 Introduction

Environmental Earth Sciences NSW was engaged by Dunmore Sand & Soil Pty Ltd (DS&S) to monitor groundwater levels at Swamp Road Quarry, Dunmore, NSW (see Figure 1 for a locality plan), between May 2016 and May 2017. The objective of this report is to assess whether former and on-going sand extraction activities are impacting groundwater levels in line with the Development Consents for Stage 2 – 4 as well as the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (DS&S, 2006) and the Water Management Plan (WMP) (Arcadis, 2016). Data loggers (pressure transducer sensors) are programmed to measure groundwater levels at 60 minute intervals and have been installed within the following groundwater bores (see Attachment 1, Figures 1 and 2 for bore locations):

DG1 (removed in May 2017) and DG5 (missing in May 2017);

BHA (removed in August 2016), BHD (missing February 2016) and BHF; and

DG31 (installed in May 2016) and DG59 (installed in February 2017). The scope of works undertaken to achieve this objective as outlined in proposal number PO116092 included:

downloading data from the loggers;

water level measurement to calibrate water levels (i.e convert head to mAHD); and

review water level data from the data loggers located in the vicinity of Swamp Road Quarry and the Stage 3 sand dredging area.

116085_Diverlevels_Annual_V2 2

2.0 Fieldwork and data downloading

Water level data from each location (bores DG1, DG5, BHA, BHD, BHF, DG31 and DG59) was downloaded from pressure transducer data loggers (‘divers’) at quarterly intervals by Environmental Earth Sciences personnel on 18 August 2016, 9 November 2016, 15 February 2017 and 10 May 2017. Water level data from May 2016 to May 2017 for bores DG1, DG5, BHA, BHD, BHF, DG31 and DG59 has been compared to rainfall totals in Attachment 2, Chart 1 and tidal data in Attachment 2, Chart 2. Water level data from bores DG1 and DG5 compared to rainfall and tidal data is displayed separately in Attachment 2, Chart 3.

2.1 Water level calibration

Water levels are manually measured from the top of casing (TOC) of each monitoring bore with the TOCs surveyed to the Australian Height Datum (mAHD). To assess groundwater levels these measurements from TOC are converted into relative levels to calibrate datalogger measurements. Subtracting the bore dip from the surveyed TOC level provides a water level in mAHD that can be used to calibrate the datalogger pressure reading. The data logging of this piezometric pressure (water pressure) in the monitoring bores is undertaken at 60 minute intervals, with readings compensated for barometric changes. The data from the loggers is downloaded quarterly at each location, and used to compare the piezometric head with tidal influence and rainfall.

2.2 Rainfall data

Local daily rainfall data was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather station 068242 located at Kiama (Bombo Headland) approximately 4.6 km away from site. The majority of rainfall during both 2016 and 2017 occurred in later summer and throughout autumn, with three significant rainfall events totalling 80 mm (February 2017) and 130 mm (May 2016 and March 2017), respectively. Rainfall totals compared to water level data at DS&S are presented Attachment 2, Chart 1.

2.3 Tidal data

Tidal data from the Minnamurra River tidal monitoring station (214442) was purchased from Manly Hydraulics Laboratory for the period between 31 May 2016 and 1 June 2017 for the purpose of comparing the water level data to tidal movements (Attachment 2, Chart 2).

3.0 Data interpretation and discussion

A review of the water level data collected during the 2016/ 2017 monitoring period indicates no observable impact in the form of dewatering from extraction activities on groundwater, with water levels up gradient (bore BH31) and down gradient (DG5) having remained consistent when compared to historical level data (Attachment 2, Chart 1). The relationship between bores DG5, BHF, DG59 and BH31 indicates that groundwater flow is in an easterly direction towards bore DG5, and locally towards bore BHF, as dredging works continue in Stage 3 (Attachment 1, Figure 3). Bore BHF displayed a particularly variable SWL during the period since November 2016 and these fluctuations are expected to


be a product dewatering and other disturbances associated with sand dredging activities (see Attachment 2, Chart 1).

3.1 Groundwater level response and rainfall analysis

The aquifer beneath site has historically responded rapidly to local rainfall events (Environmental Earth Sciences 2009-2016), a trend which was repeated during 2016/ 2017 monitoring period at all locations (Attachment 2, Chart 1). Bore BHF displayed a particularly variable SWL during the period since November 2016 and these fluctuations are expected to be a product of dewatering associated with sand dredging activities which have commenced within Stage 3. The groundwater in bore BH31 although affected by rainfall (late 2017), had a dampened response (lower overall fluctuations) during 2016 when compared to the other bores onsite. This likely as result of a reduced sensitivity to rainfall totals <20mm, reduced tidal influences and being located further up the catchment and closer to the edge of the aquifer/ unconsolidated sediments (Attachment 2, Chart 1). Bore BHD (prior to November 2016) and newly installed diver in bore DG59 both shared a similar rapid rainfall response pattern and appeared to be more easily influenced by minor rainfall events <20 mm (Attachment 2, Chart 1). Fluctuations in the water-table level up to one metre AHD can be seen during rainfall events up to 150 mm. This observation fits the conceptual site model (CSM) of aquifer effective porosity being close to 30% and recharge from rainfall being close to 100% of total recharge at the water-table level (Environmental Earth Sciences, 2013b).

3.2 Groundwater level response and tide analysis

The unconfined aquifer which is intercepted by all bore locations is susceptible to tidal influences, however at relatively low amplitudes. Tidal characteristics of the aquifer are shown in Attachment 2, Chart 2. Groundwater fluctuations in response to tidal influxes in bore DG5 have historically been larger (approximately double) compared to bore DG1 (Attachment 2, Chart 3) while the tidal amplitudes at bores BHA, BHD and BHF are very similar. This indicates a reduced tidal impact on groundwater levels further up the Rocklow Creek catchment. Groundwater levels responsiveness to tidal fluctuations (high and low tides) is as follows for each bore and graphically displayed in Attachment 2, Chart 2:

Bore DG5: ±0.03-0.05 m;

Bore DG1: ±0.03 m;

Bores BHA, BHD and BHF: ±0.015-0.020 m;

Bore DG59: ±0.01-0.02 m.

3.3 Hydraulic gradient and groundwater flow direction

The groundwater hydraulic gradient at each location is determined by comparing the average standing water level (SWL, converted to mAHD) in the unconfined aquifer at each location to down-gradient bore DG5 between May 2016 and May 2017. The inferred groundwater contours (Figure 3) indicate that over the last monitoring year groundwater flow


continues to be influenced by both tidal movements and localised dredging activities in Stage 3, but showed a consistent south easterly pressure gradient towards Rocklow Creek, the Minnamurra River and the coast.

4.0 Recommendations for future monitoring

Groundwater monitoring should continue in line with the Development Consents for Stage 2 – 4 as well as the EMP (DS&S, 2006) and the WMP (Arcadis, 2016). It is understood that DS&S ceased Stage 1 dredging activities at the Swamp Road site in March 2009, and the site is currently a rehabilitated pond. Sand dredging of Stage 2 is complete, however some sand maybe excavated in the future during the clean-up process with the western portion. Dredging operations have commenced within Stage 3. Quarterly groundwater level monitoring is still required at DS&S however the location, density and frequency of monitoring is reviewed on an annual basis to provide the most useful and pertinent data. Based on a review of the 2016/ 2017 monitoring data the following adjustments are recommended to the program:

Monitoring of representative water level diver locations within (bores BHF and DG59) and adjacent (bores DG5 and DG31) to Stage 3 should continue at quarterly intervals;

o Replace the missing diver within bore DG5;

o Once bore BHF is destroyed by sand dredging operations the diver can be moved to bore BHA;

o Bores DG59 and DG60 (historically dry) should be replaced with new bores outside of the Stage 3 footprint as the dredging front advances; and

o Install a diver in the proposed new bore DG7 (located 250m north of DG6).

5.0 Conclusions

Groundwater levels continue to remain stable indicating that there has been little to no impact from sand dredging activities. The data obtained from the data loggers installed in bores DG59, DG31, DG5 and BHF indicates that over the past monitoring year natural fluctuations in water levels were occurring in response to rainfall and tide as illustrated in Attachment 2, Charts 1 and 2. This is consistent with previous findings dating back to 2003 (Environmental Earth Sciences 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015, 2016). The groundwater-monitoring program over the past monitoring year (May 2016 to May 2017) showed that bores DG59, DG31, DG5 and BHF all had increased in groundwater levels in May 2016, February 2017 and April 2017 in response to rainfall totals exceeding 80 mm. The aquifer was subsequently fully recharged with any additional smaller rainfall events resulting in fluctuations in the water table. Bore BHF displayed a particularly variable SWL during the period since November 2016 and these fluctuations are expected to be a product of dewatering associated with sand dredging activities. Monitoring at bore BHF should continue until it is destroyed by dredging activities at which point the diver should be moved to bore DG17 to continue to provide representative on-site water level data from within Stage 3.


All data obtained from the bores monitored strongly indicate the following:

that influences on groundwater levels are related to recharge from rainfall and more minor tidal influx (this finding is supported by chemical monitoring of tidal seawater intrusion from Rocklow Creek);

reductions in groundwater levels are related to periods of low rainfall (i.e. not to minor recharge) where the aquifer is slowly draining from Rocklow Creek and the south-east aquifer boundary; and

water-table fluctuations are therefore naturally occurring and cannot be seen to be impacted by dredging activities in the area (except immediately around bore BHF).

It is recommended that groundwater monitoring be continued at bores DG59, DG31 and DG5 (reinstall missing diver), an additional diver be installed at bore DG60, and bores BH31 and DG59 both be surveyed to provide exact relative level data.

6.0 Limitations

This report has been prepared by Environmental Earth Sciences NSW ACN 109 404 006 in response to and subject to the following limitations:

1. The specific instructions received from Dunmore Sand and Soil Pty Ltd;

2. The specific scope of works set out in PO116092 issued by instructing company for and on behalf of Dunmore Sand and Soil Pty Ltd, is included in Section 3 (Scope of Work) of this report;

3. May not be relied upon by any third party not named in this report for any purpose except with the prior written consent of Environmental Earth Sciences NSW (which consent may or may not be given at the discretion of Environmental Earth Sciences NSW);

4. This report comprises the formal report, documentation sections, tables, figures and appendices as referred to in the index to this report and must not be released to any third party or copied in part without all the material included in this report for any reason;

5. The report only relates to the site referred to in the scope of works being located at 38 Tabbita Road, Dunmore, NSW, 2529 (“the site”);

6. The report relates to the site as at the date of the report as conditions may change thereafter due to natural processes and/or site activities;

7. No warranty or guarantee is made in regard to any other use than as specified in the scope of works and only applies to the depth tested and reported in this report;

8. Fill, soil, groundwater and rock to the depth tested on the site may be fit for the use specified in this report. Unless it is expressly stated in this report, the fill, soil and/or rock may not be suitable for classification as clean fill, excavated natural material (ENM) or virgin excavated natural material (VENM) if deposited off site;

9. This report is not a geotechnical or planning report suitable for planning or zoning purposes; and

10. Our General Limitations set out at the back of the body of this report. Should you have any queries, please contact us on (02) 9922 1777 or (07) 3852 6666.


On behalf of Environmental Earth Sciences NSW Project Manager Max Setchfield Soil Scientist

Project Director / Internal Reviewer Mark Stuckey Principal Soil Scientist, Hydrogeolgoist and Risk Assessor Contaminated Land Auditor (NSW, QLD, VIC)

Attachment 1 FIGURES Attachment 2 HYDROGRAPHS

7.0 References

Arcadis (2016). Dunmore Sand and Soil Project – Water Management Plan. Report to Boral date 26 August 2016.

Dunmore Sand and Soil (DS&S), 2006. Dunmore Lakes Sand Project Stages 2, 3 and 4 – Environmental Management Plan. Compiled by R.W. Corkery & Co. Ref. No. 478/08, dated August 2006.

Environmental Earth Sciences (2009) Groundwater Level Monitoring June 2008 to May 2009 – Swamp Road Sand Quarry, Dunmore, NSW, Report No. 109031

Environmental Earth Sciences (2010) Groundwater Level Monitoring May 2009 to May 2010 – Swamp Road Sand Quarry, Dunmore, NSW, Report No. 110040



Environmental Earth Sciences (2013a) Groundwater Level Monitoring May 2012 to May 2013 – Swamp Road Sand Quarry, Dunmore, NSW, Report No. 112084

Environmental Earth Sciences (2013b) Hydrogeological assessment for Lot 21 DP653009, Dunmore Recycling and Waste Disposal Depot, Dunmore, NSW. Report No. 113057_Hydrogeology for Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd




General Limitations 6 April 2009 Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES GENERAL LIMITATIONS Scope of services The work presented in this report is Environmental Earth Sciences response to the specific scope of works requested by, planned with and approved by the client. It cannot be relied on by any other third party for any purpose except with our prior written consent. Client may distribute this report to other parties and in doing so warrants that the report is suitable for the purpose it was intended for. However, any party wishing to rely on this report should contact us to determine the suitability of this report for their specific purpose.

Data should not be separated from the report A report is provided inclusive of all documentation sections, limitations, tables, figures and appendices and should not be provided or copied in part without all supporting documentation for any reason, because misinterpretation may occur.

Subsurface conditions change Understanding an environmental study will reduce exposure to the risk of the presence of contaminated soil and or groundwater. However, contaminants may be present in areas that were not investigated, or may migrate to other areas. Analysis cannot cover every type of contaminant that could possibly be present. When combined with field observations, field measurements and professional judgement, this approach increases the probability of identifying contaminated soil and or groundwater. Under no circumstances can it be considered that these findings represent the actual condition of the site at all points. Environmental studies identify actual sub-surface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Actual conditions between sampling locations differ from those inferred because no professional, no matter how qualified, and no sub-surface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden below the ground surface. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than an assessment indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from that predicted. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated. However, steps can be taken to help minimize the impact. For this reason, site owners should retain our services.

Problems with interpretation by others Advice and interpretation is provided on the basis that subsequent work will be undertaken by Environmental Earth Sciences NSW. This will identify variances, maintain consistency in how data is interpreted, conduct additional tests that may be necessary and recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. Other parties may misinterpret our work and we cannot be responsible for how the information in this report is used. If further data is collected or comes to light we reserve the right to alter their conclusions.

Obtain regulatory approval The investigation and remediation of contaminated sites is a field in which legislation and interpretation of legislation is changing rapidly. Our interpretation of the investigation findings should not be taken to be that of any other party. When approval from a statutory authority is required for a project, that approval should be directly sought by the client.

Limit of liability This study has been carried out to a particular scope of works at a specified site and should not be used for any other purpose. This report is provided on the condition that Environmental Earth Sciences NSW disclaims all liability to any person or entity other than the client in respect of anything done or omitted to be done and of the consequence of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, on the contents of this report. Furthermore, Environmental Earth Sciences NSW disclaims all liability in respect of anything done or omitted to be done and of the consequence of anything done or omitted to be done by the client, or any such person in reliance, whether in whole or any part of the contents of this report of all matters not stated in the brief outlined in Environmental Earth Sciences NSW’s proposal number and according to Environmental Earth Sciences general terms and conditions and special terms and conditions for contaminated sites. To the maximum extent permitted by law, we exclude all liability of whatever nature, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, for the acts, omissions or default, whether negligent or otherwise for any loss or damage whatsoever that may arise in any way in connection with the supply of services. Under circumstances where liability cannot be excluded, such liability is limited to the value of the purchased service.

116085_Diverlevels_Annual_V2

ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES

Title:

Client:

Location:

Drawn By:Project Man:

Date:Scale:

Job No:

Dunmore, Shellharbour, NSW

LB

MX

June 2017

As Shown

116085

Figure 1

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

ENVIRONMENTALEARTH SCIENCES

Site Locality Map

Dunmore Sand and Soil Pty Ltd

0 5

Scale in Kilometres

1 2 3 4

N

Source: Google Earth

SITELOCATION

SITELOCATION

Source: © Google Earth Pro - Imagery date 21.01.2017

N

Title:

Client:

Location:

Drawn By:Project Man:

Date:Scale:

Job No:

Inferred GroundwaterContours - May 2016 and April 2017

Dunmore, Shellharbour, NSW

Dunmore Sand and Soil Pty Ltd

LB

MX

June 2017

As Shown

116085

Figure 3

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

ENVIRONMENTALEARTH SCIENCES

0 500

Scale in Metres

100 200 300 400

1.0

.10

.01

1.0

0.8

.08

1.2

12.

0.6

0.6

1.4

1.4

1.6

1.6

LEGEND:Bore locationInferred groundwater contour - May 2016 (mAHD)Inferred groundwater flow direction - May 2016SWL (mAHD)Inferred groundwater contour - April 2017 (mAHD)Inferred groundwater flow direction - April 2017SWL (mAHD)1.700

DG-310.9831.700

0.9090.942

1.171

DG-21

DG-56

DG-591.439

DG-54

BH-E

BH-A BH-B BH-C

BH-D

DG-6

DG-60

DG-17

DG-50.677

DG-4

DG-11.046

DG-2

0.983

DG-3

BH-F

T A B B I T A R O A D

P R

I N C

E S

H I G

H W

A Y

Rocklow

Creek

D

un

more

Creek

116085_Diverlevels_Annual_V2

ATTACHMENT 2 HYDROGRAPHS

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

Rain

fall

mA

HD

Chart 1 - Rainfall data compared to groundwater water levels: May 2016 and May 2017

DG1

DG5

BHD

BHF

BH31

DG59

Rainfall

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

mA

HD

Chart 2 - Tidal data compared to groundwater water levels: May 2016 and May 2017

DG1

DG5

BHD

BHF

BH31

DG59

Tidal Data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Rai

nfa

ll

mA

HD

Chart 3 - Tidal and ranfall data compared to DG1 & DG5 groundwater water levels: May 2016 and Feb 2017

Tidal

DG5

DG1

Rainfall

Appendix 7: Approval of Site Management Plans

52 | P a g e

Appendix 8: Pollution Incident Notification Log

53 | P a g e

Appendix 9: Official Caution - EPA

54 | P a g e

Official CautionLicence - 11147

PO Box 513, Wollongong NSW 2520 Level 3, 84 Crown Street, Wollongong NSW 2500

Tel: (02) 4224 4100 Fax: (02) 4224 4110ABN 43 692 285 758

www.epa.nsw.gov.au Page 1

DUNMORE SAND & SOIL PTY LIMITEDABN 62 003 497 229

PO BOX 6041

NORTH RYDE NSW 2113

Attention: Brad Subotic

Notice Number 1556123File Number DOC17/365863-01Date 30-Aug-2017

OFFICIAL CAUTION

POLLUTION INCIDENT - SINKING OF SAND DREDGE IN DREDGE PONDDunmore Sand and Soil Pty Limited - 15 May 2017ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION LICENCE 11147

Dunmore Sand and Soil Pty Limited (“the licensee”) is the holder of Environment Protection Licence No.11147 (“the licence”) issued under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (“the Act”). Thelicensee operates a sand dredging and washing operation at Tabbita Road, DUNMORE, NSW, 2529 ("thepremises").

On 15 May 2017 the licensee advised the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) that the on-site sanddredge had sunk in the dredge pond. The dredge was previously observed afloat 14 May 2017. At the timeof the sinking the dredge contained up to 4000L of diesel fuel, as well as up to 500L of hydraulic oil and40L of engine oil. Initially the licensee observed only a minor loss of diesel from the dredge fuel tank, butover a 7 day plus period a large quantity of diesel and oily water was removed by sucker-truck anddisposed of at a liquid waste treatment facility. The licensee used booms to limit the spread of the dieseland undertook daily water sampling of potentially affected waterways. The licensee confirmed the dredgepond is isolated and does not discharge to local waterways. Water from the dredge pond is pumped to thesand wash plant by the dredge. The licensee salvaged the dredge 28 May 2017, allowing examination ofthe hull and onboard components.

Following the licensee's investigation it was determined that the cause of the dredge sinking was the bilgepump discharge line becoming dislodged from the deck of the dredge and falling into the dredging pond.The bilge pump is located in the hull below water level, is activated by a float switch and pumps out anyrainwater etc as required. During the incident the dredge pond water had siphoned back into the hullthrough the discharge line and dredge started to fill with water. This activated the bilge pump whichpumped the water back out until the pump switched off and water again siphoned back into the hull. Thispumping and siphoning cycle occurred for an estimated 7 hours until the pump battery failed. The dredgethen filled with water and sank. The licensee was not able to confirm the amount of diesel remaining in the



Tel: (02) 4224 4100 Fax: (02) 4224 4110ABN 43 692 285 758


fuel tank when the dredge was salvaged for repairs, so it was assumed that the total capacity of the tank(4000L) was lost. Water sampling confirmed that the impacts were contained to the dredge pond.

Condition O2.1 of the licence provides that all plant and equipment installed at the premises or used inconnection with the licensed activity must be maintained in a proper and efficient condition and must beoperated in a proper and efficient manner. Based on the observations and discussions at site inspectionsand the information in the Incident Report and attached documents, the EPA considers that the sinking ofthe sand dredge (most likely due to siphoning of water through the bilge pump hose) was due to the failureto maintain plant and equipment and constitutes a breach of Condition O2.1.

It is an offence under 64(1) of the Act for a corporation to breach a licence condition. This offence carries amaximum penalty of $1,000,000 for a corporation. The EPA may prosecute a corporation for committingthis offence. Alternatively, EPA may issue a corporation that commits this offence with a penalty notice,which carries a fine of $15,000.

EPA has reasonable grounds to believe that DUNMORE SAND & SOIL PTY LIMITED committed anoffence under Section 64(1) by not exercising due care and control over the maintenance and operation ofthe sand dredge, resulting in the dredge sinking within the dredge pond on or about 15 May 2017. Thesinking of the dredge resulted in the release of a large volume of diesel fuel from the onboard fuel tanksinto the isolated dredge pond at the premises (“the alleged offence”). Further, EPA believes that there issufficient evidence to prove the alleged offence.

In these circumstances, and having regard to the Attorney General’s Caution Guidelines under the FinesAct 1996, EPA considers it appropriate to issue DUNMORE SAND & SOIL PTY LIMITED with this OfficialCaution for the alleged breach of condition O2.1 of the licence. In arriving at this decision, EPA makes thefollowing observations:

The licensee immediately took action to contain any environmental impacts from the diesel, engine oiland hydraulic oil contained in the dredge, ensuring that the dredge pond water was isolated, preventingimpacts to other processes in the operation.

The licensee immediately notified the EPA of the incident and activated the PIRMP for the premises. The licensee arranged a contractor to attend the site and collect and remove the diesel/water mixture

from the surface of the dredge pond for appropriate disposal/treatment. The licensee undertook daily water monitoring of surrounding waterways to alert to any potential

impacts. Harm to the environment appeared to be limited to the dredge pond water. Following the incident an internal audit was undertaken, which highlighted several preventative actions,

most of which have been completed or will be in the near future. The licensee’s compliance history is generally good.

Please note that EPA will retain a copy of this Official Caution on file. If DUNMORE SAND & SOIL PTYLIMITED commits an offence in future, EPA may take into account this Official Caution in determining themost appropriate enforcement action. Such action may involve the issue of a penalty notice or thecommencement of a prosecution.

The issuing of this Official Caution does not prevent EPA from taking alternative enforcement action for thealleged offence, if it becomes apparent that an alternative response is more appropriate.



Tel: (02) 4224 4100 Fax: (02) 4224 4110ABN 43 692 285 758


If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please contact Matt Fuller on (02)42244100.

Yours sincerely

.......................................................

William Dove

Unit Head Regulation

Metropolitan - Illawarra

Environment Protection Authority

Dunmore Sand and Soil - Boral · , of Schedule 5 (Condition 9(5)) in Development Consent DA...

Documents

Transcript of Dunmore Sand and Soil - Boral · , of Schedule 5 (Condition 9(5)) in Development Consent DA...